A19884:774
A19884:774
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.An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver 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 wrightings. By Iohn Davenporte 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.
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.
Their second proof of his depriving the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church, is, 1that he hath protested against their judgment in matters which might have been ended in the Consistory, and, in that respect, aught not to have been brought to the Classis, yet he hath carried them thither.
THeir second proofe of his depriving the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church, is, 1that he hath protested against their judgment in matters which might have bene ended in the Consistory, and, in that respect, aught not to have bene brought to the Classis, yet he hath carryed them thither.
This passage I would have passed by, Reply. if his frequent mentioning my name in the 25. and 26. Sections had not compelled me to examine it. The cases, wherein they complain that he hath needlessly waved the judgment of the Elders, are three. 1. concerning an order that should have been made for my accommodation, in the question about promiscuous administering Baptism to all that are brought, in that place Sect: 25. 2. about be ⟨p. 214⟩an agreement amongst the Elders that a convenient time should be given me to, go on in assisting the Answerer, to see, if, in that time, I could obtain that this question might be laid aside, and inform my self more fully concerning the orders and customs of the Dutch Church, whereunto my conformity was required Sect: 26. 3. Concerning his refusal to let Mr. Weld preach, though he confessed he had nothing against him, without consent of the Classis &c. ibid. Whereby it appeareth that they do not complain of his seeking advise of neighbour ministers simply and absolutely, but, 1. in certain cases, there mentioned. And therefore they do not, in their writing, divide the one from the other into several Sections (for that is his own contrivement) but relate all together in one entire Sentence 2. the cases produced by them are such, wherein the matter might have been determined, and concluded by the Eldership, without violation of any order established in the government of those Churches. 3. The matter was so carried by him, in this needles appeal to the Classis, that their agreement was nullified.
This passage I would have passed by, Reply. if his frequent mentioning my name in the 25. and 26. Sections had not compelled me to examine it. The cases, wherein they complaine that he hath nedlesly waved the judgment of the Elders, are three. 1. concerning an order that should have bene made for my accommodation, in the question about promiscuous administring Baptisme to all that are brought, in that place Sect: 25. 2. about be ⟨p. 214⟩an agreement amongst the Elders that a convenient time should be given me to, goe on in assisting the Answerer, to see, if, in that time, I could obtayne that this question might be layd aside, and informe my selfe more fully concerning the orders and customs of the Dutch Church, whereunto my conformity was required Sect: 26. 3. Concerning his refusall to let Mr. Weld preach, though he confessed he had nothing against him, without consent of the Classis &c. ibid. Whereby it appeareth that they doe not complaine of his seeking advise of neighbour ministers simply and absolutely, but, 1. in certaine cases, there mentioned. And therefore they doe not, in their wrighting, divide the one from the other into severall Sections (for that is his owne contrivement) but relate all together in one intire Sentence 2. the cases produced by them are such, wherein the matter might have bene determined, and concluded by the Eldership, without violation of any order established in the government of those Churches. 3. The matter was so carryed by him, in this needles appeale to the Classis, that their agreement was nullifyed.
These things being premised, the insufficiency of his five answers in the 24. Section will be obvious to the indifferent Reader, in particulars; thus.
For the first,] His thinking that the Elders err in their judgment, in such cases as these in question, is not a sufficient ground of an appeal, as may appear in reason: For so no cause should be ended in their Consistory, though the Elders unanimously consent in their judgment, if the Pastor differ from them, out of an obstinate will, without giving sufficient reason of his dissenting, and then, to what end are the meetings of the Eldership? Whereas he calleth upon them to prove it by Scripture, they may, with better warrant, require him to prove by Scripture the lawfulness of such appeals, in such cases, for which they find no word commanding or approving them.
For the first,] His thincking that the Elders erre in their judgment, in such cases as these in question, is not a sufficient ground of an appeale, as may appeare in reason: For so no cause should be ended in their Consistory, though the Elders unanimously consēt in their judgment, if the Pastor differ from them, out of an obstinate will, without giving sufficient reason of his dissenting, and then, to what end are the meetings of the Eldership? Whereas he calleth upon them to prove it by Scripture, they may, with better warrant, require him to prove by Scripture the lawfullnes of such appeales, in such cases, for which they find no word commanding or approving them.
For the second] Unless he can prove those agreements amongst the Elders to be sins, and unfruitful works of darkness he will be found guilty of a double sin. 1. that he opposed the ⟨p. 215⟩Elders, without just cause. 2. that he misapplieth Scripture to justify his unjust opposition of them.
For the second] Unlesse he can prove those agreements amongst the Elders to be sinnes, and unfruitfull workes of darkenes he will be found guilty of a double sinne. 1. that he opposed the ⟨p. 215⟩Elders, without just cause. 2. that he misapplyeth Scripture to justifye his unjust opposition of them.
For the third] It is granted that, as Councils may err, so may Consistories much more easily, and that all obedience aught to be in the Lord. But, with all, that the protesters against them, aught to declare the equity of their so doing, from Scripture, or good reason, which hath not been done by the Answerer.
For the third] It is granted that, as Councills may erre, so may Consistoryes much more easily, and that all obedience aught to be in the Lord. But, with all, that the protesters against them, aught to declare the aequity of their so doing, from Scripture, or good reason, which hath not bene done by the Answerer.
For the fourth] The pretended reason, whereby the Answerer would justify this Act; taken from the very foundation of government, and institution of diverse judicatories, to take, away disagreement, strife, controversies, or different pleadings among men, will not help him in the cases questioned, unless he can prove, 1. that the Classes are of the same use, by Divine institution, for the help of Pastors which have the assistance of their Eldership,1 whereof that judicatory was for the help of Moses (who was not able alone to bear the cumbrances and strifes of the people) and of the Kings of Israel afterwards; which they deny. 2. that the causes in question, which he carried from the Consistory to the Classis,2 are of the same nature with those causes between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, which were deferred to the Levites, the Priests, and chief of the Fathers of Israel, that men might be warned by them, that they trespass not against the Lord. This also they deny, and may justly accuse him of misapplying the Scriptures noted by him in the margin.
For the fourth] The pretended reason, whereby the Answerer would justifye this Act; taken from the very foundation of government, and institution of diverse judicatories, to take, away disagreement, strife, controversies, or different pleadings among men, will not helpe him in the cases questioned, unlesse he can prove, 1. that the Classes are of the same use, by Divine institution, for the helpe of Pastors which have the assistance of their Eldership,1 whereof that judicatorye was for the helpe of Moses (who was not able alone to beare the cumbrances and strifes of the people) and of the Kings of Israel afterwards; which they deny. 2. that the causes in question, which he carryed from the Consistory to the Classis,2 are of the same nature with those causes betweene blood and blood, betweene law and commandment, statutes and judgments, which were deferred to the Levites, the Preists, and cheife of the Fathers of Israel, that men might be warned by them, that they trespasse not against the Lord. This also they deny, and may justly accuse him of misapplying the Scriptures noated by him in the margine.
5. To the fifth] It is true, that the power of the Elders in government had not been overthrown by his bringing any matter unlawfully unto the Classis, if it were the manner of the Classis, in such cases, to remit the matter to the Consistory again. But, what one instance can he produce, in the particulars whereof they complain, or in any other case brought by him to them, wherein the matter was remitted to the Consistory: Why so? It was not because the businesses were so weighty that it hath been agreed in the Synods that they shall not be proceeded in, without advise of the Classis; nor, because they concerned many Churches, and therefore require the consent of all ⟨p. 216⟩What then? It was, because the Elders could not satisfy him, nor he them, as he intimateth in the answer before. But, why was he not satisfied? Because he would not be satisfied, unless the matter might be carried according to his will. For, no sufficient reason was given by him against it, at that time. So then, if he will end a business in the Consistory, there it shall be ended, but, if he see that it will be carried against his mind there, it shall not be ended there, but be taken out of their hands and carried to the Classis, where he knoweth how to bring his purpose about. Thus he hath two strings to his bow. But, in the mean time, is not the power of the Elders in government overthrown thereby?
5. To the fifth] It is true, that the power of the Elders in government had not bene overthrowne by his bringing any matter unlawfully unto the Classis, if it were the manner of the Classis, in such cases, to remitt the matter to the Consistory againe. But, what one instance can he produce, in the particulars whereof they complaine, or in any other case brought by him to them, wherein the matter was remitted to the Consistory: Why so? It was not because the buisenesses were so weighty that it hath bene agreed in the Synods that they shall not be proceeded in, without advise of the Classis; nor, because they concerned many Churches, and therefore require the consent of all ⟨p. 216⟩What then? It was, because the Elders could not satisfye him, nor he them, as he intimateth in the answer before. But, why was he not satisfyed? Because he would not be satisfyed, unlesse the matter might be carryed according to his will. For, no sufficient reason was given by him against it, at that time. So then, if he will end a buisenes in the Consistory, there it shall be ended, but, if he see that it will be carryed against his mind there, it shall not be ended there, but be taken out of their hands and carryed to the Classis, where he knoweth how to bring his purpose about. Thus he hath two strings to his bow. But, in the meane time, is not the power of the Elders in governmēt overthrowne thereby?
1In the 25. Sect. they speak of an agreement amongst the Elders to make an order that those who were not members of that Church should make themselves known to me, 2that I might be satisfied concerning them, before they should present their children to Baptism in public, which, they say, would have ended that difference between us, but he protested against it. If this complaint be just; is it not a grievance? let us weigh his four answers to it.
1Jn the 25. Sect. they speake of an agreement amongst the Elders to make an order that those who were not mēbers of that Church should make themselves knowne to me, 2that I might be satisfyed concerning them, before they should present their children to Baptisme in publick, which, they say, would have ended that difference betweene us, but he protested against it. If this complaint be just; is it not a greivance? let us weigh his fowre answers to it.