A19884:931
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.
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.
6. His sixth answer is to that part of the Complaint, when they say, that the undue authority (whereof they complain) is such as doeth not become any, except the Apostles, that could not err, to have. This, he saith, is false, and absurd, and, upon this occasion, he reproveth me for a like speech, in my letter to the Classis, touching my consent required to the writing of the five Ministers, namely, that such a subjection is greater then may be yielded unto any Council, whether of Classes or Synods &c. that thereby the writings and decrees of men are made infallible, and equal with the word of God, which is intolerable.
6. His sixth answer is to that part of the Complaint, when they say, that the undue authority (whereof they complaine) is such as doeth not become any, except the Apostles, that could not erre, to have. This, he sayth, is false, and absurd, and, upon this occasion, he reproveth me for a like speech, in my letter to the Classis, touching my consent required to the wrighting of the five Ministers, namely, that such a subjection is greater then may be yeelded unto any Councill, whether of Classes or Synods &c. that thereby the wrightings and decrees of men are made infallible, and aequall with the word of God, which is intolerable.
Reply. It is true that I so wrote, and that which I wrote herein is true. Let us now see what he answereth. He saith, what wise man is there that sees not the strange folly and vanity of such assertions as these? Junius was a wise man, and yet he saw no folly, nor vanity, nor strangeness in a like assertion, and so was Bogerman who relates it roundly, and without hesitancy from him, in these words.1 Servus mandatum Domini sui referens ad conservum suum obligat illius conscientiam instrumentali ministerio suo, at cognitioni suae, aut foro suo minimè obligat. Hoc nunquam Dominus quisquam daturus, nunquam fervus fidelis assumpturus. i. e. A servant relating the command of his Lord to his fellow servant bindeth his conscience by his instrumental ministry (that is, as I conceive it, so far as he reporteth the Lords mind and command) but doeth not bind him to his own outward jurisdiction. This no Lord will ever give, nor any faithful servant assume. But, did not they assume this, and more, when they would bind me to rest in that writing, and to be accountable to them for my conformity to it, not having convinced or instructed me, that it was the will of our Lord that I should do so? Also Dr. Whittaker was a wise man,2 & yet he saw no folly, nor vanity, nor strangeness in a like assertion. For, speaking of the definitions of Councils concerning matters to be believed, or to be done, he showeth, that to define a thing, signifieth, either 1. to declare what we are to believe & do, upon the authority of the Scripture, because the Scripture teacheth, ⟨p. 272⟩that it aught to be so believed and done, and that therefore they that believe or do otherwise, are in an error. 2. or else it signifieth to appoint and prescribe, by their own authority, what we are to believe or do, so as men must rest in it, whatsoever reason they have against it, and may not believe or do otherwise. The first he alloweth, and so did I, and desired nothing else but to understand some rule from the word warranting me to do that, whereunto they, in that writing, would have bound me. The second way of defining he denieth to belong to any Council, and affirmeth that it appertaineth only to God, and to Christ, and to the Holy Ghost.
Here I might be large in alleging writers of the most eminent note affirming the like, and the same, for substance, with me, in this matter, and many of them expressing their judgments in the same words. But these shall suffice, till a further provocation. Afterwards the Answerer demandeth, whether no truth be uttered or described by men in our times, whereunto the consent of men may be required? But what is this to the matter in question? Had they declared it to be a truth, I was ready to have testified my consent with them in it? But that they did not, nor hath he done it in all this tedious discourse. So that this is to argue ex non concessis, from that which is not granted. Or, will he say, that, because every truth uttered by men, must be consented to, therefore we are bound to consent to every thing which men shall utter? And to as little purpose is that which he allegeth concerning the subscription which the Reformed Churches require to their confessions of faith; Whereas the matter in question is not comprehended in any Article of those Confessions, and out of those very Confessions we do dispute against it. But, was not the Answerer driven far, and put hard to his shifts, when, to make some show of answer, he demanded, how I could subscribe my name to my own writing sent to the Classis, to show my consent to it, and whether I did thereby make my self an Apostle, or my writing equal to the word of God? To let pass his improper calling it my consent to my own writing, my subscription to it was, not in reference to my self, but to the word of God, whereunto it is consonant, and it testified unto them my persuasion that it agreed therewith: ⟨p. 273⟩but, what is this to the subscription, which they required, to injunctions and prescriptions, which were not declared to agree with the Scripture, either in that writing which they sent, or in any conference they had with me, though I told them that unicum Argumentum &c. Any one Argument from the word should prevail with me, and that, besides other times, once in the hearing of some of the Elders, and others. But, will it follow, that because a man, upon persuasion of the truth, may subscribe to other mens writings, or to his own, that therefore he may subscribe to those writings concerning the truth whereof he is not persuaded?
Here I might be large in alleadging wrighters of the most eminent noate affirming the like, and the same, for substance, with me, in this matter, and many of them expressing their judgments in the same words. But these shall suffice, till a further provocation. Afterwards the Answerer demandeth, whether no truth be uttered or described by men in our times, whereunto the consent of men may be required? But what is this to the matter in question? Had they declared it to be a truth, I was ready to have testifyed my consent with them in it? But that they did not, nor hath he done it in all this taedious discourse. So that this is to argue ex non concessis, from that which is not granted. Or, will he say, that, because every truth uttered by men, must be consented to, therefore we are bound to consent to every thing which men shall utter? And to as litle purpose is that which he alleadgeth concerning the subscription which the Reformed Churches require to their confessions of fayth; Whereas the matter in question is not comprehended in any Article of those Confessions, and out of those very Confessions we doe dispute against it. But, was not the Answerer driven farr, and put hard to his shifts, when, to make some shew of answer, he demanded, how I could subscribe my name to my owne wrighting sent to the Classis, to shew my consent to it, and whether I did thereby make my selfe an Apostle, or my wrighting aequall to the word of God? To let passe his improper calling it my consent to my owne wrighting, my subscription to it was, not in reference to my selfe, but to the word of God, whereunto it is consonant, and it testyfyed unto them my persuasion that it agreed therewith:
Whilst he was writing these things a secret Monitor from within suggested to him that all humane judicatories are subject to error, and that, when that error is showed by the word of God, it aught to be corrected. But, if the question be, who may judge of this error, and show it them? Here his answer is defective. He saith one Synod often reformeth that which hath been decreed by another. This showeth indeed that Synods are subject to error. And do they not therefore err because they fetched not their definitions and prescriptions from the Scriptures? And is it not the best way, for rectifying them, to reduce them to that rule? And how shall this be done, but by the course which those Noble Beraeans took, by comparing them with,1 and examining them by the Scriptures? And to whom doeth this belong? Indeed the public Ministerial power of judging, in such cases, belongeth to Synods or Councils themselves. But the private judgment, which Divines call the judgment of practical discretion, belongeth to every Christian. So that no man is bound absolutely to submit to, or to rest in the judgment of any man or Council, but to try them by the Scripture, and to consent with them no further then they appear to consent with that rule. This the Scriptures abundantly declare,2 when they command all Christians to beware of Seducers, to try all things, to try the spirits. Also, when they are called upon to receive the word of Christ only, as their only Master. And to deny men the use of their private judgment, in things taught them by their Pastors, or enjoined, and prescribed by Classes, or Synods, ⟨p. 274⟩what is it else, but to deprive man of his reason, & mans understanding of its end, which is to search & find out the truth? yea, to deprive Christians of the fruit of their faith, and supernatural illumination, and of the spirit of Revelation?3 Or, at least, to make those of riper years to be always as Children in understanding? This were to revive the heresy of Apelles, [Greek or Hebrew]. that people aught not accurately to weigh and examine what is propounded to them:
Whilest he was wrighting these things a secret Monitour from within suggested to him that all humane judicatoryes are subject to errour, and that, when that errour is shewed by the word of God, it aught to be corrected. But, if the question be, who may judge of this errour, and shew it them? Here his answer is defective. He sayth one Synod often reformeth that which hath bene decreed by another. This sheweth indeed that Synods are subject to errour. And doe they not therefore erre because they fetched not their definitions and praescriptions from the Scriptures? And is it not the best way, for rectifying them, to reduce them to that rule? And how shall this be done, but by the course which those Noble Beraeans tooke, by comparing them with,
1from which Jerome was so far that he much commended Marcella, a good woman in Rome, for this, that she, wherever she met him, would be putting good questions to him, and received his answers, not as Pythagoras his scholars did his sayings (or as the Answerer would have had me to rest in the judgment of the five Ministers) but she examined and weighed all things, so that he thought himself to have, non tam discipulam, quam judicem, not so much a scholar as a judge, and as he allowed a good woman this liberty in trying the words of a learned and godly Tether, so Hilary giveth the same liberty to all private Christians in examining the decrees of Councils.2 Si contraria invicem senserint Concilia, debemus, quasi judices, probare meliora. If Councils (or Synods) differ in their determinations, we aught, as judges of our own actions, to approve of that which is better.
1from which Ierom was so farr that he much commended Marcella, a good woman in Rome, for this, that she, wherever she met him, would be putting good questions to him, and received his answers, not as Pythagoras his schollers did his sayings (or as the Answerer would have had me to rest in the judgment of the five Ministers) but she examined and weighed all things, so that he thought himselfe to have, non tam discipulam, quam judicem, not so much a scholler as a judge, and as he allowed a good woman this liberty in trying the wordes of a learned and godly Teather, so Hylary giveth the same liberty to all private Christians in examining the decrees of Councells.2 Si contraria invicem senserint Concilia, debemus, quasi judices, probare meliora. If Councills (or Synods) differ in their determinations, we aught, as judges of our owne actions, to approve of that which is better.
Whereas he addeth. Yet doeth not this take away their authority for the judging and deciding of controversies. For by such reasoning they might take away all government and bring in confusion. I grant that it taketh away no due subordinate Ministerial authority from them, but a supreme Praetorian, or Magisterial authority, as that is, when they bind men to rest in their determinations, without convincing them, that they are according to the mind of God in the Scriptures, or so much as declaring to them sufficient ground out of the word for their so doing. And so to do is not to take away all, or any government, but tyranny, nor to bring in confusion, but to prevent it, and to establish order.
Whereas he addeth. Yet doeth not this take away their authority for the judging and deciding of controversies. For by such reasoning they might take away all government and bring in confusion. I grant that it taketh away no due subordinate Ministeriall authority frō them, but a supreme Praetorian, or Magisteriall authority, as that is, when they bind men to rest in their determinations, without convincing them, that they are according to the mind of God in the Scriptures, or so much as declaring to them sufficient ground out of the word for their so doing. And so to doe is not to take away all, or any government, but tyranny, nor to bring in confusion, but to prevent it, and to establish order.
Whereas he addeth that, by these and such like injurious speeches, they do exceedingly gratify many sorts of Libertines, Arians, Socinians and other heretics &c. What injury is it to witness against undue power, which is a testifying against injury? ⟨p. 275⟩And how can the Libertines, Arians, &c. be gratified by pleading against that undue power which is exercised in upholding that disorder of promiscuous baptising which serveth to strengthen them in their damnable errors, as hath been shown in the examination of the 12 Section? Nay, doeth not this undue power, which he ascribeth to Classes, both strengthen them in their opposition to that way of Government, and gratify the Papists also in their dangerous errors about the infallibility of Councils and the Pope, and about implicit faith and blind obedience? For, it is not subscription to any truth which is excepted against, but subscription to mens customs and appointments, not agreeing with the truth, imposed merely by their authority.
Whereas he addeth that, by these and such like injurious speeches, they doe exceedingly gratifye many sorts of Libertines, Arrians, Socinians and other haereticks &c. What injury is it to witnesse against undue power, which is a testifying against injury? ⟨p. 275⟩And how can the Libertines, Arrians, &c. be gratifyed by pleading against that undue power which is excercised in upholding that disorder of promiscuous baptising which serveth to strengthen them in their damnable errours, as hath bene shewen in the examination of the 12 Section? Nay, doeth not this undue power, which he ascribeth to Classes, both strengthen them in their opposition to that way of Government, and gratifye the Papists also in their dangerous errours about the infallibility of Councills and the Pope, and about implicite fayth and blind obedience? For, it is not subscription to any truth which is excepted against, but subscription to mens customs and appointments, not agreeing with the truth, imposed merely by their authority.
IN the eight following Sections I find nothing which I am by name called to examine, excepting that here and there my name is mentioned in his repeating things already sufficiently cleared▪ only in the 39 Section, whereas they complained of manifest injury done by the Answerer to me, whom he reproached in public about the meeting of diverse to hear me upon the grounds of Religion in Catechising the family, where I lived (though enough hath been said, in the 20 Section, for the satisfaction of the indifferent Reader, about my carriage in that business.) it will be requisite, upon a new provocation, to add 2 or 3 words, in this place also, for the removal of some intimations injuriously cast in by the Answerer to fasten a suspicion of disorder upon that private exercise. For 1. in his second, answer, he supposeth, that I there preached, without a calling▪ whereas I neither preached (in the sense wherein he taketh the word, viz, by virtue of a public office in that place) nor performed that private exercise, without a sufficient calling thereunto, both from the duty of my private domesticall relation to ⟨p. 276⟩my own family, and from the desire of the Master of that family, where I then lived, to those of his household, and whereas others desired to partake of the benefit of it, their desire was calling sufficient for their admittance to that private exercise, by virtue of the spiritual relation which all Christians have mutually among themselves, and the right which thereby they have to communicate in the gifts and labours of one another, for their edification. So that, even for this cause, there was good reason for them and me to be offended at so public a slander of that action, and of our intentions therein. As for the place of Scripture misapplied by him, out of Mat. 28.19, to reprove this duty; it doeth not forbid private men any duty, the performance whereof is required in other texts. as. 1. Masters to their own families in instructing them. Deut. 6.7.9. Deut. 11.19.20. Gen. 18▪ 19.
If yet the Answerer is not satisfied, let him know that more may be pleaded, for the warrant of that action, in reference to me, even from that place of Scripture, then I will insist upon, if I would plead all that I might, or indeed need to make use of, seeing it was a mere private exercise, performed, according to my measure of gifts, with good warrant of the fore named texts, and not falling within the meaning of that text, which he misapplieth, in reproach against me. So that the word of the Lord is not made a reproach to him, but I may say, that, for the discharge of a Christian duty, I have borne reproach. Neither was that the only sermon wherein I was reproached by the Answerer in public, as many can testify, which I strove to bear with patience, and should still have borne in silence, if he would have suffered me to be quiet, at last.
If yet the Answerer is not satisfyed, let him know that more may be pleaded, for the warrant of that action, in reference to me, even from that place of Scripture, then I will insist upon, if I would plead all that I might, or indeed need to make use of, seing it was a mere private excercise, performed, according to my measure of gifts, with good warrant of the fore named texts, and not falling within the meaning of that text, which he misapplyeth, in reproach against me. So that the word of the Lord is not made a reproach to him, but I may say, that, for the discharge of a Christian duety, I have borne reproach. Neither was that the onely sermon wherein I was reproached by the Answerer in publick, as many can testifye, which I strove to beare with patience, and should still have borne in silence, if he would have suffered me to be quiet, at last.
In his third answer he girdeth at another, whose name he mentioneth not, but the accusation is answered in the examination of the 24. 25. 26. Sections,
In his fourth answer, to make good his public reproaching me, he quarrelleth the name given to that exercise, when it is called catechising a family, which he calleth a mockery, but produceth nothing to prove that name to be unfit for that action, ⟨p. 277⟩nor that action so done, to be unlawful, but venteth his passion, because he wanteth Arguments against it.
In his fourth answer, to make good his publick reproaching me, he quarrelleth the name given to that excercise, when it is called catechising a family, which he calleth a mockery, but produceth nothing to prove that name to be unfit for that action, ⟨p. 277⟩nor that action so done, to be unlawfull, but venteth his passion, because he wanteth Arguments against it.
In his fifth answer he saith, that, not he, but the Classis deprived them of those meetings, whereas I acknowledge no such power to be due to the Classis, nor ever did they speak with, me about it, nor did I cease for any message left by them with Mr. Wh. nor would I have given place, by subjection to them, to have desisted from that work, in acknowledgement of their jurisdiction, in such cases: but when I heard that the Answerer took offence at it, and traduced it, by private whisperings, as tending to schism, and when I saw that my staying in that place was a burden to him, that I might not seem to give offence to him, only, for peace sake, I removed my dwelling to another part of the country, where I might be quiet, and so, not the Classis, but he only was the cause of the cessation of that meeting.
In his fifth answer he sayth, that, not he, but the Classis deprived them of those meetings, whereas I acknowledge no such power to be due to the Classis, nor ever did they speake with, me about it, nor did I cease for any message left by them with Mr. Wh. nor would I have given place, by subjection to them, to have desisted from that worke, in acknowledgment of their jurisdiction, in such cases: but when I heard that the Answerer tooke offence at it, and traduced it, by private whisperings, as tending to schysme, and when I saw that my staying in that place was a burthen to him, that I might not seeme to give offence to him, onely, for peace sake, I removed my dwelling to another part of the country, where I might be quiet, and so, not the Classis, but he onely was the cause of the cessation of that meeting.
In his sixth answer he chargeth some that resorted to that meeting with offensive & ungodly schysming from the Dutch Church, how truly let him see to it. For my part, I never heard that any of them were guilty of that crime, nor do believe it to be true.
In his sixth answer he chargeth some that resorted to that meeting with offensive & ungodly schysming from the Dutch Church, how truely let him see to it. For my part, I never heard that any of them were guilty of that crime, nor doe beleive it to be true.
Reply. Jt is true that I so wrote, and that which I wrote herein is true. Let us now see what he answereth. He sayth, what wise man is there that sees not the strange folly and vanity of such assertions as these? Iunius was a wise man, and yet he saw no folly, nor vanity, nor strangenes in a like assertion, and so was Bogerman who relates it roundly, and without haesitancy from him, in these words.1 Servus mandatum Domini sui referens ad conservum suum obligat illius conscientiam instrumentali ministerio suo, at cognitioni suae, aut foro suo minimè obligat. Hoc nunquam Dominus quisquam daturus, nunquam fervus fidelis assumpturus. i. e. A servant relating the command of his Lord to his fellow servant bindeth his conscience by his instrumentall ministry (that is, as I conceive it, so farr as he reporteth the Lords mind and command) but doeth not bind him to his owne outward jurisdiction. This no Lord will ever give, nor any faithfull servant assume. But, did not they assume this, and more, when they would bind me to rest in that wrighting, and to be accountable to them for my conformity to it, not having convinced or instructed me, that it was the will of our Lord that I should doe so? Also Dr. Whittaker was a wise man,2 & yet he saw no folly, nor vanity, nor strangenes in a like assertion. For, speaking of the definitions of Councills concerning matters to be beleived, or to be done, he sheweth, that to define a thing, signifieth, either 1. to declare what we are to beleive & doe, upō the authority of the Scripture, because the Scripture teacheth, ⟨p. 272⟩that it aught to be so beleived and done, and that therefore they that beleive or doe otherwise, are in an errour. 2. or else it signifyeth to appoynt and prescribe, by their owne authority, what we are to beleive or doe, so as men must rest in it, whatsoever reason they have against it, and may not beleive or doe otherwise. The first he alloweth, and so did I, and desired nothing else but to understand some rule from the word warranting me to doe that, whereunto they, in that wrighting, would have bound me. The second way of defining he denyeth to belong to any Councill, and affirmeth that it appertayneth onely to God, and to Christ, and to the Holy Ghost.
IN the eight following Sections I find nothing which I am by name called to examine, excepting that here and there my name is mentioned in his repeating things already sufficiently cleared▪ onely in the 39 Section, whereas they complained of manifest injury done by the Answerer to me, whom he reproached in publick about the meeting of diverse to heare me upon the grounds of Religion in Catechising the family, where I lived (though enough hath bene said, in the 20 Section, for the satisfaction of the indifferent Reader, about my carriage in that buisenes.) it will be requisite, upon a new provocation, to add 2 or 3 words, in this place also, for the removeall of some intimations injuriously cast in by the Answerer to fasten a suspicion of disorder upon that private excercise. For 1. in his second, answer, he supposeth, that I there preached, without a calling▪ whereas I neither preached (in the sense wherein he taketh the word, viz, by vertue of a publick office in that place) nor performed that private excercise, without a sufficient calling thereunto, both from the duety of my private domesticall relation to ⟨p. 276⟩my owne family, and from the desire of the Master of that family, where I then lived, to those of his houshold, and whereas others desired to partake of the benefit of it, their desire was calling sufficient for their admittance to that private excercise, by vertue of the spirituall relation which all Christians have mutually among themselves, and the right which thereby they have to communicate in the gifts and labours of one another, for their aedification. So that, even for this cause, there was good reason for them and me to be offended at so publick a slander of that action, and of our intentions therein. As for the place of Scripture misapplyed by him, out of Mat. 28.19, to reprove this duety; it doeth not forbid private men any duety, the performance whereof is required in other texts. as. 1. Masters to their owne familyes in instructing them. Deut. 6.7.9. Deut. 11.19.20. Gen. 18▪ 19. Eph. 6.4. Phil. 2. 2. every Christian, according to his gift, for the helpe of others 1. Pet. 4.10. Heb. 10.24.25. Mat. 3.16. 3.
