Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 28
Sect. 30. examined, concerning the Anſwerers violent bringing matters into the Claſsis when he cannot have his will unjuſtly ſatiſfyed in the 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 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 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 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 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,Ioh. 12.7. if he will give the dayes leave to ſpeake, and the multitude of yeares to teach wiſdom.
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 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 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 onelyonly) 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 doe, when 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 referr the Reader.
5. His fifth anſwer is already replyed upon in examination of the 27. Section.
6. His ſixth anſwer alſo is replyed upon before, in ſeverall paſſages, and the vanity of it diſcovered.