An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of…An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of…

The Assumption, or second proposition, is, that the Answerer, in thus opposing these men, doeth an injury. This I will ⟨p. 66⟩prove by showing that, so to do is against, both the Law of nature, and the positive Law.

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

First, It is against the law of Nature, which consisteth of practical principles, which men know they ought to do, or to avoid, by the light of nature. Amongst which this is one. Whatsoever you would, ¹that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them. Now, I demand, would the Answerer be upbraided with errors, and traduced as erroneous, before strangers, before a public Congregation, before a Classis of Reverend Ministers, yea, before the whole world, in print, and that, by a brother famous for learning and ministerial abilities, and that without proof? Would he think himself equally dealt withal, if another should oppose and reject him, as unfit for a place, whereunto he is called by the Church, without sufficient cause? If not; let him reflect upon his own actions, and consider, whether he be not guilty of an injury,² which an heathen man, such as Alexander Severus would not willingly be guilty of.

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, ¹