A19884:849
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.
13, making a comparison between a particular Church, and Churches combined in Synods and Classes, he affirmeth that the difference between them is, not in the intensive consideration of their power (which the congregation hath, in reference to the Keys, within it self) but in the extensive power only, wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects, viz, to many Churches (in things common) whereas the power of a particular Church is confined, and limited within its own compass. The same author, in the 20 chapter, speaking of the summity, or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations, propoundeth the due limits of it, wherein, he conceiveth, it is to be understood, and bounded, as, that the power of particular Churches is chief. 1. in its own matters, not in things common to many Churches. 2. in case it be able to transact its own matters within it self: as, if a doubt or controversy arise, the Church hath power to terminate it, if it can: as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves, & laboured to compose the difference within themselves, but finding (not a want ⟨p. 242⟩of right to end it among themselves, but) need of more help they sent to Jerusalem freely for the help of their counsel, in this matter. 3. In case of right and lawful administration. 4. In case of no evil administration presumed by those, who, finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence, appeal to the judgment of the Synod. In which 3 last limitations, other Churches (to whose judgment, or advice, persons injured by an unjust sentence appeal) do concur, in way of counsel, and declaration of their judgment, to help particular churches to exercise their power aright,1 in their own matters, as was before noted out of Mr. Cartw. and Mr. Fenner, and out of the Author himself in the foregoing passages, with being so understood, doeth not justify any undue power of jurisdiction, if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases & manner complained of by the Subscribers: and how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section, will appear to the indifferent Reader, when he shall have compared both together.2
13, making a comparison betweene a particular Church, and Churches combined in Synods and Classes, he affirmeth that the difference betweene them is, not in the intensive consideration of their power (which the congregation hath, in reference to the Keyes, within it selfe) but in the extensive power onely, wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects, viz, to many Churches (in things common) whereas the power of a particular Church is confined, and limited within its owne compasse. The same authour, in the 20 chapter, speaking of the summity, or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations, propoundeth the due limits of it, wherein, he conceiveth, it is to be understood, and bounded, as, that the power of particular Churches is cheife. 1. in its owne matters, not in things commō to many Churches. 2. in case it be able to transact its owne matters within it selfe: as, if a doubt or controversy arise, the Church hath power to terminate it, if it can: as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves, & laboured to compose the difference within themselves, but finding (not a want ⟨p. 242⟩of right to end it among themselves, but) need of more helpe they sent to Ierusalem freely for the helpe of their counsail, in this matter. 3. In case of right and lawfull administration. 4. In case of no evill administration praesumed by those, who, finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence, appeale to the judgment of the Synod. In which 3 last limitations, other Churches (to whose judgment, or advice, persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeale) doe concurr, in way of counsail, and declaration of theire judgment, to helpe particular churches to excercise theire power aright,1 in theyre owne matters, as was before noated out of Mr. Cartw. and Mr. Fenner, and out of the Authour himselfe in the foregoing passages, wich being so understood, doeth not justifye any undue power of jurisdict•ō, if it be excercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases & manner complained of by the Subcribers: and how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section, will appeare to the indifferent Reader, when he shall have compared boath together.2
Thus we have examined his own witnesses, and find them wholly for us in this cause. To these I might add Dr. Ames in that which he wrote, in his latter time, wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set down his judgment more warily, in this matter,1 then formerly. See his cases of conscience, the 4, Book where he speaketh clearly of this power as essentially belonging to particular Churches. To him I may add Mr. Paul Baynes, a man of singular note for learning and piety, in Cambridge, where he succeeded Mr. Perkins, who freely expresseth his judgment for the right of particular Churches,2 and their independence, in this sense, in his Diocesans trial. With whom I might join the Replyer upon Dr. Downams defence, who, not only declareth his own judgment herein concurring with the above mentioned, but also joineth with them the suffrages of diverse others, as the Centurists, Illiricus, D. Andrewes Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Fulke, Willet, Thom: Bell, Cyprian, Augustine, Gerson, Ferus,
Thus we have examined his owne witnesses, and find them wholy for us in this cause. To these I might add Dr. Ames in that which he wrote, in his latter time, wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set downe his jugdment more warily, in this matter,1 then formerly. See his cases of conscience, the 4, Booke where he speaketh clearly of this power as essentially belonging to particular Churches. To him I may add Mr. Paul Baynes, a man of singular noate for learning and piety, in Cambridge, where he succeeded Mr. Perkins, who freely expresseth his jugdment for the right of particular Churches,2 and their independence, in this sense, in his Diocesans tryall. With whom I might joyne the Replyer vpon Dr. Downams defence, who, not onely declareth his owne jugdment herein concurring with the above mentioned, but also joyneth with them the suffrages of diverse others, as the Centurists, Illiricus, D. Andrewes Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Fulke, Willet, Thom: Bell, Ciprian, Augustine, Gerson, Ferus,
1To the same purpose, hath a worthy, and learned writer of these countries Voetius, Professor of Divinity in Utrecht ⟨p. 243⟩whose words I thus translate.2 The Church is the spouse of Christ, which is the proper and adequate subject of that power, to whom Christ hath committed that delegate right, reserving the chief to himself. Which aught to be and to remain so proper to the Church, that it, neither may be snatched away by the authority of others, nor lost by their voluntary concession, nor committed to the trust of any other; although diverse acts belonging to the calling of a Minister may and aught to be performed by certain members of the Church. Thus he professedly vindicateth the Churches right in an Aristocratico-Democracy, as appeareth in the title of that chapter.
1To the same purpose, hath a worthy, and learned wrighter of these countries Voetius, Professour of Divinity in Vtrecht ⟨p. 243⟩whose words I thus translate.2 The Church is the spouse of Christ, which is the proper and adaequate subject of that power, to whom Christ hath committed that delegate right, reserving the cheife to himselfe. Which aught to be and to remaine so proper to the Church, that it, neither may be snatched away by the authority of others, nor lost by their voluntary concession, nor committed to the trust of any other; although diverse acts belonging to the calling of a Minister may and aught to be performed by certaine members of the Church. Thus he professedly vindicateth the Churches right in an Aristocratico-Democratie, as appeareth in the title of that chapter.
And, to conclude, thus it was ordered in the English Church at Frankfort, among the exiles in those Marian days, that,1 if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected, or found parties; if any appeal be made from them, that then such appeal be made to the body of the Congregation &c. & that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to hear and determine the said matter, or matters, as it shall seem good to the Congregation. Again If any controversy be about the doubtful meaning of any word, or words in the Discipline, that first it be referred to the Ministers, or Seniors: and, if they cannot agree thereupon, then the thing be referred to the whole Congregation.
And, to conclude, thus it was ordered in the English Church at Franckford, among the exiles in those Marian daies, that,1 if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected, or found parties; if any appeale be made from them, that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation &c. & that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare and determine the said matter, or matters, as it shall seeme good to the Congregation. Againe If any controversy be about the doubtfull meaning of any word, or words in the Discipline, that first it be referred to the Ministers, or Senjors: and, if they cannot agree thereupon, then the thing be referred to the wholl Congregation.
IN this, and the three following Sections, they bring proofs of the justness of their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis. Their first proof is,1 his giving them power to keep out such men as he would have kept out, though they abhorred all heresy and Schism. And they instance in Mr. H: and me, which is aggravated. 1. by the primary agent, he, viz the Answerer. 2. by the innocency of the persons injured, ⟨p. 244⟩they being such as abhor all heresy and schism &c. 3. by the Answerers partial carriage, he would have had other, that, to this day, hold the same opinion.
IN this, and the three following Sections, they bring proofes of the justnes of their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis. Their first proofe is,1 his giving them power to keepe out such men as he would have kept out, though they abhorred all haeresy and Schysme. And they instance in Mr. H: and me, which is aggravated. 1. by the primary agent, he, viz the Answerer. 2. by the innocency of the persons injuryed, ⟨p. 244⟩they being such as abhor all haeresy and schysme &c. 3. by the Answerers partiall carriage, he would have had other, that, to this day, hold the same opinion.
To keep out Ministers, whom the Church desireth, being free from heresy or schism, is not in the power of the Classis, by any warrant from the word, or by any order established in the Synods of these countries. And therefore the power, whereby they do that, is an undue power, and the complaint of the members against it is just. Let us examine his answers which are six.
To keepe out Ministers, whom the Church desireth, being free from haeresy or schysme, is not in the power of the Classis, by any warrant from the word, or by any order established in the Synods of these countryes. And therefore the power, whereby they doe that, is an undue power, and the complaint of the members against it is just. Let us examine his answers which are six.
The 2 first, in reference to the first aggravation, serve to accuse the Complainants of a double slander. 1. of slandering the Answerer, in saying, that he gave the Classis this power. 2. of slandering the Classis, in saying, they received and exercised this undue power, both which he aggravateth bitterly enough, after his manner. To be brief in so plain a case. Had they power to hinder the settling of any Minister in any Church, before they had examined his cause, or heard what he could say, in his own defence, as they did in Mr. H. case? or to deprive the Church of a man, whom they desired, only because he refused to baptise all that are presented, by whomsoever, though they were, neither members of that Church, nor otherwise known, and that in Amsterdam, as they did in my case? Or to proceed against men so far that abhor all heresy and schism? From the Scriptures they have no such power, nor from the Churches, nor from the Synods, nor from the fundamental laws of their own constitution. Whence then? The answerer opposeth men, upon needless jealousies, and then craveth the help of the Classis, to keep them out: they, conceiving it to be their part to defend the ministers, interpose strenuously (ah, that I could say, justly, and orderly!) and judge that such men are not fit to be settled in that Church. Hereupon the members complain that he giveth, and they receive an undue power, in this particular. Where is now the double slander? will he deny the fact? It is too evident. Will he deny it to be unduly done? The very form of subscription, required by the Classis it self, will witness against him, which excludeth not any man from the ⟨p. 245⟩Ministry in these Churches for that cause. And can they duly and justly require that of the preacher of the English Church, which is not required of any Dutch Minister, by the orders of the Classis it self?
The 2 first, in reference to the first aggravation, serve to accuse the Complainants of a double slander. 1. of slandering the Answerer, in saying, that he gave the Classis this power. 2. of slandering the Classis, in saying, they received and excercised this undue power, boath which he aggravateth bitterly enough, after his manner. To be breife in so plaine a case. Had they power to hinder the setling of any Minister in any Church, before they had examined his cause, or heard what he could say, in his owne defence, as they did in Mr. H. case? or to deprive the Church of a man, whom they desired, only because he refused to baptise all that are presented, by whomsoever, though they were, neither members of that Church, nor otherwise knowne, and that in Amsterdam, as they did in my case? Or to proceed against men so farr that abhorr all haeresy and schysme? From the Scriptures they have no such power, nor from the Churches, nor from the Synods, nor from the fundamentall lawes of their owne constitution. Whence then? The answerer opposeth men, upon needlesse jealousyes, and then craveth the helpe of the Classis, to keepe them out: they, conceiving it to be their part to defend the ministers, interpose strenuously (ab, that I could say, justly, and orderly!) and judge that such men are not fit to be setled in that Church. Hereupon the members complaine that he giveth, and they receive an undue power, in this particular. Where is now the double slander? will he deny the fact? It is too evident. Will he deny it to be unduely done? The very forme of subscription, required by the Classis it selfe, will witnes against him, which excludeth not any man from the
But the Answerer gave them not this power. The power which the Ministers of the Classis have is not of my gift, saith he, they had that power, which they exercise, before I wae. The question is not of the power which they have, in general, but of a power which they exercise, in some particular, viz, in that, whereof they complain. And herein, they do not complain of his approving their due power, but of his giving them an undue power, depriving them of men, whom they desired, without sufficient cause. This power they took not to themselves, till they were called upon to interpose for the prevention of some imagined danger, in the English Church. Who suggested those jealousies? Did not the Answerer? Who importuned them to wright what they did, in the cases here mentioned? Did not the Answerer? Who bound the Church to rest in the writings of those Ministers, in these cases? Who, but the Answerer? Let the Scripture be searched, and the text shown, wherein the word hath given them this power, to hinder the Church from choosing a Minister, otherwise free from all exception, only for such causes? Let the Synods be examined. Is there one Canon in them all to warrant their exercising such a power? Will the English Church acknowledge that they have given the Classis this power? If the Scriptures, the Synods, the Church gave it not them, if themselves sought it not, took it not, till it was given them, it must needs be that the Answerer gave it them. By what right, either he gave it, or they received it, I inquire not, let them agree about that between themselves, or rather let them, in simplicity and truth, satisfy, first their own consciences; then the Complainants.
But the Answerer gave them not this power. The power which the Ministers of the Classis have is not of my gift, sayth he, they had that power, which they excercise, before I wae. The question is not of the power which they have, in generall, but of a power which they excercise, in some particular, viz, in that, whereof they complaine. And herein, they doe not complaine of his approving their due power, but of his giving them an undue power, depriving them of men, whom they desired, without sufficient cause. This power they tooke not to themselves, till they were called upon to interpose for the prevention of some imagined danger, in the English Church. Who suggested those jealousyes? Did not the Answerer? Who importuned them to wright what they did, in the cases here mentioned? Did not the Answerer? Who bound the Church to rest in the wrightings of those Ministers, in these cases? Who, but the Answerer? Let the Scripture be searched, and the text shewen, wherein the word hath given them this power, to hinder the Church from chusing a Minister, otherwise free from all exception, onely for such causes? Let the Synods be examined. Js there one Canon in them all to warrant their excercising such a power? Will the English Church acknowledge that they have given the Classis this power? If the Scriptures, the Synods, the Church gave it not them, if themselves saught it not, tooke it not, till it was given them, it must needs be that the Answerer gave it them. By what right, either he gave it, or they received it, I inquire not, let them agree about that betweene themselves, or rather let them, in simplicity and truth, satisfye, first their owne consciences; then the Complainants.
In his third answer he chargeth Mr. Hook: and me with schism. It was requisite he should do so, else, he knew, that the Classis and he must bear the blame of usurping and exercising an undue power, to the wronging of the Church. Let us see how he proveth it.
In his third answer he chargeth Mr. Hook: and me with schysme. It was requisite he should doe so, else, he knew, that the Classis and he must beare the blame of usurping and excercising an undue power, to the wronging of the Church. Let us see how he proveth it.
First. In Mr. Hooker whom he chargeth with four opinions, which tended to schism, as he saith.
First. In Mr. Hooker whom he chargeth with fowre opinions, which tended to schysme, as he sayth.
1. The two first concern the Brownists. as, 1. his opinion that they might lawfully be received for members of that Church. 2. that, in some cases, the members of this Church might hear at their assemblies.
1. The two first concerne the Brownists. as, 1. his opinion that they might lawfully be received for members of that Church. 2. that, in some cases, the members of this Church might heare at their assemblyes.
To help the Reader to a right understanding of this cause (till Mr. H. shall think it fit to speak for himself) I will show 3. things. 1. That Mr. H. did not approve of the Brownists judgment, in the point of Separation: for, in express words, he answereth to the first question. To separate from the faithful assemblies, and Churches in England, as no Churches, is an error in judgment, and sin in practise, held, and maintained by the Brownists. And therefore to communicate with them, either in this their opinion, or practise is sinful, and utterly unlawful. 2. That he delivered his judgement herein with considerable cautions. as 1. that men should renounce their opinion and practise. 2. that care be taken to prevent offence, either by encouraging them in their way; or by drawing ours to a further approbation of that way then is meet. 3. that whatsoever moderation he allowed, in this case,, was to be understood. 1. according to the former caution and interpretation, and 2. upon supposition, 1. that they erred in this point, not obstinately, but for want of light and conviction, as appeareth in his answer to the second question. 2. that the person thus opinionated, is, in his judgment and life otherwise altogether unblameable, & such an one, as, in the judgment of reasonable charity, may be counted a member of Christ, & so a Saint. 1 Cor. 1.2. 3. That the judging a man unfit to be received a member, for an erroneous opinion in such a kind, is to confirm the Brownists in that unsupportable and absurd censure which now they maintain, touching those that hold the Churches in England true Churches, & profess they will occasionally communicate therein: as appeareth in his answer to the third question.
To helpe the Reader to a right understanding of this cause (till Mr. H. shall thinck it fit to speake for himselfe) I will shew 3. things. 1. That Mr. H. did not approve of the Brownists judgment, in the point of Seperation: for, in expresse words, he answereth to the first question. To seperate from the faithfull assemblies, and Churches in England, as no Churches, is an errour in judgment, and sinne in practise, held, and maintayned by the Brownists. And therefore to communicate with them, either in this their opinion, or practise is sinfull, and utterly unlawfull. 2. That he delivered his judgement herein with considerable cautions. as 1. that men should renounce their opinion and practise. 2. that care be taken to prevent offence, either by incouraging them in their way; or by drawing ours to a further approbation of that way then is meet. 3. that whatsoever moderation he allowed, in this case,, was to be understood. 1. according to the former caution and interpretation, and 2. upon supposition, 1. that they erred in this point, not obstinately, but for want of light and conviction, as appeareth in his answer to the second question. 2. that the person thus opinionated, is, in his judgment and life otherwise altogether unblameable, & such an one, as, in the judgment of reasonable charity, may be counted a member of Christ, & so a Saint.
These things being duly weighed, I leave it to the judgment of the indifferent Reader whether a man allowing such men to be received members with that Church, or others differing from them in judgement and practise, about Separation, to hear with ⟨p. 247⟩them occasionally, and extra casum scandali, without offence, and expressing himself in these points, with such interpretations, cautions, and suppositions, may justly be charged with schism?
These things being duely weighed, I leave it to the judgment of the indifferent Reader whether a man allowing such men to be received members with that Church, or others differing frō them in judgement and practise, about Seperation, to heare with ⟨p. 247⟩them occasionally, and extra casum scandali, without offence, and expressing himselfe in these points, with such interpretations, cautions, and suppositions, may justly be charged with schysme?
3. The third opinion which he held, and, the Answerer saith, tended to schism, was that private men might preach and expound the Scripture &c. In the 17. question propounded to him by the Answerer, he expresseth his judgment by a distinction of a double ground, from which this may be done, viz, either ex officio, or ex dono. i. e. by virtue of an office, (and this no man may do, without a calling thereunto from the Church,) or from the gift that Christ doeth dispense to several members, according to their measure, & the place they hold in the body, and that thus any Christian may privately do, as opportunity & expediency serve, he holdeth, and therein professeth his agreement with Dr. Ames in the 14. Book of cases of consc: cap. 25. who proveth it, both by Scripture and reason. And will any man say that this is an opinion or practise of Schism?
3. The third opinion which he held, and, the Answerer sayth, tended to schysme, was that private men might preach and expound the Scripture &c. In the 17. question propounded to him by the Answerer, he expresseth his judgment by a distinction of a double ground, from which this may be done, viz, either ex officio, or ex dono. i. e. by vertue of an office, (and this no man may doe, without a calling thereunto from the Church,) or from the gift that Christ doeth dispense to severall members, according to their measure, & the place they hold in the body, and that thus any Christian may privately doe, as opportunity & expediency serve, he holdeth, and therein professeth his agreement with Dr. Ames in the 14. Booke of cases of consc: cap. 25. who proveth it, both by Scripture and reason. And will any man say that this is an opinion or practise of Schysme?
4. The fourth opinion, which he held, and for which the Answerer accuseth him of schism, is, that Churches combined with the Classis might choose a Minister, either without, or against the consent of the Classis, under which they stood. Let his ans. were to the 11. Quest: be examined, which we will transcribe word for word out of the written copy.
4. The fourth opinion, which he held, and for which the Answerer accuseth him of schysme, is, that Churches combined with the Classis might choose a Minister, either without, or against the consent of the Classis, under which they stood. Let his ans. wer to the 11. Quest: be examined, which we will transcribe word for word out of the written copy.
