They, who have read the Answer, whereunto this Reply is made, will testify, on my behalf, that the honour of God, and the good of the Church, both for maintenance of truths opposed, and for vindicating mine own name, and the names of others, far more worthy then I, from calumny, did necessitate the publishing of this Apology. It had been more to the Answerers comfort, if he could have as truly pleaded the same necessity, as he readily pretended it. But, 1. how ⟨image 4⟩easily might he have prevented it, in the cause: either by not making an unjust opposition, or by yielding to such equal means of accommodation as were propounded, or by propounding other ways sufficient to salve the sore, or by referring the matter to the Church as properly belonging to their cognition, or by fairly seeking the advice of the Classis (seeing he would bring it thither) without praepossessing the Dutch preachers with causeless prejudices, and jealousies against men whom they knew not. 2. Seeing due care was not taken to prevent the kindling of the fire: yet, how easily might it have been quenched, when the smother of it began to break forth apparently! at least, the fuel might have been subtracted, and it suffered to have gone out, and to have dyed of it self, but, in stead, thereof, oil is cast upon it to make it flame out, and the force and violence of it, is, by his book (as by bellows, or a strong wind) driven upon the faces of those, who have done, and suffered much that they might extinguish it. Alas! what benefit could redound to the Church by such personal vindications published to the world, seeing a sufficient answer given in writing to their written complaints would have satisfied their desire, and ended all difference among them? And, what though these private writings were printed? yet, what necessity was there of printing any answer to them? seeing the Answerer had many ways to have suppressed them at the press (being made privy to the printing of them, by the printer himself, which I was not) and seeing I protested, in print, against the first part, which concerned me, and the Complainants professed their dislike of publishing the other part of it? How tender ⟨image 4⟩I was of the Answerers reputation my Protestation showeth, in part, and my labour to have the book suppressed more fully manifesteth.
They, who have read the Answer, whereunto this Reply is made, will testifye, on my behalfe, that the honour of God, and the good of the Church, both for maintenance of truths opposed, and for vindicating myne owne name, and the names of others, far more worthy then I, from calumny, did necessitate the publishing of this Apology. It had bene more to the Answerers comfort, if he could have as truely pleaded the same necessity, as he readily pretended it. But, 1. how ⟨image 4⟩easily might he have prevented it, in the cause: either by not making an unjust opposition, or by yeelding to such aequall meanes of accommodation as were propounded, or by propounding other wayes sufficient to salve the sore, or by referring the matter to the Church as properly belonging to their cognition, or by fairely seeking the advice of the Classis (seing he would bring it thither) without praepossessing the Dutch preachers with causelesse praejudices, and jealousies against men whom they knew not. 2. Seing due care was not taken to prevent the kindling of the fire: yet, how easily might it have bene quenched, when the smother of it began to breake forth apparently! at least, the fuell might have bene subtracted, and it suffered to have gone out, and to have dyed of it selfe, but, in stead, thereof, oyle is cast upon it to make it flame out, and the force and violence of it, is, by his booke (as by bellowes, or a strong wind) driven upon the faces of those, who have done, and suffered much that they might extinguish it. Alas! what benefit could redound to the Church by such personall vindications published to the world, seing a sufficient answer given in wrighting to their written complaints would have satisfyed their desire, and ended all difference among them? And, what though these private wrightings were printed? yet, what necessity was there of printing any answer to them? seing the Answerer had many wayes to have suppressed them at the presse (being made privy to the printing of them, by the printer himselfe, which I was not) and seeing I protested, in print, against the first part, which concerned me, and the Complainants professed theire dislike of publishing the other part of it? How tender ⟨image 4⟩I was of the Answerers reputation my Protestation sheweth, in part, and my labour to have the booke suppressed more fully manifesteth.
