A19884:889
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.
Fourthly. That no good reason giveth the Classis this power of making laws, to bind particular Churches, will appear, if two things be declared. 1. what things are required to the making of a law. 2. what instances they produce to show the undue proceedings of that Classis herein. First, the things required to a law are these, at least. 1. a due authority, or power orderly authorised thereunto. 2. its consonancy and consent with the law of God. 3. that it is referred unto, and doeth respect the common good. Secondly, let the instances produced by them be brought to these rules, and it will be found, 1. that they want sufficient authority for making of such laws, 2. that such a law agreeth not with the law of God. 3. that it is not referred to the public and common good, by what hath been already said, partly in this Section, partly in the 12 Section, and partly in other Sections. The issue, whereunto the instances drive, is, that the Classis exerciseth an undue power, when it bindeth men to any observance, upon no better ground then the mere custom of a place, which is then done, when •hat custom is not warranted by the word. For, howsoever, in civill administrations, in Common wealths, some customs have the force of a law,1 (as Sir Walter Raleigh well observeth.) Yet, in Church matters it will not hold, the reason of Churches and Commonwealths being not the same. But, if the rule hold in Commonwealths, that, quod ab initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere, much more will it hold in the Church, in such a case as that unwarrantable custom of promiscuous baptising,2 which I have proved to be unlawful, in Sect. 12.
Fourthly. That no good reason giveth the Classis this power of making lawes, to bind particular Churches, will appeare, if two things be declared. 1. what things are required to the making of a law. 2. what instances they produce to shew the undue proceedings of that Classis herein. First, the things required to a law are these, at least. 1. a due authority, or power orderly authorised thereunto. 2. its consonancy and consent with the law of God. 3. that it is referred unto, and doeth respect the common good. Secondly, let the instances produced by them be brought to these rules, and it will be found, 1. that they want sufficient authority for making of such lawes, 2. that such a law agreeth not with the law of God. 3. that it is not referred to the publick and common good, by what hath bene already said, partly in this Section, partly in the 12 Section, and partly in other Sections. The issue, whereunto the instances drive, is, that the Classis excerciseth an undue power, when it bindeth men to any observance, upon no better ground then the mere custom of a place, which is then done, when •hat custom is not warranted by the word. For, howsoever, in civill administrations, in Common wealths, some customs have the force of a law,1 (as Sir Walter Raleigh well observeth.) Yet, in Church matters it will not hold, the reason of Churches and Commonwealths being not the same. But, if the rule hold in Commonwealths, that, quod ab initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere, much more will it hold in the Church, in such a case as that unwarrantable custom of promiscuous baptising,2 which I have proved to be unlawfull, in Sect. 12.
Secondly. Seeing nothing hath been said by the Answerer, ⟨p. 257⟩in defence of the proceeding of the Classis, in answer to their complaint of their exercising an undue power, in this particular, let us now see if he answer sufficiently in his own defence, wherein, we will, with Gods help, examine, what he saith in answer 1. to the general charge. 2. to the proofs of it.
Secondly. Seing nothing hath bene said by the Answerer, ⟨p. 257⟩in defence of the proceeding of the Classis, in answer to their complaint of their excercising an undue power, in this particular, let us now see if he answer sufficiently in his owne defence, wherein, we will, with Gods helpe, examine, what he sayth in answer 1. to the generall charge. 2. to the proofes of it.
First. The general charge is, that he hath given them this undue power. Hereunto he pretendeth to make five Answers.
First. The generall charge is, that he hath given them this undue power. Hereunto he pretendeth to make five Answers.
1. He saith it is untrue. He only saith so, but doeth not show it to be untrue, by declaring that, either the Scriptures, or the National Synods, or the Church, or good reason hath given it them. And so seemeth to be content that the suspicion of usurping may lye upon the whole Classis, rather then he should be suspected to have given it them. But he will not so evade, if what was replied to the same answer, in the foregoing Section, be considered, and applied to this also.
1. He sayth it is untrue. He onely sayth so, but doeth not shew it to be untrue, by declaring that, either the Scriptures, or the Nationall Synods, or the Church, or good reason hath given it them. And so seemeth to be content that the suspicion of usurping may lye upon the wholl Classis, rather then he should be suspected to have given it them. But he will not so evade, if what was replyed to the same answer, in the foregoing Section, be considered, and applyed to this also.
2. In his second answer he seemeth so to deny his giving them this undue power, as withal secretly to confess that he gave them counsel to use this power. which he hath not proved to be due. That it is undue hath been proved already,, and that, it being so, he hath not behaved himself as a pastor in the government of the Church, in counselling them to use an undue power over his Church, needs no proof at all, the thing done being sufficient evidence against him.
2. In his second answer he seemeth so to deny his giving them this undue power, as withall secretly to confesse that he gave them counsaile to use this power. which he hath not proved to be due. That it is undue hath bene proved already,, and that, it being so, he hath not behaved himselfe as a pastor in the government of the Church, in counsailing them to use an undue power over his Church, needs no proofe at all, the thing done being sufficient evidence against him.
3. His third answer is a mere retortion of the complaint upon the Complainants, and a recrimination of them for allowing the Consistory to make orders & laws, & thereupon he demandeth, can this power of making laws and orders, be lawful, and due in a Consistory, and yet an undue power in the Classis? Are they not condemned of themselves? For answer hereunto, it must be understood. 1, That orders and laws are ill confounded by the Answerer, They may make orders who have no power of making laws: So Junius distinguisheth them fitly. Praelatorum non est [Greek or Hebrew] sive mandata dare: non praecepta, sed ordinationes, [Greek or Hebrew]. Ecclesiastical Governors may give orders, not laws, not commands, not precepts. Else where he saith, the Fathers called them more fitly Canons, because a Canon serveth to direct agentem ⟨p. 258⟩volùntariè, one that acteth voluntarily, whereas a law, necessitate etiam cogit in voluntarium, compelleth a man against his will, Chame••• also expresseth himself acutely to the same purpose,1 saying, that the determinations of Churches are more fitly called admonitions and exhortations then laws, and that, when they agree with the word, they are admonitions, in respect of the Church, but laws in respect of God only, to wit, because the Church commendeth that which God hath commanded, and that which the Church so commendeth is the word of God.
3. His third answer is a mere retortion of the complaint upon the Complainants, and a recrimination of them for allowing the Consistory to make orders & lawes, & thereupon he demandeth, can this power of making lawes and orders, be lawfull, and due in a Consistory, and yet an undue power in the Classis? Are they not condemned of themselves? For answer hereunto, it must be understood. 1, That orders and lawes are ill confounded by the Answerer, They may make orders who have no power of making lawes: So Iunius distinguisheth them fitly. Praelatorum non est 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 sive mandata dare: non praecepta, sed ordinationes, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ecclesiasticall Governours may give orders, not lawes, not commands, not praecepts. Else where he sayth, the Fathers called them more fitly Canons, because a Canon serveth to direct agentem
2. That all mistake may be prevented, & the two extremes avoided, of tyranny; by ascribing too much power to the Church, and of dissolute libertinism, and Anabaptism; by denying its due power, in this particular, we will declare what authority the Church hath about laws and orders, by distinguishing between laws already made,1 and laws to be made. In the first, we grant, that Church governors have great authority and power, to wit, of providing that men yield due obedience to all Gods laws and ordinances, which they are to commend and declare to the Church, and to exact their obedience thereunto. And indeed this is the very end of all Ecclesiastical authority. Rom. 1.5. and 15.18. So that herein they have more power then of admonishing, and exhorting, and reproving only, they have the power of censuring, and thereby of compelling the several members to their duty, and of seeing that all things be done in the house of God decently and in order.2
2. That all mistake may be prevented, & the two extremes avoyded, of tyranny; by ascribing too much power to the Church, and of dissolute libertinisme, and Anabaptisme; by denying its due power, in this particular, we will declare what authority the Church hath about lawes and orders, by distinguishing betweene lawes already made,1 and lawes to be made. In the first, we grant, that Church governours have great authority and power, to wit, of providing that men yeeld due obedience to all Gods lawes and ordinances, which they are to commend and declare to the Church, and to exact their obedience thereunto. And indeed this is the very end of all Ecclesiasticall authority. Rom. 1.5. and 15.18. So that herein they have more power then of admonishing, and exhorting, and reproving onely, they have the power of censuring, and thereby of compelling the severall members to their duety, and of seeing that all things be done in the house of God decently and in order.
In this sense, I conceive, the order to be made in the Consistory, is to be understood, the things thereby ordered being no other then that rule of having all holy administrations performed decently and in order requireth. And, being so understood, it doeth not at all patronize that undue power of the Classis. 1. Because the Church hath that power, in her own matters, which the Classis hath not. 2. Because this was but an order, for my accommodation, in my voluntary obedience of the word warranted by the rule, but the contrary, made by them, is a law, for the establishing of an evil custom, not warranted by the word, and to compel me, against my will, to the observance of it.
In this sense, I conceive, the order to be made in the Consistory, is to be understood, the things thereby ordered being no other then that rule of having all holy administrations performed decently and in order requireth. And, being so understood, it doeth not at all patronize that undue power of the Classis. 1. Because the Church hath that power, in her owne matters, which the Classis hath not. 2. Because this was but an order, for my accommodation, in my voluntary obedience of the word warranted by the rule, but the contrary, made by them, is a law, for the establishing of an evill custom, not warranted by the word, and to compell me, against my will, to the observance of it.
As for the second. The things, about which laws are made, are, either necessary, or indifferent. Things necessary are things commanded or forbidden in the Scripture. And they are necessary, either absolutely or in some considerable respect. Things absolutely necessary to godliness are so constituted in the Scripture that no place is left for the impositions of any new law givers. About things necessary, in some considerable respect, Church governors have power to give order, as did the Synod at Jerusalem touching those things which they called necessary Act. 15.28. viz, necessary during the time of the offence of the Jew which was necessary to be avoided. Hereunto also serveth that rule, Let all things be done decently and in order Cor. 14.40. but the rule of that decency must be, not the will and pleasure of men, but the light of nature, Scripture, or warrantable custom. For so it was in the instances given in that chapter, as, for men to pray with long hair, & women bare-headed, in those Eastern countries, and for women to speak in the Congregation, and for many men to speak at once. Things indifferent are such as, being neither commanded nor forbidden in the Scripture, may be variously permitted or prohibited according to various circumstances And they are, either improperly, or properly so called. Things improperly called indifferent, are things not necessary, but only expedient in some respect. In such cases Church governors have power to declare the decency and expediency of them: yea, and to advise and persuade the practise thereof, but not by standing laws to bind the people thereunto. As the Apostle gave his judgment 1. Cor. 7.25.40. & advise concerning single life, in time of the Churches distress: yea, and persuaded to it, for avoiding trouble in the flesh, vers. 26.28. but would not bind them to it, neither in point of conscience, nor of outward practise as having no commandment from the Lord (vers. 25.) and saith that such a commandment had been a snare (vers. 35. And herein the power of Church governors falleth short of the authority of civill Magistrates, who may, in civill matters, make standing and binding laws for any thing expedient to the Common wealth. Whereunto subjects are bound readily to submit. (1. Pet. 2.13.)
As for the second. The things, about which lawes are made, are, either necessary, or indifferent. Things necessary are things cōmanded or forbidden in the Scripture. And they are necessary, either absolutely or in some considerable respect. Things absolutely necessary to godlines are so constituted in the Scripture that no place is left for the impositions of any new law givers. About things necessary, in some considerable respect, Churchgovernours have power to give order, as did the Synod at Ierusalem touching those things which they called necessary
Things properly called indifferent I do not find in Scripture that ever Church governors did advise & persuade them, much less charge & command them, least of all make standing, & binding laws to determine them: nor doth that place in (1. Cor. 14.40.) give them any such power, nor have the Apostles themselves received any such authority from ⟨p. 260⟩Christ, as appeareth in the commission given them, which was only to teach men to observe and do what Christ shall command them, Mat. 28.20. Their office being only ministerial & economical, Christ reserving to himself the sovereign lawgiving power, as his prerogative.
Things properly called indifferent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Churchgovernours did advise & perswade them, much lesse charge & cōmand them, least of all make standing, & binding lawes to determine them: nor doth that place in (1. Cor. 14.40.) give them any such power, nor have the Apostles themselves received any such authority from ⟨p. 260⟩Christ, as appeareth in the commission given them, which was onely to teach men to observe and doe what Christ shall command them, Mat. 28.20. Their office being onely ministeriall & oeconomicall, Christ reserving to himselfe the soveraigne lawgiving power, as his praerogative.
For application of the premises to the case in question, I demand whether this custom be thus imposed as a thing properly indifferent, or as expedient, or as necessary in some considerable respect, or as absolutely necessary? If it be properly indifferent; why do they, by command, make the practise of it necessary? If it be expedient; let them show the expediency of it, & leave men free. If it be necessary, in those considerable respects; let it appear that the contrary practise will be so offensive or disorderly that, for the avoiding of that offence or disorder, a minister is bound to do it. If it be absolutely necessary to godliness; let the Scripture be shown that commandeth that practise, or forbiddeth the contrary.
For application of the premises to the case in question, I demand whether this custom be thus imposed as a thing properly indifferēt, or as expedient, or as necessary in some considerable respect, or as absolutely necessary? If it be properly indifferent; why doe they, by command, make the practise of it necessary? If it be expedient; let them shew the expediency of it, & leave men free. If it be necessary, in those considerable respects; let it appeare that the contrary practise will be so offensive or disorderly that, for the avoyding of that offence or disorder, a minister is bound to doe it. If it be absolutely necessary to godlines; let the Scripture be shewē that cōmandeth that practise, or forbiddeth the cōtrary.
His fourth answer is not worth a Reply.
His fifth answer maketh against himself. For, if they leave men at liberty about things indifferent &c. (wherein they are to be approved as walking according to the rule) why do they bind men, by unequal conditions, to this custom, which they, neither do, nor can sufficiently declare to be commanded by Christ, or to be warranted by the rule?
His fifth answer maketh against himselfe. For, if they leave men at liberty about things indifferent &c. (wherein they are to be approved as walking according to the rule) why doe they bind men, by unaequall conditions, to this custom, which they, neither doe, nor can sufficiently declare to be commanded by Christ, or to be warranted by the rule?
Let us now see what he saith to the proofs of the justness of their laying the blame of this miscarriage upon him, rather then upon the Classis.
Let us now see what he sayth to the proofes of the justnes of their laying the blame of this miscarriage upō him, rather then upō the Classis.
First. They say, that some of the Dutch Ministers themselves are willing to cast off some of their customs, if the vastness of their Church did not force them thereunto. Hereunto he giveth two answers. 1. that things simply unlawful are as well to be cast off in a great Church as in a small.] Reply. True: it is a duty as necessary to be done in the one as in the other, yet, it may more easily be done in the smaller Churches, and therefore the sin of the smaller Churches is the greater, if they do not cast off such an unwarrantable custom. The vastness of their Churches doth only excuse them, a tanto, not a toto. 2. that, in the smaller Churches in the villages, the same order is observed.] But. 1. it hath not been expressly required of any of the Ministers of those Churches (as a condition of their admittance, as it was of me) that they should rest in such a writing, which bindeth them to baptize all that are brought. 2. It may be questioned, whether all the Ministers, in those smaller villages, do so promiscuously administer Baptism, as they do, in Amsterdam, seeing such different sorts of people are not in those villages as in that City.
First. They say, that some of the Dutch Ministers themselves are willing to cast off some of their customs, if the vastnes of theire Church did not force them thereunto. Hereunto he giveth two answers. 1. that things simply unlawfull are as well to be cast off in a great Church as in a small.] Reply. True: it is a duety as necessary to be done in the one as in the other, yet, it may more easily be done in the smaller Churches, and therefore the sinne of the smaller Churches is the greater, if they doe not cast off such an unwarrantable custom. The vastnes of their Churches doth only excuse them, a tanto, not a toto. 2. that, in the smaller Churches in the villages, the same order is observed.] But. 1. it hath not bene expresly required of any of the Ministers of those Churches (as a condition of their admittāce, as it was of me) that they should rest in such a wrighting, which bindeth them to baptize all that are brought. 2. It may be questioned, whether all the Ministers, in those smaller villages, doe so promiscuously administer Baptisme, as they doe, in Amsterdam, seing such different sorts of people are not in those villages as in that Citty.
Secondly. They say, that one of the Ministers said to the Answerer in the Classis (upon occasion of his complaining of my not conforming to all their orders) why? you your self do not conform to all our orders. Hereunto he pretendeth to give five answers. I say pretendeth. For, the first answer is no answer, but only a question, who told this? His second answer is, that the mind of the Classis is not to be collected by the speech of one.] Neither do they say that all of them are of that mind, but that one of them said so, whereof, it seemeth, the rest showed no dislike, and so seemed to consent to it, and more then one of them have been heard to say as much as the Complainants affirm. His third answer is, that the speech of the Minister is not in right manner repeated by them.] But, if the matter be right, it is true in the substance of their report, which is sufficient, in this case, what ever failing may seem to be in a circumstance. His fourth answer is, that this one Minister undertook in writing to satisfy my objections, and, having replied to mine answer, received no answer to his second writing. It is true: I did not answer his second writing. 1. Because, that writing did not sufficiently answer my first. 2. Because, at that time, I wrote to the whole Classis, in which respect, there was no use of writing to one member of the Classis alone. His fifth answer is, The national Synod, at Dort, in things indifferent, 1doeth allow Churches of other Nations in these Countries to vary from their customs.] It is well they do so, and it is fit they should so do. But, if it be so. 1. why was it required of me that I should conform to all the orders and customs of the Dutch Church? 2. Why was I not allowed to vary from their customs, in the practise of promiscuous baptizing, seeing I professed that I could not do it with a good conscience, and they gave me no grounds from the Scriptures to satisfy my conscience, that I might do it lawfully?
Secondly. They say, that one of the Ministers said to the Answerer in the Classis (upon occasion of his complaining of my not conforming to all their orders) why? you your selfe doe not conforme to all our orders. Hereunto he pretendeth to give five answers. I say pretendeth. For, the first answer is no answer, but onely a question, who told this? His second answer is, that the mind of the Classis is not to be collected by the speech of one.] Neither doe they say that all of thē are of that mind, but that one of them said so, whereof, it seemeth, the rest shewed no dislike, and so seemed to consent to it, and more then one of them have bene heard to say as much as the Complainants affirme. His third answer is, that the speech of the Minister is not in right manner repeated by them.] But, if the matter be right, it is true in the substance of their report, which is sufficient, in this case, what ever fayling may seeme to be in a circumstance. His fourth answer is, that this one Minister undertooke in wrighting to satisfye my objections, and, having replyed to myne answer, received no answer to his second wrighting. It is true: I did not answer his second wrighting. 1. Because, that wrighting did not sufficiently answer my first. 2. Because, at that time, I wrote to the wholl Classis, in which respect, there was no use of wrighting to one member of the Classis alone. His fifth answer is, The nationall Synod, at Dort, in things indifferent,
