A19884:855
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…
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.
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