Reply to a Book — John Davenport

Reply to a Book · John Davenport

The anſwer to the fifth Section examined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore in ſo oppoſing, he ſinned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Some queſtions alſo ſhould be anſwered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 5

p. 52The anſwer to the fifth Section examined.

The anſwer to the fifth Section examined.