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 Answerer saith, this complaint is a very unjust slander. ¹]

The Answerer sayth, this complaint is a very unjust slander. ¹]

1. 1Ans: Reply. 1.

If it be a slander, it must needs be unjust: for no slander can be just. Yea; if it be a slander, it is a very great one: for it is not against a private, but a public person, a preacher of the Gospel, and their Pastor, and that, not whispered in the ears of one, but published to the view of many. But, if it be true; the Answerers sin is double: 1, that he gave just cause of this complaint, in a case, not of private, but of public injury, by depriving of his flock, not of civill, but of spiritual liberties, to the violation of that order which Christ hath settled in the Church; 2. That he unjustly chargeth them with a slander, and so maketh himself guilty of calling good evil, yea, of the same sin, whereof he accuseth them, viz, slander.

If it be a slander, it must needs be unjust: for no slander can be just. Yea; if it be a slander, it is a very great one: for it is not against a private, but a publick person, a preacher of the Gospell, and their Pastor, and that, not whispered in the eares of one, but published to the view of many. But, if it be true; the Answerers sinne is double: 1, that he gave just cause of this complaint, in a case, not of private, but of publick injury, by depriving of his flock, not of civill, but of spirituall liberties, to the violation of that order which Christ hath setled in the Church; 2. That he unjustly chargeth them with a slander, and so maketh himselfe guilty of calling good evill, yea, of the same sinne, whereof he accuseth them, viz, slander.

For the more clear and full understanding and judging of what is said, on both sides, it must be observed that the first three pretended answers are mere evasions and diversions of the Reader from the matter of the Complaint. For,

For the more cleare and full understanding and judging of what is sayd, on both sides, it must be observed that the first three pretended answers are mere evasions and diversions of the Reader from the matter of the Complaint. For,

Secondly. They do not complain of his opposing, contradicting, or rejecting their opinions and counsels, when they were against right, and truth, or hurtful to the Church, or to any member thereof, but, when matters have been agreeable to truth, and right, and for the good of the Church, upon unjust pretences of the Elders insufficiency and partiality, as in the cases instanced by them.

Secondly. They doe not complaine of his opposing, contradicting, or rejecting their opinions and counsailes, when they were against right, and truth, or hurtfull to the Church, or to any member thereof, but, when matters have bene agreeable to truth, and right, and for the good of the Church, upon unjust pretences of the Elders insufficiency and partiality, as in the cases instanced by them.

Thirdly. They do not complain of his rejecting the counsel of the Elders only by showing his particular judgment, as one Deacon may oppose the opinion of another in their own session, or as in a Senate Civill, or Ecclesiastical, there may be difference, and so opposition of opinions amongst men; without rejecting such conclusions as are made by most voices in things lawful and equal; but of this they complain, that he so opposeth and rejecteth their power, in some cases, that he unjustly depriveth them of their power, upon untrue pretences of their partiality, and insufficiency to judge.

Thirdly. They doe not complaine of his rejecting the counsaile of the Elders only by shewing his particular judgment, as one Deacon may oppose the opinion of another in their owne session, or as in a Senat Civill, or Ecclesiasticall, there may be difference, and so opposition of opinions amongst men; without rejecting such conclusions as are made by most voyces in things lawfull and aequall; but of this they complaine, that he so opposeth and rejecteth their power, in some cases, that he unjustly depriveth them of their power, upon untrue pretences of their partiality, and insufficiency to judge.

Fourthly. In his fourth answer, his accusing the Elders of partiality & insufficiency is propounded by him, but the grounds thereof, or the proofs of it are not declared, and so, upon the matter, just nothing is said.

Fourthly. In his fourth answer, his accusing the Elders of partiality & insufficiency is propounded by him, but the grounds thereof, or the proofes of it are not declared, and so, upon the matter, just nothing is sayd.

Fifthly. In his fifth answer, he pretendeth just cause of his excepting against three of the Elders, as partial, in this controversy about me. And to make this cable strong, he twisteth three causes, as cords, together, that they profess themselves to be of ⟨p. 211⟩the same opinion with me touching baptism. Ans. 2. that they have, by their example, allowed and countenanced the meeting of diverse, at a private exercise, upon the Lords day, after the Sermons were ended. 3. that they made an act for my preaching amongst themselves, as an assistant, for a certain time &c.

Fifthly. In his fifth answer, he pretendeth just cause of his excepting against three of the Elders, as partiall, in this controversy about me. And to make this cable strong, he twisteth three causes, as cords, together, that they professe themselves to be of ⟨p. 211⟩the same opinion with me touching baptisme. Ans. 2. that they have, by their example, allowed and countenanced the meeting of diverse, at a private excercise, upon the Lords day, after the Sermons were ended. 3. that they made an act for my preaching amongst themselues, as an assistant, for a certaine time &c.

These are new crimes, which former ages have not heard of, Reply. and after times will wonder at, if all things be considered.

For the first. Is it the sin of partiality, in the Elders, to hold with any man in disliking, and witnessing against evil customs, as this promiscuous administration of baptism is declared to be? or to join, without scandal or Schism, in a private exercise, after the public are ended? or to make an act for a mans preaching amongst them as an assistant, the public necessity requiring it, and the Church generally desiring it, for a convenient time, that he might understand those orders and customs of the Dutch Church, whereunto his conformity is expected, before he bind himself thereunto? If so; then to hold the truth, to join in a peaceable and inoffensive use of private helps for edification, and to provide for the public good & peace is an argument of partiality in an Elder. The vanity of this pretence is manifest. Let us see his second proof.

For the first. Is it the sinne of partiality, in the Elders, to hold with any man in disliking, and witnessing against evill customs, as this promiscuous administration of baptisme is declared to be? or to joyne, without scandall or Schysme, in a private excercise, after the publick are ended? or to make an act for a mans preaching amongst them as an assistant, the publick necessity requiring it, and the Church generally desiring it, for a convenient time, that he might understand those orders and customs of the Dutch Church, whereunto his conformity is expected, before he bind himselfe thereunto? If so; then to hold the truth, to joyne in a peaceable and inoffencive use of private helpes for aedifycation, and to provide for the publick good & peace is an argument of partiality in an Elder. The vanity of this pretence is manifest. Let us see his second proofe.

Secondly. Ans. To prove them partial he produceth another consideration. viz, that the Elders have made like complaints (as these Complainants) heretofore, of his bringing matters to the Classis violently, without their consent. The Classis hath judged them parties.

Secondly. Ans. To prove them partiall he produceth another consideration. viz, that the Elders have made like complaints (as these Complainants) heretofore, of his bringing matters to the Classis violently, without their consent. The Classis hath judged them parties.

Be it so. 1. Is not this alleged against himself? For, Reply. now it appeareth not to be the complaint of some members only, who might unjustly complain, thorough ignorance or misinformation, but even, the Elders who are eye witnesses of all that passeth in Consistory, have made the same complaint. Will not any man conclude, that matters are injuriously carried, indeed, when, not only some of the members, but the Elders themselves also complain thereof? As for the Classis judging of them parties; how easily may the Elders demand their grounds, and proof thereof, and, in case of want of sufficient evidence, appeal from their sentence, to the Scripture? And is it not ⟨p. 212⟩possible, may we think, to find partiality, as well in the Classis, as in the Consistory? I wish they had expressed more equanimity in the carriage of this business, for their own, and the Churches sake.

Be it so. 1. Is not this alleadged against himselfe? For, Reply. now it appeareth not to be the complaint of some members only, who might unjustly complaine, thorough ignorance or misinformation, but even, the Elders who are eye witnesses of all that passeth in Consistory, have made the same complaint. Will not any man conclude, that matters are injuriously carried, indeed, when, not only some of the members, but the Elders themselves also complaine thereof? As for the Classis judging of them parties; how easily may the Elders demand their grounds, and proofe thereof, and, in case of want of sufficient evidence, appeale from their sentence, to the Scripture? And is it not ⟨p. 212⟩possible, may we thinck, to find partiality, as well in the Classis, as in the Consistory? I wish they had expressed more aequanimity in the carriage of this buisenes, for their owne, and the Churches sake.

Ans. Thirdly. If that proof fail, he hath one more, which will hold, as he imagineth. Even the Elders themselves have acknowledged, that, when some such complaints as these have been brought unto them, they had no power to judge thereof.

Ans. Thirdly. If that proofe fayle, he hath one more, which will hold, as he imagineth. Euen the Elders themselves have acknowledged, that, when some such complaints as these have bene brought unto them, they had no power to judge thereof.

Reply. The Answer of the Elders, which is here reported, is not necessarily to be understood as an acknowledgement of their want of power, de jure, by right, to judge thereof, but may be understood, as a declaration (or rather a complaint) of their want of power, defacto, by other mens taking it out of their hands, without right. Now, if that power which belongeth to them be taken from them, without their consent, and so before it be given, and without warrant of the word, and so before it be due: it is no partiality to assume that, by a due claim, which was unduly withheld from them; and it is no presumption in them, if, knowing their right▪ they give a new judgment of that thing, which they had formerly waved, not knowing that they had power to judge thereof. So much for his pretences against them for partiality.

Reply. The Answer of the Elders, which is here reported, is not necessarily to be understood as an acknowledgment of their want of power, de jure, by right, to judge thereof, but may be understood, as a declaration (or rather a complaint) of their want of power, defacto, by other mens taking it out of their hands, without right. Now, if that power which belongeth to them be taken from them, without their consent, and so before it be given, and without warrant of the word, and so before it be due: it is no partiality to assume that, by a due clayme, which was unduely withheld from them; and it is no presumption in them, if, knowing their right▪ they give a new judgment of that thing, which they had formerly waved, not knowing that they had power to judge thereof. So much for his pretences against them for partiality.

In his sixth answer he undertaketh to show their insufficiency, wherein, Ans. that he be not mistaken, he professeth not to speak of that common insufficiency that is in all men &c. but he excepteth against their insufficiency in some special cases, and namely in such particulars whatsoever have been already judged and determined in the Classis.

In his sixth answer he undertaketh to shew their insufficiency, wherein, Ans. that he be not mistaken, he professeth not to speake of that common insufficiency that is in all men &c. but he excepteth against their insufficiency in some speciall cases, and namely in such particulars whatsoever have bene already judged and determined in the Classis.

Reply. So then. Whatsoever the Classis shall take upon them to judge, though it were unduly and disorderly brought to them, shall bind the Church so, as it must rest therein, & that they shall not meddle in it, though they are not satisfied about the equity of their proceeding in it, and though they do not show sufficient warrant from the word, for their judgment, and determination. And this must hold, in all cases whatsoever. Me thinks the Answerer should, upon a review, voluntarily revoke this expression, or that the Classis should profess against it, in public, as some of the ministers have affirmed to me in private, that they do ⟨p. 213⟩not assume any such power to themselves, or, if they be silent, the provincial Synod should provide that convenient means may be used to stop the spreadings of such an error, for many dangerous consequences, which their wisdoms, I doubt not, will foresee, following thereupon. To me it is manifest, that no National Synod, in these Countries, ever gave power to the Classes thus far to deprive particular Churches of the right of judging things proper to themselves, within themselves. Neither is there one word in these complaints, which, being fairly construed, & (for aught I can discern) according to the intent and expression of the Complainants themselves, requireth any thing, but what the National Synods have ordered and appointed to be done for and to all the Churches, and which the Classes, if they be true to their own rules, in their first constitution, must see performed. So far are they from attempting the innovation and alteration of discipline and government so long practised in these reformed Churches.

Reply. So then. Whatsoever the Classis shall take upon them to judge, though it were unduely and disorderly brought to them, shall bind the Church so, as it must rest therein, & that they shall not meddle in it, though they are not satisfyed about the aequity of their proceeding in it, and though they doe not shew sufficient warrant from the word, for their judgment, and determination. And this must hold, in all cases whatsoever. Me thincks the Answerer should, upon a review, voluntarily revoke this expression, or that the Classis should professe against it, in publick, as some of the ministers have affirmed to me in private, that they doe ⟨p. 213⟩not assume any such power to themselves, or, if they be silent, the provinciall Synod should provide that convenient meanes may be used to stop the spreadings of such an errour, for many dangerous consequences, which their wisdoms, I doubt not, will foresee, following thereupon. To me it is manifest, that no Nationall Synod, in these Countryes, ever gave power to the Classes thus farr to deprive particular Churches of the right of judging things proper to themselves, within themselves. Neither is there one word in these complaints, which, being fairely construed, & (for augt I can discerne) according to the intent and expression of the Complainants themselves, requireth any thing, but what the Nationall Synods have ordered and appoynted to be done for and to all the Churches, and which the Classes, if they be true to their owne rules, in their first constition, must see performed. So farr are they from attempting the innovation and alteration of discipline and government so long practised in these reformed Churches.