A19884:917
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.
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.
But let us see what he answereth to this complaint, in seven particulars.
But let us see what he answereth to this complaint, in seaven particulars.
1. His first is, after his usual manner, It is untrue, but, when, the Church is hindered from making an order for the decent & orderly administration of holy things, by their own power, under pretence of his taking advise of the Classis, as it was in the question about Baptism, & when J was required (& that for a condition whereupon I was to be admitted or refused) to rest in a writing of five Ministers, no rule being shown me by them from the Scripture to warrant their so doing, these things showed it to be true.
1. His first is, after his usuall manner, It is untrue, but, when, the Church is hindred from making an order for the decent & orderly administration of holy things, by their owne power, under pretence of his taking advise of the Classis, as it was in the question about Baptisme, & when J was required (& that for a cōdition whereupon I was to be admitted or refused) to rest in a wright•ng of five Ministers, no rule being shewne me by them from the Scripture to warrant their so doing, these things shewed it to be true.
2. His second answer is, that the same thing may be alleged against any Pastor in the reformed Churches. But this is an injury to all reformed Churches and Pastors, unless he can ⟨p. 269⟩prove that, in the fame particulars, they subject their Churches to the same undue power of Classes, and in the same manner as he hath done. Which he never will be able to do. It is true, that Classical assemblies (or such like) are a special bond of union and sinew of government, in them all, but to argue, from the lawful use, to justify the unlawful abuse of them, is unsound reasoning.
2. His second answer is, that the same thing may be alleadged against any Pastor in the reformed Churches. But this is an injury to all reformed Churches and Pastors, unlesse he can ⟨p. 269⟩prove that, in the fame particulars, they subject their Churches to the same undue power of Classes, and in the same manner as he hath done. Which he never will be able to doe. It is true, that Classicall assemblies (or such like) are a speciall bond of union and sinew of government, in them all, but to argue, from the lawfull use, to justify the unlawfull abuse of them, is unsound reasoning.
3. His third answer is to their charging him with doing this under a pretence of asking, and taking advise of the Classis. Which he denieth, and saith that he professeth openly the authority and power of Synods and Classis to be lawful and necessary, as well as their counsel and advise. Neither do they deny the authority, and due power of Synods and Classes to be lawful, and necessary, but they complain of an undue power and authority ascribed to Classes by the Answerer, and they declare, by instances, what that power is which they account undue. Now, unless he can prove that power to be due, which they have affirmed to be undue, he hath not answered their complaint, which is, that, under pretence of asking and taking their advise, he subjecteth the Church under that power, which they affirm to be undue. That he doeth so subject them hath been showed, and that he pretendeth only to ask, and take their advise, his own expressions, both by speeches, at other times, and in diverse passages of this book, declare sufficiently.
3. His third answer is to their charging him with doing this under a pretence of asking, and taking advise of the Classis. Which he denyeth, and sayth that he professeth openly the authority and power of Synods and Classis to be lawfull and necessary, as well as their counsail and advise. Neither doe they deny the authority, and due power of Synods and Classes to be lawfull, and necessary, but they complaine of an undue power and authority ascribed to Classes by the Answerer, and they declare, by instances, what that power is which they account undue. Now, unlesse he can prove that power to be due, which they have affirmed to be undue, he hath not answered their complaint, which is, that, under pretence of asking and taking their advise, he subjecteth the Church under that power, which they affirme to be undue. That he doeth so subject them hath bene shewed, and that he pretendeth onely to aske, and take their advise, his owne expressions, both by speeches, at other times, and in diverse passages of this booke, declare sufficiently.
4. His fourth answer is to their saying that the Church never acknowledged any such power to be due, whereunto he answereth, 1. by showing the agreement between the ancient English inhabitants there, the Magistrates, and the Dutch Ministers, which was to have such an English Church as should accord with the Dutch, in the same order of Discipline and Government. 2. By declaring that, since his first coming (but he saith not how long after his first coming) he was admitted to be a member of the Classis. 3. By showing the manner of their receiving members, viz, by profession of the same faith with them, and by solemn promise covenanting to submit unto the discipline of this Church according to the rule of Christ.
4. His fourth answer is to their saying that the Church never acknowledged any such power to be due, whereunto he answereth, 1. by shewing the agreement betweene the ancient English inhabitants there, the Magistrates, and the Dutch Ministers, which was to have such an English Church as should accord with the Dutch, in the same order of Discipline and Government. 2. By declaring that, since his first comming (but he sayth not how long after his first comming) he was admitted to be a member of the Classis. 3. By shewing the manner of their receiving members, viz, by profession of the same fayth with them, and by solemne promise covenanting to submit unto the discipline of this Church according to the rule of Christ.
But, what is in all these passages to prove their submission to ⟨p. 270⟩any undue power and authority of the Classis? Nay, when they profess to submit unto the discipline of this Church, according to the rule of Christ, do they not therein implicitly profess against submission to any undue power of the Classis? And, as little doeth the practise of any members since, in resorting to the Classis, upon occasion of asking their judgment in matters controverted among them, establish any undue power of theirs. And, to what end should those that join with his Church, leaving their separation, come with a protest against the undue power of the Classis, when they knew not of their subjection thereunto, no more being required of them in their Covenant, at their first admission, then submission to the discipline of this Church, according to the role of Christ? As for that, which he addeth, of their choosing rather to continue as they were, then to be of the English Synod, this doeth not testify their acknowledgement of their subjection to any undue power of the Classis. But, how, were they under the Classis, when, not long before that, the Answerer himself (as Mr. Forbes assured me) laboured to set up an English Classis or Synod, which not succeeding, in his endeavour at that time, he never after attempted to procure, nor would join with, being after set up, at the procurements of others. As for St: Offw: report of Geneva; we have already shown some difference between the association of Churches in Geneva, and the Classes in these Countries. But, be that as it may, it makes nothing for the warranting of any undue power of the Classis.
But, what is in all these passages to prove their submission to ⟨p. 270⟩any undue power and authority of the Classis? Nay, when they professe to submit unto the discipline of this Church, according to the rule of Christ, doe they not therein implicitly professe against submission to any undue power of the Classis? And, as litle doeth the practise of any members since, in resorting to the Classis, upon occasion of asking their judgment in matters controverted among them, establish any undue power of theirs. And, to what end should those that joyne with his Church, leaving their separation, come with a protest against the undue power of the Classis, when they knew not of their subjection thereunto, no more being required of them in their Covenant, at their first admission, then submission to the discipline of this Church, according to the role of Christ? As for that, which he addeth, of their chusing rather to continue as they were, then to be of the English Synod, this doeth not testifye their acknowledgment of their subjectiō to any undue power of the Classis. But, how, were they under the Classis, when, not long before that, the Answerer himselfe (as Mr. Forbes assured me) laboured to set up an English Classis or Synod, which not succeeding, in his indeavour at that time, he never after attempted to procure, nor would joyne with, being after set up, at the procurements of others. As for St: Offw: report of Geneva; we have already shewne some difference betweene the association of Churches in Geneva, and the Classes in these Countryes. But, be that as it may, it makes nothing for the warranting of any undue power of the Classis.
5. His fifth answer is to that passage in the complaint, when they say that the power, which they complain of, is such, as the Scriptures do not in any place give to such a company of Ministers. The fault that he findeth herewith is, that they do not allege any one place of Scripture to condemn the same. As though Negative Arguments from Scripture were not sufficient proofs of the unlawfulness of a thing in matter of Religion. By the help of St. Offw: book he accommodateth the 15. of the Acts. concerning the Church at Antioch seeking help of the Church at Jerusalem, in a difficult question, to the present question. But what is that to the undue power of the Classis whereof they complain? In his next answer, it may be, he will give me occasion ⟨p. 271⟩of showing that that very place of Scripture maketh strongly against that undue power, which he ascribeth to the Classis, in the particulars complained of, and such like.
5. His fifth answer is to that passage in the complaint, when they say that the power, which they complaine of, is such, as the Scriptures doe not in any place give to such a company of Ministers. The fault that he findeth herewith is, that they doe not alleadge any one place of Scripture to condemne the same. As though Negative Arguments from Scripture were not sufficient proofes of the unlawfullnes of a thing in matter of Religion. By the helpe of St. Offw: booke he accommodateth the 15. of the Acts. concerning the Church at Antioch seeking helpe of the Church at Ierusalem, in a difficult question, to the present question. But what is that to the undue power of the Classis whereof they complaine? In his next answer, it may be, he will give me occasion ⟨p. 271⟩of shewing that that very place of Scripture maketh strongly against that undue power, which he ascribeth to the Classis, in the particulars complained of, and such like.
