AN APOLOGETICAL REPLY To a book Called AN ANSWER to the unjust complaint of W. B.  
Also an ANSWER to Mr. I. D. TOUCHING His report of some passages.  
His allegation of Scriptures against the baptising of some kind of infants.  
His protestation about the publishing of his wrighting.  
BY JOHN DAVENPORTE BD.  Prov. 18.17. 
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just: but his neighbour cometh, and searcheth him.  Hieron: ad Nepot. 
Cave ne aut lingnam, aut aures prurientes habeas: ne aut ipse alijs detrahas, aut alios detrabentes audias. Nemo invito auditori libenter refert. Discat detractor, dum te videt non libenter audire non facile detrahere.  Horat: Epist. 16. ad Quint. 
Mordear opprobrijs falfis? mutemque colores?  
Falsus honor juvat, et mendax infamia terret.  
Quem? nisi mendosum, et mendacem?  
AT ROTTERDAM, Printed by Isaac van Waesberghe upon the Steygher at the Fame. Anno 1636.   

The Preface to the Reader.  
CHristian Reader. 
2. Cor. 1.12.  Though the testimony of a good conscience, is of itself a sufficient cause of rejoicing in all the tribulations of this pilgrimage, 
Act. 23.1. 1. Pet. 3.16. Act. 24.16.  and of confidence in our Apologies against false accusers, in which respect Blessed Paul, according to the wisdom given unto him, did herein excercise himself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men: yet, next to a good conscience, every man is bound to provide for his good name, it being, 
Eccles. 7.1  in Salomons judgement, better than precious ointment, which serveth to cheer a man's own spirits, and to make him amiable to others, and as any man is of more public use, so it is both more diffused, and more apt to be tainted by the show of any infirmity: according to that holy proverb. 
Eccles. 10.1.  Dead flies cause the ointment of the Apothecary to send forth a stinking savour; so doth a litly folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour. But the regard of our good name must be exercised upon higher, than self-respects, else it is but vain glory, which flowing from pride falleth into unwarranted contention. God's name must be more dear unto us than our own, and our care must be, not so much to shun our own, as his dishonour, our esteem whereof aught, in some proportion, to answer to his dignity and eminency. We see that among men the same reproach which is but a slander of private persons, is scandalum magnatum, when it reflecteth dishonour upon peers of a realm, and it is crimen lasae Majestatis, when it ascendeth to the sovereign majesty. For which cause it is not to be wondered that God hath shown himself so jealous of the honour of his own name, not only upon the sons of Aaron and Eli, and those wicked Priests in Israel, 
Mal. 2.5.8.9.  but also upon Aaron and Eli themselves, and upon Moses, and David, in whom, though he pardoned their sin, yet he passed not by this consequent of it, the dishonour of his name, without a temporal judgement. 
Iosu. 7.9. Psa. 8.1. Psal. 111.9. Mich: 5.4  For his name is a great, excellent, holy, and reverend name, it is a name which hath Majesty in it, and is as far above all names, as his Majesty is above all creatures.  
God's honour being principally intended, the good of men is not to be neglected, that they within the Church be not ashamed, or offended, nor they without, hindered, or hardened. 
Luther on Gen. 9 Gen. 9.22  For such is the malignant genius of the Serpent's seed, that they delight in observing the slips and falls of God's servants, as swine do to nuzzle in filth and excrements, which evil inclination was so strong in Cham & Canaan that it broke the bonds of nature, and therefore it is the less to be wondered at, if Sanballat and Tobiah, 
Nehem. 6.13.  to hinder the work of the Lord in the hands of his servants, did seek matter of an evil report, that they might reproach them. And, as it would not satisfy Hamans' malice to lay hands upon Mordecai alone, 
Hest. 3.6.  but he saught to destroy all the jews: so these are accustomed, for the miscarriage of any one, to misjudge the generation of God's children. Which David much feared, and earnestly deprecated, 
Psal. 69 5.6.  saying. Let not them that wait on thee O Lord God of Hosts, be ashamed for my sake. Let not those that seek thee, be confounded, for my sake, O God of Israel. And the laying of a stumbling block, 
Rom. 14.13.  or an occasion of falling, in the way of weak Christians, by giving them offence, is of no less dangerous consequence to him by whom the offence cometh (for whom it had been better that he had been cast into the sea with a millstone about his neck) than it is to him who is scandalised, 
Mat. 18.6.  who is wounded, and made weak, 
1. Cor. ●. 13.  and in danger of being destroyed thereby, which caused holy Paul to resolve rather to eat no flesh, whilst the world standeth, than thereby to cause his brother to offend. And the same thing which maketh the hearts of the righteous sad, 
Ezeck. 13.22.  usually strengtheneth the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his evil way. Thus it falleth out in scandalous reproaches raised against those that fear God by the worst of men, but much more when Israelites thrust their swords into their fellow's sides, 
Exod. 21.22.27.  especially when those who are as women with child are spurned, hurt, and endangered, by reproaches, to miscarry, of some spiritual children, of whom they travail in birth, 
Gal. 4.19  till Christ may be form in them.  
These considerations may serve to be an Apology to others for this my Reply, and for an admonition to myself, and direction about my whole carriage in it.  
They, who have read the Answer, whereunto this Reply is made, will testify, on my behalf, that the honour of God, and the good of the Church, both for maintenance of truths opposed, and for vindicating mine own name, and the names of others, far more worthy than I, from calumny, did necessitate the publishing of this Apology. It had been more to the Answerers' comfort, if he could have as truly pleaded the same necessity, as he readily pretended it. But, 1. how easily might he have prevented it, in the cause: either by not making an unjust opposition, or by yielding to such equal means of accommodation as were propounded, or by propounding other ways sufficient to salve the sore, or by referring the matter to the Church as properly belonging to their cognition, or by fairly seeking the advice of the Classis (seeing he would bring it thither) without praepossessing the Dutch preachers with causeless praejudices, and jealousies against men whom they knew not. 2. Seeing due care was not taken to prevent the kindling of the fire: yet, how easily might it have been quenched, when the smother of it began to break forth apparently! at least, the fuel might have been subtracted, and it suffered to have gone out, and to have died of itself, but, in stead, thereof, oil is cast upon it to make it flame out, and the force and violence of it, is, by his book (as by bellowes, or a strong wind) driven upon the faces of those, who have done, and suffered much that they might extinguish it. Alas! what benefit could redound to the Church by such personal vindications published to the world, seeing a sufficient answer given in writing to their written complaints would have satisfied their desire, and ended all difference among them? And, what though these private wrighting were printed? yet, what necessity was there of printing any answer to them? seeing the Answerer had many ways to have suppressed them at the press (being made privy to the printing of them, by the printer himself, which I was not) and seeing I protested, in print, against the first part, which concerned me, and the Complainants' professed their dislike of publishing the other part of it? How tender I was of the Answerers' reputation my Protestation showeth, in part, and my labour to have the book suppressed more fully manifesteth. For I procured that all the copies unsold might be bought up, so that (I am told) about four hundred and fifty, of the five hundred, were stopped. How he hath requited me let his book speak.  
And howsoever he pretendeth that the printing of that pamphlet compelled him to print, in his own defence, yet it is evident, 1. that he declared his purpose of printing about these matters before any wrighting was made by me, in mine own defence, or by them, in way of complaint of their greivances. 2. that his theatning to print an answer to their complaints, which then were only written, and left in the Consistory privately, and the report of one, who said that he had seen some of the sheets which the Answerer had prepared to print, were the causes moving W. B. to print that wrighting. 3. that himself declared in a letter, which the friend, to whom he sent it, shown me, that he purposed to print an answer to that short wrighting which was left by me, when as nothing had been printed by W.B. Which proveth that the printed pamphlet was not the cause of his book, but that he took occasion thereby to publish that which he had before purposed. 4. When he acquainted the ministers of the Classis with his purpose of printing an answer to that pamphlet, they disuaded him: yet he again importuned them to consent to it, threatening to get it printed in England, if they opposed it here. To conclude. He so wearied them with importunities, as if his life had laid in the doing of it, that they left him to himself (after they had advised him to leave out some passages which they disliked in his copy) but still professed that, as they did not hinder him, so they would not counsel him to do it. This some of those learned & prudent men have affirmed to some of the members of that Church, whereby the Reader may see with how strong a bent of spirit he was carried hereunto, but upon what argument, or motives, I leave it to his own consideration in the sight of God.  
Yet, if he would print, needlessly: ah, that he had not done it so reproachfully, sarcastically, bitterly! Not that I have cause to be troubled thereat, in respect of myself, who have, in some measure, learned to be content (if God will have it so) to be as a lamp despised in the thought of him that is at ease, 
job. 12.5. Heb. 10.35.  and to be made a gazing stock, both by reproaches and afflications, & by becoming a companion of them that were so used, but for the truth's sake, for the Church's sake, for his own sake, whom I do unfeignedly reverence, and love in the Lord, though I am by him compelled to this unpleasing contest. I confess, that when I read his book, and considered how to answer it, upon a serious pondering of passages, I thought upon Herod's short letter to Cassius (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and if I had so written to him, 
Philostr. in vit. Herod.  though I should have censured myself, as not dealing according to the respect which I bear to his gravity, and long standing in the Church, & ministerial abilities etc. Yet he could not answer as Paul did a like (though more unjust) challenge, that he wrote the words of truth and soberness. 
Act. 26.25.  For how untruly (though, I hope, but by ignorance, or forgetfulness, or misapprehension, or inadvertency) passages are reported, I am compelled to declare in the several answers. How unsoberly let the Reader judge, without my raking into that finck, which maketh the whole book the more unsavoury and useless. This also (remembering my praecedent admonition) I would cover, for the better moderating other men's censures, by imputing it to some aptness in his natural spirit to causeless jealousies, or to the infirmity of his age, or to his melancholy temper, or to the instigation of others, or to the violence of temptation, or to a misguided Zeal, as our love causeth us to impute unbeseeming carriages of our friends in violent fevers etc. to the disease, not to the man.  
As for me; what reproaches soever I sustain, I hope the spirit of understanding and counsel, and the fear of the Lord will so guide me, that I shall not, by returning rebuke for rebuke, 
2. Pet. 3.9 Rom. 12.21. Aug. ad Catech:  give just cause of suspicion that I am overcome of evil. But such a necessity is now laid upon me, that I may say, with Augustine, Cogimur non tacere, cum potius expediat flere quam aliquid dicere. I am constrained to wright, though (in some respects) it were more expedient to weep then to say any thing. My desire is to make a modest defence of the truth, and of mine own innocency, without injuring or irritating any body. Wherein I purpose to propound to myself excellent patterns, whom I wish the Answerer also had imitated, such as Basil and Nazianzen, 
Greg: Naz: Monod: in Laud: Basil.  whose spirits were so sweetly composed in a difference between them, that notwithstanding it, they gave due respect each to other, Basil calling Nazianzen. Vas electionis, puteum profundum, os Christi, An elect vessel, a deep well, the mouth of Christ, and Nazianzen winding up his invention to the highest strain in Basils' praise, as appeareth in an oration made by him for that purpose, though he note an unkindness received from him, which he could not well digest. In like manner Augustine differed from Cyprian about rebaptisation, yet he doth not reproach him, but excuseth his error rather, 
Aug. lib. 2. de bapt. contr. Donat: Cap. 7  saying, nondum erat diligenter ista baptismi questio pertractata. That question about baptism had not been diligently discussed unto that time, and honoureth his name with excellent titles. Beatus Cyprianus, vigilantissimus Episcopus, gloriosissimus Martyr. Blessed Cyprian, a most vigilant Bishop, a most glorious Martyr. And, comparing Cyprian, & Stephanus, 
Idem lib. de unico Bap. contr. Petil. cap. 14.  & Donatus together, in their different carriage about that question, he did not reproach Cyprian as schysmatically affected, but shown that both Cyprian and Stephanus and those that adhaered to them preserved unity each with other, 
Idem contr Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 11.  and did not, as Donatus, separate from the Church for that cause; and for himself, he professed (howsoever he held as he did touching the Baptism of john) se non acturum pugnaciter etc. that he would not quarrrell those that held otherwise. In latter times Beza shown the same spirit towards Bullinger and Gualther; 
Praef. in lib. de presbyt: et excom. contr. Erast:  for though they seemed to incline more to Erastus his opinion than he could wish, yet he speaketh honourably of them, calling them, after their deaths, non tantum Tigurinae, sed Christianae totius Ecclesiae lumina, lights not only of the Tigurine, but also of the whole Christian Church, and elsewhere they are styled by him, optimi illi beatissimae memoriae fratres, summâ tum pietate, tum eruditione praediti, his excellent brethren of very blessed memory, men of singular piety and learning, and he taketh occasion to excuse their difference from him in that point, not to brand them with any black note for it. Thus in those men the spirit of love wrought, as it had done before them in the Apostles of Christ: For, howsoever Paul justly reproved Peter, as the case required, 
Gal. 2.  yet Peter did not lie at the catch (as we say) to recriminate him, but took occasion, from some passage in Paul's epistles, to make an honourable mention of him saying. 
2. Pet. 3.15.  Account that the long suffering of the Lord is salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you etc. such a carriage of differences amongst Christians, specially Ministers of the Gospel, would much conduce to the advancement of the truth, and stopping of the mouths of adversaries, which are apt to be opened upon two advantages. 1. The differences in judgement amongst professors. 2. The bitterness of spirit which they discover in those differences. To prevent (as much as in me lieth) any hurt that may come from these two praejudices, I think it requisite that I add a word or two, upon occasion of this advantage, which some bitter passages in the Answer do seem to give all sorts of adversaries to blaspheme the truth.  
1. All sorts of people are apt to object against the truth, that the professors of it do not agree amongst themselves. This the ancient Philosophers objected against the Christians in the first 300 years after Christ, whose mouths the worthy lights in those times stopped, with the different sects among the Philosophers themselves. In like manner I may tell the Papalls of the 26 Schysmes in the Romish Church, others of the troubles in Frankford raised in Queen mary's days, about bringing in the English liturgy into that place, (for the effecting whereof they spared not to endanger the life of that famous Godly man Mr. Knocks who opposed it.) others, of Troubles about excommunications in Amsterdam extant to the view of all men, and all men of differences about their several ways and projects.  
2. Bellarmine, to prove that our Religion doth not produce holiness in men's lives, instanceth in the violence of Luther's spirit, which appeared in much bitterness even against those who agreed with him in opposition to popery, because they differed from him in some particular tenets. That this is but a fallible sign, may appear, not only in this, that shows of holiness may be where holiness in truth is not, as in that gravity, constancy, and humility which was observable in that enemy of God's grace Pelagius, 
Aug. Epist. 120. Mat. 7.15.  according to our Saviour's predication, concerning Wolves in sheep's clothing; but also in this, that distempered passions have been found in eminent servants of God, as in the difference between Paul & Barnabas, the only wise God, for his own glory many ways, by some infirmities staining the glory of all flesh. How hot was the contention between Cyprian and Stephanus! what violent and troublesome dissension was there between Theophilus and Chrisostom! also between cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret, boath Bishops, Catholics, boath learned, boath godly, boath excellent pillars of the Church, and yet he that readeth both their wrighting would think that boath were dangerous enemies of the Church. The invectives of jerom and Ruffinus one against another are extant, and Augustine's Epistles, wherein he bewailed the same. How many unkindnesses passed between Chrisostom and Epiphanius! Did not the one refuse to pray with the other? Did not the one challenge the other for manifold breaches of Canons? Did not the one profess that he hoped he should never dye a Bishop? and the other that he should never come alive into his country, boath which things fell out according to their uncharitable wishes, Epiphanius dying by the way as he was returning home, and Chrisostom being cast out of his Bishopric, and dying in banishment? And these things came to pass, 1. partly, by the instigation of others. Thus Epiphanius was stirred up against Chrisostom by Theophilus. So that their contentions arose from a versatilous wit accompanied with a malicious and vindictive spirit in Theophilus, & imprudence accompanied with too much credulity in Epiphanius. 2. partly, by some stiffness & inflexibility of spirit in some of them, accompanied with much hardness to be reconciled when once offended, to those with whom they were displeased, from which blemish Chrisostom was not altogether free, and that caused him somewhat the more trouble. 3. partly by mistakes, as in the difference between Theodoret and Cyrill, and in the division between the Christians of the East, and those of the West, the one suspecting the other of haeresy, upon a mistake, For the Romans believed three persons in the Trinity but would not believe three hypostases, & thence the Oriental Christians thought them Sabellians, who held that there is but one person in the Godhead called by three names. The Eastern Christians believed three hypostases in the Godhead, but would not admit three persons, whence they of Rome thought them to be Arrians, who believed that there are three distinct substances in the Godhead. Athanasius, perceiving that they differed not in judgement, brought them to accord, by showing them that they meant one thing, though their expressions were different, so that there was a difference arising from ill suspicion which was grounded upon misunderstanding one another. Lastly, from an ill guided Zeal, whereby (beside the former) Luther and those that adhaered to him were carried too far in opposition against Zwinglius, about the Sacrament, which afterwards Luther saw, and confessed to Melancthon, a little before his death, that his wrighting, in that controversy had been too bitter, & professed his inclination to publish some thing for the qualifying of them, but that be feared the scandal that might grow upon such his retractation, as is to be seen in the Admonition of the Divines of the County Palatine concerning the book called liber concordiae. Thus a groundless jealousy sharpened Luther's spirit in that controversy, and a groundless jealousy hindered him from retracting what he had written. Had the same jealousy hindered Augustine, the whole Christian world had been loser's thereby, wanting that help by his book of Retractations, which now they have. Which unproffitable jealousy, whereby men will make good what they have said or done, lest they should seem to have erred, Ambrose piously cast off, and confessed that his wrighting had need of a second review, et qnantumlibet quisque profecerit, 
Ambr: office: lib. 1. Cap. 1.  nemo est qui doceri non indigeat, dum vivit. How much soever any man hath profited, every man hath need to be taught whilst he liveth.  
These things being premised, for prevention of scandal, which may be taken at the Answer, whereunto the ensuing Reply is made, I will briefly conclude, after I have added one or two words for prevention of unaequall censures upon the Reply itself, with respect to the matter, and to the manner of my proceeding in it.  
1. For the matter. I must entreat the wise hearted Reader to vouchsafe a benign & favourable construction of things that may seem liable to some misconstruction, and to consider that in all the passages of this discourse, I have a particular respect to the question between us, avoiding by-matters. As, for instance, when I speak of the summity of the power of particular Churches, in re propriâ, in such things as are properly their own, & do instance in the choice of their ministers, it may be, some captious politician will think that I abridge the power of the civil Magistrate, which is far from my purpose (though I speak as I do, limiting myself to the question between the Church and the Classis only, which was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) For I acknowledge, not only that submission & obedience is due, by the fifth commandment, both to the highest Governors in every common wealth, according to the several laws and customs thereof, as to Emperors, Kings, Consuls Princes, Dukes, States, and to other officers and ministers under them, as Senators, Counsellors, justices, Majors, Sheriffs, Balives, Constables, etc. (these, and the like, being in respect of their several kinds, 
1. Pet. 2.13. Rom. 13.1  that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every ordinance of man, yet in respect of their common nature and power, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are ordered or ordained of God) and that for conscience sake, in all their civil laws and constitutions, but also in matters ecclesiastical & spiritual, it belongeth to the chief governor or governor's to be nursing fathers of the Church, as well as of the Commonwealth, 
Isa. 49.23.  to be Custodes et vindices utriusque tabulae, and that they may, and aught to establish, by their authority, the true Religion, & pure worship of God, and to forbid and punish, not only civil persons for civil crimes: but even Churchmen also, and boath sorts for crimes against Religion, as Blasphemy, Haeresy, Idolatry, Sacrilege, Schysme, etc. and to take order (as occasion may require) that the Churches make choice of fit officers, and that Church officers do their duty in every kind, according to all God's ordinances and institutions, and that the whole worship of God, and all the parts of it, be administered in the congregations decently, 
1. Cor. 14.40.  without uncomelines, and orderly, without confusion, of which care they have excellent praecedents set before them for patterns in the Scripture, such as David, Solomon, Hezekiah, josiah. Nor are the matters of the Lord, 
2. Chron. 19.11.  and the King's matters of so different a nature, that the care of the things of God doth not appertain to the King, but only to the high Priest, but they are distinguished in the manner of their performing them, the Magistrates discharging their part, civilly, & politically, & the Church officers executing theirs ecclesiastically, and spiritually, that so piety and policy, the Church and Common wealth, religion and righteousness may dwell together, may kiss each other, and may flourish together, in the due subjection of all sorts of subjects to Princes and Magistrates, and of both princes and people to the sceptre and government of jesus Christ, 
james 4.12.  that one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.  
2. For the manner. 1. I have endeavoured to carry myself inoffensively, in this whole treatise, without wronging or provoking any, and for that purpose have concealed the name of the Answerer, wishing that it may not be remembered, upon this occasion, to blemish any of his well deservings, in any other service to God, or to his Church. 2. I have laboured so to temper my style that the truth may be manifested by his own actions sincerely related, rather than by my verbal censures. 1. His own words I have truly repeated and answered, and when I have been compelled to contradict those things whereunto I could not consent, I have laboured to show reason more than passion therein. If any think it might have been done more smoothly, and plausibly, let him know there is a difference to be made between personal vindications, and doctrinal ventilations, there being not the same degrees of provocation to passion in the latter as in the former: and that some of the personal aspersions, whereunto I am enforced to make reply, are such as whereunto a simple cold negation, without some vehemency, would seem incongruous, as jerom speaks of the suspicion of haeresy or schysme, wherein, he saith, it becometh no man to be patiented. To conclude; let the Christian reader, if he meet with any such passages, suspend his censure, till he have been put upon the clearing of his innocency to the world, in answer to a printed book made in so provoking a manner, by such a man, upon such an occasion, himself being exercised with the same trials & difficulties wherewith I am exercised, in these toss to and fro, yet with much quiet in my spirit, through inward supportments, wherein I may say, to the praise of God's grace, in my measure. As the sufferings of Christ abound in us, 
2. Cor. 1.5  so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ.  
Lastly. If any man shall think that my Reply is too large, let him consider, 1. that the particular matters of fact, wherein mine innocency was necessarily to be defended are many. 2. that I could not declare and maintain the truth which I hold in points of doctrine, and which is in word or actions opposed by the Answerer, in a breifer discourse. 3. that a necessity was laid upon me to wright somewhat on the behalf of other Reverend ministers, some whereof are at rest, as Mr. Parker, Dr. Ames, Mr. Forbes, some are absent, as Mr. Hooker, Mr. Weld, Mr. Peter. 4. that he so interweaveth his discontents against the Elders, & the complaints of the members with the passages which concern me, that, in many things, I could not clear myself without saying some thing also in their just defence, which I have done sparingly, and but when it was made necessary by his joining us together. 5. that he hath so frequently mentioned my name, almost in every passage, that I could not make a satisfying Reply, on mine own behalf, without examining almost the whole book, which I was constrained to do also more particularly (and according to the order of his Sections) then else I would, lest it should be thought that I had been unable to answer what I had praetermitted. Wherein what I have written the Reader seethe, but he knoweth not what I could have added, and therefore is to be entreated to suspend his censure concerning what I have said till he may understand the reasons whereby I am able to justifye such particulars, 6. that, for the help of the Reader in comparing the Reply with the Answer I have inserted his own words every where. 7. that I thought it unaequall to cause the Reader to lay out his money, and spend his precious hours upon a fruitless discourse of our personal concernments only: and therefore have added many things, upon this occasion, for his intellectual advantage, whereby the Reply is made much larger than else it should have been. The benefit whereof, will, I hope, with God's blessing, recompense his expense of money or time upon it. Which I beseech the Father of lights and of spirits to grant for the advancement of his truth in the hearts of many! Amen.   

The faults escaped correct thus.  
1. Words or points to be altered. p: stands for page, l: for line, r. for read.  
P: 6. l: 7. r. all together. p: 25. l: 25. r: operantis. p. 32. l: 6. r. Emden for Mentzes. p: 46. l: 2. r. answereth. p: 48. l: 27. r: wholesome. l: 37. r: up. p: 54. l. 14. r: injury. p: 55. l. 27. r: consequence. p: 56. l: 3. r: open. p: 58. l. 27. r: specially. p: 61. l. 2. r: of for to. p. 62. l. 1. and. p. 70. l: 7. r: 20. for 21. p. 79. l: 23. r: that the Doct: p: 81. l: 26. r: held. p. 88 l: 11. r: in ter Veer, where he. p. 89. l: 4. r: with arrogating. p. 118. l: 29. r: to the. p: 148. l: 5. r: yet. p: 174. l: 2. r: counsel. p: 177. l: 27. r: was, for w, as. p: 191. l: 33. r: against it, for against, it. p: 223. l: 12. r: impute. p: 242. l. 2. r: the, for, th'. p: 245. l: 7. r: was, for wae. p: 265 l: 23. r. injustice. p: 266. l: 20. r: devised, p. 268. l: 7, & 8. r: further. p: 288. l: 31. r: these, p: 295. l: 4. r: either, for, neither.  
2. Words or points to be added. a: stands for, add. p: 9 l: 20. a: about, after satisfaction. p. 59 l. 8. a. secondly, before, Is. p. 61. l. 16. a. not, after, &. p. 82. l. 1 a. he, after, fit. p. 106. l. 19 a, the, before, jesuits. p. 113. l. 15. r. months absence. p. 163. l. 36. a. of marriages, after condition. p. 165. l. 14. a.?, after, day. p. 183 l. 17. r. ministers. p. 202. l. 1. a. that, after, not. p. 213. l. 14. r. constitution. p. 229. l. 3. a. is, after, it.  
3. Words to be blotted out. d: stands for deal. p. 9 l. 15. d. h, in where. p. 56 l. 13. d. First. p. 66. in the margin. d. s. in epist. p. 82. l. 31. d. s, in places. p. 86. l. 31. d. s. in Maties. p. 106. l. 19 d. the, before, machiavels. p. 138. l. 10. d. be,  
Other faults which do not so much hinder the Readers understanding I leave to his own observation. As, when t, is put, for, c, s, for c, ei, for, i, for, e, u, for, n, p, for b. s, for f. m, for n. n, for, m. y, for, i. etc.   

A Table added by a Friend, wherein the Reader (for his better understanding) is to take notice, that the first figure showeth the page, the latter showeth the line in the page.  

Action.  
CHristian actions of a twofold nature. 277. 26   

Aims.  
Dr. Ames defended, 77. 12 

Commended. 79. 12  
What works he was author of. 80. 1  
His fitness for Pastoral office. 81. 12  
His remove from Franeker to Rotterdam justified. 83. 1    
Dr. Ames not for promiscuous baptising. 160. 14  
Dr. Ames opinion of Synods. 224. 36  
Dr. Ames judgement about the power by which the Church ought to be governed. 242. 20   

Answer.  
Three things required to a right answer of complaints. 1  
Two things required to a true answer. 1   

Answerer.  
Answerer defective in his answer in the requisites thereto. 2. 31  
Answerers subtle devises to prejudice the Reader. 7. 20  
Answerers fallacy in putting that for a cause which is no cause. 9 25  
Answerers judgement and practice agree not. 12. 20  
Answerer found faulty from his relation of a father. 20. 6 

from the place. 20. 35  
from the time. 22. 10    
Answerer found guilty of depriving the Church of those whom they desired, notwithstanding all his answers for the clearing of himself. 55. 1  
Answerer diverteth the Reader. 51. 5. and 64. 19 and 68 18. and 209. 30.  
Answerer proved guilty of sin in opposing the persons whom the Church desired. 65. 8  
It hath been the Answerers' course to injury the Church. 77. 7  
Answerer not willing to accommodate the Replyer about promiscuous baptising. 126. 1. and 130 22.  
Answerer obtruded a false translation of the five Dutch Ministers writing upon the Reader. 129. 12.  
Answerer contradicteth himself and the Classis about the insufficiency of the Elders, about baptising. 169. 12  
Answerer hindereth the agreement of the Elders, concerning the Replyers preaching, notwithstanding all his pretended answers. 218. 12  
Answerers needless jealousies kept Mr. Weld out from preaching when the Elders desired him. 221. 27  
Answerer notwithstanding his answers, found guilty of subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis. 232. 22.  
Answerer joineth with the enemies in an old cavil, what the due power is by which the Church should be governed. 253. 15.  
Answerer injurious to Christ and to the truth, while he thinks to leave the complainants under suspicion of adhering to some sect. 236. 22  
Answerer found guilty of giving unto the Classis power to keep out such men as the Church desired. 243. 31  
Answerer found guilty of giving unto the Classis power of making laws. 257. 7.  
Answerer found guilty of bringing matters violently unto the Classis. 264. 9  
Answerer found guilty of subjecting the Church under the Classis without consent, ●68. 1  
Answerers answers about his pulpiting against the Replyer examined. 278. 19  
Answerer arms his opposites against himself and all Non-Conformists. 282. 23  
Answerer describeth not the persons right whose infants are brought to baptism. 314. 2   

Attersol.  
Mr. Attersol not for promiscuous baptising. 161. 27   

Balmford.  
Mr. Balmford defended. 93. 34   

Baptising.  
Examples against promiscuous Baptising. 32. 1  
Arguments for promiscuous Baptising answered. 118. 31  
Scriptures for promiscuous Baptising answered. 121. 31  
The question concerning promiscuous Baptising stated. 132. 5  
Things premised about promiscuous Baptising. 132. 22  
Four grounds against promiscuous Baptising. 133. 25  
The opinion of learned Writers concerning promiscuous Baptising. 134. 1  
The ends and uses of baptism against promiscuous Baptising. 140. 21.  
Promiscuous Baptising offensive. 143. 19  
Promiscuous Baptising amoung the Reformed a building of things destroyed. 145. 21  
Promiscuous Baptising against Godly custom. 153. 9  
Promiscuous Baptising not maintained by them that seem to favour it. 156. 23  
Pretences for promiscuous Baptising answered. 163. 8  
Promiscuous Baptising not an order of the Dutch Churches, but a disorder crept in. 175. 15  
Confessions and Cannons of the Dutch Churches against promiscuous Baptising. 175. 22  
Custom about baptising such, as that it may justly be called promiscuous Baptising. 300. 34   

Baptism.  
Baptism is an ordinance belonging to the Church. 312. 1   

Basil.  
Basil for peace sake remooves his dwelling. 16. 31   

Beza.  
Beza not for promiscuous baptising. 158. 19  
Beza his opinion of Synods. 228. 11  
Beza his carriage when Erastus his book was published after the author's death. 323. 27   

Brownists.  
Nearness to or distance from the Brownists, but a false rule to try truth or error by. 10. 2  
Brownists errors. 280. 35   

Burden.  
What a Burden is. 52. 36  
The Burden of the complainants being deprived of those whom they desired, grievous by the concurrence of many respects. 53. 6   

Certainty.  
Human Certainty standeth with a contingency of future events. 28. 10.   

Choosing.  
Power of Choosing Ministers in the whole church. 36. 24 

the terms explicated. 36. 30  
the position laid down as the African Synod & Professors of Leyden hold it. 37. 8  
Proof of the position reduced to 3 heads. 37. 23  
Argument from the Scriptures. 37. 25.  
Argument from consent of times. 40 6.  
Argument from the evidence of reason. 43. 10    
Power of Choosing, the Church cannot give from her. 46. 12   

Choice.  
In Choice of Ministers there is (in cases) a necessary use of the combination of Churches. 230. 33.   

Church.  
In what sense Church is taken. 36. 33.  
Church is deprived of her power two ways. 47. 35  
Power to govern granted to the Church by witnesses in all ages. 237. 21  
The order of the Church of Frankford for the power of the Church. 243. 13  
What authority the Church hath about laws. 258. 10   

Classis.  
What the Classis requireth of Ministers which are to be ordained. 68 36  
Two things blame worthy in the Classis. 9 12  
The Classis repaired unto about the Replyers settling without his consent & approbation. 185. 34.  
The proceeding of the Classis after the Replyer had refused his call. 193. 1  
The Classis assume in some particulars more power than the the Prelates. 223. 25  
What power is due to Classis over particular Churches by virtue of combination. 227. 19  
The object of Classical combinations of Churches. 228. 7  
Classis power borrowed & derived from particular Churches. 229. 3.  
Classis power not a prerogative of jurisdiction, but of estimation. 229. 27  
Classis power not to deprive particular Churches of their power, but to strengthen them in the exercise thereof. 230. 10  
Wherein the Classis power is undue and usurped. 231. 26  
The undue power of the Classis in making laws. 252. 26  
Concerning resting in the determinations of the Classis. 271. 14  
Classis require more power than the Apostles, when they required the Replyer to baptise those which were not members of the Church. 287. 10  
The Church of Antioch warranteth not the Classis. 290. 32   

Collection.  
Concerning a Collection, which the Answerer calls a recompense of the Replyers labours. 284. 2   

Combination.  
What kind of Combination is lawful among Churches. 226. 11  
The reasons of the lawfulness of Combinations. 227. 3  
Combinations of Churches in some cases expedient and necessary. 230. 30  
The Answerers Comforts are the Replyers also. 34. 26   

complainants.  
Complaynants' complaints no evil weeds. 17. 31  
complainants vindicated, and the Answerer refuted. 18. 6  
complainants defended about their not advising with the Replyer. 29. 1  
complainants cleared of opposition unto the worthy servants of God. 67. 24  
complainants vindicated from slander in 8 particulars, where in charged by the Answerer. 88 28.  
Complaynants' assertions found true, notwithstanding the answers of the Answerer. 209. 9 & 213. 26.   

Complaint.  
What a Complaint is. 3. 24  
Complaints not unjust in themselves. 3. 28  
Four things required unto an unjust Complaint. 3. 29  
Complaints of weak ones not to be slighted. 5. 23  
Complaints of the Complaynants unjustly called unjust. 4. 10   

Conference.  
Conference between the Answerer and the Replyer defectively reported. 117. 3   

Confession.  
Threefold Confession with the observations upon it in the protestation reviewed. 18. 17   

Contention.  
Contention twofold good and bad. 17. 36   

crisp.  
ja. crisp vindicated from preaching, wherewith the Answerer chargeth him. 285. 17   

Customs.  
Of Customs, the evilness of them, and unlawfulness of building any practice upon them. 30. 32  
Good Customs should not lightly be broken. 151. 25  
Good Customs of a diverse nature. 152. 1   

Denomination.  
Denomination may follow the better part, not the greater. 21. 24   

Difference.  
Differences in opinion must in cases be borne with. 58. 11  
In cases of Difference there is necessary use of combination of Churches. 231. 16   

Elders.  
Vsefullnesse and honour of Elders. 207. 31  
Elders cleared from the charge of the Answerer about depriving the Church of her right. 49. 15.  
Elders cleared from partiality. 210. 34.   

Error.  
Error ariseth from the perverseness of passions. 63. 11  
Error in men one cause of harsh censuring of others. 63. 29   

Examples.  
Examples in disquisition of truth not to be rested on. 32. 8   

Excommunication.  
In Excommunication there may be good use of the combination of Churches. 231. 8.   

Father.  
What a Father's duty is towards his children. 20. 7   

Fenner.  
Mr. Fenners judgement about the power by which the Church should be governed. 238. 25 

against the Answerer. 239. 29     

Fleeing.  
Fleeing justified by examples. 104. 2.  
Fleeing & not fearing them that can kill, and not fainting, may stand together. 104. 23  
Fleeing is sometimes a confessing to the truth. 105. 14  
Fleeing or a voluntary banishment, is in some cases worse than some imprisonment. 105. 13   

Forbes.  
Mr. Forbes defended. 85. 32 

commended. 87. 30     

General.  
General good to be preferred. 12. 32.   

Hooker.  
Mr. Hooker defended. 68 25  
Mr. Hooker not the cause of disturbance, but the Answerer. 116. 19  
Mr. Hooker cleared from Schism. 246. 1.   

jacob.  
Mr. jacobs' judgement about Classis and Synods, for substance the same with Beza and Calvin. 236. 4.   

Intentions.  
It is lawful to judge of men's Intentions. 234. 1   

Law.  
Three things required to the making of a Law. 256. 14  
Laws and orders differ. 257. 30   

Learned.  
Learned men's judgements not sufficient to justify any thing, or condemn it, unless their grounds be found sufficient. 171 35   

Magistrates.  
Magistrates may not take away the power of the whole Church from her, in choosing Officers, but may only rectify her choice. 51. 17  
Magistrates possessed with a false information about the cause of the Replyers coming over. 183. 30  
Magistrates give but a conditional consent to the Replyers settling. 185. 9   

Ministers.  
The latin copy of the writing of the 5 Dutch Ministers together with the translation. 126   

Objections.  
Objections against the people's choosing their own Ministers answered. 45. 6   

Occasion.  
To be an Occasion only of an evil is not blame worthy. 199. 27   

Offence.  
To give an Offence is sinful. 143 11.   

Opposition.  
Opposition among the persons whom the Church desired (objected by the Answerer) examined, and the persons vindicated. 57 12   

Order.  
Order about having one that can speak Dutch, may be attributed more to the Answerer than the Magistrate. 91. 5  
Of the Order agreed upon in the Consistory, and the insufficiency of it for accommodation. 177. 13.  
The enlarging of the Order as much as just nothing. 190. 1●  
An Order agreed upon to be made by the Elders, hindered by the Answerer. ●16. 13   

Pamphlet.  
What a Pamphlet is. 8. 8   

Parents.  
Parent's sin a sufficient ground in some cases to keep their children from baptism. 167. 5   

Parker.  
Mr. Parker defended. 74. 7 

praised for his great worth. 74 19  
What works he was author of. 74. 22    
Mr. Parker's judgement about the power by which the Church should be governed. 240. 21 

Against the Answerer. 242. 6     

Passions.  
Passions are then strongest when reason is weakest. 6. 10   

Pastor.  
Pastor's proper work to feed a flock already gathered. 291. 37  
To compel Pastors to perform a ministerial act to them who are not members, is to confound the Apostolical and Pastoral office. 280. 22  
What governing belongs to Pastors. 298. 10  
It is lawful for Pastors in some cases to flee. 103. 2   

Patronages.  
Patronages whence they came in, and the evil which followed upon them. 41. 15   

Potts.  
Mr. Potts grieved with promiscuous baptising. 125. 23   

Praising.  
Self Praising not always unlawful nor vain. 25. 24  
An evil end ofttimes in praising, 9 2.   

Preservation.  
Self Preservation must not be with calumniation. 12. 32   

Prove.  
To Prove belongs to the Answerer, for diverse reasons. 32. 30   

Protestation.  
Protestation with the Answerers observations upon it reviewed. 317.   

Provocation.  
Threefold Provocation added unjustly. 325. 1   

Quaere.  
Threefold Quaere in the Protestation, with the Answerers observations reviewed. 322. 4   

Reformation.  
As Reformation increased the right of the people more pleaded for. 41. 36   

Reply.  
A Reply upon the 4 answerers which the Answerer calls his comforts. 34. 26   

Replyer.  
Replyers writings unjustly called complaints. 10. 32  
Replyer unjustly charged for nourishing contention. 15. 8  
Replyer vindicated about a writing left by him for which the Answerer blames him. 23. 28. & 99 2. 

justified in the matter of the writing. 201    
4 things in the Replyers defence about his writing considerable. 23. 29.  
Replyer freed from a 4fold charge laid upon him about his industry in keeping the Church together. 25. 13  
Replyers writing sent to the Classis vindicated from the imputation of the Answerer. 33. 18  
Replyer defended about faults in his writing. 72. 16  
Replyer vindicated from the cavil of the Answerer about the word Always. 96. 15.  
Replyer justified about his coming over to Amsterdam. 101. 6 

About an authentic testimony which he is charged to have wanted. 102. 20  
About the resignation of his Pastoral charge. 106. 8  
Concerning his knowing of differences. 112. 8  
Concerning his intention of coming over but for 3 or 4 months, and seeking of the place. 112 24    
Replyer justified about writing diverse conferences, which he had with the Answerer. 124, 1  
Why the Replyer rested not in the judgement of the 5 Dutch Ministers about promiscuous Baptising. 174. 4  
Replyer vindicated about his falsely supposed consenting to the writing of the 5 Dutch Ministers. 

And from an accusation of withdrawing his consent. 187. 21    
Replyer cleared concerning his pretended preaching in a private house. 197. 1. and 275. 20 

Cleared from fault in desisting from it. 277. 22    
Replyer cleared about his journeying out of town before the Sacrament. 200. 24  
Replyer justified in his three writings. 202. 26  
Replyer freed from the Answerers quarrelling at these words he did not desire me. 204. 27  
Replyers opinion concerning the Classis the same with Dr. Ames. 224. 36  
Replyer cleared from Schism. 248. 32.  
Replyers judgement concerning the trueness of Churches, expressed in Dr. Ames words. 281 19  
Replyers opinion against promiscuous baptising, not built upon grounds of separation. 280. 20  
Of the right by which the Replyer did communicate in the Lord's Supper. 288. 20  
Replyer refuteth not himself, when he professeth readiness to baptise their infants who have membership elsewhere. 292. 34   

Request.  
Threefold Request in the Protestation, with the observations of the Answerer, reviewed, 324. 25   

Schism.  
Schism, what it is, & how taken. 26. 9  
Five things about Schism. 26. 22   

Scripture.  
Scripture ought to be the rule to try all things by. 13. 20  
All things agreeing with Scripture are old, though they may appear new. 13. 33  
Texts of Scripture answered by the Answerer, reviewed by the Replyer. 286. to 316 

Acts 20.28. reviewed. 288 9  
Col. 4.17. reviewed. 296. 19  
1. Peter 5.2. reviewed. 297. 16  
Ro. 14.5.23. reviewed. 299. 5  
Act. 11.21.26 reviewed 304. 32  
Gen. 17.10. reviewed. 306. 8  
Rom. 4.11. reviewed. 306. 32  
Acts 2.39. reviewed. 310. 11  
1. Cor. 5.12. reviewed. 311. 37     

Secession.  
Secession from a Church twofold. 26. 27   

Shepherds.  
Shepherd's combination a good emblem of the combination of Ministers. 297. 29  
The reason of Shepherd's combination. 297. 30   

Speech.  
Speech must have two properties. 2. 8   

Sureties.  
Sureties not from the beginning. 164. 14.  
Sureties can give no right to Baptism. 164. 35   

Synods.  
Abuse of Synods have caused some reverend men to speak against them. 225. 9  
Synods necessary for certain causes. 228. 11  
Power of Synods see Classis.   

Voetius.  
The judgement of Voetius about the power of the Church. 242. 36.   

Waldenses.  
Waldenses separate, & bring the right of choosing their Ministers to the Church. 41. 31   

Yea.  
The saying Yea, not sufficient to testify faith, notwithstanding the places of Scripture brought to prove it. 302. 1  
Negative argument from Scripture disabled by the Answerer in his arguing for the sufficiency of Yea. 305. 19   
FIN.   

AN APOLOGETICAL REPLY To a book called An answer to unjust Complaints etc. THE TITLE PAGE EXAMINED.  
AN answer] Every man shall kiss his lips that answereth right words, saith Solomon. 
Prov. 24.26. 3 Things required in a right answer.   
He that will answer complaints made against him, with right words, must be mindful especially of three things.  
First, for his personal qualification; that he be innocent of the particulars charged upon him. Let him make his answer, first, to his own conscience, in the sight of God, and then, 
2 Cor: 1.12.  from a good conscience bearing witness of his integrity, let him make his answer to men, as if he were making it to our Lord jesus Christ, before Angels and men, in that great day, 
Luke 12.2 Prov. 15.23. Gen. 30.3.2.  when covered things shall he revealed & hidden things shall be made known. Thus, shall a man have joy by the answer of his mouth, and shall be able to say, as jacob did to Laban, my righteousness shall answer for me in time to come.  
Secondly, for the matter of the answer; that it be true and satisfying. True, by a double conformity, both of the speech with the mind, that he speak as he thinketh, and of the mind with the thing, that he think as the thing is. Also it must be satisfying, that, is sufficient clearly to take away the strength of all the allegations produced by the Plaintiff to prove him guilty: else it is not worthy to be called an answer to complaints.  

Coll. 4.6.  Thirdly, for the manner of it; that the rule propounded by the Apostle be observed. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every one. Where it is enjoined, that our speech be well filled & well seasoned. It is well filled, when it expresseth the sanctifying graces of the Spirit, as the fruits of the earth are then full ripe when they have attained to the perfection of their kind. The best rise of a right answer is from a gracious heart, which is then declared to be a good treasure, when it sendeth forth good things, & to be full of goodness, when good speeches flow from the abundance within, & to be filled with the Spirit, when the words express the delightful, 
Gal. 5.22.  and amiable sweetness of those fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, and such like: 
Cant: 4.16.  which are very pleasing to Christ, (whom, for that cause, the Church inviteth to come into his garden & eat his pleasant fruits) and very delightful to good men; as the savour of that ointment, which Mary poured on the head of Christ, was to those that were in the house. Thus an answer is well filled. And it is well seasoned, when it expresseth godly wisdom, and christian prudence, or discretion, which enableth a man to observe a due proportion to the causes, persons, times, places and whatsoever circumstances are considerable. As, that harsh speeches be forborn, where a soft answer should be given, that a friend be not wounded as an enemy, nor he reviled as an abject, who should be honoured as a brother, & that the answer, which should serve to mend the garment, doth not make the rent worse.  
How much these three requisites are to he wished for in this pretended answer, the wise hearted reader, I doubt not, seethe, with sorrow, and will more clearly, when he shall have compared this Reply, and it together, in all passages. In the mean time; however, in a large acceptation of the word (as Antwoorde, in dutch, is Ander woorden) this may be called an answer: Yet, in strict and accurate consideration of it, I cannot acknowledge this to be an answer, but must say, that it will appear; 
Facile patior injuriam, si est vacua a contumeliâ Pac: Habet quendam aculeum contumelia, quem prudentes, ac viri boni diff●cilè pa ti possunt. Cic:  either to be less than an answer to the written complaints of ●he members, and to my wrighting (if by answer he mean the disproving of particulars in them) for he doth not truly & punctually relate matters, but subtly evade the discovery of them: or else it is more than an answer to the printed pamphlet, if, by answer, he mean the revenge, or the requital of one ill turn with another. for, if the publishing of those complaints, in print, was an injury (as I freely professed it to be, in my protestation) yet he should not have answered it with contumely, and that against those, who are innocent of that fact, as all are, against whom he wrighteth (except. W. B.) so that instead of an answer to clear his innocency, the Reader shall find him endeavouring to repel a less injury, by doing a greater injury; as Diogenes would tread down Plato's pride, alio fastu. But amongst Christians these things ought not so to be: much less towards fellow servants and brethrens, lest of all from the Pastor towards his flock. Jesus Christ our Lord did not thus, nor his Disciples, nor those ancient beleivers, who, for his sake, were killed all the day long. my desire and purpose, in this Reply, 
1. Pet. 2.23.  is to follow his example, who being reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered, threatened not, but committed it to him that judgeth righteously.  
To the unjust complaint.] 
A complaint is unjust in 4 cases.  A complaint is a sorrowful declaration of the thing that greiveth a man. Thus to do is not (in itself simply considered) unjust, it being founded in a principle of natural equity, allowed and warranted by all laws Divine and humane. So then, to complain of injuries is not unjust: unless it be, First, without just cause; as when the plaintiff cannot prove the charge to be true. Thus those Jews unjustly laid many grievous complaints against Paul, 
Act. 25.7 2.  which they could not prove. or, Secondly, unless the complaint be made to those, to whom, by right, the cognisance of the cause belongeth not; as when a man goeth about as a talebearer revealing secrets, 
Pro. 20.19 2. Cor. 12 20:  whether it be done in way of whispering or of backbiting. or, Thirdly, when it is done with an evil intent, more for the hurt of the party than for the redress of the grievance: as when Doeg the Edomite came & told Saul & said unto him, David is come to the house of Ahimelech; 
1. Sam. 22 9  to incense Saul against Ahimelech and David, as if they conspired against the King. In which respect David truly said of him: thou lovest evil more than good, 
Psal. 52.3  & lying rather then to speak righteousness. or, lastly, when the complaint stretcheth the injury by many exaggerations beyond and above the nature of it and maketh it seem more heinous & worse than it is; 
Scelus tu illud vocas Tubero. Cur isto nomine ista causa ad huc caruit? Alji enim errorem appellant, alij timorem, qui durius; spem, cupiditatem, odium, pertinatian, qui gravissimè; temeritatém. Scelus praeter te, ad huc nemo Cic.  as, when every infirmity is made a scandal, & every offence a crime, & every petite error a wickedness; as Tully chargeth Tubero in the case of Ligarius.  
Now it would be inquired, in which of these four respects the Answerer affirmeth the complaint (as it was delivered by the members in writing to the Consistory) to be unjust? If he say, in the first; then he must show the insufficiency of their proofs, which the indifferent reader will see that he hath not done, if he shall compare the Reply and answer together.  
If he say, the complaint is unjust in the second respect; it must be showed that the cognisance of a Church-greivance, referred to them by the members, doth not belong to the Consistory, which, I suppose, he will not undertake. If he say the complaint is unjust, in the 3. respect; their own protestation, in the conclusion of the greivances, will answer for them, that their end in taking that course, was, that some lawful course might be taken by the Elders, for the redress of those greivances, and, in case that should be neglected, to free themselves from the guilt of those evils, when they should have done their uttermost endeavours for the redress of the same. If he say; the complaint is unjust in the fourth respect, as too much aggravating the offence; the Answerer himself cleareth them thereof, in the preface of his book, where he justifyeth the harshest expressions used by the Complainants', & the very title of the printed pamphlet, which many mislike: saying, If the complaints be just, then is the title just, being framed according to the contents & special subject of the book etc. It remaineth therefore, that he find some other respect, in which the complaints may be said to be unjust; else it will be concluded that the are just, notwithstanding any thing said by him to the contrary, in that pretended answer, & that himself hath dealt unjustly in calling them unjust complaints.  
Of W. B. & of such others as have subscribed theeunto] Hear it would be inquired what copy of the complaints the Answerer meaneth? If he mean the written copy: why doth he mention only W.B. name, concealing the rest, seeing they all subscribed it as well as he? If he mean the printed copy (which I call the pamphlet;) why are the other subscribers joined with him, seeing they knew not of it before it was published, & freely expressed their dislike of it afterward? If the publishing of it only be the injury, where of he complaineth; why are the subscribers blamed, who knew not of it nor approved it? If the subscription to the written copy be the offence; what did W. B. more than the rest that he is named alone? This Riddle needeth an Oedipus. Is it, because though he be foremost in standing; yet he is the least in understanding, and by the printer of the Brownists noated to be a Simplician, as the Answerer scoffingly and injuriously declareth, in his preface? If so; no man will praise his fortitude; howsoever they may his policy, who challengeth so weak an Antagonist to the field. Or is it, that the Reader may apprehend that to be some weak jury which hath such a foreman; that so he may slight the complaint the more, for W.B. sake? If so; the Reader is abused. For, neither was the complaint subscribed by him alone, but by the rest, (many whereof the Answerer knoweth to be no Simplicians) nor were the rest induced to complain, or subscribe the complaint exhibited in Consistory, by his example or persuasion. Secondly, suppose they had been weaker men than they are: it is not safe for any man, upon such a praejudice, to slight their complaints, seeing the Lord doth otherwise, who saith, For the oppression of the poor: 
Psal. 12.5.  for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise (saith the Lord) I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. In which last word [puffeth at him] is expressed both the pride and policy of those that oppress the poor and needy. And commonly circumventing wits, and scornful spirits go together; 
Prov. 29.8. Ephes. 6.9 Prov. 24.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian. de Sect.  so Solomon joineth them, in a Proverb, saying, Scornful men bring a city into a snare. And as there is not respect of persons with God, so, for men, it is not good to have respect of persons in judgement. which even the Areopagites discerned by the glimmering twilight of nature, & therefore gave judgement in the night, that they might not observe the persons of the speakers, but attend to the things spoken by them. And the Christian reader, I hope, will be ashamed that the best of the heathen should go beyond him, in such a point of justice.  
Also an answer to Mr. J. D.] As he did answer them, so he hath answered me also, that is, boath alike untruly, unfitly, insufficiently: yet, with this difference, that upon me alone he hath spent more bitterness and gall, then upon them altogether; which the understanding Reader will easily apprehend to be an argument of his guilt and weakness to manage his cause, in those passages that concern me. For commonly, when reason and judgement is unable to help, than the passions grow tumultuous, and rise up disorderly, at least, to make a noise, with impotent clamours, as bores and peasants sometimes confusedly assemble, and, with hideous shoutings, think to affright the enemy, or to give others occasion to think they have the victory. But here I have a few questions to propound.  
1. Quaere. Why this Answerer mentioneth my name, in the title page of his book? Is it, because I am mentioned in the printed pamphlet? But, he knoweth, I protested against that, in print, in favour of him, though he hath ill requited me.  
2. Quaere, Why he wrighteth it so at length, both there, and throughout his whole book? Is it to ingratiate himself with any, by opposing me?  
3. Quaere, concerning the matter of his answer: 1. whether any report of passages made by me, in that wrighting, be proved untrue by him? 2. Whether the Scriptures alleged by me be faithfully handled by him, or do not serve fully to the purpose, for which I produced them? and whether all of them be alleged by me against the baptism of some infants, as he pretendeth? and why he answerth not other passages, in that letter to the Classis, but only insisteth upon 2. or 3. texts of Scripture, in the pretended purpose whereof he abuseth his Reader? and what end he had in pretending to answer, in such a manner, my protestation, which was made in his favour?  
4. Quaere. Why he compelleth me thus to contest with him, in print, seeing, he knoweth, I have declined all contention with him, by writing, or word?  
5. Quaere. Why he bringeth others upon the stage also, both Reverend ministers (dead and far absent) and the Elders of his own Church, when he pretendeth only to answer W. B. and I. D? If he say, the Complainants' mentioned their names; who knoweth not, how easily and fairly he might have declined any speech about them, at least, 
Sect. 5. p. 28. Sect. 6. p. 32. Sect. 28. p: 76. 77.  tending to their reproach, notwithstanding that? Yea, de factô, he hath declined the same, in the cases of other men. Why might not alike answer have served, concerning those also?  
6. Quaere, Why, seeing he would answer me, without cause, in print, did he not answer my threefold wrighting, by itself, or refer me to the answer of the complaints, or the Complainants' to the answer of my wrighting, in cases parallel and coincident, but so implicateth and involveth the one in the other, that he compelleth me to reply upon almost his whole book? His answer to these I expect, in his reply.  

The preface examined.  
IN examining the preface, I may not omit to acquaint the Reader with two subtle insinuations, whereby (if he be not forewarned of them) he may easily and at unawares be causelessly praejudiced. 
Two subtle devises.   
The first is an old trick of Sophistry, called a fallacy of the composition. For, pretending to answer two wrighting (the one made by me, the other made and subscribed by divers well affected members of his Church) he so confoundeth them with a book published by W. B. (which in my printed protestation I called an injurious pamphlet) as if those wrighting, and this printed book, 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 us to be authors of the pamphlet? For which cause, let the judicious Reader be entreated to understand, that a difference must be made betwixt that pamphlet and those wrighting. For the printed book (wherein also those wrighting are contained) I called a pamphlet; not in respect of those 2. wrighting (considered as written for private use) but in ●espect, of the joint printing and publishing of them, in form of a book, with such a title and postscript, and, in this respect only, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia implet omnia loca  it is properly called a pamphlet: because, by this mean, 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 deal with the authors of it: myself have protested against it, in print, and all the Subscribers (except W. B.) disclaim it. But if he will answer the wrighting; let him deal fairly with us, and not join us with the authors of the pamphlet, nor abuse the Reader by telling him of a first and second part of the pamphlet, but profess to deal with the wrighting, which he shall find me ready to defend, so far as concerneth my part.  
The second is a common practice of subtle Orators, whose custom 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 persuade 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 been the strong motives, whereupon these wrighting were made, whether by them, or me. The untruth of which suggestions will the more appear, if we single out some persons whom, by name, he thus reproacheth.  
And first (not to speak of the printed pamphlet, nor of any that had a hand in it (which both they and I disclaim) I will clear my own purpose, in that threefold wrighting, whereof he speaketh. As for my renown and fame for learning and gifts 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 politic devise of his to, join the Classis with himself, for his own advantage; as if my wrighting were intended against them, where as I have all ways professed my reverend esteem of them, as also I did in those three wrighting mentioned by him, which were not at all intended, nor framed against them, as he misinformeth the Reader; only I do justly bewail two things. 1. their credulity, that they have suffered themselves to be abused so much, by misinformations, and that, from thence, they have been plunged, more than 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 choice & enjoyment of men, whom they unanimously desired for theyre Pastors, without giving them due satisfaction the equity 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 miscarriage, without condemning all use of Classes and Synods.  
Secondy. Whereas he saith, that, 
Fallacia non causae. ut causae.  being discontented that my calling amongst them did not succeed, I had an hand in writing 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 discontent did not cause me to wright (as appeareth in that I did forbear writing 6 months after he had hindered my settling there) but the clearing of mine innocency 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 saith, that coming nearer to the Brownists in this question about Baptism, then to us, it is therefore the less marvel etc. I answer. 1. Himself, in divers places of his book, freeth me from any such affection to the Brownists, as might cause me to wright against him, in favour of them. Therefore herein he contradicteth himself. 2. nearness to, or distance from the Brownists is but a false rule whereby to try truth or error. If the Brownists be nearer to the truth, in this matter, than 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 error? Will he say, the Brownists hold no truth? or, that we may not lawfully hold the truth with them, that it may appear we differ from them? or, that no man can wright in defence of any truth which they hold, without siding against him? 3. It would be known whom he meaneth by [us] when he saith, nearer to the Brownists then to us? 1. If he mean the Elders of his Church; his own words will contradict himself. For of them he saith; these three have divers times professed themselves to be of the same opinion with Mr. D. touching the Baptism of infants. 
Sect. 23. Ans. 5.1. p. 63.  If he mean the subscribers, which, with the Elders, are the best part of his Church; their complaint against him, for this difference, showeth how far they differ from him herein. 3. If he mean the Classis; the wrighting of the five Dutch Preachers, which, he saith, was by all the Ministers of the Classis, 
Sect. 19  with one consent, afterwards approved and confirmed, will witness against him. For there they thus express themselves. We do greatly approve of his good Zeal and care of having some precedent private examination of the parents and sureties of these Children in the Christian religion. 
Sect. 12.  And a little after. We do so judge that this fore said examination be ordained, so far as may stand with the aedification of the English Church. Thus far they agree wholly with me; how soever in the words following (being abused by causeless jealousies and suspicions suggested by the Answerer,) they concluded, according to his mind.  
Fourthly when he saith, that; I had an hand in writing complaints against him. I answer, 1. If he mean my two first wrighting to the Classis: they were a brief narration (by way of account) of passages between us, that the Classis might rightly understand those passages, about which they had been misinformed. 2. If he calleth that my third writing shown 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 defence of my innocency against misreports.  
The same imputation of Brownism he layeth upon those members of his own Church, which subscribed the complaints; but how unjustly the Reader may easily apprehend. 
Sect. 31. p. 87.  For those of them (who were such before) have, in their joining with his Church, left their separation, as he saith, and divers of them, he knoweth, were never of them, nor do hold with them, in the point of Separation as it is urged and practised by them; Therefore, I hope, the wise-hearted Reader will not suffer himself to be prejudiced against them, or me, or what we shall wright, or have written, by such vain pretences, whereof they are able and ready to aquitt themselves in print, as may appear, in due time,  
Whereas, upon occasion of the title of the pamphlet generally disliked by the complainants, he saith, As is the one, so is the other. If the complaints be just, them is the title just, if the title be a vile title, them is the book 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 shown. 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 been expressed) is an unjust thing, when the complaints might justly be exhibited, as they were.  
Besides, they, that condemn the title of the pamphlet, do condemn the whole title page, which they condemn for the misapplication of Scriptures to this case, and too much harshness of language. Because they hope, and so do I, that these actions, whereof they complain, do proceed, but from error 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 justified, by many, than we wish it should, considering his eminency in the Church.  
Whereas he saith, I find no just ground that these opposites bring for their complaints, nor any due proof of their many reproofs. If 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 appear that he hath not so much cause of comforting himself against their allegations, as, from my heart, I wish he may have. That which he addeth concerning the single uncompounded policy, whereof Mr. jacob speaketh, shall be examined in its due place here after, when he striketh at the same man again, upon as little occasion given him, whom yet he might have spared being dead, and so not able to answer for himself. At least; he might have freed him from suspicion of Brownism, whose defence of the Ministers and Churches of England, against Mr. Fr: johnson, is extant in print, concerning whom more hereafter.  
In the mean time, I must profess, that I do not find, in examining the complaints of the members, or in their private speeches, that they are opposite to the Answerer, further than himself opposeth their enjoyment of that liberty and power, which himself (in express words) acknowledgeth to be due to the Church. From which his practice so far differeth, that it seemeth to sweigh his judgement, in some particulars, a contrary way▪ wherefore let the Answerer agree with himself and reconcile his own judgement and practice, and, for aught I know, the opposition between him and these members will cease. It had been a work, both more comfortable to himself, and profitable to the Church, for him to have done right to the Church, rather than to have justified an injury, and to have stopped the course of contentions, rather than to have opened the sluices thereof, by publishing this book, and persisting so stiffly in an unwarrantable way.  
Nature and Religion, I confess, teach and warrant self preservation, but neither of them warrant a man, under pretence of answering for himself, to calumniate others, and, under pretence of a defensive war against enemies, to invade & spoil confederates and friends. Nature teacheth particulars to lose themselves in promoving the general good, as the fire to descend and the water to ascend, rather than there should be a Vacuum, And Religion teacheth Christians, 
1. Cor. 6.6▪ 7.8  rather to suffer wrong, then, either to do wrong, or, by too contentious righting a man's self, to expose our Profession to reproach. Both Nature and Religion ratify this Maxim. Salus populi suprema lex esto. The good of many must be preferred before our private benefit or content, How defective the Answerer hath been herein is too manifest. But I leave that and spare him.  
Only, For a conclusion, to prevent another prejudice, I do earnestly entreat the Christian reader to beware how he suffer himself to be carried away with any man's confidence, though he profess a readiness to suffer reproach for his opinions, knowing, that it is not the suffering, but the cause that maketh the martyr. Never theles; far be it from me to approve any that reproach men with their errors, when they seek the truth, in love of it, seeing we all know but in part, and we are ignorant of more than we know, by far: 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 himself a way of Religion, according to the fancies of men, how grave and learned soever they seem 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 profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
2. Tim. 3.16.17.  for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, being throughly furnished unto all good works. From which rule who soever straggle, 
jer. 18. ●●.  they are truly and fitly said to stumble in their way from the ancient ways, and what soever Ecclesiastical Constitutions or customs, received in the Church, have not warrant from the Ancient of days, in this word, 
Dan. 7.9. 1. john. 2▪ 7.  which is the old Commandment which we had from the beginning, they are but new forms though they have a show of antiquity, by their long continued use: in which sense, 
josu. 24.2  the Idolatry of the Pagans is said to have been of old time. On the other side; what soever form of Churches and Church government is warranted by this rule, though it may seem new to men, because they never knew it before, yet it is not new, in itself; as it was no new-fanglednes in Nehemiah to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, 
Nehem. 8.17.  though it had been out of use from the days of joshua 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 counsel. I will conclude the examination of the preface, 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 jesus Christ: that we may with one mind and one mouth glorify God even the Father of our Lord jesus Christ! Amen.   

The answer to the first and second Section examined.  
HAving examined the title, and the preface; we now come to examine the particulars of the complaint, so far as it hath pleased this Answerer to interest me therein, by making use of my name, which he doth, not covertly, but writing 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 do, but also needlessly, and without provocation: as if his desire were deeply to imprint an evil 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 own ways, and the way of truth, they would then have left the complaint upon themselves and upon the proceed 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. contentiousness charged upon me unjustly.   
Beginnings are ominous. Things ill begun seldom end well. It is much to be suspected that he intendeth to quarail, who so needlessly 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 occasion, in this one section, to make mention of me seven times, and to wright my name at its full length, every time. His own 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 confess, and give 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 laid to my charge. An heinous offence, if the accusation be true, but, in him, a grievous 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 evil so contrary to my disposition, and the practice of my whole life, especially, since my public employment in the Ministry. I was about seventeen years a preacher in London, and lived there almost ten years in a pastoral charge. There I had much converse with Ministers of differing judgements, and with people (almost of all conditions and degrees) of different affections, and ways, being employed, both in public 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 have been, I say not, detected, but so much as rationally suspected of contentiousness, in mine own country? And is it probable, that change of air, should work 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 coming, this Answerer, with the Elders, entreated me to help them in their extremity. I did it willingly, preaching twice every Lordsday, till he was able, and, after that, continued to assist him once a day, whilst he desired it. In that time, which was above 5 mouths, I applied myself 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 appear between 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 judgement 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 avoid 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 means of accommodation propounded by me would not succeed, and that nothing would satisfy, but comformity to that unwarrantable custom, I had desisted sooner: as I did, when it appeared so to be. After I desisted from pulick work; I was silent, till he began to contend against me in public, after he had procured the cessation of my public labour, and I had sat still, in private, above four months, doing what good I might without offence, and ceased from that also, so soon as his discontent publicly appeared against it. When I ceased from the public work; 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 speak, they are for war? 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 afternoon I am ashamed to wright, but too many, who then heard him, know. When thus I was unkindly used in public, and saw that my private dwelling there was a matter of offence 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 note for his pietey and constant confession of the faith against the Arrians, under the Emperor Valens, yet) not being able to bear the esteem which Basill had with the people, was drawn, by a spirit of Envy, into an opposition against that holy man, and laboured, by word and deed, to hinder his settling there, and the Nazareans and 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 own peace, in a solitary condition, then to contend with Eusebius, de ambitione. Yet afterwards the same Eusebius gave way to the settling of Basill, in that place, having use of his help in some disputes, and they conversed together lovingly. And the reason is rendered 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 own good, and the Churches. In the mean space, I proceed to examine what reason or pretence the Answerer doth bring for this accusation.  
Whilst those roots of bitterness, 
Ans: p. 7.  and evil weeds of unjust complaints are watered by him: whiles he himself, 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 writing 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 roots of bitterness and evil 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 evil weeds. 2. that the wrighting, which was secretly spread abroad, as he saith, is not blame worthy.  
First, There is no herb in the garden, but there is some weed in the field like it, & the similitude is such between them, 
1. 1. That theyre complaints are on evil weeds. jude 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 herb whose roots should be watered. It is a contending for the faith, a striving against sin. There is a bad contention, a weed which must be pulled up by the roots. 
Heb. 12.4. A two fold contention.  It floweth from pride, and raiseth factions in the Church, and seditions in the Common wealth, of such are the instances produced by the Answerer against the complainants, upon supposal that their complaints are unjust, which if we shall deny, and evince the contrary, his calling them roots of bitterness and evil weeds, and his comparing them to the Rebellious Israelites rising up against Moses and Aron, 
The 1. Section examined.  to those sons, by the Mothers' side, that were angry with the Church, and to those of jerusalem, that stoned the Prophets, and to those contentious Corinthians that were factiously addicted to Paul, Apollo's, and Cephas, and went to law amongst heathen, and to those judaizing Galathians, who troubled the Church (as he contumeliously rhethoricateth in the first Section) will prove a notorious slander, and the more grievous, if it shall be found to be a calling of good evil, and because it extendeth to the injury of so many. I appeal to the Answerer. Do these complainants' murmur against God 
(a) Exod. 16.8.  through discontentment with God's allowance 
(b) Exod. 17.6.7. ? or with God's appointments 
(c) Exod. 17.2. ? or with God's judgements upon others 
(d) Numb. 14.41. ? or through distrust in difficult cases 
(e) Numb. 14.1.10. ? or, do they not complain of man, who doth deprive them of that spiritual food which God alloweth them, and setteth up humane customs, and self-will against God's appointments in his Church? whereby they want the help of those whom they desired to go before them, and lead them through the wilderness (not backward into Egypt, but forward) towards the heavenly Canaan. Is there no difference between 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 speech with the party alone hath proved fruitless) and a proud casting off the ordinance of God, through discontent, as those rebels in Israel did? between heretics, Idolatours and such kind of Seducers, that, under the name of the Church (whose sons they profess themselves to be) fight against the Church, and these, who, being a part of Christ's flock, desire faithful shepeards' that they may be kept from straggling? between those, who killed the Prophets and stoned those that were sent unto them, and these, who account their feet beautiful, who bring the glad tidings of peace, and strive (as for life) to enjoy 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, whilst 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 ourselves, but also inclineth us to fight against others, though spiritual, and that upon carnal and worldly respects; yet, I demand, do these complainants, so contend for the enjoyment of those men, whom they mention, as those Corinthians did about Paul, Apollo's, & Cephas? Do they look upon these men so, as to have the truth of God in respect of their persons, and to receive the word for their authority sake, as they did? Did these terminate their 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 faithful Pastor known to themselves, and approved of, and desired by them, and of their own Nation, if it may be, and, as much as may be, without drawing men from the service of other English Congregations in these Countries, so long as some fit and free men may be had, either immediately from England, or else resident in these parts. Hereupon they desired Mr. Parker: If they may not be so happy as to enjoy 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 faithful one, whom, with joint consent, they shall choose. Yet, if sufficient reason be not given them, why they are deprived of all, or any of these; they find themselves aggreived, and complain to the Consistory of their own Church. And, is this such a Piaculum, a crime, as this Answerer intimateth it to be? And is there no difference between the Christian Corinthians going to Law amongst the Heathen (neglecting such means of composing differences as might be had in the Church) and these men seeking help from the Church for redress of the Church-greivances? That they had cause to complain, will appear in the reply to the Answerer, in the following Sections, and that, upon such cause, in case of obstinacy, on his part, they had power to have proceeded further than they did, in that complaint, who knoweth not? The strange liberty that the Answerer taketh in misapplying the Scriptures alleged by him, upon this occasion, should be a matter of sorrow to the godly Reader, and of humiliation to himself.  

2. The Answerer is the cause of contention, 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 himself (and it is due to him in respect of his office) should have caused an yearning of bowels in him towards his Children, that cried for milk, when the Nurses, whom they desired, were thrust out of doors. At least, when they cried for bread, he should not have given them a stone, and beat them instead of feeding them. Suppose the Children were froward; A little fatherly indulgence, in granting their desire (it not being for their hurt, but for their good) should have been used to still & quiett them. David would have rebellious Absalon gently entreated 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 household that allowance of provision, which their heavenly Father afforded his family. But it may be, they did that too contentiously; It will not be found so, upon trial, no, not in this act of exhibiting their greivances in their own Consistory, if all the earnest intreatyes, large offers for the poor, & other means 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 despair of being accommodated, to their content, be equally and judiciously considered. And, if the contention of Children be indeed grievous to his fatherly spirit, how easily might he have prevented it, by obeying that Apostolical Canon, 
Coll. 3.21.  Fathers provoke not your Children, lest they be discouraged?  

2. By the place.  The place, where he liveth, and his relation to that Church should have warned him, standing upon his watch tower, and espying so many enemies environing them on every side, to have interposed seasonably and strenuously for the prevention of intestine dissensions, 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 several parties. And yet, even they, who seem herein to adhaere to him, do it not, out of approbation of his carriage in this particular, nor out of opposition against me, whom themselves profess to desire, but out of personal enmity against some of the Complainants', who appeared most to labour for my settling there, and therefore willingly they laid hold of this opportunity, and served themselves of it, for the more plausible and undiscernible 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 styling themselves burdened and oppressed, which is, as if a Father should beat his children till they cry, and then beat them again for crying. How unjust this passage is, will appear in the examination of the ensuing Sections. 2. For calling themselves members of the English Church. How unreasonable this reproof 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 trow not. For the denomination may follow the better part, though it be not the greater, as a man hath his denomination from his reasonable soul, though the unreasonable body be the greater part, and a corn field is denominated, not from the chaff which is the greater, but from the corn, which is the better, though the lesser part. I will not stand to inquire of the Answerer what necessity there is that Elem, in Psal. 58.1. should signify a faction in the Church, seeing the word (which signifieth binding in a sheaf or bundle) may note 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 than to the latter sense? Nor will I return upon him his descant on jonath Elem rechokim, in the title of psal. 56. My desire & purpose was to continue (as I went on, 4, or 5 months) in a patiented silent bearing of my personal greivances, 
Eph: 4.2.3.  forbearing him in love, & endeavouring to keep 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 deaf man, 
Psal. 38.13.14.  heard not, and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth. And so had remained to this day, if I had not been, by unkind importunity compelled to these Apologies, first in private, and now, in public.  

3. By the time.  Thirdly, His descant upon the time of their wrighting may easily be answered. 1 by concession. 2 by retortion?  
First, By concession; that the year 1634. was a time of much affliction of the Churches in Dutchland, & therefore might seem 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 amiss. 2. That, on the day of the month, when they presented their complaints, his maid died.  
But they say. 1 they knew not if it, 2 neither did he keep private (as mourners use to do) but came to the Consistory, 3 neither did they apprehend the death of that maid 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 been so; they conceive, that private griefs should not hinder the redress of public greivances, and that, by the sense 〈…〉 own sorrow that day, for the loss of one maid servant, he might have been more affected with compassion towards them who had many days mourned for the loss of more than one Pastor, whom God had, by his providence, brought among them, & almost cast upon them.  
Secondly, The same observation may be retorted upon himself, both for the year, and the month. 1. The year, wherein his book was printed, was the year 1635. A time, when, not only the Churches of Dutchland were in great affliction, but also the Churches in the Low Countries were in great danger (the Prince of Orange being then in Brabant, and the Armies in some distress, by want of victual) a time, wherein, by special order from the State's General, all Churches were called upon to meet one day in a week, in public, to hear the word preached, and to pray for the good success of the Prince, and of the Armies. 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, etc. 2 The month, wherein it was published, was june, or july, a time when I was very weak, having been, not long before, very near unto death, at which time he laboured importunately with the Classis for their consent to the printing of this book. But from that death, and from dangerous relapses afterwards into weakness and distemper the Lord in mercy recovered me, even when man cruelly added sorrow to my affliction. But I will aggravate that no further.  
How well he performeth his purpose of not doing the least wrong to those, against whom he wrighteth, will appear to the indifferent Reader, in the examination of the following Sections, in which, if he had dealt accordingly, I might have been happily freed from this unpleasing task, whereby I am now unwillingly detained from more profitable employments, being compelled hereunto, by necessity, for the justifying of the truth: wherein I do humbly beseech the God of truth (who also is Love) to assist me with the spirit of truth and of love, that I may be enabled in every passage to declare the truth in love! To conclude: I leave it to the Read 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, unless, 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 themselves. So much be noted for the vindication of their complaints.  
Secondly, Now, being called, 
See more concerning that writing in Sect. 22. 4 Things in defence of my wrighting. 1.  I must clear the writing left by me from his unjust intimations against it. For which purpose I will declare four things.  
First, that the wrighting (qua tale) is not to be blamed. Suppose I had complained; Is it unjust to wright down a man's complaints? Then, down with all courts of justice, 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 writing. Again, a man wrighteth with more deliberation, and a more full recollection of his thoughts, than he speaketh, and so with more strength, as the scattered beams of the Sun heat more intensely and vehemently, being united in a burning glass. And, lastly, I would have added that a man wrighteth with more composedness of mind, and a better temper of spirit, than he usually speaketh, and so with more solid judgement, the passions being somewhat quieted and allayed (as the water is clear and transparent, after the mud is settled in the bottom) but that the distempered passions appearing in the Answerer, and that in print, are a real confutation thereof.  
Secondly, Neither was the secret spreading of the writing a fault, but rather an Argument of my tender care of his reputation, that I desired that matters between us should not be divulged, but only declared where it was necessary, for their satisfaction, who had been praejudiced against me, by untrue reports of passages. Or, if the delivery of a wrighting to a friend or two, in mine own defence, was to be blamed; what shall be said to him, 1. Who provoked me thereunto, both by private suggestions, and by public injuries? 2 Who himself 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 month also he had revived contention in public, after I had sat down quietly almost 5 months) and with this he sent enclosed a copy of the wrighting of the 5 Ministers, which I never did, because I took it to be a private wrighting, not to be communicated, without their consent.  
Thirdly, Neither was that writing a complaint, (if actions be denominated from their ends) but rather an Apology, or true defence of my innocency (against untrue reports about my letter to the Classis, and about the question concerning promiscuous baptising of all that are presented, by whom soever, and about passages between the Answerer and me) being frequently importuned by some friends to give them mine answers to such objections, that they might be enabled 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 blamed; He that complaineth? or he that gave the cause? let the Reader judge.  
Fourthly. Here is an old fallacy, 
Non 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 seen, 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 roots? So much shall suffice for the vindicating of myself from the imputation of contentiousness, and of my wrighting, from the censure of watering evil weeds of unjust complaints.  
Ans. He saith of our Church: had he not exercised much patience and industry, it would certainly have fallen from me etc. But as he doth vainly praise himself, etc.  
Here is a 4 fold charge laid upon me, with bitterness enough. 
Reply. 4. Things unjustly charged upon me.  1. Vain selfe-praysing: 2. Wronging him, and the Church. 3. Folly and vain Credulity, 4. Diminishing of the grace and power of God. And for what? Because I said, If I had not exercised much patience and industry, the Church would certainly have fallen from him. I will speak something to every one of these severally.  
To the first. It is no vain selfe-praysing to say so. 
The first charge replied upon. 1.  For it attaineth its end, (finem operis, & oporantis) For it showeth, 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 speech: and it tended to God's glory, and to the honour of the Gospel, that I should declare my actions to be comely & to be according to that virtue, 
Phil. 4.8.  praise, and good report which we are commanded to think of, which was the end of the speaker. 2. Nor is all selfe-praysing unlawful, if it arise not from self-seeking. As when the report is true, and uttered in way of testimony to the truth, the case requiring it. All which requisits do concur in this speech. 
2. The second charge replied upon   
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 needlessly made, but, upon constraint, to declare so much for the clearing of mine own innocency. Nor doth he, nor can he disprove any thing spoken by me, in that particular.  
Secondly not to the Church. For: neither do I speak of the body of it, indefinitely, without exception (but of the better and most considerable part of it) nor doth my speech 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 briefly consider the ordinary uses of the word Schysme, in the Church, which signifieth, 1. sometimes such a voluntary and unjust secession from the Church, 
1. Io. 2.19  whereby the Unity of it is broken. 2. sometimes such a dissension in the Church, whereby, not the Unity, 
1. Cor. 11.18.  but the peace is broken: In which of these senses doth the Answerer use the word in this place? If in the latter; they are Schysmatickes (according to the judgement 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 Unity. Chameron de Eccles. de Schysm. pag. 395. 3. Nor concluded to be a schysme. Cartwr: Reply.  And so he will find it laid at his own door. If in the former; it is a wrong done to me, if he intimate (as he seemeth to do) 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 truly affirm to be no Schysme, nor themselves Schysmatickes, for so doing, though the unity be broken.  
Secondly, Every secession from a true Church, is not a breach of unity: for there is a negative secession as well as a positive one. And the former may be lawful, 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 Catholics which maintained the faith, of the Nicene Council, through affection to their teachers (of whom they were unjustly deprived) severed themselves into several companies: and, there upon demands, will the Answerer say that these meetings were Schysmaticall? And then answereth, If he do; 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. Under Arcadius the Emperor, a great Schysme was raised in Constantinople, whereof Socrates speaketh somewhat, but Sozomen much more. Who was the author of that Schysme? Were those Orthodox christian's (Bishops, Presbyters, and people) who, being incensed by the indignity of the thing, & not being able to bear the ill usage of so learned & pious a man, as Chrisostom, then unjustly banished, assembled a part, & forsook the rest of the Church, were, I say, these blamed as men of a Schysmaticall disposition? No. the blame of it was laid upon Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria, who, out of Envy, practised against Chrisostom, & prevailed so far, that, that holy man was cast out of his Bishopric, 
Theod: lib: 3. cap: 5.  & died in banishment. And in the case mentioned out of Mr. Cartwr. (if he mean that which Theodoret noateth. Lib. 3. Cap. 5) both Theodoret and Eusebius blame not the Catholics, but Liberius for that, who, though he desired to make up the breach, yet, through his imprudence, made it worse, by too partially favouring the party of Eustathius, with neglect of Meletius. These things I note, not to encourage such dissensions (the sad event, both of the former, which lasted 35 years, & of the latter, which continued 85 years, will, (I hope) sufficiently forewarn the godly wise thereof) but to warn others (viz Pastors & Classes) to take heed, lest they, the one, by needle's opposition against those, whom the people reverence & desire for their ministers, & the other, by partial adhaering to the one party more than is meet, and equal) make themselves the authors of disturbance, & dissension in the Church, whereof they seem to complain: always remembering that of Solomon. Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad. 
Eccle. 7▪ 7.   
Fifthly, Suppose the members (whom I mean) had only, 
5. It's lawful to seek the ordinances  in a fair way, sought their dimission, seeing no hope of the redress of their greivances, & so joined themselves (without casting off communion with that, as no true Church) to some other Church, where they might be satisfied in their lawful desires; would such a joining 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 been judged Schysmaticall? This was that which I meant, & some spoke. And, is this to accuse the Church of a Schysmaticall disposition? Let the Reader judge.  

3. The third charge replied upon.  To the Third. It is not folly, nor vain credulity, much less against modesty or conscience, that I said, certainly 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 I professed to have said that prophetically, without a prophets warrant; it had been against modesty, or conscience, but when I profess to speak it but after the usual manner of all men, who account a thing, that is most probable, as certain, I am no more to be blamed then joab was, if he had said to David (in a fit manner) certainly (in stead of, as the Lord liveth) If thou go not forth, 
2. Sam: 19 7. Sect: 22.  there will not one tarry with thee this night: nor so much as the Answerer himself is to be blamed for using the same word, in a case less probable, when he saith. It is certainly a want of modesty & prudence in me etc. which I shall note more particularly, in its due place. But I think any learned man will conclude this challenge to be a mere cavil.  

4. The 4. charge replied upon.  To the fourth. I did not diminish the grace and power of God, in that speech: for what I said may stand with a due acknowledgement of God, 1, to be the supreme and principal efficient, to whom the instrument is not contrary, but subordinate & subservient (as he that saith, 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 own 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 pass, upon any man's naked affirmation, without proof, innocency itself 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 twice used) wherein he telleth the nine first, and twelve latter complainants, that Godly wisdom, and good conscience required of them all, Ans. that they should have my counsel touching such weighty matters etc.  
I am sorry that the Answerer thus discovereth his spirit, Reply. by seeking, with subtle devises, and ensnaring questions, to circumvent the innocent, the drift and aim whereof is, to entangle the Complainants', or me, if either of us attempt the answering of his book. For, if it should be said that they did not advise with me; then, he saith, their headlong and headstrong rashness was extraordinary great. If it should be said, that, they did consult with me, and I did approve of their wrighting; then, saith he, will it appear that he hath been an extraordinary author of contention. Is not this the spreading of a net and setting of grins? 
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 ways? Now, although I can sufficiently clear myself; yet I think it not expedient to gratify the Answerer so far, in this way, but will rather answer him (as our Saviour Christ did the Pharises, when they put questions to entrap him) by some other questions. How easily might the vanity of this passage, & the faultiness of his dilemma be discovered, by showing him that the disjunction is not full, and that the parts there of do 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? Again: if they had consulted with me; what necessity was there that I should express my judgement? Might I not profess that I would not answer to such questions, nor intermeddle in such matters? Again, if I did express my judgement, whether in dislike of their way, or with such cautions as the case required; were they bound to rest in mine opinion, as it was required of me to rest in the judgement of the five Ministers? Had they not liberty to examine my advice, and, upon the reasons, which satisfied them, to choose the way which they took? Lastly, If I did approve of their declaring to the Consistory, in writing, 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 that their praejudices against the Answerer were not well grounded, or the Answerer, reflecting upon his own failings, should, in humility and faithfulness, give satisfaction by amendment, in the future) would this prove me to be an extraordinary, or any author of contention? or, rather, will not it evince that I have been studious of his and the Church's peace? This net 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 urged against Mr. D. I signified unto them, at divers times, that if Mr. D. would set down any reasons from the Scripture for the maintenance of his opinion, I would (Good willing) endeavour, etc.  
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 been more punctual, in reference to passages between them, then, in this obscure & general report, it can be. 2. Whereas he seemeth to take offence at these men objecting, that nothing but customs and examples were urged against me; to prevent all mistake, I will speak something concerning both these.  

1. See Sect. 11.  First For customs,] I must confess, that whatsoever show was made of Arguments from Scripture missaplyed, or other pretended reasons (as of less useful soldiers, and weapons in lighter skirmishes) yet customs and consequences were the Triarij, and main strength of the battle, in case of hazard: these were insisted upon by every one (almost) that pleaded for this disorder, as the principal plea they seemed to have. Now, howsoever I am, and shall be always 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 God's people; yet I am of opinion, that is not lawful to do even good things only upon this ground, because it is the custom. For our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men. 
1 Cor: 2.5  But to do a thing that is not warranted by Scripture, nor good reason, 
Euseb: lib. 1. de praep. Evang. Cap. 2. & lib. 6. Cap. 8. jer: 44.17 2 King: 10.19. joh. 4.20. jer. 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 justified. For evidence whereof (not to insist upon those unnatural actions mentioned by Eusebius, for all which they might plead manner van' tland, the custom of the place, as incestuous marriages with their own mothers, in Persia, killing their dearest children upon religious respects, in Scythia, murdering their parents and kinsfolks, 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 women 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 custom 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 vain customs, abominable customs and to be taught against, and reproved, though they be the Priests customs, Howsoever, I confess, there is not the same degree of evil in all evil customs: yet, as the least commandment must not be broken, so the least evil must not be done, for any good that may come; seeing the Holy Ghost speaketh peremptorily saying. He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul but he that despiseth his way shall die. I will conclude this brief discourse of customs, in the words of Cyprian▪ Custom should not hinder the prevailing of truth▪ for custom without truth, is but the ancientness of error.  
Secondly, For examples,] 1. many examples could not be urged against me, in this case; For (not to speak of other Churches) this custom is not in some churches of these countries, they in Zealand do not so promiscuously administer baptism, as it is of me required, nor the Churches of strangers in London, or elsewhere; nor hath any wrighter of note, in print, pleaded for it, but against it divers: and renowned Scultetus freely and openly witnessed against it at Mentzes, and refused to conform to it, as I am credibly informed.  
Secondly, Suppose they could produce more examples and consent of wrighters, in defence of it, than they can; (though in matter of Suffrages, where matters pass 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 Council had concluded that no Bishop etc. should, after that time, enjoy the wives which they had formerly married, Paphnutius alone spoke against that decree, and showing marriage to be honourable, and accompanying with a man's own 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 dost dissolve the peace of the whole world? Liberius answered him. The word of faith is not diminished by my solitariness, for even heretofore also only 3 were found which resisted the edict. To conclude. might not Arianism of old, Papism of latter times, yea Turkism, at this day, weigh down truth itself, if examples should be looked upon, and the rule be neglected,  
Ans. Thirdly, whereas he would have me set down any reasons from Scripture for maintenance of my opinion.  
Reply. 
See Sect. 11. & 12.  1 It shall appear, in due time & place, that it is not my singular opinion, and that it is sufficiently warranted by Scripture, with God's assistance. 2 Yet the Answerers' demand is unaequall, and against the rule of all Courts, as well as Schools. For it belongs to him, 
Affirmanti incumbit probatio. Ulpian.  not to me to prove: 1 Because he, affirmeth it to be lawful so promiscuously to administer baptism; therefore he must prove it to be so. 2 He preacheth that my tenet is erroneous: Therefore he must prove it to be so. Let him show the text, the truth, from which it erreth, as Apollo's mightily convinced the jews by the Scriptures, 3. He practiseth it: therefore he must produce the rule which warranteth that practice, that it may appear, he hath done it in faith. 4, Lastly, he presseth it upon me to do it, and that as a condition, without which my calling is void, 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. Doth it not much concern him to prove this to be a duty, by some precept, or rule, in the Scripture, seeing I profess that I see no warrant for it? Else will not every one question the goodness of his conscience, and the truth of his peace in this particular?  
Ans. If they think Mr. D. writing which he gave to the Classis with the reasons of his opinion, might serve to convince me, and therefore infer that I am obstinate, they are far 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 business of my call; neither did I endeavour so much to show the reasons of my judgement, as the reasons for which my calling did not succeed, as divers of them expected it should. My pleading with them was more to convince them, that they could not, without injury, join with this Answerer to bind me to rest in the judgement of the 5 Ministers, then to show them the reasons of my opinion, in the controverted point.  
Secondly, what convincing power was wanting in those intimations, rather than allegations, which I gave in writing to the Classis, some other had need to manifest: for the Answerer hath not done it, who, of 20 sheets of paper, spends 18 upon personal invectives (as being a subject more suiting with his Genius) & not 2 sheets upon matters doctrinal, to satisfy men's consciences, about the soundness of his judgement, and his upright carriage in this business. And that little which he saith, how little it is to his purpose, will, I hope, appear, in its place.  
Thirdly, The trouble which he hath already brought upon his friends, and others, in the Classis, needlessly, might seem enough, that he should not put them upon more work, to answer my wrighting, which I intended only for their private use. But, if any one will undertake it, I doubt not, with God's assistance, to be able to reply, and, in the mean space, I pray the reader, that, if any such treatise be published, he will be so equal 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 show their insufficiency for that purpose: else he cannot so easily rub off the guilt of obstinacy, as he imagineth. And, if, in private discourse with him, I answered all his allegations and praetences in defence of promiscuous baptising all that are brought, so as his replies were silenced in that point, let him take heed that he have not contracted the guilt of a double obstinacy.  
In the ensuing passages, wherein my name is not mentioned, the Reader will, I suppose, easily apprehend that the Answerers' purpose was, not only to defend himself, but also to reach some blows to some body else. If I am the man he aimeth at (as who can think otherwise) I must crave leave to speak foolishly in mine own praise, 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 years old, though I can through God's 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 Schoolmaster, 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 sign of God's inward calling, unless after passages of our lives concur to strengthen that: and, if they do; 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 been better fitted, and many have not felt, at that age, who have far exceeded either of us, in fruitful labours, and profitable services for the good of the Church,  
Secondly▪ what he saith afterwards, 
Ans. 2. pag. 16. Reply.  of his not seeking the place of a Pastor till he was lawfully called. I thank 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 far I was from intruding myself for a Pastor into this place, or running before I was sent, my slow proceeding in the business, & desire of entering, upon such terms and agreements, as might stand with the peace of my conscience, and assurance of Gods calling me thereunto, do, in my silence, proclaim in the ears, and sight of all men. And had I been so hasty, in thrusting myself into the place, as he pretendeth, I should, & could have made him more work to keep me out, than I have done. Neither could they, who too much cleaved to him, have justified what they did, much less have proceeded further, in this case, if I would have interposed, in mine own right, as I might have done. But I preferred peace, before other outward advantages, and do 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 God's blessing upon his labours in his calling, and of the ample testimony which formerly hath been given to him in other places, I have considered, and could say some thing to it, and do wish, from my heart, that he may obtain a more plentiful 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 been altogether, in vain in me. His own name have the praise of his own work in me, and by me: For I am nothing. I leave it to others to say; whether even from hence, I have not some matter of comfort, in the midst of my troubles, and of joy when the chief Shepherd shall appear.  
Fourthly, Whereas he saith, 
Ans. 4. p. 17. Reply.  that whatsoever troubles have befallen him, in his calling, he did never voluntarily forsake the work of his Ministry; cannot I say the same? My labours for him, and, in other places of these countries, show that I have not forsaken the work: neither did I resign up the place I had, voluntarily, otherwise then as merchants cast their goods into the sea, in a storm: neither was it an imaginary fear of trouble, that caused me to do it, but the trouble was upon me, and, with good advice, and the consent of the congregation, I did what I did, as shall be shown 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 God's name in vain, which, I 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 cross, etc. whether he or I have most practised this rule, in these afflicting passages and events, let the story related by us boath show, and our own consciences testify, in the fight of God; yea let our several conditions, considered with the causes of these troubles (which he might have avoided 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 down some grounds for declaring the people's right, in choosing their own officers, especially Pastors. Which I will briefly express in this position.  

The power of choosing theyre minister is in the whole Church.  The power of freely choosing worthy Pastors, and refusing unworthy ones, is, by God's ordinance, in the whole Church.  
For the more full declaring thereof, I must explicate the terms, and show what I mean, 1 by the whole 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 whole body of the Church, standing of people to be taught, and governed, & of teachers, and governor's.  
Secondly, By the power of freely choosing, I mean, that no power can limit and determine them, either, in way of restraint, to hinder their enjoyment of one that is fit for them, when they have, by consent, chosen him, or, in way of compulsion, to constrain them to wave such a choice, being made by them, for the putting of some other upon them, whom they do not desire, or affect.  
In boath: 
Cipry. lib. 1 Epist. 68  I intent no other thing then the African 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, etc. The whole 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 God's ordinance. To which purpose also the Professors of Leyden, distinguishing between Election and Ordination, 
Synops. pur. Theol Disput. 24 Sect. 32. 33.  conclude, that jus pastors eligendi est penes Ecclesiam, ac proinde plebi commune cum presbyteris. Ius eos ordinandi, solis presbyteris est proprium, etc. The right of choosing their pastors is in the Church, and therefore common to the people with the Elders. The right of ordaining them is proper to the Elders.  
Now, that this Assertion may be vindicated from the reproach and suspicion of Novelty or Singularity, 
Proved 3. ways. 1. Text of Scripture. 1. Act. 1.5. v. 23.  I will reduce the proofs 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 choice of one to succeed in the place of judas being propounded by Peter, the multitude pitched upon two men, joseph surnamed lustus, and Mathias, whom they esteemed meetest for that work, 
v. 24.25.  in reference to the description which Peter had before given of the man, that might be judged fit 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 lots, which fell upon Mathias, whom thereupon they numbered with the eleven Apostles. 
v. 26.   
Here are three Actors, the Apostles calling upon the people to choose, 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 immediately which of those two, whom they had nominated, it pleased him to set apart to the Apostleship. Hence I argue, that.  
The Apostles did not choose joseph and Mathias alone, but the whole Church chose them, by consent.  
Therefore the choice of the Minister belongeth, not to some few, how learned soever, but to the whole Church.  
Ob. 1 What can be excepted against this Argument? That the people did not choose them, Ans. but desired God that he would choose 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 choice, seeing the full choice must be made of God immediately, the nature of that office so requiring. 2. He substituted no other power, under himself, 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 choice by God immediately signified in the use of lots is extraordinary, yet the suffrage of the people is ordinary. Which seeing God would not suffer to be neglected, in such an extraordinary case, much less 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 multiplied) are called together about the choice 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 choose, leaving them to their liberty of choosing him, whom they judged to be fittest for that service, 
Vers. 6.  whom having chosen, they presented him to the Apostles, and they, without gaynsaying, having prayed, laid their hands upon them. Hence I argue, in the words of the African Synod, in Cyprian, thus.  

Cypr. Epi. 68  If the Apostles would not choose, even Deacons, without the consent of the people, much less would they obtrude Pastors upon them, without their consent. For there are more & greater causes that require the Church's consent, in the choice of Pastors, then of Deacons.  
The third Text is Act. 14, where it is said of Paul, 
3. Act. 14.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and Barnabas, that, when they had, by the suffrage of the people, chosen Elders in every Church etc. In which place some translators, (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 expositors upon that place, 
2. Cor. 8.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Musculus, Brentius, Arias Montanus, Erasmus, etc. 3. contrary to the civil custom, whence that word & practice was brought into the Church: it being taken from the custom of the Athenians, in choice of their Magistrates, which they performed two ways. 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. cause. 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 between them, as is between the Election and Coronation of a King, or the choice & instalment 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 choosing was in the people, without whose consent and preceding choice, the Apostles obtruded none upon them, by theyre own 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 choice of their Pastor, 
Cartw. Reply. par. p. 32.  yet now it were pernicious and hurtful. To whom Mr. Cartwright replieth briefly, and fitly. See how unaduisedly you condemn the Churches of Geneva, of all France, and certain of the Germane Churches which keep this order, 
Idem ibid. p. 33.34.35.36.  who also in the same place fully answereth the Archbishop's five pretended differences between 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 proof of the people's right to choose their Pastor, is from the consent of times.  
First, For the first three hundred years, after Christ, to Constantine's time, Ecclesiastical histores are clear for it, without contradiction. The Ancients, in the African Synod, in Cyprians time, are express & full in this point, & they in the Council 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 people's free choice of theyre Pastor, Constantine the Emperor approved in an Epistle which he wrote ad Antiochenos.  
Secondly, After Constantine's time, the same liberty continued in the Churches, till the time of Charles the Great & Lodovicus his son, about the year 840, as Azorius the jesuit confesseth. 
Azo. part 2. li. 3. cap. 28. & lib. 6. cap. 14.  Some think that the Council of Laodicea gave some check to this power of the people in the year 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 voices, & to provide that nothing be done tumultuously, even as Paul and Barnabas where chief 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 practice of the Church. And well it may be suspected. For the Council of Constantinople, under Theodosius, 
Hist. tripart. 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 appointment of the people. Also, about the year 420, in the Council of Carthage, the consent of the people is required, to the choice of their Pastor. Also the Council of Basill, in Cardinal Cusanus, 
De concord. Cath. lib. 2 cap. 18. & 34.  concludeth to the same purpose. Rectores ecclesiae per consensum, jure divino et humano, constitui debent. The Governors of the Church aught, by God's law & man's, to be chosen by the consent of the Church. And, about the end of the sixth Century, Gregory surnamed the Great was choose Bishop of Rome by the vote of the people. Yea, above a thousand years were expired, before Pope Nicholas the second had prevailed to settle a decree that the power of choosing the Pope should be taken from the Emperor & the people (who were boath deprived of their right at once) and be only in the Cardinals, contrary to God's word, the example of the Apostles, the Canons of the Fathers, & the use of the Primitive Church, saith Banosius truly. When election was taken from the people, after the eleventh Century: 
Banos. de pol. civet: Dei & Hier. Rom: cap. 7.  the fourth Toledan Council saith, Let founders of Churches offer to the Bishop those who are to be ordained. Hence, it seemeth, patronages came in, & with them unlawful seeking of Church live by friends, gifts, service to patrons, marriages, flattery, base & unwarrantable contracts, which, whosoever readeth the Counsels & Centurioators, shall find condemned to the pit of hell, from whence they came, & to be judged as Apostasy, Simony, worse than haeresy, like the sin of Gehazi & judas, that alms may not be given out of what is gotten that way: Pope Leo the fourth calleth it a detestable wickedness: the Canon saith, 
Caus. 2 q. 3.  they are not to be accounted among the Bishops. Here I might show how many ways Satan wrought in those times, against this ordinance of Christ, & the greatness of their sin▪ who, in these days, 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. 
jer: 23.31  And therefore may justly execute upon them that threatening. Therefore they shall not profit thi●●●ple at all. 
v: 32.   
When things were brought to this sad condition, in those dark times of popery, the Churches being thus rob, & spoilt of their right, God raised up the Waldenses about the year 1161, who, discovering the hypocrisy & tyranny & idolatry of the popish Prelates, separated from them & chose Pastors to themselves, & as the light & reformation increased, in after times, the right of the people was more pleaded, by learned men in all countries, as in Germany by Zwinglius etc. 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 countries, among others, by famous junius, whose words I translate thus. 
jun: Ecclesiastus. 3.1  It is manifest that the most simple & approved way of choosing, & 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 whole Church did choose, that is, the body constituted of the presbytery & common people or multitude with equal & common suffrages. This is the just manner of Election. This (saith he) the old Church did observe sometime, until (as, through men's corruption, it comes to pass) things begun to grow worse, & to fall backward, etc. & a little after he saith. Afterwards popery so far prevailed to usurp & tyramnise 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, saith he, that barbarous ignorance, that heap of all sins, that sink of deceit, & selling the souls of men. In the conclusion, he answereth some objections; At nescit populus, dixerit quispiam. But some will say, the people is ignorant of their duty 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 divided into parts? Let them be reduced to peace, by wholesome counsel, & let them be ruled by authority of the word, and endeavours of good men, that, their minds being united and composed, they may do that which by right belongeth to them to do.  
At last, the reformed Churches did, in their public confessions, plead the people's right in this particular, and in their Canons. A particular instance of the Synod, at Middleborough in the year 1581., shall conclude this discourse of times, where it is thus concluded. Electio sit penes Ecclesiam, & fiat per suffragium, in Templo publicè, let the choice be in the Church, and be made by voices publicly in the Church. We will gather up this discourse of the consent of times into an Argument, thus.  
The choice of Ministers, by the free consent of the people, 
3. Arg.  hath been constantly practised by all Churches, in the best times since the Apostles days. Therefore it should be so now. In Cyprians time it was observed per provincias universas, as he saith, in all provinces. Azorius affirmeth the same thing and showeth that it was observed in Africa, Graecia, Spain, France, & ubique, saith 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 Keys of the Kingdom of heaven are, in some sort, given to the whole Church. Therefore the power of choosing those, whose office it shall be to use them for the Church, is in the whole Church.  
The Antecedent is clear 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 faith common to the whole Church, not concerning any buisenes proper to Ministers. And, under the Keys, all the means 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 choose the person, whom they will intrust with such weighty matters, to whom the things themselves do primarily belong. Nor is it a sufficient foundation of that phrase, that they are given to the Church for her profit and benefit, unless 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 hear the true teachers, and avoid the false ones. Therefore they have power to choose good ones and reject bad ones.  
The Antecedent is clear in john. 10.  
The Argument is without just exception. If not; let somewhat material be objected against it. Will they say? The people is rude, and cannot judge; Thus the Pharises said of old: 
Ioh: 7.49.  but did our Saviour Christ judge of them so? 
john. 7.17  I trow not. And, if it were so, it is not necessary to the election of the Pastor, that all amongst the people should be able to judge, without the helps of those that are more skilful, much less that they should do it perfectly: but they must have so much knowledge as to shun false teachers. Will they say, the people are forbidden to hear false teachers, but not allowed to depose them, & substitute others? Let such know, 
Bellar. enerv. tom: 2. cap. 2.  that when they are forbidden to hear 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 whole Church. Therefore the whole Church have power to choose their Pastors.  

1. Cor. 3.9. Ch. 4 1. 1. Pet. 5.3.  The Antecedent is clear. For all the works of Pastors are Ministerial, viz, whether they declare Christ's will to the Church; they command the Church in his name and words, not in their own, or whether they execute the will of the Church upon particular members; they do it, not in their own, but in Christ's and the Church's name.  
The Argument is good: for such a Ministry agreeth very well with this power of the people in choosing their Pastor.  
Reas. 4 The Church hath full right to preserve the truth, as its rightful possession. Therefore the whole Church have right to choose their 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 clear. For they who have power to preserve truth, have power also to preserve, in their own right, those functions which are necessary for the preserving of it: which they cannot do, unless they have power of choosing their own Ministers.  
Reas. 5 The pastoral relation concerns the whole Church: therefore the choice of the Pastor is in the whole Church.  
The Antecedent is clear, 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 debet. That which concerneth all, aught to be approved of all. Which course we see observed in civil matters, as in the choice of worthy men to stand for several Counties in Parliament. Also th● choice of officers in Corporations is done by common vote, the major part of voices carrying the election.  
Bishop Bilson, well weighing the importance of these reasons, 
Perp. govern: cap. 15. p. 339.  yielded to the equity of them, saying. Well may the people's interest stand upon the grounds of reason, and nature, and be derived from the rules of equity, and christian society, that each Church and people stand free, by God's law, to admit, maintain, or obey no man as their Pastor, without their liking-unlesse, 
P. 360  by law, custom, or consent they have restrained themselves. And a little after he saith, that the people had as much right to choose their Pastor, as the Clergy, that had more skill to judge, and he telleth papalls, 
P. 359.  having related the cursing and fight of the Bishop of Rome, till excluding boath prince and people, he had reduced the election wholly to the Clergy, 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 equity and society: what soever was from the beginning and was left by the Apostles to the Church, the same aught still to remain, and must be kept inviolable in the Church.  
But the people's interest to choose their Pastor is right, is lawful, is free, by the law of God, standeth upon the grounds of reason and nature, is derived from Christian equity and society, was from the beginning, etc.  
To his exception [unless by some law custom or consent the people have restrained themselves etc. or by their default, or abuse, the Canons, Councils, superior powers, or public laws have abridged, altered, or abrogated the same] he answereth, that our Saviour reproved the abuse of the law in the Scribes and Pharises, but took not away the least title of it. We grant, in like manner, that Custom, consent, Councils, superiors, laws may reprove, restrain and reform the disordered unrulines, and contentions of the people, in, and about their election, and that they may alter, abridge, or enlarge the manner of elections: but that any superior powers may take this right into their own hands (as he saith) from the people, or that the people, by any law, custom, or consent etc. may transfer their right, freedom, and interest given & deduced unto them by these rules and grounds, I do 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 said, 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 tied to maintain his liberty with so strong a bond, as the bond of reason & nature, of the rules of Christian equity, and of the freedom of the law of God. It is free for a man not to eat or drink this, or that, but not to eat or drink at all, and so to starve himself, it is not free: and in this case, volenti fit injuria. Husbands, parents, and masters have, by the very instinct of nature, and equity of Christ's law, freedom to provide for those that depend upon them, and so must carefully use this their freedom, & may not wholly put from themselves the care of their provision, education etc. nor give their consent to the making of any law, or to the bringing in of any custom, whereby their freedom should be restrained, or annihilated, in this point. Thus far 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 choice of the people going before? may such a minister be thought to have a lawful calling?  
Ans. Though that act of the patron be not sufficient to make him a lawful 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 parties doth often make that a lawful 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 between 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, sharply and severely charge them, that they neglect not this care of electing a fit one, and that they forbear such election of one unfit, or, if it be made, that they confirm it not, by suffering him to excercise any ministry. And, if, either the Churches round about do fail of this duty, 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, than 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 hindering a faulty election, but by admonition, which power every Christian hath in another, for his good. Nor can the Magistrate forbidden the choice, which the Church hath made or would make, unless the man, upon whom they pitch, be so unfit, either for doctrine or manners, that the making of such a choice will be wickedly and disorderly done.  
Having thus declared what we hold, de jure populi, concerning the Churches right, in the choice of their Ministers. Now we come to inquire, 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 complain of it.  
To prove that the Answerer doth not behave himself as becometh a Pastor in government, their first evidence is, Reply. that he depriveth the Church of that liberty and power, which Christ hath given it, in the free choice of their Pastor. Now a Church is as well deprived of their liberty in choosing, when the men, 
●●ply.  whom they desire, are, without sufficient cause shown to the Church, kept out, as when men are, without their approbation, obtruded upon them. They complain 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 complain of the first of these injuries, appeareth by the instances which they produce, for proof 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 choice of their Pastor, which Christ hath given them, in that they are deprived of worthy men, whom they have generally desired, but have been hindered, that, either they could not choose them, or, having chosen, could not enjoy them, and this hath been done against them, without sufficient cause alleged 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 himself. And this he endeavoureth to do divers ways.  

Pag. 18. Ans. 1.  First, by putting the blame from himself, 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 remembered that the Complainants' produce the holy records of the ancient charter of privileges which of old was granted unto particular Churches, in this case, 
Pag. 19 Ans. 4  which also the Answerer himself confesseth so clearly to warrant their claim, and to justifye this plea, that he hath, as he saith, both publicly 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 lawful calling of a Minister. and afterwards he saith, 
Pag. 22. Ans. 8.  that to deprive the Church of that liberty & power etc. must be an heinous crime, and no less than Sacrilege. 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 clear himself of slandering the very government and order of discipline established in these Churches, unless he can show, out of the Nationall Synods, that it was established, for an order in these Countries, that the Classes should have power to deprive the Churches, of the Ministers whom they desire, or have chosen, without showing sufficient cause for the Church's satisfaction: which is the grievance complained of by these sub●●ibers.  
2. If it be not true of them; the more heinous the accusation is, the more grievous the slander is, and so much the more grievous in him, who is many ways obliged to them, and whose testimony against them, will be more easily received, and firmly believed, because he is acquainted fully with all their ways, being one of them, and ordinarily in counsel with them.  
3. But, if it be true, that the Classis hath such a practice, 
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 own confession, such a Custom or Canon is contrary to Christ his ordinance, which I will express in Cyprians words. It is adulterous, it is wicked, it is Sacrilegious what soever by humane 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 seethe not the insufficiency of this defence, that, either considereth the reply to the former answer, or knoweth his power in the Consistory? But what before was said by me, in defence 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 seethe not, 
Ans. 3. Reply.  that this is a mere evasion? For, what though they exhibited not a bill of greivances, till now? It may be, they waited, in hope of reformation, or, it may be, these last passages have 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 run before: therefore it was not an ulcer. This measure did not run 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 have kept silence, if they could have brought in Mr. D. even according to this corrupt order used by us, as they complain of it: 1. Let the Reader judge, whether any others are mentioned in the complaint either, Elders, Reply, Classis, or government, but only the Answerer. Why then doth he speak in the plural 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 choice (which himself acknowledgeth to be the ordinance of Christ) how could they then have brought him in, according to this corrupt order, whereof they complain? so that, why should they not keep silence, if the cause of complaint had been removed, as, in this case, it had been?  
Answ. 4 Let his fourth answer be considered, wherein he granteth, that the free consent of the people is required unto the lawful calling of a Minister, and that by virtue 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 duty to plead for, and to stand fast in their liberty, in this particular, and that, not as a matter arbitrary, but necessary, seeing 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, complain of it. And this injury is the greater, because it reflecteth 1 not upon a singular person, but upon a Society, 2 not in civil, but spiritual immunityes and privileges, 3, Such as are not devolved upon them by the favour of earthly princes, but purchased for them by the blood of Christ. The equity of this complaint may be proved, out of the Answerers' concession, thus.  
They, who, without just and sufficient warrant, hinder that the Church cannot enjoy these Ministers whom they, with one consent, desire, do deprive the Church of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it, in the free choice of their Pastor.  
But the person complained of by these 22 subscribers doth, without, just and sufficient cause, hinder the Church from enjoying 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 choice of their Pastor.  
The Proposition himself granteth to be true, as hath been noted.  
The assumption they prove in the following Section by instances, as we shall see, in due time. The Answerer hath said nothing hitherto that may serve to weaken the truth 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 aught I have heard from themselves at any time, or now have read in their wrighting, 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 choice of their Pastor, which they claim, and the Answerer acknowledgeth to be due to the Church, by virtue of Christ's ordinance. But, I suppose, it will be granted, on all sides, that the Synods do not acknowledge any power to be due to the Magistrates, or Classis, to deprive the Church of any power which Christ hath given it, which is the grievance 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 go before in seeking out officers for themselves? That this is a mere diversion, will appear to the indifferent Reader, if he examine their wrighting, in which he shall not find any word tending that way; but rather they complain that the Elders are too much neglected by the Answerer, as will appear 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 gird at some neighbour Minister: Cuibono, he best knoweth.  
His seventh answer is no more to the purpose then the fifth, 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 divers times taught them (as he saith) the necessity of the free consent of the people, unto the lawful 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? I suppose, not.  

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

The answer to the fifth Section examined.  
IN this Section, they prove the justness 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. etc.  
Ans. Reply. If this complaint be just, it makes good the title, which these complainants give themselves, the burdened members, and well might I say, that they are over burdened with the loss of so many men so much desired by the Church. The Answerer himself saith, If the complaints be just, then is the title just, being framed according to the contents and special subject of the book. And, a little after. If this Church be deprived of that liberty and power which Christ hath given it etc. then is there cause to complain of the miserable slavery and bondage of this Church. These be his own words. What have the complainants or I said more than this? That is a burden which causeth weariness to him that beareth it. Weariness ariseth from the disproportion between the faculty and the object, hence is pain in the subject, and thence are complaints, which are more grievous, as the burden is more painful. And, as corporal burdens are made intolerable to the body, by addition of weight, so are inward burdens to the mind, by accession of aggravating considerations. And, in this case, the concurrence of many respects maketh the burden, they complain of, exceeding grievous: as, their love to God, to the Church, to our Nation, to their opposed brethrens, 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 esteem of the men, is the deepness of their sense of their injuries. Their injury they express to be his rejecting and opposing them: their own esteem of the men they declare, in styling them, the most worthy servants of God. Such superlative and exuperant titles the persons, to whom they are applied, 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, show a great esteem of them. To see such disgracefully used, not by Ammonites, as David's servants were, 
2. Sam. 10.2.4.5.  through causeless jealousies, but by Israelites, and to be smitten by their fellow servants, to the hindrance of the Lords work, and the furtherance of Satan's projects, is very grievous.  
Secondly, Their love to the Church stirreth up Zeal in them to promove the good thereof, by all possible endeavours, both for their brethren and companions sake, 
Psal. 122.  and because of the house of the Lord our God. Whence their grief is increased, if in deavours prove successes: especially, when they are denied those men, whom God seemeth to cast upon them, and the Church unanimously desireth, to the hindrance, of the Church's 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 emulation, & causeth much grief & discontentment in them at any thing that may reflect reproach or disgrace upon the same, as Contentions amongst them (which by these actions are made unavoidable,) will do, 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 unnaturalness of some of ours to their own countrymen.  
Fourthly. Their love to their rejected and opposed brethren stirreth up compassion in them. For, who can look upon a silly sheep scratched in a hedge of thorns, whither it fled for shelter, without pity? And, if jobs complaint is able to affect any tender spirit, when he saith. To him ehat is afflicted, pity should be showed from his brethren, 
job. 6.14.15.  but my brethren have dealt deceitfully as a brook (which is then emptyest, when the season is hottest, and the wearied travailer is in greatest thirst,) much more will this stir up Sympathy, in a merciful heart, to see brethren, not only, like waters that fail, but as a violent stream, that threatens to overflow and drown those, that should be refreshed, to reject and oppose those, that should be received & cherished.  
Fifthly, Their love to themselves, and to those that depend upon them, stirreth up great desire in them, to enjoy those means which they have found blessed to them: to some of them for their effectual calling to the obedience of Faith; too others of them, for their building up and strengthening in their most holy Faith. Hence, their grief is increased. When they see themselves deprived of that, which they have found so good & profitable. As for his girding Epithets, in the next words, against my person, and their expression, I pass it by, pitying his distemper. Whereas he saith, that, in the reproof of these Complainants' Mr. D. may, in part, read his own, 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 bear patiently, and receive thanckfully, a just reproof, and to hold forth the truth & mine own innocency against unjust reproaches, not respecting any man's person, in discharge of my bounden duty. We will therefore exactly observe his method, and examine his pretended answer. 1 To general assertions, 2 To the particular instances severally considered, and apart.  
1. His pretended answer to that which is objected concerning these instances jointly considered, and in general.  
The thing objected, or complained of, is, that the Church is, by the Answerer, deprived of her due liberty, and power, in the free choice of a Pastor, whilst 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 Mr. Pa: Dr. A. Mr. F. Mr. P. etc.  
Now let us see what he answereth, Ans. 1 generally concerning them all jointly 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 divers eminent offences and errors, which may be just cause of opposing them, and refusing them, as unfit 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 divers of these Complainants' have 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 own voluntary desistance.  
In like manner, my reply Reply. to these passages shall be. 1 more general to the whole discourse of this Section. 2 more especial to the several parts.  
First, In general, 
1. Generally.  It is to be noted, that all his answers tend to the disparagement of the persons whom the Complainants' do so highly reverence. To let pass the inhumanity of reproaching the absent; and the dead, and the impiety of his encouraging the enemies of God to blaspheme, who may easily think that they have just cause to revile and speak evil of these men, when they shall see that this Answerer spareth them not, and that in print. And (that I may retort his own words, but more fitly,) What 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 (saith 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 unfit for the Congregation, but by causing the name of Chrysostom to be mentioned, in public, with other Bishops, 
Idem cap. 25.  (I suppose in thancksgiving) which plot Proclus, one of his successors, followed and perfected, to the full taking away of that Schysme. 
Idem ibid. Cap. 44.  For he persuaded the Emperor to translate the body of Chrysostom, that had been buried else where, to Constantinople, and to be buried, with much honour and pomp; which being done gave such content to his friends, that, their discontent being healed thereby, they returned to the Communion of the Church. So true is that proverb. 
Pro. 24.3.  Through wisdom is an house (and a Church also) builded, 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 several particulars I reply thus.  
1. To the first.] That we all came out of England for one cause the Answerer acknowledgeth, when the saith, we all agree in the dislike of some coruptions, against which we have testified. For 1. For that cause we could not enjoy our public Ministry in England. 2. Being denied that, we thought it our duty to be of what public use we might, for the service of the Church, in any other Country, where God should oppn a door unto us, and rather to our Countrymen than others. What other particular reason any might have besides, it might concur, 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 been made for any of these men, whilst there was hope, none opposed their Election, but so many, as were put upon it, expressed their desire of them 2. After the difference between this Answerer and any of those men, in in some opinion, was known, I appeal to the Church, whether they desired not, rather that the Answerer would compose such differences between him and them, by friendly accommodation, or pass it by altogether, that they might enjoy these men, then press things so extremely, to the depriving the Church of them? I am confident, that the greatest and best part of the Church would answer, Yea: And I think the greatest and best part may well be called the Church, and such a declaration of their affection may be judged a sufficient proof of their desire.  
3. To the third.] It is to be observed, that he doth not deny, that he opposed some of these men, only he knoweth no reason, why it should be wondered at.  
First, For my part, I think 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 said to have into the stature and strength of Hercules his body, by the measure of his foot.  
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 form of a Syllogism, and it will prove a mere Sophism, and to labour of an aequivocation, in the word opposite & oppose, which, in the Antecedent, noateth difference in judgement only (which may stand with personal concord) in the consequent, it signifieth personal opposition, and so there be 4 terms in it.  
Thirdly, His whole 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: Scent: 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 showing the personal agreement and love between those men that so differed, and instanceth in Calvin, Beza, junius and Piscator, 
Vindiciae gratiae Digr. 1. Sect. 4.  each of which had his several tenet, differing from the other, and Piscator seemed to differ from them all, and yet his high esteem of them all is manifest, 1, of junius, in his Scholia upon the old testament, 2, of Beza, in his Scholia upon the New testament, 3, of Calvin, in his aphorisms gathered out of calvin's institutions. 2. in the sweet harmony & consent of the Contra-remonstrants, in opposing the errors of the Remonstrants and Pelagians, which appeared in the determination of the Synod at Dort. The same thing is verified in those men mentioned in this Section.  
Fourthly, The premises being considered, it is to be wondered at, that he opposeth these men & rejecteth them, upon this pretence, . 1. these men, in unfeigned brotherly love, tender the esteem one of another, and would account it their happiness that they might live in one Church together, notwithstanding these pretended differences between them, 2, and all godly men order themselves by that Apostolical Canon, in such cases, 
Phil. 3.15.16.  If in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, where to we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 3. And it is the more to be wondered at, seeing the men, whom he is said to reject and oppose, are known to be of sound judgement, 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 been most opposed,) have offered to carry the matter so, if he would join with them therein, as none should take notice of any difference between them. Lastly, this exceedingly increaseth the wonder; because, unless men will yield 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 humane 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 itself.  
Fiftly, Are these men opposites each to other? The good Lord discover to him, in mercy, the evil of that principle in his own spirit, from whence these discoveries of other men's differences flowed! For. 1, Who called him to publish to the world such men's private differences, there being neither need, nor good use of it, in this place? was not this in part prophesied of, to be in the last days and perilous times, that men should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Is not this plainly against equity and charity, 
2. Tim. 3.4.  boath at once? To what end doth this passage tend, but to cause strife and contention between so many of these as are alive (& the Apostle james 
james 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 suspicion of Error. 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 scandal? Hence Atheists, Libertines, profane persons cast off all care of Religion, yea hence all Heretics and Sectaries are hardened 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 plain dealing, that I wrote down, only for the help of mine own memory, the talk that passed between him and me, about that question? Was this done by me like a deceitful Notary? And doth it argue me to be far from honest and ingenuous dealing, as he affirmeth? What shall be thought of him then, who doth not note, for his own secret use, but print to the view of all men, not conferences about questions between him and them, but personal differences between them, not only without their consent or knowledge, but also injuriously and untruly, not being compelled thereunto, but needlessly, and without provocation?  
Seventhly, What if those men, upon search into particulars, 
1 The pretended difference between 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 replied for the clearing hereof. 1. He saith Mr. H. and I are opposite in 3 points, 1, the admission of Brownists to be members of his Church, whilst they persist in their separation from the Church of England, 2. Touching private men's preaching 3. Touching repentance going before faith. Reply. When he saith, we are opposite, I hope, he meaneth not in our affections: If he do; he is much deceived, or else I am much deceived in mine own heart, which knoweth, that I account him a Godly, learned, faithful, worthy preacher of the Gospel, in his fellowship with Christians singularly profitable, very peaceable in his conversation towards all, of a sound judgement, and unreprovable life. In a word, such an one, as Amsterdam had been happy, if it might have enjoyed 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 predicate: and this fight is, either in their quality alone, or in their quantity alone, or in both together. Now, which of those ways Mr. H. and I were opposite the Answerer should have shown, 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 profess, that, upon a serious review of the copy of that wrighting of questions and answers between them, I find some difference between the Answerers' report of passages, which he made to me, and Mr. Hooker his own expression of his judgement, in that manu-script: and therefore, in the 2. former points rightly understood, and according to his true meaning, as may be easily and clearly gathered out of his own words, I fully agree with him. As for the third, I do reverence his judgement in that which is not fully clear to me, and do profess ingenuously, that I rather suspect mine own apprehension, than his judgement, in that wherein we seem to differ. Now let the Reader judge; whether this pretended difference between us be worthy to be published, in this manner.  

2. The pretended opposition between Mr. Peter's & me examined.  Another pretended opposition is between Mr. Pet. and me, and this is grounded upon our different practice, or rather, upon 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, unless it be to cast some aspersion upon him, and, through 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 unlawful for him to hear with them, upon some occasion, if it might be done, without offence, neither would he (I am persuaded) have done it, with offence to any, if he had been convinced thereof, These things the Answerer should have informed himself of, before he had exposed a brother, in print, to public 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 justness of his reproof, by showing 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 do add, that the best way for his own account, and their comfort had been for him to have joined with them, in desiring the assistance of some faithful Minister, whom God should point out, by the earnest and joint desire of the Congregation, that so they might not have justly pleaded for themselves, that they have been constrained to seek abroad, through want of comfortable supply at home.  
Another pretended opposition is between Mr. Forbes and Mr. H. touching the authority of Synods and Classes. 
The pretended opposition between Mr. F. & Mr. H. examined.  1. Had he shown, in what point the opposition did consist, I should have answered, and shown, that neither did Mr. H. condemn all use of Synods and Classes, nor Mr. 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 (though no such thing appeareth in the 21 questions, or otherwise, that I know) that they were herein opposite each to other Did Mr. F. reject or oppose Mr. H. for any such difference? Did he not earnestly desire, and cheerfully embrace his fellowship in the work with him? Did they not live together, for the space of about 2. years, 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 said of great Basill, and Nazianzen, there seemed to be one Soul in two bodies, or as, Paul saith of himself and Titus, Walked we not in the same spirit? Walked we not in the same steps? If they had been absent one from another, with what joy, with what congratulations, yea with what embracements did they meet, and entertain each the other! How did they unite their forces (as joab and Abishai) not only against the common adversaries, but each for others personal 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 pretended opposition between Dr. Ames. and Mr. Forbes examined.  Another pretended opposition, is between Dr. Ames & Mr. F. in three things. 1. touching the authority of the Magistrate in causes Ecclesiastical, 2. touching Adoption going before justification 3. touching the active obedience of Christ in the point of justification. In the first of these, he joineth Mr. Parker with Dr. A. in opposition to Mr. F. but he should have showed whether Mr. F. denied all authority of the Magistrate in those cases, or only some, and what that authority is, which he denied them, that the Reader might have seen the question rightly stated, and then we should have been able to make a more punctual answer, thereunto, then now we can. 2. What ever difference of judgement was between D. A. and Mr. F. in the 2. other points, it is evident to those who knew them, that there was much unfeigned love between them, accompanied with a Reverend and high esteem each of the other mutually expressed, upon all fitting occasions. And so much shall serve for answer to his third pretended answer; the Vanity where of (that I may use his own words) will appear to the intelligent Reader by what hath been replied. I proceed now to the fourth pretended answer.  
To the fourth, Ans. concerning eminent errors 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 errors. 2. That they are eminent ones. 3. That they are just cause of opposing and refusing such eminent men, as unfit for his Congregation.  
Secondly, Let these things be proved by Scripture, For all men are apt, 1, to err, and to be in love with their errors, 2, to be harsh and unadvised in their judgement of others.  
First, Men are apt to err, & to be in love with their errors. 
Chameron of popish praejudices, Cap. 1.  The cause of which mischief is the perverseness 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 disturb our judgements, or altogether dull our apprehensions. In which respect, an heart chafed with passion, leaveth us in a worse case, than piercing smokes do the eyes which bereave us of our bodily sight: For they, seeing nothing, can not be deluded by lying apparitions, but by these, though the light of the understanding be dimmed, yea extinguished, yet there remains a presumptuous conceit of our own clear sight, and real comprehension of the truth: whence it is, that man, compassed about with thick darkness, confidently imagineth that he walketh in the sunshine, 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 descent from those tenets, for the defence whereof they are engaged. And, as men, that look through a coloured glass, think that all the things they see, through it, are of the same colour with the glass, so they, judging of men's opinions, by the error of their own distempered fancies, cry out, Errors, Errors many times causelessly. 
1 Cor. 1.23  Thus the paynims, puffed up with a conceit of their own wisdom, accounted the doctrines of the christian Religion, foolishness. And, as their passions increase, so their censures will grow more harsh and bitter: So that lesser errors shall be accounted heresies, and small infirmities, eminent offences, and truths themselves shall be miscalled dangerours errors. 
Hiron. ad Ripar. & contra. Vigilant.  Hence it was that jerom held Vigilantius for an haeretick; because he held it unlawful to pray for the dead, and to worship the dead bones and relicques of the Saints, and praeferred Marriage before Virginity.  
Thirdly. To prevent a scandal against these men, and their Tenets, let the Reader know, that the suspicion of falsity is a calumny ordinary to truth, yet truth is not to be disliked for such imputations, under which it is often hid, as admirable beauty, under a mask, or as a solid sparkling diamond, under some discolourment. But, as a rich Diamond suspected of bastardy should be brought to the touchstone and admitted to a trial; so let truth, being suspected, be examined, and not condemned, upon mere surmises.  
Ans. To the fifth, that his refusing to give his voice for the calling of some of these persons, is not a depriving the Church of her power. etc.  
Reply. First, This answer is but a mere diversion of the Reader from the true question between the Answerer, and the Complainants'. They complain of him for rejecting and opposing those men, whom, with one consent, the Church desired: not, of not giving his voice 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 far, as to deprive the Church of them. To this the Answerer answereth just nothing in his own defence, and to convince the Complainants' of untruth.  
Secondly that which he acknowledgeth himself to have done, leaveth him under the guilt of that sin which they charge upon him. For, 1, his opposing and rejecting of these men, whom the Church desired, was unjust, seeing 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 equity of his refusing these men, by the Scriptures. 3. Is a mere pretence that things were unjustly carried, and swayed against him, in the Church, or Consistory, a sufficient ground of an appeal to the Classis, as to an higher lawful judicatory; that so he may sway them, according to his own will, without a rule, or to other men's customs, without a word? If this be not to deprive the Church of their liberty and power, in the free choice of their Pastor, let the Reader judge. The whole shall be resolved into a Syllogism.  
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.  Himself hath acknowledged it to be a sin, yea an heinous crime, & no less than Sacrilege.  
Will he deny the second proposition, or the Assumption? He cannot. For, did not the Church desire these men? It hath been 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 believe he cannot do. But if he could; it will not help him. For, if it be true of 2, or of any one, he is guilty of sin by refusing them, in the case propounded. Will he deny, that he opposed, and hindered the calling of them? Himself acknowledgeth it, in the 3 and 4 answer of this Section, and more at large & expressly 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 sin herein, thus I argue. He that doth an injury, sinneth. But the Answerer, in thus opposing these men, doth an injury. Therefore the Answerer, in so doing, sinneth,  
The Major, or first proposition is clear of itself, 
Injuria est violatio juris 1. joh. 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, doth an injury. This I will prove by showing that, so to do is against, both the Law of nature, and the positive Law.  
First, It is against the law of Nature, which consisteth of practical principles, which men know they ought to do, or to avoid, by the light of nature. Amongst which this is one. Whatsoever you would, 
Mat. 7.12 Luke 6.31  that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them. Now, I demand, would the Answerer be upbraided with errors, and traduced as erroneous, before strangers, before a public Congregation, before a Classis of Reverend Ministers, yea, before the whole world, in print, and that, by a brother famous for learning and ministerial abilities, and that without proof? Would he think himself equally dealt withal, 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 own actions, and consider, whether he be not guilty of an injury, 
Lactantio: in Epist. C. 3.  which an heathen man, such as Alexander Severus would not willingly be guilty of.  
Secondly, the positive Law, or the law of God revealed in Scriptures is violated by it, many ways. 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 appear to be the greater, if we consider, 1, the qualities 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 errors, not secretly, but in public, and in print, not truly, but untruly 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 enemies have some pretence, whereupon to justify their unjust opposing them, and so are hardened in sin. 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 souls of many.  
2. It is an injury to the Church: yea a threefold ●njury. 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 himself confesseth) in the free choice of their Pastor, under pretence of seeking the advice of the Classis: himself calleth this sin Sacrilege. 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 himself hath alleged no objection of weight sufficient to keep 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 employments, to attend needles quarrels. 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 solicitations, and pretences, to be parties with him, in an injury. But the wrong to himself is the greatest of all, which I pray God, by his spirit, to convince him of! without which he will go on still to boast of a false peace.  
To the sixth; 
6. Ans.  That divers of these Complainants' have showed themselves opposite and averse to the calling of sundry worthy servants of God. etc.  
The Answerer should have showed. Reply. 1. Whether these worthy servants of God were desired by the Church? 2. Whether their showing themselves opposite, and averse to theyre calling, did deprive the Church of them being generally desired? 3. Whether they disorderly saught to work their wills, by raising unjust surmises, and jealousies to gain a party in the Classis, to hinder the Church from the excercise of its power and liberty in the free choice of those men, and that, without declaring to the Church the equity of their so doing by the Scriptures? and 4. whether, upon this disorderly proceeding of theirs, the Church was actually hindered, by the interposition of the Classis, from freely choosing those men, whom they generally desired? If yea; the case is alike, and they deprived the Church of her power as well as he: yet that will not excuse, much less justify him. If nay; (as he knoweth they did not so) than 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, etc.]  
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 do it, it is not by any lawful authority, but by usurpation, and tyranny) but whether he have not so far prevailed, though by other men's authority, whom he hath irritated, by false accusations, intimations, or intreatyes, as that these men have been thus put back? If not: he should have denied it, that the accusation might have appeared to be false. If yea: the complaint is just, and he is the cause of theyre being deprived of their liberty and power, in the free choice of their Pastor, by whose authoty soever it was done. As jezabel 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 jointly considered, and in general. 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 known of his opinions to the Classis, by his own hand writing. 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 saith, in every one of these.  
To the first, concerning the making known of Mr. H. opinions to the Classis from his own hand writing. Here I must take leave to inquire 2 or 3 things of the Answerer, after I have 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 fitness of Ministers for any pastoral charge, in any Church combined with others, under a Classis, the Classis, under which it is, requireth of them, that are to be admitted, Subscription to the Catechism, and to the Belgic confession of faith, 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 publicly nor privately, directly, nor indirectly, either speak or wright any thing against the same, and that they will reject, oppugn, resist and drive from the Church, as much as in them lieth, all errors 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 have declared the same to the Consistory, Classis, or Synod, and subjected it to examination, being ready willingly to submit themselves to their judgement, under the paenalty of being suspended from theyre ministry, if they do otherwise. And, if the Consistory or Synod, upon great cause of suspicion, for conservation of the purity of doctrine, and concord, shall exact of them a declaration of their opinion concerning any point of the Confession, Catechism, or Synodical explication, they do promise, under the same paenalty, to be ready thereunto, reserving to themselves the right of appealing, if they think themselves injuryed. And they promise, by all means, to defend the Canons of the Nationall Synod, at Dort. Anno 1619. and never to speak, consult, or communicate with any person, whether ecclesiastical or civil, 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 do otherwise, even to suspension and abdication. To which censure the subscribers do willingly submit themselves.  
This being the manner of proceeding in the Classis, with a 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, seeing the Classis will make sufficient trial of theyre judgement before theyre admittance?  
2. Quaere. Why he put those 21 questions to Mr. H. and some of them to me, seeing the Synods have not determined that those questions should be put to them, nor are they proposed by any Classis to any Ministers, for trial of them?  
3. Quaere. Why did the Answerer make known Mr, H. judgement to the Classis? seeing, in the conclusion of that wrighting, he expresseth himself thus. Because I do apprehend your opinion and affection to be so far settled, that you conceive there cannot be a peaceable concurrence, in such distance of judment, I am resolved contendly to sit down, and suddenly, as I see my opportunity, to departed etc. Was not here a voluntary desistance? To what end was this wrighting carried to the Classis, after he voluntarily desisted? Was it not to shelter and hide himself 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 judgement of the Classis 1. concerning Mr. Hook: 2. concerning the answerer.]  
Here again, concerning this judgement 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 judgement therein?  
4. Quaere. Whether the Classis did hear Mr. H. declaring the reasons of his judgement, and seek to rectifye his judgement, if they thought he had erred, by Scripture, before they proceeded to sentence against him,  
If, upon inquiry, it shall appear, that the matter was not referred to their judgement by the Church, and that only some few of the Ministers, or all, or most of them, without showing the equity 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 keep 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 himself acknowledgeth, in the free choice of theyre Pastor? Nor can I think that the Classis, or deputyes of the Synod would justify the Answerers dealing, in this buisenes, and condemn Mr. H. so far, if they had been rightly informed of the naked truth, without such intimations suggested by the Answerer against him, as might serve to stir up unjust jealousies and surmises against that worthy man. For may not any thing he held stand with the doctrine contained in the Catechism, Confession, and Synodical explication thereof? And doth the Synod require any more of him, that is to be admitted to any Church in these countries? I am confident, that this case would bear a review, & that a Nationall Synod would not justify the deputyes for that provincial 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 writing this, being compelled by the Complainants', in his own defence, which else he saith, he would not have done.  
Be it, Reply. that the complainants writing to the Consistory had compelled him to answer there, yet that might have been done by word, or in writing, 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 that all the pamphlets were bought up, save a few that were dispersed, before the receipt of my letter, and so the publishing of them was stopped. And therefore I may fitly reply in his own words a little qualifyed, had the Answerer been so considerate and wise in this as he hath been in some other things, he would rather have rested in the judgement of the Classis against the printing of his book, and burned it, or utterly suppressed it, then to compel me, in mine own and other men's defence, to wright these things concerning him, or them, which otherwise I would never have done, though the injuries we have suffered are great, & the wrong done to the Church is far greater, if they had no more to complain of, then that they were deprived of that faithful 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 Mr. H. at least, till another occasion be given.  

Ans. 2. A brief defence of myself 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 thinketh to free himself from any blame concerning me, out of mine own 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, briefly, 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 said by the Answerer to evince, that, in that postscript are any faults, or injurious relations of matters, though I can easily show 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 public censure of the pamphlet, upon himself, in reference to the Classis, with some additions more justly, and say almost in his own words. Observe the just reward of the inordinate affection, which the ministers of the Classis have showed in contending against the Church, and against those Ministers whom the Church hath desired, to gratify the Answerer. By the Answerer himself complaints are called for to be directed against them, that himself may escape. Nor is it once (as it was in my case concerning W. B.) that he hath done thus, but often in this book, Nor is it done against men unknown (as in my case) but he nameth them, & urgeth it, and that in print (as well as I did) and though, by the Answerer himself, sentence is not pronounced against them, yet the evidence, which he bringeth; is so clear, and so insisted upon, and urged by him, that some will think right is not done to the Answerer, if sentence pass not against the Classis.  
3. To the third, that they unjustly lay this complaint upon him.] Why so? Because, they say Mr. 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 principal cause? will that please him? No: Mr. 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 principal cause. For, the concurring of divers 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 principal efficient primarily, and secondarily to the Instrument. As if one man cut another with a knife; it is truly said 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 principal Agent. To apply this. I demand, who carried the matter to the Classis, and would accept no ways, 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 himself? 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 practice of theyre Church censured, and that it would make their Church to be accounted as a sink, 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 laid upon him that he was the principal cause of it.  

A defence of Mr. Parker.  3. In the third place, he dealeth with Mr. 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.  
In this passage I will note 3 things. 1. some doubtful expressions which should be cleared. 2. some questions to be answered. 3. the exception, that this was 20. years since, by the Answerer propounded.  
But, before I prosecute these particulars, I have some thing to say concerning this worthy man. And, I confess, when I did read this passage, I did much wonder, both in respect of the man himself and of the Answerer.  
For this man] his works do, in part, show his worth, concerning which a judicious censurer, though differing from him in judgement about the Hierarthy, testified, that they are as full of learning as an egg is full of meat. His works which I have seen are. 1. a treatise against the Cross 2. De descensu Christi ad inferos. 3. De Politia Ecclesiastica. One would have thought that Holland should have esteemed the opportunity of settling 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 signify, that they should cease from the pursuit of this buisenes? I will hope, it was ignorantly done, the man being unknown to them, or they were abused by sinister informations. But if they had rightly known him, and yet so concluded, my conclusion concerning them shall be, that they are worthy to want such a man, who so undervalved him.  
For the Answerer.] Is it possible, that he should hinder his settling there who sojourned at his house, who was a member of his Church, and an Elder (as am informed) about 2 years? what could they object against him, which the Answerer could not have answered? Did they suspect him of inclining to Brownism? His book of Ecclesiastical Policy cleareth him, and a letter written by himself, but published by some other, in a pamphlet called the profane Schysme etc. cleareth him of that imputation. Did they suspect his dissaffection to Classes? The same book showeth how far he liketh and disliketh their way, which though it was not then printed, the Answerer understood his judgement fully. Or, was there any thing else in the wind? The searcher of all hearts knoweth, and will manifest, in due time. In the mean 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 little before his departure) and with one consent desired to enjoy as theyre Pastor, and colleague with the Answerer. And the ancient inhabitants say, that, with a sad heart, he left the city; but in a short space, after his removeall thence, to a Leaguer, whither he was called to be theyre preacher, it pleased God to remove him from this unthanckfull world, & from all sorrows and troubles, to perfect joy, and peace. He died about 3 months 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 year 1613, as I am informed.  whom a few, out of needle's jealousies, hindered from being entertained by this small handful, a very little parcel of the Church militant, to theyre unspeakable loss, and hindrance. But I hasten to the three things to be noted in the answer.  
1. Certain doubtful terms in this answer should be cleared, and theyre meaning shown. As. 1. There was some difference about the manner of his call.] But he saith not, what was the manner of his call, about which the difference was, nor what, nor between whom, the difference about it was. 2. I propounded the matter unto the Dutch Ministers, who made some difficulty about it.] but be showeth not, about what they made difficulty, nor what difficulty they made, nor whether they made difficultyes, as particular men, in a prudential way, for advise, or jointly concurring, in a way of Classical power, binding the Church to rest in theyre determination, concerning Mr. Parker's unfitness for that place. 3. When Mr. Halius, and Mr. Plancius etc. were deputed etc. I laboured to clear the difficultyes objected by them] but he concealeth what course he took for the clearing of those difficulties, and whether Mr. Parker himself was consulted with for the removeall of them. 4. Some while after, a dutch Minister and an Elder coming to Mr. T. signified from the Burgomasters of this city etc.] But he hideth it, whether the Burgomasters sent these men, and the reason why they came to Mr. 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 copy 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 give further light thereto.] To what? what need these dark expressions, if things were carried fairly and openly? especially, seeing the Answerer it not went to be shy 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 book abundantly witnesseth.  
2. Some questions also should be answered.  
1. Quaere. Why it was not considered of, how Mr. Parkers settling, in that place might be effected, before he was, in a manner, engaged 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 satisfied with that, which the Answerer told them was done, in this buisenes? or, whether divers of them, did not entreat 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 years past, and if theyre dealings for 20 years together etc.  

Reply. P. 28.  1. If this were a fault in the Complainants' to rake into matters 20 years past concerning him, yet he is unfit to reprove it, who, in the very next page, raketh into a buisenes concerning Mr. F. about 30 years past, 
Anno 1605.  for which he was banished out of Scotland, whereof we shall speak in its place. 2. If it were so with him, about 2 years since, in my case, and 2 years before that, in Mr. H. and 2 years before that, in Mr. Pet. and I know not how long before that, in Dr. A. and 20 years since, 
Anno 1610.  in Mr. Par. and 24 years since, in Mr. F. his case, it seemeth to have been his constant course thus to injury the Church. 3. Personal and private evils passed long since, and reform, may not be raked into warrantably, when public greivances, still continued, may be raked into provided that they be not made more public than necessity requireth, and the aim be right, to seek reformation, not to cast reproach upon men's persons.  
In the fourth place, he dealeth with Dr. Ames] but it is after his death. It is no valour to trample upon a dead lion, 
A defence of Dr. Ames. job. 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 battle, and do no more. We shall have fit occasion, in the ensuing passages, to say more for the vindication of his deserved honour against the disparagements by the Answerer unworthily cast upon him, whose name is as a precious ointment, in all the Churches of the Saints, and shall be to future ages, which will abhor these indignities cast upon him.  
What is said concerning him may be brought to 6 heads. Ans. 1. that his calling, was never put to voices. 2. that the Answerer signified to one that asked him occasionally, that he thought him not fit, nor could give his consent. 3, that he denied the authority of Synods & Classes. 4. that he acknowledgeth he hath written divers learned & worthy treatises. 5. that he was fit for a Professor in Schools. 6. that his leaving of Franeker was disliked by all learned men, approved by none  
To the first. 1. The Answerers' memory hath not been so faithful a record, in passages between him and me, Reply. that I should, from his not remembering 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 voices were asked and gathered: which might be, and yet the complaint of the members just, if, upon the proposal of his name, the Answerer stiffly opposed it, saying, I think him not fit for us, and I cannot give my consent, whereby the voting of it might easily be hindered, though the Church had generally desired him.  
2. That experience which I have of the ill setting down of the acts of the Consistory in mine own case (which I shall discover in its place) causeth me the less to regard theyre records of propositions, of agreements, in that meeting, & to account them insufficient evidences for proof of the doing, or not doing any thing in question.  
Ans. To the second, that to one ask him occasionally; he signified that he thought him not fit for them, neither could give his consent for him.] Be it so, he confesseth that he signified so much to one, (whether that one asked this question secretly, Reply. or in the Consistory alone, or in the presence of others, he saith not) this maketh good that part of the complaint, that he opposed, & rejected Dr. Ames also. Neither doth the not putting of it to voices prove that they did not generally desire him, seeing his peremptory answer to that one might cause them to despair of enjoying 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 lie 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 denied 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 ensuing passages, wherein it will appear, I hope, that his opinion rightly understood can procure neither great, nor any confusion or disturbance of Churches. 2. whereas he pretendeth that his entertaining of Dr. Ames, in respect of this his opinion, would have been an occasion of Contention or Scandal; that the vanity of his suggestion may appear, let the Reader know, that Dr. Ames was minister of the English Church, at the Hague, where, whatsoever he held touching this question, it occasioned no contention, nor scandal, neither to English, nor Dutch. Afterward, he was Professor at Franeker, where he continued twelve years: who ever heard of any contention or scandal, occasioned by his opinion, given to any there, all the time of his abode with them? The contrary whereof appeared by the great unwillingness of the Curateurs of that Academy to leave him, which the Answerer acknowledgeth, 
Pag. 18.  when it may serve (as he thinketh) to reflect blame upon the worthy Doctor. After this, he was called to Rotterdam, where God finished his course, to give him the Crown of righteousness. What contention, or scandal did his opinion, or practise, according to it, occasion there? But as in this so in many other passages in his book the Answerer hath often miscarried 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 error therein, and amend it, for the future, and that, in the mean time, the judicious Reader may not be deluded thereby. 3. If the Answerer hath (as he saith) earnestly contested with Dr. Ames, ever since he was acquainted with him, and yet still he persisted in the same, it shows that Dr. Ames did not apprehend that strength and weight to be in his arguments, and allegations, as himself fancied. And all men know that the Dr. was sufficiently able to discover the strength, or weakness of an Argument.  
To the fourth. Ans. That he acknowledgeth him to have written divers learned and worthy treatises.] 1. While the Answerer seemeth ingenuous, in giving his adversary his due, he is politic, Reply. in giving him no more than he must necessarily, nor then he may safely, without praejudice to himself, 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 do otherwise. For even his professed adversaries will do 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 works will praise him to posterity, which we will distribute under their several heads, thus. Besides the book mentioned by the author, & his Demonstratio logica; his polemical treatises, which, are extant, are, 1. that sinewous work, Bellarminus enervatus, where the volumes of that daring jesuit, and Cardinal are so concisely answered, as if Homer's Iliads were in a nutshell, and that exact piece in the Arminian controversies, his Coronis, besides those other disputes, viz, his Antisynodalia, contran Grevinchovium, his 1 and 2 Manuduction, his Reply, and Triplication. 2. His systematical treatises, his Catechism (which I find mentioned, but have not seen it) that worthy work worthily called Medulla Theologiae, the Marrow of Divinity, and that practical institution (wherein he exceedeth not only Pontificians and Lutherans handling that argument, but also his own guide in that work, who died before he could finish it, famous Mr. Perkins) his Cases of conscience. 3. His exegetical treatises, viz his Analysis upon the whole book of the Psalms (which he lived not to perfect, to his mind) his notes upon the 1. & 2. Epistles of Peter, and upon the catechetical heads.  
Secondly, so much he may safely acknowledge, without prejudice to himself for opposing his calling. Any ingenious Protestant will acknowledge so much of many popish wrighters in their comtemplative, and moral discourses, both divine & humane. The Answerer will acknowledge so much of Mr. Ainsworth, against whom he hath shown himself more opposite then against this Dr.  
2. If Dr. A, have occasioned many to rejoice justly, and thank God for his labours, because they have been of much good use, in the Church of God, I wish from my heart that the Answerer, instead of sharpening his style, to cast reproach upon the memory of so worthy and learned a wrighter, had imitated his example, in publishing profitable things, that others might praise God for the fruits of his labours, and not such wrangling stuff, and unproffitable invectives, which serve only to grieve the hearts of God's people, and, for my part, I would not have troubled myself to read, much less to answer, if I had not been thereunto compelled,  
Secondly. Was Dr. A. his judgement about the authority of 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 praise God) could not expiate? Suppose they had differed in their opinions; could no accommodation have been thought of? Amongst good men it hath been easy to join them together, in one Church, notwithstanding greater differences. But what if Dr. Ames his judgement be sound in this matter? As it will, upon trial, 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 speak of other things etc. he was generally held more fit to be a Professor of Divinity in Schools, etc.] I must crave leave to demand, Reply. what those things are that he omitteth to speak of? And, if he refuse to answer, I may take liberty to suppose, that his opinion against promiscuous baptising is one of those other things. If so, it is easy to guess why he will not speak 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 author of those gifts, so one Lord is the author of those administrations, even our Lord jesus, who hath given Doctoral as well as Pastoral 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 between 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 Professor, did, in holding so, account him orthodox, and sound in his judgement. And holding him so sound in his judgement, that he is fit to be Professor in an Academy, in these Countries, they must necessarily conclude, that, for the soundness of his judgement, he is fit much more to be a Pastor in any Church, in this Country, and so condemn 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 Professor of Divinity in the Schools, both for learning and sound judgement. 4. How fit was for the service of any Church, whether in a Pastoral or Doctoral way, let his works testify, which declare him to have been a man well fitted to aedifye the Church, by words of knowledge, which is the Doctoral way (witness those worthy disputes, and Systems published by him) and by words of wisdom also, which is the Pastoral way, (witness his expositon of the Psalms, and of boath the Epistles of Peter, and his book of conscience, wherein he doth that in divinity, which Socrates is said to have done in Philosophy, viz, to bring it from heaven into men's houses, by reducing all into practice, which also he doth in his uses or applications of Doctrine, in his expositions of Scripture, and in his practical resolutions of cases, in that book. All which, being considered, will evince this suggestion of unfitness, to be a vain pretence, that I say no worse. 2. How ever, whilst he continued fixed in his Academical employment, through continual scholastic exercises and disuse of public preaching, he had been formerly less dexterous therein, yet two things shown him to be called unto the service of the Church, in that work. 1. the strong inclination of his own spirit thereunto, even when his whole time was taken up in the other task. For he hath often been heard to profess, that he would willingly travail many miles to preach a sermon; being (as it seemeth) like a nurse, who is in pain of the fullness of her breasts, for want of some to suck them. 2. He no sooner was resolved to join himself to a Church, where he might employ that talon, 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 trial whereof is yet fresh in the memories of those in Amsterdam, who heard his excellent and profitable 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 fruitful sermons upon the 17. of john. Theyre sorrow for theyre Churches loss, in his translation thence, continued to this day, showeth what experience they had of his fitness for that work.  
Ans. 6. To the sixth. That all learned men (for aught the Answerer could hear) in these Countries, 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, seeing, it fell out long after the motion for his call thither, which motion also was before his settling at Franeker. 2. learned men may err in theyre judgements, 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 appear, they erred, who disliked it, and, that all may be satisfied, concerning Dr. Ames his removeall from Franeker to Rotterdam, I will briefly 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 coming to Franeker, he found things in such a frame in, the University, that he thought of departing thence before he was settled.  
2. Upon 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 year, that, had he not had a greater strength than his own to support him, he had not been able to have borne it, and he lived there, his whole time, in continual opposition, and suffering. So that, in that 12 years, he endured more, I think, than 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 air being very sharp in winter, which so wrought upon him every year, that, towards the end of winter, he was ever so troubled with stops and shortness of breath, that he could scarcely go a flight shot, without resting; and would always say. If I can hold out this winter, If I can hold out this winter, etc. I think, he had done well, for his own health, if he had come away some years before.  
4. For his coming from Franeker. 1. he did it not without great counsel and deliberation, Indeed, contrary to the desire of some of the States of Friesland, which truly 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 near him, as, the Professor of Hebrew, whose name was Amama, a worthy man, in his place, a right honest man, whom the Lord took away being young, and of a very healthful constitution: shortly after, the Logic Professor, a young likely man, and one of that party, died also. Then another, which was Professor of Divinity, a worthy and an holy man, as any they have in that Country, who, seeing how all things went, and having a call to Lewerden, which is the head town of that County, left his Professourship and took that pastoral charge. There were one or two more, who, seeing how things went, ran with the stream, and left him alone to strive against it, wherein finding his labour in vain, and no hope of redress, this made his being there uncomfortable, and him more ready to look out to Rotterdam being offered, where he thought he might do much good, both by his Ministry, unto which his own heart did much incline him, and his Academical employments, by which he thought he might do as much good at Rotterdam, as at Franeker, most good he did there being private: other encouragements also he had for his change, as 1. the profitable ministry which he hoped there to enjoy, the want of which did not a little trouble him. 2. the covenant and government of that Church, which he did approve of, and hoped to be a means to establish. 3. the society of good people, which he promised to himself there, more than he could possibly obtain in Franeker, there being not one of our Nation, and few of the other to be found.  
5. And, for motives. 1. his own inclination, upon the foresaid grounds. 2. the Church of Rotterdam its call, again, and again renewed, with Mr. Pet. great desire, a long time manifested, and the desire of some of the Burgomasters. 3. his friends, whom he acquainted with the buisenes, they persuaded 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 soon answered and satisfied him. By which narration, it seemeth that the learned men, who disliked it, concealed theyre judgements from him, if there were any such. And the Answerer himself cannot well be excused, if he disliked it, that he hide his dislike that time, and now publisheth it, after his death, to the world. To wind up all in a few words. 1. If things continued in so ill a state at Franeker, and there was no hope of reformation. 2. If the climate did so ill agree with his body. 3. If his own heart, upon the motives formerly mentioned, was strongly inclined for Rotterdam. 4. If all his friends, upon good grounds, advised him to it, and those that spoke with him, being of a different opinion, were satisfied with his reasons. 5. If the Church and Commonwealth should have the same fruit of his Academical exercises at Rotterdam, which they had at Franeker, & with advantage of a place more convenient for Students, & of his ministerial employments superadded to the former; I pray the Reader to judge, whether Dr. Ames his removeall from Franeker, deserve a disliking censure from learned men. Thus having endeavoured to scatter the mist, which else might have hindered the shining forth of this eminent light, we leave him in the blessed enjoyment of that inaccessible light, whereunto he was translated by death above two years since. He died in Rotterdam, a little before I came into these countries, and was buried, on the 14 day of November 1633. New style. We now proceed to the third worthy, Mr. Forbes, and to examine what he saith concerning him.  
Two reasons are pretended by the Answerer against Mr, 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 judgement about the Declinatour, or appeal etc. 2. His refusal of referring that difference to an hearing of Ministers. And thence he proceedeth, in the third place, to show the issue of this difference, and Mr. F. refusal to refer it, 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 briefly.  
To the first.] Herein may be noted. 1. The Answerers unaequall dealing in publishing to the world these particulars against Mr. F. which, by his own confession, were, at least 24 years past, 
Pag. 13.  whereas he blameth the Complainants' for unseasonable admonition, in that they complain now of matters done above 20 years agone, about Mr. Parker and Mr. Forbes. Was it unseasonable in them, and is it not so in him? Nor will it help, that he say, they compel him to it, seeing in the very next instance (viz speaking of Mr. Peter's) he saith. I think it needles to give a reason here, why I gave not my voice for him. Why might not this answer as well have served in the former instances? 2. His policy is to be noted, in this passage, in his urging that appeal as a mean to keep out Mr. Forbes, well knowing that Mr. Forbes would not now pass from that, for procuring a Ministry in Amsterdam, for the which he had formerly taken his life in his hand, and, at that instant, endured banishment. 3. His disparadging of Mr. Forbes his judgement, when he saith, he saught to maintain his appeal, insinuating thereby an endeavour, without ability.  
To the second.] 1. Any man of understanding and charity will conclude that Mr. Forbes his refufall of entering into that dispute with the Answerer, is not to be imputed to his fear of the Answerers weapons or strength (especially the case being such, wherein Mr. F. had been as well sifted before, as the Answerer could sift him) but to his great wisdom & modesty who hath always manifested that dutiful respect to his Sovereign, never to stand to the defence of any thing displeasing to his Ma.tie, but when, and where conscience did urge him. Neither could he have entered into that debate, without some overture of too much forwardness 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 undertook to show Mr. F. the unlawfulness of that appeal. The whole council of Scotland (consisting of wise and honourable persons) with others, as well versed in the laws and constitutions, both Ecclesiastical, and civil of Scotland, as the Answerer, did theyre endeavour to make Mr. F. and his associates to understand the unlawfulness of it, and yet they could not see it, but the Answerer will presently show 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 refusal to give them satisfaction.] A refusal supposeth a petition, the Answerer should have shown 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 mean spirit, as to petition, or seek to be the Answerers' Colleague. 2. were the members of the Church the petitioners, or motioners for his call? and was their 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, seeing, notwithstanding that, he was entertained, & settled in an English Church, and (which is more to this purpose) with the English Merchants, amongst whom he lived, painfully discharging the office of a Pastor, above 20 years, to the singular content of the Company, & not without his Ma.tie of Great Britain etc. King james, of famous memory, his approbation, as, to the praise of his Royal clemency, appeared in a message sent by him to the Company. For him God provided mercifully. But the Church in Amsterdam, was, by this mean, deprived of a man of eminent worth, in the enjoyment of the fruits of whose learning, judgement, wisdom, amiable spirit, and other excellent properties, and endowments, all places, where he hath lived, thought themselves happy, accounting him a man richly furnished with all endowments, which are requisite, not only for a minister to any Church, but also for a public instrument, upon great occasions, in the common affairs of many Churches, to stand before princes. What esteem he had in Scotland, appeared by their employing of him in public services, & those of great importance. How he was accepted in Sweden, whither he travayled, after his banishment, was manifest, besides other instances, in the great favour shown him, and honourable proffer made to him, by that Mirror of Princes, the last King of Sweden, a little before his death. How the Company of Merchants, who enjoyed him so many years, affected him, is evident in the annual exhibition which they have conferred upon his widow, as a testimony of their high esteem of him, their deceased Pastor, whom it pleased God to call hence, where in ter Veer he finished his course, & was freed from all the troubles of his pilgrimage, to enjoy that crown of righteousness which is laid up for those that have fought a good fight, he died on the 5 day of August, old style, and was buried, on the 9 day Anno 1634.  
In the sixth place, he dealeth with Mr. Peter's, or rather declineth the answer of their 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 than he is, or now can rationally be judged to be.   

The answer to the sixth Section examined.  
This Section might have passed without being examined by me, 
P. 33.  had not the Answerer, in the close of it, brought me in as one fight against him, in like manner as the Complainants', which is, according to an English proverb, to slander him with a matter of truth. But, because, he saith, the answer before given to the Complainants', may also serve for answer to me, I am compelled to examine the whole Section, to find out the answer given to me, in theyres. His whole answer tendeth to charge them with slander, in 8 particulars, to which I will answer severally and briefly.  
To the first.] That they charge him with pressing others upon the Congregation. In answer Ans. whereunto he saith. I do not claim any more to myself, than one voice.  
Nor do they charge him to arrogate 2 voices. But who knoweth not, that some one voice may drown many voices? Reply. As appeareth in sundry passages, in their 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 itself proveth it? As the examination of the former Sect: evinceth.  
Ans. To the third.] That he saith, Reply. they involve the Magistrates in the same guilt with him. 1. Their own words show that their complaint is against him, not the Magistrate, and so the imputation of slander may be retorted upon himself. This will be more fully cleared in the reply to the 6. answer, where the difference between the Magistrates requiring of this, and his pressing of it, will appear. 2. Nor is it so rare a case, as is pretended, that men's interest in good Magistrates may be abused. Was not the Emperor Constantius abused by the Arrians, under their show of gravity, to side with them against the Orthodox, though the greater number, by far, 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 their good persuasion of another's 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, prevail with Epiphanius, a man of much integrity, to take his part against Chrysostom, whereby he prevailed to procure his banishment out of Constantinople, to the great grief of the godly, which also caused much calamity in the Church and civil State?  
Ans. To the fifth.] that he saith, their reproach serveth to the clearing of him, and that, those that are unpartial, and wise in heart, may conceive hereby, that he hath obtained this interest in them, not by abusing and corrupting them, but by walking uprightly before them.  
Reply. The Complainants' do not say that he got his interest, either in 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 sign of upright walking. Indeed interest in God is a sign of uprightness, as in Noah, Abraham, job, Moses, Samuel, David etc. Because the Lord searcheth the heart, and knoweth our thoughts afar off: but it is not so in men's 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 do an injury to Mephiboseth. The Church, to whom john the Divine wrote, was not destitute of wise men, and of men able to judge: yet Diotrephes so far abused his interest in them, as the Apostle describeth, 
3. john. 9.10.  saying. I wrote unto the Church, but Diotrephes that loveth to have the pre-eminence amongst them, received us not, wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds, which he doth, prating against us with malicious words, and not content therewith, neither doth he himself 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 show, 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 showeth what order the Magistrates set down, about having one that can speak 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 immediately from England, though never so fit and able, shall be admitted, but they must be forced to take one that can speak Dutch. Himself in relating the story, confesseth this to be no slander, but a truth.  
2. That it is no slander, when they complain 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 far from pleading, or stirring up the Elders to join 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 grief of the Church.  
3. That it is no slander, that they complain of the Answerer for this, and not of the Magistrate, seeing he urgeth it more vehemently than they seem to do. For they propound it as a matter only, in some respects, convenient, that the English preacher speak Dutch, but he presseth it as necessary. The former appeareth three ways. 1. in that caution which they give [If it were possible] wherein I suppose, they mean, 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 do imply only an expediency, viz, that he may debate matters with the Classis, and treat with the Magistrate, on the Church's behalf, as occasion shall require, which a man may do, by learning the language after he is settled, though he have no  before. 3. In theyre indulgence to me, which the Answerer acknowledgeth, in saying, that they were content to dispense with my want of the Dutch language, which showeth 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 own words, when he saith, that a minister called to this place which can not speak Dutch, is, in great measure, no better than a Dumb Minister, in respect of one special work of his calling, which is to give advise etc. In the Classis. If, to sit in the Dutch Classis etc. Be one special work of the English Ministers calling, then indeed his ability to speak 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 duty, nor is it any where else in Scripture revealed to be necessary, how then is it a special work of his calling? 2. The Magistrates do not press this sitting in the Dutch Classis, upon the English preachers in other towns in Holland. How cometh it to be so special a work of a Ministers calling in Amsterdam? 3. This is not urged as a special work of a ministers calling to the French & walloon Churches in that City; How comes it to be so to the English? 4. The Answerer did not account it a special work of his calling to sit in the Dutch Classis, a good while after his coming to Amsterdam, when he laboured to set up an English Classis; though afterwards he opposed the same thing, when it took effect by Mr. Forbes his labour. How comes it now to be a special work of his calling, which then was not? 5. The Answerer hath been heard to say, that he cometh sometimes from the Classis grieved & troubled in his mind, because, when weighty matters are debated, he cannot sufficiently express his mind in Dutch. And well may it grieve him to supply the place of a Pastor there, if he find himself unable to perform one special work of his calling. To wind up all. Seeing the Answerer maketh that an especial work of the Ministers calling to his Church in Amsterdam, which God doth not make so, in any place of Scripture, nor the Magistrates do make so, neither there, to other Nations, nor, in other Cities, to other English Churches, and seeing, by that pretence, they are deprived of many worthy men, which they might have enjoyed (had not this been so insisted upon by him) and seeing the Answerer doth urge it more strictly, than the Magistrates (they propounding it, but as a matter of conveniency, but he pressing it, as a matter of necessity) have not the members just cause to complain of this as a grievance? Nor will this free him from blame, that he is but one, and claimeth but one voice, seeing he hindereth, that what agreeth not with his mind, can not be ended in the Church, but is carried to the Classis, where he can strengthen himself, by help of those whom he gaineth to his party, by raising causeless suspicions 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 entreaty, interpose to prevent some imagined distractions, which may fall in the English Church: whereas, if they had rightly been informed of the whole truth, they would have seen the request of the Church to be reasonable, 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 fight against his course hitherto by the great unfitness of those etc. who have 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 God's name in vain, 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 briefly examined, and replied upon.  
To the first,] Reply. I am so far from justifying any thing done or spoken amiss, even by my friends, 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 uprightness of my heart, not knowing that Mr. B. was the publisher, in way of witness 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 lieth to watch and catch all advantages against me and them. Therefore what I account amiss in this expression, on their part, I will conceal, and also pass by the distemper of his spirit, which, upon this occasion, venteth itself. The comparing of the reply to the former Section and this, will give some light, whereby the Reader may discern, 1. whether that which they have disliked, and complained of, be not a just grievance, 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 note three things.  
1. Upon a third and fourth review, 
A defence of Mr. Balmford,  I wondered why so little was said by the Answerer in the just acknowledgement of Mr, B. sufficiency, especially seeing the next, whose name he concealeth, is honoured by him with the praise of special gifts of learning, piety, and utterance, & the third, whose name he also suppresseth, is styled a man of special note for his learning, and labours in the Church of God. But, when I consider the men, (him, upon knowledge, and them by guess, and report of others) I seem to apprehend the cause of it, which was, not that Mr. Balmford was inferior to either of those men, in the desert of such attributions but that, if he had freely done him right, in so public a declaration thereof, it might have reflected more honour upon him then he can be content should be devolved upon one, whose judgement did at all differ from his, and agree with his opposites, as, he accounteth them, in the point controverted between us.  
2. Yet, when it may serve for a staff, wherewith to beat the Complainants', he addeth thus much. His great unfitness is theyre great slander, that avouch it, unless they could prove it.] Neither himself nor they will be ever able to prove Mr. B. unfit for that Church, but both he and they might have blessed God, with much thanckfullnes, for such a mercy, if they had enjoyed him. And certainly it will be found worthy to be called a great slander, if any shall impute great unfitness to him. The place where he hath divers years executed his pastoral function, constantly, painfully, proffitably and with good acceptance, is incomparably before Amsterdam, both in the eminency of the Auditors, 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 door the slander must be laid? For the Complainants' refuse to father it, and do retort the accusation of a great slander upon the Answerer himself, and profess the great unfitness, which they meant, was intended by them concerning others, partly, in respect of the language, and they name several men against whom they except in that respect, whom they could not well understand, through some defect of the English tongue, or theyre manner of pronouncing it▪ partly; in respect of years, or experience for such a work, whereof some other instances are alleged by them. But of boath these insufficiencyes they acquit Mr. Balmford, and blame the Answerer that he hath so needlessly brought him, by name, upon the stage, whilst 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 think fit for them, in respect of theyre relations, and engagements to other Churches, which would suffer much by the loss of them, though, in other respects, they accounted them fit.  
3. To that which he addeth, concerning the fight of some of these Complainants' against his calling, they answer and profess, that the fight, which he meaneth, was not, out of disesteem of, or disaffection to Mr. Balmford, but for the defence and maintenance of theyre right, in which case, they would have opposed any other. For, seeing how unjustly they were deprived of Mr. Hooker, whom they generally desired, and having heard, that some of the Dutch Ministers had said, that, if they had known so much before, concerning him, as they had then heard matters should not have been carried against him as they were: whereupon they conceyved hopes that they might yet enjoy Mr. 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 Mr. B. had been settled amongst them.  
Concerning the other two, seeing 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 allegeth for his own purpose.  
Thus long I have been exercised in a most unpleasing work of raking in a kennel of reproaches to find out my answer, which he directed me to seek in theyres. And, in searching, I find no such answer to them, as I looked for, viz, a disproof of this second proof of the justness of theyre complaint, concerning his depriving the Church of the free choice of theyre Pastor. For what free choice have they, when they may not have one of theyre own Nation, immediately from England, but one that can speak Dutch: and that one must be so and so principled, and framed to the bent of the Answerers' spirit, as hath been declared, in the former Section? why is this required more of the English then of other Nations? Why doth the Answerer press this as a thing necessary, when the Magistrates only propound it as a thing convenient? Who seethe not, that, till he shown 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 complain of him, for this cause? If he have no better answer for me, I shall remain unanswered, as they are, notwithstanding any thing pretended by him to the contrary.  

Pag. 32. Ans.  He chargeth me with overlashing more than they, and mine assertion with more untruth than theyres, because I used the word Always. Reply. 1. For them: theyre assertion hath been examined, and, found true, and I doubt not, upon examination, mine 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 divers worthy men, that have come immediately from England, which addition serveth to restrain the word always, to those that came immediately from England; as if I should say, Always, when men have come immediately from England (which was the case of Mr. H. Mr. P. and myself) he hath opposed them, and shown himself 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 real proof of his desire of having one that lived in these countries; which desire when it worketh so strongly, as that those that come immediately from England are more narrowly sifted, and more violently opposed, than others, who, having lived in these parts, consent with them in judgement; this I call urging. So that, suppose, this have not been publicly urged by him always, from the first day of his being called to that Church: yet if always, whensoever men have come immediately from England, and have been much desired by the Church (for such I mean) he hath found one pretence or other to oppose theyre calling, when he hath not been so strict with others, my assertion appeareth to be true.  
Secondly, I am so far from overlashing more than they, that I restrain myself much more, in limiting my speech, to those that have come immediately from England, whereas they complain of his opposing, not only those, but even such also as had abode sometimes in these Countries, as Mr. Parker, Dr. Ames, Mr. Forbes, who could speak Dutch, and yet were opposed & refused by him. Now, where is my overlashing? where is the untruth of my assertion? It becometh him to be very careful that he show forth truth in his accusation, who will charge another with untruth, and to be found wary and moderate in his expressions, who will accuse another of overlashing. I doubt not, the Reader seethe how easily I may retort this challenge upon him, and more justly. But I spare him, and hasten to examine the following Sections.   

The seaventh Section examined, whereunto this title is prefixed, The story of some proceed about the calling of Mr. 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 fix the mind of the Reader upon the ensuing discourse, he praefixeth a title written in a larger character than the rest, and my name in capital letters. To what special purpose▪ his own heart knoweth, and God, who is greater than his heart, knoweth much betrer. As for me: The good will of the Lord be done! If he deliver me up to be buffeted by the forwardness of a Masterly fpirit, and that, when I do well, his grace, I hope, will enable me to submit to my Father's 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 appear to all men (by the overruling hand of the only wise God) than any other way it could have done. This the Lord hath done in josephs' case, and others, but specially, in the crucifying of our Lord, whose superscription in great letters upon the cross, proclaimed to all the world, both his glory, and their shame. As for the Answerer, I wish his age may be crowned with the honour of righteousness, upon his unfeinged repentance of these injuries, the guilt whereof he hath been plunged into, I hope, by the violence of temptation, and not by a settled, and habitual evil bend 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 divers exceptions.  
1. Except.] That he saith, the things here declared have been occasion of the strife raised 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 been great strife raised up amongst them, about the rejecting of other men (whom I praefer above myself) before my name was mentioned amongst them, which is not yet ended, as appeareth in the complaints. 2. I affirm, that, whosoever hath been the occasion; his unjust opposition against the men, whom the Church hath justly desired, hath been the cause of the strife in this place.  
2. Except.] That he saith. Whilst I was buisy in writing, etc. 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 do not give it, nor is it proper, it being rather an account, than a complaint, being intended for their satisfaction, who desired to know the truth of passages, not for redress of injuries, which I suffer, without expectation of help 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 mine own clearing, further than it was necessary, for the rectifying of theyre understanding and judgement, who had been 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 do it, but himself sent a larger wrighting, without any provocation from me, to a partial friend of his, Mr. B. at Newburgh in England, which was, no doubt, by him secretly dispersed, where it pleased him.  
3. Except.] That he saith. I have dealt very injuriously with him, not only in reporting many things, but in sundry inferences, etc.] 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 judgement.  
4. Except.] That he saith, 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 author of those complaints; whereas I am persuaded, that, in his own 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 saith, acknowledged their fault therein) by whom, if he could have understood that I had been guilty, the Reader should have found it, I believe, either in great letters, or in some remarkable marginal note, expressed and aggravated to the uttermust: yet he so framed his answer to theyres, as if the whole book 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 received some information about things that concerned myself, from thence, or from my own words. And whatsoever more is inferred from thence is to be returned back to his own needless jealousy, from whence it came.  
5. Except.] That he saith, Each of my threefold wrighting is stained with untruth, and matter of reproach.] but when he cometh to show it (that his Reader may be convinced hereof) he flieth off from two of the wrighting, at the first onset, which, for the present, he leaveth to the consideration of the Classis. Yet, that he may not seem to be wholly out of heart, he saith, He will so answer the third wrighting, as that he shall take them in by the way, etc. For me; he may freely take his choice, whether he will answer all, or none, and whether, in every particular, or in gross: but he had dealt more fairly, if he had forborn to pass his sentence, it being his work 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 condemn it, lest else it might have passed altogether uncondemned.  
And seeing he undertaketh to answer the third wrighting, in every particular, we shall (with God's assistance) examine his answer, and the narration which he maketh of particulars touching my calling hither, with the issue thereof, which, if it be faithfully done, may give much light to help the Readers in judging righteously: else it will, like an ignis fatùus, mislead them from the truth.   

SECT. 8. Concerning my sending for out of England.  
Ans. TO prove my sending for over to be disorderly, he saith in his printed book, that such as procured my coming out of England, did not, according to good order, communicate the matter with those, whom it specially concerned, who in all such weighty and public affairs of the Church, should by theyre counsel 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 coming into these parts, was to serve the present opportunity, for a few months, 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 works sake, (in hope that after some small time of absence, the displeasure conceived against me would be abated, and my return to mine own country be made more safe,) and not to be Pastor in Amsterdam, unless it should appear, by a very strong & clear call from the joint desire of Pastor and people, upon very safe and satisfying terms, that God, to whose disposal, I wholly committed myself, should design me to that place, as the only station wherein he would serve himself of me, the remainder of my days. 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 testify, I was content to come over for 3 or 4 months to help 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 been any further purpose or agreement to come over by a private solicitation, without public 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 trial of his gifts: the reason of which agreement (as I can show under the Elders hands) was, that the Church should not be engaged unto any man, if his gifts should not be approved by the Congregation. So that the manner of my coming over was according to the order agreed upon amongst themselves.  
3. I could add, if I thought it worth insisting upon, that my coming over was, not without his knowledge, nor without the desire of the Eldership, though not signified by any public Act, nor was it requisite in this case, the premises being considered.   

The Answer to the nineth Section examined, concerning my resigning of my pastoral charge in London.  
THree things are in this Section propounded by the Answerer, or pretended rather. 1. my not bringing with me an authentic testimony of my lawful 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 briefly.  
Reply. 1. For the first.] That this is a mere pretence will appear, if three things be considered. 1. that he never required of me any such testimony: therefore, how doth he know, that I wanted it? 2. If I had wanted a testimony; it is well known to himself, as well as to others, that I could soon have had one. 3. I did not want such a testimony as might satifye any man, even Momus himself. One of the Ministers of the Classis, having read it, said it was testimonium laudatissimum. The Answerer intimateth that an ample testimony hath been formerly given to him in other places. 
Pag. 17.3▪   
How ample his testimony was, I know not: but that mine was honourable, and sufficient, appeareth by what hath been said.  
2. For the second.] seeing I am challenged thus in public, about the resignation of my pastoral charge in London, and called to the bar of common censure, to answer to that which my accuser objecteth against me, both here, and in other places of the book, concerning this matter, I pray the Reader equally to consider my defence, wherein. 1. I will speak something, in thesi, generally, concerning the lawfulness of that which he seemeth to condemn. 2. I will add something, in hypothesi, for the justifying of what I have done in this particular.  
In Thesi.] I am to show that it is not unlawful for a Pastor, in case of extreme and apparent personal danger, by flight, to provide for his personal safety. That this is lawful, appeareth.  
1. By the precept given by Christ to the Disciples, and in them to all beleivers, and particularly to the Ministers of the Gospel. When they persecute you in this City, flee into another. 
Mat, 10.23.  Unless he will say, that rule is but temporary, and of force only during the first Century, which was the error of Tertullian, 
Haec scripsit Tertullianus contra totam Ecclesiam. Hieron: d● virisillustr.  & wherein the whole Church held contrary to him. The Arguments, which Tertullian produceth for justifying of his Error, I examined thoroughly, before I took 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 denied, of later time, only 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. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, etc. Which indeed was shortly after abrogated. But between 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, expressly commanded the contrary, saying, Go teach all nations; But this precept, concerning flight in persecution, is perpetual, because Christ never reversed it, by any word in Scripture▪ And, upon this and other satisfying grounds, Augustine is clear concerning the lawfulness hereof, in the case of Ministers, as will appear 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 ascension of Christ, that gift was not given to the Church. And after, for the space of 300 years, the persecutions were, for the most part, not personal, but general; not against the person of the Pastor only (in which case alone it is lawful to flee) but against the whole Church, in which case, it was necessary, 
Act. 7.25. Exod: 2.12.14. & 3.4.18.  that they should stay. But of cases parallel hereunto we have instances, of not a few. As of Moses, who being persuaded, that God, by his hand, would deliver the Israelites, yet, for fear, fled out of Egypt, where, the Lord did not reprove him for so doing, but reveal himself more fully to him, then formerly. 
1 Kings 17. 3.18-10.19.3.5. etc. Acts 9.23.24. 2 Cor: 11.30.  Great Eliah, by the Lord's appointment, hide himself from jezabel's pursuit, who had threatened him, & was not there in condemned by the Lord, but encouraged, and assisted. The blessed Apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, to avoid the lying in wait of the jews, was let down by night, through the wall of Damascus, by a rope, in a basket, for which he was so far from being condemned of his own conscience enlightened by God's holy Spirit of truth, that he rejoiced in it afterwards, and took the same course of flying from Iconium to Listra, 
Ast: 14.1 5.6.  to avoid violence. The time would fail me to speak of jacob, David, jeremy, Baruch, of those whom Obadiah hide by 50 in a cave, and of those worthies, under Antiochus, 
Heb: 11. ● 37.38.39  of whom the world was not worthy, who did wander up and down in sheepskins and goateskinnes, in wildernesses, & mountains, and dens, and caves of the earth, and this they are said to have done by faith. Yea, our blessed Saviour did also sundry times, as our head, sanctify 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 unlawful fear of them that can kill the body, as appeareth in this, that in the same chapter, where the Apostles are forbidden to fear, they are allowed to fly. And if these might stand together in the Apostles, why not in others? Nor is this the unlawful fainting 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 fainting, speaketh of his flying: to show that these are not contrary. Nor is this like the flying of jonah, or that whereunto jeremy was tempted. For they that do thus, do not do it, that they may not preach, but that they may preach the Gospel, 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 own hired house, 
Act: 28.16.30.31  and to receive all that came in unto him, preaching the Kingdom of God etc. no man forbidding him. Neither is it done by them as by those, who are acted by the spirit of that base fear, 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 diversely in the servants of God, upon several occasions. When God calleth men to confess the truth, by doing it, it encourageth them thereunto, whatsoever difficulties or impediments lie in the way, when he calleth them to witness to it, by suffering, it strengtheneth them thereunto; But how? to suffer that trial, not wherewith men would ensnare them, but wherewith it pleaseth the Divine providence to excercise them. Men would imprison them, but God strongly inclineth their spirits, rather to choose a voluntary banishment, for a short space of time, which is a sorer trial than some imprisonment. And, in such a case, flight itself is a real confession, and profession that the truths of the Gospel are of no small value to them, who thus fly. For who had not rather tarry in his own country, then leave his country, acquaintance, & all the commodities which, with them, he might have enjoyed, and travail amongst strangers, whose language, dispositions, and customs he knoweth not, where he is exposed to many inconveniences, by the change of air and diet, and to be reviled in his own land, and suspected amongst strangers, and to be ill entreated, oppressed, rejected, and in print traduced, by those who should have comforted, and countenanced him, and to be browbeaten by his inferiors, fhily looked upon by some aequals, treacherously circumvented by others, obnoxious to the injuries of all. In a word, to be a footstool for others to tread upon, that they may raise themselves, by doing some service, though it be by railing against, or slandering those whom they frown 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. poor Luther made many rich men: because they got preferment, in those days, by writing 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 furrows upon our backs? Did Athanasius forsake the Lords plough, when, to decline julian's 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 Martyr's relinquishing 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 himself for his flock, whom if he had not left for a time, they, and the whole Church had lost for ever. I will not now speak of Policarpus, and Cyprian, & others in former times, nor of those who fled in Q: mary's days, and were preserved in Franckfurt, and other places for after times.  
In Hypothesi.] For the justifying of mine own act, in this particular (being injuriously compelled hereunto, in so public a way, by the inconsiderate importunity of an angry brother who seemeth very regardless how far he exposeth me to censure, or danger) I will briefly relate, both the causes of it, and the manner of my carriage in it. That the true cause may be known, false causes pretended by others, must be removed. For, this way, I have been much wronged, whilst 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 been trained up in the machiavels and jesuits principles, 
Calumniare audacter: aliquid haerebit.  from their childhood. And some were so bold herein, that they feared not to cast the poison of their reproaches, and to shoot the arrows of their slanders at me, through the ears of their superiors, persons of noble quality, whose place and authority should have awed them, and made them afraid to be found liars unto them, though they had no regard of God, nor of their conscience, nor of their account in the day of Christ. The time may come when I shall, 
3. joh. 10  in print, remember theyre deeds which they do, and theyre prating against us with malicious words, if they take not up in time, but proceed and persist in these injurious dealings. In the mean space, and always, my soul stay thyself upon the righteous God, 
Psal. 37.6  the God of truth. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgements as the noon day. Say unto the Lord my God. Thou hast known my reproach, 
Psal. 69.19. &. 6.7  and my shame, and my dishonour, my adversaries are all before thee. Let not them that wait on thee, o Lord God of hosts be ashamed for my sake: Let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, o God of Israel! Because for thy sake I have borne reproach etc. yet, that I may not be altogether wanting to myself, nor injurious to the Reader, in suffering him to be guilty of the sin of evil surmises, or of slander in heart, for want of information, I do seriously and sincerely protest, that (so far as I know mine own heart) I did not with draw myself. 1. out of any disloyal affection or unduetifull thought towards his Ma.tie of great Britain, my dread Sovereign, for whom my hearty prayer shall be, day & night, that his soul may be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord his God, & that the souls of his enemies may be slung out, as out of the middle of a sling. And that the Lord will  his enemies with shame, but upon himself let his crown flourish. 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 idleness, or weariness of the Lords plough, nor. 4. out of love of ease, that I might pamper the flesh. 5. nor out of any unrighteous aim to defraud any one by any means. 6. nor as one ashamed of the Gospel, to avoid witness bearing to the truth. 7. nor for any trouble I was in, or feared by the civil 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 publicly cleared even by his Ma.tie Attorney general, who prosecuted against us.  
But the truth is, that having about 17 years exercised a public ministry in London (about 9 or 10 years whereof I was in a Pastoral charge in Colmanstreet) In the latter part of that time I was much perplexed with doubts about the lawfulness of that comformity, which I had formerly used, without scruple, in respect of some defects, & corruptions, & unwarrantable humane impositions, whereunto I found myself 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 express. It was not from a dislike of some one Ceremony only, but of many things amiss, and those, not trifles, or things indifferent, but matters of great importance, and which I can not submit to, nor do, with satisfaction to my conscience in the sight of God, though one thing occasioned the discovery of that dislike, which was not wrought 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 myself from former entanglements, in such a manner, as might be most for the peace and profit of the Church, being very fearful (out of the peaceableness of my spirit) of causing any public disturbance. Yet I ceased not to use those means, for the satisfaction of my doubts, which I thought most convenient for me, and know to be as sufficient, as any I could use. Whilst 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 soon acquainted his intimates with it, by whom it was whispered into the ears of many: the same man, I suspected, would soon make it known to my Diocesan, that then was, at his return from Scotland, where he had waited upon his Matie. These things when I understood, I purposed, the week after his return, to retire for a week or two, in to the Country, that I might discern what was intended against me, by the manner of their inquiry after me. Upon this course I was hurried, rather than settled, by an unexpected accident, which was this. Upon the monday after his return, I road a few miles from London to an ancient Reverend Divine, a Dr. in Divinity and my particular friend (upon a former agreement between us) to confer with him about my doubts. But when it was known that I went out of town, and not whither, some gave out that I was fled, which others too easily received and too confidently reported, & spread it abroad, yet I returned, as I purposed at my riding forth, that night, to a place within 2 or 3 miles of London, and stayed there the next day, where I was not a little 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 week, advertised of a storm gathered in a thick cloud, and ready to fall upon me. Whereupon I retired a small distance from London, for a few weeks, to see what issue the Lord would put to these overtures. In which time, 3 requests were, on my behalf, and at my entreaty, propounded to the Bishop of that diocese, that then was, by his answer whereunto I perceived that extremity was intended against me. Yet I did not resign, 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 deal with me speedily, in that Court, if, by resigning, I prevented it not. Nevertheless, I did not yet resign up my place, till I had called the Church together in a general 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 mine. The Church, I confess, might have required me to stay with them, by virtue of that rule, 
Coll. 4.17  Say to Archippus, Take heed to the Ministry, which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it. and, if they had so done, I purposed to yield,  had become of me. Yea, 
1 Cor: 3.22. & v. 5  I confess the Churches right to be such in their Pastors, that if, whilst I withdrew myself, for a short time, they had sent for me to return to the excercise of my intermitted function (promising to stick to me, so far as lawfully they might, in all dangers that might befall me) I hold my self 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 hid himself, by the advice 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,  should befall me.  
They seriously advising upon the proposition made by me, and knowing that the liberty and power of choosing theyre Pastor was in themselves (which also secured me from fear that a wolf should be obtruded upon them, after my departure, without which assurance I would not have resigned it) & it being thought by some to be better for the Church, that I should quietly resign, then, by holding the place, to expose them to some inconveniences (which I forbear to mention at this time) they freely consented to my resignation. In testimony whereof the Churchwardens (in the name and service of the rest) joined 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, do alter theyre judgement and practice. 2. the Bishops own threatenings uttered to me, in particular, formerly, that, in this case, I must expect, that they would be more severe against me, than some others; because my example (he said) would do more hurt. 3. I was satifyed, in my conscience, upon good grounds, that I might do more service to the Church, by preserving the liberty of my person, then by lying (& for aught I know, dying) in prison, and it may be, in close prison. And in this resolution I was strengthened, as by good advice, so by inward testimonies, 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 shown me, both the danger, and the way of escape, and by the mouth of God, whose word warranted me so to do, and by the hand of God (as I have already shown) who strongly inclined my spirit, upon the forementioned grounds, thereunto. So that I could not satisfy myself, in these respects, that, if I should do otherwise, I could be free from the guilt of tempting God. Thus I have ingenuously, and plainly reported the truth. 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, help me, with his light, that I may be convinced thereof by the Scripture, and he shall find me ready to receive a friendly and just rebuke, with due meekness, and thanckfullnes. But, if otherwise, he shall see cause to justifye my way (which, I think, if he judge righteously, he will) let him suffer me to stand right in his good opinion, and condemn himself, in the sight of God, if he have misjudged me. As for the Answerer: Either let him convince me of sin in the premises, or bear the just blame of an unjust reproof, 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 pursuivant was sent out for me, who gave out great threatenings. And this inclined me to accept of the motion from these Countries, wherein, I thought, I might be safe in my person, and profitable, in the fruit of God's 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 return, 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 shown his averseness, and after I came, he really hindered my settling there, his actions speak it sufficiently so that my words, in this case are needles.   

Sect. 10. examined, concerning my knowledge of theyre differences before my coming over.  
THat Roman Emperor, whom stories report to have spent so much time in catching flies, might have been better employed in such thoughts as Ahasuerosh had, when he could not sleep. The text saith, 
Heb. 6.1,  He commanded them to bring the book of records, and they were read before him. In like manner, the Answerer might well have spared this needles, useless labour for enlarging this Section, and, in ste●d thereof, have condemned himself for his unthanckfullnes, who, not only, hath not recompensed the kindness that hath been done him, but hath rewarded evil for good. And, that it may more appear to all men, even in the Sections where my confidence in him and kindness should be mentioned, there he laboured most to injure me with casting intimations to raise suspicions in men's minds causelessly. To be brief. To what end are all these words?  
Are they to prove that I had seen in writing a copy of the differences between the Answerer & Mr. Hooker? I grant it, but withal I affirm three things. 1. That it was long before I left London, and, when I was far from any thoughts of coming into these parts, and leaving mine own land, and so had no cause to fix my mind upon thoughts of those matters. 2. That my coming over was but for 3 or 4 months. He that brought me over, those that wrote for me, the friends I left behind, all know, and can witness it. The Answerer himself knoweth, I told him so, when I first visited him. 3. That in Mr. H. answer to the question, there doth not appear light sufficient to inform any man what that is, which in the Dutch custom about Baptism, he disliked. And, when he propounded the question to me, about this matter, I did not understand, in what particular, the difference between the Answerer and Mr. H. lay.  
Or, secondly, Would he intimate that I saught the place, or went about to intrude myself, for continuance? 1. Himself 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 took time to consider of it, being not satisfied about the lawfulness of the conditions propounded to me. 2, Himself hath reported that I might have had the place, but I refused it: which is true, being understood in that sense, wherein it is said of those worthies, 
Heb. 11.35.  that they would not be delivered, viz, not upon unwarrantable, and ill conditions. But this is sufficient to clear me of that imputation of inordinately desiring that place.  
Or, thirdly, Would he have his credulous Reader to suspect my truth, when I say that I came over but for 3 or 4 months? Else, what mean those 4 praesumptions, which he insinuateth to suggest the contrary? To which I will answer briefly.  
To the first, For a man of plausible gifts, eminent, and of fame, & wanting present employment, to present himself where a place is vacant where much contention hath been etc. 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 extreme necessity of the place, he being so weak and unfit to preach, together with the importunity of those that solicited me, was the cause moving me (who then was out of employment, and in continual danger) to come over to that place, choosing rather to cast myself upon God's providence, in perils 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 own land, in hope that 3 or 4 month would quiet, and pacify theyre spirits, that were most exasperated and incensed against me, without any just cause; that so my return to my own 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 myself in for a Pastor? 
Pag. 16▪  or that I run before I was sent, as he slandereth me before? No marvel, if divers learned and godly Ministers, being theyre neighbours in this country, have been loath to show themselves in this place etc. lest they should seem to offer themselves unto this calling. For they knew the Answerers' disposition and spirit, and the contentions which have thereby been in this place, which if I had known, so as now I do, no persuasions should have drawn me thither. And it is very likely, that I had stayed at Rotterdam till the Eldership had sent for me, as Mr. H. did, if the necessity of the place had not hurried me sooner, to prevent the shutting up of the Church doors, which (as I have been told, and the event shown) would come to pass the next Lord's day, if my coming prevented it not. Yet two of the Elders, with some other members of the Congregation, met me at Harlem, and accompanied me to Amsterdam, & took care for my accommodation with a convenient entertainment: and, the joy, that was generally expressed soon after my being there was known, shown a great desire in the members that they might enjoy me, And the Answerer himself, at that time, acknowledged Gods good providence in my being there, at that time, and jointly with the Elders, who were then present, when I first visited him, entreated my help the Lords day following, and so long as my time would permit, and theyre need should require.  
To the second presumption, that they that sent for me, and I. C. that fetched me over, did not seek me but for 3 or 4 months; I answer. 1. Suppose their desire was to enjoy me longer; will it thence follow, that I yielded for longer time? 2. By what hath been formerly said it appeareth sufficiently that I agreed with him for no longer time, which himself is able and ready to testify. if it be required.  
To the third presumption; that the friend which by an open and unsealed letter, which I brought unto him from London, entreated him to receive me for a fellow helper, did not desire that for 3 or 4 months only.  
Answer. I think, never did Laban search so narrowly jacobs' stuff to find his Idols, as this Answerer doth to find an untruth in my assertion. To what end is this brought in? If he think, or would persuade others, that I procured that friends letter that I might obtain the place, he is much deceived. For neither stands it with my judgement to seek a place (much less by such private recommendations) nor need I the letters of any private friend, having a more public testimony. And how little I minded that letter, may appear 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 author of it to be my approved friend, and one that hath deserved well of the Answerer, I supposed, he would commend me to him affectionately, to be lovingly entertained, & used by him in a strange Country, and so took no further heed to it. But, what if that friend did entreat him to receive me for a fellowhelper? Will it follow thence, that I saught it? who seethe not the vanity of these pretences?  
To the fourth presumption. That it was not likely, that, after 3 or 4 months 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 months, I had accepted of a call to that place (which it is probable, I should have done, if it had been offered upon safe conditions, rather than to live without public employment) will it thence follow, that I inordinately desired, or basely, or unworthily saught it, or unwarrantably, or without a calling intruded myself? 3. what hindrance could my mere preaching there be to theyre seeking, or calling another, if I should refuse it? Let the indifferent judge.  
To what he saith 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 coming over was needful. For no man's word or letters could make that so well known to me, as mine own observation, & experience hath done. But the supposition, whereupon he groundeth that opinion, I do not approve. For, in some cases, a good conscience suffers a man to be neutral, viz, in those things which he is not bound to know or practise, & wherein he hath wanted occasion, or means of full information. And what hurt can that man be supposed to do, by private conference, who suspendeth his judgement, and determineth neither way? Are not these passages mere ropes of sand?  
Lastly. Whereas he seemeth to doubt, in the beginning of this Section, whether I came not over with a discordant mind; I profess, in simplicity of my heart, that I came over with a reverend esteem of him, and with confidence that I should reap more fruits of his brotherly love than I have received, and was far from any purpose of raising contention, which I naturally abhor, or suspicion, that I should have met with such contentions, as I have been troubled with, which if I had foreseen, I should never have come to Amsterdam. Yet I do not repine at, but contentedly submit to that good hand of Divine providence, which brought me hither, and is pleased this way to try me, and do with a childelike submission and reverence (in my measure) kiss the rod in my Father's hand, even when I lament the unkindness 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 coming over.  
IN this Section three things are to be considered. 1. his gird at Mr. Hook: 2. His partial and defective report of a conference between us. 3. his pretended answer to some passages in my third wrighting. These we will examine severally and briefly.  
For the first. 1. the great disturbance, which here he seemeth to impute to Mr. Hook: is to be charged upon himself, and his own violent and unjust opposition against Mr. Hook: and the Church, and not at all to Mr. Hook: unless 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 known how I seemed to accord with him, and to dislike Mr. Hook: opinions, in general? If he mean, by my my silence, I confess, I heard him speak some things, at which I was silent, being not called to speak. For himself said, that, in some of their differences, he would not inquire after my opinion, being persuaded that I was therein clear, 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 Baptism, according to the custom of the Dutch Church in Amsterstam, wherein what I held and do hold shall appear.  
For the second. By comparing this report with my notes of our conferences (which I wrote upon my return to my lodging whilst matters were fresh in memory) I find it to be partial and defective.  
First, partial, in declaring the state of the question, which was not as he intimateth, but thus. After an historical narration made by him of a difference between the Classis and Mr. Hook; about a custom, which the Ministers of the Dutch Church in Amsterdam have, of baptising 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 baptised all, refusing none. I replied, that I would baptise all their infants, who were members of his Church, refusing none. He said, that is not sufficient. I, desiring to carry matters with all possible peaceableness, told him that I would not refuse to baptise others also, which were no members of his Church, if I were satisfied concerning the Parents, and instanced in such as might occasionally be there from England, & were sufficiently known to me. But yet the case might be such, in some others, as I should not adventure to do it. He answered. But here they except none, but baptise all that are brought, though the parents be not known, or the infant be presented, in the father's absence, by persons unknown. 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 satisfied concerning the parents, before the child were presented. He said. 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 unbaptised. I replied, that offence may be prevented, seeing those, whom I dare not admit, may repair to the Dutch Church, where none are refused. He added, that it would give offence to the Classis, if our Church ●hould not do as they did, in this. I answered, the difference between the small English Church, & the vast Dutch Church in the same town 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 baptism to all that are presented, by whomsoever; and not that I made the parent's submission to my private examination a necessary condition of baptism, but only I propounded it as a prudent means for avoiding that promiscuous baptising which he required. Thus the Reader may see the report to be partial.  
Secondly, it is defective, not mentioning divers passages of discourse between us, which I will but point at. As about an order in the Classis, which he said was for this, concerning which, what I demanded and, what he answered, I will, for this time, conceal, as also what he spoke about this custom being always observed in that Church, as also about passages that, he said, had been between the Classis, and Mr. Forbes about Mr. Hooker, in reference to this question. He omitteth also our discourse about the case of an unbaptised Turk presenting his child to baptism, with no other profession then that which is required in theyre Church. And how he thought it to be more for a man's satisfaction, to baptise all, upon the injunction of the Classis, then to refuse any, upon his own judgement. Other passages also I could name, but these may suffice, to show that his memory hath not retained particulars so well as my notes, at least, that this report is defective. But let us consider his Arguments.  

The arguments for promiscuous baptising. 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 alleged against my opinion.  
First, the reasons were two. 1. the scandal of the Brownists. 2. the offence of the Church. In both which he should have set down my answers also, which seeing he neglected, I will now set down truly, according the to substance of my answer, and yet briefly.  

1. The scandal of the Brownists  To the first. I answer. 4 things. Ans. 1 1. What the Brownists hold, so far 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. Their unjust and unwarrantable excommunicating of Mr. S. for such an opinion is not justified by my supposed agreement with them in this tenet. For a man that holdeth this, may condemn that. Ans. 3 3. the difference between them and me in this point is such (as the Answerer knoweth) that there is no fear of their insulting, or being hardened thereby. 4. the French Churches and some other Dutch Churches, viz, in Zealand. and England etc. are not so large in this practice as they in Amsterdam.  
To the second. I answer. 1. That the ways propounded by me for accommodation, 

2. The offence of the Church  
Ans. Means: propounded for accommodation. A Copy of a wrighting showing.   were sufficient (as I conceive) to prevent any offence of the Church. These ways I will now relate in the words wherein I wrote them to a friend to enable 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 jan: newstile, 1634. Wherein I spoke of myself in the third person, for good reason, at that time.  
Sir, because you are willing to take pains for the accommodation of this difference, you shall, in few words, understand. 1. the true state of the question. 2. the reasons of his answer. 3. the way of accommodation, which will best satisfy him, which I leave with you in writing, for the help of your memory.  
First, the question is, 
1. The state of the question.  whether he will baptise 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 baptise none: and he dare not say, that he will baptise all, but this he saith. There are cases where in he will baptise 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 seem 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 known, many parents, who themselves never were baptised, will, in policy, present their children thereunto, 2. the custom of this place, which hath been to refuse none, though presented in the sermon time (without notice given before) by a nurse, or any one, neither of the parents appearing in it, or being known, or enquired after, nor any sufficient assurance given for the education of the children, in that faith, which is there professed, and that confession of faith being expressed & demanded by the minister, in a language, which they that present the child, some times understand not, & in this act boath the ministers must join,  

3. Three means of accommodation.  Thirdly, for accommodation; He desireth that, at least, these three things may be agreed upon.  
First, That this Sacrament be administered by the ministers severally not jointly (as the Lord's supper is) either only by him that preacheth, or only by him that preacheth not, at that time, in their several courses, respectively: whereby, the discovery of any difference, in particular cases, between them may be prevented, & mutual concord between themselves may be preserved, boath being left free to walk 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; seeing 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 baptise▪) a day or two before, to the end that he may inform himself concerning the parents etc. By which course, all public disturbance in the face of the Congregation, will be prevented.  
Ob. It will be very difficult to make this course known to all, and to bring them to it?  
Ans. When such an order is set, and made known, whether by publication in the Church, or by private suggestion, it will be soon understood of all, whom it concerneth, and yielded unto. I require no more.  
Thirdly, That they, who ●e allowed by the Minister to present the child, shall be able to speak, or, at least, to understand the English tongue, that the Congregation be not deluded by a seeming profession of faith uttered by the Minister, and answered by the party, in such form of words as is dictated to him by some that stand by▪ but himself understandeth not.  
By this relation the Reader may see how easily the imagined inconveniences might have been prevented, if the Answerer had been willing thereunto.  
Secondly, It is not true, that all the Church generally would tak● offence (as he saith) to see a double practice. 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' stiffness and averseness thereunto. And what double practice could they see, in the way which I propounded for accommodation? Whereby how easily might all offence have been prevented! But he would not. No, though some of the Dutch preachers wished it might have been so, and all, I am persuaded, would have been 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 evil conscience, if he should practise that which I refuse, as unlawful.  
Whereunto I answer. That will not follow. Reply. For 1. two men may differ in practice, and yet be boath upright, whilst they walk according to their light, not refusing any means of information and conviction, if they err, & maintaining brotherly love amongst themselves. 2. It might have been so ordered, at first, if he would, that the difference between us might not be known to others. But this we shall ever find, that causeless jealousies, and selfe-aymes and respects are, and will be the hindrance and bane of any public good. So much for the pretended reasons.  
Secondly. The Scriptures alleged▪ he saith, were two, from whence he shown, that when so great multitudes were at once baptised by john Baptist. Mat. 3. Mark. 1. and by the Apostles Acts. 2. there could not be a strict private examination of every particular person etc.  
Ans. To these Scripture instances I will answer severally, as I then did.  
First ●o the instance of john's Baptising. 1. The text sayeth. They were baptised of john in jordan confessing their sins. Whence it is manifest that john was satisfied concerning theyre fitness to be baptised, before he admitted them. And that is all that I require. 2. How will it appear that so many were baptised of him at once? I rather am of opinion, that those places do contain the story of the whole time of john's Ministry, so far as concerneth his baptism, in which time multitudes might be baptised by him, and yet he sufficiently informed concerning their fitness to partake of it.  

2. To Act. 2.  Secondly, To the instance of 3000 souls baptised by Peter in one-way, I answered, that I desire no better satisfaction concerning men, in this case, than Peter had concerning those 3000. souls. For. 1. Their very joining to the Church, by public profession, in those times of persecution, was a better sign of faith and repentance, than some public confession in words is now, in time of peace. For, than it was a reproach, now it is an honour to profess Christianity. 2. The text sayeth. They were pricked in their hearts, 
Act. 2.37.  and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, Men and Brethren what shall we do? Thereupon Peter preached unto them the doctrine of faith, and repentance, and new obedience, and after this, observed what fruit the word brought forth, and accordingly dispensed the Sacrament. For the text faith. 
Vers. 41.  Then they that gladly received his word were baptised. Where the particle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they] is diacriticall, and restrictive, and serveth, both to distinguish between them, and others, that did not so receive the word, and to limit the dispensation of baptism by the Apostles, at that time, to those only.  
Whereas he saith. By conference of other Scriptures, theyre confession of their sins, and profession of faith were rather to be conceived some solemn and public testification of t●eyre consent unto the doctrine that was preached unto them etc.  
I answer. 1. he should have set down those other Scriptures, which, being conferred with these, declare so much, that we might have understood his meaning. 2. I demand, whether that solemn and public testification of their consent unto the doctrine preached, did not give sufficient ground to john Baptist & Peter of persuasion that they had repent and did believe. If so; I desire no more. If not; how are the one sort said to confess their sins so, as to declare their repentance? For, so it must be understood, as appeareth. 1. In that john's baptism is called the baptism of repentance, for remission of sins. 2. In his discourse with the publicans and soldiers that came to him to be baptised. 3. In that the Pharises, and Lawyers are said to reject the counsel of God, against themselves, being not baptised of him. Again. Else why are those of the other sort, whom Peter baptised said to receive the word gladly, and to believe etc. Was there, in all this, no more than 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 john no other knowledge of the persons, whom they baptised, than they have, who administer it promiscuously to all that are brought, by whomsoever, refusing none?  
Now, seeing the Answerer used no other Arguments, in conference, than these, the wise hearted Reader, I think, will not wonder that by such private conferences he prevailed nothing with me, in this point.  
As for the third particular observable in this Section, viz, his pretended answers to some passages in my third wrighting.  
First, About the report of my refusing to dispute or confer about this point, when he desired it, seeing he denyeth that he so reported, and confesseth the contrary, I am satisfied.  
Secondly, About his desire of having the question in writing discussed between us, seeing I have said some thing in answer to the third Section I will say no more, but this, the motion was not equal, nor did any propound it to me.  
Thirdly, where as he saith, that he remembreth not that ever I propounded any Argument, in maintenance of mine opinion, the Reader may see how little his memory is to be trusted in these reports, unless the profaning of God's ordinance, and the encouragement of Libertines, be not unlawful, which I shown to be inseparably joined with this promiscuous baptising.  
Fourthly, Whereas he loadeth me with reproaches, for writing down, when I came home to my lodging, the speeches between us, without his knowledge, I am so far from conceiving myself to be guilty of any fault therein, that I wish hearty he had taken the same course, and then, I hope, the Reader should not have been abused with so many misreports, as now he is, by the fault of his memory. As for me; foreseeing to what issue things might come, and distrusting my memory, that I might be able to report the truth, I wrote down passages, as I could remember, whilst things were yet fresh in memory, and kept the wrighting, to this day, secret, having never shown it to any man, nor have, at this time, related some things which, I think, the Answerer would be loath to hear 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 plain railing.  
Fifthly, He pretendeth that, in my first writing to the Classis, I offend, both in excess, and in defect. This is a mere cavil: which will appear, if all that he saith be granted, against which nevertheless▪ I have just exception. But be it, that his question was, as he saith: 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 principal 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 than some members of the Church?  
As for my answer to it, that the measure of knowledge 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 I wrote of my not ceasing, till he gave over, of leaving it to the Dutch preachers, and of his saying, that he would speak no more with me alone, is a plain concession that ●ll I say concerning that is true. Only, he saith, 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 saith nothing.   

His Answer to the 12. Sect. examined, containing the counsel of the five Dutch ministers for my accommodation.  
IN this Section the Answerer doth, in his policy, so express the ways 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 yielding thereunto, but how truly let the Reader judge, upon the examination of particulars.  
Ans. First, He intimateth that Mr. Pots had long joined with him, in that order of administration of Baptism, which he required me to observe.] Reply. Ans: Mr. Pot was a man unknown 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 pitied) do give me much assurance of his faithfulness. How this good man approved of their manner of baptising (in the case now questioned) appeareth by his own expressions to some members of that Church, who are yet alive, to whom he declared that he accounted it a grievance, and that he had a purpose to seek redress of it, at the Synod. Whether he did so, or not, the Answerer knoweth best, and with what success. But this showeth, with what affection this good man joined with him therein, and how far he was from approving this custom.  
Secondly. He intimateth that this advise of the five Dutch Preachers for accommodation proceeded from his willingness to accommodate me.] If this were really so; why did the Answerer refuse all the means 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 yield to any other way. What is this, but, as when a man that hath promised to do any kindness that another shall request at his hands, being entreated to help him, in such a straight, with money or countenance (or the like, his case necessarily requiring it, and the other being very well able to do it) he should answer, I will do any thing but this. Will any man value the friendship, or fair pretences of such an one.  
Thirdly. He produceth a Copy of the advice of the Dutch preachers set down in writing by themselves in his house, in Dutch, thence, by the appointment of the rest, one of them translated it into latin (which was sent to me) and now is by him out of latin 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 itself verbatim, without alteration of a syllable as I received it from them, and then compare this translation with it.  
The Latin copy, word for word.  
Nos infrascripti pastors Ecclesiae Belgicae in civitate Amsteldamensi, a viro Reverendo D. Pageto, fideli pastore in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ ejusdem civitatis, nec non a venerandis fratribus Senioribus ac Diaconis ejusdem Ecclesiae Anglicanae, specialiter requisiti ac fraternè rogati, ut privatum nostrum judicium in causa vocationis (quae ab universâ Ecclesiâ praedictâ videtur expeti) Reverendi, Clarissimi, Doctissimique viri D. DAVENPORTII sincerè declarare, atque exponere non recusemus, idque in casu illo unico particulari, spectante Baptismum eorum. infantium, qui in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ baptizandi offeruntur; Re totâ utrinque benè intellectâ, ritè perpensâ, et ad normam Verbi Dei, ordinemque receptum in Ecclesijs Reformatis harum Provinciarum, in quibus praedicta Ecclesia Anglicana seize membrum profiretur sub Classe Amsteldamensi, probè examinatâ, sincerè, ac coram Deo, in bonâ conscientiâ responsum damus, atque declaramus; Nihil magis nobis in votis esse, quam ut praedictus D. Davenportius cujus insignis eruditio, et singularis pietas ab omnibus fratribus Anglicanis apprime probatur; laudaturque quemque hoc ipso nomine, nec non ob alias virtutes ejus laudabiles, etiam ipsi D. Pageto charissimum esse intelligimus, ad ministerium Ecclesiae Anglicanae praedictae legitime promoveatur. Bonum insuper ipsius Zelum ac studium de parentum ac susccptorum istorum liberorum praeviô aliquô examine privatô in religione Christianâ instituendô, quam maximè quidem nobis probari, de re ipsâ tamen ita nos statuere, ut praedictum illud examen, quantum Ecclesiae Anglicanae feret aedificatio, instituatur, sed si fortè vel parents, susceptoresve istud accedere ac subire renuant, vel ob temporis brevitatem, aut alijs justis de causis fieri illud non queat, vel etiam qui accesserint, fratris vel fratrum examinantium judicio non videbuntur, pro isto tempore, satisfacere, ipse infans cujus parents, susceptoresve constat esse Christianos', quique Christianam religionem, ad lectionem liturgiae Sacramenti Baptismi publicè coram Ecclesia profitentur, a Baptismo propterea minime arceatur, aut baptizarì recusetur, sed ut ejusmodi ignorantes parents, susceptoresve, post infantem baptizatum ulterĭus postea, quoad fieri potest, edoceantur; quoniam, scilicet, infants Christianorum suorum parentum, susceptorumve, vel inscitiam, vel etiam ejusmodi inobedientiam ferre ac luere non debent. Si quis tamen casus ullus alius obveniat, quo minus infans oblatus baptizandus videatur, ut tum totius presbyterij Anglicani, vel etiam, si necesse fuerit, aut commodè fieri possit, Classis Amsteldamensis judicium interveniat, audiatur, atque in eo acquiescatur. Sic actum, et transactum in aedibus D. Pageti. Die 20. januarij 1634.  


joannes le Mairius.  
jacobus Triglandius.  
Henricus Geldorpius.  
Rudolphus Petri.  
jacobus Laurentius.    
2. The translation word for word.  
We the underwritten Ministers of the Dutch Church in the city of Amsterdam, being specially and lovingly requested and desired of the Reverend Mr. PAGET, a faithful Pastor i● the English Church of the same city, as also the the Reverend brethren the Elders and Deacons of the same English Church, that we would not refuse sincerely to declare & show our private judgement about the calling of the Reverend, most famous, & learned Mr. DAVENPORT, which seems to be desired of the whole Church aforesaid; and that in this particular case alone, concerning the Baptism of those infants, which are offered to be baptised in the English Church: having well understood and duly weighed the whole matter, on both sides, and having throughly examined it, according to the rule of God's word, and the order received in the Reformed Churches of these Provinces, in which the aforesaid English Church doth profess itself a member, under the Classis of Amsterdam, we do sincerely, and in the presence of God, with good conscience answer, and declare, that we desire nothing more, then that the foresaid Mr. DAVENPORT, whose notable learning and singular piety is much approved and commended of all the English our brethren; whom also, in this regard, and for his other commendable gifts, we understand to be most dear unto Mr. PAGET, may be lawfully promoted unto the Ministry of the English Church aforesaid: we do also greatly approve of his good Zeal and care of having some precedent private examination of the parents, and sureties of these children in the Christian Religion; yet, touching the matter itself, we do so judge, that this aforesaid examination be ordained, so far as may stand with the edification of the English Church; but if haply the parents or sureties shall refuse to come, and undergo this examination, or if, for the shortness of time, or, for other just causes, it can not be done, or, if those that do come, shall not seem, for that time, to satisfy the judgement of the Brethren, one or more that do examine them, that yet the infant, whose parents & sureties are manifest to be Christians, & which publicly before the Church do profess Christian Religion at the reading of the liturgy of the Sacrament of Baptism, shall not therefore be excluded or deprived thereof▪ but that such ignorant parents & sureties be further instructed, after the infant be baptised, to wit, because the infants of Christians ought not to bear & suffer the punishment of the ignorance, or yet of such disobedience of their parents, or sureties. If yet any other case fallout, whereby it may seem that the infant presented should not be baptised, that then the judgement of the whole English Presbytery, or also, if need be, and if conveniently it may be done, that the judgement of the Classis of Amsterdam be obtained and rested in.  
So was it done and transacted in the house of Mr. PAGET the 28. day of january 1634.  
Here it must be noted that the Answerer pretendeth to publish this wrighting. 1. So as it was done▪ and transacted in his house the 28. day of january 1634. 2. So as it was written down and read before him, when they enquired of him, whether he, for his part, did rest therein, and he signified his consent with them. These things being premised, I 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 parents, susceptoresve constat esse Christianos', whose parents and sureties are manifest to be Christians? when, according to their wrighting, it should be translated whose parents or sureties 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 error of the printer, but done purposely, by the author, appeareth from his constant private report, that I refused to baptise the children 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 sureties] were justifyable, why doth he alter it into a copulative expression. [viz parents, and sureties?] If it were not justifyable, why did he signify his consent with them, and that he, for his part, rested therein? 2. Why am I 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 showing my dislike, to change [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 down agreements on both sides, after some little 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 do. And after that time, they never spoke more of altering any thing. So it stood, and standeth to this day unaltered. 2. Suppose it had been altered by them (as it was not) yet the Answerer will have no advantage thereby: for he professeth to translate it according to that copy, wherein he signified his consent with them, and required that I should rest, which is apparently falsifyed.  
Fourthly, He blameth me for complaining that he dealt extremely with me, and rejected all my labour for a peaceable composing, prudent accommodating, and brotherly ending of matters between him and me privately, or by the counsel of the Elders of his own Church, nor would hearken to my advice without consent of the Classis. All these reports, he saith, are untruths. And this wrighting, he saith, witnesseth for him, etc. Three things I affirm in those wrighting, and they are all true.  
First, that he rejected my labour for accommodation. The truth of that appeareth in that himself 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 noted that he saith, any other, and thereby plainly refused that which was propounded by me? else why is any other way sought.  
Secondly, that he would not yield any brotherly moderation unto me, and refused all means of accommodation. The truth hereof appeareth in the means which he embraced, or, rather put those Ministers upon to propound to me (having praepossessed them with causeless jealousies) when it is required, that I should rest in a wrighting (which himself is loath to translate aright, that the Reader may know the whole truth) wherein I am advised to baptise all children, whose parents, or sureties are Christians, by which accommodation, I shall be brought to do the thing which I judge unlawful. For, if a Christian surety may give right to an infant for baptism, whose parents are neither of them Christians, and such midwives, or nurses, or others as take no future care of the child may pass for sureties, and must be accounted manifest Christians, if they nod 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 said to them; who seethe not that the sacred ordinance of Baptism is hereby made common, and so to be promiscuously administered, 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 confess, unless he will deny his own words: for himself said so to me, & he knoweth it, 2. The event showeth 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 I wanted warrant from the Scripture for mine opinion, because I did not set it down in writing, that the question might be in writing discussed between us, 
Sect. 11.  which he offered (as he saith) to some of the Complainants' sundry times, (though the vanity of this pretence is in the former Section, declared, yet,) being thus again challenged in print, I may not, without injury to the truth, any longer forbear to give a public account of my judgement in this matter. But first my humble and hearty request to the Reverend ministers of these countries (especially to those in that part) is, that they will not impute it to any contentious disposition, or to love of disputes, much less to a malicious desire of discovering their imperfections to the world, lest of all to an arrogant polupragmony in me, as if I, being a stranger, assumed to myself to be a reformer of these Churches, that I freely declare the grounds, whereupon I refused to bind myself to observe that custom. Thus casting myself upon their favourable construction, and praying them equally and judiciously to consider what I say, I will, with God's assistance, (which I humbly beg) proceed to declare my grounds after I have stated the question, by showing the issue and sum of that wrighting of the five ministers, wherein the Answerer would bind me to rest.  

The state of the question.  Briefly, it was, that I should administer the sacrament of Baptism to all infants that are presented thereunto, if those that present them (whether they be parents, or sureties) shall declare themselves to be Christians, by professing Christian Religion, at the reading of the leitourgy of Baptism, though the presenters are altogether unknown to us, yea, though they will not, or cannot satisfy the minister before, that they are such, as in whom the infant hath a right to baptism. This to be so, will easily appear 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 pastoral 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 speak with me, expressed themselves) that I should promise to conform thereunto: which is, in few words, to administer baptism 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 appear, I must crave leave to premise some things, 1. Concerning the confused mixture of all sorts of people in Amsterdam. 2. Concerning their manner of admitting those that are brought to baptism. 3. Concerning the manner of professing Christian Religion at the reading of the leitourgy of Baptism.  
For the First. Besides those of divers nations, who join themselves to some approved Church, there are many of all sorts of Libertines, in judgement, and practise, and profession, who refuse to join themselves to any Church: Also persons of divers sects and haeresyes, as Arrians, Antitrinitarians etc. besides jews, Mores etc. Also Apostates, excommunicates etc. Also vagrants, 
job. 30.5.  under the name of soldiers, and others, who are driven forth from among men (as job speaketh) They cry after them as after a thief, 
V 8.  children of fools, yea children of base men, viler than the earth, and swarms of vagabonds, whom they call potters, which how-soever they range most in troops, with their Harlots, in the Dorpes, yet they have their lurking places in tapp-houses in the cities, called smuckle houses. It were almost an infinite and impossible task to reckon up others which can give no account of their life, religion, or baptism, it may be. Also many, who are unknown, and therefore may be suspected. And these are of divers nations, English, French, Dutch, High Germans, Walloons. etc.  
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 unknown to the Church) who hath no charge or care for the child's education, if they come time enough, they certify 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.  
For the third. If they say, yae, to such demands as are made by the minister, in reading the leitourgy of baptism, though (as some times it appeareth, and may be often suspected) the presenter understand not what the minister demandeth, or saith, 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 down my grounds from the Scripture, whereupon I refused thus promiscuously to administer the Sacrament, which are four, and every one of them concludeth it to be a sin, so to do.  
Reas. 1 Because it is a profaning of the Sacrament thus promiscuously to administer it, as that wrighting requireth.  
That it is a profaning of the Sacrament who can deny, that acknowledgeth the Sacrament then to be profaned, when it is communicated to those to whom (by God's appointment) it appertaineth not? And that, if the Sacrament be administered to all comers, as that wrighting requireth, it will be administered 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 not be thought to broach some new and singular opinion, let us considered what learned and eminent lights in the Churches, in several ages and countries, have declared concerning this matter, whose judgements I purpose to cull and single out, in such sort as becometh one who would testify & 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 Baptism to Salvation. For to prove that infants dying without Baptism might be saved, he shown that the righteousness of faith belongeth to them before they are baptised, out of Rom: 4.11. 
Rom: 4.11 P. 237. 238.  where Circumcision & so Baptism) is called a seal of the righteousness which is by faith: and thence he inferreth, that they must have a right to Christ before Baptism, else baptism itself, being administered to them, will be profaned; as the king's seal is profaned, if it be put to a false charter or grant. This he amplifyeth by showing that baptism is a symbol and seal of Adoption in Christ, and therefore aught not to be given to those that have no part in Christ, because the seal followeth the gift, and therefore to give the seal to him that hath not the gift, & to whom the promise is not made, is to abuse the seal, and to profane it. Thus he.  

Beza count: Erast: Arg: 6. P. 60. Mat: 7.6. 1 Cor. 4.1 P: 61. 1 Pet. 3.  Beza, writing against Erastus, speaketh to the same purpose, The Lord forbiddeth to give holy things to Dogs, Mat: 7.6. By holy things, saith he, are meant those holy mysteries whereof the ministers of Christ are dispensers, 1. Cor: 4.1. and the swine and dogs are those obstinate sinners, who are convicted and judged by the Church to be such. Afterwards, he putteth a case of one of years that desireth baptism, & is ready to make profession of his faith, but leadeth a wicked life, and being called upon (according to the other demand in baptism) to profess his repentance and amendment of life, by forsaking such and such evils, as are there mentioned, he refuseth to do it. Thereupon he asketh Erastus, whether he think 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? Again (which cometh nearer to the case of infants) showing how little the profession of faith will advantage such, who, by reason of their obstinacy in sin, are convicted, and judged by the Church to be swine and dogs, and that their estate is the worse for their profession that they know God, 
Titus 1.16.  when in their works they deny him, he instanceth in Ishmael, and Esau, who were boath circumcised and outwardly acknowledged the true God with Abraham and Isaac, yet boath were disinherited and made lively patterns, both to that, and succeeding ages, of Ecclesiastical excommunication etc. Thus far he. From whence, how easily may it be collected that infants are deprived of right to those holy mysteries in such parents, as the Ismaelites, and Edomites were deprived of right to Circumcision, in Ishmael and Esau, though their parents had been 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 faith & good behaviour of the parents required in the Admonition) ask the authors of that book, What if the infant be the child of a Drunkard? what if it be of a harlot? shall not (saith he) the infant be baptised? Mr. Cartwright answereth thus. Because I see that Mr. Doctor doth make of the holy Sacrament of baptism (which is an entry into the house of God, and whereby the family of God must enter) a common passage, whereby he will have clean and unclean, holy and profane, as well those that are without the covenant, as those that be with in it, to pass by, and so maketh the Church no household, but an Inn to receive whatsoever cometh; I will answer. If one of the parents be, neither drunkard, nor adulterer, the child is holy, by virtue of the covenant, for one of the parents sake: if they be boath, & yet not obstinate in their sin, 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 heretics? If boath be papists or condemned heretics (if so be I may distinguish papists from heretics) & cut off from the Church, their children can not be received; because they are not in the covenant. If either of them be faithful; I have answered before, that the infant aught to be received. To other questions, wherein he asketh, what, if they err in some points of matters of faith? If it be an error, and be not in those points that raze the foundations of faith, because they still, notwithstanding that error, are to be accounted amongst the faithful, their children pertain 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 heretic father a believing child? Yes verily may they (saith he) So may have, and have the Turckes, and Jews, and yet their children are not to be received, unless their faith doth first appear by confession. But, you say, the papists and heretics be baptised, and so are not the jews and Turcks? Their baptism, being cut off from the Church, maketh them as much strangers unto it, as was Ishmael, & 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 God's people, than those which never, were in the Church. The same author, 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, unless he first show that the infants of those Apostates were lawfully circumcised. For, if they were not circumcised, by God's 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 seal, as if they had been still within the covenant, it followeth, that, in this respect, there is no more succour for the papists, in such resemblance with such Israelits, than when they are matched with the Ismaelites or Idumaeans.  
Mr, Cartwright his judgement is the more to be regarded in in this matter, because what he wrote in those Replies, he wrote as a public agent, in the name, and with the concurrent judgement of many worthy ministers, who pleaded for the purity of Christ's ordinances, at that time. So that it is not to be accounted his singular opinion, but the judgement of many m●n of eminent note.  
Master I: del'Espine minister of the word in the Church of Anger's, upon a most dreadful 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 means whereby they may come unto God, that they have no faith, and are without the Church, and that they are deprived of the Sacraments, as well as of the word, of baptism as well as the supper of the Lord. For their baptism no more serveth them for a token to testify and declare them to be members of the Church, from which they are separated, or that they pertain any longer to the Father, to the Son, or to the Holy Ghost whose house and dwelling place they have forsaken. As if a Knight having received that order of the King, and taken the accustomed oaths, if afterwards he should departed from the troth which he had given, in token whereof he should send him back his order to signify 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 means, forsaken the tokens and marks thereof, etc.  
Before all these, johannes a Lasco, 
Anno 1550.  a learned noble man of Poland obtained 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 seal 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 profanation of this Sacrament by such a promiscuous admission of all, as is practised in this place, will appear in his own report, which I do translate from the latin copy, thus.  
Baptism in our Church is administered in the public assembly of the Church, after the public sermon. For, 
john: A. Lasco. lib Forma ac Ritus tota eccles: minist: p. 117  seeing Baptism doth so belong to the whole 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; truly it is equal that that should be performed publicly in the assembly of the whole Church which belongeth to the whole Church in common. 
Forma ac Ritus administ. Bapt.  And Paul testifieth that, by Christ's ordinance, the Church itself, without excepting any member of it, is to be accounted clean (or holy) by the Ministry of Baptism. Whence we may easily see, that Baptism doth, neither belong to those who are altogether without the Church, nor may be be denied to any members of the Church. Now seeing our Churches are, through God's blessing, so instituted by the Kings Ma.tie, that they may be, as it were, one parish of all strangers dispersed through the whole city, or one body corporated (as it is called in the Kings grant) and yet, in the mean space, all strangers do not join themselves to our Churches (yea, there are many, who, whilst they turn from, and fly all Churches, will pretend to the English Churches that they are joined with us, and to us that they are joined with the English Churches, and so do abuse both them and us) we, lest the English Churches, and the Ministers thereof should be deceived by the impostures of such men (and that under colour of our Churches) do baptise their infants alone, who have adjoined themselves to our Churches, by public confession of faith, and observation of Ecclesiastical discipline. And that our Churches may be certain that the infants, which are to be baptised, are their seed, who have joined themselves to our Churches, in manner aforesaid; the father of the infant to be baptised, if he can possibly do it, or other men or women of notable esteem (or credit) in the Church do offer the infant to Baptism, & do publicly profess that it is the seed of the Church. Yet we suffer no stranger to offer their infants to baptism in our Churches, who hath not made public profession of his faith, and willingly submitted himself to the discipline of our Church: lest, otherwise, they, who should present their children to baptism, might, in time, plead that they belong to our Churches, and so should deceive the English Churches and their Ministers. Yet nevertheless, that we may openly testify that the English Churches and ours are one and the same Church, although we differ somewhat from them, both in language and ceremonies, we do not refuse that the English may, as public witnesses of the Church, offer the infants of our members to baptism in our Churches, if they have, both the use of our languages and a certain testimony of their piety: as, in like manner, our members are accustomed to offer the infants of the English to baptism in the English Churches.  
By this declaration, it appeareth what care they took, to prevent the profanation of this ordinance, and how well this care of theirs was approved of, in those days, by the public liberty they had so to do, under the broad seal. The same thing will further appear, 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 Do you acknowledge our Doctrine, which you have heard concerning Baptism, and the Mysteries thereof to be true? etc. Answer. Yea.  
Quest. 3 Do you acknowledge, that it is yours and the whole Church's duty & office to see that the infant offered to baptism, 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 bear witness against this evil, 
Chrys. de compunct. cordis lib. 1.  and, upon the same ground, viz, because the Sacraments are profaned when they are administered to unworthy persons, which he speaketh of boath the Sacraments, using the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the plural number. His words may be thus translated. Let us see also what other precepts of the Lord contain. Give not holy things (saith he) to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine. But we corrupted with the love of praise, do things contrary to this precept also, and do dispense the holy Mysteries to men that have not a pure understanding, nor sound faith, and moreover are blemished with great sins, 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. 18  Tertullian (Chrysostoms' Senior, who speaketh more punctually to the case in question concerning infants offered to baptism) shall conclude this catalogue of witnesses. He speaketh thus. Baptismum non temere credendum 
* Credendum i. e. committendum & administrandum petenti. De foro phrasis. junius Annot.  esse sciunt quorum officium est. They know, whose office it is, that baptism is not to be administered rashly to every one that requireth it. Give to him t'has asketh. Luke. 6. is alleged for alms. In this case, give not holy things to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine Mat. 7. is rather to be observed. And whereas some might object Mat. 19 suffer little children to come unto me &c. (speaking of infants of strangers from the covenant, as junius interpreted him) he saith. Let them come when they are grown to years: Let them come when they have learned and are taught wherefore they come: Let them know how to desire Christ, that it may appear thou givest to him that asketh.  
The validity of this Argument will be more manifest, if the ends and uses whereunto baptism serveth, by divine institution, be considered, which judicious Calvin briefly declareth, 
Calv. instit. cap. 15. Sect. 1. Eph. 5.26 Coll. 2.12. Tit. 35. 1. Pet. 3.21. Rom. 6.3.  saying, that Baptism is a sign or Sacrament of initiation, whereby we are taken into the fellowship of the Church, and, being engrafted into Christ, are reckoned amongst the children of God. Whence we gather, that, in Calvin's judgement, two things are sealed and signified in baptism.  
First our communion with Christ, in his merits and efficacy, for justification and sanctification: which are employed in our Adoption, whereby we are the children God. But, because all communion is founded in Union, it is praesupposed, that there is some union between Christ and him, who partaketh of this seal of the Covenant aright. 
Gall. 3.27 Mark. 16.16. Mat. 3. Act. 2.  Now that union is by faith, and therefore believing is joined 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 faith is not without repentance, repentance also is required to remission of sins, which baptism, in the right use of it, sealeth. Yet I confess, against the Anabaptists, that infants of believing parents, though they have not actual faith, 
1. Cor. 7.14. Gen. 17. Synops. pur. Theol. disp. 44. de bapt. Thes. 150  are accounted beleivers, as well as holy, in their parents by virtue of the covenant. And I willingly assent to the Reverend Divines, the Professors of Leyden, that it is a sufficient warrant for the baptising of infants, if in either of the parents such faith & repentance are found, as, in the judgement of Charity, may testify to men their union with Christ, though but externally. Yea, & I grant further, that evils in life, or errors in faith (whereby the efficacy of the covenant is made void, and frustrate to the parents) may not justly deprive the infants of such Christians parents of baptism, except in the cases propounded by those grave and learned Divines before mentioned, (viz, whittaker Beza, Cartwright &c.) or in cases parallel.  
The second end and use whereunto baptism serveth (in Mr. calvin's judgement) is to signify and seal 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, 
All ●●ed Supplem. ad Dan. Cham. Panst. Tom. 5. Cap. 7.  that Baptism and Circumcision are called Sacraments of initiation; not, because they make the beginning of Christianity, hut, because they signify and seal it, and so are opposed to the Sacraments of nutrition and growth, the passover, and the Lords supper. Which he amplyfyeth by showing, 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 baptism, 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 Baptism subordinate thereunto, 
Dan. Cham: de Sacram. Manuscr.  viz, the distinguishing beleivers from all the world beside; which is a necessary use of the Sacraments, since the fall of man, & hath been almost from the beginning. For, in the beginning, in the days of Seth, 
Gen. 4. & 6.  there began a different naming of men, some being called the sons 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 Baptism of john was of God, 
Mat. 3.  not of man, which also Christ our Lord instituted and ordained to continue in the Church, as a note of difference between his disciples, 
Mat. 28.19.  and all others (though not only or principally for that end) which use of it the Apostles retained, after the ascension of our Lord, and perpetuated for succeeding ages to the second appearing of Christ. Hereunto Paul had respect when he demanded of the Corinthians, were ye baptised into the name of Paul? 
1. Cor. 1.13.  Intimating that in baptism, they professed openly their dependence upon Christ only, and theyre cleaving to him as their only King, Priest and Prophet. And this use was, in after times, retained 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 joined together into any name of Religion, whether true or false, except they be gathered by some fellowship of visible signs and Sacraments. And Dr. Ames saith expressly, that it can not be but the signs whereby beleivers may be discerned from infidels must be confounded, if they partake of them, who will join themselves to no certain particular Church, alleging for that purpose. 1. Cor. 5.12. The issue and sum of all is.  
To administer baptism to the infants of those who belong not to Christ, who are convicted & judged by the Church to be swine and dogs, 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, etc.  
But to administer baptism in Amsterdam thus promiscuously, 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 sin, is, because it is an offence given to many thus promiscuously to baptise all that are brought, as that wrighting requireth.  
To clear this, I am to declare two things, 1. that it is a sin to give offence. 2, that this practice doth give offence (or scandal) to many.  
First. That it is a sin 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 appear by Scripture light, which forbiddeth it, & describeth it to be a putting an occasion to fall, or laying a stumbling block before a brother, a making him weak, a giving him cause to speak evil, or to think hardly of us, a pleasing ourselves, with neglect of our brother, and it propceedeth from a despising and light regard of others in our hearts, and it tendeth to the destroying of him. And, to conclude, it is to sin against our brother, and to sin against Christ.  
Secondly. That this practice doth give scandal to many. This we will declare by induction, and instances.  
First. To the jews it is an offence that we affirm our baptism 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 father's 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, do admit those to baptism whom they would refuse (though they err grossly in many points about baptism, & de suscipientibus baptismum also) for they hold it unlawful to baptise the infants or infidels 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 do absurdly, who baptise the children of unbeleivers, though the parents should desire it, as if (saith he) the Church might give baptism to whom they please. For than they might be baptised, even without the parents consent.  
Thirdly. To the Anabaptists it is an offence, who, because the Scripture requireth faith to baptism (not only unjustly, against the Scripture, dislike the baptising of the infants of beleivers, but also) complain, and that justly, of the promiscuous administering of baptism, even to those whose parents cannot be numbered amongst beleivers. As appeareth in their private discourses, public disputes and printed books.  
Fourthly. To Libertines and Familists it giveth offence and hardeneth them in their disorderly course, seeing they can partake of the outward privileges 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 evil courses.  

Anonym: in thes: de rit: gub: Christi eccles: Anno 1595. impres: & ad Illustr: Ampl. ord. Geld: Holland: Zealand: Fris: adscript. thes. 155. ad thes. 168. See Robb: Apol. Chap. 2. Idem ibid. preface. p. 9  Fifthly. Ignorant and superstitious persons are strengthened in a slight esteem of Baptism, and an Idolising 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 fitness were not as well required, in him that would partake of the blood of Christ, and of remission of sins by it, in baptism, as in the Lord's supper. For the same remission of sins is alike propounded in them boath.  
Sixthly. To those of the Separation it giveth no small offence, who, for this cause, complain of the Dutch reformed Churches, as neither so true to their own grounds as they aught (their practice being compared with their profession) nor so well providing for the dignity of the thing, whilst they administer the Sacrament of Baptism 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 do profess, that, notwithstanding this, they do account them the true Churches of Christ, and both profess, and practise communion with them in the holy things of God, what in them lieth; their sermons, such of them frequent, as understand the Dutch tongue, and the Sacraments they do administer to their known members, if, by occasion, any of them be present with, them, etc.  
Seventhly, To divers others who fear God, & hearty desire to see the ordinances of Christ established in their purity and beauty & are unfeignedly grieved that any blemish should be found in the reformed Churches, and truly 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, do not only reckon my unworthy self, 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 wind up all in one bottom.  
That which giveth offence to jews, Papists, Anabaptists, Familists; Libertines, obstinate sinners, ignorant and superstitious persons Separatists, and to divers others that fear God, is a sin.  
But to administer baptism so promiscuously, as that wrighting requireth, giveth offence to all these.  
Therefore to administer baptism so promiscuously &c. is a sin.  
Reason. 3 The third Reason to prove it to be a sin, is, because it is a building again of that which these Churches, according to the Scripture, have destroyed.  
This is an Argument, ad hominem, which I restrain to these Churches, to show the evil of this practice from their own principles, which it doth, by consequence, supplant, and subvert, at least, in the judgement of many, whether necessarily or probably, and in what degree, I will leave to their wisdom to consider, contenting myself with a short proposal of some particulars which are considerable, especially that ground being laid which the Apostle maketh use of, in a like case, 
Gal. 2.18  If I build again the things that I have destroyed I make myself a transgressor.  
First. That baptism is only a naked sign, 
Soc in. disp. de Bapt: Cap 5. fol. 75.  or note of Segregation from other sects, and profession of true doctrine, is an error which these reformed Churches have destroyed, by professing in their Confession, 
Sim. Episc. dis. 29. Thes: 8 Confess. art: 33, 34 Catech: quest. 73. 74.  and Catechism that it is not only so, but also a testimony to us, and a symbol to assure us of remission of sins &c. according to the Scripture 
(a) Mark. 1.4 Acts 2.38 Cap. 16.30, 31 32.33 Coll. 3.12 Ezek. 16.51.52 : But this practice buildeth it again, whilst a naked profession of assent to the doctrine and discipline of this Church is held sufficient to warrant theyre baptism, though it be made, many times, by such as are not known to have any right in the Covenant, whereof baptism is a seal, or at all to pertain 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 do not account Baptism any more than a naked sign of profession. And not only so, but it justifyeth that error, as Israel justified Samaria, by establishing a worse. For this practice seemeth to make baptism not so much as a profession of true doctrine, or a note of segregation from other sects, whilst it is apppointed to be administered thus promiscuously in Amsterdam (where people of so many sects inhabit) to all infants that are presented, though they make no other show of profession, then by saying, yae, or nodding the head, when they understand not what is said to them, being of a different language, and are allogether unknown 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 universal, wherein all have interest is an error which these reformed Churches have destroyed, restraining it only to the Elect, to beleivers, to the Church of God, according to the Scriptures 
(b) Psal: 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 practice buildeth it up. For, if the seal appertain to all, why not the Covenant also? Why not the grace? And who will not suspect that the seal doth appertain to all, in their judgement, whose practice 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 been baptised, have, by their infidelity and other sins obstinately persisted in, (being, convicted thereof and cast out of the Church) or by their wilful 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. If they say; their grandfather was a Christian, or great grandfather. I answer. Where must we stop at last? If not in the next parents, why in the grandfather, or great grandfather, till we come up as high as Noah himself? And so neither the children of Jews, nor Turks, nor heathen or infidels should be denied baptism.  
Thirdly. The absolute necessity of baptism to salvation; so that, 
3. Concil: Tried: Sess. 7. cap. 2. Confess. belg. art. 34. Gen. 17.  not only those of years, that refuse or contemn it, are damned, but even infants also perish eternally, through the want of it, is an error which these Churches have destroyed, when they profess it to be of the same use to Christians, whereof circumcision was to the jews, who being borne in the covenant, by their relation to their believing parents, by virtue of the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, were accounted in the number of Abraham's children, before circumcision, without which, circumcision did not appertain to them. According to the Scriptures, which declare David's confidence about the salvation of his infant that died before the eighth day, 
2. Sam. 12 23.  in which it should have been circumcised, and annexeth damnation to not believing, 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 practice seemeth to build this up again, For, if the necessity of it be such, as God's order must be violated rather than 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 Baptism is not of such necessity, as that God's order should be broken for, it, be good against baptism by private persons, and by midwives and nurses etc. Why may it not serve in this case also?  
Fourthly. The efficacy of Baptism, 
4. Council: Tried: Can: 8. Confess. art. 34. Catech. q. 72. 73.  when it is made a natural cause or instrument sanctifying those that partake of it, by the work done, is an error, which these Churches have destroyed, when they ascribe the working of grace to God, as the sole efficient cause, and author of it, and account the Sacraments, signs and seals, and moral instruments signifying and sealing and so exhibiting it instrumentally, in the right use of them, which I will explain in the words of that learned Dr, Whittaker, 
Dr. Whitt. prelect. de sacra: in gene: Ca 1. pa. 62. 63.  because his exposition seemeth to be more clear than many, in reference to the true state of the question between 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 do not mean that they are instruments, as our Adversaries do, as if God were so tied to them as not to confer grace without them, as an artificer cannot make a bed, or bench, without a saw, or hatchet, nor that they are able to work any thing of themselves by any hidden virtue 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 work 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 vain, because they are baptised, unto future faith & repentance, & because they are members of the Church, and holy by the Covenant, and therefore the sign of the Covenant is not to be denied them. Thus he witnesseth against that efficacy that papals ascribe to the Sacrament, & joineth with these Churches in destroying it, according to the 
(a) Heb. 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 practice seemeth to build it up again. For, whereas our Divines say that baptism is profaned, when it is administered to the unclean the popish wrighters tell us, that baptism is not thereby profaned, but that it doth sanctify them. And, upon this ground, Bellarmine saith, that baptism may be given to those that pertain not to Christ. To whom Dr. Whittaker answereth. This were true, if Baptism were a physical cause of grace: For grace is not profaned when it is given to the unclean, but it sanctifyeth them, to whom it is given: else (he demandeth of Bellermine) why may not infidels of years be baptised, if they will suffer themselves to be baptised; yea though they should profess that they do not believe in Christ, if baptism will sanctify them? But all men deny that. And why so? Because they belong not to Christ: Therefore (saith he) Baptism 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 baptism is their Christendom, and that they are made Christians by baptism, whereas we have shown that they must be Christians before baptism, else they may not be baptised.  
Fifthly. The lose positions, whereby Libertines are hardened, 
5. Confess. Belg. Art. 28. 29.  in refusing to join themselves in doctrine and discipline with any visible Church, are errors which these Churches in their doctrine have destroyed, by professing, that every man that would be saved (of what rank or condition soever) is bound to join himself with the Church of God, and to subject himself to the doctrine and discipline thereof, though with hazard of his life etc. according to the Scriptures. 
(b) 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 practice buildeth it up again. As appeareth in the example of that Libertine who took encouragement 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 join with any Church: whereupon he came home resolving, as himself told divers, never to join with any Church, whilst he lived, though he had been, as he said, 20 years before, in doubts about his condition.  
Sixthly. 
6. Catech. quest: 85.  The opinion of Erastus against Ecclesiastical excommunication, is an error which the doctrine of these Churches hath destroyed, by affirming that the power of excommunication belongeth to the Church, according 
(c) Numb. 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 practice doth build it up again, 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 allegeth john's admitting the very worst men to his baptism, 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 john admitted none to his baptism, but those that professed repentance and amendment of life. Therefore they are said to be baptised of john in jordan, confessing their sins, which, 
Mat. 3.6. Mark. 1.4 5.  after the manner of the Hebrews, signifieth more than a bare acknowledgement that they were sinners, even a profession of their embracing the doctrine of remission of sins by Christ, and a promise of amendment. 
Psal. 51. Dan. 9.4 Luke 15 Luke 18  Such confessions were Davids, daniel's, the Publicans, Prodigals. As for the Pharises and Sadduces (saith Mr, Cartwright) which came in Hypocrisy to be baptised, deriding the grace of God, I utterly deny that john baptised them: yea, that he rejected them, it is evident by his sharp reprehension and terrible threatening 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.  
Secondly. He allegeth that all the Israelites (as well rebellions as others) did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. 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 joined together with him) 2 things may be answered.  
1. That the things, there spoken of, were not to be numbered amongst those things which are only 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, Baptism, and the Lords supper, Sacraments: for they were not by any solemn promulgation, expressed in the word, instituted & sanctified by God to be seals of the covenant to beleivers (as circumcision etc.) which is necessary to the constitution of a Sacrament. But as they were miraculous and admirable types of Christ, so they were common, and temporal benefits serving for the bodily refreshing and safety of the people of Israel in general, 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 whole army, as a shield, or buckler, received, and kept from them the beams of the sun, which else in, that dry and hot region, might have consumed them with burning heat, especially they being wearied, and faint with journeying, 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 Baptism?  
2. That the persons there spoken of were the Church of Israel, whom he calleth our fathers, because from them the Jews 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 privileges of the word, Sacraments, Covenant, and other spiritual good things, as their inheritance. But what are these to those Libertines and others, who cast off all communion  the Churches of Christ? To conclude this Argument in one Syllogism,  
To build again those errors which the doctrine and profession of these Churches, according to the Scripture, have destroyed, is a sin.  
But this practice of promiscuous baptising all that are brought, with out difference, buildeth again those errors, 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 sin.  
Reason. 4 The fourth Reason, to prove it to be a sin, is because it is contrary to the good custom and practice of many Churches of Christ. Here I am to show two things.  
First. That good customs, taken up by Churches upon good grounds should not lightly be broken & laid down. Wherein I do fully agree  the author of that elaborate commentary upon the fourth chapter of john, my reverend Countryman, 
M. A. H. lect. on joh. 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 alleging the custom of the Churches, to stop the mouths of contentious men, & commending sundry truths 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, walk in the ways of good men, 
Pro. 2.20.  and keep the ways of the righteous, and a promise which God hath made to them that will learn the ways of his people, 
jer. 12.16  and conform themselves unto them, then shall they be built in the midst of my people. To make this point more clear, I will add thereunto, from a manuscript, 
Mr. I. C. in a manuscr.  the judgement of the worthy author of the preface to that commentary concerning the bindng force of good examples, who thus expresseth himself.  
Some good actions of holy men in Scripture are examples of Christian liberty, others are patterns of Christian duty: examples of this latter sort be, 1. such as are backed with some Divine precept. So Sarahs' obedience to Abraham is set forth as a pattern 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 sinfulness of Polygamy, as an aberration from the example or pattern 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 etc. Yet here also this caution would be observed, that, in the first institution or celebration of an ordinance, some actions were accidental, and taken up upon special occasions, & such actions are not precedents, unless it be upon the like occasion: other actions are part of the institution (whether essential or circumstantial parts) and belong, either to the completeness, or to the comeliness of it, and these may not be neglected without sin, 3. of the lawful actions of holy men, in Scripture, some were civil, and of those there is more latitude (as not needing an exact rule from Scripture, but admitting the light of civil prudence for a guide) others be sacred as belonging to spiritual things, and serving to spiritual ends. And of these, some of them are varying, not always observed in one constant tenor, in Scripture (as the gestures in prayer, preaching, and the places thereof, any of which are alike imitable) others of them are constant, always 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 forth in the first institution of an ordinance, being part of the institution, or which were the constant lawful actions of holy men in Scriptures, not, civil but sacred, so bind us to imitation, as that, not to conform thereunto is a sin.  
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 sin.  
Secondly, that this practice agreeth not with the good customs and practices of the Churches of Christ will appear, if we examine the story of times from the first institution of this ordinance.  
First in the jewish Church, circumcision (whereunto Baptism answereth, being a Sacrament of the same use that it was of) was, by God's 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 seal of the righteousness which is by faith) and therefore, by God's ordinance, it was limited to the men children of eight days 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 sin. And therefore the holy fathers were careful to follow this rule in keeping this sign joined with the covenant in those whom they circumcised. 
Mat. 3.6.7. etc. Mark. 1.4.5. etc. Luke 3.3.16.   
Afterwards john Baptist walked in the same steps, and by the same rule, mutatis mutandis, administered Baptism in that Church whereof he was a member, requiring of all that came to his baptism a profession of repentance and amendment of life for remission of sins, whereof Baptism was the seal, & 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 Gospel to the Gentiles, 
Mat. 28.19. Mark. 16 15.16.  & to gather Churches amongst them, and to baptise all such as should believe, throughout the world, as a testimony to them that the righteousness of faith did belong to them also, and not to the Church of the jews only. 
Acts. 2.37.38.39.40.41 42.44.46 47.  Accordingly the Apostles & servants of Christ were careful to observe this rule in their administering baptism. Thus Peter when he saw those 3000 souls pricked in their hearts, preached unto them concerning repentance, remission of sins, Christ, the promise, baptism, faith, and amendment of life, baptised those that gladly received his word, and testified the same by joining together in the profession thereof.  

Act. 8.12.13.14.  The same course Philip took with the Church that was gathered in Samaria where many were baptised, but none till they professed their belief of the Gospel, 
Act. 9.11 13.14.15 16.17.  and their receiving the word of God, and therefore it is said expressly, when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men, and women. when Ananias was commanded to go and baptise Paul, he objected against it at first, till the Lord assured him that he was one to whom that seal 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, saw that the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius, and those that were assembled at that time in his house, whilst he spoke these words, To him give all the Prophet's witness, 
Act. 8.36 37.38 Act. 16 31.32.33  that through the name of jesus, whosoever beleiveth in him shall receive remission of sins, Peter demanded, Can any man forbidden water that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And then they were baptised. To conclude this catalogue, Philip did not baptise the Eunuch, though he desired it, till he had given him satisfaction by professing his faith in express words, nor Paul the jailor and his household, till it appeared unto him that they believed on the Lord jesus. Nor is there any example in the Scripture varying from this course, to warrant such a promiscuous administration of baptism in a place where such heterogeneal 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 baptism! The stories are clear concerning those that were adulti, though we find little or nothing concerning infants, only that they were baptised, by virtue of that right they had to it, in their believing parents. But that which we find concerning the course which they took with those of years, may serve to show their high esteem of this ordinance, and how far they were from this promiscuous manner of administering 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 Gentilism to embrace the Christian Religion into three sorts, whom they distinguished by several names. 1. Whilst they were to be catechised and instructed in the grounds of Christian Religion, they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Audientes. Catechumenists & hearers. 2. Afterwards, having been 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 public trial was made of their fitness (which aftertimes called Scrutinium, the Scrutiny) and hereof there were two parts, 1. an abrenunciation, 2. a profession of faith. 1. The abrenunciation was expressed by the party desiring Baptism solemnly, in express words, in the Greek 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 faith was openly made, and in the hearing of the people, by him that desired baptism, some times in a continued speech, but more frequently by way of Dialogue, and by certain articles. 
Ambros: de Sacram lib. 2. C.  Credis in Deum patrem omnipotentem? Credo. Credis in Dominum jesum Christum? Credo. Credis in Spiritum Sanctum? Credo. This custom at first instituted for, and used only by those of years, who being converted from Gentilism to Christianity desired baptism, was, in aftertimes applied to the baptism of infants, whose sureties answered for them. 
Beza. epist 8.  This came in by abuse (saith Beza) and giveth too much advantage to the Anabaptists. For, if baptism may not be administered, without a profession of faith present, in the infant (which if they mean not, why is the infant asked concerning its faith, in the sureties, at that time, saith he) why stay we not with the Anabaptists (which God forbidden!) till the child can profess its own faith. And therefore elsewhere saith Beza, 
Beza epist. 12.  As Chrism and exorcism, although ancient, are well abolished, we would desire also, that not only superfluous, but also unfit questions were omitted also, although Augustine, in a certain epistle, would excuse it, with a certain interpretation, but he calleth it infirmum commentum, and that fitly. And therefore the practice 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 baptism is founded, and the power and care of educating the child in that faith lieth upon them. To let pass this digression. The custom of those times concerning men of years, though it do not, every way, touch the case of infants, yet it showeth the piety of those times, and the judgement of the Ancients concerning the point in question, de suscipientibus baptismum.  
And howsoever, in those times, some superstitious rites were used in baptism, and some errors in Doctrine are to be found concerning the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation, yet not one of them, so far as my small reading hath enabled me to discover, defended such a promiscuous administration of it (as that wrighting of the five Ministers required) as necessary or lawful. But if any man will wrest that conclusion of those Ancients in Cyprian, to patronise 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 seem to favour the error of universal grace, as well as promiscuous baptising.  
And indeed they countenance boath alike, that is, neither of them at all, being considered in Cyprians intendment, in that epistle, which was, to answer Fidus who held that infants of two or three days old ought not to be baptised, arguing from Circumcision, which was not administered till the eight day, and from the bodily uncleanness of infants at that age. Cyprian, in answer to his first Argument, showeth 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 etc. If remission of sins be given to the most grievous sinners, when they afterwards believe, and, repent, and baptism is not denied to them, how much more ought it not to be denied such infants. They that know how straight Cyprian was in nullifying the baptism of those who had been baptised by heretics, and such as were out of the Church, cannot imagine that any help may be expected from him, for warranting the administering of baptism to their infants, who are out of the Covenant.  
Now if any think that there is some colour for the justifying of this course to be found in the capitulation of Charles King of Sicily, with the Saracens, 
Speed. Chron: lib. 9 cap. 10. in the life of Edw. 1.  at the siege of Tunis in Africa, the third Article whereof was that such as were willing might freely receive the Sacrament of Baptism. 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 judgement of later times, since the reformation, if enough have not been said already, more shall be added, in answer to the seventh pretence.  
Only that I may omit nothing, that I meet with in my reading, which may seem 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 only to show that this evil custom is not maintained, nor to be defended by what they have written.  
First. I will begin with that question which exercised the Ministers that met in the Classis at Neocomum. 
Beza epist. 9  Whether the infants of excommunicates, are to be baptised, and in whose faith, seeing their parents are not members of the Church? The occasion whereof was this. A certain man, of a very wicked life, having 4 bastards, and thrice deceived the Church with hypocritical 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 judgement, 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 own faith, unless the parents, returning again to God by true repentance, be again received into the bosom of the Church, or it be presented by certain godly persons, who will bind themselves by promise to perform the duty of parents to the child. Unless perhaps, because it is borne within the Church, it should be baptised for the faith of the Church. Thus they.  

Epist: 10.  Beza, writing to them his judgement in this matter, distributeth those who are not to be accounted members of the Church into four sorts far 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 engrafted into Christ, yet falling through infirmity, and giving offence unto others, are delivered unto Satan, that godly sorrow may work in them repentance. Of this last sort, saith he, is the question: Concerning whom he first supposeth divers 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 join themselves with adversaries in persecuting the truth.  
3. That some difference is to be made between Turks and excommunicate Christians, or Papists.  
4. It is hard to judge, whether infants belong to the Covenant, in respect of their first parent's profession, or not.  
Secondly. Upon these suppositions he concludeth that the infants of excummunicates that remain in the Church may not lawfully be denied baptism. But this he delivereth with two provisoes, or caveats. 1. That, a fit surety bind himself to the Church for the holy education of the child. 2. That, upon this occasion, the Minister do, at that time, seriously exhort the father, being present, to repentance, in the presence of the Church, before he baptise the child, Which he saith 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, ullius jurare in verba magistri, to rest upon the authority of any man, without a warrant from the Scripture.  
Secondly. Compare what was alleged out of Beza himself 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 help the Advocates for promiscuous baptising.  
Thirdly. Consider the state of the question, as Beza maketh it, and it will appear that the infants, for whose Baptism he pleadeth, are of such as we may rationally judge to be engrafted into Christ, and elect of God, only being fallen by infirmity, are delivered unto Satan, that godly sorrow may work in them repentance.  
But what is this for the justifying of a promiscuous administration of Baptism 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 four things supposed by Beza, as cases, wherein he dare not give liberty of baptising, serve to discover the evil of this custom, whereunto that wrighting would have bound me. For, if all that are presented, though they refuse to make known before, who, or what they are, must be received, may not the infants of many, whose case is desperate in the judgement of the Church, who are, not only Apostates from it, but persecutors: yea even the children of jews, Moors, and others, such like, without the parents consent be offered to baptism, and so be baptised, which were to profane the Sacrament, 2. Observe how timerously Beza expresseth himself about the parents, on whom the right of the infant to baptism dependeth, in this case, whereby it may seem that he was not fully clear in it himself.  
Fifthly. The cautions and provisoes, which Beza giveth to be observed, in the baptising of such children of excommunicates, as he there speaketh of, do strongly condemn the disorder of that place, where the father is so far from being admonished publicly of his sin, that he is not so much as known, or inquired after, and where they are so far from taking care for the holy education of the child, that they regard not by whom it is presented, nor what becometh of it afterwards.  

2. De consc. lib. 4. cap. 27.  Secondly. Dr. Ames cometh next to be considered, and a passage in his book of cases to be examined, lest some ignorantly, others wilfully wrist it to the countenancing of this disorder, which to be far from his meaning, himself doth abundantly declare, in the same place. For he so expresseth his opinion concerning the baptism of divers sorts of infants there mentioned, as it may appear that his judgement 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 estimation, 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 laid in the first Reason, viz, Because Baptism is a sign and seal 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 unknown 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 Baptism doth 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, Because, Baptism is the seal 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 Baptism.  
Thirdly. He supposeth that those, whose parents are unknown, are in charity to be accounted Christians, when there is not just cause of presuming the contrary. But, howsoever this might carry some show of reason with it, in such places where all the inhabitants profess religion, and are joined 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 Baptism?  
Fourthly. He professeth that a difference must be put between the infants of those, who, in some sort, by profession, belong to the Church, yet do openly break the covenant of God, and the children of others, in the manner of their admittance to Baptism. viz, that, for the former sort, what is required by the Covenant, and wanting in them must be supplied by others. And for this he giveth two Reasons. 1. Because a distinction must be observed in all holy things between the clean and unclean. 2. Because else the ordinances of God cannot be preserved from all pollution. For these reasons he doth not allow the Baptism of excommunicates, unless they have fit sureties to undertake for their education, nor of bastards, unless their parents have professed their repentance, or other godly persons will take upon them the care of their education; nor of papists, unless they be presented by fit sureties, who have power over them for their education. But is any such care taken, any such course observed, about the admission of such to Baptism, in Amsterdam?  
Thirdly. Mr. Attersoll, shall shut up this discourse of times, 
Of the Sacram: of Bapt. 2. book. ch. 6  whom the Reader may suspect to favour this custom, if something be not noted by us to prevent mistakes. Now, howsoever he may seem to be some what large in his judgement this way, and to yield more then, either Mr. Beza, or Dr. Ames have done in this point, &, it may be, more than himself would have done, if he had fully understood the disorder against which we testify; yet the limitations and cautions which he propoundeth do discover the evil of that practice, concerning which the present question is.  

P. 218  For 1. he denyeth that the infants of Turks or jews 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 Baptism by any that have stolen them, or for some other reason, for aught 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 Baptism 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 descend, as the jews were in Abraham, though their next parents were wicked.  

P. 220. 221.  3. That they have such sureties as will undertake their education in the true knowledge of God, and faith in jesus Christ. But, Is it the manner of that place to be satisfied about these things before they receive them to Baptism? Do they inquire whether the infant was borne in the Church, of what parents, or forefathers, or how the sureties 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 Author in the same chapter.  

P. 211.  1. Conclus. That, besides the joining of the word to the outward sign, there is necessarily required a fit person to be partaker of the Sacrament,  
2. Conclus. Baptism is a common seal. But, as all have not interest to the pasture, herbage, and privileges of a commons, but only such as are Tenants, according to the custom of the Manner: so all have not title to Baptism, being a Sacrament of the Church, but only such as are the Lords people, according to the tenor of the Covenant. Apply these conclusions to this custom, against which we plead, & it will be granted, that what ever may seem to an unwary Reader, in the slight and superficial reading of that passage in his book, yet indeed it doth not serve to justifye the practice, about which the question is. From the premises I argue thus.  
If such a promiscuous administration of baptism as the wrighting of those five ministers requireth, be contrary to the good customs of the best Churches, it is unlawful.  
But such a promiscuous baptising etc. is contrary to the good customs of the best Churches.  
Therefore it is unlawful.  
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 far 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 schoolmen that, 
Aq: second secundae. art. 12. conclu.  Non sunt infidelium pueri, invitis parentibus, baptisandi. Children of infidels are not to be baptised without their parents consent. Wherein they suppose that such a case is possible. If so, why may not the child of a jew, or Moor, or Indian be brought by some one or other to baptism, 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 do not receive christian Religion, may be content to have their 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 countries 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 Jews? The Chronicles of our land can tell us how the Danes, being vanquished, propounded to Elfred the 24. Saxon Monarch, in England, for obtaining of their peace, that their king should receive baptism: by which policy he got the country of the East Angles, by the gift of K. Elfred his Godfather. In those times it was usual to make baptism a condition, and to compel men to baptism, as king Edmond did the Danes to make them become his subjects, which being done, they did soon cast off, both faith and fealty at once. And are not many of the mind of that Roman pretext, of whom jerom 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 do absurdly who baptise the children of infidels, if the parents be willing to have them baptised, as if the Church, at their own pleasure can baptise whom they will.  
Pretence. 2 Second pretence.] If the parents be no Christians, yet the sureties are?  
Ans. 1. The customary use of sureties in baptising infants, though it seem ancient by the mention that is made of them, in the Synod of Mentzes, 
Synod: M●gunt. Can. 47. Aug. Serm 116. 163. Epist. 23. ad Bonif: Tertull de Bapt. cap. 18.  under the name of Compatres spirituales, spiritual fathers and mothers, and, before that, in Augustine, under the name of Sponsores, and fidejussores, sureties, and before him, in Tertullian, under the name of offerentes, presenters: yet it is not from the Ancient of days, it was not from the beginning, neither in the first institution of baptism, nor the practice of the primitive Churches, in the first Century. The first original of this custom seemeth to be this, that they that took the child from the minister when it was baptised should be called spiritual fathers and mothers, that the difference between the first and second birth of the child might be signified, 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 spiritual kindred, and multiplied absurd inventions about it. Which very original and abuse, it being not of Apostolical institution, should make the Reformed Churches suspect it, especially seeing it is not of necessary use, the charge of educating the child lying upon the parents, and the whole Church being witnesses.  
2. Admit that, in some cases, there may be a lawful use of special witnesses, or sureties: yet, can these give the infant a right to baptism, which had none in the parents? That the 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 do we read so much of sureties?  
3. Admit, that, in some sureties the children have a right unto baptism (viz, such as were of Abraham's family, 
Gen. 17.3.  borne in his house, or bought with his money, and so such as are members of Christian families, in a like state) yet, will it thence follow, that such sureties as many times present children to baptism, in that place, partake of the same privilege, of whose families the infants are not members, nor are their families ordered like abraham's, themselves also are, some of them, notoriously wicked, others of them unknown 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 unknown woaman, who seeing a harlot delivered of a bastard, instantly took 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 hastened to the Dutch Church, where she found them baptising many, & without delay presented the child, which was received, without any difficulty or question. judicious 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 profess Christian Religion, at the reading of the Liturgy of Baptism?  
Ans: 1. The name of Christians is a name full of Honour, and wherein Nazianzene, professeth that himself and Basill did glory more, 
Orat: 30. in laud: Basil.  than Gyges in his ring, or Midas in his gold. Shall this honourable badge, and, as it were, livery of Christ his faithful servants, be put upon a company of varlets, whose fathers Job would have disdained to set with the dogs of his flock; as if the practice of a Christian life were not requisite to manifest Christians?  
2. If persons, otherwise unknown, are sufficiently manifested to be Christians by such a profession of faith as is usually made there at the reading of the Leiturgy of Baptism (which is done by saying yae, or some gesture of the body only) to what use was such a declaration of their faith 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 maintaining some dangerous errors against the immortality of the soul 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 errors, and for the dangerous fruits thereof in divers, who yet live in several places, and some in Amsterdam, who, to this day, have not revoked their wicked errors. Also the story of Robbert Roberts is notoriously known, who said he would have one child baptised in the true Church, and having collected a catalogue of several 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 presented it: another being about 14 years old he presented to the Anabaptists, but they refused it, accounting him too young 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 said. This is published in a pamphlet printed to the view of all men. Again, 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 been baptised. Are these to be accounted as heathen notwithstanding that? why not others also, that are as bad they?  
Lastly the Answerer himself refused to baptise the child of G. P. being excommunicated, and of a profane life, as it's said, 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; how can it be justified that they would compel me to baptise all that are brought, by whomsoever, in that place?  
Pretence. 4 Fourth pretence] The infants should not bear the punishment of their father's sin?  
Ans: 1. If they ground this Assertion upon Ezek: 18.14; 
Ezek. 18.14.17.  it is impertinent, it being there spoken of a son forsaking his father's sins, and doing the contrary, with whom the Lord dealeth not in the course of his justice, but of mercy. Such were Abijah & josiah: 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 Egypt (especially in the death of the first borne) stoned with Achan, destroyed with the Canaanites and Amalekites, rooted out by judgements upon the families of Eli, jeroboam, Baashan etc. 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 joined with the family of Seth, the Church of God, and thence arose the different names of the sons of God and the daughters of men. So were the Ismaelites and Edomites, with Ishmael, and Esau, their Fathers. At this day, the children of the jews are broken off, with their fathers, for unbelief, and are become strangers from the Covenant of promise, and so have no right to the Sacraments, the outward seals of the covenant.  
3. What difference soever we make between infants, 
Deut. 29.2 9  in this respect, yet 1. It doth not enter into God's decree concerning Election. For secret things we leave to God. 2. Nor doth it concern the eternal salvation of the infant, which is not at all praejudiced by the want of baptism, it being not by its own contempt, or neglect of it, (else we must conclude all those infants to be damned, which died in the wilderness, being uncircumcised, which God forbidden!) 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 privileges. For, I demand, was Isaac, and the children of the heathen alike, in this respect. And, if no child should be denied the Sacrament for the parent's sin, why are not the infants of jews, Turks, Indians, Moors, Gypses admitted, without any difference, to baptism?  
Pretence. 5 Fifth pretence.] The five Ministers yielded, that, if any other case fell out, whereby it may seem that the infant presented should not be baptised, that then the judgement of the whole English presbytery, or also, if need be, and if conveniently it may be done, that the judgement of the Classis of Amsterdam be obtained, 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 judgement is, that I should be left free, in any other case, to order my practice in admitting infants to baptism, by the advice of the English presbytery, without requiring the counsel 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 unknown. For which purpose I insisted upon this demand (which I still think to be equal, and, in that place, necessary) that none such should present their children in public 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 seek their advice.  
Now, if my demand, about being satisfied 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 shown between other cases and this, in reference to my demand. Will they say, this case is already determined? Let them show where. If they say in the Scripture; Let them allege one text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Revelations for it. If they say, in some Nationall Synod of these Countries; Let them name the Synod, and produce the Canon, in any one Synod that hath been from the beginning of Reformation to this day. If they cannot, as it is certain they cannot, where then? If they say in the Classis; It will concern the Classis to show, 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 cometh to be so particularly and severely pressed upon the Ministers of the English Church, seeing no more is required of the Ministers of any other Church, by the Classical orders, then to subscribe to the Catechism, and to the Belgic Confession, and to the last Synod of Dort, but no such practice 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 judgement of the English presbytery is sufficient, in some cases which may fall out and cause doubts in the Minister about baptising some that are brought, and that in those cases it is to be heard and rested in, if it can be obtained, without the judgement of the Classis, which the Minister is not bound to seek, but when it is needful, through his not obtaining 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 special insufficiency in cases of this nature. Which is the rather to be observed, because there he saith that the Classis hath already judged and determined it, and therefore they are insufficient: but here he saith, the five Ministers have referred me to the judgement of the English presbytery, & elsewhere he saith, 
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 himself.  
3. This also is employed in this expression of the five Ministers, that, if the judgement of the presbytery cannot be obtained, and so it be needful to seek the judgement of the Classis, that then it should be heard and rested in, so far as the judgement of the presbytery should have been rested in, if it could have been obtained. So far, I say. For, the Answerer saith, there are cases, 
Sect. 24.  wherein their judgement 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 appeal 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 than they agree with the Scripture.  
4. When they add, that the judgement of the Classis is to be sought, in case of necessity, so far as it may be done conveniently, they suppose truly, 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 whilst 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 public disturbance? which very consideration serveth to declare the reasonableness of my demand for private satisfaction to be given me before hand, to prevent all public disturbance.  
5. This seeming concession is merely seeming, and it is contradictory to itself. For 1, if there are cases, wherein the judgement of the Elders will be requisite and necessary; why do they hinder me from the use of means 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 & sureties in Christian Religion be so greatly approved by them, that they do judge that this fore said examination be ordained, so far as may stand with the aedification of the English Church: why do they afterwards add, that if the parents or sureties shall refuse to come, & undergo this examination, or those that do come, shall not seem, for that time, to satisfy the brethren etc. yet the infant etc. shall not therefore be excluded from baptism, or deprived thereof. This is that which the Satire could not understand, that a man should warm his hands and cool his pottage with the same blast of breath, nor can I see how, by the same men, in the same wrighting, 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 do what they list. The end of that ordinance was the aedification of the English Church, by a reverend and right use of the Seals: 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 help can be expected from the English presbytery, in this case, whe● the Answerer will always interpose, either to have matters concluded according to this custom, and his former practice, 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 partial, 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 appeal 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 judgement of the five godly and learned ministers, who protest, in the presence of God, that, in this advice they deal sincerely, and with a good conscience, desiring nothing more than to further my calling.  
Ans:] This pretence hath so much show in it, that the Answerer himself was deceived by it, and encouraged to place too much confidence in it, as appeareth in the various uses he hath made of it, upon several occasions. In which respect, it will be convenient, that we examine it very particularly, which that I may do, we will draw the strength of it into four heads, which we will express in so many objections, and subnect their several answers.  
Ob. 1 This custom is approved of by the judgement of the five learned and prudent men?  
Ans. 1 It is not sufficient that learned and prudent men approve of a thing, unless the grounds, whereupon they do it, be delared, and approved to be sufficient. Tertullian was a learned man. Yet jerom taxeth him for an error 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 unlawfulness of second marriages. Origen was a learned man: Yet Augustine accuseth him of an error about the salvation of the Devils, 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 baptism to salvation. And Chrysostom was a learned m●●: Yet he erred when he hold, that where spiritual books are, the Devils have no power. These 5 Ancients, all men will confess, are not inferior in learning or prudence to the five Dutch ministers who subscribed that wrighting, yet they erred.  
2. The Answerer himself pretendeth the same cause for his not resting in the judgement of more than 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 err apart: yet when so many consult together, and conclude upon a point; their judgement jointly declared, should be rested in?  
The judgement of learned and prudent men is to be received with all due reverence; though they severally & apart express it, much more, when they, joining together in consultation, do consent and agree in one conclusion: provided that the truth do not suffer praejudice by men's authority. In which respect it was learnedly and prudently said by Augustine. 
Aug: Epist: 48.  Hear that which the Lord saith, not that which Donatus saith, Rogatus saith, Vincentius saith, Hilarius saith, Ambrose saith, Augustine saith. (yet these were six learned and prudent men) but hear what the Lord saith. 
1 Cor: 1.12.  For to do otherwise, what is it but to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo's, and I of Cephas; which the Scripture condemneth.  
2. Why may not five together err 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 error of the millenaries (as jerom reporteth) had subscribed a wrighting to assure jerom of the truth of that opinion: would he have thought himself bound to rest in that their opinion, upon their naked affirmation, which he judged to be their error? 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 judgement against this disorder of promiscuous baptising to this Answerer? would he think himself bound to rest therein? If not: why doth he require this of me?  
But they protest in the presence of God, that they dealt sincerely, 
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 been required) when he advised David about building a Temple to the Lord, & encouraged him thereunto: Yet he erred. Peter thought he dealt sincerely and with a good conscience (and, before Paul had convinced him of his evil, it may be, would have protested it also) in his temporising 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 than to further the promotion of Mr. D. 
4. Ob.  to the ministry of the English Church?  
Ans: 1. I do easily believe that the Dutch Ministers did really desire my settling there, and that, when they went to the Answerer, their purpose was to further it. And I am persuaded of them, that when they wrote to me, they did it, upon some encouraging intimations suggested by the Answerer, that a letter from them signifying the concurrence and consent of their judgement with him in this point would prevail to draw me to yield to it. I am also confident, they were the more apt to approve such courses of accommodation, as, they saw, would best please him, upon a conceit that the Answerer himself did much desire me, which also themselves did intimate in the writing subscribed by them. So that their miscarrage in this buisenes was not from any disaffection to me, or desire of hindering my settling there, but from too much credulity and tractableness to comply with the Answerer, in his way, the issue of whose purpose, they foresaw not. These things being premised, I proceed to show the reason, why I could not rest in their conusaile, in this particular.  
2. Two things, especially, hindered me from resting therein. 1. Because the same thing which they propounded, only as their private judgement, the Answered pressed as a law to me, wherein I must rest, that is, conform thereunto, and this my resting therein must be the condition, whereupon he would consent to my settling there, else not. So that his finger was heavyer upon me, in this, than their loins, & he assumed a power to himself of prescribing rules to me, which the government of these churces hath not given him, yea, more than is given to the Classes themselves by any Synod, or to any Synod by the word of God, to enjoin this thing to a Minister as a condition of his call to a pastoral charge. 2. Because the five Ministers propounded their private judgement nakedly without showing their grounds from the Scripture, so that they seemed to me to deal by their authority, not by argument. Now the mere authority, that is, the bare affirmation of godly and learned men, is less to be regarded then their reasons, and yet their reasons, without the word, are of no value, in Divine matters. For all men are liars, 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 whole 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 ears of corn) 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 errors by Scriptures (so Christ did the Pharisees and Sadduces) 5. confirmed and proved Doctrines by Scriptures (so Peter proved the resurrection and ascension of Christ &c.) 6. gave advice, and made orders, not by their own authority, but by the direction of the Holy Ghost, which immediate assistance seeing we want, light must be fetched from Scripture, if we will guide others safely by our counsel, without which learned men may err, have erred, and do err, & therefore their judgements must be tried, and judged by it, and no further be rested in, than they agree with it. According to that of jerom 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, do promise to observe.  
This pretence the Answerer insinuateth in that which he said about the form of Mr. B. calling, Ans. which was to minister the word, and the dependences 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 noted, 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 been formerly alleged, or may be hereafter) 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 prevailing by men's ossitancie, and sleepiness, which is Satan's 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 
(a) Helvet: poster. cap. 13.  of the people of God 
(b) Helvet. prior art. 21. et Bohem. c. 21.  of holy parents 
(c) Gallic. Art. 35. , of those to whom the promises belong 
(d) Belgic. Art. 34. , who are inserted into the Church, and only them 
(e) Saxon confess. Art. 13. , the true children of Abraham 
(f) Suevit. cap. 17.  such as are in alike condition as they were who had right to Circumcision amongst the jews. Now compare, with this doctrine of the Reformed Churches, the practice of that place, as it hath been declared, and it will appear that their own 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 countries to this custom, and the thing will be manifested. In a Synod held at Dort in the year 1578. Art. 59 It was referred to the judgement of the Ministers and Elders, whether there be any lawful cause brought by any, why the child to be baptised should be deferred from Baptism: and in Art. 61. It was ordered, that the fathers, before they bring their children to baptism, shall go to the Minister, or an Elder, that the Church may have notice of the parties that are to be baptised. And in Art. 62. They are apppointed to acquaint the Minister what name they will give the child, and to show him how they will educate the child in that Religion.  
In a Synod held at Middleborough in the year 1581. the 22. question. It is demanded, whether the parents of children do go 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 appoint witnesses, which stand not for religion? Ans. The parents shall be wont, as much as is possible, that they first speak with the Ministers before they present their children to baptism, etc.  
In a Synod held at Vtricht, in the year 1590. Art 1. It is decreed, that Baptism is to be administered, according to the ordinance of Christ, without Godfathers to bind themselves, only the father and mother to promise to train it up in the Religion.  
Now, compare the Canons of these Synods with the custom of that place, and they will be found so far to vary from it, that it will appear 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 countries. 
De conscientia. Cap. 27.4  Incuria illa idcirco neutiquam potest excusari, quâ promiscuè, & sine disermine, admittuntur quicunque, et a quibuscunque offeruntur. Therefore that carelessness can by no means be excused, whereby all, promiscuously, and without difference, are admitted to baptism, 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 myself, by promise, or otherwise, to rest in the judgement of those five Ministers, that is, to conform to the custom of this place in administering Baptism 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 far from accommodating me. I will wright it down as I received it from the Elders, out of the note, which I have in keeping. jan. 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 baptism of their children, and to make confession to him, for his satisfaction in his administration of that Sacrament? The answer was by all voices, 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 voices in Consistory, that Th: A. the Coster shall bring or direct the parties to the Ministers house. Afterward, this question was propounded by the Answerer, & written down in these words. Whether, if persons ignorant, being willing to receive instruction, although not presently able to render a reason, shall be sent away by him, or admitted, to wit, they approving of the doctrine of baptism taught in these Churches, and as by us usually is propounded? A Copy of this pretended order, with the questionws, as brought to me by some of the Elders to see what answer I would make to them boath. Which when I had considered, I found the order too short, and the question captious.  
First for the order I let these five things be duly weighed.  
1. The Answerer dateth this order jan. 15. which the Elders date jan: 19 as he dated the ministers writing to me jan: 28. which themselves, in their latin copy to me, dated jan: 20. which difference is not of much consequence, only it showeth that it is not safe for the Reader to be too confident of the Answerers' memory.  
2. Where as I propounded three ways of accommodation (as the eleventh Section showeth) here is but one of them propounded in the Consistory.  
3. That one is otherwise propounded than I expressed it. For I did not desire that all, whose children should be presented to baptism, 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 perform it jointly, but severally, and alternis vicibus) neither did I require that they should make confession to me, but that I might speak with them, before they presented them in public, that I might have some knowledge of them, by private conference with them, to prevent public disturbance.  
4. The course, whereupon they agreed for accommodation, was not sufficient. For 1. many present their children to Baptism 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 do acquaint him with their purpose of presenting their children, what if they will not come to me, upon his persuasion? Who seethe not that I am, in such cases, and the like, as far to seek for accommodation, as if no order had been made? I told the Elders that this would not be sufficient, unless it were added, that, no infants should be presented in public to baptism, 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 firm order should be made in the Consistory, to secure me from further trouble about this point, which the Elders promised, and endeavoured to effect (as I was told) but the Answerer resisted it, refusing his consent thereunto, without the consent of the Classis.  
5. The offer which he pretended that he voluntarily made, for the enlarging of this order, and my further accommodation, to wit, that he would send to me those parents, that should come to him etc. and so, departing from his right, he was content to refer the whole work of examination to my discretion, is a vain boast of false liberality. For. 1. few, if any, come to him to advertise him thereof. 2. If he should speak to them, they would choose, and it, may be, refuse, and make contention, if a firm order were not made to prevent it. 3. His referring of the whole work of examination to me, was cast in for a pretence, to evade the first mean of accommodation propounded by me: and by the second course, 
Sect. 11.  which I propounded for accommodation also, it may appear, 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 doth he speak only of knowledge, when I would (as he knoweth) be satisfied concerning other things, as well as their knowledge? 2. Why doth he speak of the measure and degree of knowledge, so obscurely and suspiciously? 3. Why was this question added to the order? Was it not to show that the order should no further stand, than 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 appear in my dislike of his question, whereunto, if my answer had been to his content, to what end did he procure the five Ministers to sign that writing which was sent to me afterwards, as himself confesseth in the beginning of this Section? It had been superfluous, and to no purpose, if the matter had been before concluded amongst ourselves.  
For a Conclusion of this Section, to satisfy the Reader that this was to be called rather a proposition or motion about an order to be deliberated upon, than an order perfected by mature deliberation, these Considerations may be added to what hath been said.  
1. That with this pretended order a question was joined, and my answer to boath was required. This showeth 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 expressly said, [yea if Mr. D. can be entreated etc.] which again showeth, that it was no absolute order but to stand, if I could be entreated etc. So that this could not be called an order, till the Answerer had been satisfied about mine answer to his question, and till I had yielded 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 proof of the defectiveness 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, seeing the end of it, was my satisfaction.  
5. That, before I 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 again promised me, the next day, that all should be made well.  
As for their wrighting of this amongst the Acts of their Consistory, whether it was only entered into a waste book, or written down, for a record, I know not, let them look 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 again we must differ about his report of the time. He saith, that the day, wherein this discourse was between us, was jan. 22. 1634. and yet, that it was after I had received the wrighting from the five Ministers, which writing, in his translation, is dated jan. 28. 1634. When the 22. day, shall come to be after the 28. day, in the same month, this report will be true, not before. 2. As untrue is his report, that then I signified my consent. To make that appear, I will briefly relate the story of that matter. On saturday, towards the evening, one of the Elders brought me that writing subscribed by the five Ministers, which when I had read, I told him what I thought, & that I durst not yield to it. Both he, at that time, & the next day, after the fore noon Sermon (it being the Lords day) the other Elders prayed me not to show 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 themselves did seem not to require me to rest in it (seeing 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 refer myself. When the Elders, fearing the Answerers' drift, in this discourse, hastened him into the Consistory, one of them saying he knew my mind, he answered, that he desired to hear it from myself, and afterwards, when, upon my answer to him, they again endeavoured to break off our discourse, he said to them discontentedly, I perceive that he doth not rest in the wrighting of the five Ministers, further than it maketh way for an order to be made in the Consistory. When I charged the Answerer herewith, what replied he? If this be true, it follows 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? Seeing this order (saith 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 myself, resting so far 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 far in that wrighting, if I had any desire of being joined with him, from which I am very far, 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 mine own answer? I said 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, than I myself had done to the Answerer himself; who seethe not, that he should have accounted that to be the answer; which I myself gave to himself, not that which Mr. W. gave so far differing from mine, 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 causeless reproaches, in the intercurrent passages. For. 1. he saith, in the beginning, that, upon my consent to the wrighting of the five ministers, considered with the order above mentioned, it was thereupon resolved etc. 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 said in my wrighting, to prove that he did not desire to have me with him, that the conditions, whereunto he held me, shown it to be so, and added, upon which terms, he is content to have others, whom he hath no cause to desire for Colleagues with him. This he saith, is a great untruth. But I know it to be true, and can demonstrate it, if I would fall into his vein of disparadging men in print, and divers of his Congregation will witness it to be true. 3. For the intercurrent reproachful passages, the Reader may note more than a good many. But I let these things pass, & will relate the story of this passage also, as it was. The Answerer (in all probability) by the help of this wrighting of the five Minister, thought that he had me now fast in his lurch, which way soever I resolved upon. If I should rest in it; then the question was yielded & I had bound myself to baptise promiscuously all that should be brought, according to their custom: which I could not do, without sin against my conscience. If I should refuse to conform thereunto; he had the five Ministers now engaged to assist him, both with the Magistrates, and with the Classis, to hinder my settling there. This groundwork being thus laid, it was no hard matter to persuade him to go to either of them. Hereupon, at the entreaty of the Elders, he accompanied them to the Burgomasters, whom, when they made their address to them, they found praepossest with a false information, about the cause of my coming into those countries, concerning which they desired to be satisfied. For they had been told that it was not for matters Ecclesiastical, but for some offence against the civil 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 been said on both sides, I found that the Answerer was so far from doing me full right (in clearing my innocency, as he might have done, having understood the truth concerning the cause of my coming into these parts, by mine own report to himself, in private) that what he spoke might seem, rather to increase, then remove the suspicion.  
The pretend cause of my trouble with the civil Magistrates in England (as it appeared) was a pious work, wherein I (with others more worthy) was entrusted, to wit, the redeeming of impropriations, & restoring of the means to the right use, the maintenance of faithful and painful ministers, in those places, where was most need. Wherein three other ministers (whereof two were Doctors of Divinity) and four Lawyers (of which one was the King's Sergeant at Law) and five Citizens (of whom one was Lord Major of London, when I came thence) were trusties with me, by the entreaty and appointment of many, some whereof are at rest, others are yet alive. The work itself was applauded in that very order which was made in the Exchecquor against our proceeding in it: Our faithfulness in discharging that trust was testified by his Ma.tie Attorney general (who prosecuted the suit against us) upon his examination of our accounts, which we gave in, upon our oaths. I had no more cause to fly for fear of trouble about this, than the rest, nor had they, or I any cause to withdraw ourselves, at that time, when I came over. For the buisenes was wholly ended before my departure. This objection being answered, and the informer himself 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 again waited upon them for their answer, the Burgomasters told them. 1. that they were satisfied 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 said ministers had acquainted them with some difference, which had risen about this custom, and that I had now promised to join with the Classis, and to conform 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 do accordingly, and so you may proceed in your choice. By this the Reader may perceive that matters were now so far 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 engaged so far in this matter, that they gave but a conditional 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 gap was opened to every one, that hereafter should seek my hurt, to procure some such children to be brought (of which sort there can be no want, at any time, in such a city 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 help from the Answerer, whom I have found an hinderer of my accommodation hitherto, both in those three ways propounded by me, & in the order, which should have been made in the Consistory, by the promise and endeavours of the Elders.   

An examination of his answer to the 16. Section, concerning their going to the Classis to seek their consent.  
THe truth of this passage I will briefly 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 speak with me) they went, without my consent, or knowledge, to one of the Dutch ministers, whom they entreated to call an extraordinary Classis to meet on the monday following, fearing (as it seemeth) lest longer delays might occasion new troubles. The minister, having granted their request, in their return 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 than before: they also apprehended my reason. I wished that the calling of a Classis had been forborn, and prayed them to return 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 do, and went from me with that resolution, but another of the Elders, with whom they met afterwards, altered their purpose, and therefore they went not. This change of their mind I knew not, till it was too late to help it. The day when the Classis met, they were with me, in the morning, before they went to the meeting. I prayed them to deal plainly with the Classis, in telling them my judgement in this question, and told them the danger of neglecting so to do. They promised me, and purposed to do 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 perform their promise, still hoping and purposing to secure and satisfy me by an effectual order that should be made for that end, in the Consistory. Whereas the Answerer saith, 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 saith, Had I known that he was unresolved to accord with us, and to go on in the same practice with us, I would never have made such a proposition for his admission, as I did, in the Classis. I answer.  
1. Had he said so to me, at first, much trouble might have been prevented, but he held me in expectation of a better end, by telling me that he would see what he could do with the Classis, and that he would not answer me alone. etc.  
2. What proposition he made I know not, but what opposition he made, both concerning the tendering of a call to me in writing, and concerning the manner of expressing my call, both he knoweth, and others can testify that were there present.   

The answer to the seaventeenth Section examined, concerning my withdrawing of my consent first made known unto him, as is pretended.  
THe title of this Section supposeth. 1. that I had consented, 2. that afterwards I with drew my consent: the untruth of both which assertions hath been shown in the foregoing Sections. Here, he speaketh of matters that passed between 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 when I had read, I first gave them thanks for this expression of their good esteem of me, and then, to omit other passages, desired to be certified, 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 been. For answer hereunto, the Answerer told me, that they could do no more in that buisenes, than had been done formerly When I heard this, & perceived, by a clause in that wrighting, that, in accepting this call, I should bind myself to conform to the orders and customs of the Dutch Church in this particular, as well as in others, I made some demur 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 week. But desiring, & obtaining secret conference with the Answerer, I acquainted him, in as inoffencive manner as I could, with my still continuing unsatisfyednes, about the lawfulness of that conformity which was expected, praying him to help me with his advice, 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 do nothing, of himself, in that matter. To omit other passages, seeing the Elders, and Deacons were now come together, we agreed to speak 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 think I made too strict an interpretation of the words in that wrighting, which the Answerer calleth a form of calling (because, upon the reading of it; I made some demur, desiring time of deliberation) let him know that, if I had accepted the calling delivered to me in that form, I had actually bound myself to conform to that unwarrantable custom. Nor is this my opinion alone, but the judgement of the Answerer, and (as he saith) of the Classis also, which will appear by his own 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 form of his calling, which was sent to him in writing. For (saith he) being called to administer the word and dependences 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 form, but resting therein, after this question had been propounded unto him, this is taken for an evidence that he was willing to observe their order in the administration of Baptism. TO SUCH AS THEY USE TO do, and so it was understood by the Classis.  
So that, it is not only the judgement 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 form of calling, but in the same sense, the same form was tendered me. Therefore the Answerer addeth. And had Mr. D. accepted this call, when it was, in the same form, offered unto him, that would also have been taken for a grant of his professed agreement with us, etc. 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 settled concerning the unlawfulness of that custom, and all means 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 employment, 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 saith, I had formerly given, whereas the truth is, that, from first to last, I was of the same judgement against this unwarrantable custom, and so expressed myself, 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 hindered. For, after that private discourse, before mentioned, had passed between him and me, and after some other speeches in the Consistory, and after I had walked forth, at their entreaty, a great while, that they might privately consult, being called in again to hear the issue, whereunto matters were brought, I found that the order, spoken of in the 13. Section, was again renewed and enlarged, 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 behalf 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 been done accordingly, the Elders might well have added, in way of testification, their persuasion, that no occasion would befall to work any scruple unto me in that which I feared. For, then the order which I desired, had been made to prevent further occasion of offence, seeing that lay in their power to do, if the Answerer would have joined with the Elders lovingly and freely therein, and no other course could help me, as the case now stood, which the Answerer knew, though the Elders and Deacons did not, all of them, see so far into it. Now, seeing this lay in them to do, 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 show the insufficiency of this order to secure me: they again prayed me to walk forth, and, after a shorter absence than before, they sent for me to return to them, to hear what was added for perfecting that order, which they wrote down, in these words. And further we purpose if any should at unawares, bring such children, whose parents are not members, we shall desire and counsel them by the Coster (without absolute denial) to bring their children the next excercise following, that, in the mean time, there may be conveniency of examination.  
Upon which Additionall I will note 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 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 only a declaration of their purpose, but hath not the force of an order, 3. That, considering that they purposed only to signify so much privately to those persons who should at anytime so come (and not to have it published, that the whole Church might take knowledge of it) and that by the Coster, a mean man, whom they, to whom he should speak, would easily slight, and his commission was only to desire and counsel them, which they would easily reject, and ask him, what he had to do to counsel them to defer the baptising of their children, In this case, what could he answer but this, I do only desire and counsel you, but I may not absolutely deny you? And, how can such a course secure me?  
Here again the Answerer misreporteth my answer: for he affirmeth, that this would not content me, unless there might have benean absolute denial of Baptism, in such a case, if entreaty 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 stood upon, was, that a firm 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 been done, without any offence to the Classis, and with much content to the Church. So that I have just cause to complain of his want of brotherly moderation, in this point, what soever he seemed to yield, which, he knew, was not sufficient to prevent the thing which I feared.  
The following passage is an unjust reproach, which I will pass by, having answered to the substance of it formerly. How unlawful that practice is, and how necessary it was that I should witness against, it doth appear in my Reply to his twelfth Section.  
In Conclusion. when the Elders prayed me to defer my answer to another time, the Answerer told me, that, when I should give mine answer, if I did accept of this calling, I must promise to rest in, that is, to conform to, the wrighting of the five Ministers. Whereby it appeareth, that, not withstanding all these pretences of accommodation, conformity to that wrighting, which bond me to this disorder of promiscuous baptising, 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 appear 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 conform to the judgement of those Ministers set down as an order for me to rest in, I could not do it, because the promise of doing any thing is a Confession that the thing is lawful to be done, which I do not believe to be so, in this case, yet, because I much prized their loves and tendered their peace (as I truly told them) I was willing; if they desired it, to go on in assisting the Answerer, as I formerly had done, for a convenient time, to see, if, in the interim, by a friendly acquainting myself with the Dutch Ministers, I might be satisfied about the lawfulness of this custom, whereunto my conformity was required, or procure that this question might be laid down, & might understand what those other orders & customs of the Dutch Church are which I must observe, & more fully know the members & state of the English Church, wherewith I should join. In which motion I intended no intrusion (which I have always abhorred, and was very far from, in that place) but only 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 express words, by the Elders recorded in the Acts of that Consistory.   

His Answer to the 19 Section examined containing certain Acts of the Classis after that my dissent and refusal of the call was known.  
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, seeing I had in the Consistory declared my not accepting the call, which was offered me, upon those terms? was it because the Consistory had not power to give me a convenient time for informing myself 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 Classical meeting four things are reported. 1. their dislike of my change. 2. 
Feb. 27. 28. 1634.  their approbation of the five ministers writing. 3. the deputation of divers Ministers to go to me. 4. the persuasions which these deputyes used.  
To the first] The Reader, in considering the former Sections, will find that my judgement hath been against this promiscuous baptising, 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 alleged for the reproof 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 doth an Arrian, with whom he had to do, saying, Neither may I allege the Council of Nice, nor thou the Council of Ariminum, 
Contr. Max. Arr Cap. 14  thereby to prejudice one another, but by the Scriptures which are witnesses proper to neither, but common 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 practice in this particular, not the Classis, to justifye their approbation, and confirmation thereof.  
To the third] 1. That is more fitly called a command, than a counsel, wherein a man is bound to rest, and that under such a paenalty. 2. Three Dutch Ministers, being deputed to speak with me, desired to know what I disliked, in that letter. I answered them, 1, that I disliked the whole 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 johannes a Lasco, under the broad seal of England, which is continued to this day. 2. I told them the danger of that expression [quorum parents, susceptor esve] whereby I am required to baptise all infants, that are brought, if, either their parents, or sureties are Christians. For, by this rule, the children of jews, Turks, 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 again from their purpose, saying that they would acquaint the Classis with what I said. And so the wrighting remaineth unaltered, in my hand, to this day.  
To the fourth,] If these two words, intreatyes and persuasions, signify one and the same thing, without any difference in the sense, I grant all to be true, which he saith, so that, to their desire of my accepting the call, it be added, upon the condition premised. But, if, by entreaty, he mean mere desires, without arguments to work upon my affections, and, by persuasions, he mean intreatyes backed with arguments, to work upon my judgement & affections, then, I grant, intreatyes were used, but not persuasions: For I do 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 Classical meeting.] It is true, that then I sent them a wrighting, by advice of one of the three ministers whom they deputed to speak with me: the end thereof was to relate the truth concerning passages between 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 condescended to so equal a motion, it might have been much for the peace of the Church. I am certain, I intended nothing else in it. But they were herein overswayed by sinister suggestions, arising from a jealousy, that, if I had been 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 I could not conform to their orders, to order matters so, that they, who much desired my settling there, might be willing to think upon some other, and my purpose was to have given the best help I could for the settling of some other, whom they should desire, in a way of peace and concord. To conclude. All that I aimed 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 again prayed me to yield 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 afternoon, 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 satisfy myself concerning the conformity required in that writing, yet they were content that I should proceed in assisting Mr. P. the month following, till the next Classis, but required of me, that if, in the mean space, I could not yield, that I should then desist voluntarily, else they must be constrained to complain to the Magistrate. Which message I received in the presence of divers witnesses, and promised to do accordingly. This I promised and performed, I confess, only for the Church's peace, and mine own, yet disliking their injurious manner of proceeding, which I am content to pass by, with such a touch, till further provocation.  
Concerning the third Classical meeting.] It is true; that having occasion of absence, 
May. 1.  at that time, I left my mind in writing with one of the Elders, both in Latin, 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 show in writing mine answer, as should be thought most expedient. It is also true, that, in that wrighting, I signified that my mind was wholly turned away from accepting that call (viz upon those terms) and that I did voluntarily desist (viz; as the Mariner doth voluntarily cast some goods into the sea, in a storm, 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 been said, & may more fully, when the Answerer shall attempt to clear himself of the particulars there charged upon him, which here he doth not, neither indeed can he.  
Concerning the Magistrates requiring of them to desist.] It would be known, by whose procurement this was done. And, for him that stirred them up thereunto, my hearty prayer is, that he may escape the judgement of God by judging himself for that unrighteous act. Else, I fear, he will find that injuries done against a Church, in such important cases, are no small sins.  
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 I perused it, I should have, either yielded, or replied, as the case had required. Had this Answerer been of the same mind with them, to suppress this treatise, as they did their wrighting (which, I believe, was more in offencively penned) the adversaries might have wanted that cause of insulting and reproaching us, for these contentions and jars, which now they seem to have.   

The answer to Sect: 20. examined, concerning my pretended preaching in a private house.  
THat the truth of this passage may appear, the Reader may be pleased to understand, 1, that, after my desistance from the public work, I would have returned to my own Country, but that it was now more unsafe and hazardous for me so to do, then formerly, by a malicious and false report suggested against me in England, by one in Amsterdam (whose name I will conceal, for some reasons, at this time) this audacious Sycophant was not ashamed to inform that I had, in the pulpit, railed against the government of England, against which, the Answerer, and the whole Church are able, and, I hope, ready to testify for my innocency, in that particular: yea, any that have heard or known me, I think will undertake for me, that I am far from railing, at any time, much more in the pulpit, and mine own conscience abundantly cleareth me thereof, in the sight of God. Yet this report was too easily received, and thereupon much bitterness, in terrifying menaces, was expressed against me, in public audience. This I only mention to show the cause of my staying in these parts. 2. Being thus hindered from returning to England, my family also being with me in Amsterdam, I was willing to be as profitable, 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 Lord's day, about 5 a clock in the afternoon, (which was above an hour after the sermon was ended in the English Church) to catechise boath our families, upon such grounds of Divinity as I collected from the Scriptures, which I opened and applied to them. To this excercise at first, few came, afterwards more coming to the knowledge of it, more resorted: the greatest number (for aught I have heard) which, at the most, have been observed to be present at it, exceeded not 80 persons. It is true, that, as the number increased, some forms were provided for them to sit upon, to save the chairs & stools from hurt. I had the less cause of suspicion, that this would be offensive, seeing it hindered none from the public ordinances which myself and all the rest frequented constantly, and seeing almost as great a number had resorted to a like excercise, at the same hour, in a private family, with the Answerers' approbation, formerly. But now the case was altered, and the Answerer raised causeless jealousies, 
Sect. 21. line 14. 14  concerning this course, as if it had been the beginning of some Sect. But most injuriously, as not only his own pen declareth in the following Section, but also those that heard can testify, from the whole scope of that exercise, which was to arm them against the danger of being carried away by the errors of Sectaryes, and the open carriage of it, manifesteth. For, not only the Elders and Deacons would have showed their dislike, if any such sinister courses had been attempted, as their place required, but also those, who came as spies (and we knew to be such, yet excluded none) would have disclosed it to the Answerer, and divulged it to the world. Yea? and mine own conscience knoweth, that one main encouragement of my upholding that private excercise, was, that thereby a rent in the Church might be prevented, and the public peace preserved, whilst the members were somewhat quieted and contented with that help, in private, which was denied them in public; and mine own heart is privy to my intendments, at that time, of doing the best offices I could, for the quiet settling of a faithful man, in the public work, if God's providence should offer one unto them, whilst 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 shown that I was not wholly mistaken in my conjecture, as will be evident to him that shall compare the carriage of matters, whilst I lived among them, with the accidents that happened since. Yet, when I perceived that the Answerer took such offence at this exercise, I desisted, before any spoke with Mr. Wh: from the Classis, but with me none of them ever spoke about it. Thus I 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 follows 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 note, saying that howsoever I do mislike & speak against Separation and Schysme, and reprove the same, yet can I not altogether clear myself of being some occasion of Division amongst them, whilst I maintain such practices so different from them.  
Ans: 1. It is well that his pen doth clear me from inclining to Schysme or Separation, whose tongue hath unjustly raised suspicions thereof against me in the minds of some. Yea, that his own hand writing, in this Section, 
Sect. 2. and 10.  hath cleared me of those contrary aspersions, and imputations, by himself cast upon me, and written and printed against me in other Sections 2. What need is there, that I should go about to clear myself from that which is not a fault? For, if to be some occasion of division among men, by maintaining a practice different from others be blame-worthy, then Paul and Barnabas were to be blamed for that practice of theirs different from those beleivers who held that it was needful to be circumcised, after the manner of Moses. 
Act 15. 〈◊〉. etc.  For, the text saith, they had no small dissension, and disputation with them. So were Paul and Silas, who were accused at Philippi, before the Magistrates, as exceeding troublers of the city for teaching customs, 
Act. 16.20.21.  which were not lawful for them to receive being Romen. At Thessalonica, jason & other brethren are accused to be those that turn the world upside down. Nor can it be denied that Paul was some occasion of that great stir and uproar, 
Act: 17.6.  which arose in Ephesus, whereby the whole city was filled with confusion. And, howsoever he laboured, by all concord with them in things lawful, to enjoy peace at jerusalem (as by purifying himself &c. 
Act: 19.23. Act: 21.26.28.29 30. ) yet, upon a causeless jealously of his bringing Greeks into the Temple (because they saw Trophimus with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the Temple) the whole city was moved, and of this commotion Paul could not altogether clear himself of being some occasion, by maintaining some practices so different from the jews. 3. The Answerer seemeth to insinuate somewhat against my journey out of town, two or three days before the time of administration of the Lords supper (wherein he saith) I was accompanied with some members of the Church, who (as he heard) did go with me, and leave the communion, this, he saith, gave great occasion of strife & other offence to the Church, & was a course tending to Schysme. Repl. 1. For the complanants, who, he saith, separated 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 do the like. Who would think that, against so ample testimony, the Answerer should have the boldness to accuse me so unjustly for that? 2. His accusation of me for my journey out of the City, at that time, is as injurious, as that: For the case, which caused my travail, at that time, would have constrained me thereunto, at any other time, as well as that, it being necessary, for the help of a painful 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 countries (which I had no cause to refuse, but to take thanckfully) and, besides her, not one member of the Church went along with us (unless the maid, which attended her sucking child be a member, which I think 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 root but the evil surmises of his own jealous fancy: pluck up that root, and the most of his complaints will dye of themselves.   

His Answer to the 22. Section examined, containing a wrighting, first left with a friend 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 friends, that might speak in the cause of the dumb, & maintain mine innocency, in my absence, the Reader shall find in my reply to the second Section. Now, the cavils which are to be found in this Section against that wrighting are to be examined. First. It is an injury to call that writing 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 friend 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 note, both living and dead.  
Secondly. How justly that wrighting is called a true report of passages, the Reader will see, by comparing what is said, 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 latin, by, this English copy, I meant not which is printed. For there are divers faults in that, & it appeareth to have been printed out of a very imperfect copy, but that which I wrote. As for his exception against it, that having twice 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 mean 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 showing the equity 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 again. But let it stand, in this second place also, seeing the Answerer will have it so, and he shall find me, with God's 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 latin word be rendered into English, especially when the sense giveth it sufficiently in the sentence. If this be not to seek a knot in a bulrush, I know not what is.  
Fourthly. In my first writing how unable the Answerer is to discover any untruth (in my report of the private conference between 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 foul untruth or falsification (after his usual manner of expressing himself) both in the superscription, and subscription thereof. But what is it? I said that those instructions were delivered by the Elders of the English Church deputed. But 1, that translation saith 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 falsify the translation, when he complaineth, of falsification in the translator? 2. suppose it had been to the Elders deputed, and that by Elders, I meant any lawfully deputed by the Eldership; yet I spoke and wrote truly. 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 been so ordered by them. Now, if no such deputation was made afterwards, what is that to me, who styled the Elder by that title which best expressed my purpose, and expectation? neither was I in town to alter it afterwards, nor did I ever hear, that no deputation was made in the Consistory, till now.) The issue of all this deep accusation, what is it now, but, as when a great expectation was of the mountain's birth, which was feigned to be with child, after which nothing appeared but a little 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 multiplieth injuries.  
1. In misreporting my intent in the three wrighting, which was, not to make him odious to the Classis, nor to teach the Elders how to fill their mouths with reproach of him, nor, to stir 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 myself, & for the remove all, in some, and prevention, in others, of causeless praejudices, and jealousies, 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 sign 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 upbraiding of him, for mine assistance of him, and with a vain boasting of myself. To convince him of ill requiting me, yea of rewarding evil for good, I remembered what labour and patience I had exercised for his and the Church's peace. This was no upbraiding, much less unjust, nor vain 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 appear in the examination of Sect. 2. 8. and 40. Whereunto as he referreth the Reader, so do I, and also to Sect. 11. and 14. that it may appear how justly I complain of the two injuries which he noateth. Also concerning the five objections answered by me in that third wrighting I do concur 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, divers 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  object) but for pretending his desire to have me with him, when he did really hinder my settling there. 2. His sarcastical insultation, when he tauntingly demandeth, Is he such a man of desire etc.] Reply 1. It seemeth that I am not such a man of desire, in his account, yet, in the esteem of that Church, and of the Classis, how unworthy soever I am in myself, it seemeth, I am; Else, how comes it to pass, 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 testified? 2. If I am not such a man of desire, in his account, yet I should not be such a man of scorn 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 sorrows, and that in many respects. 3. His voluntary concession, or acknowledgement (by way of supposition and intimation) that he withheld his desire from me, in the act of Election, is considerable. For, if, when his voice went with the rest for mine 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 own hand in that wrighting, whereof himself was the penman? Did he himself, accompanied 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 marvel then, if he held me so to this question. No marvel, that he refused the means propounded by me for accommodation. No marvel, 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 himself against me. No marvel, that it was procured to be ratifyed by the Classis and Magistrates, that I should rest in it, and conform thereunto. No marvel, that an order which the Elders would have made in Consistory, to secure me from trouble for that, was hindered by him, and that the convenient time, which they agreed upon to allow me, for satisfaction, was denied by him. No marvel, that other usages (which I forbear to mention) of me have been so unbrotherly (that I say no more) if he did not desire me. 4. In the same way of supposition and intimation he seemeth to say, that he was for another whom he might judge to be more lowly etc. 1. This I complain 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 himself, 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 self-denial takes upon him Christ's yoke, and him most loving, whose spirit closeth most strongly with all good men, in all good ways, and him to be most faithful and upright, who doth most excercise himself to have a conscience in all things void of offence, both towards God, and towards man. In this sense he might have had men lowly, loving, faithful, and upright, whom the Church desired, but enjoy not, to their great grief, and loss, 2. It had been 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 proof, 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 himself hath translated, according to their words, and published, where speaking of me, they say, whom, for divers respects there mentioned, we understand to be most dear 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. Himself 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 express their esteem of me, in the fear of God having considered of such as might be fit thereunto, we have set our eyes upon you etc. being persuaded of your sufficiency, learning, and piety, hoping also, that, through those gifts of the spirit wherewith the Lord hath endued you, and wherein we have received much contentment, you may be a special instrument of building up the Church of God by your godly labours amongst us. This wrighting was penned by himself, and his own name subscribed with his own hand, wherein my fitness for that place is so testified, that it may seem strange how one & the same man should privately wright that, and yet publish this.  
Eigthly. When he saith, It is certainly a want of modesty and prudence in him, to make such disputes about his own desireablenes. Ans: 1. I only show the reasons of mine opinion that he did not desire me, but of mine own desireablenes I do not speak at all, much less dispute. 2. Will any man condemn me for expecting that he should desire me, with whom I should be joined, as Colleague, in such a work? 3. What could I say less, or more mildly? I did not say, he opposed me, rejected me, circumvented me, or the like, but only, he did not desire me. 4. Upon my use of the same word [certainly] in the second Section he said, it is against modesty and conscience, to pronounce so certainly touching the issue of things to come, and yet himself useth the same confident asseveration in a case more improbable, as will appear to any man, or to himself, if he reduce his reasoning and discourse (to prove such disputes as I have used about mine own desireablenes, to be a want of modesty or prudence) into a Syllogism.   

The 23. Section examined, of the Answerers rejecting the counsel of the Elders, when matters have been referred to them, if he thought they would conclude against his purpose.  
THe usefulness of the Eldership in the Church being considered, with the Honour which the Holy Ghost putteth upon those who are called thereunto, should warn all men to take heed of contemning them, or occasioning others to despise them.  
First. 
Act: 14. p. 155.  Their usefulness appeareth in that the Holy Ghost directed Paul and Barnabas to ordain Elders by voices in every Church. Which text Mr. Nowell in this Catechism allegeth to show that there were in the well ordered Churches certain Seniors chosen, and joined with the Pastor, and thereby he would show that the Pastor should not excommunicate alone, without the judgement of the Church. This place being so understood, we may from hence note two things to declare the usefulness 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 apppointed to every Church. 2. That they were solemnly ordained, being commended to the Lord with prayer and fasting; which is not used in slight matters. It appeareth also in that they are joined, 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 Ghost putteth upon them, is very great, as appeareth, first, in their employments, 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 counselling about Church affairs, the Apostles refused not their help herein, and this use of them continued (as Ambrose saith) till it was altered by the sloth, or rather pride of Teachers, who would seem to be some body, by doing all things alone. 2. In the titles wherewith he honoureth them being thus employed, calling them 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb: 13.7 17.24.  Leaders, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thess: 5.12. Rom: 12.8  Precedents, 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act: 20.28. 1 Cor. 12.28.  Overseers, 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 do the duty of their place in the fear of the Lord, faithfully and with a perfect heart, wise, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, blameless. 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 Ghost enjoineth the people to use towards them, in theyre well discharging their duty. As, to acknowledge them, and to esteem 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 go about, by disparadging speeches, to disable them from doing the work 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, the injury is, not only personal to the men, but public and common to the whole Church, which is much blemished, either for want of it officers, or for want of care to make a good choice, and to see that they discharge their duty as they aught, and much disordered, whilst those, who should be admonished by them, are now armed against them, as men branded with a mark 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 briefly 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, lest else (it may be) the Reader should forget that I am the mark he shooteth at, through all these.  
The Answerer saith, 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 public person, a preacher of the Gospel, and their Pastor, and that, not whispered in the ears of one, but published to the view of many. But, if it be true; the Answerers' sin is double: 1, that he gave just cause of this complaint, in a case, not of private, but of public injury, by depriving of his flock, not of civil, but of spiritual liberties, to the violation of that order which Christ hath settled in the Church; 2. That he unjustly chargeth them with a slander, and so maketh himself guilty of calling good evil, yea, of the same sin, whereof he accuseth them, viz, slander.  
For the more clear and full understanding and judging of what is said, 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,  
First, They do not complain of those decissions and determinations which have been made by most voices in the Eldership, but of those which have been hindered and rejected by him: nor of his giving sentence by his authority alone, but of his rejecting the authority of the Eldership, and interposing the authority of the Classis to hinder their proceeding in things which might have been ended amongst themselves: nor that, those resolutions which have been concluded in Consistory, have been transacted without consent of most, but that some considerable conclusions, which most have agreed upon, have been by him rejected, without sufficient cause. So that, unless he can acquitt himself of rejecting those determinations, which have been made by most voices in the Elderships, and of hindering their proceeding in things which might have been ended amongst themselves, and that, without sufficient cause; the complaint appeareth to be just, in this particular, and no slander.  
Secondly. They do not complain of his opposing, contradicting, or rejecting their opinions and counsels, when they were against right, and truth, or hurtful to the Church, or to any member thereof, but, when matters have been 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.  
Thirdly. They do not complain of his rejecting the counsel of the Elders only by showing his particular judgement, as one Deacon may oppose the opinion of another in their own session, or as in a Senate Civil, or Ecclesiastical, there may be difference, and so opposition of opinions amongst men; without rejecting such conclusions as are made by most voices in things lawful and equal; but of this they complain, 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.  
Fourthly. In his fourth answer, his accusing the Elders of partiality & insufficiency is propounded by him, but the grounds thereof, or the proofs of it are not declared, and so, upon the matter, just nothing is said.  
Fifthly. In his fifth answer, he pretendeth just cause of his excepting against three of the Elders, as partial, in this controversy about me. And to make this cable strong, he twisteth three causes, as cords, together, that they profess themselves to be of the same opinion with me touching baptism. Ans. 2. that they have, by their example, allowed and countenanced the meeting of divers, at a private excercise, upon the Lord's day, after the Sermons were ended. 3. that they made an act for my preaching amongst themselves, as an assistant, for a certain time etc.  
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 sin of partiality, in the Elders, to hold with any man in disliking, and witnessing against evil customs, as this promiscuous administration of baptism is declared to be? or to join, without scandal or Schysme, in a private excercise, after the public are ended? or to make an act for a man's preaching amongst them as an assistant, the public 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 himself thereunto? If so; then to hold the truth, to join in a peaceable and inoffencive use of private helps for aedifycation, and to provide for the public good & peace is an argument of partiality in an Elder. The vanity of this pretence is manifest. Let us see his second proof.  
Secondly. Ans. To prove them partial 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 alleged against himself? For, Reply. now it appeareth not to be the complaint of some members only, who might unjustly complain, through 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 complain thereof? As for the Classis judging of them parties; how easily may the Elders demand their grounds, and proof thereof, and, in case of want of sufficient evidence, appeal from their sentence, to the Scripture? And is it not possible, may we think, 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 own, and the Church's sake.  
Ans. Thirdly. If that proof fail, he hath one more, which will hold, as he imagineth. Even the Elders themselves have acknowledged, that, when some such complaints as these have been 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 acknowledgement 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 men's 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 claim, which was unduly withheld from them; and it is no presumption in them, if, knowing their right▪ they give a new judgement 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.  
In his sixth answer he undertaketh to show their insufficiency, wherein, Ans. that he be not mistaken, he professeth not to speak of that common insufficiency that is in all men etc. but he excepteth against their insufficiency in some special cases, and namely in such particulars whatsoever have been already judged and determined in the Classis.  
Reply. So then. Whatsoever the Classis shall take upon them to judge, though it were unduly 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 satisfied about the equity of their proceeding in it, and though they do not show sufficient warrant from the word, for their judgement, and determination. And this must hold, in all cases whatsoever. Me thinks the Answerer should, upon a review, voluntarily revoke this expression, or that the Classis should profess against it, in public, as some of the ministers have affirmed to me in private, that they do not assume any such power to themselves, or, if they be silent, the provincial Synod should provide that convenient means may be used to stop the spreadings of such an error, 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 Countries, ever gave power to the Classes thus far 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 fairly construed, & (for aug●t I can discern) according to the intent and expression of the Complainants' themselves, requireth any thing, but what the Nationall Synods have ordered and apppointed to be done for and to all the Churches, and which the Classes, if they be true to their own rules, in their first constition, must see performed. So far 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 proof of his depriving the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church, is, 
Compl.  that he hath protested against their judgement in matters which might have been ended in the Consistory, and, in that respect, aught not to have been brought to the Classis, yet he hath carried 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 complain that he hath nedlesly waved the judgement of the Elders, are three. 1. concerning an order that should have been made for my accommodation, in the question about promiscuous administering Baptism to all that are brought, in that place Sect: 25. 2. about be an agreement amongst the Elders that a convenient time should be given me to, go on in assisting the Answerer, to see, if, in that time, I could obtain that this question might be laid aside, and inform myself more fully concerning the orders and customs of the Dutch Church, whereunto my conformity was required Sect: 26. 3. Concerning his refusal to let Mr. Weld preach, though he confessed he had nothing against him, without consent of the Classis etc. ibid. Whereby it appeareth that they do not complain of his seeking advise of neighbour ministers simply and absolutely, but, 1. in certain cases, there mentioned. And therefore they do not, in their wrighting, divide the one from the other into several Sections (for that is his own contrivement) but relate all together in one entire Sentence 2. the cases produced by them are such, wherein the matter might have been determined, and concluded by the Eldership, without violation of any order established in the government of those Churches. 3. The matter was so carried by him, in this needles appeal 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.  
For the first,] His thincking that the Elders err in their judgement, in such cases as these in question, is not a sufficient ground of an appeal, as may appear in reason: For so no cause should be ended in their Consistory, though the Elders unanimously consent in their judgement, 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 lawfulness of such appeals, in such cases, for which they find no word commanding or approving them.  
For the second] Unless he can prove those agreements amongst the Elders to be sins, and unfruitful works of darkness he will be found guilty of a double sin. 1. that he opposed the Elders, without just cause. 2. that he misapplyeth Scripture to justifye his unjust opposition of them.  
For the third] It is granted that, as Councils may err, 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 equity of their so doing, from Scripture, or good reason, which hath not been done by the Answerer.  
For the fourth] The pretended reason, whereby the Answerer would justifye this Act; taken from the very foundation of government, and institution of divers judicatories, to take, away disagreement, strife, controversies, or different plead among men, will not help him in the cases questioned, unless he can prove, 1. that the Classes are of the same use, by Divine institution, for the help of Pastors which have the assistance of their Eldership, 
Deut. 1.12 with Cap. 17.8.  whereof that judicatorye was for the help of Moses (who was not able alone to bear 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 carried from the Consistory to the Classis, 
2. Chron. 19: 8: 9.10.  are of the same nature with those causes between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgements, which were deferred to the Levites, the Priests, and chief of the Fathers of Israel, that men might be warned by them, that they trespass not against the Lord. This also they deny, and may justly accuse him of misapplying the Scriptures noated by him in the margin.  
5. To the fifth] It is true, that the power of the Elders in government had not been overthrown by his bringing any matter unlawfully unto the Classis, if it were the manner of the Classis, in such cases, to remit the matter to the Consistory again. But, what one instance can he produce, in the particulars whereof they complain, 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 been agreed in the Synods that they shall not be proceeded in, without advice of the Classis; nor, because they concerned many Churches, and therefore require the consent of all What then? It was, because the Elders could not satisfy him, nor he them, as he intimateth in the answer before. But, why was he not satisfied? Because he would not be satisfied, unless the matter might be carried 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 carried against his mind there, it shall not be ended there, but be taken out of their hands and carried to the Classis, where he knoweth how to bring his purpose about. Thus he hath two strings to his bow. But, in the mean time, is not the power of the Elders in government overthrown thereby?  

Sect. 25.  In the 25. Sect. they speak of an agreement amongst the Elders to make an order that those who were not members of that Church should make themselves known to me, 
Compl:  that I might be satisfied concerning them, before they should present their children to Baptism in public, which, they say, would have ended that difference between us, but he protested against it. If this complaint be just; is it not a grievance? let us weigh his four answers to it.  
Ans. 1. He saith, there was no order made: therefore they speak untrue, and they know not what?  
Reply. Neither do 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 saith, there is no evidence in their Church book, that, either the Elders had so agreed, or that he had protested against it.] Nor do they say, it is recorded in the Church book. For how could it be recorded when it was never made, and that by his hindering the making of it?  
3. He saith, If such an order had been peremptorily resolved upon, there had been just reason for him to have protested against it seeing the Consistory hath no power etc.] 
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 saith, 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 signify to the ministers, if any from other parts come to dwell amongst them, concerning whose Religion they are not satisfied, 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 profitable and decent administration of the Church. Neither is the Answerer only against Mr. Traverse in this, but reason itself is against him, taken from the very foundation of that office in the Church, as appeareth in what is already said concerning them in the 23. Section compared with what hath been by me declared against the disorder of promiscuous baptising in the 12. Section.  
4. He saith, If he had protested against such an order etc. 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 been a mere declaration of his judgement, and resolution, though delivered in form of a protest, and had been strengthened with good reasons, and had been 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 do against his mind, in this matter, is held forth, without arguments from the Scripture, or good reason, to convince them of the equity of that stiffness in opposing, and, when it is not left within themselves, but carried from them to the Classis, that, by the interposition of their power and authority, the Consistory may be hindered from executing or making such an order, who seethe 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 hindered, that they can not provide for the godly, comely, and orderly administration of the Church, doth deprive the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church.  
But this Act of the Answerer, in hindering the ending of this difference about baptism etc. by interposing the authority of the Classis, for that end, was an hindering of them from providing 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 been shown 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 shown in the 12. Section against promiscuous administration of baptism, as it is in that place, whence it will appear 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 been ended in the Consistory, 
Compl.  is, that agreement which was amongst them that I should have a year's time to go on in assisting the Answerer etc. Now let us see how this is answered.  

Ans. 1.  First. He saith, it is untrue that the Elders agreed I should have a year's time.] Reply. How unjust this challenge is, may appear, 1. By the report of the Elders themselves, who say that it was referred to voices, and by voices 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 years time, would be convenient for that purpose. 2. Not only they, but the Answerer himself saith 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 myself with the Dutch ministers, the orders of the Classis, and Synod, and state of this Congregation etc. But, though our Elders liked of this offer, saith he, and thought good to desire him to remain with us, as an assistant, as is before said; yet I thought it not safe (saith he, speaking of himself) without first taking advice 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 less than a years time could not be convenient, for those purposes, and that I meant that time, when I spoke of a convenient time: yet, if they had agreed that six months, or three months should be judged a convenient time, I should have rested therein, which seeing they did not, but liked of the offer as it was made by me, it seemeth, their purpose was to conclude for a years time.  
Secondly. In stead of answering, 
Ans: 2  he recriminateth those that divulge the secret affairs of the Eldership, and that untruly.] Reply. The former reply showeth 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 unlawful 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 whole Church.  
Thirdly. His third answer is a mere evasion, 
Ans: 3  by putting off the fault from himself upon the Classis, Reply. the vanity of which pretence hath been so often shown 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, whilst matters were thus kept in suspense, the cord of contention should have been drawn out, and lengthened.] But, who seethe not that this would have cut the cord of contention asunder when a convenient time had been 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 less 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 Baptism, in stead of an Assistant he should have a Resistant,] Butler, how could he be a Resistant in Baptism, whose work was only to assist in preaching, as mine should have been, if this agreement had stood. Again, suppose, after the expiration of that convenient time, I had accepted of the pastoral calling, how could I have been a Resistant to him in Baptism, if, either the Dutch Ministers could in that time, have convinced me of the lawfulness of that custom, (in which case, I should have yielded to it) or, if I could have procured the laying aside of that question, by their consent with me in establishing those means which I propounded for accommodation?  
Fourthly. That, hereby the calling of another minister would be hindered.] But 1. the event showeth the contrary. For, that convenient time, which the Elders would have given me, was but 12 months. Now, though, upon this pretence, the Answerer opposed that, yet those 12 months were spent before they had any, and 9▪ months more, before one was settled with them. 2. My purpose, in that proposition, was, to work, in that time, for the peaceable settling of any faithful man, whom they should make choice of, if I saw not greater likelihood of my comfortable settling 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 pretence is coincident with the fourth, and answered in that.  
Sixtly. The Classis would have been offended, which had formerly disallowed such an agreement about Mr. H.] But 1, consider, as great a matter as this hath been done there, without the leave of the Classis, when the Answerer had a mind to it. Was not Mr. D, for a year 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 entertaining of M. Hook? May not the Church do such a thing without their allowance? What rule is transgressed thereby? If any: Let the Answerer show it. If none; then the Classis disallowed that act, and would be offended at this causelessly. 3. At most, this would have been an offence but to the spirits of the Classis, who would have been angry at it, as a neglect of them only; not as a sin against God. But the hindering of this agreement, by their Pastor, and the Classis, is an offence to the consciences of some of the Church, who are grieved at it as a sin against God, both in the Pastor and the Classsis, who have hereby straightened the liberty, and weakened the power which Christ hath given the Church, in procuring such spiritual helps for their aedification, as they find profitable, and desire, with a general 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 appear 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 known me, as he might have done, by my whole carriage in this buisenes. Himself reproacheth me for standing so much upon his desiring me, and now he feareth lest I had some purpose of intruding myself. 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 appear that his spirit was much distempered by needles jealousies, and groundless surmises, which, in these passages, have caused much disquietment to himself, and disturbance to others.  
The 3. instance. And that it may appear that I wrong him not, in saying thus, his own words, about the third instance, which they bring to prove that he depriveth the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church, declare the same. For, speaking of Mr. Weld, whom they accused him for hindering 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 general, which was an offence and trouble unto him. It had need to be some great matter, some will think, that so far set him off from Mr. Weld, as he there intimateth To prevent all wondering at the matter, he roundly relates more dislikes than one. But, if you come to examine them, they will appear to be grounded upon needles jealousies, in his own mind. For, his first dislike was, because Mr. Weld refused to declare himself, and to show his opinion touching their present controversyes. And, have not others carried themselves in the same manner, as well as he, which were greater strangers to him, than Mr. Weld, being not of his nation, whom yet he hath, not only willingly received to preach, but also been willing to have joined with him in the pastoral office. His second dislike of Mr. Weld was, that he saw him most familiar with those that were his chiefest opposites, So then, there was opposition amongst them before I came, and this opposition was raised 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 fear, lest Mr. Weld should strengthen and animate them against him, he was unwilling to have him preach. That this fear may not seem altogether causeless, he telleth his Reader how Mr. H. preached against that in the afternoon, which he taught in the fore noon. The truth concerning this passage I have heard from divers witnesses, and have seen the notes of boath their sermons, as they were taken by those that heard, and do find (so far as I can discern, by what I have heard, or read) that the Answerer took offence at Mr. H: causelessly 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 return to Mr. W. was the Answerers fear of him retained in his own breast? No, he telleth us, in his second answer, that he desired the counsel of the Dutch Consistory about this matter, and their advice 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 fear of Mr. Weld. But, was this fear well grounded? was there sufficient cause for it? Let himself speak, 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 is rectified, at last, to perceive that which he did not before. That conference did not alter Mr. W: disposition, but his own persuasion of him: so that the change was in the Answerer, not in M. W. As a man in a ship thinks that the shore moves from him, whereas the ship, wherein he is, is carried from the shore: so a man, whose passions are disturbed, suspecteth every man to oppose him. When all was now quiet, what course took the Answerer? He telleth us, that he made the same known to the Classis; whereupon he was admitted to preach. And, why must this be made known to the Classis? Is it against the government of these Churches that a stranger, to whom the Answerer can impute no error, and in whom he preceived a peaceable disposition, and conceived that he would not give 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 do 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 seeing, whilst 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 satisfied, the Classis consenteth, it appeareth that the complaint concerning the injury is justly against the Answerer, at whose instigation, and entreaty the Classis doth interpose so far in their matters, though in this they can not be excused, much less justified, in that they assume a power to themselves of restraining 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 than the government of these Churches giveth them, or any prelate's ever challenged to themselves, for aught I know.   

Section 27. examined, concerning the undue power of the Classis.  
IN this, and the four 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 ways, 1. by his indirect aims in it, for, they conceive, that he doth it merely for his own ends, 2. by his irregular pitching upon such means for the attaining of his ends. For, they say, he doth it, without any warrant from the word of God. For our more orderly and clear 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 only by his frequent mentioning my name, which he wrighte●● at its full length every where (& in the next Section 30 times, in less than 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 lawful Authority I am always, and shall be ready to acknowledge, with due submission thereunto, even when I freely testify 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.  
It is not my purpose to speak of the original of them, nor of their antiquity, nor to contend about the name given them, much less to condemn all use of them, 
Medulla. Theol: lib. 1. Cap. 39 Sect: 27.  from which I am so far, that I freely confess 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, the equity of rules, and the examples of Scripture teach, may, and, in many cases, aught to enter into a mutual consociation, and confaederation, amongst themselves, in Classes, and Synods, that they may use their common consent, and mutual help, so far at it may commodiously be done, especially in those things, which are of greater moment. Provided always that special care be taken that, under pretence of helping the Churches, they do 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 Counsels, 
Epist: 42. ad Procop.  that he resolved to shun all such assemblies. Which Dr. Whittaker imputed to the evil 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 own expression of the reason why evils were, rather increased then diminished, by them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. For contentiousness and ambition prevailed more than reason. And, it may be, some such provocation caused that learned politic 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 junius had written against Bellarmine the necessitatee●p otestate Conciliorum, wherein I fully agree with junius. But we are now to speak of a more imperfect combination of Churches, then that, which is in provincial 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 help in their particular Church buisenesses (the smaller Churches wanting men fit for the manadging of their Church affairs, and making one presbytery, 
Zanch. in 4. precept.  with the next greater Church, which, being better fitted, meet weekly in their own Consistory, and these with them) But this is a combination which is between divers Churches, which, having their several presbyteryes, or Consistoryes apart, send their deputyes, viz, one Minister and one Elder, to meet with the like deputyes from all other Churches, 
Synops: pur. Theol. disp. 49. Thes. 5.  in such a Diocese or division, at a time, and place apppointed, to handle such things as concern 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 general. 1. What kind of combination that is which, is lawful amongst Churches? 2. What power that is which is due to them over particular Churches, by virtue of that combination?  
For the first. The combination of particular Churches, in Classes and Synods, is, either such a consociation of them as is between aequals, or such a subordination of them as is between unaequalls. The first is by way of counsel, or brotherly direction. The second is by way of command, or masterly subjection. This we condemn, as being the first step, whereby the Pope ascended into the chair of pestilence, and a mere inlet for tyranny to invade and usurp the Churches right. The other is approved by the practice of the most ancient Churches and by good reason.  
First. The practice of the Churches of the first age is clear for a free seeking and communicating of mutual help, by letters, and messengers, as occasion required, and that, not only in Scripture 
(a) Act. 15 1. Cor. 16. ult. Revel 1. et 2.  but also in Ecclesiastical histores 
(b) Euseb: lib. 3. Cap. 32. Cyprian. lib. 3. Cap. 13. Catal. test. ver. lib. 9 p. 109. 110.  And Cyprian expressly declareth that the Churches, in his time, did give mutual help 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 mutual care, one for another, did not, ex imperio aut subjectione quâdam proficisci, sed ex charitate & aedificandi study i. e. did not arise from any authority, which one did excercise over another, subjecting it to the rest, but out of love and endeavour of mutual edifying.  
Secondly. The reasons, whereby it may be proved, are weighty. M. Parker hath saved me the labour of this task, by laying down six Arguments, for the proof of this, in those his learned and elaborate treatises, concerning Ecclesiastical policy, as 1, From the ground of this combination of Churches, 
De eccles. pol. lib. 3. Cap. 22. p. 329.  which is love, not obedience. 2. From the form of it, which is communion and consociation etc. 3. From the matter of it, which are Churches, who are equal 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 counsels. 6. From the end of this combination, which is, not to receive the mandates of other Churches, but their consent, counsel, 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 virtue of their combination.  
First. More generally, This will best appear by a right understanding of the nature of that kind of assocication or combination, as it hath been, 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 do such things, which others cannot, who are not, by such a relation, thereunto qualifyed. Thus, to the unaequall fellowship which is between superious and inferiors (as parents and children, Masters and servants Princes and people) appertaineth jus Rectorium, the power of government: 
Hugo Grot de jure pacis, et belli. p. 4.  but to that other society which is between aequalls (as brethren, Citizens, friends, confederates) belongeth jus aequatorium, such a power of communicating mutual help as may stand with the preservation of their several libertyes and mutual equality, safe and untouched. And no other power is due to them, quâ tales. 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 social combinations of many Churches, for mutual help, 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 classical combinations of Churches is res communis. i e. that which concerneth all the Churches, or many of them, in that division, either of itself, 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 remedies, against common evils, by common counsel. 3. to help those who think themselves injuryed by the judgement of particular presbyteryes. The Synod of 3 nations in Can. 35 reduceth all to. 1. matters of doctrine. 2. matters of order, and ecclesiastical policy. 3. particular facts. To be brief, these things are matters, either of faith, or of fact, whether brought to them, or observed by them.  
1. In matters of faith, their resolution is required, not their jurisdiction, their counsel, not their command, it being the end of the Church's combination, in such matters, only to communicate their gifts in fellowship together, to find out the sense of the Scripture more clearly and certainly, for the satisfaction of all, than it could have been done by any, apart from the r●st.  
2. Matters of fact are, either common, or personal. Personal matters do primarily belong to the particular Churches, and only to them, so far 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 only in some one, but in many Churches, for the discussion whereof, Cyprian and the African 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 present question) is due or undue to Classes, I will premise two or three distincttons.  
1. Dist: It is not potestas originalis, but derivata i. e. it not a power which the Classis hath originally, in, and from itself, but which is borrowed and derived from others, viz, from particular Churches. So that, as the conduit pipes can give no other water, than what themselves received from the springs, nor the stars 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 itself hath freely given them. Hence it will follow, that the Classes have not an absolute but a limited power, not a Magisteriall, but a Ministerial power, not the power of lords, but of stewards, not of princes, but of ambassadors, or heralds, not of lawgivers, but of criers, or publishers of proclamations, not to command (as princes do in the common wealth) but only to signify 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 show for their warrant. Because the Church itself, 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 enjoin men to rest in their determinations, and judgements, without sufficient proof 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 prerogative of jurisdiction, but of estimation and reverence rather. Because God's ordinance hath limited the former to particular Churches, as his delegates in their own matters, & it is not in their power to alienate it from themselves: But the latter is due to Classis consisting of grave, learned, prudent, and faithful men, for their excellent personal gifts, in which respect, their judgement is to be much valued, and received with due regard. And for these causes the African Doctors saught help of Damasus, jerom, Jnnocentius etc. in the great question, de lapsis, that the truth, being confirmed by their testimony and consent, who were orthodox and sound in judgement, might have the more authority with men generally, whose eyes are upon men that are famous for wisdom & soundness in the faith, 
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 equal 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 cumulatiuè, not privatiuè. i e. for the help & 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 Ecclesiastical 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 duly received by the free gift of particular Churches as a prerogative of estimation and reverence, or any ways for the help and strengthening of those Churches, in the well manadging of their own 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 lawful expedient, and, in some cases, a necessary use of the communion and combination of Churches, being rightly ordered for the help of particular Churches in theyre proper affairs. As, First, In the choice of Ministers. 1, for provocation, to quicken the particular Churches by their exhortations and admonitions to seek out some fit man, if they be slack therein. 2, for direction, to counsel and advise them, from the Scripture, about the fitness of the men, whom they would choose, and to admonish them of any notable unfitness in them, to prevent the danger of infecting themselves, or other Churches, by any dangerous errors maintained by them against the rule of faith, or otherwise of common and important consequence. 3, for countenance and protection against any that would deprive them of meet helpers, either by false suggestions to the Magistrates, or by raising contention and opposition among themselves. Secondly. In the excommunication of members, which is a matter of great moment, if the particular Churches seek the help of neighbour Churches, to prevent any error among themselves, in a difficult case, or any misreport which may arise concerning their proceed 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 do piously and prudently therein. Thirdly. In other cases of difference, wherewith particular Churches are exercised, and whereby they are so divided that the matter can not be ended, and the differences composed among themselves, by reason of the equal number of the opposites, on boath sides, in matters that should be determined by voices, or the difficulty of the case in question. In all these, and such like cases, much benefit and help may and should be afforded to particular Churches by their consociation with others, in manner aforesaid, and they aught to seek and use theyre help 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 own Ministers, excommunicate their members, etc. Without a power derived from them, or, 2, that, the Church is hindered from enjoying Ministers of sound judgement, and unblameable behaviour, at their pleasure. or, 3. that they may impose conformity to unwarrantable customs, or conclusions of their own, as a condition without which Ministers may not lawfully be received by such a Church into the pastoral office, or, 4, that their saying a man is not fit for such a place, whom themselves acknowledge to be fit for any other place, and that without showing the equity of that their judgement from the Scriptures, or equally and judiciously weighing the lawful desires of the Church, 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 enjoy 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 own 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 own mind, by theyre help, 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 show no warrant from the Scripture to satisfy their consciences about the equity 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 own matters, is against the end of their association and so an undue power.  
Now, for the Hypothesis, or particular application of those generals to the present question] The Answerer is challenged by the Complainants' for subjecting their Church under an undue power of the Classis, for his own ends, and without warrant from the word. Out of question, if it be an undue power, it is not only without warrant from the word, but also contrary to the rule. But, it may be, they mean that he hath done this, without showing them any word which warranted his so doing. And, in that sense, it is a complaint of too masterly and self-willed a carriage of himself in Church affairs. Which they seem indeed to intent by that addition, when they say, that he doth it, for his own ends. Now, to detract from another for a man's own commodity is against nature, as the heathen man could say, and he proved it thus, 
Ci●. de office: 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, which he applieth to men singularly and individually considered, but I will apply to particular Churches, in reference to Classical combinations. As all the members agree amongst themselves, because it concerneth the whole that every one be safe: so men do spare one another, because we are borne for communion. 
Scene: 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 four particulars. In all which I will pass by the overflowing of his gall, which he too frequently discovereth.  
1. In his first answer he chargeth them with slandering the Classis, when they charge it with an undue power, which slander, he saith, is against the very state of government, and form of discipline observed and practised in these reformed Churches, and calleth for proof. Wherein, me thinketh, he had forgotten himself: for, in the three next Sections, he himself produceth the proofs which they brought: In examining his answers to those proofs, I doubt, it will appear, that the complaint is just, whereunto I refer the Reader, praying him, in the mean space, to note that the thing complained of, is, not all power exercised by the Classis, but only an undue power, whereof whilst they complain, they do implicitly 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 slandering of the very state of the government of these Churches, is to be charged upon himself, 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 appear in the proofs of the justness of this complaint, in the following Sections, whereunto I refer the Reader.  
3. In his third answer he chargeth them with slander, for saying that he hath done this merely for his own ends. This, he saith, is a great arrogancy, and setting of themselves in God's 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 complain, 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 men's intentions, how is it that our Lord hath left it for a rule, whereby to discern false prophets whose intentions are wolvish, and to raven, how sheepish and harmless soever they seem to be, in their pretences, when he saith, Ye shall know them by their fruits? 
Mat. 7.15.16:  Which I do not, nor dare apply personally to the Answerer, of whom I have better thoughts, and esteem, but only to show that it is lawful for men, in some cases, and so far as they keep to the rule, to judge of others men's intentions. It is true; it is God's prerogative 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 far off, in their hidden causes, and seminal preparations, and that, infallibly, this is his peculiar glory, which is not arrogated by man, whilst he professeth only to judge the cause by the effect, and the end by the means, which is, as if a man should say. The smoke appeareth out of the chimney; therefore there is some fire in the house, or the man chooseth such a way; therefore his intent is to travail to such a place. The light of reason and sense enableth a man thus to judge, and the light of Scripture warranteth it. How then can any man justly condemn it? As for the Answerers ends, in this action, reason in any of the complainants saith, they must be, either public, or private. If his ends were the public good of the Church, the means would be directed thereunto: but it seems to them that the means are such as tend rather to deprive the Church of men, whom they warrantably desire, and to straighten the Church's liberty and power in her own matters, Hereupon they conjecture that his end is not their public good, but some private self respect. This judgement is but humane, and therefore fallible. For it is possible that a man, by an error in his judgement, may pursue a good end in wrong means: & so the Answerer, thincking it to be more for the good of the Church to be straightened thus and limited by the Classis, then to be otherwise, might have a good end, but mistook the means. And therefore, if they miss of the matter of the complaint, in challenging him for unlawful ends, yet the complaint will be found just, if they accuse him of using unwarrantable means. 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 been for the public good, which when he shall have done, the Complaint will appear to have been a slander, and I shall rejoice to see his integrity cleared, in this particular.  
4. In his fourth answer, he would fain know, he saith, what that due power is, by which they would have the Church to be governed. The truth is. In all this passage appeareth much sarcastical bitterness, 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 apppointed 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 go before them, as a faithful shepherd, that the sheep may follow him, as he followeth Christ, & not to praejudice them against any good way, by a scoffing proposal of men's differences in judgement, about some particular tract, or turning in the way, to the great scandal and offence of many, and the dishonour of the Gospel, and the hindrance of Reformation, by his joining with the enemies thereof, in an old cavil which hath turned many out of the way, and caused some to return back to a mere neutrality in religion, till the professors of it agree among themselves about the path, wherein they will walk.  
Whereas he taketh occasion again, without provocation, to mention Mr. jacob as an enemy to Classes and Synods, that I might speak a word in the cause of the dumb, and of the 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 than else I should have done) and do find that he professeth his agreement, (that I may use his own words) even to an hair; with Calvin and Beza, touching the substance of this matter, and that he acknowledgeth, with them, both the parishional and Diocesan presbyteryes: yea, the provincial, and larger too, if occasion serve. How he explaineth himself herein the diligent Reader will easily observe in other passages of the same book. 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 spiritual authority absolute, save only Christ's, 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 far approveth of it, that he saith, it is Apostolical for many ordinary Congregations, consociating together, in their spiritual 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, do enjoy. But, if he think, by mentioning the name of Mr. jacob, 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. Cham 5.21. Chap. 6.13. to 17.  and to the truth.  
First. To Christ, seeing 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 pattern 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. etc. and which Paul so straight charged Timothy to observe, in all Church affairs which: is no other than the power committed by Christ to particular Churches, 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 dependence upon any Classes or Synods, or whatsoever humane spiritual power for licence 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 profess all that power, under which the Church is subjected, to be undue, which the word doth 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. joh. 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, whilst it is presented to the view of all men under the show of some singular opinion (or error rather) of a particular man, or as a forlorn thing, deserted of all her witnesses, excepting Mr. jacob, whereas so much as the Complainants' seem to require (as appeareth in their referring themselves to the warrant of the word) hath been acknowledged by the faithful 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 worthies, 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 mystery wrought to its full height. The same thing may appear to those who are conversant in the wrighting of the Centuriators. To these I may add those who have handled the controversyes concerning the necessity, and authority of Councils, amongst whom I will instance in Dr. Whittaker, who, 
Whitt. de Concil: quest. 5. Arg.  speaking of the fullness of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church, not to the Pope (which he applieth to the Keys in binding and losing, shutting and opening, retaining and remitting sins) saith, that this power belongeth primarily, principally, and essentially to the Church, but to the several Bishops only accidentally, secundarily, and l●sse principally, and explaineth himself 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 only contingently and accidentally. As the heat is more principally in the fire then in the water, because it is in the water by reason of the fire. So (saith he) seeing this jurisdiction and fullness of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily, but to the Pope only secundarily, and by the Church, it is manifest that it is more in the Church then in the Pope. What that learned wrighter saith of the Church's power, in comparison with the Pope, holds in all other parallel 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 plentiful therein, but will content myself with the three wrighters of this kind, whom the Answerer pretended, in conference with me, to make for him, and I shall show them to be strongly against him, Mr, Cartwright, and Mr. Fenner and Mr. Parker, men of our own nation.  

Sect. 4. p. 53.  1. For Mr. Cartwright. The very place in his book, whereunto the Answerer referred me, I have examined before, and have shown how little help he will have from him.  

De Sacra Theol. lib. 7. p. 279.  2. For M. Fenner. He, speaking of the Ecclesiastical presbytery, distinguisheth between the Eldership of one particular Church (which, he saith, is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the Eldership of many Churches.  

P. 277. & 278.  The Eldership of the first sort, he saith, is a compound office wherein all the Elders do, in the name of the whole Church, administer all the buisenesses of the Church, that is, of the Lord, by common authority and counsel. And, for this purpose, he allegeth many texts out of the old and new testaments. These buisenesses, he saith, are either judiciary or extrajudiciary. judiciary buisenesses are such things as are to be defined by the judgement of the Church, which are, either matters doubtful, which must be defined by the Scriptures, or censures to be administered. Extrajudiciary buisenesses, are Elections, ordinations, chief 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 concern the good, or ruin of the whole Church, he saith, the Elders, after consultation had among themselves, must tell their opinions to the Church, that, if they have any thing to counsel, or to object, it may be brought in, and afterwards, the opinions and assent of all being declared, matters are to be concluded, unless it be necessary to refer the buisenes to a greater assembly of Elders, for the avoiding, or composing of differences, which is then to be done when the difference is between 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 faith to be composed, the elections and just deposing of Ministers, & other things equal to these, or greater than they all, which must be thus transacted, as he plentifully declareth from Scripture. Thus I have faithfully translated the words of this eminent light, in his time Mr. Dudley Fenner, who was joined with Mr. Cartwright in the public ministry to the English Company in Antwerp, to whom, and to that work of his Mr. Cartwright, in an epistle to him prefixed to that book, giveth a singular testimony, comparing him to Moses, who, from Mount Nebo, viewed the whole land of Canaan, as it were, with one cast of his eye, to whom the Answerer himself referred me (wherein I admire his confidence) as to one that made for him. The Reader may see how he leaveth the whole power of jurisdiction in the particular Church, and bindeth them no further to make use of other Ecclesiastical Senates, out of themselves, than necessity requireth, and he doth not acknowledge that it is a case of that necessity; but when the avoiding of troubles and dissensions in the Church makes it necessary. And when is that? Not when one alone contentiously differeth from all the rest. But, when the difference is among the greater part. And that, in such a case, the judgement of the whole Church is first to be tried and the opinions, and assent of all being declared, matters are to be concluded. 
Idem ibid. p. 280.  Else where he saith, that the presbytery of many Churches is to compose and end such things only 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 judgement, or not? If not; why did he refer me to him for satisfaction? If yea; why is his practice so different from it? For, in this buisenes, though of so great consequence, that it endangered the breaking of the Church (if I had not sat down 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 been 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 ecclesiastical doth essentially & primarily reside in the Church itself, as in its, proper subject. The sense wherein he thus spoke, to prevent all suspicion of his pleading for popular confusion, he declareth out of Zanchy, who saith, 
Zanch in precept 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 keys to the whole Church, but so, that there should be certain men that should use the keys to the good of the Church and glory of God. For the proof 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 saith, in the Church-officers or rulers, yet, with this moderation, that this dispensation of the Church's power in the officers be according to a well tempered form, partly Aristocratical, partly democratical, the Church committing those things to the presbytery, which it can not commodiously perform by itself, and retaining that excercise of power which belongs to the dignity, authority, and liberty which it hath received from Christ. Thus he wholly 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 patterns. Of the first sort of things, which the Church committeth to the Rulers, because it cannot commodiously perform them by itself, he speaketh in cap. 9.10.11. of the second sort of things, which the Church retaineth in itself, because it can commodiously excercise them by itself, he speaketh in cap. 12. Wherein, by 22. Arguments, he proveth the Church's 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 between a particular Church, and Churches combined in Synods and Classes, he affirmeth that the difference between them is, not in the intensive consideration of their power (which the congregation hath, in reference to the Keys, within itself) but in the extensive power only, 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 own compass. The same author, 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 chief. 1. in its own matters, not in things common to many Churches. 2. in case it be able to transact its own matters within itself: 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 of right to end it among themselves, but) need of more help they sent to jerusalem freely for the help of their counsel, in this matter. 3. In case of right and lawful administration. 4. In case of no evil administration praesumed by those, who, finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence, appeal to the judgement of the Synod. In which 3 last limitations, other Churches (to whose judgement, or advice, persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeal) do concur, in way of counsel, and declaration of their judgement, to help particular churches to excercise their power aright, 
P. 47. P. 239.  in theyre own matters, as was before noated out of Mr. Cartw. and Mr. Fenner, and out of the Author himself in the foregoing passages, which being so understood, doth not justifye any undue power of jurisdiction, if it be exercised 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 appear 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 own witnesses, and find them wholly 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 down his judgement more warily, in this matter, 
Dioc: trial. p. 13. et 21.  then formerly. See his cases of conscience, the 4, Book 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 note for learning and piety, in Cambridge, where he succeeded Mr. Perkins, who freely expresseth his judgement for the right of particular Churches, 
1. part 2. l. 2. p. 104 105. etc.  and their independence, in this sense, in his Diocesans trial. With whom I might join the Replyer upon Dr. Downams' defence, who, not only declareth his own judgement herein concurring with the above mentioned, but also joineth with them the suffrages of divers others, as the Centurists, Illiricus, D. Andrew's Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Fulke, Willet, Thom: Bell, Cyprian, Augustine, Gerson, Ferus,  

Desp: cause. pap. lib. 2.  To the same purpose, hath a worthy, and learned wrighter of these country's Voetius, Professor of Divinity in Vtrecht whose words I thus translate. 
Sect. 2. cap. 12. p. 18. 6.  The Church is the spouse of Christ, which is the proper and adequate subject of that power, to whom Christ hath committed that delegate right, reserving the chief to himself. Which aught to be and to remain 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 divers acts belonging to the calling of a Minister may and aught to be performed by certain members of the Church. Thus he professedly vindicateth the Church's 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 Frankford, among the exiles in those Marian days, 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 appeal be made from them, that then such appeal be made to the body of the Congregation etc. & that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to hear and determine the said matter, or matters, as it shall seem good to the Congregation. Again If any controversy be about the doubtful 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, than the thing be referred to the whole Congregation.   

The 28. Section examined.  
IN this, and the three following Sections, they bring proofs of the justness of their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis. Their first proof is, 
1. Proof.  his giving them power to keep 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, they being such as abhor all haeresy and schysme etc. 3. by the Answerers partial carriage, he would have had other, that, to this day, hold the same opinion.  
To keep 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 countries. And therefore the power, whereby they do 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 exercised this undue power, boath which he aggravateth bitterly enough, after his manner. To be brief in so plain a case. Had they power to hinder the settling of any Minister in any Church, before they had examined his cause, or heard what he could say, in his own 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 known, and that in Amsterdam, as they did in my case? Or to proceed against men so far that abhor all haeresy and schysme? From the Scriptures they have no such power, nor from the Churches, nor from the Synods, nor from the fundamental laws of their own constitution. Whence then? The answerer opposeth men, upon needless jealousies, and then craveth the help of the Classis, to keep 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 settled in that Church. Hereupon the members complain 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 unduly done? The very form of subscription, required by the Classis itself, will witness against him, which excludeth not any man from the Ministry in these Churches for that cause. And can they duly 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 itself?  
But the Answerer gave them not this power. The power which the Ministers of the Classis have is not of my gift, saith he, they had that power, which they excercise, before I wae. The question is not of the power which they have, in general, but of a power which they excercise, in some particular, viz, in that, whereof they complain. And herein, they do not complain 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 took not to themselves, till they were called upon to interpose for the prevention of some imagined danger, in the English Church. Who suggested those jealousies? Did not the Answerer? Who importuned them to wright what they did, in the cases here mentioned? Did not the Answerer? Who bond the Church to rest in the wrighting of those Ministers, in these cases? Who, but the Answerer? Let the Scripture be searched, and the text shown, wherein the word hath given them this power, to hinder the Church from choosing a Minister, otherwise free from all exception, only for such causes? Let the Synods be examined. Is 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, took 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 between themselves, or rather let them, in simplicity and truth, satisfy, first their own consciences; then the Complainants'.  
In his third answer he chargeth Mr. Hook: and me with schysme. It was requisite he should do so, else, he knew, that the Classis and he must bear 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 four opinions, which tended to schysme, as he saith.  
1. The two first concern 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 hear at their assemblies.  
To help the Reader to a right understanding of this cause (till Mr. H. shall think it fit to speak for himself) I will show 3. things. 1. That Mr. H. did not approve of the Brownists judgement, in the point of Separation: for, in express words, he answereth to the first question. To separate from the faithful assemblies, and Churches in England, as no Churches, is an error in judgement, and sin in practice, held, and maintained by the Brownists. And therefore to communicate with them, either in this their opinion, or practice is sinful, and utterly unlawful. 2. That he delivered his judgement herein with considerable cautions. as 1. that men should renounce their opinion and practice. 2. that care be taken to prevent offence, either by encouraging them in their way; or by drawing ours to a further approbation of that way than 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 judgement and life otherwise altogether unblameable, & such an one, as, in the judgement 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 member, for an erroneous opinion in such a kind, is to confirm the Brownists in that unsupportable and absurd censure which now they maintain, touching those that hold the Churches in England true Churches, & profess they will occasionally communicate therein: as appeareth in his answer to the third question.  
These things being duly weighed, I leave it to the judgement of the indifferent Reader whether a man allowing such men to be received members with that Church, or others differing from them in judgement and practice, about Separation, to hear with them occasionally, and extra casum scandali, without offence, and expressing himself 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 saith, tended to schysme, was that private men might preach and expound the Scripture etc. In the 17. question propounded to him by the Answerer, he expresseth his judgement by a distinction of a double ground, from which this may be done, viz, either ex officio, or ex dono. i e. by virtue of an office, (and this no man may do, without a calling thereunto from the Church,) or from the gift that Christ doth dispense to several members, according to their measure, & the place they hold in the body, and that thus any Christian may privately do, as opportunity & expediency serve, he holdeth, and therein professeth his agreement with Dr. Ames in the 14. Book 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 practice 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 ask one thing, which might give a little 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, I conceive, it cannot be denied, but that it was made up by the combination of several ministers, and Elders, and of several 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 & completely before there was a Classis, and therefore had their power not derived from a Classis, or by it, but from the direct ordinance and appointment of Christ, which power they may not give away, and none can take it away, being a legacy left them by the Lord jesus, as Dr. Ames disputes and determines in his 4. book of his cases of conscience. pag. 165.  
Touching the Quaere then my opinion is this: A particular Congregation hath complete power, by Christ his institution, to give a complete call to a minister, without any derived power from a Classis. They which had complete and perfect Ministers, before any Classis, had power fully to call them, without any Classis. But a particular Congregation, had perfect and complete Ministers, i. e. perfectly and completely called, before any Classis. Ergo. Yet, if by mutual consent, the Congregation hath freely combined itself with the Classis, they shall do 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. Always provided, that, if the Classis should not approve, they may lawfully, and without sin, choose without, or against the approbation of the Classis, if they saw good reason, by the convenient fitness of the party to induce them thereunto. And so I judge of the 11 Quest.  
Unto all which I will add, that those things were but secret, in his own 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 remained for ever (such is the peaceableness of his disposition) if the Answerer had desired him to conceal his judgement therein, for prevention of offence.  
Secondly. As for me; he layeth the same accusation upon me also, and bringeth three pretences for it.  

D. Field of the Church. book. 3. chap. 5.  1. My preaching at set times in a private house.] For the answer of this I refer 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 Unity of the Church. The Unity of the Church, saith he, consisteth in three things. 1. The subjection of the people to their lawful Pastors. 2. The connexion and communion which many particular Churches & Pastors of them have among themselves. 3. In holding the same rule of faith. Which of these ways did this action make me guilty of Schysme? 1. Not in the first. For, did I attempt to draw the people, from their Pastoral 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 own Church or Consistory with complaints to other Churches, in such cases as might have been ended among themselves, as those Schysmaticks did in Cyprian? No. 
Lib. 1. Epist. 3.  I was so far from drawing the people from their Pastor, that, by that very mean, I held them together, myself giving them example of constantly hearing him, and deferring my private excercise, till above an hour after the public was finished. And I am hearty sorry that my advice to their Pastor, and entreaty, that matters might be quietly ended within themselves, prevailed 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 self-conceit; as did Novatus, Donatus, Lucifer etc. or for any other unwarrantable respects. 3. Nor in the third: For the Answerer himself confesseth (though unwillingly) that, in that excercise, I preached against schysming, nor doth he, in the midst of all his bitterness, nor shall he ever be able to accuse me justly of forsaking the rule of faith 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, only as an assistant, without the consent of the Classis? By that rule, himself and the whole Church was guilty of Schysme for letting Mr. D. preach, a year or two together, without consent of the Classis. For he did it as an assistant. But 2. He doth not charge me with doing it neither, but only with approving that act. If I be a Schysmatick for approving it, what are the Elders that made it? And, why doth he suffer them to come to the Lords table, and to go on so long unconvinced, unreclamed from their Schysme? Is Schysme such a small sin that he regards it not? or is this proof of their Schysme so slight that he thinks they will not regard it? He boldly calleth it Schysme, but bringeth no proof that it is so from Scriptures nor Reason. Why so? Is it because it is sufficient that he saith 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 choose 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 lawful 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 maintaining of the power of particular Churches to be chief in theyre own matters, & applying this to the admission of Ministers to preach as assistant etc. though these Churches be united in Synods and Classes. And is this a sufficient evidence, whereupon to ground so deep an accusation, as that of Schysme is? If so; let him show it by Scriptures, or good reason, but with all, to guide his judgement, let him know that the mere preaching, as assistant in a Church, at the entreaty of the Church, is not numbered 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 itself, 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 chief in matters that are properly their own? what then will he say to that Canon of the Synod at Middleborough. Those things shall not be handled in the greater assemblies, which may be ended in the lesser. Can. 25. & to the Canons of the Synod of 3 Nations. Cap. 17. & 18. & to the Synod at Emden. Cap. 2. & to that Canon in the Harmony of the Belgic Sinods, that those matters only shall be brought into the Classes which cannot be ended in 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 affirm, 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 worthies who have written concerning Ecclesiastical discipline, or the authority of Councils, of whom we spoke in the former Section, or, which have handled the power of particular Churches in choosing their own Pastors, of whom we spoke in the foregoing Section: Yea, I wish, he may not be found to bear false witness against the truth itself 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 confess, were not inferior to either of us, in learning. But that which he intimateth, concerning opinions held by them which tended to the ruin 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 mean any other opinions or practices, 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 injuries 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 Syllogism, and it will appear to be Sophistical, 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 own will, that I say no more, hath made this trouble in the Church, by drawing all the lines of the several Sections, in the circle and circumference of their complaint to that as the only centre. But I do not affect in Circuitu ambulare.  
6. In his sixth answer, which is to their parenthesis, wherein they note, that he would have had others, that, to this day, hold the same opinion;] Such is the invincible power of truth, that his own 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 himself confesseth Mr. B▪ wrote to him, and with his own acknowledgement 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 enjoyment of either of them they had been happy) but his partial 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 laws.  
IN this Section, they produce the second proof of the justness their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis, viz, his giving them power to make laws and orders, whereunto, whosoever will be ministers of that Church must submit.] For proof 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 condition of my admittance to that Ministry. The justness of their laying the blame of boath these upon the Answerer they prove. 1. Because some of the Dutch preachers themselves have declared their willingness to cast off some of those customs, if the vastness of their Church would perm●● it. 2. Because one of them said to the Answerer in the Classis (upon occasion of his complaining of my not conforming to their orders) you yourself do not conform to all our orders. 3. Because they have professed that they should have been glad that the differences had been ended among ourselves. 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 conform 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 equity 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 appear, we will consider two things. 1. de facto, whether they have made such laws 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 laws and orders can not be denied. 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 laws; the things instanced in, to wit, conformity to their ecclesiastical customs, and promiscuous administration of Baptism, according to the wrighting of the five Ministers, were imposed as laws upon me. For, did they not bind me to rest in that wrighting, and to conform to those customs, under no less paenalty than my not admittance to the pastoral work, in the English Church, notwithstanding the unanimous desire of the Congregation? Was not this to make them necessary observances? The case is so clear that the Answerer himself doth 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 appear to be 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 God's assistance, distinctly, in every one of them.  
First. The Scripture is so far from giving the Classis any power of making laws to bind particular Churches, in cases of that nature, that it doth not once mention any such kind of combination, nor doth allow any such power to the deputyes of any Churches consulting together for their common good. The Texts, which Bellarmine allegeth for the power of Councils in making laws, are the same which the Answerer sometimes harpeth upon, in this case, but junius clearly showeth, that they make nothing to the purpose.  

Deut. 17.8.10. Sect. 24. Ans. 4.  The first is Deut. 17. Which place the Answerer allegeth, to prove the Classis to be an higher judicatory, and above the Church. Thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place shall show thee. To which junius 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 signs and answers from God himself. 2. He grants that the sentence of those judges was to be obeyed, servatâ clausulâ salutari; that wholesome 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 judges did no further bind men to rest in it, than it was according to the sentence of the Law. And yet these were judges by Gods express appointment, which the Classes have not to show for their judicatory, in the same manner as those Judges had.  

Act. 15.  2. The other Text is Acts 15. alleged by Bellarmine to prove the binding force of the decrees of Councils, and, by the Answerer, 
Sect. 31. Ans. 5.  to show the authority of the Classis: whereunto junius giveth 2 answers also. 1. Non sequitur ex particulari, si custodienda fuerint decreta Concilij Apostolici, ergo & omnium servari oportere. It doth not follow, from a particular, that, because the decrees of an Apostolical Council are to be observed, therefore the decrees of all Councils must be so kept. 
Cont. 3. lib 4. cap. 16.  And, whereas Bellarmine affirmeth that the question there was not defined by Scripture, but by the voices of the Apostles, junius denyeth that any thing was ordained in that Council, but from the Scripture, as he had before demonstrated, & thereunto referreth the Reader. And, whereas Bellarmine saith that the decree of the Apostles was not left to the examination of the Disciples, but, that they were simply commanded to obey, junius 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 whole Church, all of them being taught by the spirit of truth, to think the same thing. And this, he saith, is the manner of proceeding in those Councils, where Christ is president. 2. That the same respect is to be had to the determination of others, as of the Apostles. Which is an error, he saith, For it was the singular privilege of the Apostles, that they had immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost, and infallibility, in their Apostolical determinations, so that, what they delivered was to be received without examination, whereas the dictates & sentences of all other are to be examined by their wrighting, whereby it appeareth that the Scripture acknowledgeth no such power of making laws to be due to the Classes, unless they can produce some other texts, which, when they shall be alleged, shall be further examined, if God permit.  
Secondly. No general Councils, 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 Councils 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 mean space, let it be considered, that they, who distinguish between General, Nationall, Provincial, and Diocesan Councils, say, that the two former have authority to make Canons, but the two latter only to see that the Canons imposed by the two former, be observed, 
Praef▪ add distinct. 18  as may be seen in Gratian.  
Thirdly. The Church hath not given them any such power, nor indeed, can it. 1. It hath not; as appeareth in their complaints of it as undue, & as a grievance, and in the profession of divers of the members that they never knew that the Church was so subjected. 2, That it cannot; appeareth in this, that the Church itself 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 refer the Reader.  
Fourthly. That no good reason giveth the Classis this power of making laws, to bind particular Churches, will appear, if two things be declared. 1. what things are required to the making of a law. 2. what instances they produce to show the undue proceed 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 doth 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 laws, 2. that such a law agreeth not with the law of God. 3. that it is not referred to the public and common good, by what hath been 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 than the mere custom of a place, which is then done, when ●hat custom is not warranted by the word. For, howsoever, in civil 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 unlawful, in Sect. 12.  
Secondly. Seeing nothing hath been said by the Answerer, 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 own defence, wherein, we will, with God's help, examine, what he saith in answer 1. to the general charge. 2. to the proofs of it.  
First. The general charge is, that he hath given them this undue power. Hereunto he pretendeth to make five Answers.  
1. He saith it is untrue. He only saith so, but doth not show 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 lie upon the whole Classis, rather than he should be suspected to have given it them. But he will not so evade, if what was replied to the same answer, in the foregoing Section, be considered, and applied to this also.  
2. In his second answer he seemeth so to deny his giving them this undue power, as withal secretly to confess that he gave them counsel to use this power. which he hath not proved to be due. That it is undue hath been proved already,, and that, it being so, he hath not behaved himself as a pastor in the government of the Church, in counselling them to use an undue power over his Church, needs no proof 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 & laws, & thereupon he demandeth, can this power of making laws and orders, be lawful, 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 laws are ill confounded by the Answerer, They may make orders who have no power of making laws: So junius distinguisheth them fitly. Praelatorum non est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive mandata dare: non praecepta, sed ordinationes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ecclesiastical Governors may give orders, not laws, not commands, not precepts. Else where he saith, the Fathers called them more fitly Canons, because a Canon serveth to direct agentem volùntariè, one that acteth voluntarily, whereas a law, necessitate etiam cogit in voluntarium, compelleth a man against his will, Chamelet also expresseth himself acutely to the same purpose, 
De ecclesiâ p. 367. 368.  saying, that the determinations of Churches are more fitly called admonitions and exhortations than laws, and that, when they agree with the word, they are admonitions, in respect of the Church, but laws in respect of God only, 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 avoided, of tyranny; by ascribing too much power to the Church, and of dissolute libertinism, and Anabaptism; by denying its due power, in this particular, we will declare what authority the Church hath about laws and orders, by distinguishing between laws already made, 
Luke 10.16. Mat: 18.17. 1 Cor. 4.21.  and laws to be made. In the first, we grant, that Church governor's have great authority and power, to wit, of providing that men yield due obedience to all God's laws 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 Ecclesiastical authority. Rom. 1.5. and 15.18. So that herein they have more power than of admonishing, and exhorting, and reproving only, they have the power of censuring, and thereby of compelling the several members to their duty, 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 than that rule of having all holy administrations performed decently and in order requireth. And, being so understood, it doth not at all patronise that undue power of the Classis. 1. Because the Church hath that power, in her own 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 evil custom, not warranted by the word, and to compel me, against my will, to the observance of it.  
As for the second. The things, about which laws are made, are, either necessary, or indifferent. Things necessary are things commanded or forbidden in the Scripture. And they are necessary, either absolutely or in some considerable respect. Things absolutely necessary to godliness 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 jerusalem touching those things which they called necessary Act. 15.28. viz, necessary during the time of the offence of the jew which was necessary to be avoided. 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 hair, & women bareheaded, in those Eastern countries, and for women to speak in the Congregation, and for many men to speak at once. Things indifferent are such as, being neither commanded nor forbidden in the Scripture, may be variously permitted or prohibited according to various circumstances And they are, either improperly, or properly so called. Things improperly called indifferent, are things not necessary, but only expedient in some respect. In such cases Churchgovernours have power to declare the decency and expediency of them: yea, and to advise and persuade the practice thereof, but not by standing laws to bind the people thereunto. As the Apostle gave his judgement 1. Cor. 7.25.40. & advise concerning single life, in time of the Church's distress: yea, and persuaded to it, for avoiding trouble in the flesh, vers. 26.28. but would not bind them to it, neither in point of conscience, nor of outward practice as having no commandment from the Lord (vers. 25.) and saith that such a commandment had been a snare (vers. 35. And herein the power of Churchgovernours falleth short of the authority of civil Magistrates, who may, in civil matters, make standing and binding laws for any thing expedient to the Common wealth. Whereunto subjects are bound readily to submit. (1. Pet. 2.13.)  
Things properly called indifferent I do not find in Scripture that ever Churchgovernours did advise & persuade them, much less charge & command them, lest of all make standing, & binding laws 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 Christ, as appeareth in the commission given them, which was only to teach men to observe and do what Christ shall command them, Mat. 28.20. Their office being only ministerial & economical, Christ reserving to himself the sovereign lawgiving power, as his prerogative.  
For application of the premises to the case in question, I demand whether this custom be thus imposed as a thing properly indifferent, or as expedient, or as necessary in some considerable respect, or as absolutely necessary? If it be properly indifferent; why do they, by command, make the practice of it necessary? If it be expedient; let them show the expediency of it, & leave men free. If it be necessary, in those considerable respects; let it appear that the contrary practice will be so offensive or disorderly that, for the avoiding of that offence or disorder, a minister is bound to do it. If it be absolutely necessary to godliness; let the Scripture be shown that commandeth that practice, or forbiddeth the contrary.  
His fourth answer is not worth a Reply.  
His fifth answer maketh against himself. For, if they leave men at liberty about things indifferent etc. (wherein they are to be approved as walking according to the rule) why do they bind men, by unaequall conditions, to this custom, which they, neither do, nor can sufficiently declare to be commanded by Christ, or to be warranted by the rule?  
Let us now see what he saith to the proofs of the justness of their laying the blame of this miscarriage upon him, rather than upon the Classis.  
First. They say, that some of the Dutch Ministers themselves are willing to cast off some of their customs, if the vastness of their Church did not force them thereunto. Hereunto he giveth two answers. 1. that things simply unlawful are as well to be cast off in a great Church as in a small.] Reply. True: it is a duty 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 sin of the smaller Churches is the greater, if they do not cast off such an unwarrantable custom. The vastness 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 been expressly required of any of the Ministers of those Churches (as a condition of their admittance, as it was of me) that they should rest in such a wrighting, which bindeth them to baptise all that are brought. 2. It may be questioned, whether all the Ministers, in those smaller villages, do so promiscuously administer Baptism, as they do, in Amsterdam, seeing such different sorts of people are not in those villages as in that City.  
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 yourself do not conform to all our orders. Hereunto he pretendeth to give five answers. I say pretendeth. For, the first answer is no answer, but only 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 do they say that all of them are of that mind, but that one of them said so, whereof, it seemeth, the rest shown no dislike, and so seemed to consent to it, and more than one of them have been heard to say as much as the Complainants' affirm. 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 failing may seem to be in a circumstance. His fourth answer is, that this one Minister undertook in writing to satisfy my objections, and, having replied to mine answer, received no answer to his second writing. It is true: I did not answer his second writing. 1. Because, that writing did not sufficiently answer my first. 2. Because, at that time, I wrote to the whole Classis, in which respect, there was no use of writing to one member of the Classis alone. His fifth answer is, The national Synod, at Dort, in things indifferent, 
Kercken ordeningh. Art. 85.  doth allow Churches of other Nations in these Countries to vary from their customs.] It is well they do so, and it is fit they should so do. But, if it be so. 1. why was it required of me that I should conform to all the orders and customs of the Dutch Church? 2. Why was I not allowed to vary from their customs, in the practice of promiscuous baptising, seeing I professed that I could not do it with a good conscience, and they gave me no grounds from the Scriptures to satisfy my conscience, that I might do it lawfully?  
Thirdly. They say, that the Dutch Ministers have professed that they should have been glad that this difference might have been ended among ourselves:] What saith the Answerer hereunto? Just 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 been a greater impediment of the Church's desire, and my accommodation, than he was willing should appear. And I wish, from my heart, he had been as silent in all the rest, that I might have passed by all these injuries 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 conform 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 only 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 been spoken already, yet, in part, he affirmeth it, in saying that he shown it to be unreasonable if that order should not be required of any other minister as well as of me. But, seeing 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 do the same injury to many?  
His third answer is, that, by the motion of a Dutch Minister and a special friend of mine, etc. the Dutch Ministers came to his house and made that wrighting.] That Reverend Dutch ministers love and pains I acknowledge, with all thanckfullnes, and am sorry that a learned and godly Brother, of another Nation, should show himself more desirous of mine accommodation then mine own countryman, from whom, in many respects, I had cause to expect more favour and love then from foreigners, especially▪ seeing their labour proved no more successful, through the violence of a contrary stream, of which enough hath been 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 writing declare their private judgement.] But, why did he not, at least, more roundly deny it, if it be untrue? For, it may be true, notwithstanding any thing said by him to the contrary. For, why might not that Minister propound it to the rest being thereunto prepared by the Answerers private intimations or entreaty? But, suppose the Minister propounded it, of his own accord, yet, what I wrote is true, in the sense, wherein I meant it. For I spoke of the Answerer alone, not in reference to the Ministers of the Classis, but in reference to the Elders of his own 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 only, 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 speak of passages between the five Ministers & him, when the Complainants' charge him with seeking to make an injurious order in the Consistory? Had not the twelfth Section been a fit place for this matter, where it is purposely spoken of? But I forbear to guess at the reason hereof. Whereas he addeth, if he had been the only secker thereof, there is no cause for them, that mean to deal uprightly, to complain of such a lawful & 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 lawful.  
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 doth it not really. They say, that they think no godly man will absolutely be bound to conform to that wrighting.] To let pass his unworthy scoffs, he accuseth them of a rash and praesumptious judgement for saying so, whereas. 1. they profess only that they think so. Now, every thought, though it may be rash, is not to be accounted a praesumptious judgement. 2. they do not speak of suffering themselves to be bound to such a wrighting, but of being absolutely bound to conform to it. And there is a great difference between those two expressions. 3. My name is altogether needlessly brought in here, as the Reader may well perceive. But I pass 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 lawful, and for the good of the Church, by this, or by any thing else, he hath said, in the 5 pretended answers? If not, It appeareth that no satisfaction is given to the Complainants' by his answers. And so their second proof of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis, which they produce for an evidence of his not behaving himself as he aught, in his pastoral government, remaineth unanswered.   

Sect. 30. examined, concerning the Answerers violent bringing matters into the Classis when he cannot have his will unjustly satisfied in the Consistory.  
IN this Section they produce the third proof of the justness 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 satisfied.] Which complaint they aggravate by the dangerous consequent, or rather effect of it: for, they say, he destroys the power of the Church utterly, often affirming, they can do 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 profess their reverend esteem of them for counsel & advise in all difficult matters that cannot be ended in their own Consistory.  
That what is said, on boath sides, concerning this matter, may the more easily and clearly be understood, these things must be premised. 1. that they do not complain of his taking advise and counsel of the Classis in difficult matters. For therein, they say, they esteem reverently of them. 2. Nor, that they bring such matters to the Classis as cannot be ended in their own Consistory. But the thing they complain of, is. 1. that he bringeth such things to the Classis as may be ended in the Consistory. 2. that he doth it violently, that is, without consent of the rest. 3. that his principal motive, or inducement thereunto, is, the satisfaction of his own will. 4. That he doth it under a pretence that the Church can do nothing in such matters (to wit, as those in question, the making of an order for a decent and orderly performance of a Religious duty, in a right administration of baptism, and the choosing of their own Pastors, when they pitch upon men abhorring all haeresy and schysme, etc. and craving the help of an assistant for a time, in the Church's necessity) which, they truly say, is a destroying of the power of the Church.  
Now, let us see his answers hereunto, which are fix.  
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 plaintiff, and therefore, according to his own rule, is to bring proof. If he say, they did unjustly in making orders about such matters (without the consent of the Classis) let him show what rule is transgressed thereby. This he should have done before he had taken the matter out of their hands, and carried it into the Classis, that they might have been convinced of the equity of his so doing. If he can not; Let him bear the just blame of slandering the Consistory in print, and of depriving the Church of her due power in her own 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 been formerly declared. And therefore he need not scoffingly ask 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, 
joh. 12.7.  if he will give the days leave to speak, and the multitude of years to teach wisdom.  
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, burden, oppression etc.  
Reply. They complain that when he can not have his will unjustly satisfied in the Consistory, he violently, without their consent, bringeth matters thence into the Classis. If this complaint be just, it is not slight. His carriage in late differences maketh it suspicious that the root 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 mean for God's glory, and the Church's aedification, or as commanded of God; nor is it enjoined in any Canon of these Belgic Nationall Synods; nor is it expressly, 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 burdened, in this respect.  
As for the folly, which he chargeth upon the Complainants', that, pretending to stand for the liberty of the Church, they seek 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 Christ's 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 choose a fit Pastor, and to crave the help of one well known unto them in time of the Church's necessity, & to see that Baptism be decently & orderly administered? or that they so depend upon Classes for their leave & permission herein, as to be hindered 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 witness against Christ, and his ways in making them ways of folly, and servitude, etc. If the latter be the way of Christ, let him show it (and not say it only) I say, show, and prove it by Scripture, for the satisfaction of the people that depend upon his ministry. And till he can do that, let him forbear such expressions.  
3. His third answer is by ask what men should do, when they think the Elders to be in an error? Reply, If a man think them to be in an error, what should he do else but show them their error by the word, and, if the case prove difficult, crave (with common consent) the help of other men's, or Church's light (as occasion shall require) to make the matter clear? But the rule warranteth not any man, upon his mere thought that they err, to carry the matters quite out of their hands & power, without their consent, or declaring the equity 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 proceed will be hindered. 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 twice a year was ordained in the Council of Nice and Chalcedon, the Elders began to be in less 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 saith of the hierarchical Synods, in that place, will be found true also of the Classis, by this course, and much more, seeing they meet six times a year.  
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 I refer the Reader.  
5. His fifth answer is already replied upon in examination of the 27. Section.  
6. His sixth answer also is replied upon before, in several 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 complain that their 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 error, and hereunto they add another aggravation, viz, that it is done without the Church's consent. 
Lib. 3. Cap. 26. p. 370.  M. Parker in his learned discourse of Ecclesiastical policy showeth, at large, that Churches are no furher under the authority of Synods than they have subjected themselves by their own consent. And, as for binding men to rest in their determinations, as if they were infallible, both Dr. Whittaker, and junius, in showing that Councils are subject to error, have given sufficient light for discovery of the evil of that practice.  
But let us see what he answereth to this complaint, in seven particulars.  
1. His first is, after his usual manner, It is untrue, but, when, the Church is hindered from making an order for the decent & orderly administration of holy things, by their own power, under pretence of his taking advise of the Classis, as it was in the question about Baptism, & when I was required (& that for a condition whereupon I was to be admitted or refused) to rest in a writing of five Ministers, no rule being shown me by them from the Scripture to warrant their so doing, these things shown it to be true.  
2. His second answer is, that the same thing may be alleged against any Pastor in the reformed Churches. But this is an injury to all reformed Churches and Pastors, unless he can 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 do. It is true, that Classical assemblies (or such like) are a special bond of union and sinew of government, in them all, but to argue, from the lawful use, to justify the unlawful abuse of them, is unsound reasoning.  
3. His third answer is to their charging him with doing this under a pretence of ask, and taking advise of the Classis. Which he denyeth, and saith that he professeth openly the authority and power of Synods and Classis to be lawful and necessary, as well as their counsel and advise. Neither do they deny the authority, and due power of Synods and Classes to be lawful, and necessary, but they complain 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, unless 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 ask and taking their advice, he subjecteth the Church under that power, which they affirm to be undue. That he doth so subject them hath been showed, and that he pretendeth only to ask, and take their advice, his own expressions, both by speeches, at other times, and in divers passages of this book, 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 showing the agreement between 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 coming (but he saith not how long after his first coming) he was admitted to be a member of the Classis. 3. By showing the manner of their receiving members, viz, by profession of the same faith with them, and by solemn 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 any undue power and authority of the Classis? Nay, when they profess to submit unto the discipline of this Church, according to the rule of Christ, do they not therein implicitly profess against submission to any undue power of the Classis? And, as little doth the practice of any members since, in resorting to the Classis, upon occasion of ask their judgement in matters controverted among them, establish any undue power of theirs. And, to what end should those that join 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, than submission to the discipline of this Church, according to the role of Christ? As for that, which he addeth, of their choosing rather to continue as they were, then to be of the English Synod, this doth not testify their acknowledgement of their subjection to any undue power of the Classis. But, how, were they under the Classis, when, not long before that, the Answerer himself (as Mr. Forbes assured me) laboured to set up an English Classis or Synod, which not succeeding, in his endeavour at that time, he never after attempted to procure, nor would join with, being after set up, at the procurements of others. As for St: Offw: report of Geneva; we have already shown some difference between the association of Churches in Geneva, and the Classes in these Countries. 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 complain of, is such, as the Scriptures do not in any place give to such a company of Ministers. The fault that he findeth herewith is, that they do not allege any one place of Scripture to condemn the same. As though Negative Arguments from Scripture were not sufficient proofs of the unlawfulness of a thing in matter of Religion. By the help of St. Offw: book he accommodateth the 15. of the Acts. concerning the Church at Antioch seeking help of the Church at jerusalem, in a difficult question, to the present question. But what is that to the undue power of the Classis whereof they complain? In his next answer, it may be, he will give me occasion of showing 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 complain) is such as doth not become any, except the Apostles, that could not err, to have. This, he saith, 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 than may be yielded unto any Council, whether of Classes or Synods etc. that thereby the wrighting and decrees of men are made infallible, and equal with the word of God, which is intolerable.  
Reply. It is true that I so wrote, and that which I wrote herein is true. Let us now see what he answereth. He saith, what wise man is there that sees not the strange folly and vanity of such assertions as these? junius was a wise man, and yet he saw no folly, nor vanity, nor strangeness 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 juni: 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 instrumental ministry (that is, as I conceive it, so far as he reporteth the Lord's mind and command) but doth not bind him to his own outward jurisdiction. This no Lord will ever give, nor any faithful 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 do so? Also Dr. Whittaker was a wise man, 
Whitt. de Concil: Quest: 3. Chap. 2.  & yet he saw no folly, nor vanity, nor strangeness in a like assertion. For, speaking of the definitions of Councils concerning matters to be believed, or to be done, he showeth, that to define a thing, signifieth, either 1. to declare what we are to believe & do, upon the authority of the Scripture, because the Scripture teacheth, that it aught to be so believed and done, and that therefore they that believe or do otherwise, are in an error. 2. or else it signifieth to appoint and prescribe, by their own authority, what we are to believe or do, so as men must rest in it, whatsoever reason they have against it, and may not believe or do otherwise. The first he alloweth, and so did I, and desired nothing else but to understand some rule from the word warranting me to do that, whereunto they, in that wrighting, would have bound me. The second way of defining he denyeth to belong to any Council, and affirmeth that it appertaineth only to God, and to Christ, and to the Holy Ghost. Here I might be large in alleging wrighters of the most eminent note affirming the like, and the same, for substance, with me, in this matter, and many of them expressing their judgements 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 testified my consent with them in it? But that they did not, nor hath he done it in all this tedious 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 little purpose is that which he allegeth concerning the subscription which the Reformed Churches require to their confessions of faith; Whereas the matter in question is not comprehended in any Article of those Confessions, and out of those very Confessions we do dispute against it. But, was not the Answerer driven far, and put hard to his shifts, when, to make some show of answer, he demanded, how I could subscribe my name to my own writing sent to the Classis, to show my consent to it, and whether I did thereby make myself an Apostle, or my wrighting equal to the word of God? To let pass his improper calling it my consent to my own wrighting, my subscription to it was, not in reference to myself, but to the word of God, whereunto it is consonant, and it testified unto them my persuasion that it agreed therewith: but, what is this to the subscription, which they required, to injunctions and prescriptions, 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 etc. Any one Argument from the word should prevail 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 men's wrighting, or to his own, that therefore he may subscribe to those wrighting concerning the truth whereof he is not persuaded?  
Whilst he was writing these things a secret Monitour from within suggested to him that all humane judicatoryes are subject to error, and that, when that error is showed by the word of God, it aught to be corrected. But, if the question be, who may judge of this error, and show it them? Here his answer is defective. He saith one Synod often reformeth that which hath been decreed by another. This showeth indeed that Synods are subject to error. And do they not therefore err because they fetched not their definitions and prescriptions 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 took, by comparing them with, 
Act. 17.11.  and examining them by the Scriptures? And to whom doth this belong? Indeed the public Ministerial power of judging, in such cases, belongeth to Synods or Councils themselves. But the private judgement, which Divines call the judgement of practical discretion, belongeth to every Christian. So that no man is bound absolutely to submit to, or to rest in the judgement of any man or Council, but to try them by the Scripture, and to consent with them no further than they appear to consent with that rule. This the Scriptures abundantly declare, 
Mat. 24.4 1. Thess. 5.21. 1. joh. 4.1. Gal. 1.8. Mat. 23.8  when they command all Christians to beware of Seducers, to try all things, to try the spirits. Also, when they are called upon to receive the word of Christ only, as their only Master. And to deny men the use of their private judgement, in things taught them by their Pastors, or enjoined, and prescribed by Classes, or Synods, what is it else, but to deprive man of his reason, & man's understanding of its end, which is to search & find out the truth? yea, to deprive Christians of the fruit of their faith, and supernatural 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 years to be always 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 jerom was so far that he much commended Marcelia, 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 scholars did his sayings (or as the Answerer would have had me to rest in the judgement of the five Ministers) but she examined and weighed all things, so that he thought himself to have, non tam discipulam, quam judicem, not so much a scholar as a judge, and as he allowed a good woman this liberty in trying the words of a learned and godly Teather, so Hylary giveth the same liberty to all private Christians in examining the decrees of Counsels. 
Hylar: de Synod: adv: Arrian.  Si contraria invicem senserint Concilia, debemus, quasi judices, probare meliora. If Councils (or Synods) differ in their determinations, we aught, as judges of our own actions, to approve of that which is better.  
Whereas he addeth. Yet doth 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 Ministerial authority from 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 do 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 do exceedingly gratify many sorts of Libertines, Arrians, Socinians and other heretics etc. What injury is it to witness against undue power, which is a testifying against injury? And how can the Libertines, Arrians, etc. be gratifyed by pleading against that undue power which is exercised in upholding that disorder of promiscuous baptising which serveth to strengthen them in their damnable errors, as hath been shown in the examination of the 12 Section? Nay, doth not this undue power, which he ascribeth to Classes, both strengthen them in their opposition to that way of Government, and gratify the Papists also in their dangerous errors about the infallibility of Councils and the Pope, and about implicit faith and blind obedience? For, it is not subscription to any truth which is excepted against, but subscription to men's 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▪ only in the 39 Section, whereas they complained of manifest injury done by the Answerer to me, whom he reproached in public about the meeting of divers to hear me upon the grounds of Religion in Catechising the family, where I lived (though enough hath been 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 virtue of a public office in that place) nor performed that private excercise, without a sufficient calling thereunto, both from the duty of my private domestical relation to my own family, and from the desire of the Master of that family, where I than lived, to those of his household, and whereas others desired to partake of the benefit of it, their desire was calling sufficient for their admittance to that private excercise, by virtue of the spiritual 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 public 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 duty; it doth not forbid private men any duty, the performance whereof is required in other texts. as. 1. Masters to their own families 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 help of others 1. Pet. 4.10. Heb. 10.24.25. Mat. 3.16. 3. If yet the Answerer is not satisfied, let him know that more may be pleaded, for the warrant of that action, in reference to me, even from that place of Scripture, than I will insist upon, if I would plead all that I might, or indeed need to make use of, seeing 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 duty, I have borne reproach. Neither was that the only sermon wherein I was reproached by the Answerer in public, as many can testify, which I strove to bear 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 public 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, nor that action so done, to be unlawful, but venteth his passion, because he wanteth Arguments against it.  
In his fifth answer he saith, 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 speak 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 work, in acknowledgement of their jurisdiction, in such cases: but when I heard that the Answerer took 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 burden to him, that I might not seem to give offence to him, only, 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 only 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 truly let him see to it. For my part, I never heard that any of them were guilty of that crime, nor do believe it to be true.  
In his seaventh answer he supposeth that our own consciences told us that it was not right, which we did, seeing at the word of man, we left it. Thus am I as one that holdeth the wolf by the ear, when I have to do with such a spirit, which, whether a man hold or let go, will not spare. But I will answer him in two words, by remembering him that Christian actions are of two sorts. 1. Actions of Christian duty. 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 mutual aedification, these are necessary duties 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 omit it. And, upon this warrant, I desisted, not from the duty (which I have occasionally performed since, when I have been in that house) but from performing it in the presence of so many. But let them, who, by taking offence unjustly, hindered 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 poor souls that are grieved for their hindrance shall appear together before his righteous tribunal. In hope and expectation whereof, is my comfort in the midst of these troubles (as it was jobs, 
job: 19.3. v: 25.  whom his friends had reproached ten times.] For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the last day upon the earth, etc.   

The 40. Section examined,  
IN this Section the Complainants' show themselves aggreived for his pulpiting against me, in a reproachful, upbraiding 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 nevertheless injuriously joined 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 bewail their want of me. Lastly they show the equity of their complaining against the Answerer for this, by his labouring to work the Ministers of the Classis to further his purpose, telling them, that to tolerate me, in a different practice, would be a condemning of their own practice, and that therefore, if they would give way to me, they must make an order to condemn their own practice, 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 error, Reply.] But. 1. To call that an error which he hath not proved, nor can prove to be an error, is a reproach. Himself saith it is no reproachful upbraiding of me, unless they could convince him of error for so speaking, Enough hath been said in the twelfth Section, and more may be added hereafter to convince him, unless he be of his mind who said non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris, though you do convince, yet I will not be convinced. 2. To rank the party, whom he supposed to err, with Anabaptists and Brownists, when he professeth, and is ready to declare that he differeth from them, is a reproachful upbraiding and injurious 3. To do this in the pulpit, where the people expect nothing but words of truth, and passages tending to peace and aedification, and from whence a public brand of reproach and disgrace may be left upon a brother, was a more rude expression, than the Complainants' used concerning their thought that no godly man will be absolutely bound to subscribe to that wrighting. 4. It is a poor evasion when he insinuateth that I said in effect Mr. Hook: was in error, when I said that I was not of his opinion in some points. For, to say so much only declareth that mine opinion differed from his, but not that he was in error, seeing 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 error, from whom I differed in opinion, which is far from justifying, and serveth justly to reprove the reproachful speeches of the Answerer, as a ruder language.  
His second answer is, that he performed his promise, and said enough, in that sermon, to satisfy their expectation by his Arguments, against mine opinion (as he calleth it) and, for proof hereof, referreth his Reader to his notes which he wrote down 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 erroneous, that complain he avoided the question between us. The sermon here spoken of, it seemeth, was preached when I was absent, and, out of town: therefore I can say nothing, upon mine own knowledge, in this matter, but that the constant report, wherein all, whom I heard speak of it, concurred, was, that what he said was so far from satisfying them, that they did not conceive that he spoke to the point in question, but evaded it rather. And those notes of his sermon, which some of them took from his mouth, and shown 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 down by me in the 12. Section, it will easily appear that he did not deal against my opinion (as he calleth it) in every Argument, nor in any Argument as he should. For the difference between him and me was about my refusing to conform 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 known unto us. Now he brought not one Argument to prove the lawfulness of this custom, or to convince me of sin for not binding myself, by subscription, or promise to conform to it.  
His third answer is, that, upon his motion, I made an offer of showing how far I differed from the Brownists, which I performed not, which he saith, if I had done, mine opinion must have fallen together with it.] But it is neither so, nor so. For, neither did I offer it, upon his motion, but upon mine own motion, to vindicate my assertion from his calumnies, nor is there such affinity betwixt their opinions and mine, in this matter, that, like twins, they must live and dye together. For, what I affirm will stand, upon other grounds and principles, than those whereby their separation is upheld. To wipe off this aspersion I will show that it is an injury, as to me, so to the truth also, in this particular, when it is affirmed that the error of the Brownists could not be refuted by me but that mine own opinion must fall together, and that, like twins, they must live and dye together. For, I suppose, the error of the Brownists, which he meaneth, is, that separation from the Church assemblies of England, in such sort as to have no spiritual Communion with them, is necessary. If so; I demand, how doth this assertion of the lawfulness of admitting only their infants to baptism, who are members of a true Church, necessarily argue such separation from true Churches (for defects and corruptions which are found in them) to be a bounden duty? If yea; let him demonstrate. 1. How it strengtheneth them in theyre refusing private Religious Communion with good Christians, because they stand members of some parish-Church in England, which is one error held by some of them, as he knoweth. 2, How it confirmeth them in refusing to hear the word preached by any ministers of any of those Churches, which is another error maintained by many of them also? 3. How it establisheth any man in refusing any public Religious communion with any true Church? If nay; let him acknowledge his slander. But, that the vanity and untruth of this suggestion may be more evident, I will declare the truth, in this matter, by manifesting, both mine own judgement about the truenes of Churches, and the practice of the Separatists themselves.  
1. Mine own judgement and persuasion I will express 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 essential and integral form of a visible Church, and all they have entire right to Christ, and to all the means of enjoying him: however they are defective in the purity of their combination, and in the complete free excercising of their power. To prevent all mistake, he declareth what he meaneth by essential and integral form thus. The essential form of a visible Church is the covenant of God, or true faith made visible by profession; the notes and marks whereof are the word and Sacraments rightly administered, and received with fruits of obedience. The integral constituting form is that state, relation, or reference which a Congregation of such professors have one to another by virtue of their settled combination, the note or mark whereof is their usual 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 duty of Christians to endeavour (as much as in them is) to procure the reformation of those defects, and not to partake in the sins of any Church. Eph. 5.11. and amongst true Churches to make choice of those, whereunto to join themselves, which are most pure, 
Lib. 4. Cas. Cons. cap. 24. quest. 2.  so far as they are able (as the same learned wrighter saith, elsewhere) yet to dischurch them wholly, & to separate from them, as no Churches of Christ, or to deny baptism to the infants of their known members is not warranted by any rule in the Scripture, that I know, nor justified by my assertion or practice.  
2. The practice of the Separatists themselves showeth that this assertion doth not strengthen or countenance the error of the Brownists in matter of Separation. For, they profess to hold spiritual communion with other Churches, who do extend the use of baptism to as great largeness as England doth, and greater also (as I am able, with God's assistance, to prove) though they freely witness against it, as a disorder in those Churches, which also many Godly learned ministers of these Countries are so far from justifying, that they confess it to be unwarrantable, and wish it may be reform. By all which it is manifest that there is no such affinity between these opinions, that the error of the Brownists could not be refuted by me, but that mine own opinion must fall together. As he untruly pretendeth.  
3. Hereunto I will add, that in thus reasoning the Answerer imprudently armeth his opposites against himself with his own weapon. 
Polit. Eccles. lib. 1. Cap. 14. e● 13. Fresh Suit p. 207. Treat: of the necess. of separation.  For this plea is taken up, 1. by the those that plead for the Prelates, 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 briefly and fitly answered. 2. by those of the Separation, for Mr. Can, the Answerer knoweth, pretendeth, in his book, to prove a necessity of separation from the Church of England by the Non-conformists principles, and professeth to oppose it especially to Dr. Ames, only in the point of separation. Whereby it appeareth that he accounteth him, and such like, opposites, in that point, notwithstanding their agreement in some truths. Concerning which book I have many things to say, in Dr. Ames his defence, which if I 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, seeing others (as I hear) have undertaken it, and a more fit occasion may be given hereafter, if it be thought requisite, but especially seeing he hath not answered Dr. Ames his second manuduction at all, wherein he hath said enough for the clearing of his judgement in this matter, nor indeed hath he taken away the force of that little, which the Doctor said in answer to the rejoinder, though he expressed himself, 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 abstain 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 encouraged me so to do, by assuring me that the performance thereof would end the difference, Nor did it fall fitly in my way to speak of this point, in any Argument which I handled in public afterwards.  
His fourth answer tendeth to a slighting of my labour of love in 6 months assistance of him, in a time of their extremity. It becometh unthanckfull men thus to elevate that kindness which they have not hearts to value, nor purpose to requite. For this purpose, he setteth 6 months, wherein that wrighting, as he saith, was given out by me, and 6 year's resistance, which, he saith, is procured by my opposition to the practice of the Dutch Church, and as much recompense, he saith, received by me for that, as some godly ministers have in twice 6 months.  
Reply. Concerning the wrighting I have spoken sufficiently in the 2 and 22. Sections, and in other places, wherein I shown how he compelled me to it, for declaration of the truth against his unjust reports, and how himself, before he heard of any such wrighting from me, had traduced me, in the dark, in a larger wrighting secretly sent to his friend in N.  
Concerning the ground of 6 year's resistance.  he compelled me thereunto, in defence of the truth, I cannot help it, nor am to be blamed for it, unless it be a fault to bear witness to the truth, when I am called thereunto.  
Concerning the collection, which he, in too mercenary a phrase, calleth a recompense 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 kindness. 2. I contracted not with him for any recompense to be made me from the Church, by his means; so that, in me it was a kindness. 3. I received no gratification from the Churchstock, as other Ministers have done, by his procurement. So that the poor 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 friends. 5. What ever I received from them they know, I was no gainer by it, when the necessary charges of my diet are deducted, and the hire of an house, which, at their request, I took, but never lived in, through his opposition against me, and for which I was constrained to pay the whole years rend. 6. As he made no allowance towards this recompense, so he propounded it not to others, by them to be considered, and when, by others, it was propounded to him, though he hindered it not (for that was not in his power) yet, when he saw that they purposed to express their love some what liberally, he took 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 months labours, in that place, the opposition, which the Answerer hath raised against me, hath put me to the charges of thrice 6 months in these parts, by compelling me, for peace sake to remove to some other place, where I might live quietly, though upon mine own 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 disadvantage, and loss, through his unquietness.  
His other answers which he pretendeth to make to the Complainants', but through them smiteth me, are already examined.  
In his fifth answer he blameth them for false imaginations touching his thoughts & intents.] How just this reproof is, his own conscience knoweth: but he is very unfit to be a reprover of evil surmises, who is so abundantly culpable of the same evil in so many passages of this book: yea, in the next immediately precedent passage he expressed a false imagination concerning my intention in preaching against Schysming to those that frequented the private excercise: wherein he dealt injuriously with them, & 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 saith in the 7, 8, 9, & 10 answers hath been examined before.  
The last passage, in this Sect: concerneth the preaching and prophesying of ja: Cr: and Tho. Flet. which is elsewhere also repeated. Whereunto I am content, at the importunity of one of them, 
P. 102. P. 106. See p. 30. 71. 82. 106. Aug. contr. jul. Pelag. lib. 1.  (viz ja: Cr.) to say some thing. Wherefore, passing by his scornful manner of naming them, which is very usual with him (though it better became julian the Pelagian then the Answerer) I will only relate the answer which I received from him in writing, contracting it thus. 1. That he never read and applied Scripture, at any meeting, out of his own house. 2. That in his own 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 years. 4. That he remembreth not that any one hath been at any such duty in his family, these 4 or 5 years 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 hear that it was disliked, till the Answerer girded at such meeting, in a sermon, 3 or 4 years 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 privately thereof, but departed thence without satisfaction. 8. That a few days after, as he heard, the Answerer saught for witnesses, and found 2. (as it was said) ja. Cr. spoke with them boath, and found the one very defective, and more against the Answerer then for him. The other said that, about some 5 years since, he heard ja. C. read in the bible, and some wrighting concerning it, but whether the Answerers sermons or any other, he dare not say. But ja. Cr. constantly affirmeth, that this witness 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 thrice mentioned. That which he saith 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 concern me are answered.  
In the 42 Sect. he falleth again into his old guilt of false imagination by misjudging our intentions in a private fast. Concerning which ill usage of his I may take up the Psalmists complaint. 
Psal. 96.10.  When I wept and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach.  

His answers to Allegations of Scripture brought by me examined.  
BEfore I search into the particulars of his answer I have just cause to complain that my Tenet, in this question, is not proposed but mangled, and counterfeit, & that, though some prints & lineaments of it are represented, yet, not in their true decency and proportion: like certain looking glasses, which representing the visage mishapen, yet, after a sort, praeserve something of the hue & complexion. Which will appear by comparing what is here said by him with that which I then wrote to the Classis, which, because it was large and in latin, & a private wrighting, I forbear now to publish, till further provocation. Whereby the learned may see, 1. What mistakes were in the Translation, as it was published, in that printed pamphlet, against which I protested in print. 2. That my intent in writing to the Classis, was, not to dispute the point, but to declare passages between the Answerer and me, for the removeall of calumnies which had been cast abroad among them. 3. That the 4. first Scriptures were alleged, not to prove that no infants should be baptised, whose parents are not members of that Church, but to show, that they had no power to require any more of me then to perform the duties of the pastoral office, to the members of that Church (whereunto I should have relation) which I was ready to perform. So that my wrighting served only to prevent that trouble, which I foresaw would follow, if the Classis, to gratify the Answerer, should assume to themselves an undue power of binding me to rest in, 
Sect. 12. 13. 14.  & conform to that writing spoken of before. And that such power is unjustly assumed by the Classis I prove thus.  
That power which exceeds the bounds of Apostolical authority is unduly assumed by any Classis.  
But the power of binding a Pastor to perform a duty of his pastoral office unto those who are not members of his Church exceedeth the bounds of Apostolical authority.  
Therefore the power of binding me to baptise those that are no members of that Church, whereunto I should be Pastor, is unjustly assumed by the Classis.  
Which proposition will he deny? Not the first, unless he will affirm that the Classes have a greater power over particular Churches than the Apostles had. Which, I think, he will not say, much less go about to prove. Will he deny the assumption? Those 4 texts of Scripture were alleged by me for the proof of it.  
To prevent all mistakes, I pray the Reader to be informed that my intent, in alleging these Scriptures, was only to advertise the Ministers of the Classis that they have no authority to exact this of me, as a condition of my admittance to that pastoral charge (as my very words in that wrighting declare) not to show the unlawfulness of my baptising any that are not members of that particular Church: for I profess, in express words after, that, in regard of the communion of particular Churches among themselves, I neither did, nor do refuse to baptise their infants, who are not members of that Church: so that I may be satisfied that they are indeed Christians. So that the question is only, whether the Classis hath power to exact such a thing of any minister to be admitted to a particular Church amongst them, as a condition of his admittance? In this case, I might have put them upon showing their warrant and commission for their so doing (as I now do require of the Answerer, when he shall defend his pretended answer, in his next book) but, to make short work, I then produced the Apostles practise, whose commission was larger than any Classis hath received, and shown that they never assumed so much, which they would not have failed to do, in one place or other, the necessity of the Church, in those times, so requiring, nor to have recorded it, for the instruction of posterity, if they might have done it. To this end I noated three places of Scripture. Let us now consider them, and his answer.  
1. Text. Acts. 20.28. Wherein Paul charged the Elders of Ephesus to take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers. Where, he did not extend the excercising of their office farther than the Holy Ghost extended their relation. Let us examine his eight answers, which he giveth, rather by number then by weight.  
His first answer is, ad hominem, to the man more than to the matter. For he saith. By what right Mr. D. himself, being no member of this Church, did communicate with us in the Lord's supper, by the some right may a Pastor excercise his Ministry, in some acts of it, to those who are no mrmbers of his Church.  
Reply. This answer is nothing to the matter in question, For, 1. the question is not, what I may lawfully do, but what the Classis may warrantably exact, in manner aforesaid. For, some lawful things are arbitrary, and in our liberty, and to be done sometimes, and sometimes omitted, as circumstances and respects vary the case, and those no man may impose as necessary. It had been more to the purpose if he could have said. By what right the Classis did compel him to administer the Lords supper to unknown persons, that are no members of his Church, etc. by the same right they may compel me to baptise the infants of those that are no members. 2. The cases are not alike, between mine admittance to communicate at the Lords table, & the admittance of those to baptism, concerning whom the question is. For I conceive, that (besides my relation else where, and the right which these Churches give to known passants, of being admitted to the communion, for a short time) both himself, and the whole Church, acknowledged me for a member with them, for the time of my abode in that service, which they testified by desiring the help of my public labours, and their cheerful admittance of me to that ordinance, during that time, without the least scruple. Now, let the Reader judge, whether it be alike to receive a man so known, and acknowledged among themselves as a member (for a time) to communion in the Lord's supper, and the baptising of those infants, whose parents are members, neither of that Church, nor of any other, for aught any man knoweth, being not at all known unto the Church.  
His second answer is, that the Apostle might have laid upon them a further duty, in some other place, though no more was required, in that place.  
Reply 1. If he would have answered to the purpose, he should have produced some other place, wherein the Apostle did so: but that he did not, because he could not. 2. That Paul did not impose any such injunction upon the Pastors of Ephesus, at this time, being to leave them, nor afterwards in the Epistle which he wrote to them from Rome, nor at any other time (which the Scripture mentioneth, and it would have been recorded, if it had been done, being a matter of such moment, & no where else in Scripture propounded) wherefore was it, but because he received no such command from the Lord? Which if he had done, it stood not with his faithfulness, 
Act: 20.20. v. 27.  who professeth to keep back nothing that was profitable, and to declare all the Counsel of God, to conceal. 3. That, neither Paul, nor any of the Apostles could impose any such injunctions upon Pastors, 
The 5. book of the Church. Chap. 27. p. 497. Cartw. 1. Repl. p. 43.  I prove thus. Because it had been to confound the Apostolical and Pastoral office, & to bind men to break the limits of their office, which had been a violation of God's order, as D. Feild and Mr. Cartwright show, whom it concerneth the Answerer to answer in this point.  
His third answer, he saith, is more particular, but, I say, it is no more to the purpose, than the former. He saith. The preaching of the word is a Ministerial act, which Ministers are bound to perform to some without, when they invite Heathens, Turks, or jews to hear them. Pro: 9.3.4.5. Mat. 28.19.20.  
Reply. But, 1, what is all this to prove that the Classis hath the authority whereof the question is? Bring it into a Syllogism, and see. 2. For the Assertion itself, though I grant that the preaching of the Gospel by a Minister is an act of his ministry, yet, 
Prov: 9.2.3.4. Mat. 11.19. Dan: 12.3  it is not so in every man. For one that is not one of wisdoms maidens, by virtue of office, yet may be one of wisdoms children, whom God may bless in the excercise of the gifts and graces of his spirit to be an instrument of turning many to righteousness. And, for that other place in Mat. 28.19.20. I know not to what purpose it is alleged, unless to show that the Classis may give ordinary Pastors such a commission as Christ gave the Apostles, to go and preach the Gospel to all Nations. 3. To what end doth he speak of preaching the Gospel to Heathens, jews, and Turks, in this question? Is it to intimate that Baptism may be as lawfully administered to the infants of such, as the word is preached to their parents? Or, what other use serveth it to?  
His fourth answer is, that the administration of the Sacraments, is also a duty of the ministry to be performed by a Pastor to more than the members of his particular Congregation, etc.  
Reply 1. Here again I must continue and renew my complaint that the Answerer proveth not the power of the Classis in the particular in question. 2. To admit those that are known members of another Church to communion in the Sacraments, upon fitting occasions, I hold lawful, and do profess my readiness to practise accordingly, but, is this any thing to those who refuse to join with any Church (concerning whom, and such like the question is) Is the administration of the Sacrament a duty of the ministry to be performed by any Pastor to such? If he say, yea; let him prove it. If nay; why then am I blamed for refusing it?  
His fifth answer is ill bottomed, upon a false supposition, that the practice of the Church at Antioch, in sending to the Church of jerusalem, warranteth Classes to excercise such authority over particular Churches as is now questioned.  
Reply. 1. I say, it is ill bottomed. For, it will be hard for him to prove, 1, that meeting to be Classical, which was but of 2 Churches consulting upon an extraordinary occasion in a difficult case. 2. That this meeting consisted of Ministers only, seeing the text saith that, at Antioch, they gathered the Church Act: 14.27. What was that? the multitude. Act: 15.30. and, at jerusalem, the Church, Apostles, and Elders are joined together in receiving those messengers. Where the Church again signified the Multitude. v. 12. who are also called the whole Church and brethren. v. 22. 23. 3. That those that dwelled at jerusalem dealt in the case of those at Antioch by way of Classical jurisdiction and authority, seeing Paul and Barnabas were sent, who were not inferior to the rest of the Apostles, either in authority or in the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost, and they were sent principally for the stopping of the mouths of those Seducers, which pretended that they were sent by the Apostles, as the Apostles intimate in their epistle to the Church at Antioch. Act. 15.24. 4. That the Classes have power to impose their decrees upon other Churches, that have no delegates with them, as the Apostles did at that time, upon all the Churches of the Gentiles. v. 23.28. Cap. 18.4. 2. As his answer is ill bottomed, so it is ill built, unless he can prove that it is a part of every ministers office to be exercised in governing the members of many other Congregations (as well as his one) combined in Classes, which he doth not go about to do, nor will be able out of Scripture, where no such property of a minister is expressed, either in the Acts, or Epistles of the Apostles. 3. As his answer is ill bottomed, and ill built, so is it ill added to prove the power of the Classes in the matter, concerning which the question is, which it doth not prove at all.  
His sixth answer, wherein he pretendeth to come nearer to the place Act. 20.28. (and so he had need to do: for hitherto he hath gone far enough from it) is, that the flock is attended by the labour of the Pastor, that it may be increased, which is done by the labour of faithful ministers seeking to bring those into the fold, which, at first, are no members of the Church.  
Reply. 1. If all this were granted, yet it will not conclude the point in question, as will appear to him that shall frame it into a Syllogism. 2. It may be questioned whether this drawing into the fold be the pastoral attendance there meant, though I doubt not that it is lawful, and a duty, but it seemeth not to be intended in that charge left with the Pastors of Ephesus. 1. Because the work of the Pastor, qua talis, is to feed a flock already gathered, 
1 Cor. 14.2. joh. 4.39. Act. 8.4. with Ch: 11.19.20 21. Mat: 18.19. james. 5.19.20.  not to gather a flock, unless by accident, God casting in some to hear by a providence, as that unlearned man that came in amongst them whilst they were prophesying, or in some such like way; though, I doubt not, it is a pious work & a bounden duty for a Pastor to labour the gaining of others. 2. Because the labour of bringing in others into the fold hath been undertaken by those that were not Pastors, with blessed success, the Lord giving this glory to his own word made effectual by his spirit, and not limiting it as a privilege peculiar to any office in the Church. And therefore even those out of office also are bound to labour in it.  
His seaventh answer is that to assist a Church, that is destitute of their Pastor, in convincing erroneous person● judicially in the Church is a duty, and yet may be required of a neighbour minister. Therefore men may excercise some acts of their ministry towards such as are no members of their Congregation.  
Reply 1. Here again somewhat is said, but nothing to the point. For, will it follow that, because a Minister may help a neighbour Church, in convincing those that err, that therefore the Classes have a right to exact of me, as a condition of my admittance to the pastoral office, to baptise those infants whose parents are not under my pastoral charge? 2. Though it be true that it is required of a Pastor to be able to convince erroneous persons, and that, when he doth it, according to Christ's order, it is a part of his pastoral work, yet, will it follow, that wheresoever he excerciseth that ability, he doth execute a part of his pastoral office? If not, to what use serveth this discourse?  
His eighth answer is, that my profession of my readiness to baptise their infants, who are not members of this Church, if I may be satisfied that they have a right to it, by their membership elsewhere, in regard of the communion among particular Churches, doth plainly refute myself,  
Reply. 1. The thing that I question is the power of the Classis to bind me to such a condition. 2. Suppose I had expressly denied them to have this power, as indeed, I do, by consequence, in the places of Scripture alleged by me against it, how doth this profession plainly, or darkly, or at all refute that? He saith, divers ways. 1. Then it is an error to think that a Pastor may not excercise his ministry, in some acts of it, toward those who are no members of his Church. But I have already shown that the question between us is not whether I may lawfully baptise such, but by what right the Classis can exact it of me, in the manner aforesaid. How will he make good this inference? Because it is not lawful for the Classis to exact, it in that manner, therefore is it not lawful to be done? Or, because he erreth that holds it not lawful to be done, therefore he erreth who holdeth that the Classis may not exact it, after that manner? 2. he saith, It is vain to call in question, whether they be Christians who are members of a true Church. But, is not this a vain answer? For, how shall I know them to be members of a true Church, who are otherwise altogether unknown, without questioning with them about it? And as vain is his third answer. For, therefore do I require a precedent examination of the members of another Church, and not of the members of his Church; Because my relation to that place would have made the members of that Church known to me, without such examination, but not strangers, who are altogether unknown. 4. He saith, particular persons, members of the Catholic or Universal Church may also have their infants baptised, though not joined to a particular visible Church. Reply. 1. How doth this serve to prove that I plainly refute myself? For, how can a man be said to refute what he said concerning the members of a particular Church, by saying nothing about the members of the Catholic Church? Do men use to refute by silence, or by saying nothing? I wish he had so refuted the printed pamphlet for his own credit, and peace, that men might have thought he could have said something, in his own defence, more then, it now appears, he can. 2. For the matter of his answer. When he shall answer me what he meaneth by the Catholic Church, whether it be a visible or an invisible Church, of which he speaketh, & shall give a character or description whereby a man that refuseth to join with any particular visible Church may be known to be a member of that visible, or invisible Catholic Church, than I shall have a fit occasion to tell the reason of my mentioning only the Communion of particular Churches in this question. 5. He saith, that I, having resigned up my Pastoral charge in London, and not now established minister of any particular Congregation, do yet, upon occasion, preach for Mr Balmford, and Mr. Peter's etc. he would know upon what ground I administer the word to them.] Reply. 1. What ever the ground be, it will help him nothing at all to prove that I have refuted myself in what I said concerning the power of the Classis, in this case. 2. Seeing I must give my account, take it in few words. I have preached for these men, upon the same ground, whereupon I preached for him, almost six months together, not by appointment of the Classis, nor by virtue of office among them, but, with the consent and entreaty of such as have authority to dispose and govern such actions, I have been willing and ready to employ my talents, and excercise my gifts for the good of many, according to the rule. 1. Pet. 4.10.11. Now I demand. wherein I have refuted myself?  
To wind up all these extravagancies, like so many odd; and broken ends together, into one bottom. My demand to the Classis, in reference to their practice, was, by what right the Pastor of a particular Church must be bound to perform a work of his ministry to those that are not members of his Church, seeing the Apostles never exacted, required, or persuaded it? To this question the Answerer pretendeth to make eight answers, which must be thus expressed, or else they are not to the question. 1. The Classis may exact this of any Minister, by the same right that Mr. D. had to come to the Sacrament in that Church whereof he was not a member. 2. By the same right, whereby the Apostles required as much, for aught we know, for we cannot find it written. 3. By the same right whereby Ministers are bound to labour the conversion of those without. 4. By the same right whereby Pastors may administer the Lords supper to the members of other Churches. 5. By the same right whereby the Church of jerusalem afforded help, in a difficult case, to the Church at Antioch being desired so to do. 6. By the same right whereby Pastors must labour to increase their flock. 7. By the same right whereby ministers may help a neighbour Church to convince erroneous persons. 8. Because Mr. D. is willing to baptise those infants, being brought to him, whose parents are, neither of them, members of any true Church. Is not this question sound answered?  
Or, take my interrogation for a strong denial of their power to bind me to this condition of baptising those who are not members of the Church committed to me, as indeed it was, in my intent. This denial of their power he accounteth mine error, and he goeth about to confute it by eight Arguments, which must be thus framed, to conclude the question.  
1. Arg. Mr. D. did communicate with us in the Lord's supper, being no member of our Church. Therefore the Classis may bind a Pastor to baptise those that are not members of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.  
2. Arg. Though the Apostle required no more of the Pastors of Ephesus, but to feed their own flock, yet he might lay some further duty upon them elsewhere. Therefore the Classis may bind a Pastor to baptise those that are not members of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.  
3. Arg. Ministers are bound to preach the word for the conversion of those that are without. Therefore the Classis may bind a Pastor to execute his ministry to those that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.  
4. Arg. Pastors must administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords supper in neighbour Churches that are destitute, being required thereunto. Therefore the Classis may bind a Pastor to execute his ministry to those that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.  
5. Arg. The Church at jerusalem helped the Church at Antioch, in a difficult question. Therefore the Classis may bind a Pastor to execute his ministry to those that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.  
6. Arg: Pastors attend their flock, by labouring to increase it, and to bring others into the fold. Therefore the Classis may bind a Pastor to execute his ministry to those that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.  
7. Arg. Ministers being desired, may lawfully assist neighbour Churches in convincing erroneous persons. Therefore the Classis may bind a Pastor to execute his ministry to those that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.  
8. Arg: Mr. Davenport is willing to baptise the infants that are brought, whose parents are members of any true Church. Therefore the Classis may bind a Pastor to perform some work of his ministry to those that are not of his Church. Reply. I deny the Argument.  
Again, if I would multiply questions, which I am unwilling to do, I could show, in the same manner, how little or nothing he hath said to prove the very thing which he pretendeth to prove, to wit, that it is the duty of a Pastor to discharge some work of his ministry towards those that are not of his flock & charge, by denying the Argument in every one of his proofs. But enough hath been said already, and my desire is only to satisfy all men concerning what I wrote to the Classis, being called and compelled thereunto.  
2. The second text is in Coll. 4.17. Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.  
Ans: The Answerer saith, the answer made to the former allegation may serve for answer of this.  
Reply. It may so, even as fitly as for that, that is, not at all, as hath been showed in the examination of those Answers, only one thing more we will add, from hence, to what hath been said. That as the Apostles took no such power to themselves, to bind ministers to do the work of their ministry to those who are not of their Church; So the Church also hath not power to require any more of them, and therefore the Classis cannot, who have no more power than is given them by the Churches in that combination.  
Ans. 1. Yet from hence also divers things are to be observed. 1. that, if the ministry aught to be fulfiled, than not to be lightly forsaken etc.  
Reply. True: but if the Church give an orderly dimission upon just cause (as it was in my case) the ministry is not lightly forsaken, but fulfiled, so far as the Church did, or could reasonably require it, and therein that text is satisfied.  
Ans: 2. If the ministry aught to be fulfiled, then are the ministers to declare the whole will and counsel of God, so far as it is revealed to them, for the good of God's people. Act. 20.20.27.  
Reply. True: Neither have I been altogether wanting to the discharge of this duty in my measure, and in that manner as might be for the good of God's people.  
His third answer hath been replied unto in Sect. 20. and therefore to add more in this place, were but actum agere, lost labour.  
As the Answerer would have every godly Minister consider whether it be not meet that each of these things should be duly regarded of them: So I could add other considerations and observations which might be not unproffitable; yet, lest I should seem to render reproach for reproach, I will forbear them, and spare him.  
3. The third Text is in 1. Pet. 5.2. Feed the flock, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is among you.  
Ans: The strength of that objection, which is employed in these words, hath been already taken away in answer to the former allegations. Act. 20.28.  
Reply. As in the former places, so in this, no more is required of Pastors, by virtue of their office, then to feed that flock, to the tending whereof themselves were designed by a singular appointment.  
Ans. 1. The similitude taken from shepherds doth not restrain ministers from excercising some acts of their ministry towards those who are no members of their Church, seeing shepherds, for the defence and benefit of their flocks, combine themselves etc.  
Reply. The combination of shepherds is a good emblem of a well ordered combination of divers ministers. For, 1. it is in common cases of danger to the flock, or for mutual assistance in difficult cases, as appeareth in those instances alleged by him. Gen. 29.7.8.9. Esay. 31.4. Luke. 2.8. 2. it is for the good, and help, not for the hurt, & hindrance of the flock. 3. no one shepherd is straightened in the discharge of any pastoral duty to his flock, or bound to perform the office of a shepherd to any other flock, or sheep, than those whereunto he is apppointed by the Lord and owner of the flock, from whom he receiveth his commission. And, in such a way of combination among ministers, much good may redound to particular Churches, and to the Pastors thereof.  
Ans. 2. The word translated feeding doth also signify to rule and govern: if this kind of feeding be restrained to one Congregation, then is the authority of Classes overthrown, then is it unlawful for assemblies of ministers to give their voices for the decision of controversies in any Congregation but their own, contrary to Ezek. 34.12.  
Reply. To feed, in this place, is to govern, as becometh shepherds that are servants, 
Luke 22.27.  not as lords of the flock, which is there forbidden. vers: 3. from the appearance whereof they are not free, 
Dr. Ames in 1. Pet. 5.3.  1. that will have the Church, in any sort, to depend upon their authority. 2. which prescribe any thing as necessary to be done by Pastor or people which is not drawn out of the Scripture. 3. who declare the will of God itself too imperiously, having no respect to their infirmity, with whom they have to do. Now, such a government doth not overthrow any lawful authority of Classes, much less doth it argue it to be unlawful for assemblies of ministers to give their voices for the decision of controversies, whereby the right ordering of particular Churches is not hindered, but furthered. Neither doth that Scripture, alleged by him, contradict any thing here spoken, nor indeed doth he show how it serveth for the purpose for which he produceth it.  
Ans. 3. If we consider the persons, to whom Peter wrote this Epistle, the elect strangers dispersed. 1. Pet. 1.1.2. and their manifold necessities, in those times of persecution; what an unreasonable thing is it to imagine that the ministers of those Countries might not excercise some act of their ministry for baptising of those dispersed strangers? etc.  
Reply. Seeing the question is only of the power of the Classis in binding a minister, according to the tenor of that wrighting of the five ministers, and seeing I acknowledge it to be lawful, and profess my readiness, to baptise those that are not members of this Church, if they are members of any true Church, I see not how this exception is of any validity against any thing said by me, in that wrighting, unless he will accuse the Apostles of unreasonableness in not making some order for that Classical authority which he fancyeth.  
4. His fourth answer is of no use, in this question, the premises being considered.  
Another place of Scripture, Rom: 14.5.23. was alleged by me to show, that they might not warrantably bind me to the thing in question, seeing I could not do it with persuasion of the lawfulness of it, and feared that, in doing it, I should sinne against Christ.  
Ans: 1. The Apostle here speaks of doubting about things indifferent, etc.  
Reply. 1. If this thing be necessary to the calling and office of a minister, which is in question, it had concerned them, or him to show in what respect it is necessary, whether by any command of Christ, which could not be obeyed in the discharge of of the pastoral office, without doing this, or as a mean necessarily conducing to the ends whereunto the pastoral office serveth. 2. If the Apostle will not have men bound to the doing of things indifferent, concerning the lawfulness whereof they are unpersuaded, much less would he have them bound to that which they judge to be a sin, and they, who bind them thereunto, cannot declare to be lawful, the one thincking it necessary to be avoided, and the other (what ever they pretend to think) not being able to prove it necessary to be done.  
Ans: 2. The Apostle here speaks of receiving men as brethren, not of receiving men into office. Rom. 14.3.  
Reply. What will he infer from thence? That men may be refused from an office, for refusing to do those things which Christ hath not commanded, and concerning the lawfulness whereof they doubt, as in the case questioned, or the like? It seems he intendeth that: But than it lieth upon him to prove it; else his assertion is delivered, too Dictatorlike, in a more masterly than rational way, without proof.  
Ans: 3. The doubting and wavering in matters of Religion is very dangerous, and a great evil to be taken heed of.  
Reply. Though I spoke of doubting yet I took not the word in that strict sense, wherein it is used to express an haesitancy between assent and descent, the mind inclining no more to one part then to the other, but, I modestly called it a doubt, that I might provoke them to satisfy me with convincing Arguments: yet the Arguments, which persuaded me of the unlawfulness of it seemed to me not only praeponderant, but convincing, which the Reader may find in the 12 Section.  
4. His fourth answer hath been already examined, and found too light.  
Other texts of Scripture I alleged, to express whom I account to be Christians, to wit, such as answer that reason for which the name was at first given to those that professed to believe in Antioch. Act. 11.21.26. and whom I account the children of Christians, namely, those, whose parents, at least one of them, in external profession, are within the Covenant. Gen. 17.10. Faithful. Rom. 4.11. Called. Act. 2.39. Herein the Answerer seemeth to agree with me, yet afterwards really differeth about the means, whereby that external profession is made, whence they may be denominated Christians. I deny that the saying yae at the reading of the Liturgy of Baptism publicly, or the nodding of the head, or some other gesture used by persons altogether unknown, and that in such a place as Amsterdam, to make show of consenting to that which is read (and it may be, they understand not) is sufficient proof of their being Christians. He affirmeth it is. Let us see how he proveth it.  
1. The baptising of Turks, or jews, Mahometists, or Heathens, or Infidels, of what Nation or Sect soever, is not practised, nor allowed in the Dutch Church, and if any such case, or apparent cause of scruple had fallen out, then, by the wrighting of the five ministers, it was permitted to Mr. D. to have referred the baptism of such infants to further deliberation, and judgement of the Eldership, or Classis. And therefore Mr. D. doth unjustly call it promiscuous baptising of all infants, without difference.  
Reply. 1. I grant that the children of known Turks, jews, etc. are not admitted to Baptism, upon the parent's saying yea, or nodding the head etc. nor do any people so grossly, throughout the Christian world; yet nevertheless I do justly call their manner of administering this Sacrament, in that place, promiscuous baptising, for these Reasons. 1. Because, they profess to admit all that are brought: and who knoweth not that there are of all nations and Sects among them? 2. They take no course whereby it may appear that they make a difference of persons, either before the dispensing of the Sacrament, to know the parents, or in the time of administering, no other questions being put to unknown strangers, then are put to the known members of other Churches, or their own. 3. That, which with them passeth for a profession of Christianity, may be done by any Turk, jew, or Infidel among them: for even they may nod their heads, or say yae, to they know not what, as well as others, if they have a mind so to do. 4. Though the infants of known jews, or Infidels are not received, seeing no care is taken to know who they are, that are presented, before they be brought in public, it may easily come to pass that a nurse, or some other body (without the parent's consent, or knowledge) may bring such infants (and their manner is to admit them, by whomsoever they are brought) and say yae, or nod the head, in testimony of her consent, out of a superstitious, and ignorant conceit, that, in so doing, she hath made a Christian 5. The Infants of many other persons are admitted to baptism, who have no right to that ordinance, who are no jews, nor Turks, of whom we have spoken in the 12 Section, in respect of whom also it may fitly be called promiscuous baptising. 6. Whereas he saith, that, in a cause of apparent scruple I had liberty to take the advice of the Eldership, or Classis, about baptising, or refusing those that were brought. This doth not at all salve the sore. For. 1. it is too late to take advise, when I am put upon the action in public, I being in the pulpit, as the manner is. 2. what cause of scruple can be apprehended to be in one stranger more than in an other, all being alike unknown, and one and the same form used to all, and all speaking the same word yae, or using the same gesture, as nodding the head?  
2. To prove that such a testification of faith and repentance, as that is, in question, by saying yae, or some gesture of the body, is sufficient for persons, otherwise altogether unkowne, to procure the admission of their infants to have the seal of baptism, he pretendeth to say somewhat which now we are to examine.  
First. To prove that the word Yea is sufficient, he allegeth first, Mat: 5.37. Let your communication be yea, yea, and Mat: 9.28. where, when our Saviour Christ asked the blind men, that came unto him for cure, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him: Yea Lord. and Mat: 13.51. where our Saviour Christ, having opened divers parables unto them, asked his Disciples, Have ye understood all these things? They said unto him: Yea Lord▪ and Ioh: 21.15. where Christ asked Peter, lovest thou me more than these? He said unto him: Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  
Reply. 1. I grant that the word, yea, in ordinary speech, serveth to express consent, 2. that it doth so many times also in matters of Religion. But what is this to the question? The question is not, whether men do by such an expression testify faith or repentance, but, whether such a testification be sufficient to cause men otherwise altogether unknown, to be reputed in the covenant, so far as to procure the admission of their children to Baptism? The places alleged by him serve not for proof of it. For, 1. Let your communication be yea, 
Mat. 5.37.  yea, is a rule for prevention of unlawful oaths, in ordinary discourse, not for a trial of men's being in Covenant. 2. when Christ asked the blind men, that came unto him for cure. 
Mat. 9.28.  Believe ye that I am able to do this? In them, yea, was a sufficient answer in that case. 1. Because it was joined with suitable actions, as their following him, crying to him, and saying. 
Vers. 27.  Thou son of David have mercy upon us. vers. 27. Wherein they continued, following him into the house. 2. Which Christ accounted sufficient, who knew what was in man, and witnessed, that they did inwardly believe, according to that profession, in curing them, after he had said, according to your faith be it unto you. vers. 29.30. 
V 29.30.  To apply this. I grant that the word, yea, is sufficient to testify their being in Covenant, at the time of administering the Sacrament, who are sufficiently known, by other trials, to have true faith; but, what is this to those who are altogether unknown? For the 3. Where our Saviour Christ, after he had opened divers parables, asked the Disciples. Have ye understood all these things? They said unto him, 
Mat. 13.51.  yea Lord. Here is no speech about their being in the Covenant. What is this to the matter in question? For, it is not denied, that by saying yea, men have testified their faith, & sufficiently, if their faith hath made itself otherwise known, as it did in the Disciples, but it is denied to be a sufficient testification of faith in persons who are otherwise altogether unknown. The same answer may be given to that place in the fourth text, where, to Christ demanding, Peter lovest thou me? 
joh. 21.15  Peter answered, yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. And Christ did know it, by his weeping bitterly for his denial of him, and by the inward impression which he left upon Peter's heart, by his divine power, when he looked upon him in the high Priests hall, and before. And so, to Christ it was sufficient to say, yea Lord, and to refer himself to his knowledge of him. But, will it thence follow, that it is sufficient for us, if any one shall say so? These are the places which he noateth, for the use of the word, yea, and the Reader may see, how little to the purpose. The same answers may serve to his other texts concerning Amen, which are needlessly produced, and serve not at all to prove the thing in question. As for his other proofs taken from short expressions, as in making of Covenants, All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do, or the like, I marvayled much that the Answerer alleged those which make wholly against him. For, 1. there is a great deal of binding force in this expression, which is, in no sort, answered by the word, yea. 2. it was made by a people whom God had chosen out, from all the world, to be his peculiar ones, upon experience of the admirable passages of his fatherly providence, and upon their acquaintance with his ways, unto whom, the people, against whom I have excepted, are, in no sense, to be compared. 3. If the proof which himself allegeth out of Iosh. 24.15.16. etc. be well examined, 
Iosh. 24.15.16.17 18.19.20 21.22.23 24.25.  it will be found, that they not only understood the Covenant, whereunto they bond themselves, in those short answers, but also, the Covenant was propounded, & their assent to it required, in another manner, & with more vehemency, than a mere once declaring of it, on God's part, or one short answer, on their part, seemeth to carry with it.  
Secondly. To prove that nodding with the head, or some gesture of the body is a sufficient testification of a man's being in the Covenant, so far as to procure the admission of his child to baptism, he searched out the use of the latin and greek words, which serve to express that gesture, and are used to show the consent, or descent of the will in any matter. But, to what purpose I know not. For, it is not doubted that such words and gestures do signify the consent of the will, nor that they are used in the worshipping of God, nor that solemn covenants and professions of special persons in the Church, are so expressed, as the stipulation of ministers, Elders, and Deacons received into office, and the profession of public repentance before the Congregation, are accomplished with saying, yea, and some gesture of body. But, will all this prove the point in question? Surely no. For, 1. the persons, in the forenamed cases, are members of the Church, or sufficiently known to the Church, but these are, neither of that Church, nor of any other, or not known to be such; otherwise those expressions would not be judged sufficient, in a doubtful case. 2. they know and understand what is propounded to them, and whereunto they give such a testification of assent, which many of those, of whom the question is, do not. 3. the profession, in those cases, is made by the parties themselves, but in this, by any nurse, or other person, in the parent's absence, & yet those also are as unknown as the parents▪ yea, such parents and sureties are so far from being known to be beleivers, that they are (many of them) notoriously known to live, as without God in the world, in all looseness and profaneness.  
In his third Answer he sayeth, he cometh more particularly unto the places of Scripture alleged by me. I wish he may be found to do so, in the issue, that we may find some ground for faith to rest upon.  
1. For the first text Acts. 11.21.26. It is not professed by what words or signs they professed their faith & conversion to God. How can it be proved from hence, that such as said, yea, and bowed their heads & bodies, in testimony of their approbation, and liking thereof, might not thereupon be admitted to baptism, and their infants?  
Reply. 1. It is enough that they satisfied the Apostles, that they believed and turned to the Lord, and that they did so in truth appeareth by the testimony which the Holy Ghost giveth them in that place. It matters not by what words, or signs, more or less, it was done: but, had there been no more done than saying yea, or nodding the head, by persons otherwise altogether unknown, it would not have satisfied. 1. Because faith and conversion to God do appear, where they are, in more, and better fruits, and evidences than those, as himself, I believe, would manifest, if he were to handle that text. 2. Because, more reverend and religious respect was had in those times to the seals of the Covenant, then to pollute them by such a promiscuous dispensing them, as is used in Amsterdam.  
2. But, what an unreasonable demand is that? How can it be proved hence & c? For, 1. I deny that such a saying of yea, can be proved, in the Apostles times, to be a sufficient evidence of one's being a Christian, and allege this place wherein Christians had their name given them at the first, wherein I find no such thing. The proof lieth upon him, who affirmeth it to be sufficient, not upon me, who deny it. 2. The force of Negative Arguments from Scripture would be none at all, if such answers were any thing worth. For, when, in arguing against popish devises, we bring them to the rule, where no such thing is apppointed, or approved, by this evasion they might easily seem to answer any such Argument. For instance, when, to show the unlawfulness of chreame, oil, spittle, exorcism, etc. in baptism, we bring them to the institution, and to primitive patterns, where such things were not apppointed, nor approved, how easily might they answer (as he doth) how can it be proved from hence, that such as used those things, sinned in so doing? 3. Suppose an Anabaptist should put him to prove, from that text, that infants were baptised, or a Libertine should put him to prove, from thence, that those that were to be baptised were presented in the Congregation, would not he think himself unreasonably dealt withal? To conclude, that place of Scripture sufficiently proveth that for which it was alleged, namely that believing and turning to the Lord, are the characters of Christians, and that joining with a true particular visible Church, where it can be done, is an evidence of believing and turning to the Lord. For so I find them joined in that Text. Act. 11.26. Let him prove all those, whose infants are admitted to baptism, in that place, to be such, as, in respect of external profession, may, in the judgement of reasonable charity, be judged such, and their saying yea, or nodding of the head, or bowing the body, shall make no difference between us.  
2. For the second text, Gen: 17.10. It can not be showed, saith he, that more questions were propounded, in old times, to circumcised parents, that brought their children to be circumcised, then are now propounded to those that bring their children to be baptised, or that circumcision was denied those who shown their consent and willingness to embrace the Covenant, in such brief answers and gestures, as we speak of.  
Reply. 1. The end for which that text was brought was to show that none were circumcised but the infants of those that were in the Covenant. How they declared their embracing of the Covenant, if he demand, the Scripture elsewhere showeth, viz, by their joining with the Church of God, in walking according to the laws delivered unto their fathers by the ministry of Moses. And this they declared more by their works, in theyre ordinary conversation, then by words at Circumcision. In which case, we will not much stand upon words, if the parties are joined to any true Church, now under the Gospel, as they were then to the Church of the jews, under the Law. 2. This answer is as a sword, wherewith he woundeth his own cause. For, he saith, they were circumcised persons, who brought their children to be circumcised; and we know, that such were of the Church of Jsraell. But many, for whose admittance he pleadeth, are children of such parents as are of no Church, and some of them may be such, for aught he knoweth, as never were baptised.  
3. Text. Rom: 4.11. This Text was alleged to show that they must be beleivers, at least one of them, in external profession, whose infants may be admitted to baptism, which is (as Circumcision was) the seal of righteousness that is by faith.  
Against this he answereth nothing, and hereby doth tacitly and implicitly confess, that the seal properly, & by due right, may be administered to none but to beleivers, to whom the righteousness which is by faith appertaineth, so far as men may, by the judgement of charity, conceive and apprehend, from which, how far they are, against whom we except, is obvious to him that will judge by a rule. Let us now consider what he saith.  
He saith, Abraham is there called the Father of them that believe, whether they were members of a visible Church or not. And, for aught we know, that were not of his family, nor under the government or guidance of any particular Church. If a son, or bondman of Ephron, or of any Amorite, or Canaanite were then brought unto the knowledge of the true God, why might not the infant of such an one have been circumcised, though not living in a visible Church?  
Reply. 1. All these words are beside the matter: For, if all he saith were granted, yet it proveth not that all those may be called beleivers (and so Christians) whom they admit to Baptism, which he should have done, if he would have justified their custom of baptising their infants (under the name of Christians children) who can not be accounted beleivers, according to the sense of this text. 2. His whole answer is made of mere conjectures, which cannot establish the conscience of any man in a well grounded persuasion of the warrantableness of that action, concerning the lawfulness whereof it doubteth, that it may be done in faith. Which to me is a clear evidence of his want of a rule to bear him out therein, which if he could have found, his expressions would not have been so conjectural, and uncertain. 3. To the particular conjectures.  
First. Whereas he saith, that Abraham is the Father of the faithful whether they were members of a visible Church or not. That the vanity of his conjecture, in reference to the matter in question, may appear, we must consider the drift of the place, which is to confirm, what he had formerly said concerning the special universality, or community of the subject of justification, whereof he began to speak in Chap. 3. v: 22. and afterwards prosecuted v: 29. showing that one & the same God, is the God, both of the jews and of the Gentiles, and therefore doth justifye them boath, one and the same way, to wit, by faith, though the one be circumcised, the other not: which he proveth by the example of Abraham, to whom faith was imputed for righteousness being uncircumcised, and, when he was circumcised, it was not that he might be justified by circumcision, but that the righteousness, which he had by faith being uncircumcised, might be sealed to him, by that sign. Now, in that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised, hence he became the father of all those that believe, among the Gentiles, who are uncircumcised: and, in that he was circumcised afterwards, that the righteousness of faith might be sealed to him: hence he became the father of those who believed among the jews, and were circumcised. Thence the conclusion followeth. Therefore, according to Abraham's example, righteousness is imputed to those that believe among the uncircumcised Gentiles, as well as among the circumcised jews. But, in what order cometh Abraham to be a father to the believing jew? In what sense is Abraham called their father? As he is an example of faith. v: 12. and of righteousness imputed by faith, in this 11. v. And they are called his children who are justified, according to his example, by believing. And these his children are of two sorts. 1. Invisible to men, but known to God only. Of these the question is not. 2. Visible to men, in respect of outward profession manifesting their faith. And, concerning these, if the question be. In what order is he the father of a believing jew, and he his child? It will be answered, he must profess the faith of Abraham, and testify it, by being circumcised. Now, none were circumcised but those who were joined to the visible Church of the jews. In like manner, if it be demanded. In what order is he visibly the father of a believing Gentile, and he his child? The answer will be. He must receive baptism, a sign and seal of righteousness by faith, which is come into the place of circumcision: and this belongeth only to those infants, whose parents testify their faith, by being joined to some visible Church among the Gentiles, as circumcision belonged to those only, whose parents were joined to that visible Church of the jews. So that, though Abraham may be a father (in some sense) of many that believe, who neither are joined to any Church, or baptised; yet visibly, and, (so far as appeareth to men) he is not a father to such, much less to such as regard not baptism, or refuse, wilfully, or carelessly neglect to be joined to a particular visible Church. For, of those the question is. So much of his first conjecture.  
His second conjecture he thus expresseth. For aught we can find, there might be some beleivers in Abraham's time, not of his family, nor under the government or guidance of any particular Church. Reply. To what use this conjecture serveth, I know not. It may be, there were, and, it may be, not. In such cases, a man may safely be ignorant of that, concerning which the Scripture is silent. But, suppose there were; what will he infer thence? That they were circumcised, though not of the jewish Church. How will that follow? There may be many beleivers now, in some parts of the world, that are not yet baptised, and so there might be beleivers then, that were not circumcised. If we speak de posse, it will not be denied. What then? Will he gather thence that they aught to be circumcised, though they were not of Abraham's family, nor joined with that Church? I deny it, for this reason. Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant which God made with Abraham concerning Christ that should come, as concerning the flesh, of Isaac, and so of jacob, of whom were the 12 tribes, who were the Israelites, 
Rom: 9.4.5.  to whom pertained the Adoption, and the glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: whose are the Fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, as Paul showeth. So that, as in Abraham's time none were bound to be circumcised, but those that were of his family, as being borne there, 
Gen: 17.12.13.  or bought, and so brought thither, which were not of his seed. So afterwards, none were bound to be circumcised, which were not borne in the family of jacob, and the Patriarches, or joined to them: and after their coming out of Egypt, none were bound to be circumcised, but the children of the jews, than the only Church of God, and those that desired to join unto them.  
His third conjecture is to as little purpose. If a son of Ephron the Hittite, or of a Canaanite were brought to the knowledge of the true God, why might not the infant of such an one be circumcised, though not living in a visible Church.  
Reply. It concerneth him to show & prove that he might. For I deny that Circumcision, by God's ordinance, belonged to any in Abraham's time, but to those that joined with his family, or after his time, to any but to those that joined with the only visible Church, that then was in his posterity, descending from Isaac and Jacob, lineally; and this assertion I ground upon the institution of Circumcision expressed in Gen. 17. But, as any one then so joining to that Church might be circumcised, so now, they that profess a right faith, & testify it by joining with any Church so professing may be baptised.  
The 4. Text is Act. 2.39. which was alleged to show that they must be called; at least one of them, whose infants may be admitted to Baptism, because the promise belongeth only to such, whereof baptism is the seal. And the context showeth that those 3000 souls declared that they were called. 1. By their being pricking in their hearts for crucifying Christ v. 37. 2. By their joyful receiving the word that Peter spoke to them, concerning repentance, baptism, the promise, and those other words, wherein he exhorted them to save themselves from that froward generation. vers. 38.39.40. Which joyful receiving of this word was declared by their joining together into a Church communion, wherein they continued steadfastly, in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayers. vers. 42. And to this Church the Lord added daily such as should be saved. vers. 47.  
Now let us see what he saith to this Text. He granteth that the promise is made unto such as are called. But concerning the characters of those that are called, he seemeth too large in his judgement, for thus he saith. Who can show that such are not to be accounted outwardly called, and in some measure within the privilege of the Covenant, who being themselves already baptised, and withdrawing themselves from other sects and Churches, do bring their infants unto the true Church to be baptised, being there also ready to make a public profession of their faith before the whole Congregation. Reply. That I may say no worse, the answer is too slight, whether the subject of the question be respected, or the words of the Text. For. 1, he supposeth that they are persons already Baptised. But, say I, how shall that appear in persons unknown, if there be not liberty of a praecedent examination? 2. He supposeth that they withdrew themselves from other Sects. But, what advantageth it that a man withdraw himself from all Sects, when he joineth himself with no true Church? Is not he as far from being justly accounted one that is called, who is of no Religion, as he that is of a false Religion? Who knoweth not, that in calling there are two terms, not only that from which men are called, namely the kingdom and power of darkness, 
Rom. 1.6 1. Cor. 1.2  but also that whereunto a man is called, namely the kingdom of Christ, which is visibly set up in Church assemblies, whereunto when men have been orderly joined, they are said to be called, 
Gal. 1.6. Coll. 3.15.  and to be called in one body: And so, how can a company of Atheists and Libertines, who reject all Church communion, be accounted persons called, in this sense? 3. He supposeth that those persons thus withdrawing themselves from all sects, bring their infants to the true Church to be baptised, whereas, 1. it is not required in their manner of administering baptism, that the parent present the infant, neither, is the parent at all inquired after: it sufficeth if any one present it, though parents and presenters are alike unknown. 2. They that bring the infant, do it not with respect to the truenes of the Church, which they seldom understand, or regard, but because baptism is there administered, and it is nearer the place where the child was borne, or for such like respects. His 4 supposition is, that the persons, who present their infants, are there also ready to make a public profession of their faith before the whole Congregation. Reply. 1. How can they be called their infants, who, neither are their parents, nor have the education of them, and who, it may be, shall scarce ever see them again after that time? 2. what profession of faith is it to say yea, or to nod the head at a few words, in the Liturgy, which they understand not many times, or regard not when they are uttered, it being done by persons otherwise unknown? It is a bad cause which must be pleaded for after this manner, when the Advocate flieth from it, and in part hideth it, as a thing whereof he is ashamed.  
The 5. Text is, 1. Cor. 5.12. which was alleged to show that Church ordinances, (i. e. ordinances which are given to the Church) belong only to the members of some particular Church, which we apply to Baptism a pari, from the parity between it and another Church ordinance, namely the Church censures, whereof the Apostle speaketh in that place, and limiteth only to those that are within the Church, as belonging only to them, and not to those without. Upon the same ground may I limit Baptism (which is another Church ordinance) to those that are of a true Church and so within, excluding all others from it, as men, in that respect, without. And herein what can be denied? will they deny that Baptism is an ordinance belonging to the Church? The Scripture is clear for it. Rom. ●. ●. Psal. 146.20.  
Will they deny that Church ordinances are limited to those that are in communion with the Church? Reason is against it, taken from the title that is given to the members of particular Churches, who are called Citizens with the Saints and, of God's household. 
Eph. 2.19.  Now the liberties of a city, or of a house, every man knoweth, are peculiar to those who are incorporated into that city and family. What then? Will they deny that there is the same reason of the Sacraments and of the Censures? Let them show the difference in reference to those that are wholly without all Church relation. And, in the mean space, let them consider the ground whereupon the Apostle refuseth to judge those infidels of whom he speaketh. He saith, it is because they are without, thereby implying, that the reason why Church censures did not belong to them, was, because they were not within the Church of Corinth, nor any other, by a visible communion therewith. Now, if that reason be good against the unbeleiving Corinthians, why will it not serve against any others, that may be truly said to be without, in the same respect, though not in the same degree. And, if the reason be sufficient, in respect of that ordinance, why not of this also? seeing this is as proper and peculiar to the Church as that, and in boath, the rule holds, 
Chrisost: lib. 3. de sacerd.  parium par est ratio. There is a like reason of things alike. And therefore Chrisostom, upon this ground, that Baptism is given to the Church, as the power of the keys is, infers that Baptism is to be administered only by the ministers as the keys of the Church are to be exercised & dispensed by them, and not by every one of the people. This I note, only to show how I draw my Argument from this place, for the Answerers' satisfaction, which he might easily have perceived, if he had had a mind to see it. For Mr. Cartwright saw it clearly, 
1 Reply. p. 34. to the 4. differ: Demonst: of Disc: p. 31. ob. 5. Cas: Cons: lib. 4. C. 24 qu: 1. R: 5. Dr. Field of the Church. 1. book 12. chap: Naz: panegyr: Bannes secund: secundae quest: 1. art: 10. Gall: Confess: Harm: Sect: 13. Art: 35.  and used it to the same purpose. So did the Author of the Demonstration of Discipline, So did Dr. Ames showing the necessity, for all Christians, of joining to a particular Church. And, that Baptism belongeth to those only who are in external communion with a true Church, is not so strange a doctrine in the Churches, whether of former or of latter times: For, former times did not only deny baptism to those that were infidels, but also to others that were not so far without, even to beleivers, whilst they were Catechumen; for these were not thought to be far enough within, though they were in vestibulo pietatis, and though they were meritô in Ecclesiâ, as the Schoolmen speak, yet, because they were not in it, numerô, that is, though they deserved to be admitted, yet, because they were not yet actually united with the Church, and numbered amongst the members of it, they were not baptised. For latter times, that which we have shown in the grant of Edw: 6. to johannes a Lasco, for the Churches of strangers, in the 12 Section, is sufficient. Whereunto may be added the Confession of the French Church, in the Harmony of Confessions. But I hasten to examine his pretended answer to that which, he saith, is obscurely objected from this place.  
Three sorts of persons, he saith, may be said to be without. 1. Those that being members of a visible Church, are without faith. 2. Open infidels and heathen. 3. Those who, not living under the discipline and government of some particular Church, do yet make some profession of the same Religion with the true visible Churches, and bring their children unto them to be baptised, making solemn promise to bring up their children in the faith that is professed in those Churches. These, he saith, in special, are the persons that in our question, are without.]  
Reply. 1. Seeing himself excludeth the two first from being comprehended in this question, and limits it only to the last, I am content to let pass whatsoever I might have collected out of those particulars. 2. For the third sort I except against his implicit report of their practice, as imperfect and defective. For, 1. he intimateth that all, whose infants are baptised, make profession of the same Religion with the true visible Churches, 2. That they bring their children to be baptised. 3. That they solemnly promise to bring up their children in the faith that is professed in those Churches, whereas, 1. many of them do not know, what that Religion is, nor at all live according to the rules of it, nor are joined to any of the Reformed Churches. And how can such be said to profess the same Religion? 2. Many parents do not bring their children to baptism, but some other body, as much unknown to the Church as they are, bring the children, it may be with, it may be without the parents knowledge or consent, for aught the Minister knoweth. 3. What promise do they make that are absent, or that understand not the language, or that are altogether ignorant of the faith that is professed in those Churches?  
2. I demand of him, in what sense such persons may be said to be of such Churches, who, neither live under the government of those Churches, nor so much as hear the word at all amongst them, for aught any man knoweth, nor are in any respect accounted amongst the members of those Churches, nor should be received into visible communion with them, if they should offer themselves thereunto, being neither able to give any account of their faith, nor testimony of their good conversation.  
3. Again I demand, why he pretendeth that they baptise only such as are there described, when he knoweth, that many are admitted by them which are not capable of that description? Is it not because he cannot plead for the admittance of such, with any show of Reason? If not; Let him produce his Arguments in defence of such promiscuous baptising, which yet he hath not done, or confess that he hath done the Church, & me wrong in the opposition and strife which he hath injuriously raised, to deprive me of that relation, whereunto I was called, for refusing to do that which he cannot prove to be lawful. As for those, who, he saith, though they are without (in respect of joining with any Church) yet have more knowledge of the truth, and are more frequent in attending upon the publick●worship of God, and are otherwise more unblameable in their conversation, than some of those that are members of the Church; his labour had been to better purpose, if he had endeavoured to convince them of the evil of this their neglect of joining to some particular Church, that they might not rest contented in their present condition, to the apparent hazard of their souls, that so they might, with good warrant from God's order, have partaked of the ordinances, which are given to the Church, by virtue of their relation to, and communion with the Church, rather than thus to interest them in those privileges wherein they have no right to communicate, in that state wherein they stand, without violation of God's order, as hath been formerly shown, and may be hereafter more plentifully, upon further provocation. Though I had rather reserve the full handling of that to a positive discourse which may, in due time, be published.  
For the present, I pray the Reader to understand that, in all the examination of these allegations of Scripture, the Answerer hath drawn us from the true question between him and me, which was not about limiting of baptism to the members of a true Church, concerning which (whatsoever I intimated, in a word or two, in my wrighting to the Classis) neither the ministers which were sent by the Classis to speak with me, nor the Answerer at any time, first or last, had any, the least word of difference with me, but both they and he required my conformity to their custom of baptising all that are brought, in manner aforesaid. So that this was not, but the other alone was the question between us. So that it lieth wholly upon him to prove the lawfulness of that promiscuous administration of baptism, which is in use among them, and to convince me of sin for refusing to conform thereunto, which I expect that he perform, in his next book, if he be able. But, if it be confessed to be evil, and the question be●, how shall it be removed or cured, in such a place as Amsterdam? I answer, disorders are best cured by introducing and settling that order, in place of them, which appeareth to be most agreeable to Gods revealed will, and that is, that baptism be administered only to such infants, whose parents, one of them, at least, is a member of some particular visible Church, and that Church privileges be denied to those that refuse Church-communion.  
For that which again he repeateth concerning me; it is but a colewort twice sodd, and hath been already answered, in examination of his descant upon the first proof alleged by me, Act. 20.28.     

His observations upon the protestation reveiwed.  
WHat care I had of his credit and peace himself declareth in the first lines of his observations, when he saith, upon the coming forth of the book of complaints against him, Mr. D. immediately sends out a protestation against it, and signify he could have no rest in his spirit until he had resolved upon this protestation. I did so indeed, and in so doing I shown myself more tender of him, than he was of himself, or of me, and thereby deserved better usage at his hands then I have found in many bitter passages of his book. The special matters contained therein. he saith, are a three fold Protestation, and a threefold Confession, & a threefold Quaere, & a threefold Request. It seemeth in deed so it fell out occasionally, without affectation on my part, either of observing odd numbers (as of 3) or of making them equal (by being cast into 4 ranks or orders) or of putting my discourse into such a mould or frame.  
1. For the threefold protestation.] The sum of it was, that I, neither consented to, nor knew of, nor approved of the publishing of that pamphlet. There is nothing in his five observations worth minding, and that hath not been already answered by me. Only the third is an observable character of the Answerers' spirit, who fiercely stricketh at me for striving to save him from the stroke of his Antagonist. For, he propoundeth it for an observation of a just reward of the inordinate affection which the publisher shown, in contending for me, in that by me, sentence is pronounced against him unknown, for his injury done in printing. Any ingenious man would rather have observed my sincerity and aequanimity, who, without respect of persons, witnessed against evils in whomsoever, & my love of truth, which I praeferred above particular respects to friends, when I was called to declare myself, and my tender respect of him, in that, passing by all personal injuries received from him, I made haste, as the occasion required, to interpose, in favour of him, against those, who, he saith, contended for me. And that their contending for me, in that case, was no evidence of their inordinate affection towards me, hath been already showed. And, by this passage, the Reader may see how necessary it was that I should speak, so far as I might justly, in defence of the subscribers and others in this cause, lest, in his next book, he should style it a just reward of theyre in ordinate affection to me, in that I had now deserted them, and minded only mine own defence, as he traduceth me for giving sentence against the publisher of the pamphlet unknown.  
As for that he speaketh of giving way to contentious spirits, with which title he brandeth both the publisher and all the subscribers, enough hath been spoken, for the clearing of them, in the first and second Sections.  
2. For the threefold Confession.] The sum of it was that, upon much necessity and importunity of friends, I set down in writing some brief answers to false reports spread abroad, which I left with a friend or two, to communicate, in a private way, to those who were any way praejudiced unjustly against me.]  
His 11. observations, upon this passage, make a great show, but have no substance in them.  
1. He saith, the complaints are already shown to be unjust.] They may seem so to some, till my Reply shall be examined, & then they will be found, &, by all indifferent Readers, acknowledged to be just.  
2. He saith, Injurious reports did not prevail with him to answer them in writing.] The first part of this speech is true. For I know not of any injurious reports that were spread concerning him, and therefore things that were not, could not provoke him to wright. But the second part is untrue, as I have shown already, in that he wrote a large letter to a friend of his in England, about the same time, when I wrote my brief answers, which contains the substance of this book, so far as concerns matters of fact.  
3. He admonisheth men to beware of importunity of friends.] Solicitation of friends, in some cases, is to be regarded, and followed, as in cases of this nature, when friends solicit a man to discharge a bounden duty, such as the declaring of the truth is, for the clearing of his own innocency, necessity compelling thereunto.  
4. He saith, that to give a wrighting to two, might be as much as to give it to twenty.] It might be so, and it might be not, as the men might be. But, in this case, I am certain, it was not so.  
5. He saith, that my retaining of the original copy doth not more excuse me, then if he that made a libel, etc.] Nor did I allege it for an excuse (for the fact needeth no excuse, it being a manifest duty) but to show that errors, and mistakes might be in the printed copy, which I could correct by the original, which I had in mine own keeping, and so there were mistakes indeed not a few. But how cometh he to compare this to a libel seeing my name was to it again and again expressed?  
6. He denieth that it was done, in a private way, because I say, let the Reader judge, and that, it was done for the satisfaction of the members of the English Church, etc.]  I professed to wright it for satisfaction of those Dutch or English, who were causelessly praejudiced, it must necessarily be supposed that such must read it, and that I intended so: else, why did I wright it? And what hindered but this satisfaction might be given in a private way, notwithstanding that? Upon this occasion, he descants upon a picture printed in the title page of that protestation, which suits with my dealing in that matter, he saith. A thing which I never observed in mine, till I read it in his book, and enquiring into the reason of it, I found that the Printer dwelleth at the sign of the Fame, and hath such a picture before his door, & his manner is to print it also, as his sign, in the books which he printeth. Was not the Answerer well employed, when he spent his thoughts upon such descants? How easily might I answer him (if I affected such vanities) with a like descant upon the first letter of his preface, which is a great C. the first letter of Contention (as well as of Christian) where a man stands like a Champion with his military weapons and troops, and thereupon fall into a vein of conjecturing, 1. who that Champion is. 2. what those troops mean. 3. who those two are at the foot of the C, and divided from it by the lower stroke of it. 4. Why that domineering Champion pointeth with his finger one way, and casteth his countenance another way, as it were, giving direction, concerning those two men at the foot of the C, to one who seemeth to stand ready at his beck, and then tell him that his dealing suits well with this emblem, in these contentious passages. But I affect not to feed myself or others with froth and scum.  
7. He saith, the more private the way was, the greater was the injury to him.] He saith true, if it had been an untrue or needless report. But it was true, and being so, the more public it is, the worse it will prove for him, I fear, in the issue of the printed contests, but it is his own fault.  
8. He saith, I aught much more to have written for satisfying the members of my parish-Church in London about my leaving them.] Thus he must kick, because he is skittish. For, what is this to the protestation? I let pass his scornful gird at my parish-Church in London, which (that I say no more) was in no respect inferior to his parish-Church in Nantwijch; neither will I answer by retorting a censure upon his Church in Amsterdam: nor indeed do such strive become the servants of Christ. But, how knows he whether I have written to them, or not? And what need is there of my satisfying them about my leaving them, which was done with their consent? And, if others disliked it, he should have said, who they are, and upon what grounds they disliked it, or have sent them to me, or directed me to them, that I might have satisfied them, as I thought I had done him, and do persuade myself, that I did, though his passion hath thus distempered him causelessly, at present.  
9 He quarrelleth my profession of my hoping and praying for that which I have long expected, to wit, that God would sweetly order and dispose the spirits of pastor and people, in that Church, to unity and concord, pretending that the wrighting, which I made in mine own defence, served to provoke unto further contention]. That writing served, in my intention, only to declare the truth, upon urgent provocation and compulsion: and therein I was so far from irritating any men's minds to strife, that I forbore the report of some things, and mentioned other things sparingly, & favourably, contenting myself only with showing that he did not desire me, but concealing how he hindered my settling there, to prevent inconveniences. As for their complaining, which he saith, they learned by mine example: he cannot forget that this was not the first cause, or time of their complaining, but that they had shown their grievance for the like ill usage of others, before my coming to Amsterstam: nor was he forced thereby to publish an Apology, seeing a private answer might have been sufficient in that case, as hath been shown.  
10. He speaketh suspiciously of those conclusions, and ways which, I hoped, might be agreed upon, for their mutual peace and concord. What I mean by them, he saith, he knoweth not.] It was not my purpose to propound any conclusions, or ways, for that purpose, but my hope was that God would direct them, after he had prepared their hearts to humble themselves for former miscarriages, and made them more pliable to his revealed will, than hitherto they have seemed to be. He blameth the order of my proceeding in this buisenes. 1. That I did not admonish the supposed offender alone, or with witnesses. But enough hath been done that way both by myself and others, to draw him from the error of his way, without any good success. Nor did I substitute any talebearers (such courses I abhor) but furnished two friends with Answers for my defence, in case any should traduce me, or misreport matters. The other passages in that answer have been already examined elsewhere, and declared to proceed from no other cause, then needless and causeless jealousies, in his own mind.  
2. Whereas I profess my utter dislike of that pamphlet, both for the unseasonableness of the work, and for the unreasonable, and uncharitable bitterness of the publisher, he seems to be discontented that I speak not against the matter of the book, nor against the authors thereof.] But how unjustly and vainly will be evident to him that shall consider 1. That my protestation was only against the publishing of it, with such a title page, and postscript, in which respects I called it a pamphlet 2. That the matter of it, so far as it concerneth me to examine, hath been proved to be true in this Reply. 3. None of those men (whom he mentioneth) had a hand in printing of it, but W. B. only.  
3. For the threefold Quaere.] His first observation is, that these three Quaeres are confused and indistinct. Indistinct? when Paul confessed that he had been injurious, 
1. Tim. 1.13:  did he mean that he had been a buisy body? when the Apostle Peter warneth beleivers that none of them suffer as buisy-bodies in other men's matters, 
1. Pet. 4.15.  doth he mean nothing else but as injurious persons, or sowers of discord? when Solomon reckoneth up, among the things which God hateth, 
Pro. 6.19  him that soweth discord among brethren, doth he mean nothing else than one that is injurious, or a buisy-body? How slight is this challenge! But how proveth he that these terms are so indistinct? Because they all express the same thing But that doth not prove that they are indistinct, unless they express the same thing under the same respect. Nay rather, for that reason, they are distinct, because they serve to express the same thing, in different respects, and so cause the apprehension to discern divers evils in one, according to the divers considerations of it, every one of which serveth to aggravate it. But, is this a just reward of my pleading for him? Is this his kindness to his Friend?  
His second observation is to show wherein the publisher was injurious. This the publisher himself hath already answered, in print.  
His third observation is to charge me with injuriousnes many ways, and this, he saith, according to my threefold Quaere. But, if my threefold Quaere do indeed describe many ways of injuriousnes, than the terms are distinct, and not so confused, as in his first observation he pretended, so that he hath already contradicted himself. But we will examine the particulars.  
Ans: 1. For injuriousnes etc.  
Reply. Here I may return upon him justly the accusation, which he unjustly laid upon me of confused, and indistinct expressions. For, he saith, the first way of the many, wherein I have been injurious is, 1. for injuriousnes. Is this an elegant expression, and worthy of him who is so quick in censuring? But I take no pleasure in such jejune critical trifling. I mention it only to show how unjustly he reproacheth me with confused and indistinct Quares, wherein himself hath found some distinction: else his whole ensuing discourse is confused and immethodical. But, to come the matter.  
He saith that I have been injurious, and a sour of discord, and a buisy-body for framing that wrighting, and leaving it in the hands of those two persons.  
Reply. 1. Upon what necessity I wrote it, and how W. B. published it, without my privity, hath been shown already. Now, that it may appear how sophistically he reasoneth, we will frame it into a Syllogism.  
He who leaveth in writing, with a friend or two, a necessary & short defence of his own innocency against injurious reports, which afterwards is shown to others, for their private satisfaction, by his appointment, or published by any, without his consent, is injurious, a four of discord, and a buisy-body.  
But Mr. D. hath left such a wrighting, which hath so been shown, and published. Therefore Mr D. is injurious, a sour of discord, and a buisy-body.  
Is not this deep accusation, according to the threefold Quaere, sound proved? In his next book I expect that he prove his major Proposition, which is false, and, till that be done, he lieth bound (as by a threefold cable) in the guilt of a threefold slander.  
2. In that the Answerer laboureth to cast the blame of every man's miscarriage upon me, and striveth to have me blamed, at least, as the occasion, if not as the cause of publishing that pamphlet, against which I protested, the Reader may see how far he is from the spirit of Beza, who dealt more favourably in a case far more offensive. For, a scandalous book which Erastus made against Ecclesiastical excommunication, was published, after the authors death, and with it some private letters of other men. What did Beza in this case? Did he fall foul upon those men for writing such things, and for giving occasion thereby of having them published? No, but, in the preface of his book against Erastus, he laboureth to free him from all suspicion of causing it to be published, till his widdow●s affirmation, that upon his deathbed he commanded her, and bound her with an oath to publish it, made that impossible to be hidden. Yet, even then, Reverend Beza carried the matter, as one that suspected rather her truth, than her husband's guilt. And, whereas the evidence against him might seem sufficient to some, yet he would suppose that, if his hand was in it, it was done by him, non satis jam sibi constant, when he was not himself, but distempered in his head, and sharpeneth his style, not against Erastus the author, but against Castelvetrus the publisher for publishing that, & with it, privatas magnorum virorum literas aliquot, certain private letters of worthy men. Those worthy men were Bullinger & Gualther, whom he honoureth with the title of great men, (as he did Erastus also styled by him, vir clarissimus) notwithstanding their difference from him in judgement, about that particular. And he giveth a good reason of his tartness against the publisher. Because, to divulge such private wrighting quid aliud est quam tollere è vitâ, vitae societatem, et amicorum absentium colloquia. What is it else but to take from the life of man the society of his life, and the conferences of absent friends? With what joy would Beza have embraced such an occasion of clearing those men, as was put into the Answerers' hands, if any of them had printed a protestation against the publishing of that book, or of those printed letters, though they had not shown any dislike of the matters contained in it! But from contrary principles what can be expected but contrary actions?  
4. For the three fold request.] 1. My request to him was, that he would rest satisfied with my ingenuous profession, in this particular. How he hath answered that, this book showeth, and the accusation immediately preceding, in his third observation, showeth, and his own words in this place show: For, when he cannot accuse me of causing the publishing of it, yet he will mis-judge my intention, as if, for my own credit, not for any respect to Religion, or to him, I would not have it printed.  
My second request was to the publisher, 1. to burn the pamphlet, 2. or to affix my protestation to it, in stead of a postscript, which seeing he did not, I procured 450. as I take it, of the 500 to be bought, and kept up, the rest having been sold before I could prevent it.  
5. He addeth that this my printed protestation containeth in it a threefold public provocation of him to answer my wrighting, more than he had before. As the odd numbers which were made even by the method, whereinto my protestation was accidentally cast, are now made odd again by this intimation of a threefold provocation unjustly added thereunto: So the differences which I have many ways laboured to compose and reconcile, he hath, by this contentious book, and too much obstinacy in his way, continued and increased. That this is added unjustly will appear in examining the several pretended provocations.  
1. By my avouching that I wrote nothing but the truth in my declaration.] Reply. It was necessary that I should wright so much. Else it would have been thought that I was guilty of some untruth in that declaration, and therefore protested against the publishing of it, which also the Answerer frequently intimateth in his suspicious manner of speaking, concerning traducing men in the dark. And that whatsoever I there wrote is true, this Reply doth witness sufficiently. But what was there in that little which I wrote in that declaration (which, except the letter to the Classis, was not half a sheet of paper) to cause the publishing of a book of above 20 sheets of paper?  
2. By intimating further matter which I have to add beside that which I have already written.] Reply. This book declareth it to be true which I then said, and, upon further provocation, the next book shall show, with God's assistance, that I have yet much more to say, and that I have but sparingly replied in this.  
3. Because this printed protestation makes all more public than they were before.] Reply. 1. Both book and protestation were suppressed, after a few copies of the protestation had been dispersed, in favour of the Answerer, to free him (as much as in me lay) from any hurt that might come by the pamphlet, to which end, I am informed, it was of use, and do not repent of that labour of my love to the truth, though the Answerer have thus ill requited me, by rendering evil for good, one while reporting that I made that protestation only for my credit, being ashamed of what I had written, another while, glorying that I printed the protesta●on, to keep him from answering my wrighting, but I should not so escape.  
Now if I should set down the provocations which he hath given me to make his reply, I might name 30 for 3. For the book itself, whereunto this reply is made, is nothing else but a bundle of provocations. But, having thus discharged, in some weak measure, a necessary duty, though unwillingly, I rest, desiring rather, that, for the future, we may be more proffitably exercised in considering one another to provoke to love and good works. And, in that resolution and desire, I commend the issue of this unpleasing task to the blessing of the only wise God, who knoweth how to bring order, out of seeming confusion, and aedification to his Church, out of those very accidents and events, whereby Satan seeks the ruin of it beseeching him to compose the hearts of pastors and people every where (and in that place specially) to a conscionable discharge of the duties of their relation mutually, & so effectually to recover the Answerer out of these snares, by unfeigned repentance, that his Elder years may be a crown of Glory, being found in the way of righteousness, and the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made him Overseer, may have plentiful cause of blessing God for making his old age fat and flourishing in the blessed fruits of pastoral faithfulness acceptable to God by jesus Christ! Amen.  
FINIS.