Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 2
The anſvver to the firſt and ſecond Section examined.
HAving examined the title, and the praeface; we now come to examine the particulars of the complaint, ſo farr as it hath pleaſed this Anſwerer to intereſt me therein, by making uſe of my name, which he doth, not covertly, but wrighting it at large, nor ſparingly, but almoſt in every page, and that, not only when the complainants naming me in their wrighting conſtrained him ſo to doe, but alſo needleſly, and without provocation: as if his deſire were deeply to imprint an evill praejudice in the mind of the Reader againſt me. And particularly, in the ſecond ſection,pag. 6. Anſw. he beginneth with me thus.
Reply. But had theſe complainants well conſidered their owne wayes, and the way of truth, they would then have left the complaint upon themſelves and upon the proceedings of Mr. I. D.1. Principijs o men ineſſe ſolet. Principio quae ſunt inchota malo, vix eſt ut bono peragantur exitu. Leo apud Graticaus 1. q. 1. Anſ. Reply. Contentiouſnes charged upon me unjuſtly.
Beginnings are ominous. Things ill begun ſeldom end wel. It is much to be ſuſpected that he intēdeth to quarail, who ſo needleſly falleth upon me, in the firſt onſet, being not any way occaſioned to mention me, by any thing which the complainants have expreſſed, or intimated, in this ſection: and yet he taketh occaſion, in this one ſection, to make mention of me ſeven times, and to wright my name at its full length, every time. His owne heart knoweth what his purpoſe was in ſo doing. But let us conſider what he chargeth upon me, that, if it be juſt; I may confeſſe, and giuegive glory to God: If it be unjuſt; I may declare my innocency.
As for Mr. D. he is guilty of nouriſhing contention in our Church.
Nouriſhing contention in the Church is the thing layd to my charge. An haynous offence, if the accuſation be true, but, in him, a greivous ſlander, thus to reproach me in print, if it be falſe. I cannot but admire how he fell upon this accuſation, to charge me with an evill ſo contrary to my diſpoſition, and the practiſe of my whole life, eſpecially, ſince my publick employment in the Miniſtry. I was about ſeventeene years a preacher in London, and lived there almoſt ten yeares in a paſtorall charge. There I had much converſe with Miniſters of differing judgments, and with people (almoſt of all conditions and degrees) of different affections, and wayes, being imployed, both in publick occaſions and private caſes: Let this Anſwerer ſpeak plainly (I challenge him before all men) whether he hath ever heard, by any credible report, that I hauehave bene, I ſay not, detected, but ſo much as rationally ſuſpected of contentiouſnes, in myne owne country? And is it probable, that change of ayre, ſhould worke ſuch a change in my diſpoſition,Coelum, non animum mutat qui trans mare currit. in ſo ſhort a ſpace, that, he, who was wont to be peaceable with all, and a peacemaker amongſt many, ſhould, in Holland, where he is but a ſtranger, and paſſant, become a nouriſher of contention? But what have I done in Holland, that hath given occaſion of this imputation? At my firſt comming, this Anſwerer, with the Elders, intreated me to help them in their extremity. I did it willingly, preaching twiſe every Lords-day, till he was able, and, after that, continued to aſſiſt him once a day, whilſt he deſired it. Jn that time, which was above 5 mouths, I applyed my ſelfe to him with all love and reſpect, frequently viſiting him, (without once receiving the ſame courteſy from him) and faſhioning my outward comportment and behaviour ſo, that no difference might appeare betweene us, even when I had juſt cauſe of complaining. I began no queſtion with him, that might occaſion diſpute, though I had as good reaſon to examine his judgement as he mine: when he preſſed to know my judgment in any thing, I dealt ingenouſly with him, and, if we differed, I examined his grounds impartially, as one that ſought the truth, not contention; Yea ſometimes I expreſſed my judgement obſcurely, if I ſuſpected a difference, to avoyd offending him. He firſt brought the matter to the Elders, not I, and then to ſome of the Dutch preachers, without me, and then to the Claſſis, againſt my mind. Had he told me plainly, that the meanes of accomodation propounded by me would not ſucced, and that nothing would ſatiſfy, but comformity to that unwarrantable cuſtome, I had deſiſted ſooner: as I did, when it appeared ſo to be. After I deſiſted from pulick worke; I was ſilent, till he began to contend againſt me in publick, after he had procured the ceſſation of my publick labour, and I had ſat ſtill, in private, above fowre moneths, doing what good I might without offenſe, and ceaſed from that alſo, ſo ſoone as his diſcontent publickly appeared againſt it. When I ceaſed from the publick worke; I preached a ſermon for peace,Rom. 14.9 out of thoſe words. Let us follow after the things which make for peace, and things where with we may edify one another. But may not I juſtly ſay with the Pſalmiſt,Pſal. 120.7. I am for peace, but, when I ſpeake, they are for warr? For, beſides the wreſting of one paſſage in my ſermon (which I had expreſſed, though he had had no kinſman) how he anſwered me in the afternoone I am aſhamed to wright, but too many, who then heard him, know. When thus I was unkindly uſed in publick, and ſaw that my private dwelling there was a matter of offenſe to him; for peace ſake, I removed my dwelling to another part of the country. Thus Baſill,Greg. Naz. Monod. in laud Baſilij. in a like caſe, when Euſebius Biſhop of Caeſaria (a man, otherwiſe, of noat for his pietey and conſtant confeſſion of the fayth againſt the Arrians, under the Emperour Valens, yet) not being able to beare the eſteeme which Baſill had with the people, was drawne, by a ſpirit of Envy, into an oppoſition againſt that holy man, and laboured, by word and deed, to hinder his ſetling there, and the Nazareans and Aſchetae, taking it very ill that Baſill ſhould be thus ſlighted, purpoſed, in diſcontent, to break off from the Church. What did Baſill in this caſe? For peace ſake, he went aſide, with Greg: Nazianzen into Pontus, thincking it better to provide for his owne peace, in a ſolitary condition, then to contend with Euſebius, de ambitione. Yet afterwards the ſame Euſebius gave way to the ſetling of Baſill, in that place, having uſe of his helpe in ſome diſputes, and they converſed together lovingly. And the reaſon is rendred by Nazianzen who wrighteth of Euſebius (an ancient man of ſomewhat an ill nature) that As iron is ſoftened by the fire, ſo was Euſebius by age. foreign.I wiſh the ſame teſtimony may be given of the Anſwerer, for the time to come, for his owne good, and the Churches. In the meane ſpace, I proceed to examine what reaſon or pretence the Anſwerer doth bring for this accuſation.
Whileſt thoſe rootes of bitternes, Anſ: p. 7.and evill weeds of unjuſt complaints are watered by him: whiles he himſelfe, by his wrighting, which was firſt ſecretly ſpread abroad among our people, doth make the like, yea and many the very ſame complaints that theſe men have.
Reply. To prove me guilty of nouriſhing contention in the Church, he aleadgeth a wrighting left by me, at my departure, and, afterwards, ſpread, as he ſaith, amongſt the people: to prove that thereby I nouriſhed contention, he ſaith that the rootes of bitternes and evill weeds of their unjust complaints are watered thereby: And to prove this, he affirmeth that many and the very ſame complaints are in my wrighting which theſe men have.
In anſwer to this challenge, I am to declare two things. 1. that theyre complaints are no evill weedes. 2. that the wrighting, which was ſecretly ſpread abroad, as he ſayth, is not blame worthy.
Firſt, There is no hearbe in the garden, but there is ſome weed in the field like it, & the ſimilitude is ſuch betweene them,1. 1. That theyre cōplaints are on evill weeds. Iude 3. both in ſhape and colour ſometimes, as men may eaſily miſtake the one for the other, through inadvertency, or neglect of examining their different properties. So it falleth out in this caſe. There is a good contention, an herbe whoſe rootes ſhould be watered. It is a contending for the faith, a ſtriving againſt ſinne. There is a bad contention, a weed which muſt be pulled up by the rootes.Heb. 12.4. A two fold contention. It floweth from pride, and rayſeth factions in the Church, and ſeditions in the Common wealth, of ſuch are the inſtances produced by the Anſwerer againſt the complainants, upon ſuppoſall that their complaints are unjuſt, which if we ſhall deny, and evince the contrary, his calling them rootes of bitternes and evill weeds, and his comparing them to the Rebellious Iſraelites riſing up againſt Moſes and Aron, The 1. Section examined.to thoſe ſonnes, by the Mo…hers ſide, that were angry with the Church, and to thoſe of Ieruſalem, that ſtoned the Prophets, and to thoſe contentious Corinthians that were factiouſly addicted to Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, and went to law amongſt heathen, and to thoſe Iudaizing Galathians, who troubled the Church (as he contumeliouſly rhethoricateth in the firſt Section) will prove a notorious ſlander, and the more greivous, if it ſhall be found to be a calling of good evill, and becauſe it extendeth to the injury of ſo many. I appeale to the Anſwerer. Doe theſe complainants murmur againſt God(a)Exod. 16.8. through diſcontentment with Gods allowance(b)Exod. 17.6.7.? or with Gods appoyntments(c)Exod. 17.2.? or with Gods judgements upon others(d)Numb. 14.41.? or through diſtruſt in difficult caſes(e)Numb. 14.1.10.? or, doe they not complaine of man, who doth deprive them of that ſpirituall food which God alloweth them, and ſetteth up humaine cuſtomes, and ſelfe-will againſt Gods appoyntments in his Church? whereby they want the help of thoſe whom they deſired to goe before them, and lead them through the wildernes (not backward into Aegipt, but forward) towards the heavenly Canaan. Is there no difference betweene an humble preſenting of complaints by theſe members of the Church to the Elderſhip, that matters may be privately examined before 2 or 3 (when ſecret ſpeach with the party alone hath proved fruitles) and a proud caſting off the ordinance of God, through diſcontent, as thoſe rebells in Iſraell did? betweene hereticks, Idolatours and ſuch kind of Seducers, that, under the name of the Church (whoſe ſonnes they profeſſe themſelves to be) fight againſt the Church, and theſe, who, being a part of Chriſts flock, deſire faithfull ſhepeards that they may be kept from ſtragling? betweene thoſe, who killed the Prophets and ſtoned thoſe that were ſent unto them, and theſe, who account their feet beautifull, who bring the glad tidings of peace, and ſtrive (as for life) to injoy the Prophets, whom they conceive God hath ſent unto them? And, howſoever contention, which is a fruit of the fleſh, will be found in any perſons, and Churches, under heaven, whileſt that corrupt principle of fleſh (which is, in ſome degree, in the beſt men) remaineth unpurged out, which, not only fighteth againſt the ſpirit, in our ſelves, but alſo inclineth us to fight againſt others, though ſpirituall, and that upon carnall and worldly reſpects; yet, I demand, doe theſe complainants, ſo contend for the injoyment of thoſe men, whom they mention, as thoſe Corinthians did about Paul, Apollos, & Cephas? Doe they looke upon theſe men ſo, as to have the truth of God in reſpect of theire perſons, and to receive the word for theire authority ſake, as they did? Did theſe terminate theire deſire in any one of theſe men, excluding all others, as they did in ſome one of thoſe? All that theſe men deſire, is to have a faythfull Paſtor knowne to themſelves, and approved of, and deſired by them, and of their owne Nation, if it may be, and, as much as may be, without drawing men from the ſervice of other Engliſh Congregations in theſe Countryes, ſo long as ſome fitt and free men may be had, either immediatly from England, or elſe reſident in theſe parts. Hereupon they deſired Mr. Parker: Jf they may not be ſo happy as to injoy him; Mr. Forbes. If not him; Dr. Ames: if not him; Mr. Peter: If not him; Mr. Hooker; If not him; itur ad me. If none of theſe, yet ſome faythfull one, whom, with joynt conſent, they ſhall chuſe. Yet, if ſufficient reaſon be not given them, why they are deprived of all, or any of theſe; they find themſelves aggreived, and complaine to the Conſiſtory of their owne Church. And, is this ſuch a Piaculum, a crime, as this Anſwerer intimateth it to be? And is there no difference betweene the Chriſtian Corinthians going to Law amongſt the Heathen (neglecting ſuch meanes of compoſing differences as might be had in the Church) and theſe men ſeeking help from the Church for redreſſe of the Church-greivances? That they had cauſe to complaine, will appeare in the reply to the Anſwerer, in the following Sections, and that, upon ſuch cauſe, in caſe of obſtinacy, on his part, they had power to have proceeded further then they did, in that complaint, who knoweth not? The ſtrange liberty that the Anſwerer taketh in miſapplying the Scriptures alleadged by him, upon this occaſion, ſhould be a matter of ſorrow to the godly Reader, and of humiliation to himſelfe.
2. The Anſwerer is the cauſe of contentiō, which is aggravated. 1. By his relation. Father. 2. Sam. 18.5. Paululum ſupplicijpro magnodelicto ſatis eſt patri.That ſweet name of Father, which the Anſwerer aſſumeth to himſelfe (and it is due to him in reſpect of his office) ſhould have cauſed an yearning of bowells in him towards his Children, that cryed for milke, when the Nurſes, whom they deſired, were thruſt out of dores. At leaſt, when they cryed for bread, he ſhould not have given them a ſtone, and beate them inſtead of feeding them. Suppoſe the Children were froward; A litle fatherly indulgence, in granting their deſire (it not being for their hurt, but for their good) ſhould have bene uſed to ſtill & quiett them. David would have rebellious Abſalon gently intreated for his ſake. But theſe did not conſpire againſt their Father, as Abſalon did: only, becauſe their father was not the Lord, but Steward of the houſe, they complained that he denied the houſhold that allowance of proviſion, which their heavenly Father afforded his family. But it may be, they did that too contentiouſly; Jt will not be found ſo, upon tryall, no, not in this act of exhibiting their greivances in theyr owne Conſiſtory, if all the earneſt intreatyes, large offers for the poore, & other meanes uſed by them, for the obtaining of their deſire, the neceſſity of the place, the inconvenience which already they felt in the ſo long want of one, the qualities of the men, of whom he deprived them, the inſufficiency of the pretences; whereupon he did ſo, and their diſpayre of being accomodated, to their content, be aequally and judiciouſly conſidered. And, if the contention of Children be indeed greivous to his fatherly ſpirit, how eaſily might he have prevented it, by obeying that Apoſtolicall Canon,Coll. 3.21. Fathers provoke not your Children, leaſt they be diſcouraged?
2. By the place.The place, where he liveth, and his relation to that Church ſhould hauehave warned him, ſtanding upon his watch towre, and eſpying ſo many enimyes invironing them on every ſide, to hauehave interpoſed ſeaſonably and ſtrenuouſly for the prevention of inteſtine diſſentions, and for the making up of breaches within, and not, by ſuch a courſe, to have occaſioned a diviſion among the members, through their falling into ſeverall partyes. And yet, even they, who ſeeme herein to adhaere to him, doe it not, out of approbation of his carriage in this particular, nor out of oppoſition againſt me, whom themſelves profeſſe to deſire, but out of perſonall enmity againſt ſome of the Complainants, who appeared moſt to labour for my ſetling there, and therefore willingly they layd hold of this opportunity, and ſerved themſelves of it, for the more plauſible and undiſcernable venting of their diſaffection to them, by oppoſition againſt them, under a pretence of ſtanding for the Anſwerer.
Here he quarelleth the Complainants 1. For ſtiling themſelves burthened and oppreſſed, which is, as if a Father ſhould beate his children till they cry, and then beate them againe for crying. How unjuſt this paſſage is, will appeare in the examination of the enſuing Sections. 2. For calling themſelves members of the Engliſh Church. How unreaſonable this reproofe is, may eaſily be perceived. For, what though the words were underſtood, as meaning the body of the Church (which yet is not neceſſary) & that the greateſt part of the congregation were otherwiſe minded, which yet is not ſo? will it thence follow, that their words are notoriouſly falſe? I trowe not. For the denomination may follow the better part, though it be not the greater, as a man hath his denomination from his reaſonable ſoule, though the unreaſonable body be the greater part, and a corne feild is denominated, not from the chaffe which is the greater, but from the corne, which is the better, though the leſſer part. I will not ſtand to enquire of the Anſwerer what neceſſity there is that Elem, in Pſal. 58.1. ſhould ſignifye a faction in the Church, ſeing the word (which ſignifyeth binding in a ſheafe or bundle) may noate a combination in the Common wealth, as well as a faction in the Church, and the context ſeemeth to carry it to the former, rather then to the latter ſenſe? Nor will I returne upon him his deſcant on Ionath Elem rechokim, in the title of pſal. 56. My deſire & purpoſe was to continue (as I went on, 4, or 5 moneths) in a patient ſilent bearing of my perſonall greivances,Eph: 4.2.3. forbearing him in love, & indeavouring to keepe the unity of the ſpirit in the bond of peace. For which purpoſe I may ſay, in ſome meaſure, with the Pſalmiſt. I as a deafe man, Pſal. 38.13.14.heard not, and I was as a dumbe man that openeth not his mouth. And ſo had remained to this day, if I had not bene, by unkind importunity compelled to theſe Apologies, firſt in private, and now, in publick.
3. By the time.Thirdly, His deſcant upon the time of theire wrighting may eaſily be anſwered. 1 by conceſſion. 2 by retortion?
Firſt, By conceſſion; that the yeare 1634. was a time of much affliction of the Churches in Dutchland, & therefore might ſeeme ſeaonable for the warning of the Churches in Holland to take ſome courſe for a timely prevention of like judgements upon themſelves, by a due reformation of things amiſſe. 2. That, on the day of the monethmonth, when they preſented their complaints, his mayd died.
But they ſay. 1 they knew not if it, 2 neither did he keep private (as mourners uſe to doe) but came to the Conſiſtory, 3 neither did they apprehend the death of that mayd to be ſo great a cauſe of ſorrow to him, as is here intimated, for reaſons which are not worth the printing. 4 that, if it had bene ſo; they cōceive, that private greifes ſhould not hinder the redreſſe of publick greivances, and that, by the ſenſe … owne ſorrow that day, for the loſſe of one mayd ſervant, he might have bene more affected with compaſſion towards them who had many dayes mourned for the loſſe of more then one Paſtor, whom God had, by his providence, brought among them, & almoſt caſt upon them.
Secondly, The ſame obſervation may be retorted upon himſelfe, both for the yeare, and the monethmonth. 1. The yeare, wherein his booke was printed, was the yeare 1635. A time, when, not only the Churches of Dutchland were in great affliction, but alſo the Churches in the Low Countryes were in great danger (the Prince of Orange being then in Brabant, and the Armyes in ſome diſtreſſe, by want of victuall) a time, wherein, by ſpeciall order from the States Generall, all Churches were called upon to meete one day in a week, in publick, to heare the word preached, and to pray for the good ſucceſſe of the Prince, and of the Armyes. And we are commanded, as in all prayer, ſo particularly, when we pray for thoſe in authority,1. Tim. 2.8 to lift up pure hands without wrath, &c. 2 The monethmonth, wherein it was publiſhed, was Iune, or Iuly, a time when I was very weake, having bene, not long before, very neare unto death, at which time he laboured importunately with the Claſſis for their conſent to the printing of this booke. But from that death, and from dangerous relapſes afterwards into weaknes and diſtemper the Lord in mercy recovered me, even when man cruelly added ſorrow to my affliction. But I wil aggravate that no further.
How well he performeth his purpoſe of not doing the leaſt wrong to thoſe, againſt whom he wrighteth, will appeare to the indifferent Reader, in the examination of the following Sections, in which, if he had dealt accordingly, I might hauehave bene happily freed from this unpleaſing taſke, whereby I am now unwillingly detayned from more profitable imployments, being compelled hereunto, by neceſſity, for the juſtifying of the truth: wherein I doe humbly beſeech the God of trueth (who alſo is Love) to aſſiſt me with the ſpirit of trueth and of love, that I may be inabled in every paſſage to declare the trueth in love! To conclude: I leaue it to the Reade to judge, whether ſo to contend be worthy of ſuch a cenſure, as this Anſwerer layeth upon it, or of any blame at all, for the matter of it, and the thing done, unles, in the manner of it, any unwarrantable diſtemper of affections or paſſions have appeared in the complainants, which, if it be found, I will not juſtifye, neither will they, I hope, juſtify it in them ſelves. So much be noated for the vindication of theire complaints.
Secondly, Now, being called,See more concerning that wrighting in Sect. 22. 4 Things in defence of my wrighting. 1. I muſt cleare the wrighting left by me from his unjuſt intimations againſt it. For which purpoſe I will declare fowre things.
Firſt, that the wrighting (qua tale) is not to be blamed. Suppoſe I had complained; Is it unjuſt to wright downe a mans complaints? Then, downe with all courts of Iuſtice, where ſuits & cauſes are ſo tranſacted. And my caſe was ſuch, as I could not be righted againſt many injurious reports, purpoſing to leave this country, otherwiſe then by wrighting. Againe, a man wrighteth with more deliberation, and a more full recollection of his thoughts, then he ſpeaketh, and ſo with more ſtrength, as the ſcattered beames of the Sun heate more intenſly and vehemently, being united in a burning glaſſe. And, laſtly, I would hauehave added that a man wrighteth with more compoſednes of mind, and a better temper of ſpirit, then he uſually ſpeaketh, and ſo with more ſolid judgment, the paſſions being ſomewhat quieted and allayed (as the water is cleare and tranſparent, after the mudd is ſetled in the bottom) but that the diſtempered paſſions appearing in the Anſwerer, and that in print, are a reall confutation thereof.
Secondly, Neither was the ſecret ſpreading of the wrighting a fault, but rather an Argument of my tender care of his reputation, that I deſired that matters betweene us ſhould not be divulged, but only declared where it was neceſſary, for their ſatiſfaction, who had bene praejudiced againſt me, by untrue reports of paſſages. Or, if the delivery of a wrighting to a freind or two, in myne owne defenſe, was to be blamed; what ſhall be ſayd to him, 1. Who provoked me thereunto, both by private ſuggeſtions, and by publick injuryes? 2 Who him ſelfe did the ſame thing, without being provoked thereunto by me. For he wrote a large letter to one Mr. B. at N. in England dated Septemb. 26. (in which monethmonth alſo he had revived contention in publick, after I had ſatt downe quietly almoſt 5 moneths) and with this he ſent incloſed a copy of the wrighting of the 5 Miniſters, which I never did, becauſe I tooke it to be a private wrighting, not to be communicated, without their conſent.
Thirdly, Neither was that wrighting a complaint, (if actions be denominated from their ends) but rather an Apology, or true defenſe of my innocency (againſt untrue reports about my letter to the Claſſis, and about the queſtion concerning promiſcuous baptizing of all that are preſented, by whom ſoeuer, and about paſſages betweene the Anſwerer and me) being frequently importuned by ſome freinds to giuegive them myne anſwers to ſuch objections, that they might be inabled to ſatiſfy others that were praejudiced unjuſtly againſt me. So that, in my intent, it was an Apology: if, by accident, it became a complaint; who is to be blamed; He that complaineth? or he that gave the cauſe? let the Reader judge.
Fourthly. Here is an old fallacy,Nō cauſae, ut cauſae. when my wrighting is pretended to be the cauſe of their complaints, which was not. For they complained of many of the greivances mentioned in that wrighting, not only, before my wrighting was ſeene, but before I ſaw Amſterdam. And, though they make ſome complaints which agree with ſome paſſages in my wrighting, yet they make many more alſo, which are not in my wrighting. Who watered thoſe rootes? So much ſhall ſuffice for the vindicating of my ſelfe from the imputation of contentiouſnes, and of my wrighting, from the cenſure of watering evill weeds of unjuſt complaints.
Anſ. He ſayth of our Church: had he not exerciſed much patience and induſtry, it would certainely have fallen from me &c. But as he doth vainly prayſe him ſelfe, &c.
Here is a 4 fold charge layed upon me, with bitternes enough.Reply. 4. Things unjuſtly charged upon me. 1. Vaine ſelfe-prayſing: 2. Wronging him, and the Church. 3. Folly and vayne Credulity, 4. Diminiſhing of the grace and power of God. And for what? Becauſe I ſayd, If I had not exerciſed much patience and induſtry, the Church would certainely have fallen from him. I will ſpeake ſomething to every one of theſe ſeverally.
To the firſt. It is no vaine ſelfe-prayſing to ſay ſo.The firſt charge replyed upō. 1. For it attaineth its end, (finem operis, & oporantis) For it ſheweth, both how free I was from nouriſhing contention in that Church (for the preſervation of whoſe peace, I both did, and ſuffered ſo much) which was the end of the ſpeach: and it tended to Gods glory, and to the honour of the Goſpell, that I ſhould declare my actions to be comely & to be according to that vertue, Phil. 4.8.prayſe, and good report which we are commanded to thinck of, which was the end of the ſpeaker. 2. Nor is all ſelfe-prayſing unlawfull, if it ariſe not from ſelfe-ſeeking. As when the report is true, and uttered in way of teſtimony to the trueth, the caſe requiring it. All which requiſits doe concurr in this ſpeach.2. The ſecōd charge replyed upō
To the ſecond. It is no wrong to the Anſwerer, nor to the Church that I ſay ſo.
Firſt, Not to the Anſwerer. For the report is, neither untrue, nor needleſly made, but, upon conſtraint, to declare ſo much for the clearing of myne owne innocency. Nor doth he, nor can he diſprove any thing ſpoken by me, in that particular.
Secondly not to the Church. For: neither doe I ſpeake of the body of it, indefinitly, without exception (but of the better and moſt conſiderable part of it) nor doth my ſpeach argue them (of whom it is ſpoken) to be of a Schyſmaticall diſpoſition. For the clearing whereof (becauſe the word Schyſme is ſo frequently uſed,Schyſme d…b e and miſapplyed by the Anſwerer) we will breifly conſider the ordinary uſes of the word Schyſme, in the Church, which ſignifyeth, 1. ſometimes ſuch a voluntary and unjuſt ſeceſſion from the Church,1. Io. 2.19 whereby the Vnity of it is broken. 2. ſometimes ſuch a diſſention in the Church, whereby, not the Vnity,1. Cor. 11.18. but the peace is broken: Jn which of theſe ſenſes doth the Anſwerer uſe the word in this place? If in the latter; they are Schyſmatickes (according to the judgment of the Apoſtle) who cauſe diviſion and offences. 1. Cor. 11.14. 6. Things about ſchyſme. 1. Every ſeſeſſion is not unjuſt. 2. Nor a breach of Vnity. Chameron de Eccleſ. de Schyſm. pag. 395. 3. Nor concluded to be a ſchyſme. Cartwr: Reply.And ſo he will find it layed at his owne dore. If in the former; it is a wrong done to me, if he intimate (as he ſeemeth to doe) that I accuſe them of a Schyſmaticall diſpoſition, in that ſenſe, when I ſay that they would have fallen from him. For 1. every ſeceſſion from a Church is not unjuſt, as the Reformed Churches plead for the juſtification of their forſaking the Romiſh Antichriſtian Synagogue, which they truely affirme to be no Schyſme, nor themſelves Schyſmatickes, for ſo doing, though the vnity be broken.
Secondly, Every ſeceſſion from a true Church, is not a breach of vnity: for there is a negative ſeceſſion as well as a poſitive one. And the former may be lawfull, in ſome caſes, wherein the latter is not warrantable.
Thirdly, the caſe may be ſuch, in a poſitive ſeceſſion, as it may be diſputable, whether it be to be called a Schyſme, or not. Mr. Cartwright declareth, out of Theodoret, how the Catholicks which maintayned the fayth, of the Nicene Councill, through affection to their teachers (of whom they were unjuſtly deprived) ſevered themſelves into ſeverall companies: and, there upon demands, will the Anſwerer ſay that theſe meetings were Schyſmaticall? And then anſwereth, If he doe; 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. VnderUnder Arcadius the Emperour, a great Schyſme was rayſed in Conſtantinople, whereof Socrates ſpeaketh ſomewhat, but Sozomen much more. Who was the author of that Schyſme? Were thoſe Orthodox Chriſtians (Biſhops, Preſbyters, and people) who, being incenſed by the indignity of the thing, & not being able to beare the ill uſage of ſo learned & pious a man, as Chriſoſtom, then unjuſtly baniſhed, aſſembled a part, & forſooke the reſt of the Church, were, I ſay, theſe blamed as men of a Schyſmaticall diſpoſition? No. the blame of it was layed upon Theophilus Biſhop of Alexandria, who, out of Envy, practiſed againſt Chriſoſtom, & prevayled ſo far, that, that holy man was caſt out of his Biſhoprick,Theod: lib: 3. cap: 5. & dyed in baniſhment. And in the caſe mentioned out of Mr. Cartwr. (if he meane that which Theodoret noateth. Lib. 3. Cap. 5) both Theodoret and Euſebius blame not the Catholicks, but Liberius for that, who, though he deſired to make up the breach, yet, thorough his imprudence, made it worſe, by too partially favouring the party of Euſtathius, with neglect of Meletius. Theſe things I noate, not to incourage ſuch diſſentions (the ſad evēt, both of the former, which laſted 35 yeares, & of the latter, which continued 85 yeares, will, (I hope) ſufficiently forwarne the godly wiſe thereof) but to warne others (viz Paſtors & Claſſes) to take heed, leaſt they, the one, by needles oppoſition againſt thoſe, whom the people reverence & deſire for their miniſters, & the other, by partial adhaering to the one party more then is meet, and aequall) make themſelves the authours of diſturbance, & diſſention in the Church, whereof they ſeeme to complaine: alwayes remē bring that of Salomon. Surely oppreſſion maketh a wiſe man mad.Eccle. 7▪ 7.
Fifthly, Suppoſe the members (whom J meane) had only,5. Its lawfull to ſeeke the ordinances in a fayre way, ſought their dimiſſion, ſeeing no hope of the redreſſe of their greivances, & ſo joyned themſelves (without caſting off cōmunion with that, as no true Church) to ſome other Church, where they might be ſatiſfyed in their lawfull deſires; would ſuch a joyning with ſome other true Church in that City, or a peaceable removing of themſelves, & their families to ſome other place, where they might be, with more ſatiſfaction & content, ſtill profeſſing and holding communion with that as a true Church, would ſuch an action have bene judged Schyſmaticall? This was that which I meant, & ſome ſpake. And, is this to accuſe the Church of a Schyſmaticall diſpoſition? Let the Reader judge.
3. The third charge replyed upon.To the Third. It is not folly, nor vaine credulity, much leſſe againſt modeſty or conſcience, that I ſayd, certainely they would have fallen from him. For it is but an humane certainty, that I meant, which may ſtand with the contingency of future events. Had J profeſſed to have ſayd that prophetically, without a prophets warrant; it had bene againſt modeſty, or conſcience, but when I profeſſe to ſpeak it but after the uſuall manner of all men, who account a thing, that is moſt probable, as certaine, I am no more to be blamed then Ioab was, if he had ſayd to David (in a fit manner) certainely (in ſtead of, as the Lord liveth) If thou goe not forth, 2. Sam: 19 7. Sect: 22.there will not one tarry with thee this night: nor ſo much as the Anſwerer himſelfe is to be blamed for uſing the ſame word, in a caſe leſſe probable, when he ſayth. It is certainely a want of modeſty & prudence in me &c. which I ſhall noate more particularly, in its due place. But I thincke any learned man will conclude this chalenge to be a mere cavill.
4. The 4. charge replyed upon.To the fourth. I did not diminiſh the grace and power of God, in that ſpeech: for what I ſayd may ſtand with a due acknowledgement of God, 1, to be the ſupreme and principall efficient, to whom the inſtrument is not contrary, but ſubordinate & ſubſervient (as he that ſayth, the knife cutteth, doth not derogate from the power of the hand, which uſeth & guideth the knife) 2, to be a voluntary & free agent,Si accuſaſſe ſufficiat, quis erit innocens? who could have effected his owne pleaſure, in this particular, without any inſtrument, or without me. And therefore his diſcourſe of Gods often fruſtrating humane purpoſes, is nothing to the purpoſe. But, if ſuch bold accuſations may paſſe, upō any mans naked affirmation, without proofe, innocency it ſelfe ſhall be judged & condemned as guilty.
Anſ. 14. & 15.Before I leave this Section, I muſt examine one paſſage more, (in which I find my name twiſe uſed) wherein he telleth the nine firſt, and twelve latter complainants, that Godly wiſdom, and good conſcience required of them all, Anſ. that they ſhould have my counſail touching ſuch weighty matters &c.
I am ſorry that the Anſwerer thus diſcovereth his ſpirit, Reply. by ſeeking, with ſubtile deviſes, and inſnaring queſtions, to circumvent the innocent, the drift and aime whereof is, to intangle the Complainants, or me, if either of us attempt the anſwering of his booke. For, if it ſhould be ſayd that they did not adviſe with me; then, he ſayth, their headlong and headſtrong raſhnes was extraordinary great. If it ſhould be ſayd, that, they did conſult with me, and I did approue of their wrighting; then, ſayth he, will it appeare that he hath bene an extraordinary authour of contention. Is not this the ſpreading of a nett and ſetting of grinnes? Pſal. 140 4. Eſa. 29.20 21. Hoſea. 9.8.Is it not the watching for iniquity, and the laying a ſnare for men? Is it not that, which the prophet Hoſea noateth, ſaying, The prophet is a ſnare of a fowler, in all his wayes? Now, although I can ſufficiently cleare my ſelfe; yet I thinck it not expedient to gratifye the Anſwerer ſo farr, in this way, but will rather anſwer him (as our Saviour Chriſt did the Phariſes, when they put queſtions to intrap him) by ſome other queſtions. How eaſily might the vanity of this paſſage, & the faultines of his dilemma be diſcovered, by ſhewing him that the diſjunction is not full, and that the parts there of doe not touch me at all? For. 1. what neceſſity was there that they ſhould conſult with me? Why not with him, or with any other? Againe: if they had conſulted with me; what neceſſity was there that I ſhould expreſſe my judgment? Might I not profeſſe that I would not anſwer to ſuch queſtions, nor intermedle in ſuch matters? Againe, if I did expreſſe my judgement, whether in diſlike of their way, or with ſuch cautions as the caſe required; were they bound to reſt in myne opinion, as it was required of me to reſt in the judgment of the five Miniſters? Had they not liberty to examine my adviſe, and, upon the reaſons, which ſatysfyed them, to chuſe the way which they tooke? Laſtly, If I did approve of their declaring to the Conſiſtory, in wrighting, what were the greivances, which cauſed theſe differences and oppoſitions (ſuppoſing that a ſober and wiſe anſwer thereunto would facilitate the ending of thoſe contentions: if either the complainants ſhould be convinced that their praejudices againſt the Anſwerer were not well grounded, or the Anſwerer, reflecting upon his owne faylings, ſhould, in humility and faythfullnes, give ſatiſfaction by amendment, in the future) would this prove me to be an extraordinary, or any authour of contention? or, rather, will not it evince that I have bene ſtudious of his and the Churches peace? This nett was ill made, and therefore it hath caught nothing: we ſhall ſee, if he will mend it againſt the next time.