Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 24
Sect: 24 25. 26. examined.
THeir ſecond proofe of his depriving the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church, is, Compl.that he hath proteſted againſt their judgment in matters which might have bene ended in the Conſiſtory, and, in that reſpect, aught not to have bene brought to the Claſſis, yet he hath carryed them thither.
This paſſage I would have paſſed by, Reply. if his frequent mentioning my name in the 25. and 26. Sections had not compelled me to examine it. The caſes, wherein they complaine that he hath nedleſly waved the judgment of the Elders, are three. 1. concerning an order that ſhould have bene made for my accommodation, in the queſtion about promiſcuous adminiſtring Baptiſme to all that are brought, in that place Sect: 25. 2. about be an agreement amongſt the Elders that a convenient time ſhould be given me to, goe on in aſſiſting the Anſwerer, to ſee, if, in that time, I could obtayne that this queſtion might be layd aſide, and informe my ſelfe more fully concerning the orders and cuſtoms of the Dutch Church, whereunto my conformity was required Sect: 26. 3. Concerning his refuſall to let Mr. Weld preach, though he confeſſed he had nothing againſt him, without conſent of the Claſſis &c. ibid. Whereby it appeareth that they doe not complaine of his ſeeking adviſe of neighbour miniſters ſimply and abſolutely, but, 1. in certaine caſes, there mentioned. And therefore they doe not, in their wrighting, divide the one from the other into ſeverall Sections (for that is his owne contrivement) but relate all together in one intire Sentence 2. the caſes produced by them are ſuch, wherein the matter might have bene determined, and concluded by the Elderſhip, without violation of any order eſtabliſhed in the government of thoſe Churches. 3. The matter was ſo carryed by him, in this needles appeale to the Claſſis, that their agreement was nullifyed.
Theſe things being premiſed, the inſufficiency of his five anſwers in the 24. Section will be obvious to the indifferent Reader, in particulars; thus.
For the firſt,] His thincking that the Elders erre in their judgment, in ſuch caſes as theſe in queſtion, is not a ſufficient ground of an appeale, as may appeare in reaſon: For ſo no cauſe ſhould be ended in their Conſiſtory, though the Elders unanimouſly conſēt in their judgment, if the Paſtor differ from them, out of an obſtinate will, without giving ſufficient reaſon of his diſſenting, and then, to what end are the meetings of the Elderſhip? Whereas he calleth upon them to prove it by Scripture, they may, with better warrant, require him to prove by Scripture the lawfullnes of ſuch appeales, in ſuch caſes, for which they find no word commanding or approving them.
For the ſecond] Unleſſe he can prove thoſe agreements amongſt the Elders to be ſinnes, and unfruitfull workes of darkenes he will be found guilty of a double ſinne. 1. that he oppoſed the Elders, without juſt cauſe. 2. that he miſapplyeth Scripture to juſtifye his unjuſt oppoſition of them.
For the third] It is granted that, as Councills may erre, ſo may Conſiſtoryes much more eaſily, and that all obedience aught to be in the Lord. But, with all, that the proteſters againſt them, aught to declare the aequity of their ſo doing, from Scripture, or good reaſon, which hath not bene done by the Anſwerer.
For the fourth] The pretended reaſon, whereby the Anſwerer would juſtifye this Act; taken from the very foundation of government, and inſtitution of diverſe judicatories, to take, away diſagreement, ſtrife, controverſies, or different pleadings among men, will not helpe him in the caſes queſtioned, unleſſe he can prove, 1. that the Claſſes are of the ſame uſe, by Divine inſtitution, for the helpe of Paſtors which have the aſſiſtance of their Elderſhip,Deut. 1.12 with Cap. 17.8. whereof that judicatorye was for the helpe of Moſes (who was not able alone to beare the cumbrances and ſtrifes of the people) and of the Kings of Iſrael afterwards; which they deny. 2. that the cauſes in queſtion, which he carryed from the Conſiſtory to the Claſſis,2. Chron. 19:8:9.10. are of the ſame nature with thoſe cauſes betweene blood and blood, betweene law and commandment, ſtatutes and judgments, which were deferred to the Levites, the Preiſts, and cheife of the Fathers of Iſrael, that men might be warned by them, that they treſpaſſe not againſt the Lord. This alſo they deny, and may juſtly accuſe him of miſapplying the Scriptures noated by him in the margine.
5. To the fifth] It is true, that the power of the Elders in government had not bene overthrowne by his bringing any matter unlawfully unto the Claſſis, if it were the manner of the Claſſis, in ſuch caſes, to remitt the matter to the Conſiſtory againe. But, what one inſtance can he produce, in the particulars whereof they complaine, or in any other caſe brought by him to them, wherein the matter was remitted to the Conſiſtory: Why ſo? It was not becauſe the buiſeneſſes were ſo weighty that it hath bene agreed in the Synods that they ſhall not be proceeded in, without adviſe of the Claſſis; nor, becauſe they concerned many Churches, and therefore require the conſent of all What then? It was, becauſe the Elders could not ſatiſfye him, nor he them, as he intimateth in the anſwer before. But, why was he not ſatiſfyed? Becauſe he would not be ſatiſfyed, unleſſe the matter might be carryed according to his will. For, no ſufficient reaſon was given by him againſt it, at that time. So then, if he will end a buiſenes in the Conſiſtory, there it ſhall be ended, but, if he ſee that it will be carryed againſt his mind there, it ſhall not be ended there, but be taken out of their hands and carryed to the Claſſis, where he knoweth how to bring his purpoſe about. Thus he hath two ſtrings to his bow. But, in the meane time, is not the power of the Elders in governmēt overthrowne thereby?
Sect. 25.Jn the 25. Sect. they ſpeake of an agreement amongſt the Elders to make an order that thoſe who were not mēbers of that Church ſhould make themſelves knowne to me, Compl:that I might be ſatiſfyed concerning them, before they ſhould preſent their children to Baptiſme in publick, which, they ſay, would have ended that difference betweene us, but he proteſted againſt it. If this complaint be juſt; is it not a greivance? let us weigh his fowre anſwers to it.
Anſ. 1. He ſayth, there was no order made: therefore they ſpeake untrue, and they know not what?
Reply. Neither doe they ſay an order was made, but it was agreed that one ſhould be made. What untruth is in this? If any; Is it not in his accuſation?
2. He ſayth, there is no evidence in theire Church booke, that, either the Elders had ſo agreed, or that he had proteſted againſt it.] Nor doe they ſay, it is recorded in the Church booke. For how could it be recorded when it was never made, and that by his hindring the making of it?
3. He ſayth, If ſuch an order had bene peremptorily reſolved upon, there had bene juſt reaſon for him to have proteſted againſt it ſeing the Conſiſtory hath no power &c.] Traverſ. de Diſcipl: Ecelcſ. p. 121.But herein he oppoſeth Mr. Traverſe who, in his elaborate treatiſe, de diſciplinâ Eccleſiaſticâ, ſpeaking of the office, of the Elders (whom he fitly calleth foreign he ſayth, it belongs to them to ſee that all things in the Church of God, be honeſtly, godlily, and orderly done. And therefore they are to ſignifye to the miniſters, if any from other parts come to dwell amongſt them, concerning whoſe Religion they are not ſatiſfyed, that they may be dealt with, before they come to the Lords table: Alſo IF ANY INFANTS ARE TO BE BAPTISED, and if there be any thing, of that kind, which appertaineth to the knowledge of the Overſeers, for the proffitable and decent adminiſtration of the Church. Neither is the Anſwerer only againſt Mr. Traverſe in this, but reaſon it ſelfe is againſt him, taken from the very foundation of that office in the Church, as appeareth in what is already ſayd concerning them in the 23. Section compared with what hath bene by me declared againſt the diſorder of promiſcuous baptiſing in the 12. Section.
4. He ſayth, If he had proteſted againſt ſuch an order &c. Such a proteſt might have ſerved for a direction to the right uſe of their power but did not tend to the deſtruction thereof.] If it had bene a mere declaration of his judgment, and reſolution, though delivered in forme of a proteſt, and had bene ſtrengthned with good reaſons, and had bene left to them to conſider of, it might have ſerved for a correction and direction to the right uſe of their power, without deſtroying it. But, when a peremptory and inflexible reſolution of oppoſing what they ſhall doe againſt his mind, in this matter, is held foorth, without arguments from the Scripture, or good reaſon, to convince them of the aequity of that ſtiffnes in oppoſing, and, when it is not left within themſelves, but carryed from them to the Claſſis, that, by the interpoſition of their power and authority, the Conſiſtory may be hindred from executing or making ſuch an order, who ſeeth not that, as, by the former, they have no direction from him about the right uſe of their power, ſo, by the latter, their power is deſtroyed, in this particular; which may be proved thus.
That Act, whereby the Elders are hindred, that they can not provide for the godly, comely, and orderly adminiſtration of the Church, doeth deprive the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church.
But this Act of the Anſwerer, in hindring the ending of this difference about baptiſme &c. by interpoſing the authority of the Claſſis, for that end, was an hindring of them from providing for the godly, comely, and orderly adminiſtration of the Church. Ergo.
Which propoſition will he deny? The firſt? But that is taken from the nature of the Elders office, as hath bene ſhewne out of Scripture, and reaſon, before. And he knoweth it to be true.
Will he deny the Aſſumption? That is proved by what I have ſhewen in the 12. Section againſt promiſcuous adminiſtration of baptiſme, as it is in that place, whence it will appeare to be not godly, nor comely, nor orderly, and therefore the Elders have power and are bound to provide that it be not done in that Church.
Sect. 26.In the 26, Section. Their ſecond inſtance, whereby they would prove, that he depriveth the Elders of their power in government for the good of the Church, by carrying matters out of their hands, which might, and ſhould have bene ended in the Conſiſtory,Compl. is, that agreement which was amongſt them that I ſhould have a yeares time to goe on in aſſiſting the Anſwerer &c. Now let us ſee how this is anſwered.
Anſ. 1.Firſt. He ſayth, it is untrue that the Elders agreed I ſhould have a yeares time.] Reply. How unjuſt this chalenge is, may appeare, 1. By the report of the Elders themſelves, who ſay that it was referred to voyces, and by voyces agreed that I ſhould have a convenient time, and it was particularly expreſſed by one of the Elders, and not gainſayed by the reſt, that a yeares time, would be convenient for that purpoſe. 2. Not onelyonly they, but the Anſwerer himſelfe ſayth as much, in effect. For in the 18. Section he reporteth that I made this offer unto them, that, if the Conſiſtory deſired it, I would continue, as an aſſiſtant, in preaching, for a convenient time, that I might therein acquaint my ſelfe with the Dutch miniſters, the orders of the Claſſis, and Synod, and ſtate of this Congregation &c. But, though our Elders liked of this offer, ſayth he, and thought good to deſire him to remaine with us, as an aſſiſtant, as is before ſayd; yet I thought it not ſafe (ſayth he, ſpeaking of himſelfe) without firſt taking adviſe of the Claſſis. Whereby it is manifeſt that the Elders liked of the offer, as it was made by me. But they knew that I was of opinion that leſſe then a yeares time could not be convenient, for thoſe purpoſes, and that I meant that time, when I ſpake of a convenient time: yet, if they had agreed that ſix moneths, or three monthes ſhould be judged a convenient time, I ſhould have reſted therein, which ſeing they did not, but liked of the offer as it was made by me, it ſeemeth, their purpoſe was to conclude for a yeares time.
Secondly. In ſtead of anſwering,Anſ: 2 he recriminateth thoſe that divulge the ſecret affayres of the Elderſhip, and that untruely.] Reply. The former reply ſheweth that the report is not untrue. And that the Elders have unlawfully divulged this, they put him to prove: for they deny that it is unlawfull to acquaint the members with paſſages of this nature, which are not to be kept ſecret in the Conſiſtory, when they tend to the injury of the wholl Church.
Thirdly. His third anſwer is a mere evaſion,Anſ: 3 by putting off the fault from himſelfe upon the Claſſis, Reply. the vanity of which pretence hath bene ſo often ſhewen already, that I may well praetermit it here.
Fourthly.Anſ: 4 In his fourth anſwer he pretendeth to give reaſons for his carrying this matter into the Claſſis, which are not reaſons, but mere pretences.
Firſt. That, whileſt matters were thus kept in ſuſpence, the cord of contention ſhould have bene drawne out, and lengthned.] But, who ſeeth not that this would have cut the cord of contention aſunder when a convenient time had bene given for the compoſing of things to a peaceable concluſion, and when the people ſhould ſee his regard of their deſire and content ſo far expreſſed.
Secondly. That, in the Conſiſtory where he hath moſt trouble, he ſhould have leaſt aſſiſtance.] But, by this courſe he would have leſſe trouble in the Conſiſtory, the ſpirits of men being ſomewhat quieted and contented. Beſides, I ſee not but he might have eſcaped many troubles there, if he had not made troubles, when he found them not.
Thirdly. That, in the adminiſtration of Baptiſme, in ſtead of an Aſſiſtant he ſhould have a Reſiſtant,] But, how could he be a Reſiſtant in Baptiſme, whoſe worke was only to aſſiſt in preaching, as myne ſhould have bene, if this agreement had ſtood. Againe, ſuppoſe, after the expiration of that convenient time, I had accepted of the paſtorall calling, how could I have bene a Reſiſtant to him in Baptiſme, if, either the Dutch Miniſters could in that time, have convinced me of the lawfullnes of that cuſtom, (in which caſe, J ſhould have yeelded to it) or, if I could have procured the laying aſide of that queſtion, by their conſent with me in eſtabliſhing thoſe meanes which I propounded for accommodation?
Fourthly. That, hereby the calling of another miniſter would be hindred.] But 1. the event ſheweth the contrary. For, that convenient time, which the Elders would have given me, was but 12 moneths. Now, though, upon this pretence, the Anſwerer oppoſed that, yet thoſe 12 moneths were ſpent before they had any, and 9▪ moneths more, before one was ſetled with them. 2. My purpoſe, in that propoſition, was, to worke, in that time, for the peaceable ſetling of any faithfull man, whom they ſhould make choyſe of, if I ſaw not greater likelihood of my comfortable ſetling there, then hitherto had appeared. Wherein my true intent was to prevent the trouble, and procure the peace of the Church, as much as in me lay.
The fifth pretenc… is coincident with the fourth, and anſwered in that.
Sixtly. The Claſſis would have bene offended, which had formerly diſallowed ſuch an agreement about Mr. H.] But 1, conſider, as great a matter as this hath bene done there, without the leaue of the Claſſis, when the Anſwerer had a mind to it. Was not Mr. D, for a yeare and more, aſſiſtant to the Anſwerer in the ſame Church, in preaching, without leave or conſent of the Claſſis? 2. If the Claſſis would be offended for this, it would be an offence taken, but not given. For, what though they had formerly diſallowed ſuch an agreement of the Elders about the intertayning of M. Hook? May not the Church doe ſuch a thing without their allowance? What rule is tranſgreſſed thereby? If any: Let the Anſwerer ſhew it. If none; then the Claſſis diſallowed that act, and would be offended at this cauſeleſly. 3. At moſt, this would have bene an offence but to the ſpirits of the Claſsis, who would have bene angry at it, as a neglect of them only; not as a ſinne againſt God. But the hindering of this agreement, by their Paſtor, and the Claſsis, is an offence to the conſciences of ſome of the Church, who are greived at it as a ſinne againſt God, both in the Paſtor and the Claſſsis, who have hereby ſtreightned the liberty, and weakened the power which Chriſt hath given the Church, in procuring ſuch ſpirituall helpes for their aedification, as they find proffitable, and deſire, with a generall conſent, eſpecially there being no danger of haereſy and ſchyſme, whereby themſelves or other Churches ſhould be infected thereby. Now, compare theſe two offences together, and it will appeare that the latter offence, in this caſe, was more carefully to be heeded and prevented then the former.
The ſeventh, and laſt pretence is, that he eſteemed this agreement as an act of intruſion for me.] which he needed not to have feared, nor would have, by ſo injurious a courſe, prevented, if he had knowne me, as he might have done, by my wholl carriage in this buiſenes. Himſelfe reproacheth me for ſtanding ſo much upon his deſiring me, and now he feareth leaſt I had ſome purpoſe of intruding my ſelfe. How will theſe ſtand together? One while he telleth the Reader that I would not accept the call, another while, that I will not be diſmiſſed. A ſtrange caſe, that I am ſo averſe, that they can not get me in, and yet ſo intruding, that they cannot get me out. By this it may appeare that his ſpirit was much diſtempered by needles Iealouſyes, and groundles ſurmiſes, which, in theſe paſſages, have cauſed much diſquietment to himſelfe, and diſturbance to others.
The 3. inſtance. And that it may appeare that I wrong him not, in ſaying thus, his owne words, about the third inſtance, which they bring to prove that he depriveth the Elders of their power in governmēt for the good of the Church, declare the ſame. For, ſpeaking of Mr. Weld, whom they accuſed him for hindring from preaching, without leave of the Claſſis, though he profeſſed he had nothing againſt him, he telleth the Complainants that he had ſome thing againſt Mr. Weld. If they deſire to know what, he readily telleth them, and all the world, that he had ſomething againſt his behaviour, in generall, which was an offence and trouble unto him. It had need to be ſome great matter, ſome will thinck, that ſo farr ſett him off from Mr. Weld, as he there intimateth To prevent all wondring at the matter, he roundly relates more diſlikes then one. But, if you come to examine them, they will appeare to be grounded upon needles jealouſyes, in his owne mind. For, his firſt diſlike was, becauſe Mr. Weld refuſed to declare himſelfe, and to ſhew his opinion touching their preſent controverſyes. And, have not others carryed themſelves in the ſame manner, as well as he, which were greater ſtrangers to him, then Mr. Weld, being not of his nation, whom yet he hath, not only willingly received to preach, but alſo bene willing to have joyned with him in the paſtorall office. His ſecond diſlike of Mr. Weld was, that he ſaw him moſt familiar with thoſe that were his cheifeſt oppoſites, So then, there was oppoſition amongſt them before I came, and this oppoſition was rayſed to ſuch an height, that the Anſwerer accounted it a trouble and offence to him, that any miniſter ſhould be moſt familiar with thoſe whom he accounted his oppoſites; and, that, upon feare, leaſt Mr. Weld ſhould ſtrengthen and animate them againſt him, he was unwilling to have him preach. That this feare may not ſeeme altogether cauſeles, he telleth his Reader how Mr. H. preached againſt that in the afternoone, which he taught in the fore noone. The truth concerning this paſſage I have heard from diverſe witneſſes, and have ſeene the noates of boath their ſermons, as they were taken by thoſe that heard, and doe find (ſo farr as I can diſcerne, by what I have heard, or read) that the Anſwerer tooke offence at Mr. H: cauſeleſly for that, and that Mr. H. was called, and, in a manner, compelled to ſay what he did, at that time. But, that I may returne to Mr. W. was the Anſwerers feare of him retayned in his owne breaſt? No, he telleth us, in his ſecond anſwer, that he deſired the counſaile of the Dutch Conſiſtory about this matter, and their adviſe was that he ſhould bring it to the Claſſis. Thus the Anſwerer is troubled, the Dutch Conſiſtory is troubled, the Engliſh Church alſo is troubled, and all about his feare of Mr. Weld. But, was this feare well grounded? was there ſufficient cauſe for it? Let himſelfe ſpeake, and he will tell us: yea, he hath already told us, in his third anſwer, that, upon further conference with Mr. W, he perceived in him a peaceable diſpoſition, and conceived, that he would not give offence by his preaching amongſt them. It is well that his apprehenſion is rectifyed, at laſt, to perceive that which he did not before. That conference did not alter Mr. W: diſpoſition, but his owne perſuaſion of him: ſo that the change was in the Anſwerer, not in M. W. As a man in a ſhip thincks that the ſhore moves from him, whereas the ſhip, wherein he is, is carryed from the ſhore: ſo a man, whoſe paſſions are diſturbed, ſuſpecteth every man to oppoſe him. When all was now quiet, what courſe tooke the Anſwerer? He telleth us, that he made the ſame knowne to the Claſſis; whereupon he was admitted to preach. And, why muſt this be made knowne to the Claſſis? Is it againſt the government of theſe Churches that a ſtranger, to whom the Anſwerer can impute no errour, and in whom he preceived a peaceable diſpoſition, and conceived that he would not giuegive offence by his preaching amongſt them, being deſired by the Church, ſhould be permitted to preach a ſermon … ▪ 2, or 3, in the Engliſh Church, without leave of the Claſſis? Can not the Elders doe ſo much, without them? Then the complaint is juſt, that the Elders are deprived of their power in government for the good of the Church: And ſeing, whileſt the Anſwerer ſeemed unſatiſfyed; the Dutch Conſiſtory ſeemeth to apprehend it to be a caſe of ſome difficulty to permit M…. W. to preach, but when the Anſwerer is ſatiſfyed, the Claſſis conſenteth, it appeareth that the complaint concerning the injury is juſtly againſt the Anſwerer, at whoſe inſtigation, and intreaty the Claſſis doeth interpoſe ſo farr in their matters, though in this they can not be excuſed, much leſſe juſtifyed, in that they aſſume a power to themſelves of reſtrayning Churches from having the benefit of the aſſiſtance of a ſtranger, and paſſ …t, in ſuch a caſe, without their leave, which is more power then the government of theſe Churches giveth them, or any prelates ever chalenged to themſelves, for aught I know.