The Praeface examined.

IN examining the Praeface, I may not omit to acquaint the Reader with two subtile insinuations, whereby (if he be not forewarned of them) he may easily and at unawares be cause­lesly praejudiced.Two sub­til devises.

1 The first is an old trick of Sophistry, called a fallacy of the composition. For, pretending to answer two wrightings (the one made by me, the other made and subscribed by diverse well affected members of his Church) he so confoundeth them with a booke published by W. B. (which in my printed pro­testation I called an injurious pamphlet) as if those wrightings, and this printed booke, were one and the same. For, having spoken of that pamphlet (in respect of the title, publishers and post script) he telleth the Reader that the first part of that pamphlet was made by Mr. D. and the 2. part subscribed by others. Who, reading these passages, would not conclude [Page 8] us to be authours of the pamphlet? For which cause, let the judicious Reader be intreated to understand, that a difference must be made betwixt that pamphlet and those wrightings. For the printed booke (wherein also those wrightings are contayned) I called a pamphlet; not in respect of those 2. wrigh­tings (considered as written for private use) but in [...]espect, of the joynt printing and publishing of them, in forme of a booke, with such a title and postscript, and, in this respect onely, [...] & [...] quia implet omnia loca it is properly called a pamphlet: because, by this meane, that, which was before private (and intended so to be) at least comparatively, became now, as it were, to fill all places, and to be made common. Whence it is evident that the same thing may be called a pamphlet, when it is printed, which yet is no pamphlet being only written. So then, if he undertake to answer the pamphlet, let him deale with the authors of it: my selfe have protested against it, in print, and all the Subscribers (except W. B.) disclaime it. But if he will answer the wrigh­tings; let him deale fairely with us, and not joyne us with the authours of the pamphlet, nor abuse the Reader by telling him of a first and second part of the pamphlet, but professe to deale with the wrighting, which he shall find me ready to defend, so farr as concerneth my part.

The second is a common practise of subtile Oratours, whose custome is to raise some sinister suspicion of ill purposes or in­tendments, in the opposite party, that so, whatsoever they shall say may be, either slighted, or suspected. For this purpose, he la­boureth to perswade the Reader, that, partly affection to the Brownists, partly disaffection to Classes and Synods and the go­vernment of these Churches, and partly private discontents have bene the strong motives, whereupon these wrightings were made, whether by them, or me. The untruth of which suggestions will the more appeare, if we single out some persons whom, by name, he thus reproacheth.

And first (not to speake of the printed pamphlet, nor of any that had a hand in it (which both they and I disclaime) I will cleare my owne purpose, in that threefold wrighting, whereof he speaketh. As for my renoune and fame for learning and guifts [Page 9] in preaching, which he intimateth. These titles, as I assume not,Quomodo luctantes Antagoni­stas altius attollunt, quo vehementius il­lidant. Cypr. epist. 2. lib. 2. so, I suspect, he ascribeth them with no other mind then wrest­lers have towards their Antagonists, whom they lift as high as they can, that they may give them the greater fall afterwards.

First whereas he saith; that threefold wrighting, was partly against the classis, & partly, against him, the reader may see another politick devise of his to, joyne the Classis with him selfe, for his owne ad­vantage; as if my wrighting were intended against them, where as I have all wayes professed my reverent esteeme of thē, as also I did in those three wrightings mentioned by him, which were not at all intended, nor framed against thē, as he misinformeth the Reader; only I doe justly bewayle two things. 1. their credulity, that they have suffered them selves to be abused so much, by mis­informations, and that, from thence, they have bene plunged, more then where to be wished, into the guilt of partiality, by to much adhaering to one party, with to apparent neglect of the other, though, in this case, the more considerable. 2. Theyre injurious depriving the Church of theyre right in the free choyse & injoyment of men, whom they unanimously desi­red for theyre Pastors, without giving them due satisfaction the aequity of theyre so doing. Which a man may say having res­pect to some particular persons, with out condemning all, and in reference to a particular miscariage, without condemning all use of Classes and Synods.

Secondy. Whereas he sayth, that,Fallacia non causae. ut causae. being discontented that my calling amongst them did not succeed, I had an hand in wrighting against them for not desiring me, he useth another fallacy, which is, when that is put for a cause which is no cause. For, though I had cause to be discontented that my calling did not succeed, and that by his fault, yet that discontēt did not cause me to wright (as appeareth in that I did forbeare wrighting 6 moneths after he had hindred my setling there) but the clearing of mine innocēcy was the cause of my wrighting, whereunto I was compelled by his repoaches.Sect. 5. Ans. 3. & 21. & Sect. 40. Ans. 3.

Thirdly, Whereas he sayth, that comming nearer to the Brow­nists in this question about Baptisme, then to us, it is therefore the lesse marvayle &c. I answer. 1. Himselfe, in diverse places of his booke, freeth me from any such affection to the Brownists, [Page 10] as might cause me to wright against him, in favour of them. Therefore herein he contradicteth himselfe. 2. Nearenes to, or distance from the Brownists is but a false rule whereby to trye trueth or errour. If the Brownists be nearer to the trueth, in this matter, then this Answerer why should not I come nea­rer to them then to him? Is it not safe to come nearer to the Brownists in holding a truth, then to the Libertines, in a dan­berous errour? Will he say, the Brownists hold no trueth? or, that we may not lawfully hold the trueth with them, that it may appeare we differ from them? or, that no man can wright in de­fense of any trueth which they hold, without siding against him? 3. It would be knowne whom he meaneth by [us] when he sayth, nearer to the Brownists then to us? 1. If he meane the Elders of his Church; his owne words will contradict himselfe. For of them he sayth; these three have diverse times professed them­selves to be of the same opinion with Mr. D. touching the Baptisme of infants. Sect. 23. Ans. 5.1. p. 63. If he meane the subscribers, which, with the Elders, are the best part of his Church; their complaint against him, for this difference, sheweth how farr they differ from him herein. 3. If he meane the Classis; the wrighting of the five Dutch Preachers, which, he sayth, was by all the Ministers of the Classis, Sect. 19. with one consent, afterwards approved and confirmed, will witnes against him. For there they thus expresse them­selves. We doe greatly approve of his good Zeale and care of having some precedent private examination of the parents and suretyes of these Children in the Christian religion. Sect. 12. And a litle after. We doe so judge that this fore said examination be ordayned, so farr as may stand with the aedification of the English Church. Thus farr they agree wholy with me; how soever in the words following (being abused by causeles jealousies and suspitions suggested by the Answerer,) they concluded, according to his mind.

Fourthly when he sayth, that; I had an hand in wrighting com­plaints against him. I answer, 1. If he meane my two first wrightings to the Classis: they were a breife narration (by way of account) of passages betweene us, that the Classis might rightly understand those passages, about which they had bene misinformed. 2. If he calleth that my third wrighting shewne [Page 11] to one or two of the members, about the time of my departure from Amsterdam, a complaint, he miscalleth it. For it was only a just and necessary defense of my innocency against mis­reports.

The same imputation of Brownisme he layeth upon those members of his owne Church, which subcribed the complaints; but how unjustly the Reader may easily apprehend.Sect. 31. p. 87. For those of them (who were such before) have, in theire joyning with his Church, left theire separation, as he sayth, and diverse of them, he knoweth, were never of them, nor doe hold with them, in the point of Seperation as it is urged and practised by them; Therefore, I hope, the wise-hearted Reader will not suffer himselfe to be prejudiced against them, or me, or what we shall wright, or have written, by such vayne pre­tences, whereof they are able and ready to aquitt themselves in print, as may appeare, in due time,

Whereas, upō occasion of the title of the pamphlet generally disli­ked by the complainants, he sayth, As is the one, so is the other. If the complaints be just, thē is the title just, if the title be a vile title, thē is the booke also vile; I answer. 1. He continueth still to jumble the pam­phlet & the complaints together, that the Reader may be decei­ved, in thinking boath to be one, which is a fallacy, as we have formerly shewen. 2. it will not follow, that, if the complaints be just, the title of the pamphlet is just. For the very pam­phlet (considered as it hath bene expressed) is an unjust thing, when the complaints might justly be exhibited, as they were.

Besides, they, that condemne the title of the pamphlet, doe condemne the whole title page, which they condemne for the misapplication of Scriptures to this case, and too much harshnes of language. Because they hope, and so doe I, that these actions, whereof they complaine, doe proceede, but from errour of judgement, or from some curable distemper of affec­tions, in the Answerer. And then the complaint will be just, though the title be found unjust: else the whole title page of the pamphlet will be more justifyed, by many, then we wish it should, considering his eminency in the Church.

Whereas he sayth, I find no just ground that these opposites [Page 12] bring for their complaints, nor any due proofe of their many reproofes. Jf it please the Reader to examine. Sect: 4.5.6. and Sect. 23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31. with those intercurrent Sections, concerning me, (by comparing the answer and reply with their complaints) it will appeare that he hath not so much cause of comforting him selfe against their allegations, as, from my heart, I wish he may have. That which he addeth concer­ning the single uncompounded policy, whereof Mr. Iacob speaketh, shall be examined in its due place here after, when he striketh at the same man againe, upon as litle occasion given him, whom yet he might have spared being dead, and so not able to answer for himselfe. At least; he might have freed him from suspition of Brownisme, whose defense of the Ministers and Churches of England, against Mr. Fr: Iohnson, is extant in print, concerning whom more hereafter.

In the meane time, I must professe, that I doe not find, in examining the complaints of the members, or in their private speeches, that they are opposite to the Answerer, further then himselfe opposeth their injoyment of that liberty and power, which himselfe (in expresse words) acknowledgeth to be due to the Church. From which his practise so farr differeth, that it seemeth to sweigh his Iudgement, in some particulars, a contrary way▪ wherefore let the Answerer agree with him­selfe and reconcile his owne judgement and practise, and, for ought I know, the opposition betweene him and these mem­bers will cease. It had bene a worke, both more comfortable to himselfe, and proffitable to the Church, for him to have done right to the Church, rather then to have justifyed an injury, and to have stopped the course of contentions, rather then to have opened the sluces thereof, by publishing this booke, and persisting so stiffly in an unwarrantable way.

Nature and Religion, I confesse, teach and warrant selfe pre­servation, but neither of them warrant a man, under pretence of answering for himselfe, to calumniate others, and, under pre­tence of a defensive warr against enimyes, to invade & spoyle confoederates and freinds. Nature teacheth particulars to lose them selves in promoving the generall good, as the fire to [Page 13] descend and the water to ascend, rather then there should be a Ʋacuum, And Religion teacheth Christians,1. Cor. 6.6▪7.8 rather to suffer wrong, then, either to doe wrong, or, by too contentious righ­ting a mans selfe, to expose our Profession to reproach. Both Nature and Religion ratifie this Maxime. Salus populi suprema lex esto. The good of many must be preferred before our pri­vate benefit or content, How defective the Answerer hath bene herein is too manifest. But I leave that and spare him.

Only, For a conclusion, to prevent another prejudice, I doe earnestly intreat the Christian reader to beware how he suffer himselfe to be caried away with any mans confidence, though he professe a readines to suffer reproach for his opiniōs, knowing, that it is not the suffering, but the cause that maketh the martyr. Never theles; farr be it from me to approve any that reproach men with their errours, when they seeke the truth, in love of it, seing we all know but in part, and we are ignorant of more then we know, by farr: but let every man, according to the rule, try all things and hold fast that which is good, 1. Thess. 5.21. not framing to him selfe a way of Religion, according to the fancyes of men, how grave and learned soever they seeme to be, but ex­pecting a rule for the ordering of our whole behaviour in the house of God, from the Scripture, 1. Tim. 3 15. which is given by inspiration of God, and is proffitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, 2. Tim. 3.16.17. for instruction in righteousnes, that the man of God may be perfect, being throughly furnished unto all good workes. From which rule who so­euer stragle,Ier. 18. [...]. they are truely and fitly sayd to stumble in their way from the ancient wayes, and what soeuer Ecclesiasticall Consti­tutions or customes, received in the Church, haue not warrant from the Ancient of dayes, in this word,Dan. 7.9. 1. Iohn. 2▪7. which is the old Com­mandement which we had from the beginning, they are but new formes though they haue a shew of antiquity, by their long con­tinued vse: in which sense,Iosu. 24.2 the Idolatry of the Pagans is said to have bene of old time. On the other side; what soeuer forme of Churches and Church government is warranted by this rule, though it may seeme new to men, because they never knew it before, yet it is not new, in it selfe; as it was no new-fang­lednes in Nehemiah to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, Nehem. 8.17. though [Page 14] it had bene out of use from the dayes of Ioshua unto that time. These things we may safely publish, in life and death. But if any man shall advise men otherwise, though, upon his death bed, let it be rejected as unsafe counsail. I will conclude the examination of the praeface, with the prayer of the blessed Apostle of the Gen­tiles.Rom. 15.5 6. Now the God of patience and consolation grant us to be like minded one towards another according to Iesus Christ: that we may with one mind and one mouth glorifye God even the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ! Amen.

The ansvver to the first and second Section examined.

HAving examined the title, and the praeface; we now come to examine the particulars of the complaint, so farr as it hath pleased this Answerer to interest me therein, by making use of my name, which he doth, not covertly, but wrighting it at large, nor sparingly, but almost in every page, and that, not only when the complainants naming me in their wrighting constrained him so to doe, but also needlesly, and without pro­vocation: as if his desire were deeply to imprint an evill prae­judice in the mind of the Reader against me. And particularly, in the second section,pag. 6. Answ. he beginneth with me thus.

Reply. But had these complainants well considered their owne wayes, and the way of truth, they would then have left the complaint upon them­selves and upon the proceedings of Mr. I. D. 1. Principijs o men in­esse solet. Principio quae sunt inchota malo, vix est ut bono peragan­tur exitu. Leo apud Graticaus 1. q. 1. Ans. Reply. Contenti­ousnes charged upon me unjustly.

Beginnings are ominous. Things ill begun seldom end wel. It is much to be suspected that he intēdeth to quarail, who so need­lesly falleth upon me, in the first onset, being not any way oc­casioned to mention me, by any thing which the complainants have expressed, or intimated, in this section: and yet he taketh [Page 15] occasion, in this one section, to make mention of me seven times, and to wright my name at its full length, every time. His owne heart knoweth what his purpose was in so doing. But let us consider what he chargeth upon me, that, if it be just; I may con­fesse, and giue glory to God: If it be unjust; I may declare my in­nocency.

As for Mr. D. he is guilty of nourishing contention in our Church.

Nourishing contention in the Church is the thing layd to my charge. An haynous offence, if the accusation be true, but, in him, a greivous slander, thus to reproach me in print, if it be false. I cannot but admire how he fell upon this accusation, to charge me with an evill so contrary to my disposition, and the practise of my whole life, especially, since my publick employ­ment in the Ministry. I was about seventeene years a preacher in London, and lived there almost ten yeares in a pastorall charge. There I had much converse with Ministers of differing judgments, and with people (almost of all conditions and de­grees) of different affections, and wayes, being imployed, both in publick occasions and private cases: Let this Answerer speak plainly (I challenge him before all men) whether he hath ever heard, by any credible report, that I haue bene, I say not, detected, but so much as rationally suspected of conten­tiousnes, in myne owne country? And is it probable, that change of ayre, should worke such a change in my disposition,Coelum, non ani­mum mu­tat qui trans mare currit. in so short a space, that, he, who was wont to be peaceable with all, and a peacemaker amongst many, should, in Hol­land, where he is but a stranger, and passant, become a nou­risher of contention? But what have I done in Holland, that hath given occasion of this imputation? At my first comming, this Answerer, with the Elders, intreated me to help them in their extremity. I did it willingly, preaching twise every Lords-day, till he was able, and, after that, continued to assist him once a day, whilst he desired it. Jn that time, which was a­bove 5 mouths, I applyed my selfe to him with all love and re­spect, frequently visiting him, (without once receiving the same courtesy from him) and fashioning my outward comport­ment and behaviour so, that no difference might appeare be­tweene [Page 16] us, even when I had just cause of complaining. I began no question with him, that might occasion dispute, though I had as good reason to examine his judgement as he mine: when he pressed to know my judgment in any thing, I dealt inge­nously with him, and, if we differed, I examined his grounds im­partially, as one that sought the truth, not contention; Yea some­times I expressed my judgement obscurely, if I suspected a diffe­rence, to avoyd offending him. He first brought the matter to the Elders, not I, and then to some of the Dutch preachers, without me, and then to the Classis, against my mind. Had he told me plainly, that the meanes of accomodation propoun­ded by me would not succed, and that nothing would satisfy, but comformity to that unwarrantable custome, I had desisted sooner: as I did, when it appeared so to be. After I desisted from pu­lick worke; I was silent, till he began to contend against me in publick, after he had procured the cessation of my publick labour, and I had sat still, in private, above fowre moneths, doing what good I might without offense, and ceased from that also, so soone as his discontent publickly appeared against it. When I ceased from the publick worke; I preached a sermon for peace,Rom. 14.9 out of those words. Let us follow after the things which make for peace, and things where with we may edify one another. But may not I justly say with the Psalmist,Psal. 120.7. I am for peace, but, when I speake, they are for warr? For, besides the wresting of one passage in my sermon (which I had expressed, though he had had no kinsman) how he answered me in the afternoone I am asha­med to wright, but too many, who then heard him, know. When thus I was unkindly used in publick, and saw that my private dwelling there was a matter of offense to him; for peace sake, I removed my dwelling to another part of the country. Thus Basill,Greg. Naz. Monod. in laud Basi­lij. in a like case, when Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria (a man, otherwise, of noat for his pietey and constant con­fession of the fayth against the Arrians, under the Emperour Valens, yet) not being able to beare the esteeme which Basill had with the people, was drawne, by a spirit of Envy, into an opposition against that holy man, and laboured, by word and deed, to hinder his setling there, and the Nazareans and [Page 17] Aschetae, taking it very ill that Basill should be thus slighted, pur­posed, in discontent, to break off from the Church. What did Basill in this case? For peace sake, he went aside, with Greg: Nazianzen into Pontus, thincking it better to provide for his owne peace, in a solitary condition, then to contend with Euse­bius, de ambitione. Yet afterwards the same Eusebius gave way to the setling of Basill, in that place, having use of his helpe in some disputes, and they conversed together lovingly. And the reason is rendred by Nazianzen who wrighteth of Eusebius (an ancient man of somewhat an ill nature) that As iron is sof­tened by the fire, so was Eusebius by age. [...]. I wish the same testimo­ny may be given of the Answerer, for the time to come, for his owne good, and the Churches. In the meane space, I proceed to examine what reason or pretence the Answerer doth bring for this accusation.

Whilest those rootes of bitternes, Ans: p. 7. and evill weeds of unjust complaints are watered by him: whiles he himselfe, by his wrighting, which was first secretly spread abroad among our people, doth make the like, yea and many the very same complaints that these men have.

Reply. To prove me guilty of nourishing contention in the Church, he aleadgeth a wrighting left by me, at my departure, and, after­wards, spread, as he saith, amongst the people: to prove that thereby I nourished contention, he saith that the rootes of bitter­nes and evill weeds of their unjust complaints are watered thereby: And to prove this, he affirmeth that many and the very same com­plaints are in my wrighting which these men have.

In answer to this challenge, I am to declare two things. 1. that theyre complaints are no evill weedes. 2. that the wrighting, which was secretly spread abroad, as he sayth, is not blame wor­thy.

First, There is no hearbe in the garden, but there is some weed in the field like it, & the similitude is such betweene them,1. 1. That theyre cōplaints are on evill weeds. Iude 3. both in shape and colour sometimes, as men may easily mistake the one for the other, through inadvertency, or neglect of exa­mining their different properties. So it falleth out in this case. There is a good contention, an herbe whose rootes should be watered. It is a contending for the faith, a striving against sinne. [Page 18] There is a bad contention, a weed which must be pulled up by the rootes.Heb. 12.4. A two fold con­tention. It floweth from pride, and rayseth factions in the Church, and seditions in the Common wealth, of such are the instances produced by the Answerer against the complai­nants, upon supposall that their complaints are unjust, which if we shall deny, and evince the contrary, his calling them rootes of bitternes and evill weeds, and his comparing them to the Rebel­lious Israelites rising up against Moses and Aron, The 1. Section examined. to those sonnes, by the Mo [...]hers side, that were angry with the Church, and to those of Ierusalem, that stoned the Prophets, and to those contentious Corinthians that were factiously addicted to Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, and went to law amongst heathen, and to those Iudai­zing Galathians, who troubled the Church (as he contumeliously rhethoricateth in the first Section) will prove a notorious slan­der, and the more greivous, if it shall be found to be a calling of good evill, and because it extendeth to the injury of so many. I appeale to the Answerer. Doe these complainants murmur against GodExod. 16.8. through discontentment with Gods allowanceExod. 17.6.7.? or with Gods appoyntmentsExod. 17.2.? or with Gods judgements upon othersNumb. 14.41.? or through distrust in difficult casesNumb. 14.1.10.? or, doe they not complaine of man, who doth deprive them of that spi­rituall food which God alloweth them, and setteth up humaine customes, and selfe-will against Gods appoyntments in his Church? whereby they want the help of those whom they desi­red to goe before them, and lead them through the wildernes (not backward into Aegipt, but forward) towards the heavenly Canaan. Is there no difference betweene an humble presenting of complaints by these members of the Church to the Eldership, that matters may be privately examined before 2 or 3 (when secret speach with the party alone hath proved fruitles) and a proud casting off the ordinance of God, through discontent, as those rebells in Israell did? betweene hereticks, Idolatours and such kind of Seducers, that, under the name of the Church (whose sonnes they professe themselves to be) fight against the Church, and these, who, being a part of Christs flock, desire faithfull shepeards that they may be kept from stragling? be­tweene those, who killed the Prophets and stoned those that [Page 19] were sent unto them, and these, who account their feet beauti­full, who bring the glad tidings of peace, and strive (as for life) to injoy the Prophets, whom they conceive God hath sent unto them? And, howsoever contention, which is a fruit of the flesh, will be found in any persons, and Churches, under heaven, whilest that corrupt principle of flesh (which is, in some degree, in the best men) remaineth unpurged out, which, not only figh­teth against the spirit, in our selves, but also inclineth us to fight against others, though spirituall, and that upon carnall and worldly respects; yet, I demand, doe these complainants, so con­tend for the injoyment of those men, whom they mention, as those Corinthians did about Paul, Apollos, & Cephas? Doe they looke upon these men so, as to have the truth of God in respect of theire persons, and to receive the word for theire authori­ty sake, as they did? Did these terminate theire desire in any one of these men, excluding all others, as they did in some one of those? All that these men desire, is to have a faythfull Pastor knowne to themselves, and approved of, and desired by them, and of their owne Nation, if it may be, and, as much as may be, without drawing men from the service of other English Congregations in these Countryes, so long as some fitt and free men may be had, either immediatly from England, or else re­sident in these parts. Hereupon they desired Mr. Parker: Jf they may not be so happy as to injoy him; Mr. Forbes. If not him; Dr. Ames: if not him; Mr. Peter: If not him; Mr. Hooker; If not him; itur ad me. If none of these, yet some faythfull one, whom, with joynt consent, they shall chuse. Yet, if sufficient reason be not given them, why they are deprived of all, or any of these; they find themselves aggreived, and complaine to the Consistory of their owne Church. And, is this such a Piaculum, a crime, as this Answerer intimateth it to be? And is there no difference betweene the Christian Corinthians going to Law amongst the Heathen (neglecting such meanes of composing differences as might be had in the Church) and these men see­king help from the Church for redresse of the Church-grei­vances? That they had cause to complaine, will appeare in the reply to the Answerer, in the following Sections, and that, upon [Page 20] such cause, in case of obstinacy, on his part, they had power to have proceeded further then they did, in that complaint, who knoweth not? The strange liberty that the Answerer taketh in misapplying the Scriptures alleadged by him, upon this occa­sion, should be a matter of sorrow to the godly Reader, and of humiliation to himselfe.

2. The An­swerer is the cause of conten­tiō, which is aggra­vated. 1. By his relation. Father. 2. Sam. 18.5. Paululum supplicijpro magnode­licto satis est patri.That sweet name of Father, which the Answerer assumeth to himselfe (and it is due to him in respect of his office) should have caused an yearning of bowells in him towards his Children, that cryed for milke, when the Nurses, whom they desired, were thrust out of dores. At least, when they cryed for bread, he should not have given them a stone, and beate them instead of feeding them. Suppose the Children were froward; A litle fatherly indulgence, in granting their desire (it not being for their hurt, but for their good) should have bene used to still & quiett them. David would have rebellious Absalon gently in­treated for his sake. But these did not conspire against their Father, as Absalon did: only, because their father was not the Lord, but Steward of the house, they complained that he de­nied the houshold that allowance of provision, which their hea­venly Father afforded his family. But it may be, they did that too contentiously; Jt will not be found so, upon tryall, no, not in this act of exhibiting their greivances in theyr owne Consi­story, if all the earnest intreatyes, large offers for the poore, & other meanes used by them, for the obtaining of their desire, the necessity of the place, the inconvenience which already they felt in the so long want of one, the qualities of the men, of whom he deprived them, the insufficiency of the pretences; where­upon he did so, and their dispayre of being accomodated, to their content, be aequally and judiciously considered. And, if the contention of Children be indeed greivous to his fatherly spirit, how easily might he have prevented it, by obeying that Apostolicall Canon,Coll. 3.21. Fathers provoke not your Children, least they be discouraged?

2. By the place. The place, where he liveth, and his relation to that Church should haue warned him, standing upon his watch towre, and es­pying so many enimyes invironing them on every side, to haue [Page 21] interposed seasonably and strenuously for the prevention of in­testine dissentions, and for the making up of breaches within, and not, by such a course, to have occasioned a division among the members, through their falling into severall partyes. And yet, even they, who seeme herein to adhaere to him, doe it not, out of approbation of his carriage in this particular, nor out of opposition against me, whom themselves professe to desire, but out of personall enmity against some of the Complainants, who appeared most to labour for my setling there, and therefore willingly they layd hold of this opportunity, and served them­selves of it, for the more plausible and undiscernable venting of their disaffection to them, by opposition against them, under a pretence of standing for the Answerer.

Here he quarelleth the Complainants 1. For stiling themselves burthened and oppressed, which is, as if a Father should beate his children till they cry, and then beate them againe for crying. How unjust this passage is, will appeare in the examination of the ensuing Sections. 2. For calling themselves members of the English Church. How unreasonable this reproofe is, may easily be perceived. For, what though the words were understood, as meaning the body of the Church (which yet is not necessary) & that the greatest part of the congregation were otherwise minded, which yet is not so? will it thence follow, that their words are notori­ously false? I trowe not. For the denomination may follow the better part, though it be not the greater, as a man hath his deno­mination from his reasonable soule, though the unreasonable body be the greater part, and a corne feild is denominated, not from the chaffe which is the greater, but from the corne, which is the better, though the lesser part. I will not stand to enquire of the Answerer what necessity there is that Elem, in Psal. 58.1. should signifye a faction in the Church, seing the word (which signifyeth binding in a sheafe or bundle) may noate a combina­tion in the Common wealth, as well as a faction in the Church, and the context seemeth to carry it to the former, rather then to the latter sense? Nor will I returne upon him his descant on Io­nath Elem rechokim, in the title of psal. 56. My desire & purpose was to continue (as I went on, 4, or 5 moneths) in a patient silent [Page 22] bearing of my personall greivances,Eph: 4.2.3. forbearing him in love, & in­deavouring to keepe the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. For which purpose I may say, in some measure, with the Psalmist. I as a deafe man, Psal. 38.13.14. heard not, and I was as a dumbe man that openeth not his mouth. And so had remained to this day, if I had not bene, by unkind importunity compelled to these Apologies, first in private, and now, in publick.

3. By the time.Thirdly, His descant upon the time of theire wrighting may easily be answered. 1 by concession. 2 by retortion?

First, By concession; that the yeare 1634. was a time of much af­fliction of the Churches in Dutchland, & therefore might seeme sea­onable for the warning of the Churches in Holland to take some course for a timely prevention of like judgements upon them­selves, by a due reformation of things amisse. 2. That, on the day of the moneth, when they presented their complaints, his mayd died.

But they say. 1 they knew not if it, 2 neither did he keep pri­vate (as mourners use to doe) but came to the Consistory, 3 nei­ther did they apprehend the death of that mayd to be so great a cause of sorrow to him, as is here intimated, for reasons which are not worth the printing. 4 that, if it had bene so; they cōceive, that private greifes should not hinder the redresse of publick greivances, and that, by the sense [...] owne sorrow that day, for the losse of one mayd servant, he might have bene more affec­ted with compassion towards them who had many dayes mour­ned for the losse of more then one Pastor, whom God had, by his providence, brought among them, & almost cast upon them.

Secondly, The same observation may be retorted upon him­selfe, both for the yeare, and the moneth. 1. The yeare, wherein his booke was printed, was the yeare 1635. A time, when, not only the Churches of Dutchland were in great affliction, but also the Churches in the Low Countryes were in great danger (the Prince of Orange being then in Brabant, and the Armyes in some distresse, by want of victuall) a time, wherein, by speciall order from the States Generall, all Churches were called upon to meete one day in a week, in publick, to heare the word preached, and to pray for the good successe of the Prince, and [Page 23] of the Armyes. And we are commanded, as in all prayer, so par­ticularly, when we pray for those in authority,1. Tim. 2.8 to lift up pure hands without wrath, &c. 2 The moneth, wherein it was pub­lished, was Iune, or Iuly, a time when I was very weake, having bene, not long before, very neare unto death, at which time he laboured importunately with the Classis for their consent to the printing of this booke. But from that death, and from dange­rous relapses afterwards into weaknes and distemper the Lord in mercy recovered me, even when man cruelly added sorrow to my affliction. But I wil aggravate that no further.

How well he performeth his purpose of not doing the least wrong to those, against whom he wrighteth, will appeare to the indifferent Reader, in the examination of the following Sections, in which, if he had dealt accordingly, I might haue bene happily freed from this unpleasing taske, whereby I am now unwillingly detayned from more profitable imployments, being compelled hereunto, by necessity, for the justifying of the truth: wherein I doe humbly beseech the God of trueth (who also is Love) to assist me with the spirit of trueth and of love, that I may be inabled in every passage to declare the trueth in love! To conclude: I leaue it to the Reade to judge, whether so to contend be worthy of such a censure, as this Answerer layeth u­pon it, or of any blame at all, for the matter of it, and the thing done, unles, in the manner of it, any unwarrantable distemper of affections or passions have appeared in the complainants, which, if it be found, I will not justifye, neither will they, I hope, justify it in them selves. So much be noated for the vindication of theire complaints.

Secondly, Now, being called,See more concerning that wrigh­ting in Sect. 22. 4 Things in defence of my wrigh­ting. 1. I must cleare the wrighting left by me from his unjust intimations against it. For which purpose I will declare fowre things.

First, that the wrighting (qua tale) is not to be blamed. Suppose I had complained; Is it unjust to wright downe a mans com­plaints? Then, downe with all courts of Iustice, where suits & causes are so transacted. And my case was such, as I could not be righted against many injurious reports, purposing to leave this country, otherwise then by wrighting. Againe, a man wrighteth [Page 24] with more deliberation, and a more full recollection of his thoughts, then he speaketh, and so with more strength, as the scattered beames of the Sun heate more intensly and vehement­ly, being united in a burning glasse. And, lastly, I would haue added that a man wrighteth with more composednes of mind, and a better temper of spirit, then he usually speaketh, and so with more solid judgment, the passions being somewhat quie­ted and allayed (as the water is cleare and transparent, after the mudd is setled in the bottom) but that the distempered passions appearing in the Answerer, and that in print, are a reall confu­tation thereof.

Secondly, Neither was the secret spreading of the wrighting a fault, but rather an Argument of my tender care of his repu­tation, that I desired that matters betweene us should not be di­vulged, but only declared where it was necessary, for their satis­faction, who had bene praejudiced against me, by untrue reports of passages. Or, if the delivery of a wrighting to a freind or two, in myne owne defense, was to be blamed; what shall be sayd to him, 1. Who provoked me thereunto, both by private sug­gestions, and by publick injuryes? 2 Who him selfe did the same thing, without being provoked thereunto by me. For he wrote a large letter to one Mr. B. at N. in England dated Septemb. 26. (in which moneth also he had revived contention in publick, after I had satt downe quietly almost 5 moneths) and with this he sent inclosed a copy of the wrighting of the 5 Ministers, which I never did, because I tooke it to be a private wrighting, not to be communicated, without their consent.

Thirdly, Neither was that wrighting a complaint, (if actions be denominated from their ends) but rather an Apology, or true defense of my innocency (against untrue reports about my let­ter to the Classis, and about the question concerning promis­cuous baptizing of all that are presented, by whom soeuer, and about passages betweene the Answerer and me) being frequently importuned by some freinds to giue them myne answers to such objections, that they might be inabled to satisfy others that were praejudiced unjustly against me. So that, in my intent, it was an Apology: if, by accident, it became a complaint; who is to be [Page 25] blamed; He that complaineth? or he that gave the cause? let the Reader judge.

Fourthly. Here is an old fallacy,Nō causae, ut causae. when my wrighting is pre­tended to be the cause of their complaints, which was not. For they complained of many of the greivances mentioned in that wrighting, not only, before my wrighting was seene, but be­fore I saw Amsterdam. And, though they make some complaints which agree with some passages in my wrighting, yet they make many more also, which are not in my wrighting. Who watered those rootes? So much shall suffice for the vindicating of my selfe from the imputation of contentiousnes, and of my wrighting, from the censure of watering evill weeds of unjust complaints.

Ans. He sayth of our Church: had he not exercised much patience and industry, it would certainely have fallen from me &c. But as he doth vainly prayse him selfe, &c.

Here is a 4 fold charge layed upon me, with bitternes enough.Reply. 4. Things unjustly charged upon me. 1. Vaine selfe-praysing: 2. Wronging him, and the Church. 3. Folly and vayne Credulity, 4. Diminishing of the grace and power of God. And for what? Because I sayd, If I had not ex­ercised much patience and industry, the Church would certainely have fallen from him. I will speake something to every one of these severally.

To the first. It is no vaine selfe-praysing to say so.The first charge re­plyed upō. 1. For it at­taineth its end, (finem operis, & oporantis) For it sheweth, both how free I was from nourishing contention in that Church (for the preservation of whose peace, I both did, and suffered so much) which was the end of the speach: and it tended to Gods glory, and to the honour of the Gospell, that I should de­clare my actions to be comely & to be according to that vertue, Phil. 4.8. prayse, and good report which we are commanded to thinck of, which was the end of the speaker. 2. Nor is all selfe-praysing unlawfull, if it arise not from selfe-seeking. As when the report is true, and uttered in way of testimony to the trueth, the case requiring it. All which requisits doe concurr in this speach.2. The secōd charge re­plyed upō

To the second. It is no wrong to the Answerer, nor to the Church that I say so.

First, Not to the Answerer. For the report is, neither untrue, nor needlesly made, but, upon constraint, to declare so much for the clearing of myne owne innocency. Nor doth he, nor can he disprove any thing spoken by me, in that particular.

Secondly not to the Church. For: neither doe I speake of the body of it, indefinitly, without exception (but of the better and most considerable part of it) nor doth my speach argue them (of whom it is spoken) to be of a Schysmaticall disposition. For the clearing whereof (because the word Schysme is so fre­quently used,Schysme d [...]b e and misapplyed by the Answerer) we will breifly consider the ordinary uses of the word Schysme, in the Church, which signifyeth, 1 1. sometimes such a voluntary and unjust se­cession from the Church,1. Io. 2.19 whereby the Vnity of it is broken. 2 2. sometimes such a dissention in the Church, whereby, not the Vnity,1. Cor. 11.18. but the peace is broken: Jn which of these senses doth the Answerer use the word in this place? If in the latter; they are Schysmatickes (according to the judgment of the Apostle) who cause division and offences. 1. Cor. 11.14. 6. Things about schysme. 1. Every se­session is not unjust. 2. Nor a breach of Vnity. Chameron de Eccles. de Schysm. pag. 395. 3. Nor con­cluded to be a schys­me. Cartwr: Reply. And so he will find it layed at his owne dore. If in the former; it is a wrong done to me, if he intimate (as he seemeth to doe) that I accuse them of a Schys­maticall disposition, in that sense, when I say that they would have fallen from him. For 1. every secession from a Church is not un­just, as the Reformed Churches plead for the justification of their forsaking the Romish Antichristian Synagogue, which they truely affirme to be no Schysme, nor themselves Schysmatickes, for so doing, though the vnity be broken.

Secondly, Every secession from a true Church, is not a breach of vnity: for there is a negative secession as well as a positive one. And the former may be lawfull, in some cases, wherein the latter is not warrantable.

Thirdly, the case may be such, in a positive secession, as it may be disputable, whether it be to be called a Schysme, or not. Mr. Cartwright declareth, out of Theodoret, how the Catho­licks which maintayned the fayth, of the Nicene Councill, through affection to their teachers (of whom they were unjustly deprived) severed themselves into severall companies: and, there upon demands, will the Answerer say that these mee­tings were Schysmaticall? And then answereth, If he doe; [Page 27] he speaketh otherwise then Theodoret.4. Nor ar­gueth men to be of a Schysmati­call disposi­tion. Socrat. lib. 6. Cap: 16. Soz: lib: 8. Ca: 22.23 24.25.26 27.

Fourthly, Every positive secession (or Schysme) is not to be imputed to the Schysmaticall disposition of those, who with­draw themselves, but sometimes to the injurious, dealing of o­thers. For instance. Vnder Arcadius the Emperour, a great Schysme was raysed in Constantinople, whereof Socrates spea­keth somewhat, but Sozomen much more. Who was the author of that Schysme? Were those Orthodox Christians (Bishops, Presbyters, and people) who, being incensed by the indignity of the thing, & not being able to beare the ill usage of so learned & pious a man, as Chrisostom, then unjustly banished, assembled a part, & forsooke the rest of the Church, were, I say, these bla­med as men of a Schysmaticall disposition? No. the blame of it was layed upon Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, who, out of Envy, practised against Chrisostom, & prevayled so far, that, that holy man was cast out of his Bishoprick,Theod: lib: 3. cap: 5. & dyed in banish­ment. And in the case mentioned out of Mr. Cartwr. (if he meane that which Theodoret noateth. Lib. 3. Cap. 5) both The­odoret and Eusebius blame not the Catholicks, but Liberius for that, who, though he desired to make up the breach, yet, tho­rough his imprudence, made it worse, by too partially favouring the party of Eustathius, with neglect of Meletius. These things I noate, not to incourage such dissentions (the sad evēt, both of the former, which lasted 35 yeares, & of the latter, which continued 85 yeares, will, (I hope) sufficiently forwarne the godly wise thereof) but to warne others (viz Pastors & Classes) to take heed, least they, the one, by needles opposition against those, whom the people reverence & desire for their ministers, & the other, by partial adhaering to the one party more then is meet, and ae­quall) make themselves the authours of disturbance, & dissention in the Church, whereof they seeme to complaine: alwayes remē ­bring that of Salomon. Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad. Eccle. 7▪ 7.

Fifthly, Suppose the members (whom J meane) had only,5. Its lawfull to seeke the ordi­nances in a fayre way, sought their dimission, seeing no hope of the redresse of their greivances, & so joyned themselves (without casting off cōmunion with that, as no true Church) to some other Church, where they might be satisfyed in their lawfull desires; would [Page 28] such a joyning with some other true Church in that City, or a peaceable removing of themselves, & their families to some o­ther place, where they might be, with more satisfaction & con­tent, still professing and holding communion with that as a true Church, would such an action have bene judged Schysmaticall? This was that which I meant, & some spake. And, is this to accuse the Church of a Schysmaticall disposition? Let the Reader judge.

3. The third charge re­plyed upon.To the Third. It is not folly, nor vaine credulity, much lesse against modesty or conscience, that I sayd, certainely they would have fallen from him. For it is but an humane certainty, that I meant, which may stand with the contingency of future events. Had J professed to have sayd that prophetically, without a prophets warrant; it had bene against modesty, or conscience, but when I professe to speak it but after the usuall manner of all men, who account a thing, that is most probable, as certaine, I am no more to be blamed then Ioab was, if he had sayd to David (in a fit manner) certainely (in stead of, as the Lord liveth) If thou goe not forth, 2. Sam: 19 7. Sect: 22. there will not one tarry with thee this night: nor so much as the Answerer himselfe is to be blamed for using the same word, in a case lesse probable, when he sayth. It is certainely a want of modesty & prudence in me &c. which I shall noate more particularly, in its due place. But I thincke any learned man will conclude this cha­lenge to be a mere cavill.

4. The 4. charge re­plyed upon.To the fourth. I did not diminish the grace and power of God, in that speech: for what I sayd may stand with a due acknowledge­ment of God, 1, to be the supreme and principall efficient, to whom the instrument is not contrary, but subordinate & subser­vient (as he that sayth, the knife cutteth, doth not derogate from the power of the hand, which useth & guideth the knife) 2, to be a voluntary & free agent,Si accu­sasse suffi­ciat, quis erit inno­cens? who could have effected his owne pleasure, in this particular, without any instrument, or without me. And therefore his discourse of Gods often frustrating huma­ne purposes, is nothing to the purpose. But, if such bold accusati­ons may passe, upō any mans naked affirmation, without proofe, innocency it selfe shall be judged & condemned as guilty.

Ans. 14. & 15.Before I leave this Section, I must examine one passage more, (in which I find my name twise used) wherein he telleth the nine first, and twelve latter complainants, that Godly wisdom, and [Page 29] good conscience required of them all, Ans. that they should have my counsail touching such weighty matters &c.

I am sorry that the Answerer thus discovereth his spirit, Reply. by seeking, with subtile devises, and insnaring questions, to circum­vent the innocent, the drift and aime whereof is, to intangle the Complainants, or me, if either of us attempt the answering of his booke. For, if it should be sayd that they did not advise with me; then, he sayth, their headlong and headstrong rashnes was extraordinary great. If it should be sayd, that, they did consult with me, and I did approue of their wrighting; then, sayth he, will it appeare that he hath bene an extraordinary authour of conten­tion. Is not this the spreading of a nett and setting of grinnes? Psal. 140 4. Esa. 29.20 21. Hosea. 9.8. Is it not the watching for iniquity, and the laying a snare for men? Is it not that, which the prophet Hosea noateth, saying, The prophet is a snare of a fowler, in all his wayes? Now, although I can suf­ficiently cleare my selfe; yet I thinck it not expedient to gra­tifye the Answerer so farr, in this way, but will rather answer him (as our Saviour Christ did the Pharises, when they put questions to intrap him) by some other questions. How easily might the vanity of this passage, & the faultines of his dilemma be discovered, by shewing him that the disjunction is not full, and that the parts there of doe not touch me at all? For. 1. what necessity was there that they should consult with me? Why not with him, or with any other? Againe: if they had consulted with me; what necessity was there that I should expresse my judgment? Might I not professe that I would not answer to such questions, nor intermedle in such matters? Againe, if I did ex­presse my judgement, whether in dislike of their way, or with such cautions as the case required; were they bound to rest in myne opinion, as it was required of me to rest in the judgment of the five Ministers? Had they not liberty to examine my ad­vise, and, upon the reasons, which satysfyed them, to chuse the way which they tooke? Lastly, If I did approve of their decla­ring to the Consistory, in wrighting, what were the greivances, which caused these differences and oppositions (supposing that a sober and wise answer thereunto would facilitate the ending of those contentions: if either the complainants should be con­vinced [Page 30] that their praejudices against the Answerer were not well grounded, or the Answerer, reflecting upon his owne fay­lings, should, in humility and faythfullnes, give satisfaction by amendment, in the future) would this prove me to be an extra­ordinary, or any authour of contention? or, rather, will not it evince that I have bene studious of his and the Churches peace? This nett was ill made, and therefore it hath caught nothing: we shall see, if he will mend it against the next time.

The answer to the third Section examined.

P. 15. ans. 2. 3.THat which particularly concerneth me, in this Section, is to be found, page 15.

Ans. When some of these Complainants have, upon occasion, objected unto me, that nothing but customs and examples of men were vrged against Mr. D. I signifyed unto them, at diverse times, that if Mr. D. would set downe any reasons from the Scripture for the maintenance of his opinion, I would (God willing) endeavour, &c.

Reply. 1. Had he named those of the Complainants, that objected this to him, and upon what occasion they did so, our answer should have bene more punctuall, in reference to passages be­tweene them, then, in this obscure & generall report, it can be. 2. Whereas he seemeth to take offense at these men objecting, that nothing but customs and examples were urged against me; to prevent all mistake, I will speake something concerning both these.

1. See Sect. 11.First For customs,] J must confesse, that whatsoever shew was made of Arguments from Scripture missaplyed, or other pre­tended reasons (as of lesse usefull souldiers, and weapons in ligh­ter skirmishes) yet customs and consequences were the Triarij, and maine strength of the battaile, in case of hazzard: these [Page] were insisted upon by every one (almost) that pleaded for this disorder, as the principall plea they seemed to haue. Now, how­soever I am, and shall be allwayes ready to give all due respect unto those good customs of Churches, which are taken up,1 Cor: 11.16. upon good warrant, and received and long continued amongst Gods people; yet I am of opinion, that is not lawfull to doe even good things only upon this ground, because it is the custome. For our fayth should not stand in the wisdome of men. 1 Cor: 2.5 But to doe a thing that is not warranted by Scripture, nor good reason,Euseb: lib. 1. de praep. Evang. Cap. 2. & lib. 6. Cap. 8. Ier: 44.17 2 King: 10.19. Ioh. 4.20. Ier. 10.3. Levit: 18.30. Act. 21.21. 1 Sam. 2.13.16. Mat: 5.19 Rom. 3.8. Pr. 19.16. Consuetudo impedire non debet, quo minus veritas prae­valeat. Nam con­suetudo sine veritate vetus [...]as erroris est. Cyp. Epist. ad Pompej. only in con­formity to a custom (though it be a custom of some Churches) can by no rule be justifyed. For evidence whereof (not to insist upon those unnaturall actions mentioned by Eusebius, for all which they might plead maniere van 'tland, the custom of the place, as incestious mariages with their owne mothers, in Persia, kil­ling their deerest children upon religious respects, in Scythia, murthering their parents and kinsfolkes, amongst the Massage­tae, slaying their ancient men, amongst the Tiburens, Hircanes, and the Caspians, many men marrying one woman of old, in Bri­tanny, and many woemen marrying one husband in Parthia) let us consider the Church of God. For burning incense to the Q: of heaven, the Israelites pleaded ancient custom. But was that sufficient? could custome justifye their offering sacrifice at Dan and Bethel? or did custom warrant the Samaritans worshipping God in mount Gerazim? Customs not warranted by the written word, what are they, but vaine customs, abominable customs and to be taught against, and reproved, though they be the Preists customs, Howsoeuer, I confesse, there is not the same degree of evill in all evill customs: yet, as the least commandment must not be broken, so the least evill must not be done, for any good that may come; seing the Holy Ghost speaketh peremptorily saying. He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his owne soule but he that despiseth his way shall die. I will conclude this breife discourse of customs, in the words of Cyprian▪ Custom should not hinder the prevayling of truth▪ for custom without truth, is but the ancientnes of errour.

Secondly, For examples,] 1. many examples could not be ur­ged against me, in this case; For (not to speake of other Chur­ches) [Page 32] this custom is not in some churches of these countryes, they in Zealand doe not so promiscuously administer baptisme, as it is of me required, nor the Churches of strangers in London, or elsewhere; nor hath any wrighter of noate, in print, pleaded for it, but against it diverse: and renowned Scultetus freely and o­penly witnessed against it at Ments, and refused to conforme to it, as I am credibly informed.

Secondly, Suppose they could produce more examples and consent of wrighters, in defense of it, then they can; (though in matter of Suffrages, where matters passe by number, not by weight, this plea would hold, yet) in the disquisition of truth, not the names of men, but the weight of argument will carry the cause.Soz: lib. 1. Cap. 23. Sozomen reporteth, that when all the rest of the Ni­cene Councill had concluded that no Bishop &c. should, after that time, injoy the wives which they had formerly marryed, Paphnutius alone spake against that decree, and shewing marri­age to be honourable, and accompaning with a mans owne wife to be true Chastity, brought all the rest to be of his mind. And Theodoret witnesseth,Theod: Ec­cles: hyst. lib. 2. Cap. 16. that, when Constantius had objected to Liberius, that he alone withstood the condemnation of Athana­sius, saying to him, What a part of the world art thou, who alone sidest with a wicked man, and doest dissolve the peace of the wholl world? Li­berius answered him. The word of fayth is not diminished by my solitarines, for even heretofore also only 3 were found which resisted the edict. To conclude. might not Arianisme of old, Papisme of lat­ter times, yea Turcisme, at this day, weigh downe truth it selfe, if examples should be looked upon, and the rule be neglected,

Ans. Thirdly, whereas he would haue me set downe any reasons from Scripture for maintenance of my opinion.

Reply. See Sect. 11. & 12.1 It shall appeare, in due time & place, that it is not my singu­lar opinion, and that it is sufficiently warranted by Scripture, with Gods assistance. 2 Yet the Answerers demand is unaequall, and against the rule of all Courts, as well as Schooles. For it be­longs to him,Affirman­ti incumbit probatio. Vlpian. not to me to prove: 1 Because he, affirmeth it to be lawfull so promiscuously to administer baptisme; therefore he must prove it to be so. 2 He preacheth that my tenet is erronious: Therefore he must prove it to be so. Let him shew the text, the [Page] truth, from which it erreth, as Appollos mightily convinced the Iewes by the Scriptures, 3. He practiseth it: therefore he must pro­duce the rule which warranteth that practise, that it may ap­peare, he hath done it in fayth. 4, Lastly, he presseth it upon me to doe it, and that as a condition, without which my calling is voyd, and telleth the people, that, with a good conscience he keepeth me out, and hath much peace in what he hath done to me, and others, for this cause. Doeth it not much concerne him to prove this to be a duety, by some praecept, or rule, in the Scripture, seeing I professe that I see no warrant for it? Else will not every one question the goodnes of his conscience, and the truth of his peace in this particular?

Ans. If they thinck M^r. D. wrighting which he gave to the Classis with the reasons of his opinion, might serve to convince me, and there­fore inferr that I am obstinate, they are farr deceived, for, neither is there any such convincing power in any of his Allegations, as, I hope will be manifested by others.

First, The wrighting which I sent to the Classis was not inten­ded for dispute about the point in question, Reply. but for an account of the proceeding of this Answerer, in the buisines of my call; neither did I endeavour so much to shew the reasōs of my Iudg­ment, as the reasons for which my calling did not succeed, as diverse of them expected it should. My pleading with them was more to convince them, that they could not, without injury, joyne with this Answerer to bind me to rest in the judgement of the 5 Ministers, then to shew them the reasons of my opinion, in the controverted point.

Secondly, what convincing power was wanting in those inti­mations, rather then allegations, which I gave in wrighting to the Classis, some other had need to manifest: for the Answerer hath not done it, who, of 20 sheetes of paper, spends 18 upon person­all invectives (as being a subject more suiting with his Genius) & not 2 sheets upō matters doctrinall, to satisfye mens conscien­ces, about the soundnes of his judgement, and his upright cari­age in this buisnes. And that litle which he sayth, how litle it is to his purpose, will, I hope, appeare, in its place.

Thirdly, The trouble which he hath already brought upon his [Page 34] freinds, and others, in the Classis, needlesly, might seeme enough, that he should not put them upon more worke, to answer my wrighting, which I intended only for their private use. But, if any one will undertake it, I doubt not, with Gods assistance, to be able to reply, and, in the meane space, I pray the reader, that, if any such treatise be published, he will be so aequall to me as to suspend his censure, till my reply may come forth, and I will as­sure him he shall have no cause to repent of that aequanimity, in the end.

Fourthly, If my allegations to the Classis may not serve to con­vince him of injurious dealing; let him shew their insufficiency for that purpose: else he cannot so easily rubb off the guilt of obstinacy, as he imagineth. And, if, in private discourse with him, I answered all his allegations and praetences in defense of promiscuous baptizing all that are brought, so as his replyes were silenced in that point, let him take heed that he have not contracted the guilt of a double obstinacy.

In the insuing passages, wherein my name is not mentioned, the Reader will, I suppose, easily apprehend that the Answerers purpose was, not only to defend himselfe, but also to reach some blowes to some body else. If I am the man he aymeth at (as who can thinck otherwise) I must crave leave to speake foolishly in myne owne prayse, being compelled thereunto, that I may fitly reply upon his 4 answers to their testification, which he calleth his comforts.

First, His strong inclination to this calling from 12 yeares old, though I can thorough Gods mercy, say the same thing, for the substance of it, and from the same age, and though such pro­pensions, being observed in Athanasius (he being about the same age) by his Schoolemaster, were strangely answererd by the events, in that famous light; yet neither the Answerer nor I have cause to glory much in that, as a signe of Gods inward calling, unles after passages of our lives concurr to strengthen that: and, if they doe; yet much is not to be ascribed to those childish impressions which many have felt in their childhood, whom afterwards God hath disposed of in some other services, whereunto they have bene better fitted, and many have not [Page 35] felt, at that age, who have farr exceeded either of us, in fruitfull labours, and profitable services for the good of the Church,

Secondly▪ what he sayth afterwards,Ans. 2. pag. 16. Reply. of his not seeking the place of a Pastor till he was lawfully called. I thanck God, I can say also, & it may be, with some advantage▪ for in the place, whence I came to these parts, I was by the Church freely chosen their Pastor, with­out my seeking it. And how farr I was from intruding my selfe for a Pastor into this place, or running before I was sent, my slow proceeding in the buisines, & desire of entring, upon such termes and agreements, as might stand with the peace of my conscience, and assurance of Gods calling me thereunto, doe, in my silence, proclaime in the eares, and sight of all men. And had I bene so hasty, in thrusting my selfe into the place, as he pre­tendeth, I should, & could have made him more worke to keepe me out, thē I have done. Neither could they, who too much clea­ved to him, have justifyed what they did, much lesse have pro­ceeded further, in this case, if I would have interposed, in myne owne right, as I might have done. But I preferred peace, before other outward advantages, and doe not repent of it: though he will have no cause to glory in the issue.

Thirdly,Ans. 3. pag. 17. Reply. what he speaketh afterwards of Gods blessing upon his labours in his calling, and of the ample testimony which formerly hath bene given to him in other places, I haue considered, and could say some thing to it, and doe wish, from my heart, that he may ob­tayne a more plentifull testimony thereof from this people also. As for me, by the grace of God I am that I am, and, I may say, his grace hath not bene altogether, in vaine in me. His owne name haue the prayse of his owne worke in me, and by me: For I am no­thing. I leaue it to others to say; whether evē from hence, I haue not some matter of comfort, in the middest of my troubles, and of joy when the cheife Shepheard shall appeare.

Fourthly, Whereas he sayth,Ans. 4. p. 17. Reply. that whatsoever troubles haue be­fallen him, in his calling, he did never voluntarily forsake the worke of his Ministry; cannot I say the same? My labours for him, and, in other places of these countryes, shew that I haue not forsaken the worke: neither did I resigne up the place I had, voluntarily, otherwise then as merchants cast their goods into the sea, in a [Page 36] storme: neither was it an imaginary feare of trouble, that cau­sed me to doe it, but the trouble was upon me, and, with good advise, and the consent of the congregation, I did what I did, as shall be shewen more fully,Sect. 8.9. in its place: His misapplication of that phrase of looking back, when he had put his hand to the plough, being intented for a secret gird against the innocent, is a mere abuse of Scripture, & so a taking of Gods name in vaine, which, J hope, and pray, that God will give him a heart to see & repent of.

Whereas he addeth his resolution, for the future, to take up his crosse, &c. whether he or I have most practised this rule, in these afflicting passages and events, let the story related by us boath shew, and our owne consciences testifye, in the fight of God; yea let our severall conditions, considered with the causes of these troubles (which he might have avoyded and prevented, but I could not) demonstrate, in the sight of all men.

The fourth Section examined.

BEfore I proceed to a particular examination of this Section, I will lay doune some grounds for declaring the peoples right, in choosing theyr owne officers, especially Pastors. Which I will breifely expresse in this position.

The power of choosing theyre mi­nister is in the wholl Church.The power of freely choosing worthy Pastors, and refusing unworthy ones, is, by Gods ordinance, in the wholl Church.

For the more full declaring thereof, I must explicate the ter­mes, and shew what I meane, 1 by the wholl Church. 2 by the power of freely choosing.

First, The word Church, I take, not in a figurative sense, either, Metonomycally, for a Church representative, or Synechdochically, for some part of the Church, but, properly, for the wholl body of the Church, standing of people to be taught, and governed, & of teachers, and governours.

Secondly, By the power of freely choosing, I meane, that no power can limit and determine them, either, in way of restraint, to hinder theyr injoyment of one that is fitt for them, when they have, by consent, chosen him, or, in way of compulsion, to constraine them to wave such a choyse, being made by them, for the putting of some other upon them, whom they doe not de­sire, or affect.

In boath:Cipry. lib. 1 Epist. 68. I intend no other thing then the Affrican Synod intended, in Cyprian, when they said. Plebs maximè habet po­testatem, vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi: quod & ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere, &c. The wholl Church principally hath power, either to choose worthy ministers, or to refuse those that are unworthy: which very thing we see to descend upon them by Gods ordinance. To which purpose also the Professours of Leyden, distinguishing betweene Election and Ordination,Synops. pur. Theol Disput. 24 Sect. 32. 33. conclude, that jus pastores eligendi est penes Ecclesiam, ac proinde ple­bi commune cum presbyteris. Ius eos ordinandi, solis presbyteris est pro­prium, &c. The right of chusing their pastors is in the Church, and therefore common to the people with the Elders. The right of ordayning them is proper to the Elders.

Now, that this Assertion may be vindicated from the re­proach and suspition of Novelty or Singularity,Proved 3. wayes. 1. Text of Scripture. 1. Act. 1.5. v. 23. I will reduce the proofes of it to three heads. 1 Texts of Scripture. 2 Consent of times. 3 Evidence of Reason.

The first text is in Act: 1 where, at a meeting of about 120 persons, the choyse of one to succeed in the place of Iudas being propounded by Peter, the multitude pitched upon two men, Io­seph surnamed lustus, and Matthias, whom they esteemed mee­test for that worke,v. 24.25. in reference to the description which Peter had before given of the man, that might be judged fitt for that ministry: having considered and concluded of two men, whom they knew, and judged to be such as best answered that descrip­tion, they commended them to God in prayer, and, because A­postles must be immediately called of God, they gave forth lotts, which fell upon Matthias, whom thereupon they num­bred with the eleven Apostles.v. 26.

Here are three Actors, the Apostles calling upon the people to [Page 38] chuse, and directing them therein, according to the mind of Christ; the people freely nominating those whom they judged fittest, according to that direction, and leaving that to the Lord which was peculiar and proper to him, in such an extraordinary case, to declare immediatly which of those two, whom they had nominated, it pleased him to sett apart to the Apostleship. Hence I argue, that.

The Apostles did not chuse Ioseph and Matthias alone, but the wholl Church chose them, by consent.

Therefore the choyse of the Minister belongeth, not to some few, how learned soever, but to the wholl Church.

Ob. 1 What can be excepted against this Argument? That the peo­ple did not chuse them, Ans. but desired God that he would chuse one? But 1. so much as, in that case, could be left to the people, the Lord left to them, viz, the nomination of two, which was an inchoat choyse, seing the full choyse must be made of God immediately, the nature of that office so requiring. 2. He substi­tuted no other power, under himselfe, above the Church, no, not the Apostles themselves, in that case. What then? Ob. 2 That this is an extraordinary case, and toucheth not the calling of ordinary Pa­stors?Ans. But, though the choyse by God immediately signified in the use of lots is extraordinary, yet the suffrage of the people is ordinary. Which seing God would not suffer to be neglected, in such an extraordinary case, much lesse will he dispense with the rejecting of it ordinarily.

2. Act. 6.1.The second Text is Acts 6 where the multitude (the number of Disciples being, by this time, increased and multiplyed) are called together about the choyse of a Deacon. In this buisenes the Apostles only directed them,Vers. 3. according to the mind of Christ, what manner of one they should chuse, leaving them to theyr liberty of chusing him, whom they judged to be fittest for that service,Vers. 6. whom having chosen, they presented him to the Apostles, and they, without gayn-saying, having prayed, layd theyr hands upon them. Hence I argue, in the words of the Affri­can Synod, in Cyprian, thus.

Cypr. Epi. 68.If the Apostles would not chuse, even Deacons, without the [Page 39] consent of the people, much lesse would they obtrude Pastors upon them, without their consent. For there are more & greater causes that require the Churches consent, in the choyse of Pa­stors, then of Deacons.

The third Text is Act. 14, where it is sayd of Paul,3. Act. 14.23. [...] and Bar­nabas, that, when they had, by the suffrage of the people, chosen El­ders in every Church &c. In which place some translatours, (in stead of chosen by consent) read ordained, 1. contrary to the use of the same word, in another Scripture, where themselves translate the same word, in the passive particle chosen of the Churches. 2. contrary to the consent of expositours upon that place,2. Cor. 8.19. [...]. as Cal­vin, Beza, Bullinger, Musculus, Brentius, Arias Montanus, Erasmus, &c. 3. contrary to the civill custom, whence that word & prac­tise was brought into the Church: it being taken from the cust­om of the Athenians, in choyse of their Magistrates, which they performed two wayes. 1. By lots, whence they were called [...] 2. By holding up of hands, whence they were cal­led [...] 4. contrary to the nature of the thing:Voet. desp. caus. pap. lib. 2. Sect. 2. cap. 12. 1. Tim. 4.14. Cap. 5.22 for, there election is spoken of, which was done with [...] the holding up of hands, not ordination, which was afterwards done with [...] laying on of hands, as if election and ordi­nation were one and the same thing, whereas there is as much difference betweene them, as is betweene the Election and Co­ronation of a King, or the choyse & installment of a Magistrate in his office. This being granted, that the people chose their Elders by consent, hence I argue.

In the time of the Apostles, the power of chusing was in the people, without whose consent and preceding choyse, the Apo­stles obtruded none upon them, by theyre owne Authority, Therefore it ought to be so now.

This Argument when the authors of the admonition propoun­ded; D. Whitgift excepted against it, saying, that, howsoever, in the Apostles time, this use was of having the consent of the Church in the choyse of their Pastor,Cartw. Reply. par. p. 32. yet now it were pernici­ous and hurtfull. To whom Mr. Cartwright replyeth breifely, and fitly. See how unaduisedly you condemne the Churches of Geneva, of all France, and certaine of the German Churches [Page 40] which keepe this order,Idem ibid. p. 33.34.35.36. who also in the same place fully answe­reth the Archbishops five pretended differences betweene those times and these, whereunto, for brevityes sake, I refer the Rea­der.

So much for the texts of Scripture.

2. Consent of times.The second proofe of the peoples right to choose their Pas­tor, is from the consent of times.

1 First, For the first three hundred yeares, after Christ, to Con­stantines time, Ecclesiasticall hystoryes are cleare for it, without contradiction. The Ancients, in the Affrican Synod, in Cyprians time, are expresse & full in this point, & they in the Councell of Nice consent with them herein,Cypr. li. 1. Ep. 4. & 68. Theod: lib: 1. cap. 9. Euseb: de vit. Const. lib. 3. as appeareth in an Epistle writ­ten by them to the Church of Alexandria, which determination, for the peoples free choyse of theyre Pastor, Constantine the Emperour approved in an Epistle which he wrote ad Antioche­nos.

Secondly, After Constantines time, the same liberty conti­nued in the Churches, till the time of Charles the Great & Lo­dovicus his sonne, about the yeare 840, as Azorius the Iesuit confesseth.Azo. part 2. li. 3. cap. 28. & lib. 6. cap. 14. Some thinck that the Councell of Laodicea gave some check to this power of the people in the yeare 338, or thereabouts, where, they say, it was decreed that the election should not be permitted to the people, but Calvin expoundeth that Canon as meaning that they should make no election,Calv. on Act. 16. without having some ministers, or men of judgement to direct them in election, and to gather their voyces, & to provide that nothing be done tumultuously, even as Paul and Barnabas where cheife in the election of the Churches. Which may very well stand with the liberty of the people in elections. But those that wright the Centuryes suspect this Canon, and doubt that it is a bastard, considering the practise of the Church. And well it may be suspected. For the Councell of Constantinople, under Theo­dosius,Hist. tri­ [...]art. lib. 9. cap. 14. Concil. Carth. 4. [...]an. 1.22. towards the end of the third Century, in an Epistle to Damasus and Ambrose, declare that both Nectarius and Flavian were chosen by decree and appoyntment of the people. Also, about the yeare 420, in the Councell of Carthage, the consent of the people is required, to the choyse of their Pastor. Also the Coun­cell [Page 41] of Basill, in Cardinal Cusanus,De cōcord. Cath. lib. 2 cap. 18. & 34. concludeth to the same pur­pose. Rectores ecclesiae per consensum, jure divino et humano, constitui debent. The Governours of the Church aught, by Gods law & mans, to be chosen by the consent of the Church. And, about the end of the sixt Century, Gregory surnamed the Great was chosē Bishop of Rome by the vote of the people. Yea, above a thousand yeares were ex­pired, before Pope Nicholas the second had prevayld to settle a decree that the power of chusing the Pope should be taken from the Emperour & the people (who were boath deprived of their right at once) and be only in the Cardinalls, contrary to Gods word, the example of the Apostles, the Canons of the Fathers, & the use of the Primitive Church, sayth Banosius truely. When e­lection was taken from the people, after the eleventh Century:Banos. de pol. civit: Dei & Hier. Rom: cap. 7. the fourth Toletan Councell sayth, Let founders of Churches of­fer to the Bishop those who are to be ordained. Hence, it seemeth, patronages came in, & with them unlawfull seeking of Church livings by freinds, gifts, service to patrons, marriages, flattery, base & unwarrantable contracts, which, whosoever readeth the Councells & Centuriatours, shall find condemned to the pit of hell, from whence they came, & to be judged as Apostasy, Symo­ny, worse then haeresy, like the sinne of Gehazi & Iudas, that almes may not be given out of what is gotten that way: Pope Leo the fourth cal­leth it a detestable wickednes: the Canon sayth,Caus. 2 q. 3. they are not to be ac­counted among the Bishops. Here I might shew how many wayes Sathan wraught in those times, against this ordinance of Christ, & the greatnes of their sinne▪ who, in these dayes, obtrude them­selves, or are obtruded by others, upon Churches, without their consent, or approbation. Of whom the Lord may say, I have not sent these prophets: yet they run. Ier: 23.31 And therefore may justly execute upon them that threatning. Therefore they shall not proffit thi [...] [...] ­ple at all. v: 32.

When things were brought to this sad condition, in those darke times of popery, the Churches being thus robbed, & spoy­led of their right, God raysed up the Waldenses about the yeare 1161, who, discovering the hypocrisy & tyranny & idolatry of the popish Prelats, seperated from them & chose Pastors to thē ­selves, & as the light & reformation increased, in after times, [Page 42] the right of the people was more pleaded, by learned men in all countryes, as in Germany by Zwinglius &c. in England, by M. Bucer & P. Martyr, in France, by sundry worthy lights, in Gene­va, by Viret & Calvin, in the Palatinat, by Ursinus, & others: in these countryes, among others, by famous Iunius, whose words I translate thus.Iun: Eccle­siastus. 3.1 ‘It is manifest that the most simple & approved way of chusing, & calling a minister, by the testimony of holy Scriptures, is that, which the Apostles of old held in the Chur­ches, & the ancient Church, imitating them, observed. The wholl Church did chuse, that is, the body constituted of the presbytery & cōmon people or multitude with aequal & com­mon suffrages. This is the just manner of Election. This (sayth he) the old Church did observe sometime, untill (as, through mens corruption, it comes to passe) things begā to grow worse, & to fall backward, &c. & a litle after he sayth. Afterwards popery so farr prevayled to usurpe & tyrānise over the Church, that now there was no speech of the people (viz in the election of ministers) whom Christ hath purchased with his blood, that they might be his Church. Hence came, sayth he, that barbarous ignorance, that heape of all sinnes, that sinck of deceit, & sel­ling the soules of men. In the conclusion, he answereth some objec­tions; At nescit populus, dixerit quispiam. But some will say, the people is ignorant of their duety and right therein? Let them be taught, & they will understand it. But they know not how to use this their right? They will never know it, if they never use it. But they are factious often, and are devided into parts? Let them be reduced to peace, by holesom counsail, & let them be ruled by authority of the word, and indeavours of good men, that, their mindes being united and composed, they may doe that which by right belongeth to them to doe.’

At last, the reformed Churches did, in their publick confessi­ons, plead the peoples right in this particular, and in their Ca­nons. A particular instance of the Synod, at Middleborough in the yeare 1581, shall conclude this discourse of times, where it is thus concluded. Electio sit penes Ecclesiam, & fiat per suffragium, in Templo publicè, let the choyse be in the Church, and be made by voyces publickly in the Church. We will gather up this dis­course [Page 43] of the consent of times into an Argument, thus.

The choyse of Ministers, by the free consent of the people,3. Arg. hath bene constantly practised by all Churches, in the best times since the Apostles dayes. Therefore it should be so now. In Cy­prians time it was observed per provincias universas, as he sayth, in all provinces. Azorius affirmeth the same thing and sheweth that it was observed in Affrica, Graecia, Spaine, France, & u­bique, sayth he, and every where, 3 Evidence of Reason. and so continued to the time of Charles the great, and afterward.

Thirdly. The evidence of Reason.

Reas. 1 The Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are, in some sort, given to the wholl Church. Therefore the power of chusing those, whose office it shall be to use them for the Church, is in the wholl Church.

The Antecedent is cleare out of Matth. 16:19. where the Church spoken of is the company of beleivers,Mat. 16.19. whose person Peter sustained, at that time, as appeareth by his answer, which was concerning the fayth common to the wholl Church, not concerning any buisenes proper to Ministers. And, under the Keyes, all the meanes of aedification are granted unto the Church to be dispensed by such, as, being chosen by the Church,Eccles. pol: lib: 3. cap. 2.3. should receive power from the Church thereunto, as Mr. Parker hath abundantly proved, and by many witnesses.

The Argument is undeniable. For it is in them to chuse the person, whom they will intrust with such weighty matters, to whom the things themselves doe primarily belong. Nor is it a sufficient foundation of that phrase, that they are given to the Church for her proffit and benefit, unlesse the Church be able to provide that they be handled by those, by whose ministry she may be most proffited and benefited.

Reas. 2 The people of God are commanded to heare the true tea­chers, and avoyd the false ones. Therefore they have power to chuse good ones and reject bad ones.

The Antecedent is cleare in Iohn. 10.

The Argument is without just exception. If not; let some­what materiall be objected against it. Will they say? The people is rude, and cannot judge; Thus the Pharises sayd of old:Ioh: 7.49. but did [Page 44] our Saviour Christ judge of them so?Iohn. 7.17 I trow not. And, if it were so, it is not necessary to the electiō of the Pastor, that all amongst the people should be able to judge, without the helps of those that are more skillfull, much lesse that they should doe it per­fectly: but they must have so much knowledge as to shun false teachers. Will they say, the people are forbidden to heare false teachers, but not allowed to depose thē, & substitute others? Let such know,Bellar. enerv. tom: 2. cap. 2. that when they are forbiddē to heare them, they are commanded not to be subject to their Ministry, and so in effect warranted to depose them, as Dr. Ames answereth Bellarmine.

Reas. 3 Pastors are not lords, but servants of the wholl Church. There­fore the wholl Church have power to chuse theyr Pastors.

1. Cor. 3.9. Ch. 4 1. 1. Pet. 5.3.The Antecedēt is cleare. For all the workes of Pastors are Mi­nisteriall, viz, whether they declare Christs will to the Church; they command the Church in his name and words, not in theyr owne, or whether they execute the will of the Church upon particular members; they doe it, not in theyr owne, but in Christs and the Churches name.

The Argument is good: for such a Ministry agreeth very well with this power of the people in chusing theyr Pastor.

Reas. 4 The Church hath full right to preserve the truth, as its right­full possession. Therefore the wholl Church have right to chuse theyr Pastor.

The Antecedent is undeniable. For therefore it is called the pillar, 1. Tim. 3.5 and ground of truth. for else it were but the harbour, not the mansion of truth.

The Argument is as cleare. For they who have power to pre­serve truth, have power also to preserve, in their owne right, those functions which are necessary for the preserving of it: which they cannot doe, unlesse they have power of chusing their owne Ministers.

Reas. 5 The pastorall relation concernes the wholl Church: there­fore the choyse of the Pastor is in the wholl Church.

The Antecedent is cleare, in these texts and such like Acts. 2.28. 1. Pet. 5.1.2.

The Argument is founded upon an axiom of the law, procee­ding from good reason. Quod omnium interest ab omnibus appro­bari [Page 45] debet. That which concerneth all, ought to be approved of all. Which course we see observed in civill matters, as in the choyse of worthy men to stand for severall Countyes in Parliament. Also th [...] choyse of officers in Corporations is done by common vote, the major part of voyces carrying the election.

Bishop Bilson, well weighing the importance of these reasons,Perp. go­vern: cap. 15. p. 339. yeelded to the aequity of them, saying. ‘Well may the peoples interest stand upon the grounds of reason, and nature, and be derived from the rules of aequity, and christian society, that each Church and people stand free, by Gods law, to admit, main­taine, or obey no mā as their Pastor, without their liking-vnlesse,P. 360 by law, custom, or consent they have restrained themselves. And a litle after he sayth, that the people had as much right to chuse their Pastor, as the Cleargy, that had more skill to judge, and he telleth papalls,P. 359. having related the cursing and fighting of the Bishop of Rome, till excluding boath prince and people, he had reduced the election wholly to the Cleargy, that, by their leave,Assert. p. 212. it was not so from the beginning▪ whence the Assertour for true and christian policy argueth thus.’

‘Whatsoever is derived from christian aequity and society: what soever was from the beginning and was left by the Apo­stles to the Church, the same aught still to remaine, and must be kept inviolable in the Church.’

‘But the peoples interest to chuse their Pastor is right, is law­full, is free, by the law of God, standeth upon the grounds of reason and nature, is derived from Christian aequity and so­ciety, was from the beginning, &c.’

To his exception [unlesse by some law custom or consent the people have restrayned themselves &c. or by theyr default, or abuse, the Ca­nons, Councills, superiour powers, or publick lawes have abridged, al­tered, or abrogated the same] he answereth, that our Saviour re­proved the abuse of the law in the Scribes and Pharises, but tooke not away the least title of it. We grant, in like manner, that Custom, consent, Councills, superiours, lawes may reprove, restraine and reforme the disordered unrulines, and conten­tions of the people, in, and about theyr election, and that they may alter, abridge, or enlarge the manner of elections: but that [Page 46] any superiour powers may take this right into their owne hands (as he saith) from the people, or that the people, by any law, cu­stom, or consent &c. may transfer their right, freedom, and interest given & deduced unto them by these rules and grounds, I doe not yet perceive any good ground or reason for the same. For, hath the wisdom of God and his providence made us free men? and can we, without contempt of his grace, become bond­men? And, albeit in some cases that may be well sayd, quod vo­lenti non fit injuria, and that, quilibet potest recedere a suo jure; yet the cases must be such, as wherein a man is not tyed to maine­taine his liberty with so strong a bond, as the bond of reason & nature, of the rules of Christian aequity, and of the freedom of the law of God. It is free for a man not to eate or drinck this, or that, but not to eate or drinck at all, and so to starve himselfe, it is not free: and in this case, volenti fit injuria. Husbands, pa­rents, and masters have, by the very instinct of nature, and aequity of Christs law, freedom to provide for those that depend upon them, and so must carefully use this theire freedom, & may not wholly put from themselves the care of their provision, edu­cation &c. nor give theire consent to the making of any law, or to the bringing in of any custom, whereby theyr freedom should be restrained, or annihilated, in this point. Thus farr he.

Now, to prevent all mistakes, it will be convenient to an­swer a question or two, that may be propounded, upon this occasion.

Quest. 1 What if a Minister be put in by a patron, without the choyse of the people going before? may such a minister be thought to have a lawfull calling?

Ans. Though that act of the patron be not sufficient to make him a lawfull Pastor to that people, yet the after consent of the peo­ple,Dr. Ames [...]n 2. Man­duct. by acceptance and submission, may make it good. As in wedlock, the after consent of parents or partyes doth often make that a lawfull state of marriage, which before, & without that, was none: and in government, acceptance and submission doth make him a King, which before was an Usurper: though, in their order, these actions be rather consequents, then causes of that calling. So it is betweene minister and people.

Quest. 2 What if the Church neglect to call a Minister, or desire, and consent upon one that is unmeet, either for doctrine or man­ners?

In such cases,Ans. Mr. Cart­wr. 1. Reply. p. 35. the ministers and Elders of other Churches round about should advertise first, and afterwards, as occasion should serve, sharpely and severely charge them, that they neglect not this care of electing a fitt one, and that they forbeare such election of one unfitt, or, if it be made, that they confirme it not, by suffering him to excercise any ministry. And, if, either the Churches round about doe fayle of this duety, or the Church which is admonished, rest not in their admo­nition, then to bring it to the next Synod, and, if it rest not therein, then the Prince or Magistrate, which must see that notbing, in the Churches, be disorderly and wickedly done, aught to drive that Church from that election, to another which is convenient. Thus Mr. Cartwright. So that, in his judgement, other Churches have no power of hin­dring a faulty election, but by admonition, which power every Christian hath in another, for his good. Nor can the Magistrate forbid the choyse, which the Church hath made or would make, unlesse the man, upon whom they pitch, be so unfitt, either for doctrine or manners, that the making of such a choyse will be wickedly and disorderly done.

Having thus declared what we hold, de jure populi, concer­ning the Churches right, in the choyse of their Ministers. Now we come to enquire, de facto, whether their complaint be just, concerning the injury, wherewith they charge the Answerer, in this particular, taking the rise of ensuing passages from those words wherein he mentioneth my name, after a provoking man­ner, in this Section.

I leave it to their consciences to consider, Ans. pag. 19.3: whether now also they would not have kept silence, if they could have brought in Mr. D. even ac­cording to this corrupt order used by us, as they complaine of it.

To prove that the Answerer doth not behave himselfe as becom­meth a Pastor in governement, their first evidence is, Reply. that he de­priveth the Church of that liberty and power, which Christ hath given it, in the free choyse of their Pastor. Now a Church is as well de­prived of their liberty in chusing, when the men, [...]ply. whom they desire, are, without sufficient cause shewen to the Church, kept [Page 48] out, as when men are, without their approbation, obtruded upon them. They complaine of both these injuries: of the first, in this and the following Section: of the second, in the sixth Section. That in this Section they complaine of the first of these injuries, appeareth by the instances which they produce, for proofe of it, in the fifth Section. So then their complaint, in this, and the next Section, is, that, they are deprived of the liberty and power of the free choyse of their Pastor, which Christ hath given them, in that they are deprived of worthy men, whom they have generally de­sired, but have bene hindered, that, either they could not chuse them, or, having chosen, could not injoy them, and this hath bene done against them, without sufficient cause alleadged against the men, whom they have desired. And the person, whom they particularly charge with this unjury, is the Answerer. Let us now consider how he doth defend himselfe. And this he endeavoureth to doe diverse wayes.

Pag. 18. Ans. 1.First, by putting the blame from himselfe, upon the Classis, and not upon their persons so much as upon the very government esta­blished in these Churches. 1. Reply. 1. Here it must be remembred that the Complainants produce the holy records of the ancient charter of priviledges which of old was granted unto particular Churches, in this case,Pag. 19. Ans. 4 which also the Answerer himselfe cōfesseth so cleare­ly to warrant their claime, and to justifye this plea, that he hath, as he sayth, both publickly taught, in the exposition of those 2 places. Acts. 6.3. and 14.23, and doth still acknowledge, that the free consent of the people is required to the lawfull calling of a Minister. and afterwards he sayth,Pag. 22. Ans. 8. that to deprive the Church of that liberty & power &c. must be an heynous crime, and no lesse then Sacriledge. This crime, how great soever it is, the Reader will find that he chargeth upon the Classis, how justly, let him see: nor will he be able to cleare himselfe of slandring the very government and order of discipline established in these Churches, unlesse he can shew, out of the Nationall Synods, that it was established, for an order in these Countryes, that the Classes should have power to deprive the Churches, of the Ministers whom they desire, or have chosen, without shewing sufficient cause for the Churches satisfaction: which is the greivance complained of by these sub­ [...]ibers.

[Page 49]2. If it be not true of them; the more heynous the accu­sation is, the more greivous the slander is, and so much the more greivous in him, who is many wayes obliged to them, and whose testimony against them, will be more easily received, and firmely beleived, because he is acquainted fully with all their wayes, being one of them, and ordinarily in counsail with them.

3. But, if it be true, that the Classis hath such a practise,Cyp. Epist. l. 1. Epi. 8. Adulterum est, impium est, sacrile­gum, est, quicquid humano furore in­stituitur, ut dispositio divina vi­oletur. Ans. 2. Reply. and that the government hath established such an order (which he will never be able to prove) yet that will not free him from guilt, seeing, by his owne confession, such a Custom or Canon is contrary to Christ his ordinance, which I will expresse in Cy­prians words. It is adulterous, it is wicked, it is Sacrilegious what soever by humaine fury is instituted, to the violation of a Divine ordi­nance. His second answer, or evasion rather, followeth.

Secondly, By involving the Elders with him in the same guilt and blame, and retorting an accusation of partiality, in that they lay the fault upon him only. But who seeth not the insufficiency of this defense, that, either considereth the reply to the former answer, or knoweth his power in the Consistory? But what be­fore was sayd by me, in defense of the Classis, may be a sufficient Apology also for the Elders and Deacons.

Thirdly, By questioning the reason of their not complaining, after this manner, hitherto. But who seeth not,Ans. 3. Reply. that this is a mere evasion? For, what though they exhibited not a bill of greivan­ces, til now? It may be, they wayted, in hope of reformation, or, it may be, these last passages haue ripened the sore, and fil­led up the measure, and caused it to run over. What consequent is there in these Arguments? They complained not thus before: therefore they were not injured. The sore did not runne be­fore: therefore it was not an ulcer. This measure did not runne over before: therefore it was empty. Nor is there more weight in his conclusion of that 3 answer, when he appealeth to their consciences, whether now also they would not haue kept silence, if they could haue brought in Mr. D. even according to this corrupt order u­sed by us, as they complaine of it: 1. Let the Reader judge, whe­ther any others are mentioned in the complaint either, Elders, Reply, [Page 50] Classis, or government, but only the Answerer. Why then doeth he speake in the plurall number, saying this corrupt order used by us? 2. Is there not a manifest contradiction, in this part of the answer? For, if they could have brought in Mr. D. by their free choyse (which himselfe acknowledgeth to be the ordinance of Christ) how could they then have brought him in, according to this corrupt order, whereof they complaine? so that, why should they not keep silence, if the cause of complaint had bene removed, as, in this case, it had bene?

Answ. 4 Let his fourth answer be considered, wherein he granteth, that the free consent of the people is required unto the lawfull calling of a Minister, and that by vertue of those texts, Act. 6.3. and 14.23.

Reply. 1 First, If, upon that ground, this power of the people be estab­lished, then, 1 It is their duety to plead for, and to stand fast in their liberty, in this particular, and that, not as a matter arbi­trary, but necessary, seing it is Christ his ordinance. 2 That per­son sinneth against God and the Church, who any way depri­veth them of it, and is bound to give satisfaction, if but any one member, much more if 22 considerable members, complaine of it. And this injury is the greater, because it reflecteth 1 not upon a singular person, but upon a Society, 2 not in civill, but spiri­tuall immunityes and priviledges, 3, Such as are not devolved upon them by the favour of earthly princes, but purchased for them by the blood of Christ. The aequity of this complaint may be proved, out of the Answerers concession, thus.

They, who, without just and sufficient warrant, hinder that the Church cannot injoy these Ministers whom they, with one consent, desire, doe deprive the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it, in the free choyse of their Pastor.

But the person complained of by these 22 subscribers doeth, without, just and sufficient cause, hinder the Church from in­joying those whom they, with one consent, desired.

Therefore the person complained of doth deprive the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it, in the free choyse of their Pastor.

The Proposition himselfe granteth to be true, as hath bene noated.

The assumption they prove in the following Section by in­stances, as we shall see, in due time. The Answerer hath sayd nothing hitherto that may serve to weaken the trueth of it. In the words following also, he rather evadeth it then maketh a direct answer. And his evasions are, by way of diversion. For.

1. He diverteth his Reader from the particular subject of the complaint,Pag. 19. Ans. 4. Reply. telling him of the order of these Churches about this matter; whereas, for ought I have heard from themselves at any time, or now have read in their wrightings, that good correspon­dency with the Christian Magistrate, and foreknowledge, or advise of the Classis, which the Synods of these Churches describe, as the order to be observed in the calling of Ministers, are not con­trary to that liberty and power in the free choyse of their Pastor, which they clayme, and the Answerer acknowledgeth to be due to the Church, by vertue of Christs ordinance. But, I suppose, it will be granted, on all sides, that the Synods doe not acknow­ledge any power to be due to the Magistrates, or Classis, to de­prive the Church of any power which Christ hath givē it, which is the greivance they now complained of, and wherein the An­swerer is accused, not for observing the order of the Synods, but for doing contrary to the intent of the Synods, in their orders,

2. He diverteth his reader, from the question in hand,Pag. 20. Ans. 5. Reply. by propounding another question to be examined, which he pre­tendeth that some object out of Acts 6.3. viz. whether the people ought not to goe before in seeking out officers for themselves? That this is a mere diversion, will appeare to the indifferent Reader, if he examine their wrighting, in which he shall not find any word tending that way; but rather they complaine that the Elders are too much neglected by the Answerer, as will appeare in its place, So that the 20. p. is a laborious proving of that which is not in question.

3. The pretended absurdityes, in his sixth answer,Pag. 21. Ans. 6. Reply. Pag. 21. Ans. 7. Reply are to the same purpose with his fifth Answer, and serve only to coun­tenance a girde at some neighbour Minister: Cui-bono, he best knoweth.

His seventh answer is no more to the purpose then the fifth, [Page 52] and sixth. For, what if these Complainants should not agree one with another touching the due order of Elections, and touching the ground thereof, from those places, Acts 6. and 14? which (if he hath diverse times taught them (as he sayth) the necessity of the free consent of the people, unto the lawfull calling of a Mi­nister, out of those texts) may be questionable. Yet: will it thence follow, that therefore they may be deprived of men, whom they have chosen, or desire to choose, without just, and sufficient cause? J suppose, not.

Pag. 22. Ans. 8. Reply.His eighth and last answer is already examined, and replyed upon, and declared to be contradictory to himselfe, in my reply to the third answer, concerning their supposed silence, if they could have brought me in, according to this order: thither I referr the Reader. So much shall serve for the fourth Section.

The answer to the fifth Section examined.

IN this Section, they prove the justnes of their former com­plaint by instances of men desired by the Church, but by him rejected, and opposed, whereunto he answereth.

This complaint is confirmed and aggravated by Mr. D. &c.

Ans. Reply. If this complaint be just, it makes good the title, which these complainants give themselves, the burthened members, and well might I say, that they are over burthened with the losse of so many men so much desired by the Church. The Answerer himselfe sayth, If the complaints be just, then is the title just, being framed ac­cording to the contents and speciall subject of the booke. And, a litle after. If this Church be deprived of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it &c. then is there cause to complaine of the miserable sla­very and bondage of this Church. These be his owne words. What have the complainants or I sayd more then this? That is a bur­then which causeth wearines to him that beareth it. Wearines [Page 53] ariseth from the disproportion betweene the faculty and the ob­ject, hence is paine in the subject, and thence are complaints, which are more greivous, as the burthen is more painfull. And, as corporall burthens are made intolerable to the body, by ad­dition of weight, so are inward burthens to the mind, by ac­cession of aggravating considerations. And, in this case, the concurrence of many respects maketh the burthen, they com­plaine of, exceeding greivous: as, their love to God, to the Church, to our Nation, to their opposed brethen, and to them­selves.

First, Their love to God stirreth up indignation in them, when they see his servants injuryed, and, according to the height of their esteeme of the men, is the deepenes of their sense of their injuryes. Their injury they expresse to be his rejecting and oppo­sing them: their owne esteeme of the men they declare, in stiling them, the most worthy servants of God. Such superlative and exu­perant titles the persons, to whom they are applyed, dare not assume to themselves, acknowledging themselves to be unproffi­table servants, and not worthy of that high honour to be called the servants of such a God: Yet the persons, who thus describe them, shew a great esteeme of them. To see such disgracefully used, not by Ammonites, as Davids servants were,2. Sam. 10.2.4.5. thorough causeles jealousyes, but by Israelites, and to be smitten by their fellow servants, to the hinderance of the Lords worke, and the furtherance of Sathans projects, is very greivous.

Secondly, Their love to the Church stirreth up Zeale in them to promove the good thereof, by all possible indeavours, both for their brethren and companions sake, Psal. 122. and because of the house of the Lord our God. Whence their greife is increased, if in deavours prove successes: especially, when they are denyed those men, whom God seemeth to cast upon them, and the Church unani­mously desireth, to the hinderance, of the Churches peace and aedification, and when that is done, not against some one, but against many, nor once only, but often.

Thirdly. Their love to their Nation and Country stirreth up aemulation, & causeth much greife & discontentment in them at any thing that may reflect reproach or disgrace upon the same, [Page 54] as Contentions amongst them (which by these actions are made unavoydable,) will doe, especially in such a place, as Amster­dam, where so many nations, living in Concord amongst them­selves, and with others, are observers, and admirers at the un­naturalnes of some of ours to their owne countrimen.

Fourthly. Their love to their rejected and opposed brethren stirreth up compassion in them. For, who can looke upon a silly sheepe scratched in a hedge of thornes, whither it fled for shelter, without pitty? And, if Iobs complaint is able to affect any tender spirit, when he sayth. To him ehat is afflicted, pitty should be shewed from his brethren, Iob. 6.14.15. but my brethren have dealt deceit­fully as a brooke (which is then emptyest, when the season is hottest, and the wearied travayler is in greatest thirst,) much more will this stirr up Sympathy, in a mercifull heart, to see bre­thren, not only, like waters that fayle, but as a violent streame, that threatens to overflow and drowne those, that should be refreshed, to reject and oppose those, that should be received & cherished.

Fifthly, Their love to them selves, and to those that depend upon them, stirreth up great desire in them, to injoy those mea­nes which they haue found blessed to them: to some of them for their effectuall calling to the obedience of Fayth; to others of them, for their buylding up and strengthning in their most holy Fayth. Hence, their greife is increased. When they see themselves deprived of that, which they haue found so good & proffitable. As for his girding Epithites, in the next words, a­gainst my person, and theire expression, I passe it by, pittying his distemper. Whereas he sayth, that, in the reproofe of these Com­plainants Mr. D. may, in part, read his owne, it concerneth me the more strictly and particularly to examine the following pas­sages, that I may see how justly he reproveth me, being prepa­red, in some good measure, I hope, to beare patiently, and re­ceive thanckfully, a just reproofe, and to hold forth the truth & myne owne innocency against unjust reproaches, not respecting any mans person, in discharge of my bounden duety. We will therefore exactly observe his method, and examine his preten­ded [Page 55] answer. 1 To generall assertions, 2 To the particular in­stances severally considered, and apart.

1. His pretended answer to that which is objected concer­ning these instances joyntly considered, and in generall.

The thing objected, or complained of, is, that the Church is, by the Answerer, deprived of her due liberty, and power, in the free choyse of a Pastor, whilest men desired by the Church gene­rally, are, by him, rejected and opposed, without sufficient cause. This we prove (say they) by his rejecting and opposing the most worthy servants of God, (who came out of England for the same cause he did) whom the Church, with one consent, desired, as Mr. H. and Mr. D. of later times, as also M^r. Pa: D^r. A. M^r. F. M^r. P. &c.

Now let us see what he answereth, Ans. 1 generally concerning them all joyntly considered: And thereunto he seemeth to an­swer 7 things. 1. That all left not their Country for the same cause. 2. That the Church did not desire every one of those. 3. That he may lawfully oppose some of these, when each of themselves were opposite one to another. 4. That, in the same eminent persons, there may be di­verse eminent offences and errours, which may be just cause of oppo­sing them, and refusing them, as unfitt Ministers for some particular Congregations. 5. That his opposing of the Election of some of these persons is not a depriving the Church of her power. 6. That diverse of these Complainants haue opposed the calling of sundry worthy servants of God. 7. That those which were refused, were not put back by his authority, but, either by the Magistrates, Classis, or Consistory, or by their owne voluntary desistance.

In like manner, my reply Reply. to these passages shall be. 1 more generall to the whole discourse of this Section. 2 more espe­ciall to the severall parts.

First, In generall,1. Generally. It is to be noated, that all his answers tend to the disparagment of the persons whom the Complainants doe so highly reverence. To let passe the inhumanity of reproaching the absent; and the dead, and the impiety of his encouraging the enimyes of God to blaspheme, who may easily thinck that they haue just cause to revile and speake evill of these men, when they shall see that this Answerer spareth them not, and that in print. And (that I may retort his owne words, but more fitly,) What [Page 56] wonder, if they follow, when they are so lead forth, and by such a grave leader?) May it please the reader to consider the imprudence of this course.Socra. 7.2. Socrates reporteth of Atticus, Bishop of Constanti­nople, that he was a pious and prudent man, and how wonderfully (sayth he) did he promove the good of the Church, by his prudent ad­ministration! would you know, wherein? He reconciled those that were at variance, (about the injury done to Chrysostom) to the rest of the Church. How was that effected? By a course quite contrary to that, which this Answerer taketh. Not, by di­sparadging Chrysostom, as unfitt for the Congregation, but by causing the name of Chrysostom to be mentioned, in publick, with other Bishops, Idem cap. 25. (I suppose in thancksgiving) which plot Proclus, one of his successours, followed and perfected, to the full taking away of that Schysme.Idem ibid Cap. 44. For he perswaded the Emperour to translate the body of Chrysostom, that had bene buryed else where, to Constantinople, and to be buryed, with much honour and pompe; which being done gaue such content to his freinds, that, their discontent being healed thereby, they returned to the Communion of the Church. So true is that proverbe.Pro. 24.3. Through wisdom is an house (and a Church also) buylded, and by understanding it is established. But of contrary causes what can be expected but contrary effects?2. Particu­larly.

Secondly, more particularly, and to the severall particulars I reply thus.

1. To the first.] That we all came out of England for one cause the Answerer acknowledgeth, when the sayth, wee all agree in the dislike of some coruptions, against which we haue testifyed. For 1. For that cause we could not injoy our publick Ministry in En­gland. 2. Being denyed that, we thought it our duety to be of what publick use we might, for the service of the Church, in any other Country, where God should oppn a dore unto us, and ra­ther to our Countrimen then others. What other particular rea­son any might haue besids, it might concurr, as a concausa, with others, but that still remaineth the cause, which was one, and the same to us all.

2. To the second.] It is very true and may easily be proved. 1. that when an overture hath bene made for any of these men, whilest there was hope, none opposed their Election, but so [Page 57] many, as were put upon it, expressed their desire of them 2. After the difference betweene this Answerer and any of those men, in in some opinion, was knowne, I appeale to the Church, whether they desired not, rather that the Answerer would compose such differences betweene him and them, by freindly accommoda­tion, or passe it by altogether, that they might injoy these men, then presse things so extreamely, to the depriving the Church of them? I am confident, that the greatest and best part of the Church would answer, Yea: And I thinck the greatest and best part may well be called the Church, and such a declaration of their affection may be judged a sufficient proofe of their desire.

3. To the third.] It is to be observed, that he doeth not deny, that he opposed some of these men, only he knoweth no reason, why it should be wondred at.

First, For my part, I thinck no man will wonder at it, if by reading his answer (as he calleth it) he have but some such in­sight into his disposition, as Pythagoras is sayd to haue into the stature and strength of Hercules his body, by the measure of his foote.

Secondly, Suppose those men are, in some few opinions, oppo­site each to other. Will that justify his opposing and rejecting them? Let him draw his argument into forme of a Syllogisme, and it will prove a mere Sophisme, and to labour of an aequi­vocation, in the word opposite & oppose, which, in the Antece­dent, noateth difference in judgement only (which may stand with personall concord) in the consequent, it signifyeth personall opposition, and so there be 4 termes in it.

Thirdly, His wholl argument is grounded upon a false sup­position. For he supposeth, that opposition against the person must necessarily, or may warrantably follow all difference in judgement. The contrary whereof is most true.Synodal Dor­drecht. Rem: Sent: suae declarat. P. 5. When the Ar­minians odiously exaggerated, and objected against the Contra-Remonstrants their different opinions, about the object of Prae­destination, Dr. Twisse learnedly, and judiciously wipeth of this aspersion, and therein answereth the ground of this Argument, by shewing the personall agreement and love betweene those men that so differed, and instanceth in Calvin, Beza, Iunius and [Page 58] Piscator,Vindiciae gratiae Digr. 1. Sect. 4. each of which had his severall tenet, differing from the other, and Piscator seemed to differ from them all, and yet his high esteeme of them all is manifest, 1, of Iunius, in his Scho­lia upon the old testament, 2, of Beza, in his Scholia upon the New testament, 3, of Calvin, in his aphorismes gathered out of Calvins institutions. 2. in the sweet harmony & consent of the Cō ­tra-Remonstrants, in opposing the errours of the Remonstrants and Pelagians, which appeared in the determination of the Synod at Dort. The same thing is verifyed in those men men­tioned in this Section.

Fourthly, The premises being considered, it is to be wondred at, that he opposeth these men & rejecteth them, upon this pre­tence, Seing. 1. these men, in unfeigned brotherly love, tender the esteeme one of another, and would account it their hap­pines that they might live in one Church together, notwith­standing these pretended differences betweene them, 2, and all godly men order themselves by that Apostolicall Canon, in such cases,Phil. 3.15.16. If in any thing ye be otherwyse minded, God shall reveale even this unto you. Nevertheles, where to we have already attayned, let us walke by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 3. And it is the more to be wondred at, seeing the men, whom he is sayd to reject and oppose, are knowne to be of sound judgment, godly, peaceble, free from haeresy, and Schysme, and therefore not to be rejected and opposed, for such points, wherein men may differ, without violation of love and peace, or danger of corrup­ting others. 4. And this addeth to the cause of wonder, that these men (espicially the 2. that are first mentioned, and have bene most opposed,) have offered to carry the matter so, if he would joyne with them therein, as none should take notice of any dif­ference betweene them. Lastly, this exceedingly increaseth the wonder; because, unlesse men will yeeld so much favour each to other, in some Difference of opinions, as the Church, and some of those Ministers, have desired of the Answerer, a dissol­ving, not only of Churches, but of humaine Societyes also, must necessarily follow, and not only, not 2. Ministers, but, not 2. men should live together, which were to put off even huma­nity it selfe.

Fiftly, Are these men opposites each to other? The good Lord discover to him, in mercy, the evill of that principle in his owne spirit, from whence these discoveryes of other mens diffe­rences flowed! For. 1, Who called him to publish to the world such mens private differences, there being neither need, nor good use of it, in this place? was not this in part prophesyed of, to be in the last dayes and perilous times, that men should be [...]? Is not this plainely against aequity and charity,2. Tim. 3.4. boath at once? To what end doeth this passage tend, but to cause strife and contention betweene so many of these as are alive (& the Apostle IamesIames 3.14.15. telleth us from whence this wisdom descendeth) and to blemish both the living and the dead, by leaving them under the censure, or suspition of Errour. For it is a received Canon concerning contrary positions. They may be boath false, but they cannot boath be true. 3. What event, or issue of such un­seasonable discoveries can be expected, but scandall? Hence Atheists, Libertines, profane persons cast off all care of Reli­gion, yea hence all Haereticks and Sectaries are hardned against the Orthodox, because they agree not among themselves. What rule is here by transgressed I need not tell the Answerer.

Sixtly, was it an underhand course, for which I was to be complained of, for want of sincere and plaine dealing, that I wrote downe, only for the helpe of myne owne memory, the talke that passed betweene him and me, about that question? Was this done by me like a deceitfull Notary? And doth it argue me to be farr from honest and ingenuous dealing, as he affirmeth? What shall be thought of him then, who doth not noate, for his owne secret use, but print to the view of all men, not conferences about questions betweene him and them, but personall differēces betweene them, not only without their con­sent or knowledge, but also injuriously and untruely, not being compelled thereunto, but needlesly, and without provocation?

Seventhly, What if those men, upon search into particulars,1 The pre­tended dif­ference be­tweene Mr. Hok. & me examined. shall not be found so opposite each to other, as he pretendeth? Let the Reader judiciously and indifferently weigh what is replyed for the clearing hereof. 1. He sayth Mr. H. and I are opposite in 3 points, 1, the admission of Brownists to be members of his Churh, [Page 60] whilest they persist in their seperation from the Church of England, 2. Touching private mens preaching 3. Touching repentance going before fayth. Reply. When he sayth, we are opposite, I hope, he meaneth not in our affections: If he doe; he is much deceived, or else I am much deceived in myne owne heart, which knoweth, that I account him a Godly, learned, faythfull, worthy preacher of the Gospel, in his fellowship with Christians singularly proffitable, very peaceable in his conversation towards all, of a sound judg­ment, and unreproveable life. In a word, such an one, as Am­sterdam had bene happy, if it might have injoyed him, and therefore is the more intolerably injuryed, in being deprived of him. What is it then? We are opposite each to other, in our opinions, in those 3. points. It were good that all ambiguity were removed, in expressions of this kind▪ opposition in opinions is the fight of 2. propositions which consist of the same subject, and praedicate: and this fight is, either in their quality alone, or in their quantity alone, or in both together. Now, which of those wayes Mr. H. and I were opposite the Answerer should have shewen, if he would have discovered the extent of our difference, which, because he hath neglected, the Reader doth not well know what to judge in this matter. Wherefore, to pre­vent all mistake, I must professe, that, upon a serious review of the copy of that wrighting of questions and answers be­tweene them, I find some difference betweene the Answerers report of passages, which he made to me, and Mr. Hooker his owne expression of his judgment, in that manu-script: and therefore, in the 2. former points rightly understood, and accor­ding to his true meaning, as may be easily and clearely gathered out of his owne words, I fully agree with him. As for the third, I doe reverence his judgment in that which is not fully cleare to me, and doe professe ingenuously, that I rather suspect myne owne apprehension, then his judgment, in that wherein we seeme to differ. Now let the Reader judge; whether this prae­tended difference betweene us be worthy to be published, in this manner.

2. The pre­tended op­position be­tweene Mr. Peters & me exami­ned.Another praetended opposition is betweene Mr. Pet. and me, and this is grounded upon our different practise, or rather, upon [Page 61] my not doing the same thing, which he did, in that particular to resorting to the Brownists.

1. To what use the declaring of this serveth, I know not, unles it be to cast some aspersion upon him, and, thorough his sides, to wound sundry of these Complainants, whom he char­geth in the same manner. How often Mr. Pet. hath resor­ted to those meetings, I know not, nor, upon what induce­ments. Only, I suppose, he thought it not simply unlawfull for him to heare with them, upon some occasion, if it might be done, without offence, neither would he (J am perswaded) have done it, with offence to any, if he had bene convinced thereof, These things the Answerer should have informed himselfe of, before he had exposed a brother, in print, to publick censure for this matter. 2. If he saught the reformation, & not the disgrace of his brother, he should have laboured privately to convince Mr. Pet. by word or wrighting, and have published it thus to the world. 3. If he would publish it, in such a disorderly & unwar­rantable manner, yet he should have declared the justnes of his reproofe, by shewing what rule of the word was transgressed by Mr. Pet. in so doing; else he will be found guilty of adding to the word, and of making eleven Commandments. And for the Complainants, at whom he girdeth, I say the same thing, and doe add, that the best way for his owne account, and their com­fort had bene for him to have joyned with them, in desiring the assistance of some faythfull Minister, whom God should point out, by the earnest and joynt desire of the Congregation, that so they might not have justly pleaded for themselves, that they have bene constrained to seeke abroad, through want of com­fortable supply at home.

Another pretended opposition is betweene Mr. Forbes and Mr. H. touching the authority of Synods and Classes.The pretē ­ded opposi­tion be­tweene Mr. F. & Mr. H. exami­ned. 1. Had he shewen, in what point the opposition did consist, I should have answered, and shewed, that neither did M^r. H. condemne all use of Synods and Classes, nor M^r. F. acknowledge all that au­thority to be due to them, which some men, for advantage sake, ascribe to them, or others, out of an inordinate [...] are ready sometimes to assume to themselves. 2. But, be it so [Page 62] (though no such thing appeareth in the 21 questions, or other­wise, that J know) that they were herein opposite each to other Did Mr. F. reject or oppose M^r. H. for any such difference? Did he not earnestly desire, and chearefully imbrace his fellowship in the worke with him? Did they not live together, for the space of about 2. yeares, so like brethren, that an indifferent observer might say of them, [...] in vita Naz. 2. Cor. 12 18. 2. Sam. 10 11. as it was sayd of great Basill, and Nazianzen, there seemed to be one Soule in two bodies, or as, Paul sayth of him­selfe and Titus, Walked we not in the same spirit? Walked we not in the same stepps? If they had bene absent one from another, with what joy, with what congratulations, yea with what embrace­ments did they meete, and intertayne each the other! How did they unite their forces (as Ioab and Abishai) not only against the common adversaries, but each for others personall vindi­cation, and defence, mutually! All that I will say to the Answerer, for a conclusion of this instance,Luk. 10.37. shall be, in the words of our Saviour, [...].

4. The pretē ­ded opposi­tion be­tweene Dr. Ames. and Mr. Forbes examined.Another pretended opposition, is between Dr. Ames & M^r. F. in three things. 1. touching the authority of the Magistrate in causes Ecclesiasticall, 2. touching Adoption going before Iustification 3. touching the active obedience of Christ in the point of Iustification. In the first of these, he joyneth Mr. Parker with Dr. A. in oppo­sition to M^r. F. but he should have shewed whether Mr. F. de­nyed all authority of the Magistrate in those cases, or only some, and what that authority is, which he denyed them, that the Rea­der might have seene the question rightly stated, and then we should have bene able to make a more punctuall answer, there­unto, then now we can. 2. What ever difference of judgment was betweene D. A. and Mr. F. in the 2. other points, it is evi­dent to those who knew them, that there was much unfeigned love betweene them, accompanyed with a Reverend and high esteeme each of the other mutually expressed, upon all fitting occasions. And so much shall serve for answer to his third pre­tended answer; the Ʋanity where of (that I may use his owne words) will appeare to the intelligent Reader by what hath bene replyed. I proceed now to the fourth pretended answer.

To the fourth, Ans. concerning eminent errours and offences which may be in eminent persons, just cause of opposing and refusing them &c.

Be it so: but, First, Let it be proved that it is so in these persons: Reply. wherein the Answerer is to prove 3 things. 1. That the things charged upon these persons are offences and errours. 2. That they are eminent ones. 3. That they are just cause of opposing and refusing such eminent men, as unfitt for his Congregation.

Secondly, Let these things be proved by Scripture, For all men are apt, 1, to err, and to be in loue with their errours, 2, to be harsh and unadvised in their judgement of others.

‘First, Men are apt to err, & to be in loue with their errours.Chameron of popish praejudices, Cap. 1. The cause of which mischeife is the perversenes of their pas­sions, which oftentimes so overheate & distemper the heart, that, out of it, as it were, exhaling thick and black vapours, upon the understanding, they, either disturbe our judgments, or altogether dull our apprehensions. In which respect, an heart chafed with passion, leaveth us in a worse case, then peircing smokes doe the eyes which bereaue us of our bodily sight: For they, seing nothing, can not be deluded by lying apparitions, but by these, though the light of the understan­ding be dimmed, yea extinguished, yet there remaines a pre­sumptuous conceit of our owne cleare sight, and reall compre­hension of the truth: whence it is, that man, compassed about with thick darkenes, confidently imagineth that he walketh in the sun-shine, and he is strongly conceited, that he hath then fast hold of the truth, when he huggeth an absurd ridiculous fable.’

Secondly, from the same cause it is, that men are harsh, and rash in their censures of others, who dissent from those tenets, for the defence whereof they are ingaged. And, as men, that looke thorough a coloured glasse, thinck that all the things they see, thorough it, are of the same colour with the glasse, so they, judging of mens opinions, by the errour of their owne distem­pered fancyes, cry out, Errours, Errours many times causelesly.1 Cor. 1.23 Thus the Panymes, puffed up with a conceit of their owne wis­dome, accounted the doctrines of the christian Religion, foo­lishnes. And, as their passions increase, so their censures will [Page 64] grow more harsh and bitter: So that lesser errours shall be ac­counted haeresies, and small infirmityes, eminent offenses, and trueths themselves shall be miscalled dangerours errours.Hiron. ad Ripar. & contra. Vigilant. Hence it was that Ierom held Vigilantius for an haeretick; because he held it unlawfull to pray for the dead, and to worship the dead bones and relicques of the Saints, and praeferred Mariage be­fore Virginity.

Thirdly. To prevent a scandall against these men, and their Tenets, let the Reader know, that the suspition of falsity is a calumny ordinary to trueth, yet trueth is not to be disliked for such imputations, under which it is often hid, as admirable beauty, under a maske, or as a solid sparckling diamond, under some discolourment. But, as a rich Diamond suspected of ba­stardy should be brought to the touchstone and admitted to a tryall; so let trueth, being suspected, be examined, and not con­demned, upon mere surmises.

Ans. To the fifth, that his refusing to give his voyce for the calling of some of these persons, is not a depriving the Church of her power. &c.

Reply. First, This answer is but a mere diversion of the Reader from the true question betweene the Answerer, and the Complai­nants. They complaine of him for rejecting and opposing those men, whom, with one consent, the Church desired: not, of not giving his voyce for their calling, nor of his declaring what he judgeth best for the Church, nor of his bringing the matter to the Classis, being simply considered, but of his rejecting these men, and opposing them, so farr, as to deprive the Church of them. To this the Answerer answereth just nothing in his owne defense, and to convince the Complainants of untrueth.

Secondly that which he acknowledgeth himselfe to haue done, leaveth him under the guilt of that sinne which they charge u­pon him. For, 1, his opposing and rejecting of these men, whom the Church desired, was unjust, seing they held no opinions, which, by warrant of the Scripture, make them uncapable of being called to his Church. 2. His manner of proceeding was disorderly, in carrying the matter to the Classis, before he had declared to the Church the aequity of his refusing these men, by the Scriptures. 3. Is a mere pretence that things were unjustly [Page 65] carryed, and swayed against him, in the Church, or Consistory, a sufficient ground of an appeale to the Classis, as to an higher lawfull judicatory; that so he may sway them, according to his owne will, without a rule, or to other mens customs, without a word? If this be not to deprive the Church of their liberty and power, in the free choyse of their Pastor, let the Reader judge. The wholl shall be resolved into a Syllogisme.

He that, without just and sufficient cause, opposed and hinde­red the calling of these persons instanced, whom the Church de­sired, sinned, in so doing.

But the Answerer, without just and sufficient cause, opposed and hindered the calling of those persons, whom the Church desired.

Therefore in so opposing, he sinned.

Which proposition will he deny? The first? He cannot.P. 22: Ans. 8. Him­selfe hath acknowledged it to be a sinne, yea an heynous crime, & no lesse then Sacriledge.

Will he deny the second proposition, or the Assumption? He cannot. For, did not the Church desire these men? It hath bene proved, in Reply to his second answer, in this Section. If he say; not all of them: let him name which of them they did not desire, which I belieue he cannot doe. But if he could; it will not helpe him. For, if it be true of 2, or of any one, he is guilty of sinne by refusing them, in the case propounded. Will he deny, that he opposed, and hindred the calling of them? Himselfe acknowledgeth it, in the 3 and 4 answer of this Section, and more at large & expressely in the 6 answer, in the reply where­unto the Reader shall find also that it was done, without just and sufficient cause. But that he may be more fully convinced of sinne herein, thus I argue. He that doth an injury, sinneth. But the Answerer, in thus opposing these men, doeth an injury. There­fore the Answerer, in so doing, sinneth,

The Major, or first proposition is cleare of it selfe,Injuria est violatio juris 1. Ioh. 3.4. for every injury is a transgession of the Law.

The Assumption, or second proposition, is, that the Answe­rer, in thus opposing these men, doeth an injury. This I will [Page 66] prove by shewing that, so to doe is against, both the Law of na­ture, and the positiue Law.

First, It is against the law of Nature, which consisteth of practicall principles, which men know they ought to doe, or to avoyd, by the light of nature. Amongst which this is one. What­soever you would, Mat. 7.12 Luke 6.31 that men should doe unto you, doe ye even so to them. Now, I demand, would the Answerer be upbrayded with er­rours, and traduced as erronious, before strangers, before a publick Congregation, before a Classis of Reverend Ministers, yea, before the wholl world, in print, and that, by a brother fa­mous for learning and ministeriall abilityes, and that without proofe? Would he thinck himselfe aequally dealt withall, if ano­ther should oppose and reject him, as unfit for a place, where­unto he is called by the Church, without sufficient cause? If not; let him reflect upon his owne actions, and consider, whether he be not guilty of an injury,Lact: in E­pist. C. 3. which an heathen man, such as Alex­ander Severus would not willingly be guylty of.

Secondly, the positiue Law, or the law of God revealed in Scriptures is violated by it, many wayes. For it is a threefold injury, viz, against the men, against the Church, and against the Classis. 1. It is an injury to the men, whom he rejected, whom he traduced to the Church, and to the Classis, and now in print, as unfit for that place, whereby he is guilty of detraction and slan­der: which injury will appeare to be the greater, if we consi­der, 1, the qualityes and condition of the men, whose names are mentioned, 2. his manner of doing it, viz: not rashly, but upon deliberation, not sparingly, but with odious intimations of emi­nent offences, and errours, not secretly, but in publick, and in print, not truely, but untruely and slanderously. 3. the dangerous consequences, and events of it. For 1. the men thus reproached are exposed to the censure of all men. 2. their enimyes have some pretence, whereupon to justify their unjust opposing them, and so are hardened in sinne. 3. a blow and wound is given to the authority of their Ministry, in the hearts of so many as ascribe any thing to his testimony against such men, which may endan­ger the soules of many.

2. It is an injury to the Church: yea a threefold [...]njury. [Page 67] For, 1, It is a deluding of them, by pretending that he had just cause of opposing and rejecting those men, when he had not. 2. It is a defrauding of them of that power and liberty, which Christ hath given them (as himselfe confesseth) in the free choyse of their Pastor, under pretence of seeking the advise of the Clas­sis: himselfe calleth this sinne Sacriledge. 3. It is a slander of them to say that matters are unjustly swayed against him in the Church, or Consistory, when they desire only such men as these are, against whom himselfe hath alleadged no objection of weight sufficient to keepe them out.

Thirdly, It is an injury to the Classis: yea a threefold injury also. 1. It is a disturbing them and distracting them from better imployments, to attend needles quarells. 2. It is a misinfor­ming them, both concerning these Ministers, and his Church and Consistory, whereby, through too much credulity, they are unjustly praejudiced against the innocent. 3. It is a misingaging them, by sollicitations, and pretences, to be parties with him, in an injury. But the wrong to himselfe is the greatest of all, which I pray God, by his spirit, to convince him of! without which he will goe on still to boast of a false peace.

To the sixth;6. Ans. That diverse of these Complainants haue shewed them selves opposite and averse to the calling of sundry worthy servants of God. &c.

The Answerer should haue shewed. Reply. 1. Whether these worthy servants of God were desired by the Church? 2. Whether their shewing themselves opposite, and averse to theyre calling, did deprive the Church of them being generally desired? 3. Whe­ther they disorderly saught to worke theyr wills, by raysing un­just surmises, and jealousies to gaine a party in the Classis, to hinder the Church from the excercise of its power and liberty in the free choyse of those men, and that, without declaring to the Church the aequity of their so doing by the Scriptures? and 4. whether, upon this disorderly proceeding of theirs, the Church was actually hindred, by the interposition of the Classis, from freely chusing those men, whom they gene­rally desired? If yea; the case is alike, and they deprived the [Page 68] Church of her power as well as he: yet that will not excuse, much lesse justify him. If nay; (as he knoweth they did not so) then he depriveth the Church of her power, and not they.

7. Ans. P. 25. Reply.To t [...]e seventh. that those, which were refused, were not put back by his authority, &c.]

The question is not, whether they were put back by his autho­rity, or not? (for no such authority is due to him, and if he doe it, it is not by any lawfull authority, but by usurpation, and ty­ranny) but whether he haue not so farr prevayled, though by o­ther mens authority, whom he hath irritated, by false accusati­ons, intimations, or intreatyes, as that these men haue bene thus put back? If not: he should have denyed it, that the accusa­tion might haue appeard to be false. If yea: the complaint is just, and he is the cause of theyre being deprived of theyr liberty and power, in the free choyse of their Pastor, by whose autho­ty soever it was done. As Iezabell was guilty of depriving Na­both of his life, though it was done by the authority of Achab. So that this answer is like the former, a mere diversion of the Reader from the true question. And thus we have finished our reply to his pretended answer to that which is objected concer­ning these instances joyntly considered, and in generall. we pro­ceed to the next.

2. His pretended answers to the particular instances seve­rally considered, and a part.

P. 25. A defence of M. Hooker.First he beginneth with Mr. H. concerning whom he noa­teth 3 things. 1. The making knowne of his opinions to the Classis, by his owne hand wrighting. 2. The judgement of the Classis, both concerning Mr. H. and concerning this Answerers dealing in the bui­senes. 3. The reason of his wrighting these things. We will examine what he sayth, in every one of these.

To the first, concerning the making knowne of Mr. H. opini­ons to the Classis from his owne hand wrighting. ‘Here I must take leave to enquire 2 or 3 things of the Answerer, after I haue de­clared the course that is taken in the Classis with those that are to be admitted into any Church that standeth under them, which is this.What the Classis re­quireth of ministers to be admit­ted by them. For trying the fitnes of Ministers for any pastorall charge, in any Church combined with others, under a Classis, [Page 69] the Classis, under which it is, requireth of them, that are to be admitted, Subscription to the Catechisme, and to the Belgicke confession of fayth, and to the determination of the Synod of Dort, and to every point of doctrine in them, with a promise to teach and defend that doctrine, and that they will, neither publickly nor privately, directly, nor indirectly, either speake or wright any thing against the same, and that they will re­ject, oppugne, resist and drive from the Church, as much as in them lyeth, all errours that fight against the same, &, by name, those that are condemned, in the same Synod. And, if it hap­pen that they fall into any doubt or opinion contrary to the former doctrine, they promise, that they will not propose, de­fend, preach, or wright the same, privately, nor secretly, before they haue declared the same to the Consistory, Classis, or Sy­nod, and subjected it to examination, being ready willingly to submit them selves to theyr judgement, under the paenalty of being suspended from theyre ministry, if they doe otherwise. And, if the Consistory or Synod, upon great cause of suspition, for conservation of the purity of doctrine, and concord, shall exact of them a declaration of theyr opinion concerning any point of the Confession, Catechisme, or Synodicall explica­tion, they doe promise, under the same paenalty, to be ready thereunto, reserving to themselves the right of appealing, if they thinck themselves injuryed. And they promise, by all meanes, to defend the Canons of the Nationall Synod, at Dort. Anno 1619. and never to speake, consult, or communi­cate with any person, whether ecclesiasticall or civill, priva­tely, without the knowledge and permission of the Classis, concerning any project of moderation or accommodation with the Remonstrants, in fraudem praedictorum Synodalium canonum, & decretorum, under the paenalty which the Classis shall inflict upon them, according to the exigency of the thing, if they doe otherwise, even to suspension and abdication. To which censure the subscribers doe willingly submit them selves.’

This being the manner of proceeding in the Classis, with a [Page 70] Minister that is to be admitted, it would be enquired of the Answerer.

1. Quaere. Why dealt he with Mr. H. and with me, and some others, by way of private questioning, seing the Classis will make sufficient tryall of theyre judgment before theyre ad­mittance?

2. Quaere. Why he put those 21 questions to Mr. H. and some of them to me, seing the Synods have not determined that those questions should be put to them, nor are they propo­sed by any Classis to any Ministers, for tryall of them?

3. Quaere. Why did the Answerer make knowne M^r, H. judgment to the Classis? seing, in the conclusion of that wrigh­ting, he expresseth himselfe thus. ‘Because J doe apprehend your opinion and affection to be so farr setled, that you conceive there cannot be a peaceable concurrēce, in such distāce of jud­ment, I am resolved contendly to sit downe, and suddenly, as I see my opportunity, to depart &c.’ Was not here a voluntary desistance? To what end was this wrighting carryed to the Classis, after he voluntarily desisted? Was it not to shelter and hide himselfe under the Classis, that it might be thought, they deprived the Church of Mr. H. not he? was it not to expose Mr. H. to the more reproach and censure, when the Classis and Synod had judged against him?

2. To the second. The judgment of the Classis 1. concerning Mr. Hook: 2. concerning the answerer.]

Here againe, concerning this judgment of the Classis, it would be enquired:

1. Quaere. Whether all the Ministers of the Classis, con­sented hereunto, or not?

2. Quaere. Whether they, that so judged, declared their sentence to be according to the Scriptures? If yea; what Scrip­tures they produced to warrant theyre censure? If not; By what rule they will justify such proceeding?

3. Quaere. Whether the Church referred this matter, to the Classis, and craved theyre judgment therein?

4. Quaere. Whether the Classis did heare M^r. H. declaring the reasons of his judgment, and seeke to rectifye his judgment, [Page 71] if they thought he had erred, by Scripture, before they pro­ceeded to sentence against him,

If, upon inquiry, it shall appeare, that the matter was not re­ferred to their judgment by the Church, and that only some few of the Ministers, or all, or most of them, without shewing the aequity of their sentence by the Scriptures, thus judged, & without hearing what Mr. H. could say in defence of his asser­tions, and then gave it under their hands, to subject the Church to theyre determination, and the Answerer procured this to be done, and afterwards pressed it upon the Church, to keepe out Mr. H. let the Reader judge whether this be not a manifest depriving of the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it, as himselfe acknowledgeth, in the free choyse of theyre Pastor? Nor can I thinck that the Classis, or deputyes of the Synod would justify the Answerers dealing, in this buisenes, and condemne M^r. H. so farr, if they had bene rightly infor­med of the naked trueth, without such intimations suggested by the Answerer against him, as might serve to stirr up unjust jealousyes and surmises against that worthy man. For may not any thing he held stand with the doctrine contained in the Catechisme, Confession, and Synodicall explication thereof? And doeth the Synod require any more of him, that is to be admitted to any Church in these countryes? I am confident, that this case would beare a review, & that a Nationall Synod would not justify the deputyes for that provinciall Synod, nor the deputyes justify that Classis, nor the Classis approve of the An­swerers dealing in this buisenes, if it were more thoroughly examined.

Ans. 3. To the third.] His apology for wrighting this, being com­pelled by the Complainants, in his owne defence, which else he sayth, he would not have done.

Be it, Reply. that the complainants wrighting to the Consistory had compelled him to answer there, yet that might have bene done by word, or in wrighting, and kept within themselves. Who compelled him to print? If he say, the printed pamphlet; 1. what is that to the Complainants, who disliked it? 2. my printed pro­testation was sufficient against that, and did satify? 3. I had pro­cured [Page 72] that all the pamphlets were bought up, save a few that were dispersed, before the receit of my letter, and so the publi­shing of them was stopped. And therefore I may fitly reply in his owne words a litle qualifyed, had the Answerer bene so consi­derate and wise in this as he hath bene in some other things, he would rather have rested in the judgment of the Classis against the printing of his booke, and burnt it, or utterly suppressed it, then to compell me, in myne owne and other mens defence, to wright these things concerning him, or them, which otherwise I would never have done, though the injuryes we have suffered are great, & the wrōg done to the Church is farr greater, if they had no more to complaine of, then that they were deprived of that faythfull servant of God, Mr. H. whom he, not only then deprived them of, but also pur­sueth him with reproaches, in print, unto the ends of the earth.

So much for M^r. H. at least, till another occasion be given.

Ans. 2. A breife defence of my selfe which is more fully done in ans. to the 7. Sect. and those that follow.2. In the next place, he dealeth with me, and thincketh to free himselfe from any blame concerning me, out of myne owne words, in the postscript after my letter to the Classis, concerning which he noateth three things. 1. Some faults in that wrighting. 2. that my desisting is by me imputed to the Classis, as the cause thereof. 3. that the Complainants are to be blamed for laying this complaint upon him] To all which I will reply, breifely, re­ferring the larger discourse of my matters to the seaventh Sec­tion, and those which follow.

Reply. 1. To the first, concerning faulty and injurious relation of mat­ters to be further examined hereafter.] Let the Reader but cast his eyes hereafter, upon Sect. 19, where this matter should be examined, and he shall find nothing sayd by the Answerer to evince, that, in that postscript are any faults, or injurious rela­tions of matters, though J can easily shew sundry faults, and in­jurious relations of matters made by him, to be further exami­ned, both in that, and other Sections.

2. To the second, that my desisting is to be imputed to the Classis, P. 147. 3. as the cause thereof.] Here I may justly retort the An­swerers observation concerning my publick censure of the pam­phlet, upon himselfe, in reference to the Classis, with some ad­ditions more justly, and say almost in his owne words. Observe [Page 73] the just reward of the inordinate affection, which the ministers of the Classis have shewed in contending against the Church, and against those Ministers whom the Church hath desired, to gratifye the Answerer. By the Answerer himselfe complaints are called for to be directed against them, that himselfe may escape. Nor is it once (as it was in my case concerning W. B.) that he hath done thus, but often in this booke, Nor is it done against men unknowne (as in my case) but he nameth them, & urgeth it, and that in print (as well as I did) and though, by the Answerer himselfe, sentence is not pronounced against them, yet the evidence, which he bringeth; is so cleare, and so insisted upon, and urged by him, rhat some will thinck right is not done to the Answerer, if sentence passe not against the Classis.

3. To the third, that they unjustly lay this complaint upon him.] Why so? Because, they say M^r. P. is the only cause. If that be the fault; let the expression be altered, and, in stead of the only cause, what if they say, the principall cause? will that please him? No: M^r. D. contradicteth them, in confessing the Classis to be so strong a cause thereof: But this is no contradiction to that saying, that he is the principall cause. For, the concurring of diverse causes to the producing of one effect, doth not destroy, but suppose a due subordination of causes; so that the effect may be ascribed to either properly, yet to the principall efficient primarily, and secondarily to the Instrument. As if one man cut another with a knife; it is truely sayd the knife cut him, or the man cut him: to the knife it is ascribed, but as to an instru­ment, to the man, as to the principall Agent. To apply this. I demand, who caryed the matter to the Classis, and would ac­cept no wayes, which I propounded for private accommoda­tion? The Answerer. Who held it in the Classis, when they were willing to have it ended in the Consistory, suspecting the Elders would carry the matter for me, and that the keeping of me out might not be imputed to himselfe? The Answerer. who intimated to some of them the danger of giving me liberty, in that point, when some of them inclined thereunto, telling them, it would encourage the Brownists, and it would make the con­trary practise of theyre Church censured, and that it would [Page 74] make their Church to be accounted as a sinck, or common shore, to receive what the English Church refuseth, that he might ir­ritate and incense them against me, in this point? Did not the Answerer?Causa causae est cau­sa causati. I conclude. If he was the cause moving them to it, the complaint may justly be layed upon him that he was the principall cause of it.

A defence of Mr. Parker.3. In the third place, he dealeth with M^r. Parker] And now we are come to the Triarij, in the three following instances, the first whereof is this worthy man, a man of much eminency, above many famous lights in his time.

Jn this passage I will noate 3 things. 1. some doubtfull ex­pressions which should be cleared. 2. some questions to be an­swered. 3. the exception, that this was 20. yeares since, by the Answerer propounded.

But, before I prosecute these particulars, I haue some thing to say concerning this worthy man. And, I confesse, when I did read this passage, I did much wonder, both in respect of the man himselfe and of the Answerer.

For this man] his workes doe, in part, shew his worth, con­cerning which a judicious censurer, though differing from him in judgement about the Hierarthy, testifyed, that they are as full of learning as an egg is full of meate. His workes which I haue seene are. 1. a treatise against the Crosse 2. De descensu Christi ad inferos. 3. De Politia Ecclesiastica. One would haue thought that Holland should have esteemed the opportunity of setling such an one amongst them an unvaluable bessing. And yet, did the ministers of the Classis make some difficulty about admitting him? And did the Magistrates signifie, that they should cease from the pursuite of this buisenes? I will hope, it was igno­rantly done, the man being unknowne to them, or they were a­bused by sinister informations. But if they had rightly knowne him, and yet so concluded, my conclusion concerning them shall be, that they are worthy to want such a man, who so underva­lued him.

For the Answerer.] Is it possible, that he should hinder his set­ling there who sojourned at his house, who was a member of his Church, and an Elder (as am informed) about 2 yeares? [Page 75] what could they object against him, which the Answerer could not have answered? Did they suspect him of inclining to Brow­nisme? His booke of Ecclesiastical Policy cleareth him, and a letter written by himselfe, but published by some other, in a pamphlet called the profane Schysme &c. cleareth him of that imputation. Did they suspect his dissaffection to Classes? The same booke sheweth how farr he liketh and disliketh theire way, which though it was not then printed, the Answerer understood his judgment fully. Or, was there any thing else in the wind? The searcher of all hearts knoweth, and will manifest, in due time. In the meane space, here is a sad complaint, that the Church was de­prived of him, whom they admired, when they heard him preach (which was but a litle before his departure) and with one consent desired to injoy as theyre Pastor, and colleague with the Answerer. And the ancient inhabitants say, that, with a sad heart, he left the citty; but in a short space, after his removeall thence, to a Leager, whither he was called to be theyre preacher, it pleased God to remove him from this unthanckfull world, & from all sorrowes and troubles, to perfect joy, and peace. He died about 3 moneths after he went from Amsterdam, at Does­burge in the County of Z [...]lphen, whither he was called to preach to a Regiment of English. The Church triumphant received him,In the yeare 1613, as I am infor­med. whō a few, out of needles jealousyes, hindred from being inter­tained by this small hand-full, a very litle parcell of the Church militant, to theyre unspeakeable losse, and hindrance. But I ha­sten to the three things to be noated in the answer.

1. Certaine doubtfull termes in this answer should be cleared, and theyre meaning shewen. As. 1. There was some difference about the manner of his call.] But he sayth not, what was the manner of his call, about which the difference was, nor what, nor be­tweene whom, the difference about it was. 2. I propounded the matter unto the Dutch Ministers, who made some difficulty about it.] but be sheweth not, about what they made difficultye, nor what difficulty they made, nor whether they made difficultyes, as particular men, in a prudentiall way, for advise, or joyntly con­curring, in a way of Classicall power, binding the Church to rest in theyre determination, concerning Mr. Parkers unfitnes for that place. 3. When M^r. Halius, and M^r. Plancius &c. were [Page 76] deputed &c. I laboured to cleare the difficultyes objected by them] but he concealeth what course he tooke for the clearing of those dif­ficulties, and whether Mr. Parker himselfe was consulted with for the removeall of them. 4. Some while after, a dutch Minister and an Elder coming to Mr. T. signifyed from the Burgomasters of this citty &c.] But he hideth it, whether the Burgomasters sent these men, and the reason why they came to M^r. T. and not to all the Elders in Consistory, and why the Elders were not then sent for before the Burgomasters, as in other cases they are, to know theyre pleasure. Besides other evidence, I have a coppy of the letter, which our Eldership sent unto Mr. Parker.] but will that letter manifest that the Answerer did what lay in his power to further the calling of Mr. Parker? or what else will it evidence? 6. And there be some ancient Ministers of the Classis, yet living, whose testimony might giue further light thereto.] To what? what need these darke expressions, if things were carryed fairely and openly? especially, seing the Answerer it not went to be shye of telling any thing, nor of wresting an interpretation of words or actions, which was never meant, nor thought, if it may make for his advantage, as this booke aboundantly witnesseth.

2. Some questions also should be answered.

1. Quaere. Why it was not considered of, how M^r. Parkers setling, in that place might be effected, before he was, in a man­ner, ingaged to another place?

2. Quaere. Who incited the Dutch preachers, and, after them, the Magistrates, to insist upon those difficultyes, to the depriving of the Church of such a man?

3. Quaere. Whether the Church was satisfyed with that, which the Answerer told them was done, in this buisenes? or, whether diverse of them, did not intreat him, to try once more? And what his answer was?

Ans. 3 As for the exception that this complaint is a raking into a buisenes that fell out 20 yeares past, and if theyre dealings for 20 yeares together &c.

Reply. P. 28.1. If this were a fault in the Complainants to rake into matters 20 yeares past concerning him, yet he is unfit to reprove it, who, in the very next page, raketh into a buisenes concerning [Page 77] Mr. F. about 30 yeares past,Anno 1605. for which he was banished out of Scotland, whereof we shall speake in its place. 2. If it were so with him, about 2 yeares since, in my case, and 2 yeares be­fore that, in Mr. H. and 2 yeares before that, in Mr. Pet. and I know not how long before that, in Dr. A. and 20 yeares since,Anno 1610. in Mr. Par. and 24 yeares since, in Mr. F. his case, it seemeth to have bene his constant course thus to injury the Church. 3. Personall and private evills past long since, and reformed, may not be raked into warrantably, when publick greivances, still continued, may be raked into provided that they be not made more publick then necessity requireth, and the ayme be right, to seeke reformation, not to cast reproach upon mens persons.

4 Jn the fourth place, he dealeth with Dr. Ames] but it is after his death. It is no valour to trample upon a dead lyon,A defence of Dr. A­mes. Iob. 41.8: of whom I may say, if he were alive, as the Lord speaketh concer­ning the Leviathan. Lay thine hand upon him, remember the bat­tail, and doe no more. We shall have fit occasion, in the ensuing passages, to say more for the vindicatiō of his deserved honour against the disparadgments by the Answerer unworthily cast upon him, whose name is as a precious oyntment, in all the Churches of the Saints, and shall be to future ages, which will abhor these indignityes cast upon him.

What is sayd concerning him may be brought to 6 heads. Ans. 1. that his calling, was never put to voyces. 2. that the Answerer signi­fyed to one that asked him occasionally, that he thought him not fit, nor could give his cōsent. 3, that he denyed the authority of Synods & Clas­ses. 4. that he acknowledgeth he hath written diverse learned & worthy treatises. 5. that he was fitter for a Professour in Schooles. 6. that his leaving of Franeker was disliked by all learned men, approved by none

To the first. 1. The Answerers memory hath not bene so faythfull a record, in passages betweene him and me, Reply. that I should, from his not remembring it, conclude the thing never was, especially, when it is so waveringly expressed, as if he did remember that his name was propounded, but not so propoun­ded as that voyces were asked and gathered: which might be, and yet the complaint of the members just, if, upon the propo­sall of his name, the Answerer stifly opposed it, saying, I thinck [Page 78] him not fit for us, and I cannot give my consent, whereby the vo­ting of it might easily be hindred, though the Church had ge­nerally desired him.

2. That experience which I have of the ill setting downe of the acts of the Consistory in myne owne case (which I shall discover in its place) causeth me the lesse to regard theyre re­cords of propositions, of agreements, in that meeting, & to ac­count them insufficient evidences for proofe of the doing, or not doing any thing in question.

Ans. To the second, that to one asking him occasionally; he signifyed that he thought him not fit for them, neither could give his consent for him.] Be it so, he confesseth that he signifyed so much to one, (whether that one asked this question secretly, Reply. or in the Consi­story alone, or in the presence of others, he sayth not) this ma­keth good that part of the complaint, that he opposed, & rejected Dr. Ames also. Neither doeth the not putting of it to voyces prove that they did not generally desire him, seing his peremp­tory answer to that one might cause them to dispayre of injoy­ing their desire, if they had proceeded further in it. It is some favour to have a quick dispatch. I wish, from my heart, he had said so to me, and I should have prevented all this trouble, by a voluntary desistance, long before. And so much I said to him, but he said, he would not answer me alone, that the blame should lye upon him only, & he would see what could be done with the Classis, in favour of me, as I understood him, but time hath taught me my mistake. Pardon this digression. But why was not Dr. Ames fit?

Ans. To the third, that he denyed the authority of Synods and Classes. 1. What Dr. Ames held touching the authority of Synods and Classes, Reply. we shall have time to examine, in the insuing passages, wherein it will appeare, I hope, that his opinion rightly under­stood can procure neither great, nor any confusion or disturbance of Churches. 2. whereas he pretēdeth that his intertaining of Dr. Ames, in respect of this his opinion, would have bene an occasion of Contention or Scandall; that the vanity of his suggestion may appeare, let the Reader know, that Dr. Ames was minister of the English Church, at the Hague, where, whatsoever he held tou­ching [Page 79] this question, it occasioned no contention, nor scandall, neyther to English, nor Dutch. Afterward, he was Professor at Franeker, where he continued twelve yeares: who ever heard of any contention or scandall, occasioned by his opinion, given to any there, all the time of his abode with them? The contrary whereof appeared by the great unwillingnes of the Curateurs of that Academy to leave him, which the Answerer acknowledgeth,Pag. 18. when it may serve (as he thincketh) to reflect blame upon the worthy Doctor. After this, he was called to Rotterdam, where God finished his course, to give him the Crowne of righteousnes. What contention, or scandall did his opinion, or practise, accor­ding to it, occasion there? But as in this so in many other pas­sages in his booke the Answerer hath often miscarryed by an unwarrantable striving to praepossesse his credulous Reader with unjust praejudices against those, whom he praesenteth to common view as his opposites. I wish he may see his errour therein, and amend it, for the future, and that, in the meane time, the judicious Reader may not be deluded thereby. 3. If the Answerer hath (as he sayth) earnestly contested with Dr. Ames, ever since he was acquainted with him, and yet still he persisted in the same, it shewes that Dr. Ames did not appre­hend that strength and weight to be in his arguments, and alle­gations, as himselfe fancyed. And all men know that the Dr. was sufficiently able to discover the strength, or weakenes of an Argument.

To the fourth. Ans. That he acknowledgeth him to have written di­verse learned and worthy treatises.] 1. While the Answerer seemeth ingenuous, in giving his adversary his due, he is politick, Reply. in gi­ving him no more then he must necessarily, nor then he may safely, without praejudice to himselfe, for opposing his calling to be his colleague.

First, so much he must necessarily acknowledge, that he may decline the censure of all learned men, in case he should doe otherwise. For evē his professed adversaries will doe so much. And though all men should be so possessed with a spirit of envy that they would hide and blemish his worth; yet his workes will prayse him to posterity, which we will distribute under theyr [Page 80] severall heads, thus. Besides the booke mentioned by the au­thour, & his Demonstratio logica; his Polemicall treatises, which, are extant, are, 1. that sinewous worke, Bellarminus enervatus, where the volumes of that daring Iesuit, and Cardinall are so concisely answered, as if Homers Iliads were in a nutshell, and that exact peece in the Arminian controversies, his Coronis, be­sides those other disputes, viz, his Antisynodalia, contrā Grevincho­vium, his 1 and 2 Manuduction, his Reply, and Triplication. 2. His systematicall treatises, his Catechisme (which I find mentioned, but have not seene it) that worthy worke worthily called Me­dulla Theologiae, the Marrow of Divinity, and that practicall insti­tution (wherein he exceedeth not only Pontificians and Luthe­rans handling that argument, but also his owne guide in that worke, who died before he could finish it, famous Mr. Perkins) his Cases of conscience. 3. His exegeticall treatises, viz his Analysis upon the wholl booke of the Psalmes (which he lived not to perfect, to his mind) his noates upon the 1. & 2. Epistles of Peter, and upon the catecheticall heads.

Secondly, so much he may safely acknowledge, without pre­judice to himselfe for opposing his calling. Any ingenous Pro­testant will acknowledge so much of many popish wrighters in theyr comtemplative, and morall discourses, both divine & hu­mane. The Answerer will acknowledge so much of Mr. Ains­worth, against whom he hath shewne himselfe more opposite then against this Dr.

2. If Dr. A, have occasioned many to rejoyce justly, and thanck God for his labours, because they have bene of much good use, in the Church of God, I wish from my heart that the Answerer, instead of sharpening his stile, to cast reproach upon the memory of so worthy and learned a wrighter, had imitated his example, in publishing proffitable things, that others might prayse God for the fruits of his labours, and not such wrangling stuffe, and unproffitable invectives, which serve onely to greive the hearts of Gods people, and, for my part, I would not have troubled my selfe to reade, much lesse to answer, if I had not bene thereunto compelled,

Secondly. Was Dr. A. his judgement about the authority of [Page 81] Synods and Classis such an offence,Non eadem sentire bo­nos de re­bus ijsdem, Incolumi li­cuit semper amicitiâ. as all these worthy and lear­ned treatises (for which so many prayse God) could not expiate? Suppose they had differed in theyr opinions; could no accom­modation haue bene thought of? Amongst good men it hath bene easy to joyne them together, in one Church, notwithstan­ding greater differences. But what if Dr. Ames his judgement be sound in this matter? As it will, upon tryall, be found to be. Will it not then be easy to determine, whose cause is most justi­fyable, whose case is most eligible? whether his, who persiseth in the truth, or his who resisteth it (though, I hope, not mali­ciously) in this particular?

To the fifth. Ans. Not to speake of other things &c. he was gene­rally held more fit to be a Professour of Divinity in Schooles, &c.] I must crave leave to demand, Reply. what those things are that he omitteth to speake of? And, if he refuse to answer, I may take liberty to sup [...]ose, that his opinion against promiscuous bapti­zing is one of those other things. If so, it is easy to gesse why he will not speake of that, at this time. 2. It is true;1. Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11.12. there are di­versityes of gifts, & answereably diversityes of administrations, but, as one spirit is the authour of those gifts, so one Lord is the authour of those administrations, even our Lord Iesus, who hath given Doctorall as well as Pastorall gifts, for the service of his Church, not only to that primitive Church, but also to the end of the world. 3. Nor is there such opposition betweene Churches & Academyes, that a man, who is generally held fit for the one, may not be judged fit for the other. They, who hold him fit for a Professour, did, in holding so, account him orthodox, and sound in his judgment. And holding him so sound in his judg­ment, that he is fit to be Professour in an Academy, in these Countryes, they must necessarily conclude, that, for the sound­nes of his judgment, he is fit much more to be a Pastor in any Church, in this Country, and so condemne the Answerer of in­judiciousnes, in saying he thinketh him not fit, and of selfe-willednes, in saying that he can not give his consent for him, and of injury to the Church, in depriving them of such a man, who is generally held fit to be a Professour of Divinity in the Schooles, both for learning and sound judgment. 4. How [Page 82] fit was for the service of any Chvrch, whether in a Pastorall or Doctorall way, let his workes testify, which declare him to have bene a man well fitted to aedifye the Church, by words of know­ledge, which is the Doctorall way (witnes those worthy dis­putes, and Systems published by him) and by words of wisdom al­so, which is the Pastorall way, (witnes his expositon of the Psalmes, and of boath the Epistles of Peter, and his booke of conscience, wherein he doeth that in divinity, which Socrates is sayd to have done in Philosophy, viz, to bring it from heaven into mens houses, by reducing all into practise, which also he doeth in his uses or applications of Doctrine, in his expositions of Scripture, and in his practicall resolutions of cases, in that booke. All which, being considered, will evince this suggestion of unfitnes, to be a vaine pretence, that I say no worse. 2. How ever, whilest he continued fixed in his Academicall imploy­ment, thorough continuall scholastick exercises and disuse of publick preaching, he had bene formerly lesse dexterous there­in, yet two things shewed him to be called unto the service of the Church, in that worke. 1. the strong inclination of his owne spirit thereunto, even when his whole time was taken up in the other taske. For he hath often bene heard to professe, that he would willingly travaile many miles to preach a sermon; being (as it seemeth) like a nurse, who is in paine of the fullnes of her breasts, for want of some to suck them. 2. He no sooner was re­solved to joyne himselfe to a Church, where he might employ that talent, for the best advantage, but it appeared, to the admi­ration of those that knew him, than God was with him, to fit his spirit, and increase his gifts, for that service. A tryall whereof is yet fresh in the memoryes of those in Amsterdam, who heard his excelent and proffitable sermons upon Psal. 65.4. and Psal. 133. the last fruits of his labour in that places Likewise in Rotterdam are many witnesses of his worthy and fruitfull sermons upon the 17. of Iohn. Theyre sorrow for theyre Chur­ches losse, in his translation thence, continued to this day, she­weth what experience they had of his fitnes for that worke.

Ans. 6. To the sixth. That all learned men (for ought the Answerer [Page 83] could heare) in these Countryes, disliked his leaving his Profession in Franeker, none approved him therein.]

Reply. 1. Be it so; yet. 1. this will not prove him unfit to be chosen to that Church, seing, it fell out long after the motion for his call thither, which motion also was before his setling at Franeker. 2. learned men may erre in theyre judgments, and be mistaken in such questions (as the Answerer affirmeth) especially, when they understand not the reasons of those actions & intentions which they censure, in which cases it is more true, then in that where­in he affirmed it, that they may justly be corrected by others.

2. But, that it may appeare, they erred, who disliked it, and, that all may be satisfyed, concerning Dr. Ames his removeall from Franeker to Rotterdam, I will breifely relate the story of it, from the testimony of one, who was an eye and eare-witnes, and, upon knowledge, wrote to me the words following.

‘1. At his first comming to Franeker, he found things in such a frame in, the Vniversity, that he thought of departing thence before he was setled.’

‘2. Vpon the reformation made by the wise and religious care of some few interested in the government of that Aca­demy, he had some more hope of content, and he continued suffering so much, the first yeare, that, had he not had a greater strength then his owne to support him, he had not bene able to have borne it, and he lived there, his wholl time, in conti­nuall opposition, and suffering. So that, in that 12 yeares, he indured more,’ I thinck, then Mr. P. hath in his life.

‘3. For the place; though it may, and doth agree with some bodies, yet it did not agree with him, the ayre being very sharpe in winter, which so wraught upon him every yeare, that, towards the end of winter, he was ever so troubled with stoppings and shortnes of breath, that he could scarsely goe a flight shot, without resting; and would alwayes say. If I can hold out this winter, If I can hold out this winter, &c. I thinck, he had done well, for his owne health, if he had come away some yeares before.’

‘4. For his comming from Franeker. 1. he did it not with­out great counsail and deliberation, Indeed, contrary to the [Page 84] desire of some of the States of Friesland, which truely desired the good of the Academy, yet could not, being the weaker party, defend him in his righteous cause, wherein he was left alone, which made him the more confident, that God did call him thence, all his company, which were of the best party, being plucked away from thence wonderfully, which went very neare him, as, the Professour of Hebrew, whose name was Amama, a worthy man, in his place, a right honest man, whom the Lord tooke away being yong, and of a very healthfull constitution: shortly after, the Logick Professour, a yong likely man, and one of that party, died also. Then another, which was Professour of Divinity, a worthy and an holy man, as any they have in that Country, who, seing how all things went, and having a call to Lewerden, which is the head towne of that County, left his Professourship and tooke that pastorall charge. There were one or two more, who, seing how things went, ranne with the streame, and left him alone to strive against it, wherein finding his labour in vaine, and no hope of redresse, this made his being there uncomfor­table, and him more ready to looke out to Rotterdam being offered, where he thought he might doe much good, both by his Ministry, unto which his owne heart did much incline him, and his Academicall imployments, by which he thought he might doe as much good at Rotterdam, as at Franeker, most good he did there being private: other incouragements also he had for his change, as 1. the proffitable ministry which he hoped there to injoy, the want of which did not a litle trou­ble him. 2. the covenant and government of that Church, which he did approve of, and hoped to be a meanes to esta­blish. 3. the society of good people, which he promised to him­selfe there, more then he could possibly obtaine in Franeker, there being not one of our Nation, and few of the other to be found.’

‘5. And, for motives. 1. his owne inclination, upon the fore­sayd grounds. 2. the Church of Rotterdam its call, againe, and againe renued, with M^r. Pet. great desire, a long time mani­fested, and the desire of some of the Burgomasters. 3. his [Page 85] freinds, whom he acquainted with the buisenes, they perswa­ded to it, as being a thing that might redound much to his health, & comfort, telling him that many would come to Rot­terdam to be helped in theyre studies by him, that would not come to Friesland, and whereas one brought some reasons against it, he soone answered and satisfyed him.’ By which nar­ration, it seemeth that the learned men, who disliked it, concea­led theyre judgments from him, if there were any such. And the Answerer himselfe cannot well be excused, if he disliked it, that he hid his dislike that time, and now publisheth it, after his death, to the world. To winde up all in a few words. 1. Jf things continued in so ill a state at Franeker, and there was no hope of reformation. 2. Jf the climate did so ill agree with his body. 3. If his owne heart, upon the motives formerly mentio­ned, was strongly inclined for Rotterdam. 4. If all his freinds, upon good grounds, advised him to it, and those that spake with him, being of a different opinion, were satisfyed with his rea­sons. 5. If the Church and Commonwealth should have the same fruite of his Academicall exercises at Rotterdam, which they had at Franeker, & with advantage of a place more convenient for Students, & of his ministeriall imployments super-added to the former; I pray the Reader to judge, whether D^r. Ames his removeall from Franeker, deserve a disliking censure from lear­ned men. Thus having indeavoured to scatter the myst, which else might have hindred the shining forth of this eminent light, we leave him in the blessed injoyment of that inaccessi­ble light, whereunto he was translated by death above two years since. He died in Rotterdam, a litle before I came into these countryes, and was buried, on the 14 day of November 1633. New stile. We now proceed to the third worthy, M^r. For­bes, and to examine what he sayth concerning him.

Two reasons are pretended by the Answerer against M^r, Forbes,Ans. 5 A defence of Mr. Forbes. for the justifying of his refusing him to be his Collea­gue. 1. His differing from him in judgment about the Declinatour, or appeale &c. 2. His refusall of referring that difference to an hearing of Ministers. And thence he proceedeth, in the third place, to shew the issue of this difference, and Mr. F. refusall to referr it, [Page 86] which was, that, not only he, but all the Elders, with one consent, re­fused to proceed in the calling of him. Reply. These we will examine severally, and breifely.

1 To the first.] Herein may be noated. 1. The Answerers unaequall dealing in publishing to the world these particulars against Mr. F. which, by his owne confession, were, at least 24 yeares past,Pag. 13. whereas he blameth the Complainants for unsea­sonable admonition, in that they complaine now of matters done above 20 yeares agone, about Mr. Parker and M^r. Forbes. Was it unseasonable in them, and is it not so in him? Nor will it helpe, that he say, they compell him to it, seing in the very next instance (viz speaking of Mr. Peters) he sayth. I thinck it needles to give a reason here, why I gave not my voyce for him. Why might not this answer as well have served in the former instan­ces? 2. His policy is to be noated, in this passage, in his urging that appeale as a meane to keepe out M^r. Forbes, well knowing that M^r. Forbes would not now passe from that, for procuring a Ministry in Amsterdam, for the which he had formerly taken his life in his hand, and, at that instant, indured banishment. 3. His disparadging of M^r. Forbes his judgment, when he sayth, he saught to maintayne his appeale, insinuating thereby an indea­vour, without ability.

2 To the second.] 1. Any man of understanding and cha­rity will conclude that M^r. Forbes his refufall of entring into that dispute with the Answerer, is not to be imputed to his feare of the Answerers weapons or strength (especially the case being such, wherein M^r. F. had bene as well sifted before, as the An­swerer could sift him) but to his great wisdome & modesty who hath alwayes manifested that duetifull respect to his Sove­raigne, never to stand to the defence of any thing displeasing to his Ma^ties, but when, and where conscience did urge him. Nei­ther could he have entred into that debate, without some overture of too much forwardnes for, and desire of that station, from which his spirit was very averse. 2. it seemeth not to be without too much selfe-confidence, that he undertooke to shew Mr. F. the unlawfullnes of that appeale. The wholl councell of Scotland (consisting of wise and honourable persons) with [Page 87] others, as well versed in the lawes and constitutions, both Ec­clesiasticall, and civill of Scotland, as the Answerer, did theyre indeavour to make Mr. F. and his associats to understand the unlawfullnes of it, and yet they could not see it, but the An­swerer will presently shew it them.

To the third.] That both he and the Elders, with one consent, re­fused to proceed in the calling of Mr. F. upon his refusall to give them satisfaction.] A refusall supposeth a petition, the Answerer should have shewen who was the petitioner. 1 was it Mr. Forbes? This seemeth to be intimated. But they that knew M. Forbes, knew him to be a man of no such meane spirit, as to petition, or seeke to be the Answerers Colleague. 2. were the members of the Church the petitioners, or motioners for his call? and was theyr request frustrated, upon this ground? Then theyre complaint seemeth to be just, in that they were deprived of him, for such a cause. For what is a difference about things done in Scotland (and which are proper and peculiar to the cognition of that State) to the Church in Amsterdam? what Canon of any Nati­onall Synod? what order of any Classis? what Custom of any Church in Holland is violated, by Mr. Forbes his opinion con­cerning the Declinatour? Which injury, both to them and him, is the greater, seing, notwithstanding that, he was intertayned, & setled in an English Church, and (which is more to this purpose) with the English Merchants, amongst whom he lived, paynfully discharging the office of a Pastor, above 20 yeares, to the singu­lar content of the Company, & not without his Ma^ties of Great Brittaine &c. King Iames, of famous memory, his approbation, as, to the prayse of his Royall clemency, appeared in a message sent by him to the Company. For him God provided mercy­fully. But the Church in Amsterdam, was, by this meane, de­prived of a man of eminent worth, in the injoyment of the fruits of whose learning, judgement, wisdom, amiable spirit, and other exellent properties, and indowments, all places, where he hath lived, thought themselves happy, accounting him a mā richly fur­nished with all indowments, which are requisite, not onely for a minister to any Church, but also for a publike instrument, upon great occasions, in the cōmon affaires of many Churches, to stand [Page 88] before princes. What esteeme he had in Scotland, appeared by theyr imploying of him in publick services, & those of great im­portance. How he was accepted in Swedē, whither he travayled, after his banishment, was manifest, besides other instances, in the great favour shewed him, and honourable proffer made to him, by that Mirrour of Princes, the last King of Sweden, a litle before his death. How the Company of Merchants, who in­joyed him so many yeares, affected him, is evident in the annuall exhibition which they have conferred upon his widow, as a testimony of theyr high esteeme of him, theyr deceased Pastor, whom it pleased God to call hence, where in ter Ʋeer he finished his course, & was freed from all the troubles of his pilgrimage, to injoy that crowne of righteousnes which is layd up for those that have faught a good fight, he died on the 5 day of August, old stile, and was buryed, on the 9 day Anno 1634.

In the sixt place, he dealeth with Mr. Peters, or rather decli­neth the answer of theyr complaint, in that particular. Had he done so in all the rest, he had eased me of all this labour and trouble, & might have seemed to others more free from blame then he is, or now can rationally be judged to be.

The answer to the sixth Section examined.

This Section might haue passed without being examined by me,P. 33. had not the Answerer, in the close of it, brought me in as one fighting against him, in like manner as the Complainants, which is, according to an English proverbe, to slander him with a mat­ter of trueth. But, because, he sayth, the answer before given to the Complainants, may also serve for answer to me, I am compelled to examine the wholl Section, to find out the answer given to me, in theyres. His wholl answer tendeth to charge them with slan­der, in 8 particulars, to which I will answer severally and breifly.

To the first.] That they charge him with pressing others upon the Congregation. In answer Ans. whereunto he sayth. I doe not clayme any more to my selfe, then one voyce.

Nor doe they charge him to arrogate 2 voyces. But who knoweth not, that some one voyce may drowne many voyces? Reply. As appeareth in sundry passages, in theyr Consistory.

Ans. To the second.] That he abuseth his interest in the Magistrates, and Classis, he answereth, Reply. not by denying it, but by calling for witnesses, whereas, what need witnesses, when the fact it selfe proveth it? As the examination of the former Sect: evinceth.

Ans. To the third.] That he sayth, Reply. they involve the Magistrates in the same guilt with him. 1. Theyr owne wordes shew that theyr com­plaint is against him, not the Magistrate, and so the imputation of slander may be retorted upon himselfe. This will be more fully cleared in the reply to the 6. answer, where the difference betweene the Magistrates requiring of this, and his pressing of it, will appeare. 2. Nor is it so rare a case, as is pretended, that mens interest in good Magistrates may be abused. Was not the Emperour Constantius abused by the Arrians, under theyr shew of gravity, to side with them against the Orthodox, though the greater number, by farr, in the Synod at Ariminum.

Ans. To the fourth.] That they extend this complaint to the Classis also. What offence is there in this? he addeth, as if they were gene­rally so blind and corrupt as to suffer themselves to be abused by me. Reply. As though learned and godly men may not be abused by theyr good perswasion of anothers good intentions, to take part with him against those that are godly, without cause.Sozom. 8.14. Socrat. 6.9 Did not Theo­philus of Alexandria, by his policy, prevayle with Epiphanius, a man of much integrity, to take his part against Chrysostom, whereby he prevayled to procure his banishment out of Con­stantinople, to the great greife of the godly, which also caused much calamity in the Church and civill State?

Ans. To the fifth.] that he sayth, theyr reproach serveth to the clearing of him, and that, those that are unpartiall, and wise in heart, may conceive hereby, that he hath obtayned this interest in them, not by a­busing and corrupting them, but by walking uprightly before them.

Reply. The Complainants doe not say that he got his interest, either in [Page 90] Magistrates, or Ministers of the Classis, by abusing & corrupting them, but, that he abuseth the interest which he hath gotten in them, to the injury of the Church. 2. Nor is an interest in wise and godly men, an infallible signe of upright walking. Indeed interest in God is a signe of uprightnes, as in Noah, Abraham, Iob, Moses, Samuell, David &c. Because the Lord searcheth the heart, and knoweth our thoughts afarre off: but it is not so in mens acceptance, who, judging by the outward appearance, are often deceived and may be deluded by false pretences. Was not David a wise King? And yet Ziba abused his interest in him, and, by misinforming him, caused him to doe an iniury to Me­phiboseth. The Church, to whom Iohn the Divine wrote, was not destitute of wise men, and of men able to judge: yet Dio­trephes so farr abused his interest in them, as the Apostle descri­beth,3. Iohn. 9.10. saying. I wrote unto the Church, but Diotrephes that loveth to have the preheminence amongst them, received us not, wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds, which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words, and not content therewith, neither doeth he him­selfe receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church. Boath those had an interest: the one in the Magistrate, the other in the Church, which they abused. But I produce these examples, not to compare the Answerer with them, but only to shew, that an interest may be gotten with wise and good men, without upright walking, and therefore this is no necessary consequence.

To the sixth and seventh,] where he sheweth what order the Magistrates set downe, about having one that can speake Dutch.

The story which here he relateth, cleareth three points.

1. That it is no slander, when they say, that none of our Nation, that come immediatly from England, though never so fit and able, shall be admitted, but they must be forced to take one that can speake Dutch. Himselfe in relating the story, con­fesseth this to be no slander, but a trueth.

2. That it is no slander, when they complaine of him as guilty of this injury. For, besides what he hath done towards the procuring of this, it is evident, that he was so farr from [Page 91] pleading, or stirring up the Elders to joyne with him, in peti­tion for the altering of this order, as that he pleadeth for it, though, they say, it is to the unspeakeakle injury and greife of the Church.

3. That it is no slander, that they complaine of the Answe­rer for this, and not of the Magistrate, seing he urgeth it more vehemently then they seeme to doe. For they propound it as a matter only, in some respects, convenient, that the English prea­cher speake Dutch, but he presseth it as necessary. The former appeareth three wayes. 1. in that caution which they give [If it were possible] wherein I suppose, they meane, with the consent and approbation of the Church: for otherwise, if they would obtrude one upom them, they need not put in that proviso. 2. In the reasons, which they give for that theyre desire, which doe imply only an expediency, viz, that he may debate matters with the Classis, and treate with the Magistrate, on the Churches be­halfe, as occasion shall require, which a man may doe, by lear­ning the language after he is setled, though he have no Dutch before. 3. Jn theyre indulgence to me, which the Answerer ac­knowledgeth, in sayng, that they were content to dispense with my want of the Dutch language, which sheweth that they accoun­ted it but an expediency, with which they would dispense, in a case of necessity. The latter (viz,P. 31.6. that the Answerer presseth it as a matter necessary) appeareth in his owne words, when he sayth, that a minister called to this place which can not speake Dutch, is, in great measure, no better then a Dumbe Minister, in respect of one speciall worke of his calling, which is to give advise &c. In the Classis. If, to sit in the Dutch Classis &c. Be one speciall worke of the English Ministers calling, then indeed his ability to speake Dutch, is a necessary requisite, without which he is but a dumb minister. But how will this be proved? For 1. Paul in his Epist­les to Timothy and Titus and in the rest of his Epistles, speaketh nothing of this property or duety, nor is it any where else in Scripture revealed to be necessary, how then is it a speciall worke of his calling? 2. The Magistrates doe not presse this sitting in the Dutch Classis, upon the English preachers in other townes in Holland. How commeth it to be so speciall a worke of a Mi­nisters [Page 92] calling in Amsterdam? 3. This is not urged as a speciall worke of a ministers calling to the French & walloon Churches in that Citty; How comes it to be so to the English? 4. The An­swerer did not account it a speciall worke of his calling to sit in the Dutch Classis, a good while after his comming to Amster­dam, when he laboured to set up an English Classis; though af­terwards he opposed the same thing, when it tooke effect by Mr. Forbes his labour. How comes it now to be a speciall worke of his calling, which then was not? 5. The Answerer hath bene heard to say, that he commeth sometimes from the Classis grei­ved & troubled in his mind, because, when weighty matters are debated, he cannot sufficiently expresse his mind in Dutch. And well may it greive him to supply the place of a Pastor there, if he find him selfe unable to performe one speciall worke of his calling. To wind up all. Seing the Answerer maketh that an espe­ciall worke of the Ministers calling to his Church in Amster­dam, which God doeth not make so, in any place of Scripture, nor the Magistrates doe make so, neither there, to other Na­tions, nor, in other Cityes, to other English Churches, and seing, by that pretence, they are deprived of many worthy men, which they might have injoyed (had not this bene so insisted upon by him) and seing the Answerer doth urge it more strictly, then the Magistrates (they propounding it, but as a matter of conveni­ency, but he pressing it, as a matter of necessity) haue not the members just cause to complaine of this as a greivance? Nor will this free him from blame, that he is but one, and claymeth but one voyce, seing he hindreth, that what agreeth not with his mind, can not be ended in the Church, but is carryed to the Classis, where he can strengthen himselfe, by helpe of those whom he gayneth to his party, by raysing causeles suspitions of some factions, or Shysmaticall intentions in his people, or in the Consistory, which they receive from him, and report to the Magistrates, who, at theyre intreaty, interpose to prevent some imagined distractions, which may fall in the English Church: whereas, if they had rightly bene informed of the wholl truth, they would have seene the request of the Church to be reasona­ble, [Page 93] and just, and the opposition made against it to be injurious, and blameworthy.

Ans. To the eighth.] To that which they say concerning the Lords fighting against his course hitherto by the great unfitnes of those &c. who haue preached hitherto by his nomination or consent in sending for, he answereth 2 things; 1. That they are guilty of rash judgement, and of taking Gods name in vayne, or reproaching the Lord, and laying iniquity upon the Lord, and of making him a partaker with them, for maintenance of theyre sinne. 2. For the men to whose sending for he hath given consent; that they are not unfit, but learned and worthy men: one of them he nameth, the other 2 he concea­leth. This passage shall be breifly examined, and replyed upon.

To the first,] Reply. I am so farr from justifying any thing done or spoken amisse, even by my freinds, that this Answerer intima­teth it to be a just reward of Mr. B. inordinate affection to me, that I censure the printing of that pamphlet to be an injury. That which I did in the simplicity, and uprightnes of my heart, not knowing that Mr. B. was the publisher, in way of witnes bearing to the truth, and in favour of him, he wresteth and perverteth to contrary ends. This dealing of his, in that particular, may make me wary of uttering my thoughts, in a like case, when another lyeth to watch and catch all advantages against me and them. Therefore what I account amisse in this expression, on theyr part, I will conceale, and also passe by the distemper of his spirit, which, upon this occasion, venteth it selfe. The comparing of the reply to the former Section and this, will giue some light, whereby the Reader may discerne, 1. whether that which they have disliked, and complained of, be not a just greivance, 2. whether, in that case, such an expression deserve so heavy a censure. Here he instanceth in three persons sent for by him, and nameth but one of them, viz Mr. Balmford, whom he men­tioneth in the first place. In the passages concerning him I noate three things.

1. Vpon a third and fourth review,A defence of Mr. Balmford, I wondred why so litle was sayd by the Answerer in the just acknowledgment of Mr, B. sufficiency, especially seing the next, whose name he concealeth, is honoured by him with the prayse of speciall gifts of learning, [Page 94] piety, and utterance, & the third, whose name he also suppresseth, is stiled a man of speciall noate for his learning, and labours in the Church of God. But, when I consider the men, (him, upon know­ledge, and them by gesse, and report of others) I seeme to ap­prehend the cause of it, which was, not that M^r. Balmford was inferiour to either of those men, in the desart of such attributiōs but that, if he had freely done him right, in so publick a decla­ration thereof, it might have reflected more honour upon him then he can be cōtent should be devolved upon one, whose judg­ment did at all differ from his, and agree with his opposites, as, he accounteth them, in the point controverted betweene us.

2. Yet, when it may serve for a staffe, wherewith to beate the Complainants, he addeth thus much. His great unfitnes is theyre great slander, that avouch it, unles they could prove it.] Neither himselfe nor they will be ever able to prove M^r. B. unfit for that Church, but both he and they might have blessed God, with much thanckfullnes, for such a mercy, if they had injoyed him. And certainely it will be found worthy to be called a great slan­der, if any shall impute great unfitnes to him. The place where he hath diverse yeares executed his pastorall function, con­stantly, painfully, proffitably and with good acceptance, is in­comparably before Amsterdam, both in the eminency of the Au­ditours, and in theyre ability to judge of his sufficiency: the de­served approbation of him, and affection to him so frequently expressed, on all fitting occasions, by all sorts of hearers, both resorting thither, and residing there, are in stead of letters of recommondation, to stop the mouths of any that shall mussitate or whisper any such disparadging intimations, and to convince them of great slander. But now the question will be, at whose dore the slander must be layd? For the Complainants refuse to father it, and doe retort the accusation of a great slander upon the Answerer himselfe, and professe the great unfitnes, which they meant, was intended by them concerning others, partly, in respect of the language, and they name severall men against whom they except in that respect, whom they could not wel un­derstand, through some defect of the English tongue, or theyre manner of pronouncing it▪ partly; in respect of yeares, or expe­rience [Page 95] for such a worke, whereof some other instances are al­leadged by them. But of boath these insufficiencyes they ac­quit M^r. Balmford, and blame the Answerer that he hath so needlesly brought him, by name, upon the stage, whilest he con­eealeth the names of the other two, and wholly hideth others, whom they can name. Also, they say, some were desired by him, whom they could not thinck fit for them, in respect of theyre re­lations, and ingagements to other Churches, which would suffer much by the losse of them, though, in other respects, they ac­counted them fit.

3. To that which he addeth, concerning the fighting of some of these Complainants against his calling, they answer and professe, that the fighting, which he meaneth, was not, out of disesteeme of, or disaffection to M^r. Balmford, but for the defence and maintenance of theyre right, in which case, they would have opposed any other. For, seing how unjustly they were deprived of Mr. Hooker, whom they generally desired, and having heard, that some of the Dutch Ministers had sayd, that, if they had knowne so much before, concerning him, as they had then heard matters should not have bene carryed against him as they were: whereupon they conceyved hopes that they might yet injoy M^r. Hooker. Hence came theyre opposition to Mr. B. calling, whom they thought the Answerer more forward to bring in, that he might deprive them of the other. But, since that time, finding theyre expectation and hope frustrate, they have wished that M^r. B. had bene setled amongst them.

Concerning the other two, seing the Answerer concealeth theyre names, I will be silent, and am sorry that he concludeth that passage with persisting in his former fault of missappiying (& so abusing) the Scripture, which he alleadgeth for his owne purpose.

Thus long I have bene excercised in a most unpleasing worke of raking in a kennel of reproaches to find out my answer, which he directed me to seeke in theyres. And, in searching, I find no such answer to them, as I looked for, viz, a disproofe of this se­cond proofe of the justnes of theyre complaint, concerning his depriving the Church of the free choyse of theyre Pastor. For [Page 96] what free choyse have they, when they may not have one of theyre owne Nation, immediately from England, but one that can speake Dutch: and that one must be so and so principled, and framed to the bent of the Answerers spirit, as hath bene de­clared, in the former Section? why is this required more of the English then of other Nations? Why doeth the Answerer presse this as a thing necessary, when the Magistrates only propound it as a thing convenient? Who seeth not, that, till he shewed his dislike, both the Magistrates and Classis have approved of these very men, whom afterwards, upon his suggestions against them, they have refused? How then can it be accounted a slan­der, that they complaine of him, for this cause? If he have no better answer for me, J shall remaine unanswered, as they are, notwithstanding any thing pretended by him to the contrary.

Pag. 32. Ans.He chargeth me with overlashing more then they, and myne asser­tion with more untrueth then theyres, because J used the word All­wayes. Reply. 1. For them: theyre assertion hath bene examined, and, found true, and I doubt not, upon examination, myne will be found true also, and that, in both, he will be found guilty of slander. For. 1. in my wrighting, these words following will be found added to the former, and hath hitherto opposed diverse worthy men, that have come immediately from England, which addi­tion serveth to restraine the word allwayes, to those that came immediately from England; as if I should say, Allwayes, when men have come immediately from England (which was the case of M^r. H. M^r. P. and my selfe) he hath opposed them, and shewed himselfe desirous of one that had lived some time in this country, rather. So that I make the opposition of those that have come immediately from England, a reall proofe of his de­sire of having one that lived in these countryes; which desire when it worketh so strongly, as that those that come immedia­tely from England are more narrowly sifted, and more violently opposed, then others, who, having lived in these parts, consent with them in judgment; this I call urging. So that, suppose, this have not bene publickly urged by him allwayes, from the first day of his being called to that Church: yet if allwayes, when­soever men have come immediately from England, and have [Page 97] bene much desired by the Church (for such I meane) he hath found one pretence or other to oppose theyre calling, when he hath not bene so strict with others, my assertion appeareth to be true.

2 Secondly, I am so farr from overlashing more then they, that I r [...]straine my selfe much more, in limiting my speech, to those that have come immediately from England, whereas they com­plaine of his opposing, not only those, but even such also as had abode sometimes in these Countryes, as Mr. Parker, Dr. Ames, Mr. Forbes, who could speake Dutch, and yet were opposed & refused by him. Now, where is my overlashing? where is the untrueth of my assertion? It becommeth him to be very carefull that he shew foorth trueth in his accusation, who will charge another with untrueth, and to be found wary and moderate in his expressions, who will accuse another of overlashing. I doubt not, the Reader seeth how easily I may retort this chalenge upon him, and more justly. But I spare him, and hasten to examine the following Sections.

The seaventh Section examined, where­unto this title is praefixed, The story of some proceedings about the calling of M^r. D.

THe Answerer, purposing to expose me to all the reproach he can, in the 16 following Sections; to draw the eyes of passengers (as it were) & to fixe the mind of the Reader upon the ensuing discourse, he praefixeth a title written in a larger cha­racter then the rest, and my name in capitall letters. To what speciall purpose▪ his owne heart knoweth, and God, who is greater then his heart, knoweth much betrer. As for me: The good will of the Lord be done! If he deliver me up to be buf­feted [Page 98] by the frowardnes of a Masterly fpirit, and that, when I doe well, his grace, I hope, will inable me to submit to my Fathers good pleasure, in the smitings of my fellow servant; because Christ my Lord hath also suffered for me, leaving me an example. And, it may be, in thc answer of these particulars, whereby he thought to blemish me, my innocency and his in­jury shall more fully appeare to all men (by the overruling hand of the only wise God) then any other way it could have done. This the Lord hath done in Iosephs case, and others, but speci­ally, in the crucifying of our Lord, whose superscription in great letters upon the crosse, proclaimed to all the world, both his glory, and theire shame. As for the Answerer, I wish his age may be crowned with the honour of righteousnes, upon his unfein­ged repentance of these injuries, the guilt whereof he hath bene plunged into, I hope, by the violence of temptation, and not by a setled, and habituall evill bent of his spirit, out of which my prayer is unfeignedly, that God would recover him speedily. And so I proceed to examine his answer, in this Section, and the conclusion of the former, against which I have diverse excep­tions.

1. Except.] That he sayth, the things here declared have bene occasion of the strife raysed up in this place,] This I except against, as it is indefinitely expressed. For it may be universally under­stood, as if those things had occasioned all the strife, and in that sense it is untrue. For there hath bene great strife raysed up a­mongst them, about the rejecting of other men (whom I praefer above my selfe) before my name was mentioned amongst them, which is not yet ended, as appeareth in the complaints. 2. I af­firme, that, whosoever hath bene the occasion; his unjust oppo­sition against the men, whom the Church hath justly desired, hath bene the cause of the strife in this place.

2. Except.] That he sayth. Whilest I was buisy in wrighting, &c. another complaint is written against me, and secretly dispersed amongst our people.] My exception against this expression is double. 1. That he calleth it my complaint, which title I doe not give it, nor is it proper, it being rather an account, then a complaint, being intended for theyr satisfaction, who desired to know the [Page 99] trueth of passages, not for redresse of injuries, which I suffer, without expectation of helpe from any man. 2. that he blameth the secret dispersing of it: whereas he should rather acknow­ledge my tender care of his reputation, who would not have it divulged, though for myne owne clearing, further then it was necessary, for the rectifying of theyre understanding and judg­ment, who had bene praejudiced against me, by his misinfor­mations▪ And, if this were a fault in me, yet he hath cause to lay his hand upon his mouth, who not only compelled me to doe it, but himselfe sent a larger wrighting, without any provoca­tion from me, to a partiall freind of his, Mr. B. at Newburgh in England, which was, no doubt, by him secretly dispersed, where it pleased him.

3. Except.] That he sayth. I have dealt very injuriously with him, not only in reporting many things, but in sundry inferences, &c.] this is a trick of policy, to praepossesse his credulous Reader with a forestalled opinion, & praejudice against what I wright, but the wise-hearted will compare the Reply with the an­swer in every Section impartially, and so judge righteous judg­ment.

4. Except.] That he sayth, most of my complaints are, for sub­stance, the very same that these Complainants have framed, as if the same pen had written both;] As if he would intimate that I am the authour of those complaints; whereas I am perswaded, that, in his owne heart, he doth acquit me thereof, both in observation of some passages in that wrighting, which any man may con­ceive not to be penned by me, and, upon his strict examination of some of the Subscribers, and of those. 3. whom he exempteth from the number of Subscribers (having, as he sayth, acknow­ledged theire fault therein) by whom, if he could have under­stood that I had bene guilty, the Reader should have found it, I beleive, either in great letters, or in some remarkeable margi­nall noate, expressed and aggravated to the uttermust: yet he so framed his answer to theyres, as if the whole booke were an answer to me only, whereas my wrighting was in some of theyre hands, a good space of time, before theyres was framed: whence all, that can probably be inferred, is, that they recieved [Page 100] some information about things that concerned my selfe, from thence, or from my owne words. And whatsoever more is in­ferred from thence is to be returned back to his owne needlesse jealousy, from whence it came.

5. Except.] That he sayth, Each of my threefold wrighting is stayned with untrueth, and matter of reproach.] but when he com­meth to shew it (that his Reader may be convinced hereof) he flyeth off from two of the wrightings, at the first onset, which, for the present, he leaveth to the consideration of the Classis. Yet, that he may not seeme to be wholly out of heart, he sayth, He will so answer the third wrighting, as that he shall take them in by the way, &c. For me; he may freely take his choyse, whether he will answer all, or none, and whether, in every particular, or in grosse: but he had dealt more fairely, if he had forborne to passe his sentence, it being his worke to give evidence, not sentence: but, it seemeth he durst not rest upon the aequanimity of the Reader, who is now made his judge, but would condemne it, least else it might have passed altogether uncondemned.

And seing he undertaketh to answer the third wrighting, in every particular, we shall (with Gods assistance) examine his answer, and the narration which he maketh of particulars touching my calling hither, with the issue thereof, which, if it be faythfully done, may give much light to helpe the Readers in judging righteously: else it will, like an ignis fatùus, misleade them from the trueth.

SECT. 8. Concerning my sending for out of England.

Ans. TO prove my sending for over to be disorderly, he sayth in his printed booke, that such as procured my comming out of England, did not, according to good order, communicate the matter with those, whom it specially concerned, who in all such weighty and [Page 101] publick affayres of the Church, should by theyre counsail and direction have gone before others therein. The same thing, in his letter sent to Nuburgh, he expresseth thus, that, I, being sent for privately by a particular person, without his knowledge, and without advise and consent of theyre Eldership, came over before I was called.

Reply. 1, My end in comming into these parts, was to serve the present opportunity, for a few moneths, in helping that Church with the fruits of my labours, in their extreme necessity, having preserved my liberty, not for love of ease, but for the workes sake, (in hope that after some small time of absence, the displea­sure conceived against me would be abated, and my returne to myne owne country be made more safe,) and not to be Pastor in Amsterdam, unlesse it should appeare, by a very strong & cleare call from the joynt desire of Pastor and people, upon very safe and satisfying termes, that God, to whose disposall, I wholly committed my selfe, should designe me to that place, as the only station wherein he would serve himselfe of me, the remaynder of my dayes. In which case, my heart was prepared to obey his call, to any part of the world, and so there, and not otherwise. This being my purpose, as he that brought me over, and others can testifye, I was content to come over for 3 or 4 moneths to helpe them. And other agreement or promise I made none. Now what need was there of any letters from the Eldership for so much?

2. If there had bene any further purpose or agreement to come over by a private sollicitation, without publick order, yet in so doing, no good order was transgressed. Because it was agreed upon in the Consistory, that it should be free for every member of the Congregation to procure any able minister to come thither for the tryall of his gifts: the reason of which agreement (as I can shew under the Elders hands) was, that the Church should not be ingaged unto any man, if his gifts should not be approved by the Congregation. So that the manner of my comming over was according to the order agreed upon amongst themselves.

3. I could add, if I thought it worth insisting upon, that my comming over was, not without his knowledge, nor without [Page 102] the desire of the Eldership, though not signifyed by any publick Act, nor was it requisite in this case, the premises being con­sidered.

The Answer to the nineth Section exa­mined, concerning my resigning of my pastorall charge in London.

THree things are in this Section propounded by the An­swerer, or pretended rather. 1. my not bringing with me an authentick testimony of my lawfull dimission. Ans. 2. My resignation of my place. 3. His answer to my arguing from his preaching against that my resignation to prove that he never desired me, for his Colleague. Which particulars are now to be examined, and answered se­verally and breifely.

Reply. 1. For the first.] That this is a mere pretence will appeare, if three things be considered. 1. that he never required of me any such testimony: therefore, how doeth he know, that I wanted it? 2. If I had wanted a testimony; it is well knowne to himselfe, as well as to others, that I could soone have had one. 3. I did not want such a testimony as might satifye any man, even Momus himselfe. One of the Ministers of the Classis, having read it, sayd it was testimonium laudatissimum. The Answerer intimateth that an ample testimony hath bene formerly given to him in other places. Pag. 17.3▪

How ample his testimony was, I know not: but that myne was honourable, and sufficient, appeareth by what hath bene sayd.

2. For the second.] seing J am chalenged thus in publick, about the resignation of my pastorall charge in London, and called to the barr of common censure, to answer to that which my accuser objecteth against me, both here, and in other places of the booke, concerning this matter, I pray the Reader aequally to consider my defence, wherein. 1. I will speake something, in thesi, generally, concerning the lawfullnes of that which he [Page 103] seemeth to condemne. 2. I will add something, in hypothesi, for the justifying of what I have done in this particular.

In Thesi.] I am to shew that it is not unlawfull for a Pastor, in case of extreame and apparent personall danger, by flight, to provide for his personall safety. That this is lawfull, appeareth.

1. By the precept given by Christ to the Disciples, and in them to all beleivers, and particularly to the Ministers of the Gospell. When they persecute you in this City, flee into another. Mat, 10.23. Vnlesse he will say, that rule is but temporary, and of force only during the first Century, which was the errour of Tertullian,Haec scrip­sit Tertul­lianus con­tra totam Ecclesiam. Hieron: d [...] virisillustr. & wherein the wholl Church held contrary to him. The Argu­ments, which Tertullian produceth for justifying of his Errour, I examined thoroughly, before I tooke that course, & found them (if I may say with reverence to so ancient a light in the Church) of no weight. This liberty of flight granted by that precept, I have not read many that have denyed, of later time, onely an Anabaptist, one Mr. Helwis, who is fully answered, in print,Helw: of the mystery of iniquity. Mr. Rob: of Rel. Com. P. 23 Mat. 10.5 P. Martyr in Epist: ad amicum de de fuga. Mat: 28.19. Aug: in E­pist: ad Ho­norat. E­pist: 180. Also the same precept was argued by some others, to be but tem­porary, from the temporarines of that other precept. Goe not into the way of the Gentiles, &c. Which indeed was shortly after abro­gated. But betweene those two precepts Peter Martyr judici­ously noateth this difference: viz, that appeared to be tempo­rary, in that it was abrogated by Christ, who after his resurrec­tion, expresly [...]mmanded the contrary, saying, Goe teach all na­tions; But this precept, concerning flight in persecution, is per­petuall, because Christ never reversed it, by any word in Scrip­ture▪ And, upon this and other satisfying grounds, Augustine is cleare concerning the lawfullnes hereof, in the case of Mini­sters, as wil appeare to him that shall read an Epistle of his writ­ten to that purpose.

2. By examples of the servants of God who have done thus. We may not expect examples of any Pastors in Scripture, who did thus. For, till the ascention of Christ, that gift was not given to the Church. And after, for the space of 300 yeares, the persecu­tions were, for the most part, not personall, but generall; not against the person of the Pastor only (in which case alone it is lawfull to flee) but against the wholl Church, in which case, it [Page 104] was necessary,Act. 7.25. Exod: 2.12.14. & 3.4.18. that they should stay. But of cases paralell here­unto we have instances, of not a few. As of Moses, who being perswaded, that God, by his hand, would deliver the Israelites, yet, for feare, fled out of Aegipt, where, the Lord did not reprove him for so doing, but reveale himselfe more fully to him, then formerly.1 Kings 17.3.18-10.19.3.5. &c. Acts 9.23.24. 2 Cor: 11.30. Great Eliah, by the Lords appoyntment, hid himselfe from Iezabells pursuit, who had threatned him, & was not there in condemned by the Lord, but incouraged, and assisted. The blessed Apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, to avoyd the lying in wayte of the Iewes, was let downe by night, through the wall of Damascus, by a rope, in a basket, for which he was so farr from being con­demned of his owne conscience inlightned by Gods holy Spirit of truth, that he rejoyced in it afterwards, and tooke the same course of flying from Iconium to Listra, Ast: 14.1 5.6. to avoyd violence. The time would fayle me to speake of Iacob, David, Ieremy, Baruch, of those whom Obadiah hid by 50 in a cave, and of those worthyes, under Antiochus,Heb: 11. [...] 37.38.39 of whom the world was not worthy, who did wan­der up and downe in sheepeskinnes and goateskinnes, in wildernesses, & mountaines, and dens, and caves of the earth, and this they are said to have done by fayth. Yea, our blessed Saviour did also sundry times, as our head, sanctifye flight to all his members, who are partakers of the fellowship of his afflictions, and of this, amongst the rest.Mat: 10.28. v. 23. with 28. Nor is this that unlawfull feare of them that can kill the body, as appeareth in this, that in the same chapter, where the Apost­les are forbidden to feare, they are allowed to fly. And if these might stand together in the Apostles, why not in others? Nor is this the unlawfull faynting in affliction, 2 Cor: 4.16. with. 2 Cor: 11.30. spoken of by Paul. For even the same Apostle, in the same Epistle, where he speaketh of his not faynting, speaketh of his flying: to shew that these are not contrary. Nor is this like the flying of Ionah, or that whereunto Ie­remy was tempted. For they that doe thus, doe not doe it, that they may not preach, but that they may preach the Gospell, of which liberty they foresee that they should utterly be depri­ved, if they should fall in to theyre hands, who would not afford them the favour, which Paul had at Rome, to dwell in his owne hired house, Act: 28.16.30.31 and to receive all that came in unto him, preaching the Kingdom of God &c. no man forbidding him. Neither is it done by [Page 105] them as by those, who are acted by the spirit of that base feare, which is opposed to the spirit of power and of a sound mind. 2 Tim: 1.7▪ For e­ven the spirit of power or courage or fortitude, worketh divers­ly in the servants of God, upon severall occasions. When God calleth men to confesse the truth, by doing it, it incourageth them thereunto, whatsoever difficulties or impediments lye in the way, when he calleth them to witnes to it, by suffering, it strengthneth them thereunto; But how? to suffer that tryall, not wherewith men would insnare them, but wherewith it pleaseth the Divine providence to excercise them. Men would imprison them, but God strongly inclineth theyr spirits, rather to chuse a voluntary banishment, for a short space of time, which is a sorer tryall then some imprisonment. And, in such a case, flight it selfe is a reall confession, and profession that the truths of the Gospel are of no small value to them, who thus flye. For who had not rather tarry in his owne country, then leave his country, acquaintance, & all the commodities which, with them, he might have injoyed, and travayle amongst strangers, whose language, dispositions, and customs he knoweth not, where he is exposed to many inconveniences, by the change of ayre and dyet, and to be reviled in his owne land, and suspected amongst strangers, and to be ill intreated, oppressed, rejected, and in print traduced, by those who should have comforted, and coun­tenanced him, and to be brow-beaten by his inferiours, fhily looked upon by some aequalls, treacherously circumvented by others, obnoxious to the injuryes of all. In a word, to be a foote­stoole for others to tread upon, that they may rayse themselves, by doing some service, though it be by rayling against, or slan­dering those whom they frowne upon,Psal: 129.3. Secedamus (inquit am [...] cis) nube­cula est, quae citò e­vanescit. Socrat: hyst: 3.12.18. from whom they expect preferment. As Erasmus said of Luther. poore Luther made many rich men: because they got preferment, in those dayes, by wrighting against him. Is this to forsake the Lords plough? or is it not, for the testimony of Christ, to be content that the plough­ers plough long furrowes upon our backs? Did Athanasius forsake the Lords plough, when, to decline Iulians plot against him, he fled from Alexandria? This was not to forsake the calling of God, but to follow it. The like I may say of Peter Martyrs relin­quishing [Page 106] his station in Luca, when he saw he could not with safe­ty hold it, it was not a deserting of his flock, but a preserving himselfe for his flock, whom if he had not left for a time, they, and the whole Church had lost for ever. I wil not now speake of Policarpus, and Cyprian, & others in former times, nor of those who fled in Q: Maryes dayes, and were preserved in Franck­furt, and other places for after times.

In Hypothesi.] For the justifying of myne owne act, in this particular (being injuriously compelled hereunto, in so publick a way, by the inconsiderate importunity of an angry brother who seemeth very regardlesse how farr he exposeth me to censure, or danger) I will breifely relate, both the causes of it, and the man­ner of my carriage in it. That the true cause may be knowne, false causes pretended by others, must be removed. For, this way, I have bene much wronged, whilest many, out of igno­rance, or malice, or both, either willingly not knowing, or ma­liciously concealing the truth, have taken an unwarrantable li­berty to spread abroad slanders, with as much confidence, as if they had bene trayned up in the Machiavells and Iesuits princi­ples,Calumnia­re audac­ter: ali­quid haere­bit. from theyr childhood. And some were so bold herein, that they feared not to cast the poyson of theyr reproaches, and to shoote the arrowes of theyr slanders at me, thorough the eares of theyr superiours, persons of noble quality, whose place and authority should have awed them, and made them affrayd to be found lyars unto them, though they had no regard of God, nor of theyr conscience, nor of theyr account in the day of Christ. The time may come when I shall,3. Ioh. 10 in print, remember theyre deeds which they doe, and theyre prating against vs with malicious words, if they take not up in time, but proceed and persist in these injuri­ous dealings. In the meane space, and allwayes, my soule stay thy selfe upon the righteous God,Psal. 37.6 the God of truth. And he shall bring forth thy righteousnes as the light, and thy judgements as the noone day. Say unto the Lord my God. Thou hast knowne my re­proach, Psal. 69.19. &. 6.7 and my shame, and my dishonour, my adversaries are all before thee. Let not them that wayte on thee, o Lord God of hoasts be asha­med for my sake: Let not those that seeke thee be confounded for my sake, o God of Israel! Because for thy sake I have borne reproach &c. [Page 107] yet, that I may not be altogether wanting to my selfe, nor inju­rious to the Reader, in suffering him to be guilty of the sinne of evill surmises, or of slander in heart, for want of information, I doe seriously and sincerely protest, that (so farr as I know myne owne heart) I did not with draw my selfe. 1. out of any dis­loyall affection or unduetifull thought towards his Ma^tie of great Brittayne, my dread Soveraigne, for whom my hearty prayer shall be, day & night, that his soule may be bound in the bund­le of life with the Lord his God, & that the soules of his enimyes may be slung out, as out of the middle of a sling. And that the Lord will cloath his enimies with shame, but upon himselfe let his crowne flowrish. 2. nor out of any Schysmaticall propension to forsake the Church assembles of England,Heb. 10.29. as if I thought there were no true Churches of Christ in the land, as the manner of some is. 3. nor out of idlenes, or wearines of the Lords plough, nor. 4. out of love of ease, that I might pamper the flesh. 5. nor out of any unrighteous ayme to defraud any one by any meanes. 6. nor as one ashamed of the Gospell, to avoyd witnes bearing to the trueth. 7. nor for any trouble I was in, or feared by the civill Magistrate, before whom I was never questioned, in all my life, except for the good & pious buisenes about redeeming impropriations, wherein our righteous dealing was publickly cleared even by his Ma^ties At­turney generall, who prosecuted against us.

But the truth is, that having about 17 yeares excercised a pu­blick ministry in Londō (about 9 or 10 yeares whereof I was in a Pastorall charge in Colmanstreet) Jn the latter part of that time I was much perplexed with doubts about the lawfullnes of that cōformity, which I had formerly used, without scruple, in respect of some defects, & corruptions, & unwarrantable humaine im­positions, whereunto I found my selfe thereby subjected. It is not requisite in this place to relate, upon what occasion or ground I became thus altered in my judgement; but thus much I will expresse. It was not from a dislike of some one Ceremony only, but of many things amisse, and those, not trifles, or things indifferent, but matters of great importance, and which I can not submit to, nor doe, with satisfaction to my conscience in the [Page 108] sight of God, though one thing occasioned the discovery of that dislike, which was not wraught at once, but by degrees, nor sud­denly, but slowly, nor upon slight, but weighty considerations, nor without much labour, day and night. From that time, I saught how to free my selfe from former intanglements, in such a manner, as might be most for the peace and proffit of the Church, being very fearefull (out of the peaceablenes of my spirit) of causing any publick disturbance. Yet I ceased not to use those meanes, for the satisfaction of my doubts, which I thought most convenient for me, and know to be as sufficient, as any I could use. Whilest these things were in agitation; the al­teration of my judgement (which I had kept secret from com­mon observation) was discovered by a letter, which one intercep­ted and opened, who soone acquainted his intimates with it, by whom it was whispered into the eares of many: the same man, I suspected, would soone make it knowne to my Diocesan, that then was, at his returne from Scotland, where he had wayted upon his Matie. These things when I understood, I purposed, the weeke after his returne, to retire for a weeke or two, in to the Country, that I might discerne what was intended a­gainst me, by the manner of theyr inquiry after me. Upon this course I was hurried, rather then settled, by an unexpected acci­dent, which was this. Upon the munday after his returne, I rode a few miles from London to an ancient Reverend Divine, a Dr. in Divinity and my particular freind (upon a former agreement betweene us) to conferr with him about my doubts. But when it was knowne that I went out of towne, and not whither, some gave out that I was fled, which others too easily receyved and too confidently reported, & spread it abroad, yet I returned, as I purposed at my riding foorth, that night, to a place within 2 or 3 miles of London, and stayed there the next day, where I was not a litle troubled at the clamour, which, I heard, was made by many, about my supposed flight, fearing that it would much ir­ritate and incense authority against me, and accordingly was, even that weeke, advertised of a storme gathered in a thick cloud, and ready to fall upon me. Whereupon I retired a small [Page 109] distance from London, for a few weekes, to see what issue the Lord would put to these overtures. In which time, 3 requests were, on my behalfe, and at my intreaty, propounded to the Bishop of that diocesse, that then was, by his answer where­unto I perceived that extremity was intended against mee. Yet I did not resigne, till the Bishop had caused the Church­wardens to be examined concerning me, by the Register of the High Commission, whereby it appeared that he purposed to deale with me speedily, in that Court, if, by resigning, I pre­vented it not. Nevertheles, I did not yet resigne up my place, till I had called the Church together in a generall Vestry, and propounded the matter to them, acquainting them with my case, praying them to advise freely what was best to be done, for theyre good and myne. The Church, I confesse, might have re­quired me to stay with them, by vertue of that rule,Coll. 4.17 Say to Ar­chippus, Take heed to the Ministry, which thow hast received in the Lord, that thou fullfill it. and, if they had so done, I purposed to yeeld, what-ever had become of me. Yea,1 Cor: 3.22. & v. 5 I confesse the Chur­ches right to be such in theyr Pastors, that if, whilest I with­drew my selfe, for a short time, they had sent for me to returne to the excercise of my intermitted function (promising to stick to me, so farr as lawfully they might, in all dangers that might befall me) I hold my felfe bound to have returned thereunto: as Luther, upon the letters of the Church of Wittenburg,Melch: A­dam: vit: Luth. returned to the execution of his function, from which he had, for a time, desisted, and hidd himselfe, by the advise and command of the D. of Saxony.

As I acknowledge the Church to have this right in their pastor, so I told them, that if they should find that any hurt would redound to them by my resignation, which by my holding the place would be prevented, I would hold it, what-ever should befall me.

They seriously advising upon the proposition made by me, and knowing that the liberty and power of chusing theyre Pastor was in themselves (which also secured me from feare that a wolfe should be obtruded upon them, after my departure, without which assurāce I would not have resigned it) & it being thought [Page 110] by some to be better for the Church, that I should quietly re­signe, then, by holding the place, to expose them to some incon­veniences (which I forbeare to mention at this time) they freely consented to my resignation. Jn testimony whereof the Church­wardens (in the name and service of the rest) joyned with me in all that was done about it. Thus I was freely dismissed by the same power that called me to that ministry. The reasons, which inclined me to preserve my liberty, were these. 1. the severity of the Canons against those, who, having formerly subscribed, and conformed, doe alter theyre judgment and practise. 2. the Bishops owne threatnings uttered to me, in particular, formerly, that, in this case, I must expect, that they would be more severe against mee, then some others; because my example (he sayd) would doe more hurt. 3. J was satifyed, in my conscience, upon good grounds, that I might doe more service to the Church, by preserving the liberty of my person, then by lying (& for ought I know, dying) in prison, and it may be, in close prison. And in this resolution I was strengthned, as by good advise, so by in­ward testimonyes, that, in this course, I should more please God (all things being considered) then in the other, being (as it seemed to me) guided thereunto by the eye of God, whose pro­vidence fore shewed me, both the danger, and the way of es­cape, and by the mouth of God, whose word warranted me so to doe, and by the hand of God (as I have already shewen) who strongly inclined my spirit, upon the forementioned grounds, thereunto. So that I could not satisfye my selfe, in these respects, that, if I should doe otherwise, I could be free from the guilt of tempting God. Thus I have ingenuously, and plainely reported the trueth. Wherein, if the Godly and judicious Reader shall find any thing done by me, through humane infirmity, that agreeth not with the rule, my humble request is, that he will, in brotherly love, helpe me, with his light, that I may be con­vinced thereof by the Scripture, and he shall find me ready to receive a freindly and just rebuke, with due meekenes, and thanckfullnes. But, if otherwise, he shall see cause to justifye my way (which, I thinck, if he judge righteously, he will) let him suffer me to stand right in his good opinion, and condemne [Page 111] himselfe, in the sight of God, if he have misjudged me. As for the Answerer: Either let him convince me of sinne in the pre­mises, or beare the just blame of an unjust reproofe, or reproach rather, which is so much the greater injury, as, by being prin­ted, it is made more notorious and scandalous.

After the buisenes of my resignation was in this manner tran­sacted, I expected peace, but behold new troubles. For another pursivant was sent out for me, who gave out great threatnings. And this inclined me to accept of the motion from these Coun­tryes, wherein, I thought, I might be safe in my person, and proffitable, in the fruit of Gods blessing upon my labours to that Church, for a time, and that, upon my absence, the displeasure conceived against me would be mitigated, and my returne, af­ter a convenient time, would be made more safe.

3. For justifying of my inference, from his preaching against my resignation, to prove that he never desired me for his Colleague, I need not use many words. For if, before I came,Quid ver­ba audiam, cum facta videam? he shewed his aversenes, and after J came, he really hindred my setling there, his actions speake it sufficiently so that my words, in this case are needles.

Sect. 10. examined, concerning my know­ledge of theyre differences before my comming over.

THat Roman Emperour, whom storyes report to have spent so much time in catching flyes, might have bene better im­ployed in such thoughts as Ahasuerosh had, when he could not sleepe. The text sayth,Heb. 6.1, He commanded them to bring the booke of records, and they were read before him. In like manner, the An­swerer might well have spared this needles, useles labour for inlarging this Section, and, in ste [...]d thereof, have condemned [Page 112] himselfe for his unthanckfullnes, who, not only, hath not recom­pensed the kindnes that hath bene done him, but hath rewarded evill for good. And, that it may more appeare to all men, even in the Sections where my confidence in him and kindnes should be mentioned, there he laboured most to injure me with casting intimations to rayse suspitions in mens minds causelesly. To be breife. To what end are all these words?

Are they to prove that I had seene in wrighting a copy of the differences betweene the Answerer & Mr. Hooker? J grant it, but withall I affirme three things. 1. That it was long before I left London, and, when I was farr from any thoughts of com­ming into these parts, and leaving mine owne land, and so had no cause to fixe my mind upon thoughts of those matters. 2. That my comming over was but for 3 or 4 moneths. He that brought me over, those that wrote for me, the freinds I left be­hind, all know, and can witnes it. The Answerer himselfe know­eth, I told him so, when I first visited him. 3. That in Mr. H. answer to the question, there doeth not appeare light sufficient to informe any man what that is, which in the Dutch custom about Baptisme, he disliked. And, when he propounded the que­stion to me, about this matter, I did not understand, in what particular, the difference betweene the Answerer and Mr. H. lay.

Or, secondly, Would he intimate that I saught the place, or went about to intrude my selfe, for continuance? 1. Himselfe knoweth, that, when he, with one of the Elders, presented to me a call from the Consistory, I did not suddenly accept it (which I would have done, if I had so desired the place, as he insinua­teth) but tooke time to consider of it, being not satisfyed about the lawfullnes of the conditions propounded to me. 2, Himselfe hath reported that I might have had the place, but I refused it: which is true, being understood in that sense, wherein it is sayd of those worthyes, Heb. 11.35. that they would not be delivered, viz, not upon unwarrantable, and ill conditions. But this is sufficient to cleare me of that imputation of inordinately desiring that place.

Or, thirdly, Would he have his credulous Reader to suspect my trueth, when I say that I came over but for 3 or 4 moneths? [Page 113] Else, what meane those 4 praesumptions, which he insinuateth to suggest the contrary? To which I will answer breifely.

To the first, For a man of plausible gifts, eminent, and of fame, & wanting present imployment, to present himselfe where a place is vacant where much contention hath bene &c. I answer. 1. For the titles which he giveth me, I account them, as they fall from his pen, but an honourable reproach. 2. For the matter of it:Honorifi­ca contu­melia. Hieron ad Pam­mach: & Ocean. The extreame necessity of the place, he being so weake and unfit to preach, to­gether with the importunity of those that sollicited me, was the cause moving me (who then was out of imployment, and in continuall danger) to come over to that place, chusing rather to cast my selfe upon Gods providence, in perills of the sea, and in a strange land, where I might be of some use to the Church, for a time, then to live privately, but neither safely nor proffi­tably, in my owne land, in hope that 3 or 4 moneth would quiet, and pacifye theyre spirits, that were most exasperated and in­censed against me, without any just cause; that so my returne to my owne land might be with safety and comfort. What if this might give them occasion of seeking, and calling me? will it thence follow, that I saught the place before I was called? or that I did intrude, or thrust my selfe in for a Pastor? Pag. 16▪ or that I runne before I was sent, as he slandereth me before? No marvell, if diverse learned and godly Ministers, being theyre neighbours in this country, have bene loath to shew themselves in this place &c. least they should seeme to offer themselves unto this calling. For they knew the An­swerers disposition and spirit, and the contentions which have thereby bene in this place, which if I had knowne, so as now I doe, no perswasions should have drawne me thither. And it is very likely, that I had stayed at Rotterdam till the Eldership had sent for me, as M^r. H. did, if the necessity of the place had not hurryed me sooner, to prevent the shutting up of the Church dores, which (as I have bene told, and the event shewed) would come to passe the next Lords day, if my comming prevented it not. Yet two of the Elders, with some other members of the Congregation, met me at Harlem, and accompanied me to Am­sterdam, & tooke care for my accomodation with a convenient intertaynment: and, the joy, that was generally expressed soone [Page 114] after my being there was knowne, shewed a great desire in the members that they might injoy me, And the Answerer him­selfe, at that time, acknowledged Gods good providence in my being there, at that time, and joyntly with the Elders, who were then present, when I first visited him, intreated my helpe the Lords day following, and so long as my time would permit, and theyre need should require.

To the second praesumption, that they that sent for me, and I. C. that fetched me over, did not seeke me but for 3 or 4 moneths; J an­swer. 1. Suppose theyr desire was to injoy me longer; will it thence follow, that I yeelded for longer time? 2. By what hath bene formerly said it appeareth sufficiently that I agreed with him for no longer time, which himselfe is able and ready to testifye. if it be required.

To the third praesumption; that the freind which by an open and unsealed letter, which I brought unto him from London, intreated him to receive me for a fellow helper, did not desire that for 3 or 4 moneths only.

Answer. I thinck, never did Laban search so narrowly Iacobs stuff to find his Idolls, as this Answerer doeth to find an untrueth in my assertion. To what end is this brought in? If he thinck, or would perswade others, that I procured that freinds letter that I might obtaine the place, he is much deceived. For neither stands it with my judgment to seeke a place (much lesse by such private recommendations) nor need I the letters of any private freind, having a more publick testimony. And how litle I min­ded that letter, may appeare in this, that I know not that it was unsealed, and, if indeed it was unsealed, I know not at all what was written in it. It is likely, that, knowing the authour of it to be my approved freind, and one that hath deserved well of the Answerer, I supposed, he would commend me to him affec­tionately, to be lovingly intertayned, & used by him in a strange Country, and so tooke no further heed to it. But, what if that freind did intreate him to receive me for a fellowhelper? Will it follow thence, that I saught it? who seeth not the vanity of these pretences?

To the fourth praesumption. That it was not likely, that, [Page 115] after 3 or 4 moneths preaching amongst them, I could easily be dismis­sed, and theyre labour and care of seeking and calling another must be interruped, if not wholly broken off.

Answer. 1. Grant all this to be true: will it thence follow that I saught it? 2. Grant, that at the end of 3 or 4 moneths, I had ac­cepted of a call to that place (which it is probable, I should have done, if it had bene offered upon safe conditions, rather then to live without publick imployment) will it thence follow, that I inordinately desired, or basely, or unworthily saught it, or un­warrantably, or without a calling intruded my selfe? 3. what hindrance could my mere preaching there be to theyre see­king, or calling another, if I should refuse it? Let the indiffe­rent Iudge.

To what he sayth in the two following answers, about the ne­cessity of my knowing the state of the Dutch Churches, whet her I stayed here or not. I Answer, that even for that Reason, my comming over was needfull. For no mans word or letters could make that so well knowne to me, as myne owne observation, & experience hath done. But the suppositiō, whereupon he groun­deth that opinion, I doe not approve. For, in some cases, a good conscience suffers a man to be neutrall, viz, in those things which he is not bound to know or practise, & wherein he hath wanted occasiō, or meanes of full informatiō. And what hurt can that man be supposed to doe, by private conference, who suspendeth his judgment, and determineth neyther way? Are not these passa­ges mere roapes of sand?

Lastly. Whereas he seemeth to doubt, in the beginning of this Section, whether I came not over with a discordant mind; I professe, in simplicity of my heart, that I came over with a re­verent esteeme of him, and with confidence that I should reape more fruits of his brotherly love then I have received, and was farr from any purpose of raysing contention, which I naturally abhorr, or suspition, that I should have met with such conten­tions, as I have bene troubled with, which if I had foreseene, J should never have come to Amsterdam. Yet I doe not repine at, but contentedly submit to that good hand of Divine pro­vidence, which brought me hither, and is pleased this way [Page 116] to trye me, and doe with a childelike submission and reverence (in my measure) kisse the rod in my Fathers hand, even when I lament the unkindnes of my Elder brother, which yet I would not have published, if he would have suffered me to be silent.

The Answer to the eleventh Section exa­mined. Of the private conference had with me after my comming over.

IN this Section three things are to be considered. 1. his gird at Mr. Hook: 2. His partiall and defective report of a con­ference betweene us. 3. his pretended answer to some passages in my third wrighting. These we will examine severally and breifely.

For the first. 1. the great disturbance, which here he seemeth to impute to M^r. Hook: is to be charged upon himselfe, and his owne violent and unjust opposition against Mr. Hook: and the Church, and not at all to M^r. Hook: unles by accident, as Paul might be said to be an occasion of the disturbance at Ephesus,Ast. 19.22. the cause whereof was Demetrius & his companions. 2. It would be knowne how I seemed to accord with him, and to dislike Mr. Hook: opinions, in generall? If he meane, by my my silence, I confesse, I heard him speake some things, at which I was silent, being not called to speake. For himselfe said, that, in some of their differences, he would not inquire after my opinion, being perswaded that I was therein cleare, And, in conclusion, pitched upon two questions. 1. Concerning the power and authority of C [...]sses, whereunto what I answered he knoweth. 2. Concerning promiscuous administration of Baptis­me, according to the custom of the Dutch Church in Amster­stam, wherein what I held and doe hold shall appeare.

For the second. By comparing this report with my noates of our conferences (which I wrote upon my returne to my lodging [Page 117] whilest matters were fresh in memory) I finde it to be partiall and defective.

First, partiall, in declaring the state of the question, which was not as he intimateth, but thus. After an hystoricall narra­tion made by him of a difference betweene the Classis and Mr. Hook; about a custom, which the Ministers of the Dutch Church in Amsterdam have, of baptizing all that are brought by whomsoever, he asked me what I thought of it. I desired (for my satisfaction) to know wh [...]t their custom was, being then, in part, ignorant thereof. He told me, that they baptized all, refu­sing none. I replyed, that I would baptize all their infants, who were members of his Church, refusing none. He sayd, that is not sufficient. I, desiring to carry matters with all possible peacea­blenes, told him that I would not refuse to baptize others also, which were no members of his Church, if I were satisfyed cōcer­ning the Parents, and instanced in such as might occasionally be there from England, & were sufficiently knowne to me. But yet the case might be such, in some others, as I should not adventure to doe it. He answered. But here they except none, but baptize all that are brought, though the parents be not knowne, or the infant be presented, in the f [...]thers absence, by persons un­knowne. I told him, that, I hoped, such cases were seldom, especially in the English Church. He said, it must be expected to fall out often. I told him, I should desire to be satisfyed concer­ning the parents, before the child were presented. He sayd. They would often bring them, in sermon time, without giving any notice before, and, in such a case, to refuse any, would give offence, if the child should be unbaptized. I replyed, that offence may be prevented, seing those, whom I dare not admit, may repayre to the Dutch Church, where none are refused. He ad­ded, that it would give offence to the Classis, if our Church [...]hould not doe as they did, in this. I answered, the difference betweene the small English Church, & the vast Dutch Church in the same towne being considered, that might easily be answered.

By all which it appeareth that the thing which I refu­sed (and whereupon our difference arose) was the promiscuous administration of baptisme to all that are presented, by whomsoever; [Page 118] and not that J made the parents submission to my private examination a necessary condition of baptisme, but only I propounded it as a prudent meane for avoyding that promis­cuous baptizing which he required. Thus the Reader may see the report to be partiall.

Secondly, it is defective, not mentioning diverse passages of discourse betweene us, which I will but point at. As about an order in the Classis, which he sayd was for this, concerning which, what I demanded and, what he answered, I will, for this time, conceale, as also what he spake about this custom being alwaies observed in that Church, as also about passages that, he sayd, had bene betweene the Classis, and Mr. Forbes about Mr. Hooker, in reference to this question. He omitteth also our dis­course about the case of an unbaptized Turke presenting his child to baptisme, with no other profession then that which is required in theyre Church. And how he thought it to be more for a mans satisfaction, to baptize all, upon the injunction of the Classis, then to refuse any, upon his owne judgement. Other pas­sages also I could name, but these may suffice, to shew that his memory hath not retayned particulars so well as my noates, at least, that this report is defective. But let us consider his Argu­ments.

The argu­ments for promiscu­ous bapti­zing. 1 From Reasons.He mentioneth 2 sorts of arguments, which he used in that conference to convince me. The first consisted of reasons, the second of Scriptures alleadged against my opinion.

First, the reasons were two. 1. the scandall of the Brownists. 2. the offence of the Church. In both which he should have set downe my answers also, which seing he neglected, I will now set downe truely, according the to substance of my answer, and yet breifely.

1. The scan­dall of the BrownistsTo the first. I answer. 4 things. Ans. 1 1. What the Brownists hold, so farr as it accordeth with the rule, is to be received for the rules sake, which is truth, and not to be rejected because they hold it. Ans. 2 2. Theyr unjust and unwarrantable excommunicating of Mr. S. for such an opinion is not justifyed by my supposed a­greement with them in this tenet. For a man that holdeth this, may condemne that. Ans. 3 3. the difference betweene them and me [Page 119] in this point is such (as the Answerer knoweth) that there is no feare of theyr insulting, or being hardened thereby. 4. the French Churches and some other Dutch Churches, viz, in Zealand. and England &c. are not so large in this practise as they in Am­sterdam.

To the second. I answer. 1. That the wayes propounded by me for accommodation,2. The offence of the Church Ans. Meanes: propoun­ded for ac­commoda­tion. A Copy of a wrigh­ting she­wing. were sufficient (as I conceive) to pre­vent any offence of the Church. These wayes I will now relate in the words wherein I wrote them to a freind to inable him to acquaint the Dutch preachers with the truth in this matter. This wrighting was dated & delivered by me, for the use aforesaid, the 10 of Ian: newstile, 1634. Wherein I spake of my selfe in the third person, for good reason, at that time.

‘Sir, because you are willing to take paines for the accom­modation of this difference, you shall, in few wordes, under­stand. 1. the true state of the question. 2. the reasons of his an­swer. 3. the way of accommodation, which will best satisfye him, which I leave with you in wrighting, for the helpe of your memory.’

‘First, the question is,1. The state of the que­stion. whether he will baptize all children who are presented to the Church, though the parents be no members? His answer was, and is, that this cannot be answe­red otherwise then according to cases. He may not say, that he will baptize none: and he dare not say, that he will baptize all, but this he sayth. There are cases where in he will baptize such as are not members of this Church, and yet the cases may be such, as, in them, he shall refuse to administer it to others.’

‘Secondly the reasons of his answer,2. Reasons of my answer. besides others (which to him seeme weighty) in reference to this particular place, are two. 1. the promiscuous mixture of all languages, and sects, amongst which also are many Libertines, which are of no Church, and, for aught is knowne, many parents, who them­selues never were baptized, will, in policy, present their children thereunto, 2. the custom of this place, which hath bene to refuse none, though presented in the sermon time (without notice given before) by a nurse, or any one, neither [Page 120] of the parents appearing in it, or being knowne, or enquired after, nor any sufficient assurance given for the education of the children, in that fayth, which is there professed, and that confession of fayth being expressed & demanded by the mini­ster, in a language, which they that presēt the child, some times vnderstand not, & in this act boath the ministers must joyne,’

‘3. Three meanes of accommo­d [...]tion.Thirdly, for accommodation; He desireth that, at least, these three things may be agreed upon.’

‘First, That this Sacrament be administred by the ministers severally not joyntly (as the Lords supper is) either only by him that preacheth, or only by him that preacheth not, at that time, in theyr severall courses, respectively: whereby, the discovery of any differēce, in particular cases, betweene them may be pre­vented, & mutuall concord betweene themselves may be pre­served, boath being left free to walke according to their light, in such particulars, wherein their opinions may differ.’

Ob. Ans."But this is not according to the order of the Dutch Church?

‘Nor will they expect, that we should have no particular order different from them; seing they are constrained to take up some customs, by occasion of theyre multitudes, which are not so necessary, or requisite to be used in lesser Congre­gations, such as this is.’

‘Secondly, That the party, who shall present the child, resort to the Minister (into whose course it falleth to baptize▪) a day or two before, to the end that he may informe himselfe concerning the parents &c. By which course, all publick disturbance in the face of the Congregation, will be pre­vented.’

‘Ob. It will be very difficult to make this course knowne to all, and to bring them to it?’

‘Ans. When such an order is set, and made knowne, whether by publication in the Church, or by private suggestion, it will be soone understood of all, whom it concerneth, and yeelded unto. I require no more.’

‘Thirdly, That they, who [...]e allowed by the Minister to pre­sent the child, shall be able to speake, or, at least, to understand the English tongue, that the Congregation be not deluded [Page 121] by a seeming profession of fayth uttered by the Minister, and answered by the party, in such forme of words as is dictated to him by some that stand by▪ but himselfe understandeth not.’

By this relation the Reader may see how easily the imagined inconveniences might have bene prevented, if the Answerer had bene willing thereunto.

Secondly, It is not true, that all the Church generally would tak [...] offenc [...] (as he sayth) to see a double practise. For, at that time, all the Church generally desired that some course might be agreed upon, for accommodation in this matter, and, to this day, they dislike the Answerers stiffnes and aversnes thereunto. And what double practise could they see, in the way which I propou [...]ded for accommodation? Whereby how easily might all offence have bene prevented! But he would not. No, though some of the Dutch preachers wished it might have bene so, and all, I am per­swaded, would have bene contented therewith.

Ans. But another inconvenience he feared, which, in this place he concealeth, but then expressed to me, which was, that he should be suspected and censured as a man of evill conscience, if he should practise that which I refuse, as unlawfull.

Whereunto I answer. That will not follow. Reply. For 1. two men may differ in practise, and yet be boath upright, whilest they walke according to their light, not refusing any meanes of in­formation and conviction, if they erre, & maintaining brotherly love amongst themselves. 2. It might have bene so ordered, at first, if he would, that the difference betweene us might not be knowne to others. But this we shall ever find, that causeles jea­lousyes, and selfe-aymes and respects are, and will be the hin­drance and baine of any publick good. So much for the preten­ded reasons.

Secondly. The Scriptures alleadged▪ he sayth, were two, from whence he shewed, that when so great multitudes were at once baptized by Iohn Baptist. Mat. 3. Mark. 1. and by the Apostles Acts. 2. there could not be a strict private examination of every parti­cular person &c.

Ans. To these Scripture instances I will answer severally, as I then did.

First [...]o the instance of Iohns Baptising. 1. The text sayeth. They were baptised of Iohn in Iordan confessing theyr sinnes. Whence it is manifest that Iohn was satisfyed concerning theyre fitnes to be baptised, before he admitted them. And that is all that I require. 2. How will it appeare that so many were baptised of him at once? I rather am of opinion, that those places doe con­tayne the story of the wholl time of Iohns Ministry, so farr as concerneth his baptisme, in which time multitudes might be baptised by him, and yet he sufficiently informed concerning their fitnes to partake of it.

2. To Act. 2.Secondly, To the instance of 3000 soules baptised by Peter in on [...] [...]ay, I answered, that I desire no better satisfaction concer­ning men, in this case, then Peter had concerning those 3000. soules. For. 1. Their very joyning to the Church, by publick profession, in those times of persecution, was a better signe of fayth and repentance, then some publick confession in words is now, in time of peace. For, then it was a reproach, now it is an honour to professe Christianity. 2. The text sayeth. They were pricked in theyr hearts, Act. 2.37. and faid vnto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, Men and Brethren what shall we doe? Thereupon Peter preached unto them the doctrine of fayth, and repentance, and new obedience, and after this, observed what fruit the word brought forth, and accordingly dispensed the Sacrament. For the text fayth.Vers. 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptised. Where the particle [ [...], they] is diacriticall, and restrictive, and serveth, both to distinguish betweene them, and others, that did not so receive the word, and to limit the dispensation of bap­tisme by the Apostles, at that time, to those only.

Whereas he sayth. By conference of other Scriptures, theyre con­fession of their sinnes, and profession of fayth were rather to be concei­ved some solemne and publick testification of t [...]eyre consent unto the doctrine that was preached unto them &c.

I answer. 1. he should have set downe those other Scriptures, which, being conferred with these, decl [...]re so much, that we might have understood his meaning. 2. I demand, whether that solemne and publick testification of their consent unto the doc­trine preached, did not give sufficient ground to Iohn Baptist [Page 123] & Peter of perswasion that they had repented and did beleive. If so; I desire no more. If not; how are the one sort said to con­fesse their sinnes so, as to declare their repentance? For, so it must be understood, as appeareth. 1. In that Iohns baptisme is called the baptisme of repentance, for remission of sinnes. 2. In his discourse with the publicans and souldiers that came to him to be baptised. 3. In that the Pharises, and Lawyers are sayd to reject the counsail of God, against themselves, being not baptised of him. A­gaine. Else why are those of the other sort, whom Peter bapti­sed said to receive the word gladly, and to believe &c. Was there, in all this, no more then such a testification of consent unto the doctrine preached, as is made in the Dutch Church, in saying Yae, or nodding the head, when, it may be, they understand not one word that is spoken? Or had Peter and Iohn no other know­ledge of the persons, whom they baptised, then they have, who administer it promiscuously to all that are brought, by whom­soever, refusing none?

Now, seing the Answerer used no other Arguments, in con­ference, then these, the wise hearted Reader, I thinck, will not wonder that by such private conferences he prevayled nothing with me, in this point.

As for the third particular observeable in this Section, viz, his pretended answers to some passages in my third wrighting.

First, About the report of my refusing to dispute or conferr a­bout this point, when he desired it, seing he denyeth that he so reported, and confesseth the contrary, I am satisfyed.

Secondly, About his desire of having the question in wrigh­ting discussed betweene us, seing J have sayd some thing in ans­wer to the third Section I wil say no more, but this, the motion was not aequall, nor did any propound it to me.

Thirdly, where as he sayth, that he remembreth not that ever I propounded any Argument, in maintenance of myne o­pinion, the Reader may see how litle his memory is to be trusted in these reports, unles the profaning of Gods ordinance, and the incouragement of Libertines, be not unlawfull, which I she­wed to be inseperably joyned with this promiscuous baptising.

Fourthly, Whereas he loadeth me with reproaches, for [Page 124] wrighting downe, when I came home to my lodging, the spea­ches betweene us, without his knowledge, I am so farr from conceiving my selfe to be guilty of any fault therein, that I wish heartily he had taken the same course, and then, I hope, the Reader should not have bene abused with so many misreports, as now he is, by the fault of his memory. As for me; foreseing to what issue things might come, and distrusting my memory, that I might be able to report the truth, I wrote downe passages, as I could remember, whilest things were yet fresh in memory, and kept the wrighting, to this day, secret, having never shewen it to any man, nor have, at this time, related some things which, I thinck, the Answerer would be loath to heare of in print, and those which he compelleth me to utter, I report sparingly. Let the Godly Reader judge what offence I have committed here­in, or what injury he hath done in such expressions, as he useth upon this occasion, yea, whether it be not plaine rayling.

Fifthly, He pretendeth that, in my first wrighting to the Clas­sis, J offend, both in excesse, and in defect. This is a mere cavill: which will appeare, if all that he sayth be granted, against which nevertheles▪ I have just exception. But be it, that his question was, as he sayth: What measure of knowledge I would, in my exa­mination, require of parents for the baptising of their children. Yet 1. Was this the only question? was not that question, which is mentioned in my letter to the Classis, put by him? yea, was not that the principall question? Else, it was not to the purpose. Was nothing else propounded by me to be considered, in this case, but such a degree of knowledge? If so; why did I except against professed Libertines, who may have more knowledge then some members of the Church?

As for my answer to it, that the measure of knowledg could not be declared, till the time of examining the persons; Let the Reader judge, whether a more satisfactory answer could be given to that question, and whether it be from the point, about which his question was.

Sixtly, His answer to what J wrote of my not ceasing, till he gave over, of leaving it to the Dutch preachers, and of his saying, that he would speake no more with me alone, is a plaine concession [Page 125] that [...]ll I say concerning that is true. Only, he sayth, he did not say it then, whereas the time, when he said it, is not mentioned in my wrighting, wherein I say only that I ceased not, till he said so, and against that he sayth nothing.

His Answer to the 12. Sect. examined, contayning the counsail of the five Dutch ministers for my accōmodation.

IN this Section the Answerer doth, in his policy, so expresse the wayes of accommodation propounded by others, as may best conduce to the justifying of his way, and to the reflecting of some suspicion of obstinacy upon me, for not yeelding there­unto, but how truely let the Reader judge, upon the examination of particulars.

Ans. First, He intimateth that M^r. Pots had long joyned with him, in that order of administration of Baptisme, which he required me to ob­serve.] Reply. Ans: Mr. Pot was a man unknowne to me, in his life time. Since his death, some things which are reported of him, and, of his sufferings in that place (both by Dutch and English, by whom he was generally beloved and pittyed) doe give me much assu­rance of his faythfullnes. How this good man approved of their manner of baptising (in the case now questioned) appeareth by his owne expressions to some members of that Church, who are yet alive, to whom he declared that he accounted it a greivance, and that he had a purpose to seeke redresse of it, at the Synod. Whether he did so, or not, the Answerer knoweth best, and with what successe. But this sheweth, with what affection this good man joyned with him therein, and how farr he was from approving this custom.

Secondly. He intimateth that this advise of the five Dutch Preachers for accomodation proceeded from his willingnes to accommo­date [Page 126] me.] If this were really so; why did the Answerer refuse all the meanes of accommodation, which I propounded, and know­ing that no way would accommodate me, but that which would secure me from future trouble about this matter, when he had rejected that which would have ended the difference, seemeth willing to yeeld to any other way. What is this, but, as when a man that hath promised to doe any kindnes that another shall request at his hands, being intreated to helpe him, in such a streight, with mony or countenance (or the like, his case neces­sarily requiring it, and the other being very well able to doe it) he should answer, I will doe any thing but this. Will any man value the freindship, or faire pretences of such an one.

Thirdly. He produceth a Copy of the advise of the Dutch preachers set downe in wrighting by themselves in his house, in Dutch, thence, by the appoyntment of the rest, one of them translated it into latine (which was sent to me) and now is by him out of latine translated into English. Now that the Reader may see how much he is abused, by this false translation of that wrighting, I will publish [...], the very wrighting it selfe verbatim, without alteration of a syllable as I received it from them, and then compare this translation with it.

Here it must be noated that the Answerer pretendeth to pu­blish this wrighting. 1. So as it was done▪ and transacted in his house the 28. day of Ianuary 1634. 2. So as it was written downe and read before him, when they enquired of him, whether he, for his part, did rest therein, and he signifyed his consent with them. These things being premised, J demand, by what pretence, will the Answerer defend or excuse this his translation. Let me, without offence, desire to know, why he hath translated quorum parentes, susceptoresve constat esse Christianos, whose parents and suretyes are manifest to be Christians? when, according to their wrigh­ting, it should be translated whose parents or suretyes are mani­fest to be Christians? Here is [or] a disjunctive particle changed into [and] a particle copulative, to the manifest alteration of the sense of their words. That this is not the errour of the printer, but done purposely, by the authour, appeareth from his constant private report, that I refused to baptise the childrē of such, whose parents were manifest Christians. To make this good, the Rea­der hath a false translation obtruded upon him. I demand there­fore, if that disjunctive expression of the five Duth Ministers in their wrighting [viz, parents, or suretyes] were justifyable, why doth he alter it into a copulative expression. [viz parents, and suretyes?] If it were not justifyable, why did he signify his con­sent with them, and that he, for his part, rested therein? 2. Why am J blamed, yea, rejected, for not resting in it? what will he, what can he say, in excuse thereof? That the Dutch preachers were willing afterwards, upon my shewing my dislike, to change [Page 130] [ve into que] or, into, and, and therefore he altered it. I answer 1. such a thing was in speech, but never done: for when we be­gan to take pen and paper and to wright downe agreements on both sides, after some litle discourse, they altered their minds, saying that they had no commission to make any agreements, till they had acquainted the Classis therewith, which they would doe. And after that time, they never spake more of altering any thing. So it stood, and standeth to this day unaltered. 2. Sup­pose it had bene altered by them (as it was not) yet the Answe­rer wil have no advantage thereby: for he professeth to trans­late it according to that copy, wherein he signifyed his consent with them, and required that I should rest, which is apparently falsifyed.

Fourthly, He blameth me for complaining that he dealt extrea­mely with me, and rejected all my labour for a peaceable composing, prudent accommodating, and brotherly ending of matters betweene him and me privately, or by the counsail of the Elders of his owne Church, nor would hearken to my advise without consent of the Classis. All these reports, he sayth, are untruths. And this wrighting, he sayth, witnesseth for him, &c. Three things I affirme in those wrightings, and they are all true.

First, that he rejected my labour for accommodation. The truth of that appeareth in that himselfe said, in the beginning of this Section, that he offered, that if any other convenient way of accommodation could be found out, he would willingly hearken to it: Let it be noated that he sayth, any other, and thereby plainly refused that which was propounded by me? else why is any other way saught.

Secondly, that he would not yeeld any brotherly moderation unto me, and refused all meanes of accommodation. The truth hereof ap­peareth in the meanes which he embraced, or, rather put those Ministers upon to propound to me (having praepossessed them with causeles jealousyes) when it is required, that I should rest in a wrighting (which himselfe is loath to translate aright, that the Reader may know the wholl truth) wherein I am advised to [...]aptize all children, whose parents, or suretyes are Christians, by which accomodation, I shall be brought to doe the thing which [Page 131] I judge unlawfull. For, if a Christian surety may give right to an infant for baptisme, whose parents are neither of them Chri­stians, and such midwives, or nurses, or others as take no future care of the child may passe for suretyes, and must be accounted manifest Christians, if they nodd the head, or say yae, at the reading or pronouncing of the formalier by the minister, though no man knoweth what they are, nor themselves, it may be, un­derstand a word that is sayd to them; who seeth not that the sa­cred ordinance of Baptisme is hereby made common, and so to be promiscuously administred, according to this wrighting?

Thirdly, that he would not hearken to my advice without consent of the Classis. 1. That this is true, he must confesse, unles he will deny his owne words: for himselfe sayd so to me, & he know­eth it, 2. The event sheweth it. For though he would have me to rest in this wrighting (without consent of the Classis) yet he well knew this to be no way of accommodation, hut a mere snare to me.

And now, because the Answerer, not only seemeth to charge me with obstinacy for not resting in that determination of the five ministers, but also to insult as if J wanted warrant from the Scripture for myne opinion, because I did not set it downe in wrighting, that the question might be in wrighting discussed betweene us, Sect. 11. which he offered (as he sayth) to some of the Complainants sundry times, (though the vanity of this pretence is in the former Sec­tion, declared, yet,) being thus againe chalenged in print, I may not, without injury to the truth, any longer forbeare to give a publick account of my judgement in this matter. But first my humble and hearty request to the Reverend ministers of these countryes (especially to those in that part) is, that they will not impute it to any contentious disposition, or to loue of disputes, much lesse to a malicious desire of discovering theyr imperfec­tions to the world, least of all to an arrogant polupragmony in me, as if I, being a stranger, assumed to my selfe to be a reformer of these Churches, that I freely declare the grounds, whereupon I refused to bind my selfe to observe that custom. Thus casting my selfe upon theyr favourable construction, and praying them aequally and judiciously to consider what J say, I will, with Gods [Page 132] assistāce, (which I humbly begg) proceed to declare my grounds after I have stated the question, by shewing the issue and summe of that wrighting of the five ministers, wherein the Answerer would bind me to rest.

The state of the que­stion.Breifly, it was, that I should administer the sacrament of Bap­tisme to all infants that are presented thereunto, if those that present them (whether they be parents, or suretyes) shall declare themselves to be Christians, by professing Christian Religion, at the reading of the leitourgy of Baptisme, though the presenters are altogether unknowne to us, yea, though they will not, or cannot satisfye the minister before, that they are such, as in whom the infant hath a right to baptisme. This to be so, will easily appeare to the intelligent Reader, if he examine the wrighting which they sent to me. The Answerer and the five ministers required it, as a condition of my admittance to the pastorall office, in that Church, that I should rest in this wrigh­ting. By resting in it they meant (as both, he and they whom the Classis deputed to speake with me, expressed themselves) that I should promise to conforme thereunto: which is, in few words, to administer baptisme promiscuously to all that are presented, by whomsoever, according to the custom of that place.

This being the true state of the question, that the validity of my grounds against this custom may appeare, I must crave leave to premise some things, 1. Concerning the confused mixture of all sorts of people in Amsterdam. 2. Concerning theyr man­ner of admitting those that are brought to baptisme. 3. Con­cerning the manner of professing Christian Religion at the rea­ding of the leitourgy of Baptisme.

1 For the First. Besides those of diverse nations, who joyne themselves to some appoved Church, there are many of all sorts of Libertines, in judgement, and practise, and profession, who refuse to joyne themselves to any Church: Also persons of di­verse sects and haeresyes, as Arrians, Antitrinitarians &c. besides Iewes, Mores &c. Also Apostates, excommunicates &c. Also vagrants,Iob. 30.5. under the name of souldiers, and others, who are dri­ven forth from among men (as Iob speaketh) They crye after them as after a theife, V. 8. children of fooles, yea children of base men, viler then [Page 133] the earth, and swarmes of vagabonds, whom they call potters, which how-soever they range most in troupes, with their Har­lots, in the Dorpes, yet they have their lurking places in tapp-houses in the cittyes, called smuckle houses. It were almost an infinite and impossible taske to reckon up others which can give no account of their life, religion, or baptisme, it may be. Also many, who are unknowne, and therefore may be suspected. And these are of diverse nations, English, French, Dutch, High Ger­manes, Walloones. &c.

2 For the second. Their manner is, that, if, either the father, or any one that standeth for him as a surety (though it be but a nurse or other body, who is unknowne to the Church) who hath no charge or care for the childes education, if they come time enough, they certifye the Coster, or Sexton, of the name of the parents, and their desire before: if not (as sometimes they bring them not till they are baptising others, after the sermon is en­ded) then, without any further enquiry after the parents, or after their consent to the baptising of it, the child is admitted.

3 For the third. If they say, yae, to such demāds as are made by the minister, in reading the leitourgy of baptisme, though (as some times it appeareth, and may be often suspected) the presenter understand not what the minister demandeth, or sayth, for want of knowledge of the Dutch language, or be altogether unkowne to the Church, yet the child is baptised.

These things being premised, I proceed to set downe my grounds from the Scripture, whereupon I refused thus promis­cuously to administer the Sacrament, which are fowre, and every one of them concludeth it to be a sinne, so to doe.

Reas. 1 Because it is a prophaning of the Sacrament thus promiscu­ously to administer it, as that wrighting requireth.

That it is a prophaning of the Sacrament who can deny, that acknowledgeth the Sacrament then to be prophaned, when it is communicated to those to whom (by Gods appointment) it ap­pertaineth not? And that, if the Sacrament be administred to all comers, as that wrighting requireth, it will be administred to many such he that denieth may as well deny that it is day with us when the Sunshineth in this hemispaere. But that I may [Page 134] not be thought to broach some new and singular opinion, let us considered what learned and eminent lights in the Churches, in severall ages and countryes, have declared concerning this mat­ter, whose judgements I purpose to cull and single out, in such sort as becommeth one who would testifye & declare the truth rather by the weight of the matter, then by the number of men.

Whittak: prelect. de Sacram: quest: 2, de necessit: Bapt: Cap 3.Dr. Whittaker used this Argument against Bellarmine con­tending for the simple & absolute necessity of Baptisme to Sal­vation. For to prove that infants dying without Baptisme might be saved, he shewed that the righteousnes of fayth belongeth to them before they are baptised, out of Rom: 4.11.Rom: 4.11 P. 237. 238. where Cir­cumcision & so Baptisme) is called a seale of the righteousnes which is by fayth: and thence he inferreth, that they must have a right to Christ before Baptisme, else baptisme it selfe, being administred to them, will be profaned; as the kings seale is profaned, if it be put to a false charter or grant. This he amplifyeth by shewing that baptisme is a symbol and seale of Adoption in Christ, and therefore aught not to be given to those that have no part in Christ, because the seale followeth the gift, and therefore to give the seale to him that hath not the gift, & to whom the pro­mise is not made, is to abuse the seale, and to profane it. Thus he.

Beza cont: Erast: Arg: 6. P. 60. Mat: 7.6. 1 Cor. 4.1 P: 61. 1 Pet. 3.Beza, wrighting against Erastus, speaketh to the same pur­pose, The Lord forbiddeth to give holy things to Doggs, Mat: 7.6. By holy things, sayth he, are meant those holy mysteries whereof the ministers of Christ are dispensers, 1. Cor: 4.1. and the swine and doggs are those obstinate sinners, who are convicted and judged by the Church to be such. Afterwards, he putteth a case of one of yeares that desireth baptisme, & is ready to make pro­fession of his fayth, but leadeth a wicked life, and being called upon (according to the other demand in baptisme) to professe his repentance and amendment of life, by forsaking such and such evills, as are there mentioned, he refuseth to doe it. There­upon he asketh Erastus, whether he thinck that the Sacrament of regeneration should be given to such a man, impudently desi­ring it? or whether he should not rather be repelled thence with shame? Againe (which cometh nearer to the case of infants) [Page 135] shewing how litle the profession of fayth will advantage such, who, by reason of their obstinacy in sinne, are convicted, and judged by the Church to be swine and doggs, and that their estate is the worse for their profession that they know God, Titus 1.16. when in their workes they deny him, he instanceth in Ismaell, and Esau, who were boath circumcised and outwardly acknowledged the true God with Abraham and Isaack, yet boath were disinherited and made lively patternes, both to that, and succeeding ages, of Ec­clesiasticall excommunication &c. Thus farr he. From whence, how easily may it be collected that infants are deprived of right to those holy mysteryes in such parents, as the Ismaelites, and Edomites were deprived of right to Circumcision, in Ismael and Esau, though their parents had bene circumcised?

Before boath these, Mr. Cartwright declared the same thing more fully and particularly to the case in question,Mr. Cart: Reply to Dr. W: in defence of the Adm: p: 137. upon the same ground. For Dr. W. (upon occasion of the sound fayth & good behaviour of the parents required in the Admonition) as­king the authours of that booke, What if the infant be the child of a Drunkard? what if it be of a harlott? shall not (sayth he) the in­fant be baptised? Mr. Cartwright answereth thus. ‘Because I see that Mr. Doctor doth make of the holy Sacrament of baptisme (which is an entry into the house of God, and whereby the fa­mily of God must enter) a common passage, whereby he will have cleane and uncleane, holy and profane, as well those that are without the covenant, as those that be with in it, to passe by, and so maketh the Church no houshold, but an Jnne to re­ceive whatsoever cometh; I will answer. If one of the pa­rents be, neither drunkard, nor adulterer, the child is holy, by vertue of the covenant, for one of the parents sake: if they be boath, & yet not obstinate in their sinne, whereby the Church hath proceeded to excommunication (themselves being yet of the Church) their child cannot, nor aught not to be refused. To the second question, wherein he asketh, what if the child be of papists or hereticks? If boath be papists or condemned hereticks (if so be J may distinguish papists from hereticks) & cut off from the Church, their children can not be received; because they are not in the covenant. If either of them be [Page 136] faythfull; I have answered before, that the infant aught to be received. To other questions, wherein he asketh, what, if they erre in some points of matters of fayth? If it be an errour, and be not in those points that rase the foundations of fayth, be­cause they still, notwithstanding that errour, are to be accoun­ted amongst the faythfull, their children pertaine to the pro­mise, and therefore to the Sacrament of the promise.’

Dr. W. p. 111. ‘Else where he demandeth, whether a wicked father may have a good child, a papist or heretick father a beleiving child? Yes verily may they (sayth he) So may have, and have the Turckes, and Jewes, and yet their children are not to be received, unles their fayth doth first appeare by confession. But, you say, the papists and hereticks be baptised, and so are not the Iewes and Turcks? Their baptisme, being cut off from the Church, maketh them as much strangers unto it, as was Ismael, & Esau, which albeit they were circumcised, yet, being cast out of the Church, they were no more to be accounted to be of the body of Gods people, then those which never, were in the Church.’ ‘The same authour, in his next Reply to the same Doctor reasoning out of Beza in his epistles, that the papists are to be compared with the Israelites with fell away from true Religion, [...]dem. 2 Re­ply concer­ning Church discipl: Tract: 11 and not with the Idumaeans, answereth. This cannot help him, unles he first shew that the infants of those Apostates were lawfully circumcised. For, if they were not circumcised, by Gods order and constitution, but rather at the lust and pleasure of those, which, being fallen away from the covenant, ceased not to put to the seale, as if they had bene still within the covenant, it followeth, that, in this respect, there is no more succour for the papists, in such resemblance with such Israelits, then when they are matched with the Ismaelites or Idumaeans.’

Mr, Cartwright his judgment is the more to be regarded in in this matter, because what he wrote in those Replyes, he wrote as a publick agent, in the name, and with the concurrent judge­ment of many worthy ministers, who pleaded for the purity of Christs ordinances, at that time. So that it is not to be accoun­ted [Page 137] his singular opinion, but the judgement of many m [...]n of e­minent noate.

‘Maister I: del'Espine minister of the word in the Church of Angers, upon a most dreadfull Apostasy,Mr. I: del'Espine Treat: of Apostasy. & revolt of many from the profession of the truth, in the Churches of Anjou, on St. Bar­tholomeus day memorable for ever & infamous for that bloody massacre, wrote a learned and excellent treatise against those that persisted in their Apostasy, wherein he proveth them to be deprived of God, of Christ, of the Spirit, and of those meanes whereby they may come unto God, that they have no fayth, and are without the Church, and that they are deprived of the Sa­craments, as well as of the word, of baptisme as well as the supper of the Lord. For their baptisme no more serveth them for a token to testifye and declare them to be members of the Church, from which they are seperated, or that they pertayne any longer to the Father, to the Sonne, or to the Holy Ghoast whose house and dwelling place they have forsaken. As if a Knight having received that order of the King, and taken the accustomed oathes, if afterwards he should depart from the troth which he had given, in token whereof he should send him back his order to signifye to him that he would after­ward be freed and released from his oath: So the Apostates, having given over the covenant of God, have also, by the same meanes, forsaken the tokens and markes thereof, &c.’

Before all these, Iohannes a Lasco,Anno 1550. a learned noble man of Po­land obtayned of Edw: 6. K. of England, of famous memory, that the Churches of strangers in London, principally of Germans, might have the liberty of their Religion, under the broad seale of England, which was by that most pious Prince graciously granted, not without the approbation of renowned Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, and other eminently learned and godly men, at that time. What their care was to prevent the prophanation of this Sacrament by such a promiscuous admis­sion of all, as is practised in this place, will appeare in his owne report, which I doe translate from the latin copy, thus.

‘Baptisme in our Church is administred in the publick assem­bly of the Church, after the publick sermon. For,Iohn: A. Lasco. lib Forma ac Ritus tota eccles: mi­nist: p. 117 seing Bap­tisme [Page 138] doth so belong to the wholl Church, that none aught to be driven thence which is a member of the Church, nor to be admitted to it, which is not a member of it; truely it is aequall that that should be performed publickly in the assem­bly of the wholl Church which belōgeth to the wholl Church in common.Forma ac Ritus ad­minist. Bapt. And Paul testifyeth that, by Christs ordinance, the Church it selfe, without excepting any member of it, is to be accounted cleane (or holy) by the Ministry of Baptisme. Whence we may easily see, that Baptisme doth, neither belong to those who are altogether without the Church, nor may be be denyed to any members of the Church. Now seing our Churches are, through Gods blessing, so instituted by the Kings Ma^tie, that they may be, as it were, one parish of all strangers dispersed thorough the wholl city, or one body cor­porated (as it is called in the Kings grant) and yet, in the meane space, all strangers doe not joyne themselves to our Churches (yea, there are many, who, whilest they turne from, and flye all Churches, will pretend to the English Churches that they are joyned with us, and to us that they are joyned with the English Churches, and so doe abuse both them and us) we, least the English Churches, and the Ministers thereof should be deceived by the impostures of such men (and that under colour of our Churches) doe baptise their infants alone, who have adjoyned themselves to our Churches, by publick confession of fayth, and obseruation of Ecclesiasticall disci­pline. And that our Churches may be certaine that the in­fants, which are to be baptised, are their seed, who have joyned themselves to our Churches, in manner aforesaid; the father of the infant to be baptised, if he can possibly doe it, or other men or woemen of notable esteeme (or credit) in the Church doe offer the infāt to Baptisme, & doe publickly pro­fesse that it is the seed of the Church. Yet we suffer no strāger to offer their infāts to baptisme in our Churches, who hath not made publick profession of his fayth, and willingly submit­ted himselfe to the discipline of our Church: least, otherwise, they, who should present their children to baptisme, might, in time, plead that they belong to our Churches, and so should [Page 139] deceive the English Churches and their Ministers. Yet never­theles, that we may openly testifye that the English Churches and ours are one and the same Church, although we differ somewhat from them, both in language and ceremonyes, we doe not refuse that the English may, as publick witnesses of the Church, offer the infants of our members to baptisme in our Churches, if they have, both the use of our languages and a certaine testimony of their piety: as, in like manner, our members are accustomed to offer the infants of the English to baptisme in the English Churches.’

By this declaration, it appeareth what care they tooke, to pre­vent the prophanation of this ordinance, and how well this care of theirs was approved of, in those dayes, by the publick liberty they had so to doe, under the broad seale. The same thing will further appeare, in the questions which they propounded to those godly persons, by whom the infant was presented, which that they might understand, and so answer, upon knowledge, one thing required in them was that they should have the use of their language. To these men they put three questions.

‘Quest. 1 Are those infants, which you offer, the seed of this our Church, that they may lawfully be here baptised by our Mi­nistry?’ Answer. Yea.

‘Quest. 2 Doe you acknowledge our Doctrine, which you have heard concerning Baptisme, and the Mysteries thereof to be true? &c.’ Answer. Yea.

‘Quest. 3 Doe you acknowledge, that it is yours and the wholl Church­es duety & office to see that the infant offered to baptisme, be instructed and trained up in in the true knowledge of God, and in Religion? Answer. Yea. Thus much shall suffice to be noated thence.’

Before these, Chrysostom did beare witnes against this evill,Chrys. de compunct. cordis lib. 1. and, upon the same ground, viz, because the Sacraments are profaned when they are administred to unworthy persons, which he speaketh of boath the Sacraments, using the word, [...], in the plurall number. His words may be thus tran­slated. Let us see also what other praecepts of the Lord contayne. Give not holy things (sayth he) to doggs, nor cast your pearles before [Page 140] swine. But we corrupted with the love of prayse, doe things contrary to this praecept also, and doe dispense the holy Mysteries to men that have not a pure understanding, nor sound fayth, and moreover are ble­mished with great sinnes, not making any difference. And afterwards he complaineth that they were admitted to the holy things of Chri­stians which understood not Christian Religion.

Tertul. de Bapt. ad­vers. Quin­til. cap. 18Tertullian (Chrysostoms Senior, who speaketh more punc­tually to the case in question concerning infants offered to bap­tisme) shall conclude this catalogue of witnesses. He speaketh thus. Baptismum non temere credendum Creden­dum i. e. commit­tendum & admini­strandum petenti. De foro phra­sis. Iunius Annot. esse sciunt quorum offi­cium est. They know, whose office it is, that baptisme is not to be admi­nistred rashly to every one that requireth it. Give to him thas asketh. Luke. 6. is alleadged for almes. In this case, give not holy things to doggs, nor cast your pearles before swine Mat. 7. is rather to be obser­ved. And whereas some might object Mat. 19. suffer litle children to come unto me &c. (speaking of infants of strangers from the covenant, as Iunius interpreted him) he sayth. Let them come when they are growne to yeares: Let them come when they have lear­ned and are taught wherefore they come: Let them know how to desire Christ, that it may appeare thou givest to him that asketh.

The validity of this Argument will be more manifest, if the ends and uses whereunto baptisme serveth, by divine institu­tion, be considered, which judicious Calvin breifely declareth,Calv. in­stit. cap. 15. Sect. 1. Eph. 5.26 Coll. 2.12. Tit. 35. 1. Pet. 3.21. Rom. 6.3. saying, that Baptisme is a signe or Sacrament of initiation, whereby we are taken into the fellowship of the Church, and, being ingrafted into Christ, are reckoned amongst the children of God. Whence we gather, that, in Calvins judgment, two things are sealed and signifyed in baptisme.

First our communion with Christ, in his merits and efficacy, for justification and sanctification: which are implyed in our Adoption, whereby we are the children God. But, because all communion is founded in Vnion, it is praesupposed, that there is some union betweene Christ and him, who partaketh of this seale of the Covenant aright.Gall. 3.27 Mark. 16.16. Mat. 3. Act. 2. Now that union is by fayth, and therefore beleiving is joyned with being baptised, as a necessary requisite in him that aright partaketh of it, according to that, he that beleiveth, and is baptised shall be saved. And, because fayth [Page 141] is not without repentance, repentance also is required to remis­sion of sinnes, which baptisme, in the right use of it, sealeth. Yet I confesse, against the Anabaptists, that infants of beleiving pa­rents, though they have not actuall fayth,1. Cor. 7.14. Gen. 17. Synops. pur. Theol. disp. 44. de bapt. Thes. 150 are accounted belei­vers, as well as holy, in theyr parents by vertue of the cove­nant. And I willingly assent to the Reverend Divines, the Professours of Leyden, that it is a sufficient warrant for the baptising of infants, if in either of the parents such fayth & re­pentance are found, as, in the judgment of Charity, may testifye to men theyr union with Christ, though but externally. Yea, & I grant further, that evills in life, or errours in fayth (whereby the efficacy of the covenant is made voyd, and frustrate to the parents) may not justly deprive the infants of such Christians parents of baptisme, except in the cases propounded by those grave and learned Divines before mentioned, (viz, whittaker Beza, Cartwright &c.) or in cases paralell.

The second end and use whereunto baptisme serveth (in Mr. Calvins judgment) is to signifye and seale our fellowship with the Church, and people of God, in respect whereof he calleth it the Sacrament of initiation. How this is to be under­stood Alstedius telleth us, saying,Al [...]ed Supplem. ad Dan. Cham. Panst. Tom. 5. Cap. 7. that Baptisme and Circumcision are called Sacraments of initiation; not, because they make the be­ginning of Christianity, hut, because they signifye and seale it, and so are opposed to the Sacraments of nutrition and growth, the passover, and the Lords supper. Which he amplyfyeth by shewing, that children borne of Christian parents, are, in one sense, in the Church, in another sense, not in it. They are in it; as they are in covenant in their parents; they are not in it; as they are not yet added to the out­ward fellowship thereof; into which they are received by baptisme, as they are received into the covenant by the promise of God, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.

From this end of uniting men in a visible profession of con­sent with the people of God Chamierus collecteth another end of Baptisme subordinate thereunto,Dan. Cham: de Sacram. Manuscr. viz, the distinguishing be­leivers from all the world besides; which is a necessary use of the Sacraments, since the fall of man, & hath bene almost from the beginning. For, in the beginning, in the dayes of Seth,Gen. 4. & 6. [Page 142] there began a different naming of men, some being called the sonnes of God, some the daughters of men, who were also differen­ced from each other by sacrifices, which to them were of the same use that the Sacraments were since.Gen. 17. Afterwatds, in Abra­ham, the Lord instituted circumcision, whereby the Church & people in covenant with him, were distinguished from the rest of the world,Eph. 2.12 who were strangers from the covenant, and there­fore the one were called circumcised, the other uncircumcised. The Baptisme of Iohn was of God, Mat. 3. not of man, which also Christ our Lord instituted and ordayned to continue in the Church, as a noate of difference betweene his disciples,Mat. 28.19. and all others (though not only or principally for that end) which use of it the Apostles retayned, after the ascention of our Lord, and per­petuated for succeeding ages to the second appearing of Christ. Hereunto Paul had respect whē he demanded of the Corinthiās, were ye baptised into the name of Paul? 1. Cor. 1.13. Intimating that in baptisme, they professed openly theyr dependance upon Christ only, and theyre cleaving to him as theyr only King, Preist and Prophet. And this use was, in after times, retayned in the Church, as Augu­stine witnesseth saying.Aug. con­tra Faust. Man. lib. 9. cap. 11. D. Ames de Consc. l. 4. cap. 24. quest. 1. Resp. 5. Men can not be joyned together into any name of Religion, whether true or false, except they be gathered by some fellowship of visible signes and Sacraments. And Dr. Ames sayth expresly, that it can not be but the signes whereby beleivers may be discerned from infidels must be confounded, if they partake of them, who will joyne themselves to no certaine particular Church, alleadging for that purpose. 1. Cor. 5.12. The issue and summe of all is.

To administer baptisme to the infants of those who belong not to Christ, who are convicted & judged by the Church to be swine and doggs, who obstinately persist in their Apostasy, who slight and refuse all communion with all visible Churches of Christ, who are strangers, and without, In a word, who have no communion with Christ, nor fellowship with the Church and people of God, is to profane it, according to the judgement of Whittaker, Beza, Cartwright, I: del'Espine, I. A Lasco, Chry­sostom, Tertullian, Calvin, Alstedius, Chamier, Dr. Ames, &c.

But to administer baptisme in Amsterdam thus promiscu­ously, [Page 143] as that wrighting requireth, is to administer it to many such.

Therefore to administer it, as that wrighting requireth, is to profane the Sacrament.

Reason. 2: The second Reason to prove it to be a sinne, is, because it is an offence given to many thus promiscuously to baptise all that are brought, as that wrighting requireth.

To cleare this, I am to declare two things, 1. that it is a sinne to give offence. 2, that this practise doth give offence (or scan­dall) to many.

First. That it is a sinne to give offence,Cor. 10.2. Rom. 14.13.21.16 15. Ezek: 13.22. Rom: 14.3 10. Mat: 18.10. Rom: 14.15.20. 1 Cor. 8.12. will appeare by Scrip­ture light, which forbideth it, & describeth it to be a putting an occasion to fall, or laying a stumbling block before a brother, a making him weake, a giving him cause to speake evill, or to thinck hardly of us, a pleasing our selves, with neglect of our brother, and it propcee­deth from a dispising and light regard of others in our hearts, and it tendeth to the destroying of him. And, to conclude, it is to sinne against our brother, and to sinne against Christ.

Secondly. That this practise doth give scandall to many. This we will declare by induction, and instances.

First. To the Iewes it is an offence that we affirme our bap­tisme to be in stead of their circumcision, and of the same use and worth, and yet we communicate it to those who are not in the Covenant, so much as visibly and outwardly: which they know to be contrary to the law given to their fathers concer­ning circumsion.

Secondly. To the Papists it is an offence that we,Tho: Aq: pars 3. quest: 68. Idem. secund. se­cundae quest: 10. art: 12. & alibi. Whitt: pre­lect. de Sa­cram: P. 291. 292. profes­sing reformation, doe admit those to baptisme whom they would refuse (though they erre grosly in many points about bap­tisme, & de suscipientibus baptismum also) for they hold it unlaw­full to baptise the infants or infidells that are brought, without theyre parents consent: but such cases may often fall out, in that place, by this course, and the minister and Church be ignorant of it. Dr. Whittaker addeth, that they doe absurdly, who baptise the children of unbeleivers, though the parents should desire it, as if (sayth he) the Church might give baptisme to whom they please. For then they might be baptised, even without the parents consent.

Thirdly. To the Anabaptists it is an offence, who, because the Scripture requireth fayth to baptisme (not only unjustly, a­gainst the Scripture, dislike the baptising of the infants of be­leivers, but also) complaine, and that justly, of the promiscuous administring of baptisme, even to those whose parents cannot be numbred amongst beleivers. As appeareth in their private discourses, publick disputes and printed bookes.

Fourthly. To Libertines and Familists it giveth offence and hardneth them in their disorderly course, seing they can partake of the outward priviledges of the Church as well as the mem­bers of it, without submission to the order & government there­of, whereunto the members are subject. The same may be af­firmed of all disorderly persons that are obstinate in evill courses.

Anonym: in thes: de rit: gub: Christi ec­cles: Anno 1595. im­pres: & ad Illustr: Ampl. ord. in Geld: Holland: Zeland: Fris: ad­script. thes. 155. ad thes. 168. See Robb: Apol. Chap. 2. Idem ibid praeface. p. 9.Fifthly. Ignorant and superstitious persons are strengthened in a slight esteeme of Baptisme, and an Idolizing of the Lords supper, when they see that any, without difference, are admit­ted to that, but care is taken that only those that are approved are admitted to this; as if a fitnes were not as well required, in him that would partake of the blood of Christ, and of remis­sion of sinnes by it, in baptisme, as in the Lords supper. For the same remission of sinnes is alike propounded in them boath.

Sixthly. To those of the Separation it giveth no small offence, who, for this cause, complaine of the Dutch reformed Churches, as neither so true to their owne grounds as they aught (their practise being compared with their profession) nor so well pro­viding for the dignity of the thing, whilest they administer the Sacrament of Baptisme to the infants of such as are not within the Covenant, nor have either parent a member of any Church. Though the more moderate of them doe professe, that, notwith­standing this, they doe account them the true Churches of Christ, and both professe, and practise communion with them in the holy things of God, what in them lyeth; their sermons, such of them frequent, as un­derstand the Dutch tongue, and the Sacraments they doe administer to their knowne members, if, by occasion, any of them be present with, them, &c.

Seventhly, To diverse others who feare God, & heartily desire to see the ordinances of Christ established in their purity and be­auty & are unfeignedly greived that any blemish should be found in the reformed Churches, and truely wish for the prosperity & perfection of them, & have witnessed against this disorder in this place, as Dr. A. Mr. F. Mr. H. Mr. B. Mr. R. amongst whom I, being called thereunto, doe not only reckon my un­worthy selfe, but also can number others, not only English and French, but even of the Dutch also, who have ingenuously pro­fessed their dislike of it, upon occasion of conference, which I have had with some of them. To winde up all in one bot­tome.

That which giveth offence to Iewes, Papists, Anabaptists, Fa­milists; Libertines, obstinate sinners, ignorant and superstitious persons Seperatists, and to diverse others that feare God, is a sinne.

But to administer baptisme so promiscuously, as that wrigh­ting requireth, giveth offence to all these.

Therefore to administer baptisme so promiscuously &c. is a sinne.

Reason. 3 The third Reason to prove it to be a sinne, is, because it is a building againe of that which these Churches, according to the Scripture, have destroyed.

This is an Argument, ad hominem, which I restraine to these Churches, to shew the evill of this practise from their owne principles, which it doth, by consequence, supplant, and subvert, at least, in the judgment of many, whether necessarily or probably, and in what degree, I will leave to their wisdom to consider, contenting my selfe with a short proposall of some particulars which are considerable, especially that ground being layed which the Apostle maketh use of, in a like case,Gal. 2.18 If I build againe the things that I have destroyed I make my selfe a trans­gressour.

First. That baptisme is only a naked signe, Soc in. disp. de Bapt: Cap 5. fol. 75. or noate of Segregation from other sects, and profession of true doctrine, is an errour which these reformed Churches have destroyed, by professing in theyr [Page 146] Confession,Sim. Episc. dis. 29. Thes: 8 Confess. art: 33, 34 Catech: quest. 73. 74. and Catechisme that it is not only so, but also a testi­mony to us, and a symbol to assure us of remission of sinnes &c. according to the ScriptureMark. 1.4 Acts 2.38 Cap. 16.30, 31 32.33 Coll. 3.12 Ezek. 16.51.52: But this practise buildeth it a­gaine, whilest a naked profession of assent to the doctrine and discipline of this Church is held sufficient to warrant theyre bap­tisme, though it be made, many times, by such as are not knowne to have any right in the Covenant, whereof baptisme is a seale, or at all to pertaine to Christ, but may be any of those, who were spoken of in the first Argument, for aught any man know­eth: Hence some will collect that they doe not account Bap­tisme any more then a naked signe of profession. And not only so, but it justifyeth that errour, as Israel justifyed Samaria, by establishing a worse. For this practise seemeth to make baptisme not so much as a profession of true doctrine, or a noate of segre­gation from other sects, whilest it is appoynted to be admini­stred thus promiscuously in Amsterdam (where people of so ma­ny sects inhabite) to all infants that are presented, though they make no other shew of profession, then by saying, yae, or nod­ding the head, when they understand not what is sayd to them, being of a different language, and are allogether unknowne to the minister and to the Church.

2. Confess: art. 16.17 21 Catech. quest: 20. 50, 51, 52 53, 54, 55 Synod Dort. Art. 2 Sect. 7, 8.Secondly. That the grace of Christ is universall, wherein all have interest is an errour which these reformed Churches have destroyed, restrayning it only to the Elect, to beleivers, to the Church of God, according to the ScripturesPsal: 147, 20. Mat. 11 25. & 13 11 Act. 14.16. Rom: 8.30. Mat. 1, 21. Ioh: 10, 11, 16. Cap: 17, 9, 11, 12, 19, 20. Act. 20, 28.: But this practise buildeth it up. For, if the seale appertaine to all, why not the Covenant also? Why not the grace? And who will not suspect that the seale doth appertaine to all, in theyr judgement, whose practise is to administer it to those infants, neither of whose parents are in the covenant, so much as externally, and, it may be, were ne­ver baptised, or, having bene baptised, have, by their infidelity and other sinnes obstinately persisted in, (being, convicted thereof and cast out of the Church) or by their willfull Apostasy and forsaking the Religion which they professed, with them­selves, broken off their seed, externally and actually from the communion of the Church, and holy things thereof. Jf they say; [Page 147] their grandfather was a Christian, or great grandfather. I ans­wer. Where must we stopp at last? If not in the next parents, why in the grandfather, or great grandfather, till we come up as high as Noah himselfe? And so neither the children of Jewes, nor Turkes, nor heathen or infidels should be denied baptisme.

Thirdly. The absolute necessity of baptisme to salvation; so that, 3. Concil: Trid: Sess. 7. cap. 2. Confess. belg. art. 34. Gen. 17. not only those of yeares, that refuse or contemne it, are damned, but e­ven infants also perish aeternally, through the want of it, is an errour which these Churches have destroyed, when they professe it to be of the same use to Christians, whereof circumcision was to the Iewes, who being borne in the covenant, by their relation to their beleiving parents, by vertue of the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, were accounted in the number of Abrahams children, before circumcision, without which, cir­cumcision did not appertaine to them. According to the Scrip­tures, which declare Davids confidence about the salvation of his infant that died before the eighth day,2. Sam. 12 23. in which it should have bene circumcised, and annexeth damnation to not belei­ving, not, to not being baptised, as Luther accutely noated out of those words. He that beleiveth and is baptised, shall be saved, Mark. 16 16. but he that beleiveth not, shall be damned. But this practise seemeth to build this up againe, For, if the necessity of it be such, as Gods order must be violated rather then the infant not baptised, who will not suspect that they account it simply necessary to salva­tion? And, if the plea, which is ordinarily used by them,Cal. instit. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 20. 21. 22 that Baptisme is not of such necessity, as that Gods order should be broken for, it, be good against baptisme by private persons, and by midwives and nurses &c. Why may it not serve in this case also?

Fourthly. ‘The efficacy of Baptisme,4. Council: Trid: Can: 8. Confess. art. 34. Catech. q. 72. 73. when it is made a natu­rall cause or instrument sanctifying those that partake of it, by the worke done, is an errour, which these Churches haue de­stroyed, when they ascribe the working of grace to God, as the sole efficient cause, and authour of it, and account the Sacra­ments, signes and seales, and morall instruments signifying and sealing and so exhibiting it instrumentally, in the right use of them, which I will explaine in the words of that learned Dr, [Page 148] Whittaker,Dr. Whitt. prelect. de sacra: in gene: Ca. 1. pa. 62. 63. because his exposition seemeth to be more cleare then many, in reference to the true state of the question be­tweene the Pontificians and the Orthodox. We say, they are instruments (taking the name largely) because God useth them in bestowing grace upon us: ye we doe not meane that they are instrumēts, as our Adversaries doe, as if God were so tyed to thē as not to conferr grace without them, as an artificer cannot make a bed, or bench, without a saw, or hatchet, nor that they are able to worke any thing of themselves by any hiddē vertue proper to them and inhaerent in them, as is in a medicine for procuring bodily health, but because, in the right use of them, God worketh a nourishing and increasing of grace. Therefore the Sacraments worke nothing by the thing done, no not in in­fants. For infants are not therefore partakers of grace only be­cause they are baptised yet neither are they baptised in vaine, because they are baptised, unto future fayth & repentance, & because they are members of the Church, and holy by the Co­venant, and therefore the signe of the Covenant is not to be denyed them.’ Thus he witnesseth against that efficacy that pa­palls ascribe to the Sacrament, & joyneth with these Churches in destroying it, according to theHeb. 2.4. Rom. 3.28 Cap. 4.3 4.6.10. Bell. de Sa­cr. bapt. lib. C p. 5. Whittak: de bapt. cap. 2. de necess: bapt pag. 237. 238. Scripture. But this prac­tise seemeth to build it up againe. For, whereas our Divines say that baptisme is profaned, whē it is administred to the uncleane the popish wrighters tell us, that baptisme is not thereby profa­ned, but that it doeth sanctifye them. ‘And, upon this ground, Bel­larmine sayth, that baptisme may be given to those that pertai­ne not to Christ. To whom Dr. Whittaker answereth. This were true, if Baptisme were a physicall cause of grace: For grace is not profaned when it is given to the uncleane, but it sanctifyeth them, to whom it is given: else (he demandeth of Bellermine) why may not infidells of yeares be baptised, if they will suffer themselves to be baptised; yea though they should professe that they doe not beleive in Christ, if baptisme will sanctifye them? But all men deny that. And why so? Because they belong not to Christ: Therefore (sayth he) Baptisme aught not to be given to any that are not in Christ.’ I will not enlarge this point, by speaking of the ignorant conceit of some, that [Page 149] baptisme is their Christendom, and that they are made Chri­stians by baptisme, whereas we have shewen that they must be Christians before baptisme, else they may not be baptised.

Fifthly. The loose positions, whereby Libertines are hardned,5. Confess. Belg. Art. 28. 29. in refusing to joyne themselves in doctrine and discipline with any visible Church, are errours which these Churches in their doctrine have destroyed, by professing, that every man that would be saved (of what ranck or condition soever) is bound to joyne him­selfe with the Church of God, and to subject himselfe to the doctrine and discipline thereof, though with hazzard of his life &c. according to the Scriptures.Ps. 65.4. & 133.3. Mat. 18.17. Mat. 18.17. Rev. 1.13. 1. Cor. 5.12. Heb. 10.24.25. 1. Cor. 12 25.27. But this practise buildeth it up againe. As appeareth in the exāple of that Libertine who tooke encou­ragment to persist in his course, by a sermon, wherein the An­swerer affirmeth that the infants of such may lawfully be bapti­sed, though the parents refused to joyne with any Church: whereupon he came home resolving, as himselfe told diverse, never to joyne with any Church, whilest he lived, though he had bene, as he said, 20 yeares before, in doubts about his con­dition.

Sixthly.6. Catech. quest: 85. The opinion of Erastus against Ecclesiasticall ex­communicatiō, is an errour which the doctrine of these Church­es hath destroyed, by affirming that the power of excommuni­cation belongeth to the Church, accordingNumb. 19.13.20 Mat. 18.15. Mat. 7.6. 1. Cor. 5.5.6.11. 2. Thes. 3.6. &. 11. to the Scriptures.

But this practise doth build it up againe, when they, not only administer this Sacrament promiscuously to all that are brought, but also plead for it by some of the Arguments which Erastus produced against that.

For, First Erastus alleadgeth Iohns admitting the very worst men to his baptisme, viz, the Pharises and Sadduces: where­unto both Beza and Mr. Cartwright answer, to the same pur­pose, as I did some with whom I argued against this custom, that Iohn admitted none to his baptisme, but those that pro­fessed repentance and amendment of life. Therefore they are said to be baptised of Iohn in Iordan, confessing their sinnes, which,Mat. 3.6. Mark. 1.4 5. after the manner of the Hebrewes, signifyeth more then a bare acknowledgment that they were sinners, even a profession of their imbracing the doctrine of remission of sinnes by Christ, [Page 150] and a promise of amendment.Psal. 51. Dan. 9.4 Luke 15 Luke 18 Such confessions were Davids, Daniels, the Publicans, Prodigalls. As for the Pharises and Sadduces (sayth Mr, Cartwright) which came in Hypocrisy to be baptised, deriding the grace of God, I utterly deny that Iohn baptised them: yea, that he rejected them, it is evident by his sharpe reprehension and terrible threatning of them with death and cutting off. Those that pretended repentance in words he admonished, that, if they would be baptised, they must bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, else they should be cut off.

2 Secondly. He alleadgeth that all the Israelites (as well rebel­lions as others) did eate the same sprirituall meate, and drinck the same spirituall drinck. 1. Cor. 10.4.1. Cor. 10.4. Beza de presb. & excom: ad arg. 13. p. 28. 29 Morton on 1. Cor. 10. And, in effect, the same thing is objected by some, for the defence of this custom, when they plead, that they were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea. Therefore all infants that are presented, must be baptised. Bezaes answer to him, in that case, may serve these in this case, out of whom (and a learned Commentatour upon that place joyned together with him) 2 things may be answered.

1. That the things, there spoken of, were not to be num­bred amongst those things which are onely Sacraments: how­ever they were Sacraments, in a sense, yet they were not Sa­craments in that signification of the the word [Sacraments] which is usually amongst Divines, when they call circumcision, and the passover, Baptisme, and the Lords supper, Sacraments: for they were not by any solemne promulgation, expressed in the word, instituted & sanctified by God to be seales of the co­venant to beleivers (as circumcision &c.) which is necessary to the constitution of a Sacrament. But as they were miraculous and admirable types of Christ, so they were common, and tem­porall benefites serving for the bodily refreshing and safety of the people of Israel in generall, and therefore that all, even the most unworthy of them, partaked of those, it was for a peculiar reason, which hath not place in the Sacraments. For the shadow of the cloud covering the wholl army, as a sheild, or buckler, received, and kept from them the beames of the sun, which else in, that dry and hot region, might have consumed them [Page 151] with burning heate, especially they being wearyed, and faint with journying, therefore it was necessary, that it should be common to them all. The same reason might be given for their passing through the sea, to escape the rage of the tyrant that pursued them. But what is this to Baptisme?

2. That the persons there spoken of were the Church of Israel, whom he calleth our fathers, because from them the Jewes sprang which were the visible Church of God, whose children also the Corinthians and all the visible Churches of beleivers are amongst the Gentiles, who have received from them the privi­ledges of the word, Sacraments, Covenant, and other spirituall good things, as their inheritance. But what are these to those Libertines and others, who cast off all communion whith the Churches of Christ? To conclude this Argument in one Syl­logisme,

To build againe those errours which the doctrine and pro­fession of these Churches, according to the Scripture, have de­stroyed, is a sinne.

But this practise of promiscuous baptising all that are brought, with out difference, buildeth againe those errours, which the Doctrine and profession of these Churches, according to the Scriptures, have destroyed, as appeareth in those six particulars.

Therefore to baptise all that are brought promiscuously, as that wrighting requireth, is a sinne.

Reason. 4 The fourth Reason, to prove it to be a sinne, is because it is con­trary to the good custom and practise of many Churches of Christ. Here J am to shew two things.

First. That good customs, taken up by Churches upon good grounds should not lightly be broken & layd downe. Wherein I doe fully agree whith the authour of that elaborate cōmentary upon the fourth chapter of Iohn, my reverend Countryman,M. A. H. lect. on Ioh. 4. chap. p. 138. 139. 1. Cor. 11.16. 1. Cor. 15 1. Phil. 4.9. who now resteth from his labours, who, to prove this, produceth Paul alleadging the custom of the Churches, to stopp the mouthes of contentious men, & commending sundry truthes to the people of God, by this Argument, they had received them, and ma­king that a further bond unto their conscience, for which end also he propoundeth that general rule given unto us, walke in the [Page 152] wayes of good men, Pro. 2.20. and keepe the wayes of the righteous, and a pro­mise which God hath made to them that will learne the wayes of his people, Ier. 12.16 and conforme themselves unto them, then shal they be built in the middest of my people. To make this point more cleare, I will add thereunto, from a manuscript,Mr. I. C. in a ma­nuscr. the judgment of the worthy authour of the praeface to that commentary concerning the bindng force of good examples, who thus expresseth him­selfe.

‘Some good actions of holy men in Scripture are examples of Christian liberty, others are patternes of Christian duety: examples of this latter sort be, 1. such as are backed with some Divine praecept. So Sarahs obedience to Abraham is set forth as a patterne unto her daughters,1. Pet. 3.6 2. such as are held forth in the first institution of an ordinance. Thus our Saviour argueth the sinfullnes of Polygamy, as an abberration from the example or patterne of the first institution,Mat. 14.9 from the begin­ning it was not so. Hitherto belong sundry precedents set be­fore us, in the Acts of the Apostles, for guiding Church matters &c. Yet here also this caution would be observed, that, in the first institution or celebration of an ordinance, some acti­ons were accidentall, and taken up upon speciall occasions, & such actions are not precedents, vnlesse it be upon the like oc­casion: other actions are part of the institution (whether essentiall or circumstantiall parts) and belong, either to the compleatnes, or to the comlines of it, and these may not be neglected without sinne, 3. of the lawfull actions of holy men, in Scripture, some were civill, and of those there is more la­titude (as not needing an exact rule from Scripture, but ad­mitting the light of civill prudence for a guide) others are sa­cred as belonging to spirituall things, and serving to spirituall ends. And of these, some of them are varying, not alwayes ob­served in one constant tenour, in Scripture (as the gestures in prayer, preaching, and the places thereof, any of which are alike imitable) others of them are constant, alwayes the same, and therefore stand as a cloud of witnesses requiring our imitation.’ The issue of all which is, that those examples which are backed with some divine precept, or which are held [Page 153] forth in the first institution of an ordinance, being part of the institution, or which were the constant lawfull actions of holy men in Scriptures, not, civill but sacred, so bind us to imita­tion, as that, not to conforme thereunto is a sinne.

These things being premised, it is evident that promiscuous baptising in that manner as that wrighting requireth, if it swerve from such good customs of the Church, and examples of holy men in Scripture, will be found to be a sinne.

Secondly, that this practise agreeth not with the good cu­stomes and practises of the Churches of Christ will appeare, if we examine the story of times from the first institution of this ordinance.

First in the Iewish Church, circumcision (whereunto Baptis­me answereth, being a Sacrament of the same use that it was of) was, by Gods appointment,Gen. 17.7.8.9.10 11.12.13 Acts. 7.8. Rom. 9.11 a token of the covenant made with Abraham and with his seed after him, to be a God unto him, and to his seed after him (which the Apostle calleth a seale of the righteousnes which is by fayth) and therefore, by Gods ordinance, it was limited to the men children of eight dayes old of his seed or that were borne in his house, or bought with his money of any stranger, which was not of his seed. So that, to circum­cise any others, who were not of that seed to whom this cove­nant belonged, was a sinne. And therefore the holy fathers were carefull to follow this rule in keeping this signe joyned with the covenant in those whom they circumcised.Mat. 3.6.7. &c. Mark. 1.4.5. &c. Luke 3.3.16.

Afterwards Iohn Baptist walked in the same stepps, and by the same rule, mutatis mutandis, administred Baptisme in that Church whereof he was a member, requiring of all that came to his baptisme a profession of repentance and amendment of life for remission of sinnes, whereof Baptisme was the seale, & prea­ched Christ unto them.

This ordinance our Lord Christ, after his resurrection, esta­blished to continue in the Christian Churches, giving a com­mission to his disciples to preach the Gospell to the Gentiles,Mat. 28.19. Mark. 16 15.16. & to gather Churches amongst them, and to baptise all such as should beleive, throughout the world, as a testimony to them that the righteousnes of fayth did belong to them also, and not [Page 154] to the Church of the Iewes only.Acts. 2.37.38.39.40.41 42.44.46 47. Accordingly the Apostles & servants of Christ were carefull to observe this rule in their ad­ministring baptisme. Thus Peter when he saw those 3000 soules pricked in their hearts, preached unto them concerning re­pentance, remission of sinnes, Christ, the promise, baptisme, fayth, and amendment of life, baptised those that gladly received his word, and testifyed the same by joyning together in the pro­fession thereof.

Act. 8.12.13.14.The same course Phillip tooke with the Church that was ga­thered in Samaria where many were baptised, but none till they professed their beleife of the Gospell,Act. 9.11 13.14.15 16.17. and their receiving the word of God, and therefore it is said expresly, when they beleived Phillip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Iesus Christ, they were baptised, both men, and woemen. when Ananias was comanded to goe and baptise Paul, he objected against it at first, till the Lord assured him that he was one to whom that seale of the covenant belonged,Act. 10 43.44.47 48. and then he went, and did it. When Peter, and those that came with him, sawe that the Holy Ghoast fell on Cornelius, and those that were as­sembled at that time in his house, whilest he spake these words, To him give all the Prophets witnesse, Act. 8.36 37.38 Act. 16 31.32.33 that thorough the name of Ie­sus, whosoever beleiveth in him shall receive remission of sinnes, Peter demanded, Can any man forbid water that these should not be bap­tised, which have received the Holy Ghoast as well as we? And then they were baptised. To conclude this catalogue, Phillip did not baptise the Eunuch, though he desired it, till he had given him satisfaction by professing his fayth in expresse words, nor Paul the Iaylour and his house-hold, till it appeared unto him that they beleived on the Lord Iesus. Nor is there any example in the Scripture varying from this course, to warrant such a pro­miscuous administration of baptisme in a place where such heterogeneall mixtures are of people of all sorts & sects, as Am­sterdam is,

In the times after the first Century what care was taken con­cerning the persons whom they admitted to baptisme! The storyes are cleare concerning those that were adulti, though we find litle or nothing concerning infants, only that they were [Page 155] baptised, by vertue of that right they had to it, in their belei­ving parents. But that which we find concerning the course which they tooke with those of yeares, may serve to shew their high esteeme of this ordinance, and how farr they were from this promiscuous manner of administring it, though we purpose not to examine, whether the first simplicity used by the Apostles was in all things observed by them, nor how exactly they fol­lowed the rule in every particular. They divided those that were turned from Gentilisme to imbrace the Christian Religiō into three sorts, whom they distinguished by severall names. 1. Whilest they were to be catechised and instructed in the grounds of Christan Religion, they were called [...], and Audientes. Catechumenists & hearers. 2. Afterwards, having bene compeleatly instructed, and earnestly now desiring to be ad­mitted to the Sacrament, they were called Competentes, peti­tioners. 3. Being found meet, they were baptised, and then, and not before, they were called fideles, and perfecti, perfect, and be­leivers, viz, in respect of the outward state and order of the Church, with reference to those degrees whereby they must come to be baptised. And when they did baptise them, a publick tryall was made of their fitnes (which aftertimes called Scrutinium, the Scrutiny) and hereof there were two parts, 1. an abrenunciation, 2. a profession of fayth. 1. The abrenunciation was expressed by the party desiring Baptisme solemnly, in ex­presse words, in the Greeke Churches. [...]. And this part they accounted of so much importance, as that, without it, either in word or deed expressed, they accounted none fit to be baptised. 2. The profession of the fayth was openly made, and in the hearing of the people, by him that desired baptisme, some times in a continued speech, but more frequently by way of Dialo­gue, and by certaine articles.Ambros: de Sacram lib. 2. C. Credis in Deum patrem omnipo­tentem? Credo. Credis in Dominum Iesum Christum? Credo. Credis in Spiritum Sanctum? Credo. This custom at first instituted for, and used only by those of yeares, who being converted from Gentilisme to Christianity desired baptisme, was, in aftertimes applyed to the baptisme of infants, whose suretyes answered for [Page 156] them.Beza. epist 8. This came in by abuse (sayth Beza) and giveth too much advantage to the Anabaptists. For, if baptisme may not be ad­ministred, without a profession of fayth present, in the infant (which if they meane not, why is the infant asked concerning its fayth, in the suretyes, at that time, sayth he) why stay we not with the Anabaptists (which God forbid!) till the child can professe its owne fayth. And therefore elsewhere sayth Beza,Beza epist. 12. As Chrisme and exorcisme, although ancient, are well abo­lished, we would desire also, that not only superfluous, but also unfit questions were omitted also, although Augustine, in a certaine epistle, would excuse it, with a certaine interpretation, but he calleth it in­firmum commentum, and that fitly. And therefore the practise of those Churches, in putting the question to the father of the child is more suitable to the rule; because, in the Covenant which God maketh with the parents the right of the infant to baptisme is founded, and the power and care of educating the child in that fayth lyeth upon them. To let passe this digres­sion. The custom of those times concerning men of yeares, though it doe not, every way, touch the case of infants, yet it sheweth the piety of those times, and the judgment of the An­cients concerning the point in question, de suscipientibus bap­tismum.

And howsoever, in those times, some superstitious rites were used in baptisme, and some errours in Doctrine are to be found concerning the absolute necessity of baptisme to salvation, yet not one of them, so farr as my small reading hath inabled me to discover, defended such a promiscuous admini­stration of it (as that wrighting of the five Ministers required) as necessary or lawfull. But if any man will wrest that conclu­sion of those Ancients in Cyprian, to patronize this course, (whereof Cyprian speaketh thus,Cyprian. lib. 3. epist. 10. haec fuit in concilio nostra senten­tia. A baptismo atque a gratiâ Dei, qui omnibus misericors, & benignus, & pius est, neminem per nos debere prohiberi.) Let him know, that those words, if they be taken apart from the rest, may seeme to favour the errour of universall grace, as well as promiscuous baptising.

And indeed they countenance boath alike, that is, neither of [Page 157] them at all, being considered in Cyprians intendment, in that epistle, which was, to answer Fidus who held that infants of two or three dayes old ought not to be baptised, arguing from Circumcision, which was not administred till the eight day, and from the bodily uncleanenes of infants at that age. Cyprian, in answer to his first Argument, sheweth him that Circumcision was a shadow, which is now vanished, and, in answer to the second, used those words, Acts 10.15. and concludeth thus. Si etiam gravissimis delictoribus &c. If remission of sinnes be given to the most greivous sinners, when they afterwards beleive, and, repent, and baptisme is not denyed to them, how much more ought it not to be denyed such infants. They that know how streight Cyprian was in nullifying the baptisme of those who had bene baptised by haereticks, and such as were out of the Church, cannot imagine that any helpe may be expected from him, for warranting the administring of baptisme to their infants, who are out of the Covenant.

Now if any thinck that there is some colour for the justifying of this course to be found in the capitulation of Charles King of Sycily, with the Sarazens,Speed. Chron: lib. 9. cap. 10. in the life of Edw. 1. at the seidge of Tunis in Afri­ca, the third Article whereof was that such as were willing might freely receive the Sacrament of Baptisme. Let him understand that that agreement was only to establish the free excercise of Chri­stian Religion, not to warrant promiscuous baptising, which was not, at all, in question at that time. Thus the records of an­cient times are against this disorderly custom, and concerning the judgment of later times, since the reformation, if enough have not bene said already, more shall be added, in answeare to the seventh pretence.

Only that I may omitt nothing, that I meet with in my reading, which may seeme to carry any colour of favouring that custom, though but in the letter, I have produced those two instances of former times, and will now add to them two or three of latter times. In whom I purpose not to examine or censure their expre­ssions, but onely to shew that this evill custom is not maintained, nor to be defended by what they have written.

First. I will beginne with that question which excercised the [Page 158] Ministers that met in the Classis at Neocomum.Beza epist. 9. Whether the infants of excommunicates, are to be baptised, and in whose fayth, seing their parents are not members of the Church? The occasion whereof was this. A certayne man, of a very wicked life, having 4 bastards, and thrise deceived the Church with hypocriticall confession, and promises, was excommunicated together with his harlot. The question was, whether the fourth bastard, be­gotten after their excommunication, should be baptised?

The Ministers of that Classis declared their judgment, which they sent in a letter to Beza, thus, we are of opinion that the infant being borne of such desperate parents, is not included in the promise of blessing, and therefore should not be baptised till it come to that age, wherein it may make profession of its owne fayth, unlesse the parents, returning againe to God by true repentance, be againe received into the bosome of the Church, or it be presented by certaine godly persons, who will bind themselves by promise to performe the duety of parents to the child. Vnlesse perhaps, because it is borne within the Church, it should be baptised for the fayth of the Church. Thus they.

Epist: 10.Beza, wrighting to them his judgment in this matter, distri­buteth those who are not to be accounted members of the Church into fowre sorts farr different one from another. To omit the former three, as being not in question, the fourth sort is of those, who being elect of God, and ingrafted into Christ, yet fal­ling through infirmity, and giving offence unto others, are delivered unto Sathan, that godly sorrow may worke in them repentance. Of this last sort, sayth he, is the question: Concerning whom he first supposeth diverse things.

1. That they are such of whom we may judge in charity, that their estate is not desperate.

2. That though they are great sinners, yet they are not Apo­states which forsake the Church, nor joyne themselves with ad­versaryes in persecuting the truth.

3. That some difference is to be made betweene Turkes and excommunicate Christians, or Papists.

4. It is hard to judge, whether infants belong to the Co­venant, in respect of their first parents profession, or not.

Secondly. Vpon these suppositions he concludeth that the [Page 159] infants of excummunicates that remaine in the Church may not law­fully be denied baptisme. But this he delivereth with two provi­soes, or caveats. 1. That, a fit surety bind himselfe to the Church for the holy education of the child. 2. That, upon this occasion, the Mini­ster doe, at that time, seriously exhort the father, being present, to re­pentance, in the presence of the Church, before he baptise the child, Which he sayth was frequently done in their Churches, viz, in Geneva. Thus he. Concerning whose answer I will propound two or three considerations.

First. Though Beza was a very Reverend & judicious Divine, yet, in matters of faith, it is not safe, vllius jurare in verba magistri, to rest upon the authority of any man, without a warrant from the Scripture.

Secondly. Compare what was alleadged out of Beza himselfe in my 1. Reason, in this Section, with this passage, and what Mr Cartwright answereth to some part of this, in the same Section, & the Reader will see that it may easily be declared that this sen­tence will not helpe the Advocates for promiscuous baptizing.

Thirdly. Consider the state of the question, as Beza maketh it, and it will appeare that the infants, for whose Baptisme he pleadeth, are of such as we may rationally judge to be ingrafted into Christ, and elect of God, only being fallen by infirmity, are deli­vered unto Sathan, that godly sorrow may worke in them repentance.

But what is this for the justifying of a promiscuous admini­stration of Baptisme to all that are offered, in such a place as Amsterdam, concerning many of whom we can not rationally have any such persuasion?

Fourthly. The foure things supposed by Beza, as cases, wherein he dare not give liberty of baptising, serve to discover the evill of this custom, whereunto that wrighting would have bound me. For, if all that are presented, though they refuse to make knowne before, who, or what they are, must be received, may not the infāts of many, whose case is desperate in the judg­ment of the Church, who are, not only Apostates from it, but persecutors: yea even the children of Iewes, Mores, and others, such like, without the parents consent be offered to baptisme, [Page 160] and so be baptised, which were to profane the Sacrament, 2. Ob­serve how timerously Beza expresseth himselfe about the pa­rents, on whom the right of the infant to baptisme dependeth, in this case, whereby it may seeme that he was not fully cleare in it himselfe.

Fifthly. The cautions and provisoes, which Beza giveth to be observed, in the baptising of such children of excommuni­cates, as he there speaketh of, doe strongly condemne the disor­der of that place, where the father is so farr from being admo­nished publickly of his sinne, that he is not so much as knowne, or inquired after, and where they are so farr from taking care for the holy education of the child, that they regard not by whom it is presented, nor what becommeth of it afterwards.

2. De consc. lib. 4. cap. 27.Secondly. D^r. Ames commeth next to be considered, and a passage in his booke of cases to be examined, least some igno­rantly, others willfully wrest it to the countenancing of this dis­order, which to be farr from his meaning, himselfe doeth abun­dantly declare, in the same place. For he so expresseth his opi­nion concerning the baptisme of diverse sorts of infants there mentioned, as it may appeare that his judgment was against promiscuous baptising all that are brought, according to the controverted custom: which I demonstrate thus.

Resp. 2 First he requireth. 2. things in such infants as necessary to their admittance. 1. That they be in the covenant of Grace, in respect of outward profession, and aestimation, at least, in one of the parents. 2. That there is hope that they shall hereafter be educated und instruc­ted in the same covenant. Both which he affirmeth upon the same ground which we layd in the first Reason, viz, Because Baptis­me is a signe and seale of the covenant. But how can they be estee­med Christian parents, or what hope can there be of the edu­cation of such infants in the covenant, when both the parents & sureties are altogether unknowne to the Church, and that in such a place as Amsterdam, where is such a confluence of peo­ple of all nations and Sects?

Resp. 3 Secondly. He affirmeth that Baptisme doeth most properly be­long to those infants, whose parents, at least, one of them, is in the Church, not out of it. And this he affirmeth, upon the former ground, viz, [Page 161] Because, Baptisme is the seale of the covenant. But who knoweth not, that many people are in Amsterdam, who are not in the Church, but out of it, in many respects? yet none must be refused that are presented to Baptisme.

Thirdly. He supposeth that those, whose parents are unknowne, are in charity to be accounted Christians, when there is not just cause of presuming the contrary. But, howsoever this might carry some shew of reason with it, in such places where all the inhabitants pro­fesse religion, and are joyned to some Church, yet in such a place as Amsterdam, how can a man presume otherwise then the con­trary of many that may be offered to Baptisme?

Fourthly. He professeth that a difference must be put betweene the infants of those, who, in some sort, by profession, belong to the Church, yet doe openly breake the covenant of God, and the children of others, in the manner of their admittance to Baptisme. viz, that, for the for­mer sort, what is required by the Covenant, and wanting in them must be supplyed by others. And for this he giveth two Reasons. 1. Because a distinction must be observed in all holy things betweene the cleane and uncleane. 2. Because else the ordinances of God cannot be preserved from all pollution. For these reasons he doeth not allow the Baptisme of excommunicates, unlesse they have fit suretyes to undertake for their education, nor of bastards, unlesse their parents have professed their repentance, or other godly persons will take upon them the care of their education; nor of papists, unlesse they be presented by fit suretyes, who have power over thē for theire education. But is any such care taken, any such course observed, about the admission of such to Baptisme, in Amsterdam?

Thirdly. Mr. Attersoll, shall shut up this discourse of times,Of the Sa­cram: of Bapt. 2. booke. ch. 6 whom the Reader may suspect to favour this custom, if some­thing be not noated by us to prevent mistakes. Now, howsoever he may seeme to be some what large in his judgement this way, and to yeeld more then, either Mr. Beza, or Dr. Ames have done in this point, &, it may be, more then himselfe would have done, if he had fully understood the disorder against which we testi­fye; yet the limitations and cautions which he propoundeth doe discover the evill of that practise, concerning which the present question is.

P. 218For 1. he denyeth that the infants of Turkes or Iewes may be baptised against the liking and good will of their parents. But it is very possible, and probable that some such may be offered to Baptisme by any that have stollē them, or for some other reason, for ought the minister knoweth, or demandeth, in that place.

P. 219.2. In the case of the children of impaenitent persons he sup­poseth, two things without which his plea for their Baptisme falleth. 1. That they are so borne in the Church, and of it, that the Church may be said to be, as it were, their Mother. 2. That they are in the Covenant, in regard of their Elders, of whom they discend, as the Iewes were in Abraham, though their next pa­rents were wicked.

P. 220. 221.3. That they have such suretyes as will undertake their edu­cation in the true knowledge of God, and faith in Iesus Christ. But, Js it the manner of that place to be satisfyed about these things before they receive them to Baptisme? Doe they enquire whether the infant was borne in the Church, of what parents, or forefathers, or how the suretyes will undertake to educate the child in that faith? To conclude, that all misunderstanding of Mr. Attersoll may be prevented, let the Reader consider one or two conclusions by the same Authour in the same chapter.

P. 211.1. Conclus. That, besides the joyning of the word to the out­ward signe, there is necessarily required a fit person to be partaker of the Sacrament,

2. Conclus. Baptisme is a cōmon seale. But, as all have not in­terest to the pasture, herbage, and priviledges of a cōmons, but only such as are Tenants, according to the custom of the Manner: so all have not title to Baptisme, being a Sacramēt of the Church, but only such as are the Lords people, according to the tenour of the Covenant. Apply these conclusions to this custom, against which we plead, & it will be granted, that what ever may seeme to an unwary Reader, in the slight and superficiall reading of that passage in his booke, yet indeed it doeth not serve to justi­fye the practise, about which the question is. From the premises I argue thus.

If such a promiscuous administration of baptisme as the wrigh­ting [Page 163] of those five ministers requireth, be contrary to the good customs of the best Churches, it is unlawfull.

But such a promiscuous baptising &c. is contrary to the good customs of the best Churches.

Therefore it is unlawfull.

So much shall suffice for declaring the grounds, whereupon I refused this custom.

Now let us consider their pretences for it,1. Preten­ces for it. so farr as we can collect out of that wrighting of the five Ministers, or other­wise.

Pretence. 1 First, pretence.] None will present their children to be baptised but Christians?

Ans. 1. It is a conclusion amongst the schoolemen that,Aq: secund secundae. art. 12. conclu. Non sunt infidelium pueri, invitis parentibus, baptisandi. Children of infidells are not to be baptised without theyr parents consent. Wherein they suppose that such a case is possible. If so, why may not the child of a Iew, or Moore, or Indian be brought by some one or other to baptisme, without the parents consent or knowledge? And the manner of Amsterdam is to refuse none that are presented, by whomsoever, whereby it is very possible, that some in­fants may be baptised, whose parents are no Christians, though the parents would not have them presented.

2. Even parents, who themselves doe not receive christian Religion, may be content to have theyr children baptised either for the gifts sake, which are customarily bestowed (by those whom they call Godfathers and Godmothers) upon the children, or for some other advantages & respects, which, in those coun­tryes where Religion hath the countenance of the higher powers, may be expected thereby.Gen. 34.3 21.22.2: Speed. Chron. lib 7. Cap. 36. Have we not read of the Shichemites which were circumcised, yet received not the Re­ligion of the Jewes? The Chronicles of our land can tell us how the Danes, being vanquished, propounded to Elfred the 24. Saxon Monarch, in England, for obtayning of their peace, that their king should receive baptisme: by which policy he got the country of the East Angles, by the gift of K. Elfred his God­father. In those times it was usuall to make baptisme a condition, and to compell men to baptisme, as king Edmond did the Danes [Page 164] to make them become his subjects, which being done, they did soone cast off, both fayth and fealty at once. And are not many of the mind of that Roman pretext, of whom Ierom speaketh, who said scoffingly to Damasus. Facite me Romanae [...]rbis espisco­pum, & ero protinus Christanus. I will conclude this passage with the censure of learned Dr. Whittaker.Whittak: praelect. de Sacram. p. 291. 292. Absurdè faciunt ij, qui infidelium liberos baptizant, si parentes volunt baptizari, quasi ec­clesia, suo arbitrio, quibus vellet, baptismum dare posset. They doe absurdly who baptise the children of infidells, if the parents be willing to have them baptised, as if the Church, at their owne pleasure can baptise whom they will.

Pretence. 2 Second pretence.] If the parents be no Christians, yet the sure­tyes are?

Ans. 1. The customary use of suretyes in baptising infants, though it seeme ancient by the mention that is made of them, in the Synod of Ments,Synod: M [...]gunt. Can. 47. Aug. Serm 116. 163. Epist. 23. ad Bonif: Tertull de Bapt. cap. 18. under the name of Compatres spirituales, spirituall fathers and mothers, and, before that, in Augustine, under the name of Sponsores, and fidejussores, suretyes, and be­fore him, in Tertullian, under the name of offerentes, presenters: yet it is not from the Ancient of dayes, it was not from the be­ginning, neither in the first institution of baptisme, nor the prac­tise of the primitive Churches, in the first Century. The first originall of this custom seemeth to be this, that they that tooke the child from the minister when it was baptised should be cal­led spirituall fathers and mothers, that the difference betweene the first and second birth of the child might be signifyed, it being absurd (as they thought) that the same man should be the father of the child, both in respect of generation and of regene­ration. Hence the Papists drew a spirituall kindred, and multi­plyed absurd inventions about it. Which very originall and abuse, it being not of Apostolicall institution, should make the Reformed Churches suspect it, especially seing it is not of ne­cessary use, the charge of educating the child lying upon the pa­rents, and the wholl Church being witnesses.

2. Admit that, in some cases, there may be a lawfull use of speciall witnesses, or suretyes: yet, can these give the infant a right to baptisme, which had none in the parents? That the [Page 165] Covenant is made with parents for themselves and their chil­dren,Gen: 17. 1 Cor: 7. and that thereby the children are holy in the parents we read, but where doe we read so much of suretyes?

3. Admit, that, in some suretyes the children have a right unto baptisme (viz, such as were of Abrahams family,Gen. 17.3. borne in his house, or bought with his money, and so such as are members of Christian familyes, in a like state) yet, will it thence follow, that such suretyes as many times present children to baptisme, in that place, partake of the same priviledge, of whose familyes the in­fants are not members, nor are their familyes ordered like A­brahams, themselves also are, some of them, notoriously wicked, others of them unknowne to the Church, and many of them, such as have no power to see the child educated, and, it may be, shall never see it after that day. Such an one was that unknowne woaman, who seing a harlot delivered of a bastard, instantly tooke the infant, and brought it to the English Church, in Am­sterdam, where (as it fell out) she found the Congregation dis­missed before she came, who being asked by some of the mem­bers, why she came no sooner, answered, how could I come be­fore the child was borne? or to that purpose, and so she hastned to the Dutch Church, where she found them baptising many, & without delay presented the child, which was received, without any difficulty or question. Iudicious Calvin calleth the promise made by those who have no power to educate the child an open mocking of God.Calv. E­pist: 149.

Pretence. 3 Third pretence] They are manifest Christians which professe Christian Religion, at the reading of the Liturgy of Baptisme?

Ans: 1. The name of Christians is a name full of Honour, and wherein Nazianzene, professeth that himselfe and Basill did glory more,Orat: 30. in laud: Basil. then Gyges in his ring, or Midas in his gold. Shall this honourable badge, and, as it were, livery of Christ his fayth­full servants, be put upon a company of varlets, whose fathers Job would have disdayned to set with the doggs of his flock; as if the practise of a Christian life were not requisite to manifest Christians?

2. If persons, otherwise unknowne, are sufficiently mani­fested to be Christians by such a profession of fayth as is usually [Page 166] made there at the reading of the Leiturgy of Baptisme (which is done by saying yae, or some gesture of the body only) to what use was such a declaration of their fayth required in the Apost­les times, and many ages after?

3. Beza puts a case of a man convicted lawfully, in the pres­bytery, of obstinacy in maintayning some dangerous errours a­gainst the immortality of the soule and the resurrection of the body, and then asketh Erastus, shall we account this man a Chri­stian?De presb. & excom: Arg. 4. Reas: And answereth minimè opinor. I suppose not. In like man­ner, I will put a case or two. Terentius of Harlem is infamous to this day for like errours, and for the dangerous fruits thereof in diverse, who yet live in severall places, and some in Amsterdam, who, to this day, have not revoked their wicked errours. Also the story of Robbert Roberts is notoriously knowne, who sayd he would have one child baptised in the true Church, and ha­ving collected a catalogue of severall Churches, which he called the seven sisters, to the Arminians he presented one of his chil­dren to be baptised, but, because he was a Libertine, & a scoffer they refused to baptise it, except some other presēted it: another being about 14 yeares old he presented to the Anabaptists, but they refused it, accounting him too yong to make confession of his faith, one of them was baptised (as I am told) by the Papists, another by the Lutherans, the other in the ordinary Congrega­tion, where he liveth, as it is sayd. This is published in a pam­phlet printed to the view of all men. Againe, the Dutch prea­chers refuse to baptise the infants of Gypses, whom they call Heydenen, because of their disorderly course, yet many of these will offer to make the same profession, which is required at the reading of the Leiturgy, and some of them will tell you, that they have bene baptised. Are these to be accounted as heathen notwithstanding that? why not others also, that are as bad they?

Lastly the Answerer himselfe refused to baptise the child of G. P. being excommunicated, and of a profane life, as its sayd, and I. S. who held with the Anabaptists and Arrians, besides some others, yet, I suppose, neither of those refused to make such a profession as is required at the reading of the Leiturgy. Now, if theyre denying to baptise infants in those cases be warrantable; [Page 167] how can it be justifyed that they would compell me to baptise all that are brought, by whomsoever, in that place?

Pretence. 4 Fourth pretence] The infants should not beare the punishment of their fathers sinne?

Ans: 1. If they ground this Assertion upon Ezek: 18.14;Ezek. 18.14.17. it is impertinent, it being there spoken of a sonne forsaking his fa­thers sinnes, and doing the contrary, with whom the Lord dea­leth not in the course of his justice, but of mercy. Such were Abijah & Iosiah: otherwise, it will not hold in all cases. For, were not infants drowned in the old world, burnt in Sodom, swal­lowed up of the earth with Corah, plagued in Aegipt (especially in the death of the first borne) stoned with Achan, destroyed with the Cananites and Amalekites, rooted out by judgements upon the familyes of Eli, Ieroboam, Baashan &c. with their parents?

2. To come punctually to the question. With Cain,Gen. 4.16 Cap. 6.2. Vide Bez. de excom. p. 35. his poste­rity were driven from the face of God, except so many of them as joyned with the family of Seth, the Church of God, and thence arose the different names of the sonnes of God and the daughters of men. So were the Ismaelites and Edomites, with Ismael, and Esau, their Fathers. At this day, the children of the Iewes are broken off, with their fathers, for unbeleife, and are become strangers from the Covenant of promise, and so have no right to the Sacraments, the outward seales of the covenant.

3. What difference soever we make betweene infants,Deut. 29.2 9. in this respect, yet 1. It doeth not enter into Gods decree cōcerning Election. For secret things we leave to God. 2. Nor doeth it concerne the aeternall salvation of the infant, which is not at all praejudiced by the want of baptisme, it being not by its owne contempt, or neglect of it, (else we must conclude all those in­fants to be damned, which died in the wildernes, being uncircū ­cised, which God forbid!) but it only concerneth their admission, or not admission into a visible Church. And so a difference may, and must be made. For, though all infants are by nature alike children of wrath. Yet, in respect of the Adoption outwardly manifested, they are not alike, especially to us, and in reference to Church priviledges. For, I demand, was Jsaack, and the [Page 168] children of the heathen alike, in this respect. And, if no child should be denyed the Sacrament for the parents sinne, why are not the infants of Iewes, Turkes, Indians, Moores, Gypses ad­mitted, without any difference, to baptisme?

Pretence. 5 Fifth pretence.] The five Ministers yeelded, that, if any other case fell out, whereby it may seeme that the infant presented should not be baptised, that then the judgment of the wholl English presbytery, or also, if need be, and if conveniently it may be done, that the judgment of the Classis of Amsterdam be obtayned, heard, and rested in.

Ans:] This concession of the five Ministers, which is used for a pretence against me, is really and indeed much against themselves. For.

1. Their judgment is, that I should be left free, in any other case, to order my practise in admitting infants to baptisme, by the advice of the English presbytery, without requiring the counsail of the Classis, or observing, the custom of that place therein. If so, why not in this case also? The case whereat I stuck, was to be free not to baptise those infants, whose parents, being no members of that Church, are altogether unknowne. For which purpose I insisted upon this demand (which I still thinck to be aequall, and, in that place, necessary) that none such should present their children in publick to be baptised by me, till I had before received satisfaction concerning them, by private conference with them, or otherwise. Yet, to prevent all offence, I freely offered, in any difficult case that might fall out, to acquaint the English presbytery with it, and to seeke their advise.

Now, if my demand, about being satisfyed concerning the parents and presenters, be judged by those five learned and pru­dent men fit to be granted, in any other case, why not in this case? Let the difference be shewen betweene other cases and this, in reference to my demand. Will they say, this case is al­ready determined? Let them shew where. If they say in the Scripture; Let them alleadge one text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Revelations for it. If they say, in some Natio­nall Synod of these Countryes; Let them name the Synod, and produce the Canon, in any one Synod that hath bene from the [Page 169] beginning of Reformation to this day. Jf they cannot, as it is certaine they cannot, where then? If they say in the Classis; It will concerne the Classis to shew, 1, by what right they take upon them to limit the Churches in such cases, wherein the Scriptures and the Synods have left them at liberty, 2. How this commeth to be so particularly and severely pressed upon the Ministers of the English Church, seing no more is required of the Ministers of any other Church, by the Classicall orders, then to subscribe to the Catechisme, and to the Belgick Confession, and to the last Synod of Dort, but no such practise is taught or defended in any one of these.

2. This further may be collected out of the concession of these five Ministers, that the judgment of the English presbytery is sufficient, in some cases which may fall out and cause doubts in the Minister about baptizing some that are brought, and that in those cases it is to be heard and rested in, if it can be obtayned, without the judgment of the Classis, which the Minister is not bound to seeke, but when it is needfull, through his not obtay­ning the other. Herein they contradict the Answerer, who concludeth the Elders to be insufficient for this, and that,Sect. 23. Ans. 6. not by a common insufficiency that is in all men for holy administrations 1. Cor. 2.16. but by a speciall insufficiency in cases of this nature. Which is the rather to be observed, because there he sayth that the Classis hath already judged and determined it, and there­fore they are insufficient: but here he sayth, the five Ministers have referred me to the judgment of the English presbytery, & elsewhere he sayth,Sect. 19. that this wrighting of the five Ministers was by all the ministers of the Classis, with one consent, approved and confir­med. If this be so; then the Classis have not judged the Elders to be insufficient in cases of this nature. Thus he may be found not only contradicted by the Classis, but also contradictory to himselfe.

3. This also is implyed in this expression of the five Mini­sters, that, if the judgment of the presbytery cannot be ob­tayned, and so it be needfull to seeke the judgment of the Clas­sis, that then it should be heard and rested in, so farr as the judg­ment of the presbytery should have bene rested in, if it could [Page 170] have bene obtained. So farr, I say. For, the Answerer sayth, there are cases, Sect. 24. wherin their judgment must not be rested in, but the mat­ter must be brought to the Classis. Whereunto I add, that there are cases, wherein we must not rest in the determination of Classes, or Synods, but appeale to the Scriptures, as to the highest ju­dicatory, and therefore are alike bound to rest in the determi­nation of the presbytery, and of the Classis, that is, in neither of them, further then they agree with the Scripture.

4. When they add, that the judgment of the Classis is to be saught, in case of necessity, so farr as it may be done conveniently, they suppose truely, that the case may be such, as it cannot be done conveniently, or at all done, when a Minister is put upon it suddenly. For even whilest he is in the pulpit, the child is brought, many times: where shall he find the Classis, at such a time, when he can not have time so much as to advise with the Elders that sit before him, without making some publick distur­bance? which very consideration serveth to declare the reaso­nablenes of my demand for private satisfaction to be given me before hand, to prevent all publick disturbance.

5. This seeming concession is merely seeming, and it is contradictory to it selfe. For 1, if there are cases, wherein the judgment of the Elders will be requisite and necessary; why doe they hinder me from the use of meanes to find out those causes, when they bind me to baptise those that are brought, though I have no knowledge of them, by private conference, or other­wise? 2. If that way of having some precedent private examination of the parents & suretyes in Christian Religion be so greatly approved by them, that they doe judge that this fore said examination be orday­ned, so farr as may stand with the aedification of the English Church: why doe they afterwards add, that if the parēts or suretyes shall re­fuse to come, & undergoe this examination, or those that doe come, shall not seeme, for that time, to satisfye the brethren &c. yet the infant &c. shall not therefore be excluded from baptisme, or deprived thereof. This is that which the Satyre could not understand, that a man should warme his hands and coole his pottage with the same blast of breath, nor can I see how, by the same men, in the same wrigh­ting, [Page 171] the same course should be so greatly approved and applau­ded, that they judge that it must be ordained, and yet after­ward so much slighted, that men that will not submit to it, are left free, and that by their ordinance, to doe what they list. The end of that ordināce was the aedification of the English Church, by a reverend and right use of the Seales: If, for this end, that course is to be ordained: why is it not to be maintained for the same end? Either it is too frivolou [...] [...]o be ordained to such an end, or it is too weighty to be slighted, in such a manner,

6. What helpe can be expected from the English presby­tery, in this case, whe [...] the Answerer will alwayes interpose, either to have matters concluded according to this custom, and his former practise, or else he will protest against their judge­ment in this matter, and carry it to the Classis, under a pretence that they were insufficient, or partiall, or there was some diffe­rence. How can it be expected to be otherwise, if he resolve to carry matters in his way, or else to make a difference, that there may be some ground for appeale to the Classis, as to an higher judicatory?

Pretence. 6 Sixth pretence] This manner of admitting those that are brought thus promiscuously is approved by the judgment of the five godly and learned ministers, who protest, in the presence of God, that, in this advise they deale sincerely, and with a good conscience, desiring nothing more then to further my calling.

Ans:] This pretence hath so much shew in it, that the Ans­werer himselfe was deceived by it, and incouraged to place too much confidence in it, as appeareth in the various uses he hath made of it, upon severall occasions. Jn which respect, it will be convenient, that we examine it very particularly, which that I may doe, we will draw the strength of it into fowre heads, which we will expresse in so many objections, and subnect their severall answers.

Ob. 1 This custom is approved of by the judgment of the five learned and prudent men?

Ans. 1 It is not sufficient that learned and prudent men approve of a thing, unles the grounds, whereupon they doe it, be delared, and approved to be sufficient. Tertullian was a learned man. [Page 172] Yet Ierom taxeth him for an errour about monogamy, Hieron in Tit. Cap. 1 Aug: de Civit. dei. lib. 21. Cap. 17. Hieron in Zep: 3. Aug: Epist 28. Chrisost: Hom: 3. de Lazaro. or the un­lawfullnes of second marriages. Origen was a learned man: Yet Augustine accuseth him of an errour about the salvation of the Devills, at last. Hierom was a learned man: yet he erred in hol­ding the merit of the minister to be necessary to the making of the Sacrament. Augustine was a learned man: yet he erred a­bout the absolute necessity of baptisme to salvation. And Chry­sostom was a learned m [...]: Yet he erred when he hold, that where spirituall bookes are, the Devills have no power. These 5 Ancients, all men will confesse, are not inferiour in learning or prudence to the five Dutch ministers who subscribed that wrighting, yet they erred.

2. The Answerer himselfe pretendeth the same cause for his not resting in the judgment of more then five as learned and prudent men as these,Sect: 9. Ans. 3. in a question that concerned me. Will such a plea hold in that case? Then much more in this.

Ob. 2 Though learned and prudent men may erre apart: yet when so many consult together, and conclude upon a point; their judgment joynt­ly declared, should be rested in?

The judgment of learned and prudent men is to be received with all due reverence; though they severally & apart expresse it, much more, when they, joyning together in consultation, doe consent and agree in one conclusion: provided that the truth doe not suffer praejudice by mens authority. In which respect it was learnedly and prudently sayd by Augustine.Aug: E­pist: 48. Heare that which the Lord sayth, not that which Donatus sayth, Rogatus sayth, Ʋincentius sayth, Hilarius sayth, Ambrose saith, Augustine sayth. (yet these were six learned and prudent men) but heare what the Lord sayth. 1 Cor: 1.12. For to doe otherwise, what is it but to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas; which the Scripture con­demneth.

2. Why may not five together erre as well as five asunder? 1. Suppose Tertullian, and Lactantius, and Victorinus, and Ire­neus,Hieron: in Ezek. lib. 11. Cap. 36. and Apollinarius, five learned and prudent men, who held the errour of the Millenaryes (as Ierom reporteth) had subscribed a wrighting to assure Ierom of the truth of that opinion: would he have thought himselfe bound to rest in that their opinion, up­on [Page 173] their naked affirmation, which he judged to be their er­rour? 2. Suppose that those five learned and prudent men, Dr. Ames, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Balmford, Mr. Roe had sent such a wrighting of their private judgment against this dis­order of promiscuous baptising to this Answerer? would he thinck himselfe bound to rest therein? If not: why doeth he re­quire this of me?

But they protest in the presence of God, that they dealt sincerly, 3. Ob. and with a good conscience?

Ans:2. Sam. 7.25. Nathan dealt sincerely & with a good conscience (as he thought, and would have protested, if it had bene requi­red) when he advised David about building a Temple to the Lord, & incouraged him thereunto: Yet he erred. Peter thought he dealt sincerely and with a good conscience (and, before Paul had convinced him of his evill, it may be, would have protested it also) in his temporizing first with the Gentiles,Gal. 2.11.12. and then with those of the Circumcision: yet he erred. Those famous lights, spoken of before, thought they dealt sincerely, and with a good conscience, in those opinions which they defended: yet they erred.

They desired nothing more then to further the promotion of Mr. D. 4. Ob. to the ministry of the English Church?

Ans: 1. I doe easily beleive that the Dutch Ministers did real­ly desire my setling there, and that, when they went to the An­swerer, their purpose was to further it. And I am perswaded of them, that when they wrote to me, they did it, upon some incouraging intimations suggested by the Answerer, that a let­ter from them signifying the concurrence and consent of theire judgment with him in this point would prevaile to draw me to yeeld to it. I am also confident, they were the more apt to ap­prove such courses of accommodation, as, they saw, would best please him, vpon a conceit that the Answerer himselfe did much desire me, which also themselves did intimate in the wrighting subscribed by them. So that their miscarrage in this buisenes was not from any disaffection to me, or desire of hindring my settling there, but from too much credulity and tractablenes to complye with the Answerer, in his way, the issue of whose pur­pose, [Page 174] they foresaw not. These things being premised, I pro­ceed to shew the reason, why I could not rest in their conusaile, in this particular.

2. Two things, especially, hindred me from resting therein. 1. Because the same thing which they propounded, only as their private judgment, the Answered pressed as a law to me, wherein I must rest, that is, conforme thereunto, and this my resting therein must be the condition, whereupon he would consent to my setling there, else not. So that his finger was heavyer upon me, in this, then their loynes, & he assumed a power to himselfe of prescribing rules to me, which the government of these chur­ces hath not given him, yea, more then is given to the Classes themselves by any Synod, or to any Synod by the word of God, to injoyne this thing to a Minister as a condition of his call to a pastorall charge. 2. Because the five Ministers propounded their private judgment nakedly without shewing their grounds from the Scripture, so that they seemed to me to deale by their au­thority, not by argument. Now the mere authority, that is, the bare affirmation of godly and learned men, is lesse to be regar­ded then their reasons, and yet their reasons, without the word, are of no value, in Divine matters. For all men are lyars, apt to be deceived, and so to deceive, impossibility of erring being proper to the Scriptures, which therefore are only fit to be the Canon or rule for the ordering of Ministers concerning their wholl behaviour in the house of God. 1. Tim. 3.14.15. Mat. 21.13. Mat. 12.3 Hence Christ and his Apost­les, 1. reproved disorders by Scripture (so Christ did the pro­faning of the Temple) 2, justified things well done by Scrip­ture (so Christ did the pulling of the eares of corne) 3. resolved & answered questions by Scripture (so Christ did,Mat. 19.4 Mat. 15.4 Mat. 22.29.32. Acts. 2.1.34. Act. 15. in the case of Divorce) 4. confuted errours by Scriptures (so Christ did the Pharisees and Sadduces) 5. confirmed and proved Doctrines by Scriptures (so Peter proved the resurrection and ascention of Christ &c.) 6. gave advice, and made orders, not by their owne authority, but by the direction of the Holy Ghoast, which im­mediate assistance seing we want, light must be fetched from Scripture, if we will guide others safely by our counsayle, with­out which learned men may erre, have erred, and doe erre, & [Page 175] therefore their judgments must be tryed, and judged by it, and no further be rested in, then they agree with it. According to that of Ierom Quod ex Scripturâ non habet authoritatem câadem fa­cilitate contemnitur, quâ acceptatur. Hieron. in Math. 23. That which hath not autho­rity from the Scripture is as easily despised as received.

Seaventh pretence. It is the custom of these Churches, which all, 7. Pretence. that are admitted by the Classis, doe promise to observe.

This pretence the Answerer insinuateth in that which he sayd about the forme of Mr. B. calling, Ans. which was to minister the word, and the dependances thereof, according to the order of these Re­formed Churches, and especially with these which are combined with the Classis of Amsterdam, Concerning that expression some thing more may be noated, in the examination of the seventeenth Section, and when we come to the eight and twentith Section.

For the present, Reply. we will oppose (besides all considerations which have bene formerly alleadged, or may be heareafter) two things to this custom, to prove that this cannot be the order of these Reformed Churches, but must be only a disorder crept in, and prevayling by mens ossitancie, and sleepines, which is Sa­thans best opportunity for the sowing of tares, which I shall de­monstrate thus.

First, oppose the Confessions of the Reformed Churches to this custom,Ham. Confess- Sect. 13. and it will be found that they cannot stand toge­ther, for, when they described, qui sunt baptisandi, who are to be bap­tised, speaking of infants; they say, they must be the children of persons that are in the Covenant Helvet: poster. cap. 13. of the people of God Helvet. prior art. 21. et Bo­hem. c. 21. of holy parents Gallic. Art. 35., of those to whom the promises belong Belgic. Art. 34., who are inser­ted into the Church, and only them Saxon confess. Art. 13., the true children of Abraham Suevit. cap. 17. such as are in alike condition as they were who had right to Cir­cumcision amongst the Iewes. Now compare, with this doctrine of the Reformed Churches, the practise of that place, as it hath bene declared, and it will appeare that their owne Confessions plead against this custom. And, how can that be called the or­der of these Reformed Churches, which agreeth not with the doctrine of these reformed Churches?

Secondly, oppose the Canons of the Synods of these coun­tryes to this custom, and the thing will be manifested. In a [Page 176] Synod held at Dort in the yeare 1578. Art. 59. It was referred to the judgment of the Ministers and Elders, whether there be any law­full cause brought by any, why the child to be baptised should be defer­red from Baptisme: and in Art. 61. It was ordered, that the fathers, before they bring their children to baptisme, shall goe to the Minister, or an Elder, that the Church may have notice of the partyes that are to be baptised. And in Art. 62. They are appoynted to acquaint the Minister what name they will give the child, and to shew him how they will educate the child in that Religion.

In a Synod held at Middleborough in the yeare 1581. the 22. question. It is demanded, whether the parents of children doe goe first to the Minister, or Elders, and certify them, that they desire to have their children baptised before, to see whether they judge it meet to receive such witnesses or not? In Art. 75. It is questioned, whether the Minister should be rebuked, when he baptiseth children, whose parents appoynt witnesses, which stand not for religion? Ans. The parents shall be wonted, as much as is possible, that they first speake with the Mini­sters before they present their children to baptisme, &c.

In a Synod held at Vtricht, in the yeare 1590. Art 1. It is de­creed, that Baptisme is to be administred, according to the ordinance of Christ, without Godfathers to bind themselves, only the father and mother to promise to trayne it up in the Religion.

Now, compare the Canons of these Synods with the custom of that place, and they will be found so farr to varye from it, that it will appeare not to be the order of these reformed Churches, but a disorder crept in, as we have said before.

I will conclude this examination of pretences used in de­fence of this unwarrantable custom with the judicious censure of Dr. Ames, who knew well the miscarriage of this disorder, in these countryes.De con­scientia. Cap. 27.4 Incuria illa idcirco neutiquam potest excusari, quâ promiscuè, & sine disermine, admittuntur quicunque, et a qui­buscunque offeruntur. Therefore that carelesnes can by no means be excused, whereby all, promiscuously, and without difference, are ad­mitted to baptisme, by whomsoever they are presented. And so much shall suffice for the examination of the twelfth Section, and for declaration of the grounds, whereupon I durst not bind my selfe, by promise, or otherwise, to rest in the judgment of those [Page 177] five Ministers, that is, to conforme to the custom of this place in administring Baptisme promiscuously to all that are presen­sed, and by whomsoever.

The Answer to the 13. Section exami­ned. Of the order agreed upon in the Consistory.

THat which here, he calleth an order, will, upon examinati­on, be found very farr from accommodating me. ‘I will wright it downe as I received it from the Elders, out of the noate, which I have in keeping. Ian. 19. 1634. The Consistory being gathered, Elders, and Deacons together, it was deman­ded, whether that all persons being no members should be sent unto Mr. D. to desire the baptisme of their children, and to make confession to him, for his satisfaction in his administra­tion of that Sacrament? The answer was by all voyces, yea, if Mr. D. can be persuaded thereunto. And for the better, and more convenient bringing of the parents or presenters of the children to the Minister, it is agreed, by most voyces in Con­sistory, that Th: A. the Coster shall bring or direct the partyes to the Ministers house.’ ‘Afterward, this question was propoun­ded by the Answerer, & written downe in these words. Whe­ther, if persons ignorant, being willing to receive instruction, allthough not presently able to render a reason, shall be sent away by him, or admitted, to witt, they approving of the doc­trine of baptisme taught in these Churches, and as by us usu­ally is propounded?’ A Copy of this pretended order, with the questionw, as brought to me by some of the Elders to see what answer J would make to them boath. Which when I had con­sidered, I found the order too short, and the question captious.

First for the order J let these five things be duely weighed.

1. The Answerer dateth this order Ian. 15. which the El­ders [Page 178] date Ian: 19. as he dated the ministers wrighting to me Ian: 28. which themselves, in their latine copy to me, dated Ian: 20. which difference is not of much consequence, only it she­weth that it is not safe for the Reader to be too confident of the Answerers memory.

2. Where as I propounded three wayes of accommodation (as the eleventh Section sheweth) here is but one of them pro­pounded in the Consistory.

3. That one is otherwise propounded then I expressed it. For I did not desire that all, whose children should be presented to baptisme, should be sent to me, but only that it should be so, when it fell into my course to administer that Sacrament (my motion being that we might not performe it joyntly, but severally, and alternis vicibus) neither did I require that they should make con­fession to me, but that I might speake with them, before they pre­sented them in publick, that I might have some knowledge of them, by private conference with them, to prevent publick di­sturbance.

4. The course, whereupon they agreed for accommodation, was not sufficient. For 1. many present their children to Bap­tisme that acquaint not Th. A. with it before hand. The Answerer told me that they come many times in the sermon time, no man having knowledge thereof before. How shall Tho: A. send such to me? 2. They that doe acquaint him with their purpose of presenting their children, what if they will not come to me, upon his persuasion? Who seeth not that I am, in such cases, and the like, as farr to seeke for accommodation, as if no order had bene made? I told the Elders that this would not be sufficient, unlesse it were added, that, no infants should be presented in publick to baptisme, whose parents are not members of the Church, before the minister had received sa­tisfaction concerning the parents, in private. To this purpose, I required that a firme order should be made in the Consistory, to secure me from further trouble about this point, which the Elders promised, and indeavoured to effect (as I was told) but the Answerer resisted it, refusing his consent thereunto, without the consent of the Classis.

[Page 179]5. The offer which he pretended that he voluntarily made, for the inlarging of this order, and my further accommodation, to wit, that he would send to me those parents, that should come to him &c. and so, departing from his right, he was content to referr the wholl worke of examination to my discretion, is a vaine boast of false liberality. For. 1. few, if any, come to him to advertise him thereof. 2. If he should speake to them, they would chuse, and it, may be, re­fuse, and make contention, if a firme order were not made to prevent it. 3. His referring of the wholl worke of examination to me, was cast in for a pretence, to evade the first meane of ac­commodation propounded by me: and by the second course,Sect. 11. which J propounded for accommodation also, it may appeare, that this offer was not for the accommodation which I desired, but to hinder it rather.

Secondly, for the question.] Any one may see, it was capti­ous. For. 1. Why doeth he speake only of knowledge, when I would (as he knoweth) be satisfyed concerning other things, as well as their knowledge? 2. Why doeth he speake of the mea­sure and degree of knowledge, so obscurely and suspiciously? 3. Why was this question added to the order? Was it not to shew that the order should no further stand, then he received satisfaction in my answer to his question? And hereby two things are manifested. 1. that the order was not absolute, but conitionall, if I could be persuaded thereunto. 2. that I did not ap­prove of this order, as sufficient, as may further appeare in my dislike of his question, whereunto, if my answer had bene to his content, to what end did he procure the five Ministers to signe that wrighting which was sent to me afterwards, as him selfe confesseth in the beginning of this Section? It had bene superfluous, and to no purpose, if the matter had bene before concluded amongst our selves.

For a Conclusion of this Section, to satisfye the Reader that this was to be called rather a proposition or motion about an order to be deliberated upon, then an order perfected by ma­ture deliberation, these Considerations may be added to what hath bene said.

1. That with this pretended order a question was joyned, [Page 180] and my answer to boath was required. This sheweth that the order was not absolute, but to be assented to by the Answerer, if my answer to his question should please him.

2. That, in that order it is expresly sayd, [yea if Mr. D. can be in­treated &c.] which againe sheweth, that it was no absolute order but to stand, if I could be intreated &c. So that this could not be called an order, till the Answerer had bene satisfyed about myne answer to his question, and till I had yeelded to what, by this order, should be propounded to me.

3. That, when the order was brought to me, though the word satisfaction and content was spoken of by me, as a word fit to be in the order, yet I demanded how this could be done by that order, upon the reasons before mentioned in my fifth proofe of the defectivenes of that order,

4. That, upon my mislike of it, the order was left with me to peruse, and to add what I thought requisite, as it was fit it should, seing the end of it, was my satisfaction.

5. That, before J had polished and perfected that order, to my content, the letter of the five Ministers was brought to me, which then put me out of hope, till the Elders againe promised me, the next day, that all should be made well.

As for theyr wrighting of this amongst the Acts of their Con­sistory, whether it was only entred into a waste booke, or writ­ten downe, for a record, J know not, let them looke to that amongst themselves, but what I have affirmed, I know to be true, in every particular.

The Answer to the 14. Section exami­ned, concerning my falsely supposed consenting to the wrighting of the five ministers, upon an order made in the Consistory.

THe pretended order abovesaid being found insufficient, and, eo nomine, excepted against by me, and the Elders having assured me, that, either that should be mended, to my Content, or else a better and more sufficient one should be made, it now remaineth that we examine his report of my con­sent to the wrighting of the five Ministers, wherein also many things are misreported.

1. Here againe we must differ about his report of the time. He sayth, that the day, wherein this discourse was be­tweene us, was Ian. 22. 1634. and yet, that it was after I had received the wrighting from the five Ministers, which wrigh­ting, in his translation, is dated Ian. 28. 1634. When the 22. day, shall come to be after the 28. day, in the same moneth, this report will be true, not before. 2. As untrue is his report, that then I sig­nifyed my cōsent. To make that appeare, I will breifely relate the story of that matter. On saturday, towards the evening, one of the Elders brought me that wrighting subscribed by the five Ministers, which when I had read, I told him what I thought, & that I durst not yeeld to it. Both he, at that time, & the next day, after the fore noone Sermon (it being the Lords day) the other Elders prayed me not to shew my dislike of that wrighting to the Answerer, fearing that he would make ill use of it, assuring me that all should be made well, to my content. The same day, after the second Sermon, the Answerer asked me, if I had re­ceived a wrighting from the five Ministers? whereunto when I answered affirmatively, he demanded of me, whether I did rest therein? Being loath to give offence, I did rather evade, then answer the question, by saying (not only, as he reporteth, that the Dutch ministers had done what they could, but also) that the wrighters them selves did seeme not to require me to rest in it (seing themselves say, in theyre wrighting; that it is but theyre privatum judicium, private judgement) but rather that they would be well content that some order might be made in the Consistory, as appeareth in the close of their wrightingh, and accordingly I did thereunto referr my selfe. When the Elders, fearing the Answerers drift, in this discourse, hastned him into the Consistory, one of them saying he knew my mind, he an­swered, [Page 182] that he desired to heare it from my selfe, and after­wards, when, upon my answer to him, they againe indeavoured to breake off our discourse, he sayd to them discontentedly, I perceive that he doeth not rest in the wrighting of the five Ministers, further then it maketh way for an order to be made in the Consistory. When I charged the Answerer herewith, what replyed he? If this be true, it followes that he did consent and rest in that wrighting of the Ministers. Is not this a strange inference? Let us see how he proveth it? Seing this order (sayth he) was made and confirmed in the Consistory. I professed my dislike of that order which was made, as insufficient, and the Elders thereupon promised that an order should be made to my content, in this particular, to this order to be made I referred my selfe, resting so farr in the wrighting of the five Ministers, as it made way for the making of that order, which the Answerer had opposed formerly. And to this day, I could rest so farr in that wrighting, if I had any de­sire of being joyned with him, from which I am very farr, hav­ing such experience of his spirit.

Whereas he speaketh of my referring him for answer to Mr. W.] what likelihood was there in that, when I had given myne owne answer? I sayd indeed Mr. W. knoweth my mind, and that I had given my answer to him. But what is that to this? And if Mr. W, misunderstanding me, did report matters other­wise, then I my selfe had done to the Answerer himselfe; who seeth not, that he should have accounted that to be the answer; which I my selfe gave to himselfe, not that which Mr. W. gave so farr differing from myne, if he gave any such.

The answer to the 15. Section exami­ned, concerning their going to the Magistrate

THis Section is begun, and ended with misreports, and fil­led up with causeles reproaches, in the intercurrent passa­ges. [Page 183] For. 1. he sayth, in the beginning, that, upon my consent to the wrighting of the five ministers, considered with the order above mentioned, it was thereupon resolved &c. The untruth of this re­port is manifested to the Reader in the two former Sections, 2. In the conclusion of this Section, he chargeth me with re­proaching him, when I sayd in my wrighting, to prove that he did not desire to have me with him, that the conditions, whereunto he held me, shewed it to be so, and added, upon which termes, he is con­tent to have others, whom he hath no cause to desire for Colleagues with him. This he sayth, is a great untruth. But I know it to be true, and can demonstrate it, if I would fall into his veine of disparadging men in print, and diverse of his Congregation will witnes it to be true. 3. For the intercurrent reproachfull passages, the Reader may noate more then a good many. But I let these things passe, & will relate the story of this passage also, as it was. The Answerer (in all probability) by the helpe of this wrighting of the five Minister, thaught that he had me now fast in his lurch, which way soever I resolved upon. If I should rest in it; then the questiō was yeelded & I had bound my selfe to bap­tise promiscuously all that should be brought, according to their custom: which I could not doe, without sinne against my con­science. If I should refuse to conforme thereunto; he had the five Ministers now ingaged to assist him, both with the Magi­strates, and with the Classis, to hinder my setling there. This ground-worke being thus layed, it was no hard matter to per­suade him to goe to either of them. Hereupon, at the intreaty of the Elders, he accompanyed them to the Burgomasters, whom, when they made their addresse to them, they found prae­possest with a false information, about the cause of my comming into those countryes, concerning which they desired to be sa­tisfyed. For they had bene told that it was not for matters Ec­clesiasticall, but for some offence against the civill Magistrate. which when I understood, I desired the Elders, that they would not prosecute their request any further, till this matter were cleared. And, upon enquiry, what had bene sayd on both sides, I found that the Answerer was so farr from doing me full right [Page 184] (in clearing my innocency, as he might have done, having un­derstood the truth concerning the cause of my comming into these parts, by myne owne report to himselfe, in private) that what he spake might seeme, rather to encrease, then remove the suspicion.

The pretende cause of my trouble with the civill Magistra­tes in England (as it appeared) was a pious worke, wherein I (with others more worthy) was intrusted, to witt, the redee­ming of impropriations, & restoring of the meanes to the right use, the maintenance of faythfull and painfull ministers, in those places, where was most need. Wherein three other ministers (whereof two were Doctors of Divinity) and fowre Lawyers (of which one was the Kings Serjant at Law) and five Citizens (of whom one was Lord Major of London, when I came thence) were trustees with me, by the intreaty and appoyntment of ma­ny, some whereof are at rest, others are yet alive. The worke it selfe was applauded in that very order which was made in the Exchecquor against our proceeding in it: Our faithfullnes in discharging that trust was testifyed by his Ma^ties Atturney ge­nerall (who prosecuted the suite against us) upon his examina­tion of our accounts, which we gave in, upon our oathes. I had no more cause to flye for feare of trouble about this, then the rest, nor had they, or I any cause to withdraw our selves, at that time, when I came over. For the buisenes was wholly ended before my departure. This objection being answered, and the informer himselfe falling off from his report, the former motion, for their consent to my calling to that ministry, was, without my knowledge, revived, by the Elders. Before the Burgomasters had given their answer, they were informed by one or two of the Dutch ministers, both concerning me, and concerning this difference: when the Elders againe wayted upon them for their answer, the Burgomasters told them. 1. that they were satis­fyed about the former report. 2. That they had received a very good report from one or two of the Dutch ministers, with whom they had speech, concerning me. 3. That the sayd mi­nisters had acquainted them with some difference, which had risen about this custom, and that J had now promised to joyne [Page 185] with the Classis, and to conforme to the orders, and customs of the Dutch Church, and, in particular, in this their manner of bap­tising all that are brought. And they concluded, in effect, in these words, we expect that he doe accordingly, and so you may pro­ceed in your choyse. By this the Reader may perceive that matters were now so farr from being accommodated, that they were set in a worse state, then before. For now, not only the five Mi­nisters, but the Magistrates also were ingaged so farr in this matter, that they gave but a conditionall assent unto my calling, and had, upon misinformation, made my conformity to this un­warrantable custom, the condition thereof. So that, how easily might he, who before abused the Magistrates with untrue re­ports about the cause of my coming over (to hinder my admit­tance) by a malicious (though true) complaint of my not obser­ving that order, in some cases, cause me to be ejected thence? Now a gapp was opened to every one, that hereafter should seeke my hurt, to procure some such children to be brought (of which sort there can be no want, at any time, in such a citty as Amsterdam) as they know I dare not baptise, that thereupon they might ground a complaint against me to the Magistrate. Nor could I, in such a case, expect any helpe from the Answerer, whom I have found an hinderer of my accommoda­tion hitherto, both in those three wayes propounded by me, & in the order, which should have bene made in the Consistory, by the promise and endeavours of the Elders.

An examination of his ansvver to the 16. Section, concerning their going to the Classis to seeke their consent.

THe truth of this passage I will breifely relate. After the Elders had received this answer from the Magistrate; out of their desire to accomplish the buisenes (and not finding me at home when they came to speake with me) they went, with­out [Page 186] my consent, or knowledge, to one of the Dutch ministers, whom they intreated to call an extraordinary Classis to meet on the munday following, fearing (as it seemeth) least longer de­layes might occasion new troubles. The minister, having gran­ted their request, in their returne homewards from him, they told me what they had done, about the calling of a Classis, I, being yet ignorant of the issue of their treaty with the Magi­strates, desired to know what conclusion they had made, and the very words, wherein they had expressed their consent, which when I understood, I told them that matters were now in a worse state then before: they also apprehended my reason. I wished that the calling of a Classis had bene forborne, and prayed them to returne to the minister, from whom they came, and to wish him not to call an extraordinary Classis, for this matter, and to tell him that, upon some considerations, they are willing that matters rest as they are, till the ordinary time should come. They promised so to doe, and went from me with that resolution, but another of the Elders, with whom they mett afterwards, altered their purpose, and therefore they went not. This change of their mind I knew not, till it was too late to helpe it. The day when the Classis mett, they were with me, in the morning, before they went to the meeting. I prayed them to deale plainly with the Classis, in telling them my judgment in this question, and told them the danger of neglecting so to doe. They promised me, and purposed to doe so, but perceiving that the Ministers of the Classis gave consent to my call, without interposing any question about my conformity to this custom, they did not performe their promise, still hoping and purposing to secure and satisfye me by an effectuall order that should be made for that end, in the Consistory. Whereas the Answerer sayth, that the Ministers, at that time, understood from them, that I had declared my consent with them, I am informed by the Elders, that, not one word was spoken, to them, at that time, thereabout. whereas he sayth, Had I knowne that he was unresol­ved to accord with us, and to goe on in the same practise with us, I would never have made such a proposition for his admission, as I did, in the Classis. J answer.

[Page 187]1. Had he said so to me, at first, much trouble might have bene prevented, but he held me in expectation of a better end, by telling me that he would see what he could doe with the Classis, and that he would not answer me alone. &c.

2. What proposition he made I know not, but what oppo­sition he made, both concerning the tendring of a call to me in wrighting, and concerning the manner of expressing my call, both he knoweth, and others can testifye that were there present.

The answer to the seaventeenth Section examined, concerning my withdrawing of my consent first made knowne unto him, as is pretended.

THe title of this Section supposeth. 1. that I had consented, 2. that afterwards J with drew my consent: the untruth of both which assertions hath bene shewen in the foregoing Sec­tions. Here, he speaketh of matters that passed betweene us the next Consistory, after this meeting of the Classis. The story whereof was thus. A wrighting, wherein the agreement of the Answerer with the officers of the Church about my calling, was delivered to me by the Answerer, & Mr. A, which whē I had read, I first gave them thanckes for this expression of their good e­steeme of me, and then, to omit other passages, desired to be certifyed, whether the order was made in the Consistory which was promised. Whereby it appeareth that I still expected that an order should be made, more to my content then yet it had bene. For answer hereunto, the Answerer told me, that they could doe no more in that buisenes, then had bene done formerly When I heard this, & perceived, by a clause in that wrighting, that, in accepting this call, I should bind my selfe to conforme to [Page 188] the orders and customs of the Dutch Church in this particular, as well as in others, I made some demurr indeed, and desired time for deliberation, and being urged by the Answerer to a speedy resolution, I gave my answer to them in the Consistory, in the end of the same weeke. But desiring, & obtayning secret conference with the Answerer, I acquainted him, in as inoffen­cive manner as I could, with my still continuing unsatisfyednes, about the lawfullnes of that conformity which was expected, praying him to helpe me with his advise, that my desistance might be so ordered as might best conduce to the preventing of all disturbance, and offence. He refused to give advice, saying he might doe nothing, of himselfe, in that matter. To omitt o­ther passages, seing the Elders, and Deacons were now come together, we agreed to speake with them in the Consistory. As for his proceeding to hasten my calling, without delay, upon my supposed consent; the examining of the former Sections, hath sufficiently given light to the intelligent Reader, for the disco­very of the vanity of this overture.

But if any man thinck I made too strict an interpretation of the words in that wrighting, which the Answerer calleth a forme of calling (because, upon the reading of it; I made some demurr, desiring time of deliberation) let him know that, if I had accepted the calling delivered to me in that forme, I had actually bound my selfe to conforme to that unwarrantable custom. Nor is this my opinion alone, but the judgment of the Answerer, and (as he sayth) of the Classis also, which will appeare by his owne words hereafter to be examined,Sect. 28. p. 76. wherein, to prove that M.B. was not of the same opinion with me, he produceth these words out of the forme of his calling, which was sent to him in wrighting. For (sayth he) being called to administer the word and dependances thereof, according to the [...]rder of these Reformed Churches, and espe­cially of those which are combined with the Classis of Amsterdam, and making no exception against this forme, but resting therein, after this question had bene propounded unto him, this is taken for an evidence that he was willing to observe their order in the administration of Bap­tisme. TO SƲCH AS THEY ƲSE TO DOE, and so it was understood by the Classis.

So that, it is not only the judgment of the Answerer but of the Classis also. Nor was this Mr. B. case alone, to have such an exposition put upon those words, in his forme of calling, but in the same sense, the same forme was tendred me. Therefore the Answerer addeth. And had Mr. D. accepted this call, when it was, in the same forme, offered unto him, that would also have bene taken for a grant of his professed agreement with us, &c. Now let the Rea­der judge, whether, my apprehensions, concerning the pur­pose of those expressions, so rightly concurring with the inten­tion and meaning of the Classis, and of the Answerer, and my judgement being so setled concerning the unlawfullnes of that custom, and all meanes for accommodation being frustra­ted, I had not cause to desire time for deliberation, and to be wholly turned, in my affections, from that calling and imploy­ment, which was so clogged with ill conditions.

The answer to the 18. Section examined, concerning another Act of accommo­dation for my satisfaction.

THe Answerer beginneth this Section with a misreport of my withdrawing my consent, which, he sayth, I had for­merly given, whereas the truth is, that, from first to last, I was of the same judgment against this unwarrantable custom, and so expressed my selfe, without any alteration.

The passages in the Consistory, the 11. of Feb. 1634. the Answerer reporteth some what disorderly, in that he beginneth with that which was last, and maketh the testification of the Elders to follow that Act, which went before it, whereby the right understanding of things is hindred. For, after that private discourse, before mentioned, had passed betweene him and me, and after some other speeches in the Consistory, and [Page 190] after I had walked forth, at their intreaty, a great while, that they might privately consult, being called in againe to heare the issue, whereunto matters were brought, I found that the order, spoken of in the 13. Section, was againe renewed and in­larged, with this addition, that the Elders and Deacons likewise promised to send such to me as should come to them. Which was as much as just nothing. For, the same objections which were made against the same offer made on the behalfe of the Answerer and of the Coster, in the 13. Section, are of force against this also.

Whereas he addeth, that, both he, and they promised to prevent all further occasion of offence, so much as in them lay, had this bene done accordingly, the Elders might well have added, in way of testification, their persuasion, that no occasion would befall to worke any scruple unto me in that which I feared. For, then the order which I desired, had bene made to prevent further occasion of offence, seing that lay in their power to doe, if the Answerer would have joyned with the Elders lovingly and freely therein, and no other course could helpe me, as the case now stood, which the Answerer knew, though the Elders and Deacons did not, all of them, see so farr into it. Now, seing this lay in them to doe, and yet they did it not, neither would the Answerer suffer it to be done, how was this promise performed of doing what lay in them?

When I had spoken somewhat, to shew the insufficiency of this order to secure me: they againe prayed me to walke forth, and, after a shorter absence then before, they sent for me to re­turne to them, to heare what was added for perfecting that or­der, which they wrote downe, in these words. And further we purpose if any should at unawares, bring such children, whose parents are not members, we shall desire and counsaile them by the Coster (without absolute denyall) to bring their children the next excercise following, that, in the meane time, there may be conveniency of exa­mination.

Vpon which Additionall I will noate some observations. 1. That the Elders and Deacons, did, in effect, revoke that testi­fication, which was last spoken of. For, by their adding of this [Page 191] to what was then done, it appeared that themselves saw that the former order was not sufficient to safeguard me from the thing that I feared. 2. That this Additionall is onely a declara­tion of their purpose, but hath not the force of an order, 3. That, considering that they purposed onely to signifye so much pri­vately to those persons who should at anytime so come (and not to have it published, that the wholl Church might take know­ledge of it) and that by the Coster, a meane man, whom they, to whom he should speake, would easily slight, and his commission was only to desire and counsaile them, which they would easily reject, and aske him, what he had to doe to counsaile them to deferr the baptising of their children, In this case, what could he answer but this, J doe onely desire and counsail you, but I may not absolutely deny you? And, how can such a course se­cure me?

Here againe the Answerer misreporteth my answer: for he affirmeth, that this would not content me, unlesse there might have benean absolute denyall of Baptisme, in such a case, if intreaty would not serve. But I made no such Answer, nei­ther is any such answer recorded in the Acts of that Consi­story, which I have purposely examined. All that I stoode upon, was, that a firme order might be made in the Consistory to se­cure me from future trouble, about that matter. But this the Answerer would not permit to be done, though it might have bene done, without any offence to the Classis, and with much content to the Church. So that I have just cause to complaine of his want of brotherly moderation, in this point, what soever he seemed to yeeld, which, he knew, was not sufficient to prevent the thing which I feared.

The following passage is an unjust reproach, which I will passe by, having answered to the substance of it formerly. How unlawfull that practise is, and how necessary it was that I should witnesse against, it doth appeare in my Reply to his twelfth Section.

In Conclusion. when the Elders prayed me to deferr my ans­wer to another time, the Answerer told me, that, when I should give myne answer, if I did accept of this calling, I must promise [Page 192] to rest in, that is, to conforme to, the wrighting of the five Mi­nisters. Whereby it appeareth, that, not withstanding all these pretences of accommodation, conformity to that wrighting, which bound me to this disorder of promiscuous baptizing, was, first and last, the condition, whereupon my calling to that ministry, must stand or fall, and that the Answerer would have it so. Thus that day passed.

Now, though I had just cause of offence at these passages, yet, that it might appeare how much I was for peace and brotherly concord, the next day of their meeting, being the 15 of Feb. ‘I came into the Consistory to give my answer, which was, that, if a promise must be made by me to conforme to the judgment of those Ministers set downe as an order for me to rest in, I could not doe it, because the promise of doing any thing is a Confessiō that the thing is lawfull to be done, which I doe not beleive to be so, in this case, yet, because I much prized their loves and tendred their peace (as I truely told them) I was wil­ling; if they desired it, to goe on in assisting the Answerer, as I formerly had done, for a convenient time, to see, if, in the in­terim, by a freindly acquainting my selfe with the Dutch Mini­sters, I might be satisfyed about the lawfullnes of this custom, whereunto my conformity was required, or procure that this questiō might be layd downe, & might understand what those other orders & customs of the Dutch Church are which I must observe, & more fully know the mēbers & state of the English Church, wherwith I should joyne.’ In which motion I intended no intrusion (which I have alwayes abhorred, and was very farr from, in that place) but onely the peace and good of the Church. This the Elders apprehended to be very reasonable, & desired that it might take effect, but the Answerer was otherwise min­ded, as it is, in expresse words, by the Elders recorded in the Acts of that Consistory.

His Answer to the 19. Section exami­ned containing certaine Acts of the Classis after that my dissent and refu­sall of the call was knowne.

IN this Section we have the story of passages concerning this buisenes, in three Classes, and with the Magistrates. But, be­fore I examine them, it may be demanded, why this matter was brought into the Classis, seing I had in the Consistory de­clared my not accepting the call, which was offered me, upon those termes? was it because the Consistory had not power to give me a convenient time for informing my selfe concerning the orders & customs of the Dutch Church, by consent amongst themselves, without seeking to the Classis? But I come to the particulars.

Concerning the first Classicall meeting fowre things are reported. 1. their dislike of my change. 2.Feb. 27. 28. 1634. their approbation of the five ministers wrighting. 3. the deputation of diverse Ministers to goe to me. 4. the persuasions which these deputyes used.

To the first] The Reader, in considering the former Sec­tions, will find that my judgment hath bene against this promis­cuous baptizing, which the Answerer required, from the first to this instant, without any change.

To the second,] 1. It it is not to be expected that they should reprove, or dislike that wrighting, which was framed in de­fence of their customs. 2. ‘If this be alleadged for the reproofe of my dissenting from them, how easily can I reply that no Sy­nod of these Churches alloweth them to require this of me: but I will answer him, as Augustine doeth an Arrian, with whom he had to doe, saying, Neither may I alleadge the Councill of Nice, nor thou the Councill of Ariminum,Contr. Max. Arr Cap. 14 thereby to prejudice one another, but by the Scriptures which are witnesses pro­per [Page 194] to neither, but commō to boath, matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason ought to be debated.’ But, nei­ther the five ministers produced any ground from the Scrip­ture, to warrant their opinion or practise in this particular, not the Classis, to justifye their approbation, and confirmation thereof.

To the third] 1. That is more fitly called a command, then a counsail, wherein a man is bound to rest, and that under such a paenalty. 2. Three Dutch Ministers, being deputed to speake with me, desired to know what J disliked, in that letter. I ans­wered them, 1, that I disliked the wholl drift of it, which is to deny me that liberty, in Holland, which the Dutch Churches have in England, by a grant of Edw: 6, to Iohannes a Lasco, un­der the broad seale of England, which is continued to this day. 2. I told them the danger of that expression [quorum parentes, su­sceptor esve] whereby I am required to baptize all infants, that are brought, if, either their parents, or suretyes are Christians. For, by this rule, the children of Iewes, Turkes, and Pagans (of all sorts) may be baptised, if a Christian present them. Then, they seemed willing to alter that, and began to wright, but fell off a­gaine from their purpose, saying that they would acquaint the Classis with what I sayd. And so the wrighting remaineth unal­tered, in my hand, to this day.

To the fourth,] If these two words, intreatyes and persuasions, signifye one and the same thing, without any difference in the sense, I grant all to be true, which he sayth, so that, to their de­sire of my accepting the call, it be added, upon the condition premi­sed. But, if, by intreaty, he meane mere desires, without arguments to worke upon my affections, and, by persuasions, he meane in­treatyes backed with arguments, to worke upon my judgment & affections, then, I grant, intreatyes were used, but not persuasions: For I doe not remember one argument used by them to induce me, but rather a professed declining thereof, saying that they came not to dispute.

Concerning the second Classicall meeting.] It is true, that then I sent them a wrighting, by advise of one of the three mi­nisters whom they deputed to speake with me: the end thereof was [Page 195] to relate the truth concerning passages betweene the Answerer and me, to prevent and remove misreports. 2. to persuade them by reasons, not to require it of me, as a condition of my calling, to rest in that wrighting. 3. to acquaint them with my desire of more time propounded by me to the Elders, and accepted by them; wherein had the Classis condiscended to so aequall a mo­tion, it might have bene much for the peace of the Church. I am certaine, I intended nothing else in it. But they were herein overswayed by sinister suggestions, arising from a jealousy, that, if I had bene in, for a time, the desire of the congregation would be more strong towards me, where as my true purpose was, in that time, if J could not conforme to their orders, to order matters so, that they, who much desired my setling there, might be willing to thinck upon some other, and my purpose was to have given the best helpe I could for the setling of some other, whom they should desire, in a way of peace and concord. To conclude. All that I aymed at, in that motion, was, either to accept their call, with satisfaction to my conscience, or to desist, with the content of the members, that so no disturbance might arise, for my sake. As for the deputation here spoken of; the mi­nisters deputed, only againe prayed me to yeeld to that wrigh­ting, as before. There were two of the Elders present, at this time, with some others, witnesses hereof. ‘From us they went to the Classis, and, the same afternoone, returned to me with this answer, or to this effect. That the Classis did judge that I had time enough already to understand the orders, and customs of the Dutch Church, and to satisfye my selfe concerning the conformity required in that wrighting, yet they were content that I should proceed in assisting Mr. P. the moneth following, till the next Classis, but required of me, that if, in the meane space, I could not yeeld, that I should then desist voluntarily, else they must be constrayned to complaine to the Magistrate.’ Which message I received in the presence of diverse witnesses, and promised to doe accordingly. This J promised and perfor­med, I confesse, only for the Churches peace, and myne owne, yet disliking their injurious manner of proceeding, which I am content to passe by, with such a touch, till further provocation.

3 Concerning the third Classicall meeting.] It is true; that ha­ving occasion of absence,May. 1. at that time, I left my mind in wrigh­ting with one of the Elders, both in Latine, and English, to the end that he, or they whom the Consistory should depute to be at the next Classis, might, either report by word, or shew in wrigh­ting myne answer, as should be thought most expedient. It is also true, that, in that wrighting, I signifyed that my mind was wholly turned away from accepting that call (viz upon those termes) and that I did voluntarily desist (viz; as the Marriner doeth voluntarily cast some goods into the sea, in a storme, to prevent a greater hurt) and that I complained, at the same time, of the Answerers unbrotherly usage of me in such particulars, as are there mentioned; Neither were those complaints unjust, as the Reader may partly perceive, by what hath bene sayd, & may more fully, when the Answerer shall attempt to cleare himselfe of the particulars there charged upon him, which here he doeth not, neither indeed can he.

4 Concerning the Magistrates requiring of them to desist.] It would be knowne, by whose procurement this was done. And, for him that stirred them up thereunto, my hearty prayer is, that he may escape the judgment of God by judging himselfe for that unrighteous act. Else, I feare, he will find that injuryes done against a Church, in such important cases, are no small sinnes.

5 Concerning an answer made to my wrighting, by some, whom the Classis deputed thereunto.] That answer was never communicated to me, though I have heard a report thereof. Had J perused it, I should have, either yeelded, or replyed, as the case had required. Had this Answerer bene of the same mind with them, to suppresse this treatise, as they did their wrighting (which, I beleive, was more in offencively penned) the adversaryes might have wanted that cause of insulting and reproaching us, for these contentions and jarrs, which now they seeme to have.

The answer to Sect: 20. examined, con­cerning my pretended preaching in a private house.

THat the truth of this passage may appeare, the Reader may be pleased to understand, 1, that, after my desistance from the publick worke, I would have returned to my owne Coun­try, but that it was now more unsafe and hazardous for me so to doe, then formerly, by a malicious and false report suggested against me in England, by one in Amsterdam (whose name I will conceale, for some reasons, at this time) this audacious Syco­phant was not ashamed to informe that I had, in the pulpitt, rayled against the government of England, against which, the Answerer, and the wholl Church are able, and, I hope, ready to testifye for my innocency, in that particular: yea, any that have heard or knowne me, I thinck will undertake for me, that I am farr from rayling, at any time, much more in the pulpitt, and myne owne conscience abundantly cleareth me thereof, in the sight of God. Yet this report was too easily received, and there­upon much bitternes, in terrifying menaces, was expressed a­gainst me, in publick audience. This I only mention to shew the cause of my staying in these parts. 2. Being thus hindred from returning to England, my family also being with me in Amster­dam, I was willing to be as proffitable, as I might, to others, with­out giving just offence to any. For this end, being requested by the Master of the family, where I sojourned, I set a convenient time apart, every Lords day, about 5 a clock in the afternoone, (which was above an houre after the sermon was ended in the English Church) to catechise boath our familyes, upon such grounds of Divinity as I collected from the Scriptures, which I opened and applyed to them. To this excercise at first, few [Page 198] came, afterwards more coming to the knowledge of it, more resorted: the greatest number (for ought I have heard) which, at the most, have bene observed to be present at it, exceeded not 80 persons. It is true, that, as the number increased, some for­mes were provided for them to sit upon, to save the chayres & stooles from hurt. I had the lesse cause of suspicion, that this would be offencive, seing it hindred none from the publick or­dinances which my selfe and all the rest frequented constantly, and seing almost as great a number had resorted to a like excer­cise, at the same houre, in a private family, with the Answerers approbation, formerly. But now the case was altered, and the Answerer raysed causeles jealousyes,Sect. 21. line 14. 14 concerning this course, as if it had bene the beginning of some Sect. But most injuriously, as not only his owne pen declareth in the following Section, but also those that heard can testifye, from the wholl scope of that exercise, which was to arme them against the danger of being carryed away by the errours of Sectaryes, and the open carriage of it, manifesteth. For, not only the Elders and Dea­cons would have shewed their dislike, if any such sinister cour­ses had bene attempted, as their place required, but also those, who came as spyes (and we knew to be such, yet excluded none) would have disclosed it to the Answerer, and divulged it to the world. Yea? and myne owne conscience knoweth, that one mayne incouragement of my upholding that private excercise, was, that thereby a rent in the Church might be prevented, and the publick peace preserved, whilest the members were some­what quieted and contented with that helpe, in private, which was denyed them in publick; and myne owne heart is privy to my intendments, at that time, of doing the best offices I could, for the quiet setling of a faythfull man, in the publick worke, if Gods providence should offer one unto them, whilest I stayed with them, that so peace and concord might be wrought be­tween the Pastor and people, if it might be, before my depar­ture thence. This was my intent. And the event shewed that J was not wholly mistaken in my conjecture, as will be evident to him that shall compare the carriage of matters, whilest I lived among them, with the accidents that happened since. Yet, [Page 199] when I perceived that the Answerer tooke such offence at this exercise, I desisted, before any spake with Mr. Wh: from the Classis, but with me none of them ever spake about it. Thus J may say with him in Aristophanes. [...] For doing well, I suffer ill. But the servant is not a­bove his Lord.

His Answer to the 21. Section examined, concerning some of the members with­drawing themselves from the Lords supper.

AS one absurdity usually followes another, so was it with the Answerer in penning this treatise. For, having taken liberty to cast the suspicion of all other miscarriages, which have happened in others, upon me, (though most injuriously) he now continueth the same noate, saying that howsoever I doe mislike & speake against Seperation and Schysme, and reprove the same, yet can I not altogether cleare my selfe of being some occasion of Division amongst them, whilest I maintaine such practises so different from them.

Ans: 1. It is well that his pen doeth cleare me from inclining to Schysme or Seperation, whose tongue hath unjustly raysed suspicions thereof against me in the minds of some. Yea, that his owne hand wrighting, in this Section,Sect. 2. and 10. hath cleared me of those contrary aspersions, and imputations, by himselfe cast upon me, and written and printed against me in other Sections 2. What need is there, that I should goe about to cleare my selfe from that which is not a fault? For, if to be some occasion of di­vision among men, by maintaining a practise different from others be blame-worthy, then Paul and Barnabas were to be blamed for that practise of theyrs different from those beleivers [Page 200] who held that it was needfull to be circumcised, after the manner of Moses. Act 15. [...]. &c. For, the text sayth, they had no small dissention, and dis­putation with them. So were Paul and Silas, who were accused at Philippi, before the Magistrates, as exceeding troublers of the citty for teaching customs, Act. 16.20.21. which were not lawfull for them to re­ceive being Romans. At Thessalonica, Iason & other brethren are accused to be those that turne the world upside downe. Nor can it be denyed that Paul was some occasion of that great stirr and uprore,Act: 17.6. which arose in Ephesus, whereby the wholl citty was filled with confusion. And, howsoever he laboured, by all concord with them in things lawfull, to injoy peace at Ierusalem (as by purifying himselfe &c.Act: 19.23. Act: 21.26.28.29 30.) yet, upon a causeles jealously of his bringing Greekes into the Temple (because they saw Trophi­mus with him in the citty, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the Temple) the wholl citty was moved, and of this commotion Paul could not altogether cleare himselfe of being some occasion, by maintaining some practises so different from the Iewes. 3. The Answerer seemeth to insinuate somewhat against my journey out of towne, two or three dayes before the time of administration of the Lords supper (wherein he sayth) I was accom­panied with some members of the Church, who (as he heard) did goe with me, and leave the communion, this, he sayth, gave great occasion of strife & other offence to the Church, & was a course tending to Schys­me. Repl. 1. For the complanants, who, he sayth, seperated them­selves at that time; some of them whom he examined, whether they had advise with me about it, have cleared me fully, in their answer, and the rest are able and ready to doe the like. Who would thinck that, against so ample testimony, the Answerer should have the boldnes to accuse me so unjustly for that? 2. His accusation of me for my journey out of the Citty, at that time, is as injurious, as that: For the case, which caused my travayle, at that time, would have constrained me thereunto, at any other time, as well as that, it being necessary, for the helpe of a pain­full Minister, who, being very ill, craved my assistance, with much importunity. My wife accompanied me thither, and the Mrs. of the house where we lodged, was pleased to accompany my wife, being a stranger in these countryes (which I had no [Page 201] cause to refuse, but to take thanckfully) and, besides her, not one member of the Church went along with us (unles the mayd, which attended her sucking child be a member, which I thinck she is not) Now, what was to be blamed in this? This the Reader shall ordinarily find, that the Answerers complaints, both against me and others, have no other roote but the evill surmises of his owne jealous fancy: pluck up that roote, and the most of his com­plaints will dye of themselves.

His Answer to the 22. Section exami­ned, containing a wrighting, first left with a freind or two, and afterwards, without my consent or knowledge, printed

MY defence of Answering his untrue reports, in my wrigh­ting, and of having it in the hands of one or two freinds, that might speake in the cause of the dumbe, & maintaine myne innocency, in my absence, the Reader shall find in my reply to the second Section. Now, the cavills which are to be found in this Section against that wrighting are to be examined. First. It is an injury to call that wrighting injurious which was a necessary declaration of the truth against slanders, which were, first secretly spread abroad by him, in private speech, afterwards, by a large letter which he sent to his frend at N. in England, & now are by him scandalously published, not only against me (ego enim non sum tanti) but against men of eminent worth and noate, both living and dead.

Secondly. How justly that wrighting is called a true report of passages, the Reader will see, by comparing what is sayd, on both sides, and how unjustly he excepteth against that title.

Thirdly. When I assured the Reader that this English copy is a true translation out of the latine, by, this English copy, I me­ant [Page 202] not which is printed. For there are diverse faults in that, & it appeareth to have bene printed out of a very imperfect copy, but that which I wrote. As for his exception against it, that having twise used that odious phrase [pro imperio] imperiously; in the second place it is left out, in my translation.

Repl: The phrase is but a true expression of the thing, let the odious thing be mended, and the odious phrase shall not be used. In the meane space the expression must be suitable to the action. For is it not [actus imperij] an imperious act, to deny a man convenient time for satisfaction about a matter of such con­sequence, and to bind a man to observe customs and orders, without shewing the aequity thereof? Some would have called such an act tyranny and so shall I, upon further provocation. 2. As the use of the phrase is condemned, so the omitting of it once in the translation is reproved. Forgive me that wrong. I thought he would see how unwilling I was to fasten their imperious dea­ling with me, upon the Readers apprehension, by repeating the word imperiously againe. But let it stand, in this second place also, seing the Answerer will have it so, and he shall find me, with Gods assistance, prove it to be a fit expression. 3. Is my trans­lation untrue, because this word is once omitted? Let the lear­ned Reader judge, whether it be necessary to the truth of a translation, that every latine word be rendred into English, e­specially when the sense giveth it sufficiently in the sentence. If this be not to seeke a knott in a bulrush, I know not what is.

Fourthly. In my first wrighting how unable the Answerer is to discover any untruth (in my report of the private conference betweene us) the Reader will see by my examination of his Sect: 11. in my Reply, and will be further cleared hereafter.

Fifthly. In my second wrighting he seemeth to find a foule un­truth or falsification (after his usuall manner of expressing him­selfe) both in the superscription, and subscription thereof. But what is it? I sayd that those instructions were delivered by the Elders of the English Church deputed. But 1, that translation sayth not by the Elders, but to the Elders, and that both in the superscription and in the subscription. Is it not strange that he should then fal­sifye the translation, when he complaineth, of falsification in the [Page 203] translatour? 2. suppose it had bene to the Elders deputed, and that by Elders, I meant any lawfully deputed by the Eldership; yet I spake and wrote truely. For I left the wrighting with Mr. W. who was deputed before by the Eldership, (having also told Mr. Wh: of it) praying him to communicate it with the rest, that one or two Elders that should be deputed by the rest, might pre­sent it to the Classis, and, having respect unto that agreement with them, I used that expression, before the meeting, in con­fidence that it would have bene so ordered by them. Now, if no such deputation was made afterwards, what is that to me, who stiled the Elder by that title which best expressed my purpose, and expectation? neither was I in towne to alter it afterwards, nor did I ever heare, that no deputation was made in the Con­sistory, till now.) The issue of all this deepe accusation, what is it now, but, as when a great expectation was of the mountai­nes birth, which was fained to be with child, after which no­thing appeared but a litle mouse running thence? How just the complaint is also of his want of brotherly moderation, I have noated in my reply to his Sect. 12.

Sixtly. In that which he speaketh concerning my third wrigh­ting, he multiplyeth injuries.

1. In misreporting my intent in the three wrightings, which was, not to make him odious to the Classis, nor to teach the Elders how to fill their mouthes with reproach of him, nor, to stirr up and in­cense the Congregation against him, but ingenuously and candidly to report the truth, whereunto I was called, and compelled, for the necessary clearing of my selfe, & for the remove all, in some, and prevention, in others, of causeles praejudices, and jealou­syes, which already did, or, by my silence, might arise in their minds against me, by his suggestions: Would the wrighting of those things, accuse, undermine, and defame him? It is a signe that his cause is not very good. And, if my wrighting those par­ticulars be a fault, who is to blamed for it, but he who constrai­ned me thereunto?

2. In charging me with unjust uprayding of him, for myne assi­stance of him, and with a vaine boasting of my selfe. To convince him of ill requiting me, yea of rewarding evill for good, I remem­bred [Page 204] what labour and patience I had excercised for his and the Churches peace. This was no uprayding, much lesse unjust, nor vaine boasting, but a just declaration of the truth (the case requiring it) and a sad complaint of his unthanckfullnes. How he hath answered it, will appeare in the examination of Sect. 2. 8. and 40. Whereunto as he referreth the Reader, so doe I, and also to Sect. 11. and 14. that it may appeare how justly I com­plaine of the two injuryes which he noateth. Also concerning the five objections answered by me in that third wrighting I doe concurr with him in referring the Reader to the Sections mentioned by him, and examined by me.

• where it ap­peareth that
  • the first
  • the second
  • the third
  • the fourth
  • the fifth
  is not re­futed but remaineth unanswered in
  • Sect. 14.
  • Sect. 15.
  • Sect. 15.
  • Sect. 10.
  • Sect. 18.

• in like manner concer­ning my six reasons to prove that he never de­sired to have me to be his colleague, of which rea­sons the
  • first
  • second
  • third
  • fourth
  • fifth
  • sixth
  is not ans­wered in
  • Sect. 9.
  • Sect 8.
  • Sect. 17.
  • Sect. 12.
  • Sect. 28.
  • Sect. 6.

Seaventhly. In that which he addeth, upon the grant of this supposition, that he had not desired me, diverse things are con­siderable. 1. His unjust accusation of me (by way of intimation) as if I did quaraile and contend with him, because he did not desire me] whereas it is neither so, nor so. For neither was it my intent, in that wrighting, to quaraile, but to answer objections, nor did I blame him at all for not desiring me (for he may use his liberty, for me, to place his desires upon a more desireable object) but for pretending his desire to have me with him, when he did really hinder my setling there. 2. His Sarcasticall insultation, when he tauntingly demandeth, Is he such a man of desire &c.] [Page 205] Reply 1. It seemeth that I am not such a man of desire, in his ac­count, yet, in the esteeme of that Church, and of the Classis, how unworthy soever I am in my selfe, it seemeth, I am; Else, how comes it to passe, that they account themselves so injuried by his opposing and rejecting me (as appeareth in their com­plaints) and that these so much desired that I might be pro­moted to the ministry of that Church,Sect: 12.16.19. as he hath formerly testi­fyed? 2. If I am not such a man of desire, in his account, yet J should not be such a man of scorne and contempt, to be so trampled upon in a strange land, and exposed to reproach, and that by a brother, and in print, whereby I am now become a man of sorrowes, and that in many respects. 3. His voluntary conces­sion, or acknowledgment (by way of supposition and intimation) that he withheld his desire from me, in the act of Election, is consi­derable. For, if, when his voyce went with the rest for myne election, he withheld his desire from me; how can it be thought, that he did at all desire me? For did he give his vote for me? Did he subscribe my call with his owne hand in that wrighting, whereof himselfe was the penman? Did he himselfe, accompa­nyed with one of the Elders, bring it to me, and pray me to ac­cept of it? And yet did he withhold his desire from me, in the act of election? No marvayle then, if he held me so to this ques­tion. No marvayle, that he refused the meanes propounded by me for accommodation. No marvayle, that he procured that wrighting of the five ministers (howsoever by some of them in­tended in favour of me, they thincking that he saught to accom­modate me, but) which he made use of to strengthen himselfe against me. No marvayle, that it was procured to be ratifyed by the Classis and Magistrates, that I should rest in it, and con­forme thereunto. No marvayle, that an order which the Elders would have made in Consistory, to secure me from trouble for that, was hindred by him, and that the convenient time, which they agreed upon to allow me, for satisfaction, was denyed by him. No marvayle, that other usages (which I forbeare to men­tion) of me have bene so unbrotherly (that I say no more) if he did not desire me. 4. Jn the same way of supposition and inti­mation he seemeth to say, that he was for another whom he might [Page 206] judge to be more lowly &c. 1. This I complaine not of as an inju­ry to me, but I wish that he may both have such an one to be with him, and may be such an one himselfe, as he there descri­beth, if he judge of these properties by a right rule. As for me: I shall account him the most lowly, who with most selfe-denyall takes upon him Christs yoake, and him most loving, whose spi­rit closeth most strongly with all good men, in all good wayes, and him to be most faythfull and upright, who doeth most excer­cise himselfe to have a conscience in all things voyd of offence, both towards God, and towards man. In this sense he might have had men lowly, loving, faythfull, and upright, whom the Church desired, but injoy not, to their great greife, and losse, 2. It had bene more brotherly dealing to have admonished me in private (if he had discerned any thing in me contrary to those proper­ties) rather then thus to traduce me in print, or, if he would pu­blish such accusations, to have proved them to be just, and not thus, without proofe, to reproach me. 3. The five Reverend Dutch preachers did not apprehend him to have such praejudi­ces against me, when they composed that wrighting which him­selfe hath translated, according to their words, and published, where speaking of me, they say, whom, for diverse respects there mentioned, we understand to be most deare unto Mr. P. It see­meth they were mistaken in their opinion of the Answerers love to me, if his thoughts of me then were according to this wrigh­ting. 4. Himselfe subscribed the wrighting wherein I was cal­led to the ministry in that Church (which also was subscribed by all the Elders and Deacons) wherein they thus expresse their es­teeme of me, in the feare of God having considered of such as might be fit thereunto, we have set our eyes upon you &c. being persuaded of your sufficiency, learning, and piety, hoping also, that, through those gifts of the spirit wherewith the Lord hath indued you, and wherein we have received much contentmēt, you may be a speciall instrument of building up the Church of God by your godly labours amongst us. This wrigh­ting was penned by himselfe, and his owne name subscribed with his owne hand, wherein my fitnes for that place is so testi­fyed, that it may seeme strange how one & the same man should privatly wright that, and yet publish this.

Eigthly. When he sayth, It is certainely a want of modesty and prudence in him, to make such disputes about his owne desireablenes. Ans: 1. I onely shew the reasons of myne opinion that he did not desire me, but of myne owne desireablenes I doe not speake at all, much lesse dispute. 2. Will any man condemne me for ex­pecting that he should desire me, with whom I should be joyned, as Colleague, in such a worke? 3. What could I say lesse, or more mildely? I did not say, he opposed me, rejected me, cir­cumvented me, or the like, but only, he did not desire me. 4. V­pon my use of the same word [certainly] in the second Section he sayd, it is against modesty and conscience, to pronounce so certainly touching the issue of things to come, and yet himselfe useth the same confident asseveration in a case more improbable, as will ap­peare to any man, or to himselfe, if he reduce his reasoning and discourse (to prove such disputes as I have used about myne owne desireablenes, to be a want of modesty or prudence) into a Syllogisme.

The 23. Section examined, of the Ans­vverers rejecting the counsail of the El­ders, when matters have bene referred to them, if he thought they would con­clude against his purpose.

THe usefullnes of the Eldership in the Church being consi­dered, with the Honour which the Holy Ghoast putteth u­pon those who are called thereunto, should warne all men to take heed of contemning them, or occasioning others to dispise them.

First.Act: 14. p. 155. Their usefullnes appeareth in that the Holy Ghoast directed Paul and Barnabas to ordaine Elders by voyces in every [Page 208] Church. Which text Mr. Nowell in this Catechisme alleadgeth to shew that there were in the well ordered Churches certaine Seniors chosen, and joyned with the Pastor, and thereby he would shew that the Pastor should not excommunicate alone, without the judgement of the Church. This place being so un­derstood, we may from hence noate two things to declare the usefullnes of such officers.1 Thess: 5.12.13. 1 Tim. 4.14. Act: 15.6.23.16.4. Ambros: in 1 Tim: 5. 1. that they were appoynted to every Church. 2. That they were solemnly ordayned, being commen­ded to the Lord with prayer and fasting; which is not used in slight matters. It appeareth also in that they are joyned, by the wisdom of God with other officers of as necessary use in the Church, as the members are in the body, 1 Cor. 12.28.

Secondly. The Honour which the Holy Ghoast putteth upon them, is very great, as appeareth, first, in their imployments, which are honourable services, as, to assist the Pastor, 1. In ad­monishing offenders. 2. In imposition of hands at the ordaining of officers. 3. in consulting and counsailing about Church af­faires, the Apostles refused not their helpe herein, and this use of them continued (as Ambrose sayth) till it was altered by the sloath, or rather pride of Teachers, who would seeme to be some body, by doing all things alone. 2. In the titles wherewith he honoureth them being thus imployed, calling them [...] Heb: 13.7 17.24. Leaders, [...] 1 Thess: 5.12. Rom: 12.8 Presidents, [...]. Act: 20.28. 1 Cor. 12.28. Over­seers, [...] 2 Chron. 19.8. 1 Tim. 3.2 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Thess: 5.12.13. 1 Tim. 5.17. Heb. 13.17. Governments. 3. In the qualifications required to be in them, viz. to be such as doe the duety of their place in the feare of the Lord, faythfully and with a perfect heart, wise, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, blamelesse. In a word, they must not be desti­tute of any good property, whereby they may be fitted to rule well. 4. In the carriage which the Holy Ghoast injoyneth the peo­ple to use towards them, in theyre well discharging their duety. As, to acknowledge them, and to esteeme them very highly in love, to account them worthy of double honour. And to obey them.

Now then, if any man shall despise this office, as of no necessary use in the Church of God, or, if any shall goe about, by disparadging speeches, to disable them from doing the worke of their place, or to discourage and dishearten them in it, by a needles, though true, publishing their imperfections, much more, if the reports be untrue, and mere ungrounded re­proaches, [Page 209] the injury is, not only personall to the men, but pub­lick and common to the wholl Church, which is much blemish­ed, either for want of it officers, or for want of care to make a good choyse, and to see that they discharge their duety as they aught, and much disordered, whilest those, who should be admo­nished by them, are now armed against them, as men branded with a marke of partiality, and insufficiency, and disorderly wal­king; and that by their Pastor, and in print.

In which respect (for the prevention of such dangerous con­sequences or effects) it will be worth the while that we examine this second complaint concerning his slighting the Elders, which I will breifely dispatch, insisting principally upon those things which he calleth me to examine by mentioning my name, which he wrighteth at length, as his manner is, least else (it may be) the Reader should forget that I am the marke he shooteth at, thorough all these.

The Answerer sayth, this complaint is a very unjust slander. Ans: Reply. 1.]

If it be a slander, it must needs be unjust: for no slander can be just. Yea; if it be a slander, it is a very great one: for it is not against a private, but a publick person, a preacher of the Gospell, and their Pastor, and that, not whispered in the eares of one, but published to the view of many. But, if it be true; the Answerers sinne is double: 1, that he gave just cause of this complaint, in a case, not of private, but of publick injury, by de­priving of his flock, not of civill, but of spirituall liberties, to the violation of that order which Christ hath setled in the Church; 2. That he unjustly chargeth them with a slander, and so maketh himselfe guilty of calling good evill, yea, of the same sinne, whereof he accuseth them, viz, slander.

For the more cleare and full understanding and judging of what is sayd, on both sides, it must be observed that the first three pretended answers are mere evasions and diversions of the Reader from the matter of the Complaint. For,

1 First, They doe not complaine of those decissions and determi­nations which have bene made by most voyces in the Eldership, but of those which have bene hindred and rejected by him: nor of his giving sentence by his authority alone, but of his rejecting the au­thority [Page 210] of the Eldership, and interposing the authority of the Classis to hinder their proceeding in things which might have bene ended amongst themselves: nor that, those resolutions which have bene concluded in Consistory, have bene transacted without consent of most, but that some considerable conclusions, which most have agreed upon, have bene by him rejected, without sufficient cause. So that, unlesse he can acquitt himselfe of rejecting those determinations, which have bene made by most voices in the Elderships, and of hindring their proceeding in things which might have bene ended amongst themselves, and that, without sufficient cause; the complaint appeareth to be just, in this par­ticular, and no slander.

2 Secondly. They doe not complaine of his opposing, contradic­ting, or rejecting their opinions and counsailes, when they were a­gainst right, and truth, or hurtfull to the Church, or to any member thereof, but, when matters have bene agreeable to truth, and right, and for the good of the Church, upon unjust pretences of the Elders insufficiency and partiality, as in the cases instanced by them.

3 Thirdly. They doe not complaine of his rejecting the counsaile of the Elders only by shewing his particular judgment, as one Deacon may oppose the opinion of another in their owne session, or as in a Senat Civill, or Ecclesiasticall, there may be difference, and so opposition of o­pinions amongst men; without rejecting such conclusions as are made by most voyces in things lawfull and aequall; but of this they complaine, that he so opposeth and rejecteth their power, in some cases, that he unjustly depriveth them of their power, upon untrue pretences of their partiality, and insufficiency to judge.

4 Fourthly. In his fourth answer, his accusing the Elders of par­tiality & insufficiency is propounded by him, but the grounds thereof, or the proofes of it are not declared, and so, upon the matter, just nothing is sayd.

5 Fifthly. In his fifth answer, he pretendeth just cause of his excepting against three of the Elders, as partiall, in this controversy about me. And to make this cable strong, he twisteth three causes, as cords, together, that they professe themselves to be of [Page 211] the same opinion with me touching baptisme. Ans. 2. that they have, by their example, allowed and countenanced the meeting of diverse, at a pri­vate excercise, upon the Lords day, after the Sermons were ended. 3. that they made an act for my preaching amongst themselues, as an assistant, for a certaine time &c.

These are new crimes, which former ages have not heard of, Reply. and after times will wonder at, if all things be considered.

For the first. Is it the sinne of partiality, in the Elders, to hold with any man in disliking, and witnessing against evill customs, as this promiscuous administration of baptisme is de­clared to be? or to joyne, without scandall or Schysme, in a pri­vate excercise, after the publick are ended? or to make an act for a mans preaching amongst them as an assistant, the publick necessity requiring it, and the Church generally desiring it, for a convenient time, that he might understand those orders and customs of the Dutch Church, whereunto his conformity is ex­pected, before he bind himselfe thereunto? If so; then to hold the truth, to joyne in a peaceable and inoffencive use of private helpes for aedifycation, and to provide for the publick good & peace is an argument of partiality in an Elder. The vanity of this pretence is manifest. Let us see his second proofe.

Secondly. Ans. To prove them partiall he produceth another consideration. viz, that the Elders have made like complaints (as these Complainants) heretofore, of his bringing matters to the Classis violently, without their consent. The Classis hath judged them parties.

Be it so. 1. Is not this alleadged against himselfe? For, Reply. now it appeareth not to be the complaint of some members only, who might unjustly complaine, thorough ignorance or misinforma­tion, but even, the Elders who are eye witnesses of all that pas­seth in Consistory, have made the same complaint. Will not any man conclude, that matters are injuriously carried, indeed, when, not only some of the members, but the Elders them­selves also complaine thereof? As for the Classis judging of them parties; how easily may the Elders demand their grounds, and proofe thereof, and, in case of want of sufficient evidence, appeale from their sentence, to the Scripture? And is it not [Page 212] possible, may we thinck, to find partiality, as well in the Classis, as in the Consistory? I wish they had expressed more aequanimity in the carriage of this buisenes, for their owne, and the Churches sake.

Ans. Thirdly. If that proofe fayle, he hath one more, which will hold, as he imagineth. Euen the Elders themselves have acknowledg­ed, that, when some such complaints as these have bene brought unto them, they had no power to judge thereof.

Reply. The Answer of the Elders, which is here reported, is not ne­cessarily to be understood as an acknowledgment of their want of power, de jure, by right, to judge thereof, but may be under­stood, as a declaration (or rather a complaint) of their want of power, defacto, by other mens taking it out of their hands, with­out right. Now, if that power which belongeth to them be taken from them, without their consent, and so before it be given, and without warrant of the word, and so before it be due: it is no partiality to assume that, by a due clayme, which was unduely withheld from them; and it is no presumption in them, if, knowing their right▪ they give a new judgment of that thing, which they had formerly waved, not knowing that they had power to judge thereof. So much for his pretences against them for partiality.

6 In his sixth answer he undertaketh to shew their insufficiency, wherein, Ans. that he be not mistaken, he professeth not to speake of that common insufficiency that is in all men &c. but he excepteth against their insufficiency in some speciall cases, and namely in such particulars whatsoever have bene already judged and determined in the Classis.

Reply. So then. Whatsoever the Classis shall take upon them to judge, though it were unduely and disorderly brought to them, shall bind the Church so, as it must rest therein, & that they shall not meddle in it, though they are not satisfyed about the aequity of their proceeding in it, and though they doe not shew sufficient warrant from the word, for their judgment, and determination. And this must hold, in all cases whatsoever. Me thincks the Ans­werer should, upon a review, voluntarily revoke this expression, or that the Classis should professe against it, in publick, as some of the ministers have affirmed to me in private, that they doe [Page 213] not assume any such power to themselves, or, if they be silent, the provinciall Synod should provide that convenient meanes may be used to stop the spreadings of such an errour, for many dangerous consequences, which their wisdoms, I doubt not, will foresee, following thereupon. To me it is manifest, that no Nationall Synod, in these Countryes, ever gave power to the Classes thus farr to deprive particular Churches of the right of judging things proper to themselves, within themselves. Neither is there one word in these complaints, which, being fairely construed, & (for aug [...]t I can discerne) according to the intent and expression of the Complainants themselves, requireth any thing, but what the Nationall Synods have ordered and ap­poynted to be done for and to all the Churches, and which the Classes, if they be true to their owne rules, in their first consti­tion, must see performed. So farr are they from attempting the innovation and alteration of discipline and government so long practised in these reformed Churches.

Sect: 24 25. 26. examined.

THeir second proofe of his depriving the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church, is, Compl. that he hath protested against their judgment in matters which might have bene ended in the Consistory, and, in that respect, aught not to have bene brought to the Classis, yet he hath carryed them thither.

This passage I would have passed by, Reply. if his frequent men­tioning my name in the 25. and 26. Sections had not compelled me to examine it. The cases, wherein they complaine that he hath nedlesly waved the judgment of the Elders, are three. 1. concerning an order that should have bene made for my ac­commodation, in the question about promiscuous administring Baptisme to all that are brought, in that place Sect: 25. 2. about be [Page 214] an agreement amongst the Elders that a convenient time should be given me to, goe on in assisting the Answerer, to see, if, in that time, I could obtayne that this question might be layd aside, and informe my selfe more fully concerning the orders and cu­stoms of the Dutch Church, whereunto my conformity was re­quired Sect: 26. 3. Concerning his refusall to let Mr. Weld preach, though he confessed he had nothing against him, with­out consent of the Classis &c. ibid. Whereby it appeareth that they doe not complaine of his seeking advise of neighbour mi­nisters simply and absolutely, but, 1. in certaine cases, there mentioned. And therefore they doe not, in their wrighting, di­vide the one from the other into severall Sections (for that is his owne contrivement) but relate all together in one intire Sen­tence 2. the cases produced by them are such, wherein the mat­ter might have bene determined, and concluded by the Elder­ship, without violation of any order established in the govern­ment of those Churches. 3. The matter was so carryed by him, in this needles appeale to the Classis, that their agreement was nullifyed.

These things being premised, the insufficiency of his five an­swers in the 24. Section will be obvious to the indifferent Rea­der, in particulars; thus.

1 For the first,] His thincking that the Elders erre in their judgment, in such cases as these in question, is not a sufficient ground of an appeale, as may appeare in reason: For so no cause should be ended in their Consistory, though the Elders unani­mously consēt in their judgment, if the Pastor differ from them, out of an obstinate will, without giving sufficient reason of his dissenting, and then, to what end are the meetings of the El­dership? Whereas he calleth upon them to prove it by Scrip­ture, they may, with better warrant, require him to prove by Scripture the lawfullnes of such appeales, in such cases, for which they find no word commanding or approving them.

2 For the second] Unlesse he can prove those agreements amongst the Elders to be sinnes, and unfruitfull workes of darkenes he will be found guilty of a double sinne. 1. that he opposed the [Page 215] Elders, without just cause. 2. that he misapplyeth Scripture to justifye his unjust opposition of them.

3 For the third] It is granted that, as Councills may erre, so may Consistoryes much more easily, and that all obedience aught to be in the Lord. But, with all, that the protesters against them, aught to declare the aequity of their so doing, from Scripture, or good reason, which hath not bene done by the Answerer.

4 For the fourth] The pretended reason, whereby the Ans­werer would justifye this Act; taken from the very foundation of government, and institution of diverse judicatories, to take, away disagreement, strife, controversies, or different pleadings among men, will not helpe him in the cases questioned, unlesse he can prove, 1. that the Classes are of the same use, by Divine institution, for the helpe of Pastors which have the assistance of their Elder­ship,Deut. 1.12 with Cap. 17.8. whereof that judicatorye was for the helpe of Moses (who was not able alone to beare the cumbrances and strifes of the people) and of the Kings of Israel afterwards; which they deny. 2. that the causes in question, which he carryed from the Consi­story to the Classis,2. Chron. 19:8:9.10. are of the same nature with those causes betweene blood and blood, betweene law and commandment, statutes and judgments, which were deferred to the Levites, the Preists, and cheife of the Fathers of Israel, that men might be warned by them, that they trespasse not against the Lord. This also they deny, and may justly accuse him of misapplying the Scriptures noated by him in the margine.

5 5. To the fifth] It is true, that the power of the Elders in government had not bene overthrowne by his bringing any matter unlawfully unto the Classis, if it were the man­ner of the Classis, in such cases, to remitt the matter to the Con­sistory againe. But, what one instance can he produce, in the particulars whereof they complaine, or in any other case brought by him to them, wherein the matter was remitted to the Consistory: Why so? It was not because the buisenesses were so weighty that it hath bene agreed in the Synods that they shall not be proceeded in, without advise of the Classis; nor, because they concerned many Churches, and therefore require the consent of all [Page 216] What then? It was, because the Elders could not satisfye him, nor he them, as he intimateth in the answer before. But, why was he not satisfyed? Because he would not be satisfyed, unlesse the matter might be carryed according to his will. For, no suffi­cient reason was given by him against it, at that time. So then, if he will end a buisenes in the Consistory, there it shall be ended, but, if he see that it will be carryed against his mind there, it shall not be ended there, but be taken out of their hands and carryed to the Classis, where he knoweth how to bring his purpose about. Thus he hath two strings to his bow. But, in the meane time, is not the power of the Elders in governmēt overthrowne thereby?

Sect. 25.Jn the 25. Sect. they speake of an agreement amongst the El­ders to make an order that those who were not mēbers of that Church should make themselves knowne to me, Compl: that I might be satisfyed con­cerning them, before they should present their children to Baptisme in publick, which, they say, would have ended that difference betweene us, but he protested against it. If this complaint be just; is it not a greivance? let us weigh his fowre answers to it.

Ans. 1. He sayth, there was no order made: therefore they speake untrue, and they know not what?

Reply. Neither doe they say an order was made, but it was agreed that one should be made. What untruth is in this? If any; Is it not in his accusation?

2. He sayth, there is no evidence in theire Church booke, that, either the Elders had so agreed, or that he had protested against it.] Nor doe they say, it is recorded in the Church booke. For how could it be recorded when it was never made, and that by his hindring the making of it?

3. He sayth, If such an order had bene peremptorily resolved upon, there had bene just reason for him to have protested against it seing the Consistory hath no power &c.] Travers. de Discipl: Ecelcs. p. 121. But herein he opposeth Mr. Tra­verse who, in his elaborate treatise, de disciplinâ Ecclesiasticâ, ‘speaking of the office, of the Elders (whom he fitly calleth [...] he sayth, it belongs to them to see that all things in the Church of God, be honestly, godlily, and orderly done. And therefore they are to signifye to the ministers, if any from [Page 217] other parts come to dwell amongst them, concerning whose Religion they are not satisfyed, that they may be dealt with, before they come to the Lords table: Also IF ANY INFANTS ARE TO BE BAPTISED, and if there be any thing, of that kind, which appertaineth to the knowledge of the Overseers, for the proffitable and decent administration of the Church.’ Neither is the Answerer only against Mr. Traverse in this, but reason it selfe is against him, taken from the very foundation of that office in the Church, as appeareth in what is already sayd concerning them in the 23. Section compared with what hath bene by me declared against the disorder of promiscuous bap­tising in the 12. Section.

4. He sayth, If he had protested against such an order &c. Such a protest might have served for a direction to the right use of their power but did not tend to the destruction thereof.] If it had bene a mere de­claration of his judgment, and resolution, though delivered in forme of a protest, and had bene strengthned with good reasons, and had bene left to them to consider of, it might have served for a correction and direction to the right use of their power, without destroying it. But, when a peremptory and inflexible resolution of opposing what they shall doe against his mind, in this matter, is held foorth, without arguments from the Scrip­ture, or good reason, to convince them of the aequity of that stiff­nes in opposing, and, when it is not left within themselves, but carryed from them to the Classis, that, by the interposition of their power and authority, the Consistory may be hindred from executing or making such an order, who seeth not that, as, by the former, they have no direction from him about the right use of their power, so, by the latter, their power is destroyed, in this particular; which may be proved thus.

That Act, whereby the Elders are hindred, that they can not provide for the godly, comely, and orderly administration of the Church, doeth deprive the Elders of their power in govern­ment for the good of the Church.

But this Act of the Answerer, in hindring the ending of this dif­ference about baptisme &c. by interposing the authority of the Classis, for that end, was an hindring of them from providing [Page 218] for the godly, comely, and orderly administration of the Church. Ergo.

Which proposition will he deny? The first? But that is taken from the nature of the Elders office, as hath bene shewne out of Scripture, and reason, before. And he knoweth it to be true.

Will he deny the Assumption? That is proved by what I have shewen in the 12. Section against promiscuous administration of baptisme, as it is in that place, whence it will appeare to be not godly, nor comely, nor orderly, and therefore the Elders have power and are bound to provide that it be not done in that Church.

Sect. 26.In the 26, Section. Their second instance, whereby they would prove, that he depriveth the Elders of their power in go­vernment for the good of the Church, by carrying matters out of their hands, which might, and should have bene ended in the Consistory,Compl. is, that agreement which was amongst them that I should have a yeares time to goe on in assisting the Answerer &c. Now let us see how this is answered.

Ans. 1.First. He sayth, it is untrue that the Elders agreed I should have a yeares time.] Reply. How unjust this chalenge is, may appeare, 1. By the report of the Elders themselves, who say that it was referred to voyces, and by voyces agreed that I should have a convenient time, and it was particularly expressed by one of the Elders, and not gainsayed by the rest, that a yeares time, would be conve­nient for that purpose. 2. Not onely they, but the Answerer himselfe sayth as much, in effect. For in the 18. Section he re­porteth that I made this offer unto them, that, if the Consistory desi­red it, I would continue, as an assistant, in preaching, for a convenient time, that I might therein acquaint my selfe with the Dutch ministers, the orders of the Classis, and Synod, and state of this Congregation &c. But, though our Elders liked of this offer, sayth he, and thought good to desire him to remaine with us, as an assistant, as is before sayd; yet I thought it not safe (sayth he, speaking of himselfe) without first ta­king advise of the Classis. Whereby it is manifest that the Elders liked of the offer, as it was made by me. But they knew that I was of opinion that lesse then a yeares time could not be conve­nient, for those purposes, and that I meant that time, when I [Page 219] spake of a convenient time: yet, if they had agreed that six moneths, or three monthes should be judged a convenient time, I should have rested therein, which seing they did not, but liked of the offer as it was made by me, it seemeth, their purpose was to conclude for a yeares time.

Secondly. In stead of answering,Ans: 2 he recriminateth those that divulge the secret affayres of the Eldership, and that untruely.] Reply. The former reply sheweth that the report is not untrue. And that the Elders have unlawfully divulged this, they put him to prove: for they deny that it is unlawfull to acquaint the members with passages of this nature, which are not to be kept secret in the Consistory, when they tend to the injury of the wholl Church.

Thirdly. His third answer is a mere evasion,Ans: 3 by putting off the fault from himselfe upon the Classis, Reply. the vanity of which pretence hath bene so often shewen already, that I may well prae­termit it here.

Fourthly.Ans: 4 In his fourth answer he pretendeth to give reasons for his carrying this matter into the Classis, which are not rea­sons, but mere pretences.

First. That, whilest matters were thus kept in suspence, the cord of contention should have bene drawne out, and lengthned.] But, who seeth not that this would have cut the cord of contention asun­der when a convenient time had bene given for the composing of things to a peaceable conclusion, and when the people should see his regard of their desire and content so far expressed.

Secondly. That, in the Consistory where he hath most trouble, he should have least assistance.] But, by this course he would have lesse trouble in the Consistory, the spirits of men being some­what quieted and contented. Besides, I see not but he might have escaped many troubles there, if he had not made troubles, when he found them not.

Thirdly. That, in the administration of Baptisme, in stead of an Assistant he should have a Resistant,] But, how could he be a Re­sistant in Baptisme, whose worke was only to assist in preaching, as myne should have bene, if this agreement had stood. Againe, suppose, after the expiration of that convenient time, I had ac­cepted of the pastorall calling, how could I have bene a Resi­stant [Page 320] to him in Baptisme, if, either the Dutch Ministers could in that time, have convinced me of the lawfullnes of that custom, (in which case, J should have yeelded to it) or, if I could have procured the laying aside of that question, by their consent with me in establishing those meanes which I propounded for accommodation?

Fourthly. That, hereby the calling of another minister would be hindred.] But 1. the event sheweth the contrary. For, that con­venient time, which the Elders would have given me, was but 12 moneths. Now, though, upon this pretence, the Answerer opposed that, yet those 12 moneths were spent before they had any, and 9▪ moneths more, before one was setled with them. 2. My purpose, in that proposition, was, to worke, in that time, for the peaceable setling of any faithfull man, whom they should make choyse of, if I saw not greater likelihood of my comforta­ble setling there, then hitherto had appeared. Wherein my true intent was to prevent the trouble, and procure the peace of the Church, as much as in me lay.

The fifth pretenc [...] is coincident with the fourth, and answe­red in that.

Sixtly. The Classis would have bene offended, which had formerly disallowed such an agreement about Mr. H.] But 1, consider, as great a matter as this hath bene done there, without the leaue of the Classis, when the Answerer had a mind to it. Was not Mr. D, for a yeare and more, assistant to the Answerer in the same Church, in preaching, without leave or consent of the Clas­sis? 2. If the Classis would be offended for this, it would be an offence taken, but not given. For, what though they had for­merly disallowed such an agreement of the Elders about the in­tertayning of M. Hook? May not the Church doe such a thing without their allowance? What rule is transgressed thereby? If any: Let the Answerer shew it. If none; then the Classis disal­lowed that act, and would be offended at this causelesly. 3. At most, this would have bene an offence but to the spirits of the Classis, who would have bene angry at it, as a neglect of them only; not as a sinne against God. But the hindering of this a­greement, by their Pastor, and the Classis, is an offence to the [Page 221] consciences of some of the Church, who are greived at it as a sinne against God, both in the Pastor and the Classsis, who have hereby streightned the liberty, and weakened the power which Christ hath given the Church, in procuring such spirituall helpes for their aedification, as they find proffitable, and desire, with a generall consent, especially there being no danger of haeresy and schysme, whereby themselves or other Churches should be in­fected thereby. Now, compare these two offences together, and it will appeare that the latter offence, in this case, was more carefully to be heeded and prevented then the former.

The seventh, and last pretence is, that he esteemed this agreement as an act of intrusion for me.] which he needed not to have feared, nor would have, by so injurious a course, prevented, if he had knowne me, as he might have done, by my wholl carriage in this buisenes. Himselfe reproacheth me for standing so much upon his desiring me, and now he feareth least I had some pur­pose of intruding my selfe. How will these stand together? One while he telleth the Reader that I would not accept the call, an­other while, that I will not be dismissed. A strange case, that I am so averse, that they can not get me in, and yet so intruding, that they cannot get me out. By this it may appeare that his spi­rit was much distempered by needles Iealousyes, and groundles surmises, which, in these passages, have caused much disquiet­ment to himselfe, and disturbance to others.

The 3. instance. And that it may appeare that I wrong him not, in saying thus, his owne words, about the third instance, which they bring to prove that he depriveth the Elders of their power in governmēt for the good of the Church, declare the same. For, speaking of Mr. Weld, whom they accused him for hindring from preaching, without leave of the Classis, though he professed he had no­thing against him, he telleth the Complainants that he had some thing against Mr. Weld. If they desire to know what, he readily telleth them, and all the world, that he had something against his behaviour, in generall, which was an offence and trouble unto him. It had need to be some great matter, some will thinck, that so farr sett him off from Mr. Weld, as he there intimateth To pre­vent all wondring at the matter, he roundly relates more dis­likes [Page 222] then one. But, if you come to examine them, they will ap­peare to be grounded upon needles jealousyes, in his owne mind. For, his first dislike was, because Mr. Weld refused to de­clare himselfe, and to shew his opinion touching their present contro­versyes. And, have not others carryed themselves in the same manner, as well as he, which were greater strangers to him, then Mr. Weld, being not of his nation, whom yet he hath, not only willingly received to preach, but also bene willing to have joyned with him in the pastorall office. His second dis­like of Mr. Weld was, that he saw him most familiar with those that were his cheifest opposites, So then, there was opposition a­mongst them before I came, and this opposition was raysed to such an height, that the Answerer accounted it a trouble and offence to him, that any minister should be most familiar with those whom he accounted his opposites; and, that, upon feare, least Mr. Weld should strengthen and animate them against him, he was unwilling to have him preach. That this feare may not seeme altogether causeles, he telleth his Reader how Mr. H. preached against that in the afternoone, which he taught in the fore noone. The truth concerning this passage I have heard from diverse witnesses, and have seene the noates of boath their sermons, as they were taken by those that heard, and doe find (so farr as I can discerne, by what I have heard, or read) that the Answerer tooke offence at Mr. H: causelesly for that, and that Mr. H. was called, and, in a manner, compelled to say what he did, at that time. But, that I may returne to Mr. W. was the Answerers feare of him retayned in his owne breast? No, he telleth us, in his second answer, that he desired the counsaile of the Dutch Consistory about this matter, and their advise was that he should bring it to the Classis. Thus the Answerer is troubled, the Dutch Consistory is troubled, the English Church also is trou­bled, and all about his feare of Mr. Weld. But, was this feare well grounded? was there sufficient cause for it? Let himselfe speake, and he will tell us: yea, he hath already told us, in his third answer, that, upon further conference with Mr. W, he percei­ved in him a peaceable disposition, and conceived, that he would not give offence by his preaching amongst them. It is well that his apprehen­sion [Page 223] is rectifyed, at last, to perceive that which he did not be­fore. That conference did not alter Mr. W: disposition, but his owne persuasion of him: so that the change was in the An­swerer, not in M. W. As a man in a ship thincks that the shore moves from him, whereas the ship, wherein he is, is carryed from the shore: so a man, whose passions are disturbed, su­specteth every man to oppose him. When all was now quiet, what course tooke the Answerer? He telleth us, that he made the same knowne to the Classis; whereupon he was admitted to preach. And, why must this be made knowne to the Classis? Is it against the government of these Churches that a stranger, to whom the Answerer can impute no errour, and in whom he preceived a peaceable disposition, and conceived that he would not giue offence by his preaching amongst them, being desired by the Church, should be permitted to preach a sermon [...] ▪ 2, or 3, in the English Church, without leave of the Classis? Can not the Elders doe so much, without them? Then the complaint is just, that the Elders are deprived of their power in government for the good of the Church: And seing, whilest the Answerer seemed unsa­tisfyed; the Dutch Consistory seemeth to apprehend it to be a case of some difficulty to permit M [...]. W. to preach, but when the Answerer is satisfyed, the Classis consenteth, it appeareth that the complaint concerning the injury is justly against the Answe­rer, at whose instigation, and intreaty the Classis doeth inter­pose so farr in their matters, though in this they can not be ex­cused, much lesse justifyed, in that they assume a power to themselves of restrayning Churches from having the benefit of the assistance of a stranger, and pass [...]t, in such a case, with­out their leave, which is more power then the government of these Churches giveth them, or any prelates ever chalenged to themselves, for aught I know.

Section 27. examined, concerning the undue power of the Classis.

IN this, and the fowre following Sections, they make their third complaint of his government, viz, that he subjecteth that Church under an undue power of the Classis, which they aggravate two wayes, 1. by his indirect aymes in it, for, they conceive, that he doeth it merely for his owne ends, 2. by his ir­regular pitching upō such meanes for the attayning of his ends. For, they say, he doeth it, without any warrant from the word of God. For our more orderly and cleare proceeding in exami­ning these five Sections, I will premise some thing, in thesi, concerning the power of Classes, and then descend to the hy­pothesis, and try how just their complaint is. Whereunto the Answerer compelleth me, not onely by his frequent mentioning my name, which he wrighte [...] at its full length every where (& in the next Section 30 times, in lesse then three leaves of paper) but also by his acensing me as an opposite to the government of these Churches by Synods and Classes. This to be a mere slan­der the indifferent Reader will judge by what I have already said in examination of former Sections. All lawfull Autho­rity I am alwayes, and shall be ready to acknowledge, with due submission thereunto, even when I freely testifye against all usurpation and tyranny, and plead for the observation of those ancient limits and bounds, which God hath set. But I proceed to the matter, concerning Classes.

Jt is not my purpose to speake of the originall of them, nor of their antiquity, nor to contend about the name given them, much lesse to cōdemne all use of them,Medull. Theol: lib. 1. Cap. 39 Sect: 27. from which I am so farr, that I freely confesse with Dr. Ames (though the Answerer tra­duceth, both him, and me as otherwise minded) that particular Churches, as their Communion requireth, and the light of nature, [Page 225] the aequity of rules, and the examples of Scripture teach, may, and, in many cases, ought to enter into a mutuall consociation, and confaede­ration, amongst themselves, in Classes, and Synods, that they may use their common consent, and mutuall helpe, so farr at it may com­modiously be done, especially in those things, which are of greater mo­ment. Provided alwaies that speciall care be taken that, under pretence of helping the Churches, they doe not hinder them, by taking away, and diminishing that liberty, and power which Christ hath given them. It was some such abuse that made Greg: Nazianzen so bitter against Councells,Epist: 42. ad Procop. that he re­solved to shun all such assemblyes. Which Dr. Whittaker im­puted to the evill event,Contra. Camp: p. 83. edit. 1601. whereunto the ambition & polyprag­mony of some men had brought matters, who, in stead of com­posing former differences & ending those controversyes, made new ones, which agreeth with Nazianzens owne expression of the reason why evills were, rather increased then diminished, by them, [...]. i. e. For Contentiousnes and ambition prevayled more then reason. And, it may be, some such provocation caused that learned politick man Hugo Grotius so to slight the authority of Classes and Sy­nods,Pietas. Ordinum Holl. ac West-Fris. as he did, in that treatise which he published against Sibr. Lubbertus, upon which Bogermannus published his Annotati­ons learnedly and succinctly penned, in defence of D. Sibran­dus, wherein, for answer of that part which concerned the ne­cessity and authority of Synods, he referred Grotius to what Iunius had written against Bellarmine de necessitatee [...]p otestate Conciliorum, wherein I fully agree with Iunius. But we are now to speake of a more imperfect combination of Churches, then that, which is in provinciall Synods, viz, a Diocesan union of them in Classes.

Betwixt which and the imperfect combination of Churches, in and about Geneva, there is some difference. For that is a vo­luntary conjunction of the smaller Churches with the greater, in one Consistory, for their helpe in their particular Church buisenesses (the smaller Churches wanting men fit for the ma­nadging of their Church affayres, and making one presbytery,Zanch. in 4. praecept. with the next greater Church, which, being better fitted, meete [Page 226] weekely in their owne Consistory, and these with them) But this is a combination which is betweene diverse Churches, which, having their severall presbyteryes, or Consistoryes a­part, send their deputyes, viz, one Minister and one Elder, to meete with the like deputyes from all other Churches,Synops: pur. Theol. disp. 49. Thes. 5. in such a Diocesse or division, at a time, and place appoynted, to handle such things as concerne many Churches in common, and as could not be ended in the Consistoryes of the particular Churches. Concerning these the question is, in this and the foll­owing Sections; for the discussion whereof I will propound two things to be considered, in thesi, or in generall. 1. What kind of combination that is which, is lawfull amongst Churches? 2. What power that is which is due to them over particular Churches, by vertue of that combination?

For the first. The combination of particular Churches, in Classes and Synods, is, either such a consociation of them as is betweene aequalls, or such a subordinatiō of them as is betweene unaequalls. The first is by way of counsaile, or brotherly direc­tion. The second is by way of command, or masterly subjecti­on. This we condemne, as being the first step, whereby the Pope ascended into the chayre of pestilence, and a mere inlet for tyranny to invade and usurpe the Churches right. The other is approved by the practise of the most ancient Churches and by good reason.

First. The practise of the Churches of the first age is cleare for a free seeking and communicating of mutuall helpe, by let­ters, and messengers, as occasion required, and that, not onely in ScriptureAct. 15 1. Cor. 16. ult. Revel 1. et 2. but also in Ecclesiasticall hystoryesEuseb: lib. 3. Cap. 32. Cyprian. lib. 3. Cap. 13. Catal. test. ver. lib. 9. p. 109. 110. And Cy­prian expresly declareth that the Churches, in his time, did give mutuall helpe to one another, ex charitate, non ex subjectione, in way of charity, not of subjection. And the Epitomatour of the Centurists fitly expresseth that combination which was, in those primitive times, among the Churches, by the communion of the members in the body, and concludeth that those actions and offices of their mutuall care, one for another, did not, ex imperio aut subjectione quâdam proficisci, sed ex charitate & aedificandi studio i. e. did not arise from any authority, which one did excercise over an­other, [Page 227] subjecting it to the rest, but out of love and indeavour of mu­tuall aedifying.

Secondly. The reasons, whereby it may be proved, are weighty. M. Parker hath saved me the labour of this taske, by laying downe six Arguments, for the proofe of this, in those his learned and elaborate treatises, concerning Ecclesiasticall policy, as 1, From the ground of this combination of Churches,Dc eccles. pol. lib. 3. Cap. 22. p. 329. which is love, not obedience. 2. From the forme of it, which is com­munion and consociation &c. 3. From the matter of it, which are Churches, who are aequall among themselves, as members in the body, which have a vicissitude of offices mutually to be performed, among themselves. 4. From the object of it, which is res communis, that which concerneth all the Churches, in com­mon. 5. From the outward manner of proceeding, which is eollatione conciliorum, by conference and communication of counsells. 6. From the end of this combination, which is, not to receive the mandates of other Churches, but their consent, counsail, and approbation.

The second thing to be considered, in thesi, is what power or authority that is which is due to Classes over particular Churches, by vertue of their combination.

First. More generally, This will best appeare by a right un­derstanding of the nature of that kind of assocication or combi­nation, as it hath bene, in the words immediately preceding, expressed. For, answerable to those two kinds of combination, there is a twofold power, in the persons so combined, whereby they may justly doe such things, which others cannot, who are not, by such a relation, thereunto qualifyed. Thus, to the unae­quall fellowship which is betweene superious and inferiours (as parents and children, Masters and servants Princes and people) appertayneth jus Rectorium, the power of government:Hugo Grot de jure pa­cis, et belli. p. 4. but to that other society which is betweene aequalls (as brethren, Ci­tizens, freinds, confaederates) belongeth jus aequatorium, such a power of communicating mutuall helpe as may stand with the preservation of their severall libertyes and mutuall aequality, safe and untouched. And no other power is due to them, quâ ta­les. [Page 228] If they assume any other, it is a mere usurpation, and trans­gression of the bounds and limits of their combination.

Secondly. More particularly, to apply this to Classes, which are sociall combinations of many Churches, for mutuall helpe, it must be considered. 1. What is the object of this combination. 2. What power it hath, in reference to that object.

First. The object of classicall combinations of Churches is res communis. i. e. that which concerneth all the Churches, or many of them, in that division, either of it selfe, or by accident. Beza declareth Synods to be necessary for 3 causes,De triplic. Epist. pag. 91. 9. 3. 1. to pre­serve consent. 2. to provide common remedyes, against common evills, by common counsail. 3. to helpe those who thinck them­selves injuryed by the judgment of particular presbyteryes. The Synod of 3 nations in Can. 35 reduceth all to. 1. matters of doctrine. 2. matters of order, and ecclesiasticall policy. 3. par­ticular facts. To be breife, these things are matters, either of fayth, or of fact, whether brought to them, or observed by them.

1. In matters of fayth, their resolution is required, not their ju­risdiction, their counsayl, not their command, it being the end of the Churches combination, in such matters, onely to com­municate their gifts in fellowship together, to find out the sense of the Scripture more clearely and certainely, for the satisfac­tion of all, then it could have bene done by any, apart from the r [...]st.

2. Matters of fact are, either common, or personall. Personall matters doe primarily belong to the particular Churches, and onely to them, so farr as they are proper, but, if, by accident, they become common, they fall under the deliberation of many Churches thus combined as in causâ lapsorum, in the cause of those who fell off, in those times of persecution, not onely in some one, but in many Churches, for the discussion whereof, Cyprian and the Affrican Doctors also concluded,Cypr. lib. 1 Epist. 8. et lib. 4. Epist 2. that a com­mon meeting of many Churches was necessary, in a buisenes so common and of so great consequence, that the plaster might be as broad as the sore, and the remedy hold some proportion with the malady.

Secondly. For the power it hath] That it may be distinctly understood what kind of power it is, which (in reference to the [Page 229] present question) is due or undue to Classes, I will premise two or three distincttons.

1. Dist: Jt is not potestas originalis, but derivata i. e. it not a power which the Classis hath originally, in, and from it selfe, but which is borrowed and derived from others, viz, from parti­cular Churches. So that, as the conduit pipes can give no other water, then what themselves received from the springs, nor the starres any greater light, then is communicated to them from the Sun: so the Classes can excercise no other power over any particular Church, then that which it selfe hath freely given them. Hence it will follow, that the Classes have not an ab­solute but a limited power, not a Magisteriall, but a Ministeriall power, not the power of lords, but of stewards, not of princes, but of embassadours, or heraulds, not of lawgivers, but of cryers, or publishers of proclamations, not to command (as princes doe in the common wealth) but onely to signifye and declare the command and will of God. And therefore, that they may not define, or determine matters by the opinions or customs of men, but by the truth of God in the Scriptures, which they must shew for their warrant. Because the Church it selfe, from whence their power is derived, hath no other power com­mitted to it. And none can give that to others, which themselves have not. And therefore to require and injoyne men to rest in their determinations, and judgments, without sufficient proofe of their agreement with the Scripture, is to give them an undue power.

2. Dist: This derived power and authority, which is given to Classes, in these things, is not a praerogative of jurisdiction, but of aestimation and reverence rather. Because Gods ordinance hath limited the former to particular Churches, as his delegates in their owne matters, & it is not in their power to alienate it frō themselves: But the latter is due to Classis consisting of grave, learned, prudent, and faythfull men, for their excelent personall gifts, in which respect, their judgment is to be much valued, and received with due regard. And for these causes the Affri­can Doctors saught helpe of Damasus, Ierom, Jnnocentius &c. in the great question, de lapsis, that the truth, being confirmed [Page 230] by their testimony and consent, who were orthodox and sound in judgment, might have the more authority with men gene­rally, whose eyes are upon men that are famous for wisdom & soundnes in the fayth,Confer. Chap. 8. d. 6. as Dr. Reynolds told Hart, yet, in the same place, he affirmeth that all Churches which the Apostles planted were aequall in power. And therefore to ascribe unto them a power of jurisdiction over particular Churches, and that in things proper to themselves, is to subject particular Church­es under an undue power.

3. Dist: Whatsoever power or authority is given to Classes, in reference to particular Churches, it is given to them cumulati­vè, not privativè. i. e. for the helpe & strengthening of them, in the excercise of that power which Christ hath given them not for the depriving them of it, or streightening them in the due & right use of it. For, whatsoever Ecclesiasticall power or au­thority is given to any, it is, for aedification, not for destruction, in this sense also.2. Cor. 10 8. And therefore all that power, whether assumed by them, or by others ascribed to them, whereby particular Churches are abridged of their liberty and power, in any par­ticular, is an usurped, and undue power. These things being thus premised, our conclusion is, that.

All that power which Classes have duely received by the free gift of particular Churches as a praerogative of aestimation and reverence, or any wayes for the helpe and strengthening of those Churches, in the well manadging of their owne matters, is a due power. But whatsoever power of jurisdiction they assume to themselves for the depriving of particular Churches of that power, which Christ hath given them, it is an undue power. From this conclusion we will deduce two Consectaryes.

1. Consect: That there is a lawfull expedient, and, in some cases, a necessary use of the communion and combination of Churches, being rightly ordered for the helpe of particular Churches in theyre proper affayres. As, First, In the choyse of Ministers. 1, for provocation, to quicken the particular Chur­ches by their exhortations and admonitions to seeke out some fit man, if they be slack therein. 2, for direction, to counsayle and advise them, from the Scripture, about the fitnes of the men, [Page 231] whom they would choose, and to admonish them of any notable unfitnes in them, to prevent the danger of infecting themselves, or other Churches, by any dangerous errours maintained by them against the rule of fayth, or otherwise of common and im­portant consequence. 3, for countenance and protection against any that would deprive them of meete helpers, either by false suggestions to the Magistrates, or by raysing contention and opposition among themselves. Secondly. In the excommuni­cation of members, which is a matter of great moment, if the particular Churches seeke the helpe of neighbour Churches, to prevent any errour among themselves, in a difficult case, or a­ny misreport which may arise concerning theyr proceedings amongst others, or to add the more strength for the convincing of those whom they are to censure, by the concurrence and con­sent of grave, and learned, and prudent men of neighbour Chur­ches, they shall doe piously and prudently therein. Thirdly. In other cases of difference, wherewith particular Churches are excercised, and whereby they are so divided that the matter can not be ended, and the differences composed among them­selves, by reason of the aequall number of the opposites, on boath sides, in matters that should be determined by voyces, or the difficulty of the case in question. In all these, and such like cases, much benefit and helpe may and should be affoarded to particular Churches by their cōsociation with others, in manner aforesaid, and they aught to seeke and use theyre helpe therein.

2. Consect: That, if Classes, under pretence of these ends and benefits, assume unto themselves such a primacy of power, or such an authority of jurisdiction over particular Churches, as 1, that they shall not choose their owne Ministers, excommuni­cate their members, &c. Without a power derived from them, or, 2, that, the Church is hindred from injoying Ministers of sound judgment, and unblameable behaviour, at their pleasure. or, 3. that they may impose conformity to unwarrantable cus­toms, or conclusions of their owne, as a condition without which Ministers may not lawfully be received by such a Church into the pastorall office, or, 4, that their saying a man is not fit for such a place, whom themselves acknowledge to be fit for any [Page 232] other place, and that without shewing the aequity of that their judgement from the Scriptures, or aequally and judiciously weighing the lawfull desires of the Chu [...]ch, and their right in this particular, through a partial adhaering to one party, should, or may deprive the Church of such men. or, 5. that the Church may not injoy a man, against whom there is no just and sufficient exception, as an assistant, for a time, or to preach amongst them a sermon or two, as a passant, without their leave: or, 6. that matters, proper to the Church and which may be ended in their owne Consistory commodiously, yet being brought to them, though but by some one man, out of opposition to the rest, that he may sway matters according to his owne mind, by theyre helpe, may be taken from the Church and concluded by them, in favour of one, against the mind of the Church, and the Church must be bound to rest in their determination, though they shew no warrant from the Scripture to satisfye their con­sciences about the aequity of their so determining and doing. In a word, whatsoever power they assume, or others give them, to deprive the Church of that power which Christ hath given it, in its owne matters, is against the end of their association and so an undue power.

Now, for the Hypothesis, or particular application of those generalls to the present question] The Answerer is chalenged by the Complainants for subjecting their Church under an undue power of the Classis, for his owne ends, and without warrant from the word. Out of question, if it be an undue power, it is not onely without warrant from the word, but also contrary to the rule. But, it may be, they meane that he hath done this, without shew­ing them any word which warranted his so doing. And, in that sense, it is a complaint of too masterly and selfewilled a carriage of himselfe in Church affayres. Which they seeme in­deed to intend by that addition, when they say, that he doeth it, for his owne ends. Now, to detract from another for a mans owne commodity is against nature, as the heathen man could say, and he proved it thus,Ci [...]. de offic: lib. 3. because, if that be done, the destruction of society and community amongst men will necessarily follow. With-whom another agreeth, expressing the same thing, under a Me­taphor, [Page 233] which he applyeth to men singularly and individually considered, but I will apply to particular Churches, in reference to Classicall combinations. As all the members agree amongst them­selves, because it concerneth the wholl that every one be safe: so men doe spare one another, because we are borne for communiō. Scen: de ira 1. lib. 3 C. 32. Salva enim esse societas, nisi amore & custodiâ partium, non potest: For a society cannot otherwise be safe then by keeping the parts, whereof it is com­pounded, from being hurt. But let us examine his answer to this complaint, which consists of fowre particulars. In all which I will passe by the overflowing of his gall, which he too fre­quently discovereth.

1. In his first answer he chargeth them with slandring the Classis, when they charge it with an undue power, which slander, he sayth, is against the very state of government, and forme of disci­pline observed and practised in these reformed Churches, and calleth for proofe. Wherein, me thincketh, he had forgotten himselfe: for, in the three next Sections, he himselfe produceth the proofes which they brought: In examining his answers to those proofes, I doubt, it will appeare, that the complaint is just, whereunto I referr the Reader, praying him, in the meane space, to noate that the thing complained of, is, not all power excercised by the Classis, but onely an undue power, whereof whilest they complaine, they doe implicitely acknowledge so much power to be due, as the word of God warranteth to them, and they suppose that the government and discipline of these Reformed Churches acknowledgeth no other power to be due to them. So that, if it shall be found that the Classis have assu­med to themselves an undue power over their Church, in any particular, the complaint against the Classis is just, and the slan­dring of the very state of the government of these Churches, is to be charged upon himselfe, not upon them.

2. In his second answer, he chargeth them with slander, for saying that he hath subjected the Church under an undue power. This also will appeare in the proofes of the justnes of this com­plaint, in the following Sections, whereunto I referr the Reader.

3. In his third answer he chargeth them with slāder, for saying [Page 234] that he hath done this merely for his owne ends. This, he sayth, is a great arrogancy, and setting of themselves in Gods stead, whose pe­culiar it is to search, and to judge the heart, and reynes. But, is this to answer complaints? or is it not to give new cause of com­plaints? that, whereas formerly they complained that he depri­ved the Church of the power, which Christ had given it, now they may complaine, that he would put out the eyes of the members, and deprive them of the reason and understanding which God hath given them. For, if men may not judge of mens intentions, how is it that our Lord hath left it for a rule, where­by to discerne false prophets whose intentions are wolvish, and to raven, how sheepish and harmelesse soever they seeme to be, in their pretences, when he sayth, Ye shall know them by their fruits? Mat. 7.15.16: Which I doe not, nor dare apply personally to the Ans­werer, of whom I have better thoughts, and esteeme, but onely to shew that it is lawfull for men, in some cases, and so farr as they keepe to the rule, to judge of others mens intentions. It is true; it is Gods praerogative to judge the heart. But, what then? may not men, by the light of reason, which he hath given them,Psal. 139.2. judge the actions? God knoweth the thoughts a farr off, in their hidden causes, and seminall preparations, and that, infal­libly, this is his peculiar glory, which is not arrogated by man, whilest he professeth onely to judge the cause by the effect, and the end by the meanes, which is, as if a man should say. The smoake appeareth out of the chimney; therefore there is some fire in the house, or the man chuseth such a way; therefore his intent is to travayle to such a place. The light of reason and sense inableth a man thus to judge, and the light of Scripture warranteth it. How then can any man justly condemne it? As for the Answerers ends, in this action, reason in any of the complainants sayth, they must be, either publick, or private. If his ends were the publick good of the Church, the meanes would be directed thereunto: but it seemes to them that the meanes are such as tend rather to deprive the Church of men, whom they warrantably desire, and to streighten the Churches liberty and power in her owne matters, Hereupon they con­jecture that his end is not their publick good, but some private [Page 235] selfe respect. This judgment is but humane, and therefore fal­lible. For it is possible that a man, by an errour in his judgment, may pursue a good end in wrong meanes: & so the Answerer, thincking it to be more for the good of the Church to be streightned thus and limited by the Classis, then to be other­wise, might have a good end, but mistooke the meanes. And therefore, if they missed of the matter of the complaint, in cha­lenging him for unlawfull ends, yet the complaint will be found just, if they accuse him of using unwarrātable meanes. Yet I can­not free him, as I desire, from theyre accusation of selfe-aymes, in what he hath done, till he shall deny it, & declare his intend­ments to have bene for the publick good, which when he shall have done, the Complaint will appeare to have bene a slander, and I shall rejoyce to see his integrity cleared, in this particular.

4. In his fourth answer, he would faine know, he sayth, what that due power is, by which they would have the Church to be governed. The truth is. In all this passage appeareth much sarcasticall bit­ternes, unworthy of the learning, gravity, and holy function of the Answerer. Yet, I suppose, the Complainants would be ready, if they were called, to answer soberly that they desire no other Church government, unto which they would willingly be subject, then that which Christ hath appoynted the Church to be under. What that is, if they know not, he aught to teach them: If they know it, and desire it, he aught to lead them out, and to goe be­fore them, as a faythfull shepheard, that the sheep may follow him, as he followeth Christ, & not to praejudice them against any good way, by a scoffing proposall of mens differences in judgment, a­bout some particular tract, or turning in the way, to the great scandall and offence of many, and the dishonour of the Gospel, and the hindrance of Reformation, by his joyning with the eni­myes thereof, in an old cavill which hath turned many out of the way, and caused some to returne back to a mere neutrality in religion, till the professours of it agree among themselves about the path, wherein they will walke.

Whereas he taketh occasion againe, without provocation, to mention Mr. Iacob as an enimy to Classes and Synods, that I might speake a word in the cause of the dumbe, and of the [Page 236] dead, I have examined what he hath written concerning this point (more, upon this occasion, then formerly I had done, and, it may be,Treat: of Ch. Go­vernment. Chap. 1. pag. 13. Chap. 7. 88. 89. 90 Confess: Art. 5. more then else I should have done) and doe find that he professeth his agrement, (that I may use his owne words) even to an hayre; with Calvin and Beza, touching the substance of this mat­ter, and that he acknowledgeth, with them, both the parishionall and Diocesan presbyteryes: yea, the provinciall, and larger too, if occasion serve. How he explaineth himselfe herein the diligent Reader will easily observe in other passages of the same booke. And else where he acknowledgeth that there may be, and, on occasion, there ought to be, on earth, a consociation of Congregations, and Churches, and namely, by way of Synods, but not a subordination, or, surely, not a subjection of the Congregations under any higher spirituall authori­ty absolute, save only Christs, and the holy Scriptures. Whereby it ap­peareth, that the single uncompounded policy, which Mr, I, required, is not contrary to the government of these reformed Churches, by Classes and Synods rightly ordered;Ch. Go­vernment Chap. 7. p. 89. nay rather he so farr ap­proveth of it, that he sayth, it is Apostolicall for many ordinary Congregations, consociating together, in their spirituall government, to have a Diocesan or larger Synod, or presbytery over them, for their bet­ter direction, and, he addeth, such the reformed Churches, at this day, doe injoy. But, if he thinck, by mentioning the name of Mr. Iacob, to leave the Complainants under the suspicion of adhae­ring to some sect, or of depending upon the authority of man, & not upon the word of Christ, for their rule, about Church mat­ters, he will be found to be injurious, not to them alone, but to Christ also,Mat. 18.17. 1. Cor: 5. Coll. 2.5. and 4.17. Acts 20.17.28. Rev. 2 & 3 1. Tim. 3.15. Cha. 5.21. Chap. 6.13. to 17. and to the truth.

First. To Christ, seing they acknowledge all that power to be due (and thereunto they are willing to submit) which, by the word, is warranted to be that whereby Churches should be go­verned, according to the mind of Christ, & which agreeth with the patterne which Christ left to his disciples, and which the Apostles exactly followed, in planting those primitive Churches of Corinth, Colosse, Ephesus, the 7 golden Candlesticks in Asia, among whom Christ walked. &c. and which Paul so streightly charged Timothy to observe, in all Church affayres which: is no other then the power committed by Christ to particuler Chur­ches, [Page 237] as his delegates, for the right ordering of themselves, in their Church government, and in all holy administrations and ordinances, according to his command and direction in the Scripture, without dependance upon any Classes or Synods, or whatsoever humane spirituall power for license or authority to be received from them for their so doing. And, as they thus ac­knowledge all that power, under which the Church is subjected by warrant of the word, to be due; so they professe all that power, under which the Church is subjected, to be undue, which the word doeth not warrant, and which taketh away from par­ticular Churches that power which, by Christ his ordinance, is due to them, which, what is it but to remove the ancient bounds, Prov. 22.28. Gal. 5.1.3. Ioh. 9. & to thrust the Churches from the libertyes wherein they are com­manded to stand fast, and to affect an undue praeheminence in the Church?

Secondly. To the truth, whilest it is presented to the view of all men under the shew of some singular opinion (or errour rather) of a particular man, or as a forelorne thing, deserted of all her witnesses, excepting Mr. Iacob, whereas so much as the Complainants seeme to require (as appeareth in their referring themselves to the warrant of the word) hath bene acknowledg­ed by the faythfull witnesses in all ages,Heb. 12.1 with which cloud of witnesses we are compassed about, as the Israelites were with that pillar of a cloud, wherein the Lord went before them, by day, Exod. 13.21. to lead them in the way. Such were the Apostles, in their time, and those worthyes, as Cyprian, and those of whom Eusebius taketh no­tice,Cypr. lib. 3 Epist. 14. Euseb. li. 3 et 4. et 5. in many places, and in some succeeding instances, before the mistery wraught to its full hight. The same thing may ap­peare to those who are conversant in the wrightings of the Centuriators. To these I may add those who have handled the controversyes concerning the necessity, and authority of Coun­cills, amongst whom I will instance in Dr. Whittaker, who,Whitt. de Concil: quest. 5. Arg. speaking of the fullnes of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church, not to the Pope (which he applyeth to the Keyes in binding and loosing, shutting and opening, re­tayning and remitting sinnes) sayth, that this power belongeth primarily, principally, and essentially to the Church, but to the [Page 238] severall Bishops onely accidentally, secundarily, and l [...]sse prin­cipally, and explaineth himselfe by a rule in philosophy, which is, that when any power is in two, in one necessarily & essentially, in another contingently and accidentally, it is more principally in him, in whom it is necessarily and essentially, then in him, whose it is onely contingently and accidentally. As the heate is more principally in the fire then in the water, because it is in the water by reason of the fire. So (sayth he) seing this jurisdic­tion and fullnes of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily, but to the Pope onely secundarily, and by the Church, it is manifest that it is more in the Church then in the Pope. What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power, in comparison with the Pope, holds in all other paralell instances.

To these I may add those who have written concerning the right ordering of Churches, according to the Scripture. I will not stand to give a Catalogue of their names, though I might be plentifull therein, but will content my selfe with the three wrighters of this kind, whom the Answerer pretended, in con­ference with me, to make for him, and I shall shew them to be strongly against him, Mr, Cartwright, and Mr. Fenner and Mr. Parker, men of our owne nation.

Sect. 4. p. 53.1. For Mr. Cartwright. The very place in his booke, whereunto the Answerer referred me, I have examined before, and have shewen how litle helpe he will have from him.

De Sacra Theol. lib. 7. p. 279.2. For M. Fenner. He, speaking of the Ecclesiasticall pres­bytery, distinguisheth betweene the Eldership of one particular Church (which, he sayth, is properly called [...]) and the Eldership of many Churches.

P. 277. & 278. ‘The Eldership of the first sort, he sayth, is a compound office wherein all the Elders doe, in the name of the wholl Church, administer all the buisenesses of the Church, that is, of the Lord, by common authority and counsaile. And, for this purpose, he alleadgeth many texts out of the old and new testaments. These buisenesses, he sayth, are either judiciary or extrajudi­ciary. Iudiciary buisenesses are such things as are to be de­fined by the judgment of the Church, which are, either mat­ters doubtfull, which must be defined by the Scriptures, or [Page 239] censures to be administred. Extrajudiciary buisenesses, are Elections, ordinations, cheife care of disposing the holy trea­sures, keeping of order in the assembly, and all things which are to be done. Yet, in matters of greatest moment, and which concerne the good, or ruine of the wholl Church, he sayth, the Elders, after consultation had among themselves, must tell their opinions to the Church, that, if they have any thing to counsail, or to object, it may be brought in, and afterwards, the opinions and assent of all being declared, matters are to be concluded, unlesse it be necessary to referr the buisenes to a greater assembly of Elders, for the avoyding, or composing of differences, which is then to be done when the difference is betweene the greater part of the Church. And these mat­ters, of the greatest moment, are, the censures, excommuni­cation, and absolution from it, which is to be done in the as­sembly, by the AUTHORITY OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, orders also of the greatest moment to be made, controversyes of fayth to be composed, the elections and just deposing of Ministers, & other things aequall to these, or greater then they all,’ which must be thus transacted, as he plentifully declareth from Scripture. Thus I have faythfully translated the words of this eminent light, in his time Mr. Dud­ley Fenner, who was joyned with Mr. Cartwright in the pub­lick ministry to the English Company in Antwerpe, to whom, and to that worke of his Mr. Cartwright, in an epistle to him praefixed to that booke, giveth a singular testimony, compa­ring him to Moses, who, from Mount Nebo, viewed the wholl land of Canaan, as it were, with one cast of his eye, to whom the Answerer him selfe referred me (wherein I admire his con­fidence) as to one that made for him. The Reader may see how he leaveth the wholl power of jurisdiction in the particular Church, and bindeth them no further to make use of other Ec­clesiasticall Senats, out of themselves, then necessity requireth, and he doeth not acknowledge that it is a case of that neces­sity; but when the avoyding of troubles and dissentions in the Church makes it necessary. And when is that? Not when one alone contentiously differeth from all the rest. But, when the [Page 240] difference is among the greater part. And that, in such a case, the judgment of the wholl Church is first to be tryed and the opinions, and assent of all being declared, matters are to be con­cluded.Idem ibid p. 280. ‘Else where he sayth, that the presbytery of many Churches is to compose and end such things onely as cannot be ended in particular Churches. Act. 15.1. to 8. 2. Chron. 20.33. Act. 16.4. And these are cases, either proper to those Churches, which are brought to them, or things common to many Churches,’ and so taken up by them. I demand of the Ans­werer, whether he be of this worthy wrighters judgment, or not? If not; why did he referr me to him for satisfaction? If yea; why is his practise so different from it? For, in this buise­nes, though of so great consequence, that it indangered the breaking of the Church (if I had not sat downe quietly, and suf­fered wrong, for peace sake) the Answerer alone opposing the desire of the Elders, and of the greater part of the Church, and the buisenes being proper to the Church, and which might have bene ended among themselves, yet, against the liberty and right of the Church (if Mr. Fenners judgement be right) he would carry it to the Classis, that he might effect his purpose.

De polit. Eccles: lib. 3. Chap. 1.3. For Mr. Parker. He largely, and strongly proveth this po­sition, potestas Ecclesiastica essentialiter & primario in ipsâ Fccl [...]siâ, tanquam in subjecto proprio, residet. The power ecclesiasticall doeth es­sentially & primarily reside in the Church it selfe, as in its, proper sub­ject. The sense wherein he thus spake, to prevent all suspicion of his pleading for popular confusion, he declareth out of Zanchy, who sayth,Zanch in praecept 4. quest. 3. toti Ecclesiae dedisse Christum claves, sed ita ut in Eccle­siâ certi essent, qui clavibus utantur ad salutem Ecclesiae, honoremque Dei. That Christ gave the keyes to the wholl Church, but so, that there should be certaine men that should use the keyes to the good of the Church and glory of God. For the proofe of the former, that the right of power is in every particular Church, he useth five Argu­ments, in the 6: & 7. chapters, & then, in the 8. chapter, he cometh to speak of the excercise and ordinary execution of this power, which is, he sayth, in the Church-officers or rulers, yet, with this moderation, that this dispensation of the Churches power in the officers be according to a well tempered forme, partly Aristo­craticall, [Page 241] partly Democraticall, the Church committing those things to the presbytery, which it can not commodiously per­forme by it selfe, and retaining that excercise of power which belongs to the dignity, authority, and liberty which it hath re­ceived from Christ. Thus he wholy destroyeth that demo­craty, or popular Anarchy, which Beza justly condemneth in Morellius, and is, by some, unjustly imputed to those that plead for a due reformation of Churches, according to the rules of the word, and the primitive patternes. Of the first sort of things, which the Church committeth to the Ru­lers, because it cannot commodiously performe them by it selfe, he speaketh in cap. 9.10.11. of the second sort of things, which the Church retaineth in it selfe, because it can commo­diously excercise them by it selfe, he speaketh in cap. 12. Wher­in, by 22. Arguments, he proveth the Churches superiority over her Pastors and rulers, in 3 respects. 1. of the end, the power which they have being given them for her aedification. 2, in res­pect of the application of it to the persons, 3 in respect of regu­lating the use of it, if it be abused. And in cap. 18. 13, making a comparison betweene a particular Church, and Churches combined in Synods and Classes, he affirmeth that the differen­ce betweene them is, not in the intensive consideration of their power (which the congregation hath, in reference to the Keyes, within it selfe) but in the extensive power onely, wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects, viz, to many Churches (in things common) whereas the power of a particu­lar Church is confined, and limited within its owne compasse. The same authour, in the 20 chapter, speaking of the summity, or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations, pro­poundeth the due limits of it, wherein, he conceiveth, it is to be understood, and bounded, as, that the power of particular Churches is cheife. 1. in its owne matters, not in things commō to many Churches. 2. in case it be able to transact its owne mat­ters within it selfe: as, if a doubt or controversy arise, the Church hath power to terminate it, if it can: as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves, & laboured to com­pose the difference within themselves, but finding (not a want [Page 242] of right to end it among themselves, but) need of more helpe they sent to Ierusalem freely for the helpe of their counsail, in this matter. 3. In case of right and lawfull administration. 4. In case of no evill administration praesumed by those, who, finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence, appeale to the judgment of the Synod. In which 3 last limitations, other Churches (to whose judgment, or advice, persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeale) doe concurr, in way of counsail, and declaration of theire judgment, to helpe particular churches to excercise theire power aright,P. 47. P. 239. in theyre owne matters, as was before noated out of Mr. Cartw. and Mr. Fenner, and out of the Authour himselfe in the foregoing passages, wich being so understood, doeth not justifye any undue power of jurisdict [...]ō, if it be excercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases & manner complained of by the Subcribers: and how fully it a­greeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section, will appeare to the indifferent Reader, when he shall have compared boath together.Casus con­scient: lib. 4 c: 24. qu. 4 et c: 25. qu: 5.

Thus we have examined his owne witnesses, and find them wholy for us in this cause. To these I might add Dr. Ames in that which he wrote, in his latter time, wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set downe his jugdment more warily, in this matter,Dioc: try­all. p. 13. et 21. then formerly. See his cases of conscience, the 4, Booke where he speaketh clearly of this power as essentially belong­ing to particular Churches. To him I may add Mr. Paul Bay­nes, a man of singular noate for learning and piety, in Cam­bridge, where he succeeded Mr. Perkins, who freely expresseth his jugdment for the right of particular Churches,1. part 2. l. 2. p. 104 105. &c. and their in­dependence, in this sense, in his Diocesans tryall. With whom I might joyne the Replyer vpon Dr. Downams defence, who, not onely declareth his owne jugdment herein concurring with the above mentioned, but also joyneth with them the suffrages of diverse others, as the Centurists, Illiricus, D. Andrewes Bish­op of Winchester, Dr. Fulke, Willet, Thom: Bell, Ciprian, Augustine, Gerson, Ferus,

Desp: caus. pap. lib. 2.To the same purpose, hath a worthy, and learned wrighter of these countries Voetius, Professour of Divinity in Vtrecht [Page 243] whose words I thus translate.Sect. 2. cap. 12. p. 18. 6. The Church is the spouse of ‘Christ, which is the proper and adaequate subject of that power, to whom Christ hath committed that delegate right, reserving the cheife to himselfe. Which aught to be and to remaine so proper to the Church, that it, neither may be snatched away by the authority of others, nor lost by their vo­luntary concession, nor committed to the trust of any other; although diverse acts belonging to the calling of a Minister may and aught to be performed by certaine members of the Church.’ Thus he professedly vindicateth the Churches right in an Aristocratico-Democratie, as appeareth in the title of that chapter.

And, to conclude, thus it was ordered in the English Church at Franckford, among the exiles in those Marian daies, that,A Dis­course of the trou­bles in the Engl. Church at Franckf. Art. 62. Art. 67: if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected, or found parties; if any ap­peale be made from them, that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation &c. & that the body of the Congregation may ap­point so many of the Congregation to heare and determine the said mat­ter, or matters, as it shall seeme good to the Congregation. Againe If any controversy be about the doubtfull meaning of any word, or words in the Discipline, that first it be referred to the Ministers, or Senjors: and, if they cannot agree thereupon, then the thing be referred to the wholl Congregation.

The 28. Section examined.

IN this, and the three following Sections, they bring proofes of the justnes of their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis. Their first proofe is,1. Proofe. his giving them power to keepe out such men as he would have kept out, though they abhorred all haeresy and Schysme. And they instance in Mr. H: and me, which is aggravated. 1. by the primary agent, he, viz the Answerer. 2. by the innocency of the persons injuryed, [Page 244] they being such as abhor all haeresy and schysme &c. 3. by the An­swerers partiall carriage, he would have had other, that, to this day, hold the same opinion.

To keepe out Ministers, whom the Church desireth, being free from haeresy or schysme, is not in the power of the Classis, by any warrant from the word, or by any order established in the Synods of these countryes. And therefore the power, where­by they doe that, is an undue power, and the complaint of the members against it is just. Let us examine his answers which are six.

The 2 first, in reference to the first aggravation, serve to ac­cuse the Complainants of a double slander. 1. of slandering the Answerer, in saying, that he gave the Classis this power. 2. of slandering the Classis, in saying, they received and excercised this undue power, boath which he aggravateth bitterly enough, after his manner. To be breife in so plaine a case. Had they power to hinder the setling of any Minister in any Church, be­fore they had examined his cause, or heard what he could say, in his owne defence, as they did in Mr. H. case? or to deprive the Church of a man, whom they desired, only because he refu­sed to baptise all that are presented, by whomsoever, though they were, neither members of that Church, nor otherwise knowne, and that in Amsterdam, as they did in my case? Or to proceed against men so farr that abhorr all haeresy and schysme? From the Scriptures they have no such power, nor from the Churches, nor from the Synods, nor from the fundamentall lawes of their owne constitution. Whence then? The answerer opposeth men, upon needlesse jealousyes, and then craveth the helpe of the Classis, to keepe them out: they, conceiving it to be their part to defend the ministers, interpose strenuously (ab, that I could say, justly, and orderly!) and judge that such men are not fit to be setled in that Church. Hereupon the members complaine that he giveth, and they receive an undue power, in this particular. Where is now the double slander? will he deny the fact? It is too evident. Will he deny it to be unduely done? The very forme of subscription, required by the Classis it selfe, will witnes against him, which excludeth not any man from the [Page 245] Ministry in these Churches for that cause. And can they duely and justly require that of the preacher of the English Church, which is not required of any Dutch Minister, by the orders of the Classis it selfe?

But the Answerer gave them not this power. The power which the Ministers of the Classis have is not of my gift, sayth he, they had that power, which they excercise, before I wae. The question is not of the power which they have, in generall, but of a power which they excercise, in some particular, viz, in that, whereof they complaine. And herein, they doe not complaine of his appro­ving their due power, but of his giving them an undue power, de­priving them of men, whom they desired, without sufficient cause. This power they tooke not to themselves, till they were called upon to interpose for the prevention of some imagined danger, in the English Church. Who suggested those jealou­syes? Did not the Answerer? Who importuned them to wright what they did, in the cases here mentioned? Did not the Ans­werer? Who bound the Church to rest in the wrightings of those Ministers, in these cases? Who, but the Answerer? Let the Scripture be searched, and the text shewen, wherein the word hath given them this power, to hinder the Church from chusing a Minister, otherwise free from all exception, onely for such causes? Let the Synods be examined. Js there one Canon in them all to warrant their excercising such a power? Will the English Church acknowledge that they have given the Classis this power? If the Scriptures, the Synods, the Church gave it not them, if themselves saught it not, tooke it not, till it was given them, it must needs be that the Answerer gave it them. By what right, either he gave it, or they received it, I inquire not, let them agree about that betweene themselves, or rather let them, in simplicity and truth, satisfye, first their owne con­sciences; then the Complainants.

In his third answer he chargeth Mr. Hook: and me with schysme. It was requisite he should doe so, else, he knew, that the Classis and he must beare the blame of usurping and excer­cising an undue power, to the wronging of the Church. Let us see how he proveth it.

First. In Mr. Hooker whom he chargeth with fowre opini­ons, which tended to schysme, as he sayth.

1. The two first concerne the Brownists. as, 1. his opinion that they might lawfully be received for members of that Church. 2. that, in some cases, the members of this Church might heare at their assemblyes.

To helpe the Reader to a right understanding of this cause (till Mr. H. shall thinck it fit to speake for himselfe) I will shew 3. things. 1. That Mr. H. did not approve of the Brownists judg­ment, in the point of Seperation: for, in expresse words, he ans­wereth to the first question. To seperate from the faithfull assem­blies, and Churches in England, as no Churches, is an errour in judg­ment, and sinne in practise, held, and maintayned by the Brownists. And therefore to communicate with them, either in this their opi­nion, or practise is sinfull, and utterly unlawfull. 2. That he de­livered his judgement herein with considerable cautions. as 1. that men should renounce their opinion and practise. 2. that care be taken to prevent offence, either by incouraging them in their way; or by drawing ours to a further approbation of that way then is meet. 3. that whatsoever moderation he allowed, in this case,, was to be understood. 1. according to the former caution and interpretation, and 2. upon supposition, 1. that they erred in this point, not obstinately, but for want of light and conviction, as appeareth in his answer to the second question. 2. that the person thus opinionated, is, in his judgment and life otherwise altogether unblameable, & such an one, as, in the judgment of reasonable charity, may be counted a member of Christ, & so a Saint. 1 Cor. 1.2. 3. That the judging a man unfit to be received a mēber, for an erronious opinion in such a kind, is to confirme the Brownists in that unsupportable and absurd censure which now they maintayne, touching those that hold the Churches in England true Churches, & professe they will occasionally communicate therein: as appeareth in his answer to the third question.

These things being duely weighed, I leave it to the judgment of the indifferent Reader whether a man allowing such men to be received members with that Church, or others differing frō them in judgement and practise, about Seperation, to heare with [Page 247] them occasionally, and extra casum scandali, without offence, and expressing himselfe in these points, with such interpretati­ons, cautions, and suppositions, may justly be charged with schysme?

3. The third opinion which he held, and, the Answerer sayth, tended to schysme, was that private men might preach and expound the Scripture &c. In the 17. question propounded to him by the Answerer, he expresseth his judgment by a distinc­tion of a double ground, from which this may be done, viz, either ex officio, or ex dono. i. e. by vertue of an office, (and this no man may doe, without a calling thereunto from the Church,) or from the gift that Christ doeth dispense to severall members, according to their measure, & the place they hold in the body, and that thus any Christian may privately doe, as opportunity & expediency serve, he holdeth, and therein professeth his agree­ment with Dr. Ames in the 14. Booke of cases of consc: cap. 25. who proveth it, both by Scripture and reason. And will any man say that this is an opinion or practise of Schysme?

4. The fourth opinion, which he held, and for which the Answerer accuseth him of schysme, is, that Churches com­bined with the Classis might choose a Minister, either without, or a­gainst the consent of the Classis, under which they stood. Let his ans. wer to the 11. Quest: be examined, which we will transcribe word for word out of the written copy.

‘11. Whether a particular Congregation have power to call a Minister without the approbation of the Classis, under which they stand?’ Neg:

‘Before I answer the Quaere, I would aske one thing, which might give a litle light to that which shall be said afterwards, namely, how the first Classis that ever was upon the face of the earth came to be constituted? And, J conceive, it cannot be denyed, but that it was made up by the combination of severall ministers, and Elders, and of severall Congregations. Whence it must needs follow, that those particular Congrega­tions had power from Christ for to call, & so did, by that their power, choose & call their Ministers fully & compleatly before [Page 248] there was a Classis, and therefore had their power not deri­ved from a Classis, or by it, but from the direct ordinance and appoyntment of Christ, which power they may not give away, and none can take it away, being a legacy left them by the Lord Iesus, as Dr. Ames disputes and determines in his 4. booke of his cases of conscience.’ pag. 165.

‘Touching the Quaere then my opinion is this: A particular Congregation hath compleat power, by Christ his institution, to give a compleat call to a minister, without any derived power from a Classis. They which had compleat and perfect Ministers, before any Classis, had power fully to call them, without any Classis. But a particular Congregation, had per­fect and compleat Ministers, i. e. perfectly and compleatly called, before any Classis. Ergo. Yet, if by mutuall consent, the Congregation hath freely combined it selfe with the Classis, they shall doe piously and expediently freely to crave the approbation of the Classis, that they may be more con­firmed, or, if doubts arise, better directed in their course. All­wayes provided, that, if the Classis should not approve, they may lawfully, and without sinne, chuse without, or against the approbation of the Classis, if they saw good reason, by the convenient fitnes of the party to induce them therunto. And so I judge of the 11 Quest.’

Vnto all which I will add, that those things were but secret, in his owne mind, till the Answerer, to get matter against him, drew them out by these questions which he wrote to him, and required his answer to them, and they should have so remayned for ever (such is the peaceablenes of his disposition) if the Ans­werer had desired him to conceale his judgment therein, for prevention of offence.

Secondly. As for me; he layeth the same accusation upon me also, and bringeth three pretences for it.

D. Feild of the Church. bok. 3. chap. 5.1. My preaching at set times in a private house.] For the ans­wer of this I referr the Reader to my examination of his 20 Section. Whereunto I add a few words, to prove it to be no schysme, which I will declare from Dr. Feild his definition of Schysme, who describeth it to be a breach of the Ʋnity of the Church. The Vnity of the Church, sayth he, consisteth in three [Page 249] things. 1. The subjection of the people to their lawfull Pastors. 2. The connexion and communion which many particular Churches & Pastors of them have among themselves. 3. In holding the same rule of fayth. Which of these wayes did this action make me guilty of Schys­me? 1. Not in the first. For, did I attempt to draw the people, from their Pastorall relation, to a popular Anarchy, as Corah would have done, in his conspiracy,Numb. 16.3. under a pretence that all the Lords people are holy? or, did they, by my persuasion, flee from their owne Church or Consistory with complaints to other Churches, in such cases as might have bene ended among them­selves, as those Schysmaticks did in Cyprian? No.Lib. 1. Epist. 3. I was so farr from drawing the people from their Pastor, that, by that very meane, I held them together, my selfe giving them example of constantly hearing him, and deferring my private excercise, till above an howre after the publick was finished. And I am hear­tily sorry that my advise to their Pastor, and intreaty, that mat­ters might be quietly ended within themselves, prevayled not with him to prevent the publishing of their distractions, in this manner, to the world. 2. Not in the second. For, neither they, nor I refused to communicate with any reformed Churches, in the performance of the Acts of Religion, either out of selfe-conceit; as did Novatus, Donatus, Lucifer &c. or for any other unwarrantable respects. 3. Nor in the third: For the Answerer himselfe confesseth (though unwillingly) that, in that excercise, I preached against schysming, nor doth he, in the middst of all his bitternes, nor shall he ever be able to accuse me justly of forsaking the rule of fayth in any point.

2. My approving the Act of the Elders in admitting me to preach, as an assistant, without the consent of the Classis] whither did the Answerers passion transport him, when he wrote this for an evidence to prove me guilty of Schysme? For. 1. who ever heard that it is an act of Schysme for a man to preach at the desire of any Church, onely as an assistant, without the consent of the Classis? By that rule, himselfe and the wholl Church was guilty of Schysme for letting Mr. D. preach, a yeare or two together, without consent of the Classis. For he did it as an assistant. But 2. He doeth not charge me with doing it neither, but onely with appro­ving [Page 250] that act. If I be a Schysmatick for approving it, what are the Elders that made it? And, why doeth he suffer them to come to the Lords table, and to goe on so long unconvinced, unre­clamed from their Schysme? Is Schysme such a small sinne that he regards it not? or is this proofe of their Schysme so slight that he thincks they will not regard it? He bol [...]ly calleth it Schys­me, but bringeth no proofe that it is so from Scriptures nor Reason. Why so? Is it because it is sufficient that he sayth it? or because he cannot prove it? If the first; he is deceived: if the second; he deceiveth. 4. If the Church have power to chuse a meet Pastor or assistant, the Ministers of the Classis have no power to deprive them of him, or to hinder him from accep­ting their call, or from satisfying their lawfull desire. For, their power is not privative, but cumulative, in that sense. And there­fore, in such a case, it is a Schysme from the Church in him that hindereth the Church herein, not in him that assisteth them.

3. My maintayning of the power of particular Churches to be cheife in theyre owne matters, & applying this to the admission of Mi­nisters to preach as assistant &c. though these Churches be united in Synods and Classes. And is this a sufficient evidence, where­upon to ground so deepe an accusation, as that of Schysme is? If so; let him shew it by Scriptures, or good reason, but with all, to guide his judgment, let him know that the mere preaching, as assistant in a Church, at the intreaty of the Church, is not numbred among those common causes, which, by the order of these reformed Churches, are appropriated to the cognition or consent of the Classes: it is, in it selfe, to be accounted among the things which are proper to particular Churches. And, is it a Schysmaticall tenet to hold that things proper to particular Churches, are under the power of particular Churches, which are cheife in matters that are properly their owne? what then will he say to that Canon of the Synod at Midleborough. Those things shall not be handled in the greater assemblyes, which may be en­ded in the lesser. Can. 25. & to the Canons of the Synod of 3 Na­tions. Cap. 17. & 18. & to the Sinod at Emden. Cap. 2. & to that Canon in the Harmony of the Belgick Sinods, that those matters only shall be brought into the Classes which cannot be ended in [Page 251] the Consistory cap. 7. art. 6. See Zepperus lib. 3. cap. 5.

Were these Synods schysmaticall Conventicles? or, were their Canons schysmaticall conclusions? How then is this, which I affirme, schysmaticall?

To brand me with an imputation of schysme, he spareth not these Synods which deliver the same thing, in effect, that I say, and all those worthyes who have written concerning Ecclesia­sticall discipline, or the authority of Councills, of whom we spake in the former Section, or, which have handled the power of particular Churches in chusing their owne Pastors, of whom we spake in the foregoing Section: Yea, I wish, he may not be found to beare false witnes against the truth it selfe in the Scrip­tures, which we have declared, in both those Sections, to war­rant so much as I have said in this matter.

4. His fourth answer supposeth that eminent men may cause eminent danger by their private opinions.] The men, in whom he instanceth, I confesse, were not inferiour to either of us, in learning. But that which he intimateth, concerning opinions held by them which tended to the ruine and desolation of Churches, if he apply it to this question, about the power of par­ticular Churches to admit of Ministers to preach as assistants, I cannot acknowledge to be true, upon the former grounds, but, if he meane any other opinions or practises, it is nothing to the matter in question.

5. In his fifth answer, upon his observation that the Com­plainants, in their particular greivances, mention me, he infer­reth, that their inordinate desire of me, hath made this trouble to the Church.] But. 1. neither the ground, nor the inference is right. 1. Not the ground. For they mention not me alone, but others also. 2, Nor the inference. For, will their complaining of in­juryes done to them, in a particular reference to me, prove their desire of me, to be inordinate. By what medium? Let him frame his Argument into a Syllogisme, and it will appeare to be Sophi­sticall, and ridiculous. But I spare him. 2. How easily may they, or I, upon the same ground & warrant, prove that his inordinate desire of having his owne will, that I say no more, hath made this trouble in the Church, by drawing all the lines of the seve­rall [Page 252] Sections, in the circle and circumference of their complaint to that as the onely centre. But I doe not affect in Circuitu ambulare.

6. In his sixt answer, which is to their parenthesis, wherein they noate, that he would have had others, that, to this day, hold the same opinion;] Such is the invincible power of truth, that his owne words concerning those two instances are sufficient to prove the thing which he would deny▪ if what I have written, in the 11. Section, concerning his private conference with me be com­pared with what himselfe confesseth Mr. B▪ wrote to him, and with his owne acknowledgment of Mr. R. agreement with me, in his third and last answer to that instance. Nor is his desire of having them, complained of, (for in the injoyment of either of them they had bene happy) but his partiall sticking at that in me, which he would have passed by in them.

The 29. Section examined. Concerning the undue power of the Classis in ma­king lawes.

IN this Section, they produce the second proofe of the justnes their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis, viz, his giving them power to make lawes and orders, whereunto, whosoever will be ministers of that Church must submit.] For proofe hereof they give two instances. 1. that they bind Ministers to observe the orders and customs of the Dutch Church. 2. their second instance is concerning this order of promiscuous baptising, which they made a cōdition of my admittance to that Ministry. The justnes of their laying the blame of boath these upon the Answerer they prove. 1. Because some of the Dutch preachers themselves have declared their willingnes to cast off some of those customs, if the vastnes of their Church would perm [...] it. 2. Be­cause [Page 253] one of them said to the Answerer in the Classis (upon occasion of his complaining of my not conforming to their orders) you your selfe doe not conforme to all our orders. 3. Because they have professed that they should have bene glad that the differences had bene ended a­mong our selves. 4. Because he hath of late required of the Elders that an order might be made in the Consistory, that whatsoever minis­ter shall hereafter be called to that Church should conforme to that wrighting of the five Ministers.]

Now let us see what answers he pretendeth to make. 1. to their complaint against the proceeding of the Classis, in this particular. 2. to their complaint of his giving this undue power to the Classis.

First. To their complaint of the undue proceeding of the Clas­sis.] Herein he answereth nothing to the purpose. For he, nei­ther denyeth the fact, nor giveth any satisfaction about the aequity of it. In a word, he so answereth, as if he saught nothing else but how to evade answering, and to get some hole to hide his head in. Wherefore, that the truth in this matter may appeare, we will consider two things. 1. de facto, whether they have made such lawes and orders, or not? 2. de jure, whether they have done it by a due, or by an undue power?

1. That they have made such lawes and orders can not be denyed. For, if the praescription of necessary observances, be a law; if the imposition of any thing with a binding power, be a law; if the decrees, to the obedience whereof men are any way compelled, are lawes; the things instanced in, to witt, conformity to their ec­clesiasticall customs, and promiscuous administration of Bap­tisme, according to the wrighting of the five Ministers, were imposed as lawes upon me. For, did they not bind me to rest in that wrighting, and to conforme to those customs, under no lesse paenalty then my not admittance to the pastorall worke, in the English Church, notwithstanding the unanimous desire of the Congregation? Was not this to make them necessary obser­vances? The case is so cleare that the Answerer himselfe doeth not at all deny it.

2. Let us see, whether the power, whereby they have done this, be a due, or an undue power. And it will appeare to be [Page 254] undue, if, neither the Scripture, nor the Nationall Synods, nor the Church, nor any good reason have given them any such power. And this we will declare, with Gods assistance, di­stinctly, in every one of them.

First. The Scripture is so farr from giving the Classis any power of making lawes to bind particular Churches, in cases of that nature, that it doeth not once mention any such kind of combination, nor doeth allow any such power to the deputyes of any Churches consulting together for their common good. The Texts, which Bellarmine alleadgeth for the power of Coun­cills in making lawes, are the same which the Answerer some­times harpeth upon, in this case, but Iunius clearly sheweth, that they make nothing to the purpose.

Deut. 17.8.10. Sect. 24. Ans. 4.The first is Deut. 17. Which place the Answerer alleadgeth, to prove the Classis to be an higher judicatory, and above the Church. Thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place shall shew thee. To which Iunius giveth 2 answers. 1. The cases are not alike. For, in those times, the mind of God was revealed to those Judges, in obscure and difficult cases, by sig­nes and answers from God himselfe. 2. He grants that the sen­tence of those Iudges was to be obeyed, servatâ clausulâ salutari; that holesom clause, which Moses puts in, being observed, ac­cording to the sentence of the law, Vers. 11. which they shall teach thee. So that the sentence of those Iudges did no further bind men to rest in it, then it was according to the sentence of the Law. And yet these were Iudges by Gods expresse appoyntment, which the Classes have not to shew for their judicatory, in the same manner as those Judges had.

Act. 15.2. The other Text is Acts 15. alleadged by Bellarmine to prove the binding force of the decrees of Councills, and, by the Answerer,Sect. 31. Ans. 5. to shew the authority of the Classis: whereunto Iuni­us giveth 2 answers also. 1. Non sequitur ex particulari, si custodi­enda fuerint decreta Concilij Apostolici, ergo & omnium servari oportere. It doeth not follow, from a particular, that, because the decrees of an Apostolicall Councill are to be observed, there­fore the decrees of all Councills must be so kept.Cont. 3. lib 4. cap. 16. And, whereas [Page 255] Bellarmine affirmeth that the question there was not defined by Scripture, but by the voyces of the Apostles, Iunius denyeth that any thing was ordayned in that Councill, but from the Scrip­ture, as he had before demonstrated, & thereunto referreth the Reader. And, whereas Bellarmine sayth that the decree of the A­postles was not left to the examination of the Disciples, but, that they were simply commanded to obey, Iunius chargeth him with falsely supposing two things. 1. That the Apostles alone made this order. For the Elders concurred with the Apostles in this sentence, and the wholl Church, all of them being taught by the spirit of truth, to thinck the same thing. And this, he sayth, is the manner of proceeding in those Councills, where Christ is praesident. 2. That the same respect is to be had to the determi­nation of others, as of the Apostles. Which is an errour, he sayth, For it was the singular priviledge of the Apostles, that they had immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost, and infallibility, in their Apostolicall determinations, so that, what they delivered was to be received without examination, whereas the dictates & sen­tēces of all other are to be examined by their wrightings, wher­by it appeareth that the Scripture acknowledgeth no such power of making lawes to be due to the Classes, unlesse they can pro­duce some other texts, which, when they shall be alleadged, shall be further examined, if God permit.

Secondly. No generall Councills, or Nationall Synods have acknowledged any such power to be due to Classes, for aught I can find, if any others have found out any such, let them de­clare the Canon of such Councills and Synods, wherein it was so concluded, and, the ground of such a determination being found sufficient, I shall willingly receive it, and submit there­unto. In the meane space, let it be considered, that they, who distinguish betweene Generall, Nationall, Provinciall, and Dio­cesan Councills, say, that the two former have authority to make Canons, but the two latter onely to see that the Canons imposed by the two former, be observed,Praef▪ ad distinct. 18 as may be seene in Gratian.

Thirdly. The Church hath not given them any such power, [Page 256] nor indeed, can it. 1. It hath not; as appeareth in their com­plaints of it as undue, & as a greivance, and in the profession of diverse of the members that they never knew that the Church was so subjected. 2, That it cannot; appeareth in this, that the Church it selfe hath no such power, and none can give what they have not. In what sense this assertion is to be under­stood, and upon what grounds it is to be received, we shall have occasion to declare in examining his answer, shortly to follow, whereunto I referr the Reader.

Fourthly. That no good reason giveth the Classis this power of making lawes, to bind particular Churches, will appeare, if two things be declared. 1. what things are required to the making of a law. 2. what instances they produce to shew the undue proceedings of that Classis herein. First, the things re­quired to a law are these, at least. 1. a due authority, or power orderly authorised thereunto. 2. its consonancy and consent with the law of God. 3. that it is referred unto, and doeth re­spect the common good. Secondly, let the instances produced by them be brought to these rules, and it will be found, 1. that they want sufficient authority for making of such lawes, 2. that such a law agreeth not with the law of God. 3. that it is not referred to the publick and common good, by what hath bene already said, partly in this Section, partly in the 12 Section, and partly in other Sections. The issue, whereunto the instances drive, is, that the Classis excerciseth an undue power, when it bindeth men to any observance, upon no better ground then the mere custom of a place, which is then done, when [...]hat cu­stom is not warranted by the word. For, howsoever, in civill administrations, in Common wealths, some customs have the force of a law,Hist. 1. part 2. book. 4. Chap. 15. Sect: Vlp. li. 29 (as Sir Walter Raleigh well observeth.) Yet, in Church matters it will not hold, the reason of Churches and Commonwealths being not the same. But, if the rule hold in Commonwealths, that, quod ab initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere, much more will it hold in the Church, in such a case as that unwarrantable custom of promiscuous bap­tising,Sect. 12. which I have proved to be unlawfull, in Sect. 12.

Secondly. Seing nothing hath bene said by the Answerer, [Page 257] in defence of the proceeding of the Classis, in answer to their complaint of their excercising an undue power, in this parti­cular, let us now see if he answer sufficiently in his owne de­fence, wherein, we will, with Gods helpe, examine, what he sayth in answer 1. to the generall charge. 2. to the proofes of it.

First. The generall charge is, that he hath given them this un­due power. Hereunto he pretendeth to make five Answers.

1. He sayth it is untrue. He onely sayth so, but doeth not shew it to be untrue, by declaring that, either the Scriptures, or the Nationall Synods, or the Church, or good reason hath given it them. And so seemeth to be content that the suspicion of usur­ping may lye upon the wholl Classis, rather then he should be suspected to have given it them. But he will not so evade, if what was replyed to the same answer, in the foregoing Section, be considered, and applyed to this also.

2. In his second answer he seemeth so to deny his giving them this undue power, as withall secretly to confesse that he gave them counsaile to use this power. which he hath not proved to be due. That it is undue hath bene proved already,, and that, it being so, he hath not behaved himselfe as a pastor in the govern­ment of the Church, in counsailing them to use an undue power over his Church, needs no proofe at all, the thing done being sufficient evidence against him.

3. His third answer is a mere retortion of the complaint up­on the Complainants, and a recrimination of them for allowing the Consistory to make orders & lawes, & thereupon he demandeth, can this power of making lawes and orders, be lawfull, and due in a Consistory, and yet an undue power in the Classis? Are they not con­demned of themselves? For answer hereunto, it must be under­stood. 1, That orders and lawes are ill confounded by the Ans­werer, They may make orders who have no power of making lawes: So Iunius distinguisheth them fitly. Praelatorum non est [...] sive mandata dare: non praecepta, sed ordinationes, [...]. Ecclesiasticall Governours may give orders, not lawes, not com­mands, not praecepts. Else where he sayth, the Fathers called them more fitly Canons, because a Canon serveth to direct agentem [Page 258] volùntariè, one that acteth voluntarily, whereas a law, necessi­tate etiam cogit in voluntarium, compelleth a man against his will, Chame [...] also expresseth himselfe acutely to the same purpose,De ecclesiâ p. 367. 368. saying, that the determinatiōs of Churches are more fitly called admonitions and exhortations then lawes, and that, when they agree with the word, they are admonitions, in respect of the Church, but lawes in respect of God onely, to wit, because the Church commendeth that which God hath commanded, and that which the Church so commendeth is the word of God.

2. That all mistake may be prevented, & the two extremes a­voyded, of tyranny; by ascribing too much power to the Church, and of dissolute libertinisme, and Anabaptisme; by denying its due power, in this particular, we will declare what authority the Church hath about lawes and orders, by distinguishing be­tweene lawes already made,Luke 10.16. Mat: 18.17. 1 Cor. 4.21. and lawes to be made. In the first, we grant, that Church governours have great authority and power, to wit, of providing that men yeeld due obedience to all Gods lawes and ordinances, which they are to commend and declare to the Church, and to exact their obedience thereun­to. And indeed this is the very end of all Ecclesiasticall authori­ty. Rom. 1.5. and 15.18. So that herein they have more power then of admonishing, and exhorting, and reproving onely, they have the power of censuring, and thereby of compelling the se­verall members to their duety, and of seeing that all things be done in the house of God decently and in order. 1 Cor. 14.40.

In this sense, I conceive, the order to be made in the Consistory, is to be understood, the things thereby ordered being no other then that rule of having all holy administrations performed de­cently and in order requireth. And, being so understood, it doeth not at all patronize that undue power of the Classis. 1. Because the Church hath that power, in her owne matters, which the Classis hath not. 2. Because this was but an order, for my accommodation, in my voluntary obedience of the word warranted by the rule, but the contrary, made by them, is a law, for the establishing of an evill custom, not warranted by the word, and to compell me, against my will, to the observance of it.

As for the second. The things, about which lawes are made, are, ei­ther necessary, or indifferent. Things necessary are things cōmanded or forbidden in the Scripture. And they are necessary, either absolutely or in some considerable respect. Things absolutely necessary to godlines are so constituted in the Scripture that no place is left for the impositions of any new law givers. About things necessary, in some considerable respect, Churchgovernours have power to give order, as did the Synod at Ie­rusalem touching those things which they called necessary Act. 15.28. viz, necessary during the time of the offence of the Iew which was ne­cessary to be avoyded. Hereunto also serveth that rule, Let all things be done decently and in order Cor. 14.40. but the rule of that decency must be, not the will and pleasure of men, but the light of nature, Scripture, or warrantable custom. For so it was in the instances given in that chapter, as, for men to pray with long hayre, & woemen bare-headed, in those Easterne countryes, and for woemen to speake in the Congre­gation, and for many men to speake at once. Things indifferent are such as, being neyther commanded nor forbidden in the Scripture, may be variously permitted or prohibited according to various circumstances And they are, eyther improperly, or properly so called. Things improper­ly called indifferent, are things not necessary, but onely expedient in some respect. In such cases Churchgovernours have power to declare the decency and expediency of them: yea, and to advise and perswade the practise thereof, but not by standing lawes to bind the people thereunto. As the Apostle gave his judgmēt 1. Cor. 7.25.40. & advise cō ­cerning single life, in time of the Churches distresse: yea, and perswa­ded to it, for avoyding trouble in the flesh, vers. 26.28. but would not bind them to it, neither in point of conscience, nor of outward practise as having no commandment from the Lord (vers. 25.) and sayth that such a commandment had bene a snare (vers. 35. And herein the power of Churchgovernours falleth short of the authority of civill Magistra­tes, who may, in civill matters, make standing and binding lawes for any thing expedient to the Common wealth. Whereunto subjects are bound readily to submit. (1. Pet. 2.13.)

Things properly called indifferent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Churchgovernours did advise & perswade them, much lesse charge & cōmand them, least of all make standing, & binding lawes to determine them: nor doth that place in (1. Cor. 14.40.) give them any such power, nor have the Apostles themselves received any such authority from [Page 260] Christ, as appeareth in the commission given them, which was onely to teach men to observe and doe what Christ shall command them, Mat. 28.20. Their office being onely ministeriall & oeconomicall, Christ reserving to himselfe the soveraigne lawgiving power, as his praerogative.

For application of the premises to the case in question, I demand whether this custom be thus imposed as a thing properly indifferēt, or as expedient, or as necessary in some considerable respect, or as abso­lutely necessary? If it be properly indifferent; why doe they, by command, make the practise of it necessary? If it be expedient; let them shew the expediency of it, & leave men free. If it be necessary, in those considerable respects; let it appeare that the contrary practise will be so offensive or disorderly that, for the avoyding of that offence or disorder, a minister is bound to doe it. If it be absolutely necessary to godlines; let the Scrip­ture be shewē that cōmandeth that practise, or forbiddeth the cōtrary.

His fourth answer is not worth a Reply.

His fifth answer maketh against himselfe. For, if they leave men at li­berty about things indifferent &c. (wherein they are to be approved as walking according to the rule) why doe they bind men, by unaequall conditions, to this custom, which they, neither doe, nor can sufficiently declare to be commanded by Christ, or to be warranted by the rule?

Let us now see what he sayth to the proofes of the justnes of their lay­ing the blame of this miscarriage upō him, rather then upō the Classis.

First. They say, that some of the Dutch Ministers themselves are willing to cast off some of their customs, if the vastnes of theire Church did not force them thereunto. Hereunto he giveth two answers. 1. that things simply unlawfull are as well to be cast off in a great Church as in a small.] Reply. True: it is a duety as necessary to be done in the one as in the other, yet, it may more easily be done in the smaller Churches, and therefore the sinne of the smaller Churches is the greater, if they doe not cast off such an unwarrantable custom. The vastnes of their Churches doth only excuse them, a tanto, not a toto. 2. that, in the smaller Churches in the villages, the same order is observed.] But. 1. it hath not bene expresly re­quired of any of the Ministers of those Churches (as a condition of their admittāce, as it was of me) that they should rest in such a wrigh­ting, which bindeth them to baptize all that are brought. 2. It may be questioned, whether all the Ministers, in those smaller villages, doe so promiscuously administer Baptisme, as they doe, in Amsterdam, seing such different sorts of people are not in those villages as in that Citty.

Secondly. They say, that one of the Ministers said to the Ans­werer in the Classis (upon occasion of his complaining of my not confor­ming to all their orders) why? you your selfe doe not conforme to all our orders. Hereunto he pretendeth to give five answers. I say pretendeth. For, the first answer is no answer, but onely a ques­tion, who told this? His second answer is, that the mind of the Classis is not to be collected by the speech of one.] Neither doe they say that all of thē are of that mind, but that one of them said so, where­of, it seemeth, the rest shewed no dislike, and so seemed to con­sent to it, and more then one of them have bene heard to say as much as the Complainants affirme. His third answer is, that the speech of the Minister is not in right manner repeated by them.] But, if the matter be right, it is true in the substance of their report, which is sufficient, in this case, what ever fayling may seeme to be in a circumstance. His fourth answer is, that this one Minister undertooke in wrighting to satisfye my objections, and, having replyed to myne answer, received no answer to his second wrighting. It is true: I did not answer his second wrighting. 1. Because, that wrigh­ting did not sufficiently answer my first. 2. Because, at that time, I wrote to the wholl Classis, in which respect, there was no use of wrighting to one member of the Classis alone. His fifth ans­wer is, The nationall Synod, at Dort, in things indifferent, Kercken ordeningh. Art. 85. doeth allow Churches of other Nations in these Countreys to vary from their customs.] It is well they doe so, and it is fit they should so doe. But, if it be so. 1. why was it required of me that I should con­forme to all the orders and customs of the Dutch Church? 2. Why was I not allowed to vary from their customs, in the prac­tise of promiscuous baptizing, seing I professed that I could not doe it with a good conscience, and they gave me no grounds from the Scriptures to satisfye my conscience, that I might doe it lawfully?

Thirdly. They say, that the Dutch Ministers have professed that they should have bene glad that this difference might have bene ended among our selves:] What sayth the Answerer hereunto? Iust nothing. And it was his wisdom to be silent here. For what could he say? He could not deny it, and the confession of it to be true would discover him to have bene a greater impe­diment [Page 262] of the Churches desire, and my accommodation, then he was willing should appeare. And I wish, from my heart, he had bene as silent in all the rest, that I might have passed by all these injuryes in silence warrantably.

Fourthly. They say, that he hath required of the Elders that an order might be made in the Consistory, that whatsoever Minister shall hereafter be called to that Church, should conforme to that wrigh­ting of the five Ministers.] Hereunto he pretendeth to give five answers, but one good one were worth them all.

His first answer is onely a question, as before, who told this?

His second answer is, in part, negative, but upon an ill ground, viz, because the Classis had already approved and confirmed it. Concerning the vanity of that pretence enough hath bene spoken already, yet, in part, he affirmeth it, in saying that he shewed it to be unreasonable if that order should not be required of any other minister as well as of me. But, seing there was no good rea­son why it should be required of me, what reason is there that it should be required of others? Is it a good course to hide an injury done to one by professing to doe the same injury to many?

His third answer is, that, by the motion of a Dutch Minister and a speciall freind of myne, &c. the Dutch Ministers came to his house and made that wrighting.] That Reverend Dutch ministers love and paines I acknowledge, with all thanckfullnes, and am sorry that a learned and godly Brother, of another Nation, should shew himselfe more desirous of myne accommodation then myne owne countryman, from whom, in many respects, I had cause to expect more favour and love then from forraigners, es­pecially▪ seing their labour proved no more succesfull, thorough the violence of a contrary streame, of which enough hath bene said in former Sections.

His fourth answer chargeth me with untruth in my wrigh­ting to the Classis that, at his request alone, they did in wrighting de­clare their private judgment.] But, why did he not, at least, more roundly deny it, if it be untrue? For, it may be true, notwith­standing any thing sayd by him to the contrary. For, why might [Page 263] not that Minister propound it to the rest being thereunto pre­pared by the Answerers private intimations or intreaty? But, suppose the Minister propounded it, of his owne accord, yet, what I wrote is true, in the sense, wherein I meant it. For I spake of the Answerer alone, not in reference to the Ministers of the Classis, but in reference to the Elders of his owne Church, and in this sense it is true, that the Answerer (considered with the Elders and the Church) did alone propound it: the motion came not from the Elders, but from him onely, in that sense. But, what is this to the order, which he required the Elders to make in the Consistory, which is the matter in question? Is this a fit place to speake of passages betweene the five Ministers & him, when the Complainants charge him with seeking to make an in­jurious order in the Consistory? Had not the twelfth Section bene a fitter place for this matter, where it is purposely spoken of? But I forbeare to gesse at the reason hereof. Whereas he addeth, if he had bene the onely secker thereof, there is no cause for them, that meane to deale uprightly, to complaine of such a lawfull & safe course] I need not to add any thing, in way of Reply thereunto, having already said enough, in the foregoing Sections, to prove that that course was, neither safe, nor lawfull.

His fifth answer is a mere catching at an advantage, which one expression in their wrighting seemeth to give him, I say, seemeth, for it doeth it not really. They say, that they thinck no godly man will absolutely be bound to conforme to that wrighting.] To let passe his unworthy scoffes, he accuseth them of a rash and prae­sumptious judgment for saying so, whereas. 1. they professe onely that they thinck so. Now, every thought, though it may be rash, is not to be accounted a praesumptious judgement. 2. they doe not speake of suffering themselves to be bound to such a wrighting, but of being absolutely bound to conforme to it. And there is a great difference betweene those two expressions. 3. My name is al­together needlesly brought in here, as the Reader may well perceive. But I passe it by. But, is his seeking to have that or­der made in the Consistory, to bind all Ministers that shall be called in that Church, proved to be lawfull, and for the good of the Church, by this, or by any thing else, he hath sayd, in the [Page 264] 5 pretended answers? If not, It appeareth that no satisfaction is given to the Complainants by his answers. And so their second proofe of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis, which they produce for an evidence of his not be­having himselfe as he aught, in his pastorall government, re­mayneth unanswered.

Sect. 30. examined, concerning the Ans­werers violent bringing matters into the Classis when he cannot have his will unjustly satisfyed in the Consi­story.

IN this Section they produce the third proofe of the justnes of their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an un­due power of the Classis, to wit, his violent bringing of matters to the Classis, when he cannot have his will unjustly satisfyed.] Which complaint they agravate by the dangerous consequent, or rather effect of it: for, they say, he destroyes the power of the Church ut­terly, often affirming, they can doe nothing, in these cases, without the Classis.] And, to prevent an objection against themselves about what they had said concerning the undue power of the Classis, they professe their reverent esteeme of them for counsail & advise in all difficult matters that cannot be ended in theire owne Con­sistory.

That what is said, on boath sides, concerning this matter, may the more easily and clearely be understood, these things must be premised. 1. that they doe not complaine of his taking advise and counsail of the Classis in difficult matters. For there­in, they say, they esteeme reverently of them. 2. Nor, that they bring such matters to the Classis as cannot be ended in their owne Consistory. But the thing they complaine of, is. 1. that he brin­geth [Page 265] such things to the Classis as may be ended in the Consistory. 2. that he doeth it violently, that is, without consent of the rest. 3. that his principall motive, or inducement thereunto, is, the satisfaction of his owne will. 4. That he doeth it under a pretence that the Church can doe nothing in such matters (to wit, as those in question, the ma­king of an order for a decent and orderly performance of a Religious duety, in a right administration of baptisme, and the chusing of their owne Pastors, when they pitch upon men ab­horring all haeresy and schysme, &c. and craving the helpe of an assistant for a time, in the Churches necessity) which, they truely say, is a destroying of the power of the Church.

Now, let us see his answers hereunto, which are fixe.

1. His first answer is, It is no act of violence, but a refuge against violence, to refer those things to the Classis, which men conceive to be unjustly done; or delayed in the Consistory.] Reply. Violence is, ei­ther opposed to that which is just, or to that which is voluntary. In their complaint the sense seemeth carry it to boath, and so, that is violently done which is done, both unjustly, and without consent. That he did it without consent the Answerer acknow­ledgeth, but denyeth that he did it unjustly, and retorteth the imputation of violence and injustice upon them, either for doing or delaying some thing in the Consistory unjustly. He is now become an accuser of them, and plaintiffe, and therefore, according to his owne rule, is to bring proofe. If he say, they did unjustly in making orders about such matters (without the consent of the Classis) let him shew what rule is transgressed thereby. This he should have done before he had taken the matter out of their hands, and carryed it into the Classis, that they might have bene convinced of the aequity of his so doing. If he can not; Let him beare the just blame of slandering the Cō ­sistory in print, and of depriving the Church of her due power in her owne matters, which the law of God, and the Synodall canons of these lands acknowledge to be due to her in things of this nature, as it hath bene formerly declared. And therefore he need not scoffingly aske of these Complainants for their war­rant, or evidence that he destroyeth the power of the Church. Those spoken of in Sect. 27. have given it,Ioh. 12.7. if he will give the dayes leave to speake, and the multitude of yeares to teach wisdom.

[Page 266]2. His second answer accuseth them of folly, and that order in the Church, which they plead for, according to the ordinance of Christ, as a bondage, servitude, burthen, oppression &c.

Reply. They complaine that when he can not have his will un­justly satisfyed in the Consistory, he violently, without their consent, bringeth matters thence into the Classis. Jf this complaint be just, it is not slight. His carriage in late differences maketh it suspici­ous that the roote of the matter is in him. For let the ground of these troubles be considered, and it will be found that the thing, for which he contendeth, is not necessary: either as a meane for Gods glory, and the Churches aedification, or as com­manded of God; nor is it injoyned in any Canon of these Bel­gick Nationall Synods; nor is it expresly, and particularly re­quired, by any Classis, of any Dutch Ministers in their admission. So that it is not difficult to determine from what distempered principle these disordered motions have arisen, and who is to be accounted burthened, in this respect.

As for the folly, which he chargeth upon the Complainants, that, pretending to stand for the liberty of the Church, they seeke to bring themselves into bondage; the question is, whether is the way of liberty or bondage to the Church? That which Christ hath appointed? or that which men, without Christs warrant, have devised? If the way of Christ is the way of liberty: the question will be, which is the way of Christ? whether that particular Churches have power within themselves to chuse a fit Pastor, and to crave the helpe of one well knowne unto them in time of the Churches necessity, & to see that Baptisme be decently & orderly administred? or that they so depend upon Classes for their leave & permission herein, as to be hindred by them from doing any of these, at their pleasure? If the first is the way of Christ; let the Answerer beware that he be not found a false witnesse against Christ, and his wayes in making them wayes of folly, and servitude, &c. If the latter be the way of Christ, let him shew it (and not say it onely) I say, shew, and prove it by Scripture, for the satisfaction of the people that de­pend upon his ministry. And till he can doe that, let him for­beare such expressions.

3. His third answer is by asking what men should doe, when [Page 267] they thinck the Elders to be in an errour? Reply, If a man thinck them to be in an errour, what should he doe else but shew them their errour by the word, and, if the case prove difficult, crave (with common consent) the helpe of other mens, or Churches light (as occasion shall require) to make the matter cleare? But the rule warranteth not any man, upon his mere thought that they erre, to carry the matters quite out of their hands & power, without their consent, or declaring the aequity of his so doing to the satisfaction of the Church. For, upon such a pretence, if the Classis be partially addicted to the Minister, all Church pro­ceedings will be hindred. And hence it was indeed, as Dr. Bil­son observed, that the frequency of Synods did diminish the au­thority & necessity of the Consistorian meeting of Elders. For, after that the meeting of Synods twise a yeare was ordayned in the Councill of Nice and Calcedon, the Elders began to be in lesse use and account, the Synods as higher judges taking upon them the examination and decision of those things, which were wont to be agitated in the presbyteryes. What he sayth of the Hierarchicall Synods, in that place, will be found true also of the Classis, by this course, and much more, seing they meete sixe times a yeare.

4. His fourth answer needeth no other reply then what is made already to the like (if not the same) pretence in his fifth answer, examined in the 23. Section, whereunto J referr the Reader.

5. His fifth answer is already replyed upon in examination of the 27. Section.

6. His sixth answer also is replyed upon before, in severall passages, and the vanity of it discovered.

Sect: 31. examined, concerning his sub­jecting the Church under the Clas­sis, without their consent.

THe authority and power, which they complaine that theyr Church is subjected under, is still by the Complainants de­clared to be undue by another instance, in that it is such as is not competent to any men that are not subject to errour, and here­unto they add another aggravation, viz, that it is done without the Churches consent.Lib. 3. Cap. 26. p. 370. M. Parker in his learned discourse of Ecclesiasticall policy sheweth, at large, that Churches are no fur­her under the authority of Synods then they have subjected themselves by their owne consent. And, as for binding men to rest in their determinations, as if they were infallible, both Dr. Whittaker, and Iunius, in shewing that Councills are subject to errour, have given sufficient light for discovery of the evill of that practise.

But let us see what he answereth to this complaint, in seaven particulars.

1. His first is, after his usuall manner, It is untrue, but, when, the Church is hindred from making an order for the decent & orderly administration of holy things, by their owne power, un­der pretence of his taking advise of the Classis, as it was in the question about Baptisme, & when J was required (& that for a cōdition whereupon I was to be admitted or refused) to rest in a wright [...]ng of five Ministers, no rule being shewne me by them from the Scripture to warrant their so doing, these things shew­ed it to be true.

2. His second answer is, that the same thing may be allead­ged against any Pastor in the reformed Churches. But this is an injury to all reformed Churches and Pastors, unlesse he can [Page 269] prove that, in the fame particulars, they subject their Churches to the same undue power of Classes, and in the same manner as he hath done. Which he never will be able to doe. It is true, that Classicall assemblies (or such like) are a speciall bond of union and sinew of government, in them all, but to argue, from the lawfull use, to justify the unlawfull abuse of them, is unsound reasoning.

3. His third answer is to their charging him with doing this under a pretence of asking, and taking advise of the Classis. Which he denyeth, and sayth that he professeth openly the authority and power of Synods and Classis to be lawfull and necessary, as well as their counsail and advise. Neither doe they deny the authority, and due power of Synods and Classes to be lawfull, and necessa­ry, but they complaine of an undue power and authority ascri­bed to Classes by the Answerer, and they declare, by instances, what that power is which they account undue. Now, unlesse he can prove that power to be due, which they have affirmed to be undue, he hath not answered their complaint, which is, that, under pretence of asking and taking their advise, he subjecteth the Church under that power, which they affirme to be undue. That he doeth so subject them hath bene shewed, and that he pretendeth onely to aske, and take their advise, his owne ex­pressions, both by speeches, at other times, and in diverse pas­sages of this booke, declare sufficiently.

4. His fourth answer is to their saying that the Church never acknowledged any such power to be due, whereunto he answereth, 1. by shewing the agreement betweene the ancient English in­habitants there, the Magistrates, and the Dutch Ministers, which was to have such an English Church as should accord with the Dutch, in the same order of Discipline and Government. 2. By decla­ring that, since his first comming (but he sayth not how long after his first comming) he was admitted to be a member of the Classis. 3. By shewing the manner of their receiving members, viz, by profession of the same fayth with them, and by solemne promise cove­nanting to submit unto the discipline of this Church according to the rule of Christ.

But, what is in all these passages to prove their submission to [Page 270] any undue power and authority of the Classis? Nay, when they professe to submit unto the discipline of this Church, according to the rule of Christ, doe they not therein implicitly professe against submission to any undue power of the Classis? And, as litle doeth the practise of any members since, in resorting to the Clas­sis, upon occasion of asking their judgment in matters contro­verted among them, establish any undue power of theirs. And, to what end should those that joyne with his Church, leaving their separation, come with a protest against the undue power of the Classis, when they knew not of their subjection thereunto, no more being required of them in their Covenant, at their first admission, then submission to the discipline of this Church, according to the role of Christ? As for that, which he addeth, of their chusing rather to continue as they were, then to be of the English Synod, this doeth not testifye their acknowledgment of their sub­jectiō to any undue power of the Classis. But, how, were they un­der the Classis, when, not long before that, the Answerer himselfe (as Mr. Forbes assured me) laboured to set up an English Classis or Synod, which not succeeding, in his indeavour at that time, he never after attempted to procure, nor would joyne with, being after set up, at the procurements of others. As for St: Offw: report of Geneva; we have already shewne some difference be­tweene the association of Churches in Geneva, and the Classes in these Countryes. But, be that as it may, it makes nothing for the warranting of any undue power of the Classis.

5. His fifth answer is to that passage in the complaint, when they say that the power, which they complaine of, is such, as the Scriptures doe not in any place give to such a company of Ministers. The fault that he findeth herewith is, that they doe not alleadge any one place of Scripture to condemne the same. As though Negative Arguments from Scripture were not sufficient proofes of the unlawfullnes of a thing in matter of Religion. By the helpe of St. Offw: booke he accommodateth the 15. of the Acts. concerning the Church at Antioch seeking helpe of the Church at Ierusalem, in a difficult question, to the present question. But what is that to the undue power of the Classis whereof they complaine? In his next answer, it may be, he will give me occa­sion [Page 271] of shewing that that very place of Scripture maketh strong­ly against that undue power, which he ascribeth to the Classis, in the particulars complained of, and such like.

6. His sixth answer is to that part of the Complaint, when they say, that the undue authority (whereof they complaine) is such as doeth not become any, except the Apostles, that could not erre, to have. This, he sayth, is false, and absurd, and, upon this occa­sion, he reproveth me for a like speech, in my letter to the Classis, touching my consent required to the wrighting of the five Ministers, namely, that such a subjection is greater then may be yeelded unto any Councill, whether of Classes or Synods &c. that thereby the wrightings and decrees of men are made infallible, and aequall with the word of God, which is intolerable.

Reply. Jt is true that I so wrote, and that which I wrote herein is true. Let us now see what he answereth. He sayth, what wise man is there that sees not the strange folly and vanity of such assertions as these? Iunius was a wise man, and yet he saw no fol­ly, nor vanity, nor strangenes in a like assertion, and so was Bo­german who relates it roundly, and without haesitancy from him, in these words.Bogerm: Annot: in Hug: Grot ex Iuni: p. 225. Servus mandatum Domini sui referens ad conser­vum suum obligat illius conscientiam instrumentali ministerio suo, at cognitioni suae, aut foro suo minimè obligat. Hoc nunquam Dominus quisquam daturus, nunquam fervus fidelis assumpturus. i. e. A ser­vant relating the command of his Lord to his fellow servant bindeth his conscience by his instrumentall ministry (that is, as I conceive it, so farr as he reporteth the Lords mind and command) but doeth not bind him to his owne outward jurisdiction. This no Lord will ever give, nor any faithfull servant assume. But, did not they assume this, and more, when they would bind me to rest in that wrigh­ting, and to be accountable to them for my conformity to it, not having convinced or instructed me, that it was the will of our Lord that I should doe so? Also Dr. Whittaker was a wise man,Whitt. de Concil: Quest: 3. Chap. 2. & yet he saw no folly, nor vanity, nor strangenes in a like assertion. For, speaking of the definitions of Councills concerning matters to be beleived, or to be done, he sheweth, that to define a thing, signifieth, either 1. to declare what we are to beleive & doe, upō the authority of the Scripture, because the Scripture teacheth, [Page 272] that it aught to be so beleived and done, and that therefore they that beleive or doe otherwise, are in an errour. 2. or else it signifyeth to appoynt and prescribe, by their owne authority, what we are to beleive or doe, so as men must rest in it, what­soever reason they have against it, and may not beleive or doe otherwise. The first he alloweth, and so did I, and desired no­thing else but to understand some rule from the word warran­ting me to doe that, whereunto they, in that wrighting, would have bound me. The second way of defining he denyeth to belong to any Councill, and affirmeth that it appertayneth onely to God, and to Christ, and to the Holy Ghost. Here I might be large in alleadging wrighters of the most eminent noate affir­ming the like, and the same, for substance, with me, in this mat­ter, and many of them expressing their judgments in the same words. But these shall suffice, till a further provocation. After­wards the Answerer demandeth, whether no truth be uttered or described by men in our times, whereunto the consent of men may be re­quired? But what is this to the matter in question? Had they de­clared it to be a truth, I was ready to have testifyed my consent with them in it? But that they did not, nor hath he done it in all this taedious discourse. So that this is to argue ex non concessis, from that which is not granted. Or, will he say, that, because every truth uttered by men, must be consented to, therefore we are bound to consent to every thing which men shall utter? And to as litle purpose is that which he alleadgeth concerning the sub­scription which the Reformed Churches require to their confessions of fayth; Whereas the matter in question is not comprehended in any Article of those Confessions, and out of those very Con­fessions we doe dispute against it. But, was not the Answerer driven farr, and put hard to his shifts, when, to make some shew of answer, he demanded, how I could subscribe my name to my owne wrighting sent to the Classis, to shew my consent to it, and whether I did thereby make my selfe an Apostle, or my wrighting aequall to the word of God? To let passe his improper calling it my consent to my owne wrighting, my subscription to it was, not in reference to my selfe, but to the word of God, whereunto it is consonant, and it testyfyed unto them my persuasion that it agreed there­with: [Page 273] but, what is this to the subscription, which they required, to injunctions and praescriptions, which were not declared to a­gree with the Scripture, either in that wrighting which they sent, or in any conference they had with me, though I told them that unicum Argumentum &c. Any one Argument from the word should prevayle with me, and that, besides other times, once in the hearing of some of the Elders, and others. But, will it follow, that because a man, upon persuasion of the truth, may subscribe to other mens wrightings, or to his owne, that there­fore he may subscribe to those wrightings concerning the truth whereof he is not persuaded?

Whilest he was wrighting these things a secret Monitour from within suggested to him that all humane judicatoryes are subject to errour, and that, when that errour is shewed by the word of God, it aught to be corrected. But, if the question be, who may judge of this errour, and shew it them? Here his answer is de­fective. He sayth one Synod often reformeth that which hath bene de­creed by another. This sheweth indeed that Synods are subject to errour. And doe they not therefore erre because they fetched not their definitions and praescriptions from the Scriptures? And is it not the best way, for rectifying them, to reduce them to that rule? And how shall this be done, but by the course which those Noble Beraeans tooke, by comparing them with,Act. 17.11. and ex­amining them by the Scriptures? And to whom doeth this be­long? Indeed the publick Ministeriall power of judging, in such cases, belongeth to Synods or Councills themselves. But the pri­vate judgment, which Divines call the judgment of practicall dis­cretion, belongeth to every Christian. So that no man is bound absolutely to submit to, or to rest in the judgment of any man or Councill, but to trye them by the Scripture, and to consent with them no further then they appeare to consent with that rule. This the Scriptures abundantly declare,Mat. 24.4 1. Thess. 5.21. 1. Ioh. 4.1. Gal. 1.8. Mat. 23.8 when they command all Christians to beware of Seducers, to trye all things, to trye the spirits. Also, when they are called upon to receive the word of Christ onely, as their onely Master. And to deny men the use of their private judgment, in things taught them by their Pastors, or injoyned, and praescribed by Classes, or Synods, [Page 274] what is it else, but to deprive man of his reason, & mans under­standing of its end, which is to search & find out the truth? yea, to deprive Christians of the fruite of their fayth, and supernatu­rall illumination, and of the spirit of Revelation?1 Cor: 14.20. Eph: 4.14 Euseb: li. 5. C: 12. Or, at least, to make those of riper yeares to be alwayes as Children in under­standing? This were to revive the haeresy of Apelles, [...]. that people aught not accurately to weigh and examine what is propounded to them: Hieron: in proem: ad Gal: from which Ierom was so farr that he much commended Marcella, a good woman in Rome, for this, that she, wherever she met him, would be putting good questions to him, and received his answers, not as Pythagoras his schollers did his sayings (or as the Answerer would have had me to rest in the judgment of the five Ministers) but she examined and weighed all things, so that he thought himselfe to have, non tam discipulam, quam judicem, not so much a scholler as a judge, and as he allowed a good woman this liberty in trying the wordes of a learned and godly Teather, so Hylary giveth the same liberty to all private Christians in examining the decrees of Councells.Hylar: de Synod: adv: Arri­an. Si contraria invicem senserint Concilia, debemus, quasi judices, probare meliora. If Councills (or Synods) differ in their determinations, we aught, as judges of our owne ac­tions, to approve of that which is better.

Whereas he addeth. Yet doeth not this take away their authority for the judging and deciding of controversies. For by such reasoning they might take away all government and bring in confusion. I grant that it taketh away no due subordinate Ministeriall authority frō them, but a supreme Praetorian, or Magisteriall authority, as that is, when they bind men to rest in their determinations, without convincing them, that they are according to the mind of God in the Scriptures, or so much as declaring to them sufficient ground out of the word for their so doing. And so to doe is not to take away all, or any government, but tyranny, nor to bring in confusion, but to prevent it, and to establish order.

Whereas he addeth that, by these and such like injurious speeches, they doe exceedingly gratifye many sorts of Libertines, Ar­rians, Socinians and other haereticks &c. What injury is it to wit­nesse against undue power, which is a testifying against injury? [Page 275] And how can the Libertines, Arrians, &c. be gratifyed by pleading against that undue power which is excercised in up­holding that disorder of promiscuous baptising which serveth to strengthen them in their damnable errours, as hath bene shewen in the examination of the 12 Section? Nay, doeth not this undue power, which he ascribeth to Classes, both strength­en them in their opposition to that way of Government, and gratifye the Papists also in their dangerous errours about the infallibility of Councills and the Pope, and about implicite fayth and blind obedience? For, it is not subscription to any truth which is excepted against, but subscription to mens cu­stoms and appointments, not agreeing with the truth, imposed merely by their authority.

Sect. 32. to 40. examined.

IN the eight following Sections I find nothing which I am by name called to examine, excepting that here and there my name is mentioned in his repeating things already sufficiently cleared▪ onely in the 39 Section, whereas they complained of manifest injury done by the Answerer to me, whom he reproa­ched in publick about the meeting of diverse to heare me upon the grounds of Religion in Catechising the family, where I lived (though enough hath bene said, in the 20 Section, for the satisfaction of the indifferent Reader, about my carriage in that buisenes.) it will be requisite, upon a new provocation, to add 2 or 3 words, in this place also, for the removeall of some inti­mations injuriously cast in by the Answerer to fasten a suspicion of disorder upon that private excercise. For 1. in his second, answer, he supposeth, that I there preached, without a calling▪ whereas I neither preached (in the sense wherein he taketh the word, viz, by vertue of a publick office in that place) nor per­formed that private excercise, without a sufficient calling there­unto, both from the duety of my private domesticall relation to [Page 276] my owne family, and from the desire of the Master of that fa­mily, where I then lived, to those of his houshold, and whereas others desired to partake of the benefit of it, their desire was calling sufficient for their admittance to that private excercise, by vertue of the spirituall relation which all Christians have mu­tually among themselves, and the right which thereby they have to communicate in the gifts and labours of one another, for their aedification. So that, even for this cause, there was good reason for them and me to be offended at so publick a slander of that action, and of our intentions therein. As for the place of Scripture misapplyed by him, out of Mat. 28.19, to reprove this duety; it doeth not forbid private men any duety, the per­formance whereof is required in other texts. as. 1. Masters to their owne familyes in instructing them. Deut. 6.7.9. Deut. 11.19.20. Gen. 18▪ 19. Eph. 6.4. Phil. 2. 2. every Christian, accor­ding to his gift, for the helpe of others 1. Pet. 4.10. Heb. 10.24.25. Mat. 3.16. 3. If yet the Answerer is not satisfyed, let him know that more may be pleaded, for the warrant of that action, in reference to me, even from that place of Scripture, then I will insist upon, if I would plead all that I might, or indeed need to make use of, seing it was a mere private excercise, per­formed, according to my measure of gifts, with good warrant of the fore named texts, and not falling within the meaning of that text, which he misapplyeth, in reproach against me. So that the word of the Lord is not made a reproach to him, but I may say, that, for the discharge of a Christian duety, I have borne reproach. Neither was that the onely sermon wherein I was reproached by the Answerer in publick, as many can testifye, which I strove to beare with patience, and should still have borne in silence, if he would have suffered me to be quiet, at last.

In his third answer he girdeth at another, whose name he mentioneth not, but the accusation is answered in the examina­tion of the 24. 25. 26. Sections,

In his fourth answer, to make good his publick reproaching me, he quarrelleth the name given to that excercise, when it is called catechising a family, which he calleth a mockery, but pro­duceth nothing to prove that name to be unfit for that action, [Page 277] nor that action so done, to be unlawfull, but venteth his passion, because he wanteth Arguments against it.

In his fifth answer he sayth, that, not he, but the Classis deprived them of those meetings, whereas I acknowledge no such power to be due to the Classis, nor ever did they speake with, me about it, nor did I cease for any message left by them with Mr. Wh. nor would I have given place, by subjection to them, to have de­sisted from that worke, in acknowledgment of their jurisdicti­on, in such cases: but when I heard that the Answerer tooke of­fence at it, and traduced it, by private whisperings, as tending to schysme, and when I saw that my staying in that place was a burthen to him, that I might not seeme to give offence to him, onely, for peace sake, I removed my dwelling to another part of the country, where I might be quiet, and so, not the Classis, but he onely was the cause of the cessation of that meeting.

In his sixth answer he chargeth some that resorted to that meeting with offensive & ungodly schysming from the Dutch Church, how truely let him see to it. For my part, I never heard that a­ny of them were guilty of that crime, nor doe beleive it to be true.

In his seaventh answer he supposeth that our owne consciences told us that it was not right, which we did, seing at the word of man, we left it. Thus am I as one that holdeth the wolfe by the eare, when I have to doe with such a spirit, which, whether a man hold or let goe, will not spare. But I will answer him in two words, by remembring him that Christian actions are of two sorts. 1. Actions of Christian duety. These must be done, who e­ver shall dislike them. 2. Actions of Christian liberty. These may be done or omitted, according to considerable circumstances. To apply this. For one to instruct his family by catechising, or otherwise, or for Christians to communicate their gifts for mu­tuall aedification, these are necessary duetyes which no man may forbid: and, if they shall; yet they must not be omitted. But to receive such and such a number of persons, is so in our liberty, as, in case of offence, we may omitt it. And, upon this warrant, I desisted, not from the duety (which I have occasionally per­formed [Page 278] since, when J have bene in that house) but from perfor­ming it in the presence of so many. But let them, who, by ta­king offence unjustly, hindred the good of many, provide them­selves for their account to our Lord Christ, in that day when hidden things shall be declared, when they, and I, and the poore soules that are greived for their hindrance shall appeare toge­ther before his righteous tribunall. In hope and expectation whereof, is my comfort in the middest of these troubles (as it was Iobs,Iob: 19.3. v: 25. whom his freinds had reproached ten times.] For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the last day upon the earth, &c.

The 40. Section examined,

IN this Section the Complainants shew themselves aggreived for his pulpiting against me, in a reproachfull, uprayding manner, about the point in question. Which they aggravate. 1. By his not satisfying their expectation. 2. By my professed disagreement with the Anabaptists, and Brownists in this point, with whom, he neverthelesse injuriously joyned me. 3. By his sinister intent in thus falsely traducing me, viz, to justifye his keeping me out of the Church. 4. By the injury done to the Church hereby, in that they are deprived of me, whom they much desi­red, and bewayle their want of me. Lastly they shew the aequi­ty of their complaining against the Answerer for this, by his la­bouring to worke the Ministers of the Classis to further his purpose, telling them, that to tolerate me, in a different practi­se, would be a condemning of their owne practise, and that therefore, if they would give way to me, they must make an or­der to condemne their owne practise, or to that effect, This is their complaint. Let us now consider his answer.

Hereunto he pretendeth ten answers; but they are such as (to say no worse) I marvayle he would print them.

His first answer is, that it is no reproach to call my assertion an errour, Reply.] But. 1. To call that an errour which he hath not proved, nor can prove to be an errour, is a reproach. Him­selfe sayth it is no reproachfull uprayding of me, unlesse they could convince him of errour for so speaking, Enough hath bene said in the twelfth Section, and more may be added hereafter to con­vince him, unlesse he be of his mind who said non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris, though you doe convince, yet I will not be con­vinced. 2. To ranck the party, whom he supposed to erre, with Anabaptists and Brownists, when he professeth, and is ready to declare that he differeth from them, is a reproachfull uprayding and injurious 3. To doe this in the pulpit, where the people expect nothing but words of truth, and passages ten­ding to peace and aedification, and from whence a publick brand of reproach and disgrace may be left upon a brother, was a more rude expression, then the Complainants used concerning their thought that no godly man will be absolutely bound to subscribe to that wrighting. 4. It is a poore evasion when he insinuateth that I said in effect Mr. Hook: was in errour, when I said that I was not of his opinion in some points. For, to say so much onely declareth that myne opinion differed from his, but not that he was in errour, seing that difference might arise from my not understanding him aright, not from his dissenting from the truth. And it savoured of modesty in me, that I would not charge him with errour, from whom I differed in opinion, which is farr from justifying, and serveth justly to reprove the reproachfull speeches of the Answerer, as a ruder language.

His second answer is, that he performed his promise, and said enough, in that sermon, to satisfye their expectation by his Ar­guments, against myne opinion (as he calleth it) and, for proofe hereof, referreth his Reader to his noates which he wrote downe of purpose, and it is like, keepeth by him of purpose also. The issue of all is, the assertion of those men is false and erronious, that complaine he avoyded the question betweene us. The sermon here spoken of, it seemeth, was preached when I was absent, and, out [Page 280] of towne: therefore I can say nothing, upon myne owne knowledge, in this matter, but that the constant report, wherein all, whom I heard speake of it, concurred, was, that what he said was so farr from satisfying them, that they did not conceive that he spake to the point in question, but evaded it rather. And those noates of his sermon, which some of them tooke from his mouth, and shewed me, did apparently make good, in my ap­prehension, what they said. But, if the Reader shall be pleased to examine his stating of the question, in this very Section, and to compare it with the true state set downe by me in the 12. Sec­tion, it will easily appeare that he did not deale against my opi­nion (as he calleth it) in every Argument, nor in any Argument as he should. For the difference betweene him and me was a­bout my refusing to conforme to the custom of the Dutch Church, in that place, in baptising all that are presented, by whomsoever, though the parents were neither of them mem­bers of any Church, nor at all knowne unto us. Now he brought not one Argument to prove the lawfullnes of this custom, or to convince me of sinne for not binding my selfe, by subscription, or promise to conforme to it.

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, [Page 281] how doeth this assertion of the lawfullnes of admitting onely their infants to baptisme, who are members of a true Church, necessarily argue such seperation from true Churches (for de­fects and corruptions which are found in them) to be a bounden duety? If yea; let him demonstrate. 1. How it strengtheneth them in theyre refusing private Religious Communion with good Christians, because they stand members of some parish-Church in England, which is one errour held by some of them, as he knoweth. 2, How it confirmeth them in refusing to heare the word preached by any ministers of any of those Churches, which is another errour maintained by many of them also? 3. How it establisheth any man in refusing any publick Religious communion with any true Church? If nay; let him acknow­ledge his slander. But, that the vanity and untrueth of this sug­gestion may be more evident, I will declare the truth, in this matter, by manifesting, both myne owne judgment about the truenes of Churches, and the practise of the Seperatists them­selves.

1. Myne owne judgment and persuasion I will expresse in Dr. Ames his words thus.Second Manuduct p. 33. 34. So many parish assemblies of England as have any competent number of good Christians in them united together for to worship God ordinarily in one society, so many have essentiall and integrall forme of a visible Church, and all they have intire right to Christ, and to all the meanes of injoying him: however they are de­fective in the purity of their combination, and in the compleate free excercising of their power. To prevent all mistake, he declareth what he meaneth by essentiall and integrall forme thus. The essentiall forme of a visible Church is the covenant of God, or true fayth made visible by profession; the noates and markes whereof are the word and Sacraments rightly administred, and received with fruits of obedience. The integrall constituting forme is that state, relation, or reference which a Congregation of such professours have one to another by vertue of their setled combination, the noate or marke whereof is their usuall assembling together into one place, and watching one over another. So that, however the defects and corruptions, in those Churches, are to be witnessed against, and howsoever it is the duety of Christians to indeavour (as much as in them is) [Page 282] to procure the reformation of those defects, and not to partake in the sinnes of any Church. Eph. 5.11. and amongst true Chur­ches to make choyse of those, whereunto to joyne themselves, which are most pure,Lib. 4. Cas. Cons. cap. 24. quest. 2. so farr as they are able (as the same lear­ned wrighter sayth, elsewhere) yet to dischurch them wholly, & to seperate from them, as no Churches of Christ, or to deny baptisme to the infants of their knowne members is not war­ranted by any rule in the Scripture, that I know, nor justifyed by my assertion or practise.

2. The practise of the Seperatists themselves sheweth that this assertion doeth not strengthen or countenance the errour of the Brownists in matter of Seperation. For, they professe to hold spirituall communion with other Churches, who doe extend the use of baptisme to as great largenes as England doeth, and greater also (as I am able, with Gods assistance, to prove) though they freely witnesse against it, as a disorder in those Churches, which also many Godly learned ministers of these Countryes are so farr from justifying, that they confesse it to be unwarran­table, and wish it may be reformed. By all which it is manifest that there is no such affinity betweene these opinions, that the errour of the Brownists could not be refuted by me, but that mine owne opi­nion must fall together. As he untruely pretendeth.

3. Hereunto I will add, that in thus reasoning the Answerer imprudētly armeth his opposites against himselfe with his owne weapon.Polit. Ec­cles. lib. 1. Cap. 14. e [...] 13. Fresh Suite p. 207. Treat: of the necess. of sepera­tion. For this plea is taken up, 1. by the those that plead for the Prelats, both of former times, whom Mr. Parker hath fitly answered, by clearing the seekers of Reformation from this imputation, and retorting it upon themselves, and of latter times, whom Dr. Ames, in like manner, hath breifly and fitly answered. 2. by those of the Seperation, for Mr. Canne, the Answerer knoweth, pretendeth, in his booke, to prove a neces­sity of seperation from the Church of England by the Non-conformists principles, and professeth to oppose it especially to Dr. Ames, onely in the point of seperation. Whereby it appeareth that he accounteth him, and such like, opposites, in that point, notwithstanding their agreement in some truths. Concerning which booke I have many things to say, in Dr. Ames his defence, which if I [Page 283] should here insert, this tractate, which already much exceedeth the proportion, at first purposed by me, would swell to too great a volume. But I may well be silent at this time, seing others (as I heare) have undertaken it, and a more fit occasion may be given hereafter, if it be thaught requisite, but especially seing he hath not answered Dr. Ames his second manuduction at all, wherein he hath said enough for the clearing of his judg­ment in this matter, nor indeed hath he taken away the force of that litle, which the Doctor said in answer to the Rejoynder, though he expressed himselfe, but in few lines, and as answe­ring, on another occasion, and not dealing professedly against the Separation. All which might easily be demonstrated, but, at this time, I purpose to abstaine from by-controversyes.

As for his objection, that I performed not that promise, though I had time enough, my answer is, that he, neither required it of me, nor incouraged me so to doe, by assuring me that the per­formance thereof would end the difference, Nor did it fall fitly in my way to speake of this point, in any Argument which I handled in publick afterwards.

His fourth answer tendeth to a s [...]ighting of my labour of love in 6 moneths assistance of him, in a time of their extremity. It becommeth unthanckfull men thus to elevate that kindnes which they have not hearts to value, nor purpose to requite. For this purpose, he setteth 6 moneths, wherein that wrighting, as he sayth, was given out by me, and 6 yeares resistance, which, he sayth, is procured by my opposition to the practise of the Dutch Church, and as much recompence, he sayth, received by me for that, as some godly ministers have in twise 6 moneths.

Reply. Concerning the wrighting I have spoken sufficiently in the 2 and 22. Sections, and in other places, wherein I shewed how he compelled me to it, for declaration of the truth against his unjust reports, and how himselfe, before he heard of any such wrighting from me, had traduced me, in the darke, in a larger wrighting secretly sent to his freind in N.

Concerning the ground of 6 yeares resistance. Seing he com­pelled me thereunto, in defence of the truth, I cannot helpe it, nor am to be blamed for it, unlesse it be a fault to beare witnes [Page 284] to the truth, when I am called thereunto.

Concerning the collection, which he, in too mercenary a phrase, calleth a recompence for my labour, I answer. 1. I received none of it from him; though some other English preachers are put to that charge: so that, to him it was a kindnes. 2. I con­tracted not with him for any recompence to be made me from the Church, by his meanes; so that, in me it was a kindnes. 3. I received no gratification from the Churchstock, as other Mini­sters have done, by his procurement. So that the poore had no damage or hindrance thereby, as in some other cases they have had, through his holding up these contentions. 4. The most of that which was given was from their purses, whom he con­tentiously calleth my freinds. 5. What ever I received from them they know, I was no gayner by it, when the necessary charges of my diet are deducted, and the hire of an house, which, at their request, I tooke, but never lived in, thorough his oppo­sition against me, and for which I was constrayned to pay the wholl yeares rent. 6. As he made no allowance towards this re­compence, so he propounded it not to others, by them to be considered, and when, by others, it was propounded to him, though he hindred it not (for that was not in his power) yet, when he saw that they purposed to expresse their love some what liberally, he tooke occasion to cast in discouraging spee­ches against it, in a sermon preached by him at that time, when I was absent, as they, that heard him, told me. 7. Whereas I received that fruit of the love of some among them for my 6 moneths labours, in that place, the opposition, which the Ans­werer hath raysed against me, hath put me to the charges of thrise 6 moneths in these parts, by compelling me, for peace sake to remove to some other place, where I might live quietly, though upon mine owne charges, whereas, in that place, it was offered me, by some of them, that the ordinary allowance, which the Dutch Ministers receive, should be given me, if I would live amongst them though privatily. But I preferred peace be­fore outward advantages, and departed thence, to my outward dissadvantage, and losse, through his unquietnes.

His other answers which he pretendeth to make to the Com­plainants, [Page 285] but thorough them smiteth me, are already examined.

In his fifth answer he blameth them for false imaginations tou­ching his thoughts & intents.] How just this reproofe is, his owne consciēce knoweth: but he is very unfit to be a reprover of evill surmises, who is so abundantly culpable of the same evill in so many passages of this booke: yea, in the next immediatly prece­dent passage he expressed a false imaginatiō concerning my in­tentiō in preaching against Schysming to those that frequented the private excercise: wherin he dealt injuriously with thē, & me.

In his sixth answer he would persuade the Reader that the Church did not desire me, after this difference, which is contra­ry to the professions of persons of all sorts, except Th. All.

What he sayth in the 7, 8, 9, & 10 answers hath bene examined before.

The last passage, in this Sect: concerneth the preaching and pro­phesying of Ia: Cr: and Tho. Flet. which is elsewhere also repea­ted. Whereunto I am contēt, at the importunity of one of them,P. 102. P. 106. See p. 30. 71. 82. 106. Aug. contr. Iul. Pelag. lib. 1. (viz Ia: Cr.) to say some thing. Wherefore, passing by his scorn­full manner of naming them, which is very usuall with him (though it better became Iuliā the Pelagian then the Answerer) I will onely relate the answer which I received from him in wrighting, contracting it thus. 1. That he never read and ap­plyed Scripture, at any meeting, out of his owne house. 2. That in his owne family, he remembreth not that ever there were, in any private Religious excercise, above 5 or 6 persons, of other families, at one time. 3. That he hath not had such meetings above 5 or 6 times, in 8 or 9 yeares. 4. That he remembreth not that any one hath bene at any such duety in his family, these 4 or 5 yeares past, at least, except some allowed minister were there present. 5. That when they did meet, he did not preach, but read the Answerers, or some others men labours. 6. That the Answerer never admonished him of any fault herein priva­tely, nor did he ever heare that it was disliked, till the Answerer girded at such meeting, in a sermon, 3 or 4 yeares since. 7. That when he saw that the Answerer had wronged him in print, by an untrue report of these matters, he went to his house to con­vince him privatly thereof, but departed thence without satis­faction. 8. That a few dayes after, as he heard, the Answerer saught for witnesses, and found 2. (as it was sayd) Ia. Cr. spake [Page 286] with them boath, and found the one very defective, and more against the Answerer then for him. The other said that, about some 5 yeares since, he heard Ia. C. read in the bible, and some wrighting concerning it, but whether the Answerers sermons or any other, he dare not say. But Ia. Cr. constantly affirmeth, that this witnes was never at his house at such an excercise. If this be so, let the Reader judge whether this action deserveth to be so censured, or published.

In the 41 Section I find my name but thrise mentioned. That which he sayth of me, in his fifth answer, is a direct contradic­tion to that which he said of me in the 14 & 15 answers of the second Sect. The other passages in this Sect. which concerne me are answered.

In the 42 Sect. he falleth againe into his old guilt of false ima­gination by misjudging our intentions in a private fast. Con­cerning which ill usage of his J may take up the Psalmists com­plaint.Psal. 96.10. When I wept and chastned my soule with fasting, that was to my reproach.