A19884:910
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.
IN this Section they produce the third proof of the justness of their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis, to wit, his violent bringing of matters to the Classis, when he cannot have his will unjustly satisfied.] Which complaint they aggravate by the dangerous consequent, or rather effect of it: for, they say, he destroys the power of the Church utterly, often affirming, they can do nothing, in these cases, without the Classis.] And, to prevent an objection against themselves about what they had said concerning the undue power of the Classis, they profess their reverent esteem of them for counsel & advise in all difficult matters that cannot be ended in their own Consistory.
IN this Section they produce the third proofe of the justnes of their complaint of his subjecting the Church under an undue power of the Classis, to wit, his violent bringing of matters to the Classis, when he cannot have his will unjustly satisfyed.] Which complaint they agravate by the dangerous consequent, or rather effect of it: for, they say, he destroyes the power of the Church utterly, often affirming, they can doe nothing, in these cases, without the Classis.] And, to prevent an objection against themselves about what they had said concerning the undue power of the Classis, they professe their reverent esteeme of them for counsail & advise in all difficult matters that cannot be ended in theire owne Consistory.
That what is said, on both sides, concerning this matter, may the more easily and clearly be understood, these things must be premised. 1. that they do not complain of his taking advise and counsel of the Classis in difficult matters. For therein, they say, they esteem reverently of them. 2. Nor, that they bring such matters to the Classis as cannot be ended in their own Consistory. But the thing they complain of, is. 1. that he bringeth ⟨p. 265⟩such things to the Classis as may be ended in the Consistory. 2. that he doeth it violently, that is, without consent of the rest. 3. that his principal motive, or inducement thereunto, is, the satisfaction of his own will. 4. That he doeth it under a pretence that the Church can do nothing in such matters (to wit, as those in question, the making of an order for a decent and orderly performance of a Religious duty, in a right administration of baptism, and the choosing of their own Pastors, when they pitch upon men abhorring all heresy and schism, &c. and craving the help of an assistant for a time, in the Churches necessity) which, they truly say, is a destroying of the power of the Church.
That what is said, on boath sides, concerning this matter, may the more easily and clearely be understood, these things must be premised. 1. that they doe not complaine of his taking advise and counsail of the Classis in difficult matters. For therein, they say, they esteeme reverently of them. 2. Nor, that they bring such matters to the Classis as cannot be ended in their owne Consistory. But the thing they complaine of, is. 1. that he bringeth ⟨p. 265⟩such things to the Classis as may be ended in the Consistory. 2. that he doeth it violently, that is, without consent of the rest. 3. that his principall motive, or inducement thereunto, is, the satisfaction of his owne will. 4. That he doeth it under a pretence that the Church can doe nothing in such matters (to wit, as those in question, the making of an order for a decent and orderly performance of a Religious duety, in a right administration of baptisme, and the chusing of their owne Pastors, when they pitch upon men abhorring all haeresy and schysme, &c. and craving the helpe of an assistant for a time, in the Churches necessity) which, they truely say, is a destroying of the power of the Church.
Now, let us see his answers hereunto, which are fix.
Now, let us see his answers hereunto, which are fixe.
1. His first answer is, It is no act of violence, but a refuge against violence, to refer those things to the Classis, which men conceive to be unjustly done; or delayed in the Consistory.] Reply. Violence is, either opposed to that which is just, or to that which is voluntary. In their complaint the sense seemeth carry it to both, and so, that is violently done which is done, both unjustly, and without consent. That he did it without consent the Answerer acknowledgeth, but denieth that he did it unjustly, and retorteth the imputation of violence and injustice upon them, either for doing or delaying some thing in the Consistory unjustly. He is now become an accuser of them, and plaintiff, and therefore, according to his own rule, is to bring proof. If he say, they did unjustly in making orders about such matters (without the consent of the Classis) let him show what rule is transgressed thereby. This he should have done before he had taken the matter out of their hands, and carried it into the Classis, that they might have been convinced of the equity of his so doing. If he can not; Let him bear the just blame of slandering the Consistory in print, and of depriving the Church of her due power in her own matters, which the law of God, and the Synodal canons of these lands acknowledge to be due to her in things of this nature, as it hath been formerly declared. And therefore he need not scoffingly ask of these Complainants for their warrant, or evidence that he destroyeth the power of the Church. Those spoken of in Sect. 27. have given it,1 if he will give the days leave to speak, and the multitude of years to teach wisdom.
1. His first answer is, It is no act of violence, but a refuge against violence, to refer those things to the Classis, which men conceive to be unjustly done; or delayed in the Consistory.] Reply. Violence is, either opposed to that which is just, or to that which is voluntary. In their complaint the sense seemeth carry it to boath, and so, that is violently done which is done, both unjustly, and without consent. That he did it without consent the Answerer acknowledgeth, but denyeth that he did it unjustly, and retorteth the imputation of violence and injustice upon them, either for doing or delaying some thing in the Consistory unjustly. He is now become an accuser of them, and plaintiffe, and therefore, according to his owne rule, is to bring proofe. If he say, they did unjustly in making orders about such matters (without the consent of the Classis) let him shew what rule is transgressed thereby. This he should have done before he had taken the matter out of their hands, and carryed it into the Classis, that they might have bene convinced of the aequity of his so doing. If he can not; Let him beare the just blame of slandering the Cō sistory in print, and of depriving the Church of her due power in her owne matters, which the law of God, and the Synodall canons of these lands acknowledge to be due to her in things of this nature, as it hath bene formerly declared. And therefore he need not scoffingly aske of these Complainants for their warrant, or evidence that he destroyeth the power of the Church. Those spoken of in Sect. 27. have given it,
2. His second answer accuseth them of folly, and that order in the Church, which they plead for, according to the ordinance of Christ, as a bondage, servitude, burden, oppression &c.
2. His second answer accuseth them of folly, and that order in the Church, which they plead for, according to the ordinance of Christ, as a bondage, servitude, burthen, oppression &c.
Reply. They complain that when he can not have his will unjustly satisfied in the Consistory, he violently, without their consent, bringeth matters thence into the Classis. If this complaint be just, it is not slight. His carriage in late differences maketh it suspicious that the root of the matter is in him. For let the ground of these troubles be considered, and it will be found that the thing, for which he contendeth, is not necessary: either as a mean for Gods glory, and the Churches edification, or as commanded of God; nor is it enjoined in any Canon of these Belgic National Synods; nor is it expressly, and particularly required, by any Classis, of any Dutch Ministers in their admission. So that it is not difficult to determine from what distempered principle these disordered motions have arisen, and who is to be accounted burdened, in this respect.
Reply. They complaine that when he can not have his will unjustly satisfyed in the Consistory, he violently, without their consent, bringeth matters thence into the Classis. Jf this complaint be just, it is not slight. His carriage in late differences maketh it suspicious that the roote of the matter is in him. For let the ground of these troubles be considered, and it will be found that the thing, for which he contendeth, is not necessary: either as a meane for Gods glory, and the Churches aedification, or as commanded of God; nor is it injoyned in any Canon of these Belgick Nationall Synods; nor is it expresly, and particularly required, by any Classis, of any Dutch Ministers in their admission. So that it is not difficult to determine from what distempered principle these disordered motions have arisen, and who is to be accounted burthened, in this respect.
As for the folly, which he chargeth upon the Complainants, that, pretending to stand for the liberty of the Church, they seek to bring themselves into bondage; the question is, whether is the way of liberty or bondage to the Church? That which Christ hath appointed? or that which men, without Christs warrant, have devised? If the way of Christ is the way of liberty: the question will be, which is the way of Christ? whether that particular Churches have power within themselves to choose a fit Pastor, and to crave the help of one well known unto them in time of the Churches necessity, & to see that Baptism be decently & orderly administered? or that they so depend upon Classes for their leave & permission herein, as to be hindered by them from doing any of these, at their pleasure? If the first is the way of Christ; let the Answerer beware that he be not found a false witness against Christ, and his ways in making them ways of folly, and servitude, &c. If the latter be the way of Christ, let him show it (and not say it only) I say, show, and prove it by Scripture, for the satisfaction of the people that depend upon his ministry. And till he can do that, let him forbear such expressions.
As for the folly, which he chargeth upon the Complainants, that, pretending to stand for the liberty of the Church, they seeke to bring themselves into bondage; the question is, whether is the way of liberty or bondage to the Church? That which Christ hath appointed? or that which men, without Christs warrant, have devised? If the way of Christ is the way of liberty: the question will be, which is the way of Christ? whether that particular Churches have power within themselves to chuse a fit Pastor, and to crave the helpe of one well knowne unto them in time of the Churches necessity, & to see that Baptisme be decently & orderly administred? or that they so depend upon Classes for their leave & permission herein, as to be hindred by them from doing any of these, at their pleasure? If the first is the way of Christ; let the Answerer beware that he be not found a false witnesse against Christ, and his wayes in making them wayes of folly, and servitude, &c. If the latter be the way of Christ, let him shew it (and not say it onely) I say, shew, and prove it by Scripture, for the satisfaction of the people that depend upon his ministry. And till he can doe that, let him forbeare such expressions.
3. His third answer is by asking what men should do, when ⟨p. 267⟩they think the Elders to be in an error? Reply, If a man think them to be in an error, what should he do else but show them their error by the word, and, if the case prove difficult, crave (with common consent) the help of other mens, or Churches light (as occasion shall require) to make the matter clear? But the rule warranteth not any man, upon his mere thought that they err, to carry the matters quite out of their hands & power, without their consent, or declaring the equity of his so doing to the satisfaction of the Church. For, upon such a pretence, if the Classis be partially addicted to the Minister, all Church proceedings will be hindered. And hence it was indeed, as Dr. Bilson observed, that the frequency of Synods did diminish the authority & necessity of the Consistorian meeting of Elders. For, after that the meeting of Synods twice a year was ordained in the Council of Nice and Calcedon, the Elders began to be in less use and account, the Synods as higher judges taking upon them the examination and decision of those things, which were wont to be agitated in the presbyteries. What he saith of the Hierarchical Synods, in that place, will be found true also of the Classis, by this course, and much more, seeing they meet six times a year.
3. His third answer is by asking what men should doe, when ⟨p. 267⟩they thinck the Elders to be in an errour? Reply, If a man thinck them to be in an errour, what should he doe else but shew them their errour by the word, and, if the case prove difficult, crave (with common consent) the helpe of other mens, or Churches light (as occasion shall require) to make the matter cleare? But the rule warranteth not any man, upon his mere thought that they erre, to carry the matters quite out of their hands & power, without their consent, or declaring the aequity of his so doing to the satisfaction of the Church. For, upon such a pretence, if the Classis be partially addicted to the Minister, all Church proceedings will be hindred. And hence it was indeed, as Dr. Bilson observed, that the frequency of Synods did diminish the authority & necessity of the Consistorian meeting of Elders. For, after that the meeting of Synods twise a yeare was ordayned in the Councill of Nice and Calcedon, the Elders began to be in lesse use and account, the Synods as higher judges taking upon them the examination and decision of those things, which were wont to be agitated in the presbyteryes. What he sayth of the Hierarchicall Synods, in that place, will be found true also of the Classis, by this course, and much more, seing they meete sixe times a yeare.
4. His fourth answer needeth no other reply then what is made already to the like (if not the same) pretence in his fifth answer, examined in the 23. Section, whereunto J refer the Reader.
4. His fourth answer needeth no other reply then what is made already to the like (if not the same) pretence in his fifth answer, examined in the 23. Section, whereunto J referr the Reader.
5. His fifth answer is already replied upon in examination of the 27. Section.
5. His fifth answer is already replyed upon in examination of the 27. Section.
6. His sixth answer also is replied upon before, in several passages, and the vanity of it discovered.
6. His sixth answer also is replyed upon before, in severall passages, and the vanity of it discovered.
The authority and power, which they complain that their Church is subjected under, is still by the Complainants declared to be undue by another instance, in that it is such as is not competent to any men that are not subject to error, and hereunto they add another aggravation, viz, that it is done without the Churches consent.1 M. Parker in his learned discourse of Ecclesiastical policy showeth, at large, that Churches are no further under the authority of Synods then they have subjected themselves by their own consent. And, as for binding men to rest in their determinations, as if they were infallible, both Dr. Whittaker, and Junius, in showing that Councils are subject to error, have given sufficient light for discovery of the evil of that practise.
THe authority and power, which they complaine that theyr Church is subjected under, is still by the Complainants declared to be undue by another instance, in that it is such as is not competent to any men that are not subject to errour, and hereunto they add another aggravation, viz, that it is done without the Churches consent.1 M. Parker in his learned discourse of Ecclesiasticall policy sheweth, at large, that Churches are no furher under the authority of Synods then they have subjected themselves by their owne consent. And, as for binding men to rest in their determinations, as if they were infallible, both Dr. Whittaker, and Iunius, in shewing that Councills are subject to errour, have given sufficient light for discovery of the evill of that practise.
