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…

2. My approving the Act of the Elders in admitting me to preach, as an assistant, without the consent of the Classis] whither did the Answerers passion transport him, when he wrote this for an evidence to prove me guilty of Schism? For. 1. who ever heard that it is an act of Schism for a man to preach at the desire of any Church, only as an assistant, without the consent of the Classis? By that rule, himself and the whole Church was guilty of Schism for letting Mr. D. preach, a year or two together, without consent of the Classis. For he did it as an assistant. But 2. He doeth not charge me with doing it neither, but only with approving ⟨p. 250⟩that act. If I be a Schismatic for approving it, what are the Elders that made it? And, why doeth he suffer them to come to the Lords table, and to go on so long unconvinced, unreclaimed from their Schism? Is Schism such a small sin that he regards it not? or is this proof of their Schism so slight that he thinks they will not regard it? He boldly calleth it Schism, but bringeth no proof that it is so from Scriptures nor Reason. Why so? Is it because it is sufficient that he saith it? or because he cannot prove it? If the first; he is deceived: if the second; he deceiveth. 4. If the Church have power to choose a meet Pastor or assistant, the Ministers of the Classis have no power to deprive them of him, or to hinder him from accepting their call, or from satisfying their lawful desire. For, their power is not privative, but cumulative, in that sense. And therefore, in such a case, it is a Schism from the Church in him that hindereth the Church herein, not in him that assisteth them.

2. My approving the Act of the Elders in admitting me to preach, as an assistant, without the consent of the Classis] whither did the Answerers passion transport him, when he wrote this for an evidence to prove me guilty of Schysme? For. 1. who ever heard that it is an act of Schysme for a man to preach at the desire of any Church, onely as an assistant, without the consent of the Classis? By that rule, himselfe and the wholl Church was guilty of Schysme for letting Mr. D. preach, a yeare or two together, without consent of the Classis. For he did it as an assistant. But 2. He doeth not charge me with doing it neither, but onely with approving ⟨p. 250⟩that act. If I be a Schysmatick for approving it, what are the Elders that made it? And, why doeth he suffer them to come to the Lords table, and to goe on so long unconvinced, unreclamed from their Schysme? Is Schysme such a small sinne that he regards it not? or is this proofe of their Schysme so slight that he thincks they will not regard it? He bolly calleth it Schysme, but bringeth no proofe that it is so from Scriptures nor Reason. Why so? Is it because it is sufficient that he sayth it? or because he cannot prove it? If the first; he is deceived: if the second; he deceiveth. 4. If the Church have power to chuse a meet Pastor or assistant, the Ministers of the Classis have no power to deprive them of him, or to hinder him from accepting their call, or from satisfying their lawfull desire. For, their power is not privative, but cumulative, in that sense. And therefore, in such a case, it is a Schysme from the Church in him that hindereth the Church herein, not in him that assisteth them.