A19884:736
An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of VV.B. Also an answer to Mr. I.D. touching his report of some passages. His allegation of Scriptures against the baptising of some kind of infants. His protestation about the publishing of his writings. By John Davenport BD.
Rotterdam: printed by Isaac van Waesberghe, 1636Rotterdam: printed by Isaack van Waesberghe, 1636
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
AS one absurdity usually follows another, so was it with the Answerer in penning this treatise. For, having taken liberty to cast the suspicion of all other miscarriages, which have happened in others, upon me, (though most injuriously) he now continueth the same note, saying that howsoever I do mislike & speak against Separation and Schism, and reprove the same, yet can I not altogether clear my self of being some occasion of Division amongst them, whilst I maintain such practises so different from them.
AS one absurdity usually followes another, so was it with the Answerer in penning this treatise. For, having taken liberty to cast the suspicion of all other miscarriages, which have happened in others, upon me, (though most injuriously) he now continueth the same noate, saying that howsoever I doe mislike & speake against Seperation and Schysme, and reprove the same, yet can I not altogether cleare my selfe of being some occasion of Division amongst them, whilest I maintaine such practises so different from them.
Ans: 1. It is well that his pen doeth clear me from inclining to Schism or Separation, whose tongue hath unjustly raised suspicions thereof against me in the minds of some. Yea, that his own hand writing, in this Section,1 hath cleared me of those contrary aspersions, and imputations, by himself cast upon me, and written and printed against me in other Sections 2. What need is there, that I should go about to clear my self from that which is not a fault? For, if to be some occasion of division among men, by maintaining a practise different from others be blame-worthy, then Paul and Barnabas were to be blamed for that practise of theirs different from those believers ⟨p. 200⟩who held that it was needful to be circumcised, after the manner of Moses. 2For, the text saith, they had no small dissension, and disputation with them. So were Paul and Silas, who were accused at Philippi, before the Magistrates, as exceeding troublers of the city for teaching customs, 3which were not lawful for them to receive being Romans. At Thessalonica, Jason & other brethren are accused to be those that turn the world upside down. Nor can it be denied that Paul was some occasion of that great stir and uproar,4 which arose in Ephesus, whereby the whole city was filled with confusion. And, howsoever he laboured, by all concord with them in things lawful, to enjoy peace at Jerusalem (as by purifying himself &c.5) yet, upon a causeless jealously of his bringing Greeks into the Temple (because they saw Trophimus with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the Temple) the whole city was moved, and of this commotion Paul could not altogether clear himself of being some occasion, by maintaining some practises so different from the Jews. 3. The Answerer seemeth to insinuate somewhat against my journey out of town, two or three days before the time of administration of the Lords supper (wherein he saith) I was accompanied with some members of the Church, who (as he heard) did go with me, and leave the communion, this, he saith, gave great occasion of strife & other offence to the Church, & was a course tending to Schism. Repl. 1. For the complainants, who, he saith, separated themselves at that time;
Ans: 1. It is well that his pen doeth cleare me from inclining to Schysme or Seperation, whose tongue hath unjustly raysed suspicions thereof against me in the minds of some. Yea, that his owne hand wrighting, in this Section,1 hath cleared me of those contrary aspersions, and imputations, by himselfe cast upon me, and written and printed against me in other Sections 2. What need is there, that I should goe about to cleare my selfe from that which is not a fault? For, if to be some occasion of division among men, by maintaining a practise different from others be blame-worthy, then Paul and Barnabas were to be blamed for that practise of theyrs different from those beleivers ⟨p. 200⟩who held that it was needfull to be circumcised, after the manner of Moses. 2For, the text sayth, they had no small dissention, and disputation with them. So were Paul and Silas, who were accused at Philippi, before the Magistrates, as exceeding troublers of the citty for teaching customs, 3which were not lawfull for them to receive being Romans. At Thessalonica, Iason & other brethren are accused to be those that turne the world upside downe. Nor can it be denyed that Paul was some occasion of that great stirr and uprore,4 which arose in Ephesus, whereby the wholl citty was filled with confusion. And, howsoever he laboured, by all concord with them in things lawfull, to injoy peace at Ierusalem (as by purifying himselfe &c.5) yet, upon a causeles jealously of his bringing Greekes into the Temple (because they saw Trophimus with him in the citty, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the Temple) the wholl citty was moved, and of this commotion Paul could not altogether cleare himselfe of being some occasion, by maintaining some practises so different from the Iewes. 3. The Answerer seemeth to insinuate somewhat against my journey out of towne, two or three dayes before the time of administration of the Lords supper (wherein he sayth) I was accompanied with some members of the Church, who (as he heard) did goe with me, and leave the communion, this, he sayth, gave great occasion of strife & other offence to the Church, & was a course tending to Schysme. Repl. 1. For the complanants, who, he sayth, seperated themselves at that time;
some of them whom he examined, whether they had advise with me about it, have cleared me fully, in their answer, and the rest are able and ready to do the like. Who would think that, against so ample testimony, the Answerer should have the boldness to accuse me so unjustly for that? 2. His accusation of me for my journey out of the City, at that time, is as injurious, as that: For the case, which caused my travail, at that time, would have constrained me thereunto, at any other time, as well as that, it being necessary, for the help of a painful Minister, who, being very ill, craved my assistance, with much importunity. My wife accompanied me thither, and the Mrs. of the house where we lodged, was pleased to accompany my wife, being a stranger in these countries (which I had no ⟨p. 201⟩cause to refuse, but to take thankfully) and, besides her, not one member of the Church went along with us (unless the maid, which attended her sucking child be a member, which I think she is not) Now, what was to be blamed in this? This the Reader shall ordinarily find, that the Answerers complaints, both against me and others, have no other root but the evil surmises of his own jealous fancy: pluck up that root, and the most of his complaints will dye of themselves.
some of them whom he examined, whether they had advise with me about it, have cleared me fully, in their answer, and the rest are able and ready to doe the like. Who would thinck that, against so ample testimony, the Answerer should have the boldnes to accuse me so unjustly for that? 2. His accusation of me for my journey out of the Citty, at that time, is as injurious, as that: For the case, which caused my travayle, at that time, would have constrained me thereunto, at any other time, as well as that, it being necessary, for the helpe of a painfull Minister, who, being very ill, craved my assistance, with much importunity. My wife accompanied me thither, and the Mrs. of the house where we lodged, was pleased to accompany my wife, being a stranger in these countryes (which I had no ⟨p. 201⟩cause to refuse, but to take thanckfully) and, besides her, not one member of the Church went along with us (unles the mayd, which attended her sucking child be a member, which I thinck she is not) Now, what was to be blamed in this? This the Reader shall ordinarily find, that the Answerers complaints, both against me and others, have no other roote but the evill surmises of his owne jealous fancy: pluck up that roote, and the most of his complaints will dye of themselves.
MY defence of Answering his untrue reports, in my writing, and of having it in the hands of one or two friends, that might speak in the cause of the dumb, & maintain mine innocency, in my absence, the Reader shall find in my reply to the second Section. Now, the cavils which are to be found in this Section against that writing are to be examined. First. It is an injury to call that writing injurious which was a necessary declaration of the truth against slanders, which were, first secretly spread abroad by him, in private speech, afterwards, by a large letter which he sent to his friend at N. in England, & now are by him scandalously published, not only against me (ego enim non sum tanti) but against men of eminent worth and note, both living and dead.
MY defence of Answering his untrue reports, in my wrighting, and of having it in the hands of one or two freinds, that might speake in the cause of the dumbe, & maintaine myne innocency, in my absence, the Reader shall find in my reply to the second Section. Now, the cavills which are to be found in this Section against that wrighting are to be examined. First. It is an injury to call that wrighting injurious which was a necessary declaration of the truth against slanders, which were, first secretly spread abroad by him, in private speech, afterwards, by a large letter which he sent to his frend at N. in England, & now are by him scandalously published, not only against me (ego enim non sum tanti) but against men of eminent worth and noate, both living and dead.
Secondly. How justly that writing is called a true report of passages, the Reader will see, by comparing what is said, on both sides, and how unjustly he excepteth against that title.
Secondly. How justly that wrighting is called a true report of passages, the Reader will see, by comparing what is sayd, on both sides, and how unjustly he excepteth against that title.
Thirdly. When I assured the Reader that this English copy is a true translation out of the latin, by, this English copy, I meant ⟨p. 202⟩not which is printed. For there are diverse faults in that, & it appeareth to have been printed out of a very imperfect copy, but that which I wrote. As for his exception against it, that having twice used that odious phrase [pro imperio] imperiously; in the second place it is left out, in my translation.
Thirdly. When I assured the Reader that this English copy is a true translation out of the latine, by, this English copy, I meant ⟨p. 202⟩not which is printed. For there are diverse faults in that, & it appeareth to have bene printed out of a very imperfect copy, but that which I wrote. As for his exception against it, that having twise used that odious phrase [pro imperio] imperiously; in the second place it is left out, in my translation.
Repl: The phrase is but a true expression of the thing, let the odious thing be mended, and the odious phrase shall not be used. In the mean space the expression must be suitable to the action. For is it not [actus imperij] an imperious act, to deny a man convenient time for satisfaction about a matter of such consequence, and to bind a man to observe customs and orders, without showing the equity thereof? Some would have called such an act tyranny and so shall I, upon further provocation. 2. As the use of the phrase is condemned, so the omitting of it once in the translation is reproved. Forgive me that wrong. I thought he would see how unwilling I was to fasten their imperious dealing with me, upon the Readers apprehension, by repeating the word imperiously again. But let it stand, in this second place also, seeing the Answerer will have it so, and he shall find me, with Gods assistance, prove it to be a fit expression. 3. Is my translation untrue, because this word is once omitted? Let the learned Reader judge, whether it be necessary to the truth of a translation, that every latin word be rendered into English, especially when the sense giveth it sufficiently in the sentence. If this be not to seek a knot in a bulrush, I know not what is.
Repl: The phrase is but a true expression of the thing, let the odious thing be mended, and the odious phrase shall not be used. In the meane space the expression must be suitable to the action. For is it not [actus imperij] an imperious act, to deny a man convenient time for satisfaction about a matter of such consequence, and to bind a man to observe customs and orders, without shewing the aequity thereof? Some would have called such an act tyranny and so shall I, upon further provocation. 2. As the use of the phrase is condemned, so the omitting of it once in the translation is reproved. Forgive me that wrong. I thought he would see how unwilling I was to fasten their imperious dealing with me, upon the Readers apprehension, by repeating the word imperiously againe. But let it stand, in this second place also, seing the Answerer will have it so, and he shall find me, with Gods assistance, prove it to be a fit expression. 3. Is my translation untrue, because this word is once omitted? Let the learned Reader judge, whether it be necessary to the truth of a translation, that every latine word be rendred into English, especially when the sense giveth it sufficiently in the sentence. If this be not to seeke a knott in a bulrush, I know not what is.
Fourthly. In my first writing how unable the Answerer is to discover any untruth (in my report of the private conference between us) the Reader will see by my examination of his Sect: 11. in my Reply, and will be further cleared hereafter.
Fourthly. In my first wrighting how unable the Answerer is to discover any untruth (in my report of the private conference betweene us) the Reader will see by my examination of his Sect: 11. in my Reply, and will be further cleared hereafter.
Fifthly. In my second writing he seemeth to find a foul untruth or falsification (after his usual manner of expressing himself) both in the superscription, and subscription thereof. But what is it? I said that those instructions were delivered by the Elders of the English Church deputed. But 1, that translation saith not by the Elders, but to the Elders, and that both in the superscription and in the subscription. Is it not strange that he should then falsify the translation, when he complaineth, of falsification in the ⟨p. 203⟩translator? 2. suppose it had been to the Elders deputed, and that by Elders, I meant any lawfully deputed by the Eldership; yet I spake and wrote truly. For I left the writing with Mr. W. who was deputed before by the Eldership, (having also told Mr. Wh: of it) praying him to communicate it with the rest, that one or two Elders that should be deputed by the rest, might present it to the Classis, and, having respect unto that agreement with them, I used that expression, before the meeting, in confidence that it would have been so ordered by them. Now, if no such deputation was made afterwards, what is that to me, who styled the Elder by that title which best expressed my purpose, and expectation? neither was I in town to alter it afterwards, nor did I ever hear, that no deputation was made in the Consistory, till now.) The issue of all this deep accusation, what is it now, but, as when a great expectation was of the mountains birth, which was feigned to be with child, after which nothing appeared but a little mouse running thence? How just the complaint is also of his want of brotherly moderation, I have noted in my reply to his Sect. 12.
Fifthly. In my second wrighting he seemeth to find a foule untruth or falsification (after his usuall manner of expressing himselfe) both in the superscription, and subscription thereof. But what is it? I sayd that those instructions were delivered by the Elders of the English Church deputed. But 1, that translation sayth not by the Elders, but to the Elders, and that both in the superscription and in the subscription. Is it not strange that he should then falsifye the translation, when he complaineth, of falsification in the ⟨p. 203⟩translatour? 2. suppose it had bene to the Elders deputed, and that by Elders, I meant any lawfully deputed by the Eldership; yet I spake and wrote truely. For I left the wrighting with Mr. W. who was deputed before by the Eldership, (having also told Mr. Wh: of it) praying him to communicate it with the rest, that one or two Elders that should be deputed by the rest, might present it to the Classis, and, having respect unto that agreement with them, I used that expression, before the meeting, in confidence that it would have bene so ordered by them. Now, if no such deputation was made afterwards, what is that to me, who stiled the Elder by that title which best expressed my purpose, and expectation? neither was I in towne to alter it afterwards, nor did I ever heare, that no deputation was made in the Consistory, till now.) The issue of all this deepe accusation, what is it now, but, as when a great expectation was of the mountaines birth, which was fained to be with child, after which nothing appeared but a litle mouse running thence? How just the complaint is also of his want of brotherly moderation, I have noated in my reply to his Sect. 12.
Sixthly. In that which he speaketh concerning my third writing, he multiplieth injuries.
Sixtly. In that which he speaketh concerning my third wrighting, he multiplyeth injuries.
1. In misreporting my intent in the three writings, which was, not to make him odious to the Classis, nor to teach the Elders how to fill their mouths with reproach of him, nor, to stir up and incense the Congregation against him, but ingenuously and candidly to report the truth, whereunto I was called, and compelled, for the necessary clearing of my self, & for the remove all, in some, and prevention, in others, of causeless prejudices, and jealousies, which already did, or, by my silence, might arise in their minds against me, by his suggestions: Would the writing of those things, accuse, undermine, and defame him? It is a sign that his cause is not very good. And, if my writing those particulars be a fault, who is to blamed for it, but he who constrained me thereunto?
1. In misreporting my intent in the three wrightings, which was, not to make him odious to the Classis, nor to teach the Elders how to fill their mouthes with reproach of him, nor, to stirr up and incense the Congregation against him, but ingenuously and candidly to report the truth, whereunto I was called, and compelled, for the necessary clearing of my selfe, & for the remove all, in some, and prevention, in others, of causeles praejudices, and jealousyes, which already did, or, by my silence, might arise in their minds against me, by his suggestions: Would the wrighting of those things, accuse, undermine, and defame him? It is a signe that his cause is not very good. And, if my wrighting those particulars be a fault, who is to blamed for it, but he who constrained me thereunto?
2. In charging me with unjust upbraiding of him, for mine assistance of him, and with a vain boasting of my self. To convince him of ill requiting me, yea of rewarding evil for good, I remembered ⟨p. 204⟩what labour and patience I had exercised for his and the Churches peace. This was no upbraiding, much less unjust, nor vain boasting, but a just declaration of the truth (the case requiring it) and a sad complaint of his unthankfulness. How he hath answered it, will appear in the examination of Sect. 2. 8. and 40. Whereunto as he referreth the Reader, so do I, and also to Sect. 11. and 14. that it may appear how justly I complain of the two injuries which he noteth. Also concerning the five objections answered by me in that third writing I do concur with him in referring the Reader to the Sections mentioned by him, and examined by me.
2. In charging me with unjust uprayding of him, for myne assistance of him, and with a vaine boasting of my selfe. To convince him of ill requiting me, yea of rewarding evill for good, I remembred ⟨p. 204⟩what labour and patience I had excercised for his and the Churches peace. This was no uprayding, much lesse unjust, nor vaine boasting, but a just declaration of the truth (the case requiring it) and a sad complaint of his unthanckfullnes. How he hath answered it, will appeare in the examination of Sect. 2. 8. and 40. Whereunto as he referreth the Reader, so doe I, and also to Sect. 11. and 14. that it may appeare how justly I complaine of the two injuryes which he noateth. Also concerning the five objections answered by me in that third wrighting I doe concurr with him in referring the Reader to the Sections mentioned by him, and examined by me.
