A19884:826
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. Matters of fact are, either common, or personal. Personal matters do primarily belong to the particular Churches, and only to them, so far as they are proper, but, if, by accident, they become common, they fall under the deliberation of many Churches thus combined as in causâ lapsorum, in the cause of those who fell off, in those times of persecution, not only in some one, but in many Churches, for the discussion whereof, Cyprian and the African Doctors also concluded,1 that a common meeting of many Churches was necessary, in a business so common and of so great consequence, that the plaster might be as broad as the sore, and the remedy hold some proportion with the malady.
2. Matters of fact are, either common, or personall. Personall matters doe primarily belong to the particular Churches, and onely to them, so farr as they are proper, but, if, by accident, they become common, they fall under the deliberation of many Churches thus combined as in causâ lapsorum, in the cause of those who fell off, in those times of persecution, not onely in some one, but in many Churches, for the discussion whereof, Cyprian and the Affrican Doctors also concluded,1 that a common meeting of many Churches was necessary, in a buisenes so common and of so great consequence, that the plaster might be as broad as the sore, and the remedy hold some proportion with the malady.
Secondly. For the power it hath] That it may be distinctly understood what kind of power it is, which (in reference to the ⟨p. 229⟩present question) is due or undue to Classes, I will premise two or three distinctions.
Secondly. For the power it hath] That it may be distinctly understood what kind of power it is, which (in reference to the ⟨p. 229⟩present question) is due or undue to Classes, I will premise two or three distincttons.
1. Dist: It is not potestas originalis, but derivata i. e. it not a power which the Classis hath originally, in, and from it self, but which is borrowed and derived from others, viz, from particular Churches. So that, as the conduit pipes can give no other water, then what themselves received from the springs, nor the stars any greater light, then is communicated to them from the Sun: so the Classes can exercise no other power over any particular Church, then that which it self hath freely given them. Hence it will follow, that the Classes have not an absolute but a limited power, not a Magisterial, but a Ministerial power, not the power of lords, but of stewards, not of princes, but of ambassadors, or heralds, not of lawgivers, but of criers, or publishers of proclamations, not to command (as princes do in the common wealth) but only to signify and declare the command and will of God. And therefore, that they may not define, or determine matters by the opinions or customs of men, but by the truth of God in the Scriptures, which they must show for their warrant. Because the Church it self, from whence their power is derived, hath no other power committed to it. And none can give that to others, which themselves have not. And therefore to require and enjoin men to rest in their determinations, and judgments, without sufficient proof of their agreement with the Scripture, is to give them an undue power.
1. Dist: Jt is not potestas originalis, but derivata i. e. it not a power which the Classis hath originally, in, and from it selfe, but which is borrowed and derived from others, viz, from particular Churches. So that, as the conduit pipes can give no other water, then what themselves received from the springs, nor the starres any greater light, then is communicated to them from the Sun: so the Classes can excercise no other power over any particular Church, then that which it selfe hath freely given them. Hence it will follow, that the Classes have not an absolute but a limited power, not a Magisteriall, but a Ministeriall power, not the power of lords, but of stewards, not of princes, but of embassadours, or heraulds, not of lawgivers, but of cryers, or publishers of proclamations, not to command (as princes doe in the common wealth) but onely to signifye and declare the command and will of God. And therefore, that they may not define, or determine matters by the opinions or customs of men, but by the truth of God in the Scriptures, which they must shew for their warrant. Because the Church it selfe, from whence their power is derived, hath no other power committed to it. And none can give that to others, which themselves have not. And therefore to require and injoyne men to rest in their determinations, and judgments, without sufficient proofe of their agreement with the Scripture, is to give them an undue power.
2. Dist: This derived power and authority, which is given to Classes, in these things, is not a prerogative of jurisdiction, but of estimation and reverence rather. Because Gods ordinance hath limited the former to particular Churches, as his delegates in their own matters, & it is not in their power to alienate it from themselves: But the latter is due to Classis consisting of grave, learned, prudent, and faithful men, for their excellent personal gifts, in which respect, their judgment is to be much valued, and received with due regard. And for these causes the African Doctors sought help of Damasus, Jerome, Jnnocentius &c. in the great question, de lapsis, that the truth, being confirmed ⟨p. 230⟩by their testimony and consent, who were orthodox and sound in judgment, might have the more authority with men generally, whose eyes are upon men that are famous for wisdom & soundness in the faith,1 as Dr. Reynolds told Hart, yet, in the same place, he affirmeth that all Churches which the Apostles planted were equal in power. And therefore to ascribe unto them a power of jurisdiction over particular Churches, and that in things proper to themselves, is to subject particular Churches under an undue power.
2. Dist: This derived power and authority, which is given to Classes, in these things, is not a praerogative of jurisdiction, but of aestimation and reverence rather. Because Gods ordinance hath limited the former to particular Churches, as his delegates in their owne matters, & it is not in their power to alienate it frō themselves: But the latter is due to Classis consisting of grave, learned, prudent, and faythfull men, for their excelent personall gifts, in which respect, their judgment is to be much valued, and received with due regard. And for these causes the Affrican Doctors saught helpe of Damasus, Ierom, Jnnocentius &c. in the great question, de lapsis, that the truth, being confirmed ⟨p. 230⟩
3. Dist: Whatsoever power or authority is given to Classes, in reference to particular Churches, it is given to them cumulativè, not privativè. i. e. for the help & strengthening of them, in the exercise of that power which Christ hath given them not for the depriving them of it, or straitening them in the due & right use of it. For, whatsoever Ecclesiastical power or authority is given to any, it is, for edification, not for destruction, in this sense also.1 And therefore all that power, whether assumed by them, or by others ascribed to them, whereby particular Churches are abridged of their liberty and power, in any particular, is an usurped, and undue power. These things being thus premised, our conclusion is, that.
3. Dist: Whatsoever power or authority is given to Classes, in reference to particular Churches, it is given to them cumulativè, not privativè. i. e. for the helpe & strengthening of them, in the excercise of that power which Christ hath given them not for the depriving them of it, or streightening them in the due & right use of it. For, whatsoever Ecclesiasticall power or authority is given to any, it is, for aedification, not for destruction, in this sense also.1 And therefore all that power, whether assumed by them, or by others ascribed to them, whereby particular Churches are abridged of their liberty and power, in any particular, is an usurped, and undue power. These things being thus premised, our conclusion is, that.
All that power which Classes have duly received by the free gift of particular Churches as a prerogative of estimation and reverence, or any ways for the help and strengthening of those Churches, in the well managing of their own matters, is a due power. But whatsoever power of jurisdiction they assume to themselves for the depriving of particular Churches of that power, which Christ hath given them, it is an undue power. From this conclusion we will deduce two Consectaries.
All that power which Classes have duely received by the free gift of particular Churches as a praerogative of aestimation and reverence, or any wayes for the helpe and strengthening of those Churches, in the well manadging of their owne matters, is a due power. But whatsoever power of jurisdiction they assume to themselves for the depriving of particular Churches of that power, which Christ hath given them, it is an undue power. From this conclusion we will deduce two Consectaryes.
1. Consect: That there is a lawful expedient, and, in some cases, a necessary use of the communion and combination of Churches, being rightly ordered for the help of particular Churches in their proper affairs. As, First, In the choice of Ministers. 1, for provocation, to quicken the particular Churches by their exhortations and admonitions to seek out some fit man, if they be slack therein. 2, for direction, to counsel and advise them, from the Scripture, about the fitness of the men, ⟨p. 231⟩whom they would choose, and to admonish them of any notable unfitness in them, to prevent the danger of infecting themselves, or other Churches, by any dangerous errors maintained by them against the rule of faith, or otherwise of common and important consequence. 3, for countenance and protection against any that would deprive them of meet helpers, either by false suggestions to the Magistrates, or by raising contention and opposition among themselves. Secondly. In the excommunication of members, which is a matter of great moment, if the particular Churches seek the help of neighbour Churches, to prevent any error among themselves, in a difficult case, or any misreport which may arise concerning their proceedings amongst others, or to add the more strength for the convincing of those whom they are to censure, by the concurrence and consent of grave, and learned, and prudent men of neighbour Churches, they shall do piously and prudently therein. Thirdly. In other cases of difference, wherewith particular Churches are exercised, and whereby they are so divided that the matter can not be ended, and the differences composed among themselves, by reason of the equal number of the opposites, on both sides, in matters that should be determined by voices, or the difficulty of the case in question. In all these, and such like cases, much benefit and help may and should be afforded to particular Churches by their consociation with others, in manner aforesaid, and they aught to seek and use their help therein.
1. Consect: That there is a lawfull expedient, and, in some cases, a necessary use of the communion and combination of Churches, being rightly ordered for the helpe of particular Churches in theyre proper affayres. As, First, In the choyse of Ministers. 1, for provocation, to quicken the particular Churches by their exhortations and admonitions to seeke out some fit man, if they be slack therein. 2, for direction, to counsayle and advise them, from the Scripture, about the fitnes of the men,
2. Consect: That, if Classes, under pretence of these ends and benefits, assume unto themselves such a primacy of power, or such an authority of jurisdiction over particular Churches, as 1, that they shall not choose their own Ministers, excommunicate their members, &c. Without a power derived from them, or, 2, that, the Church is hindered from enjoying Ministers of sound judgment, and unblameable behaviour, at their pleasure. or, 3. that they may impose conformity to unwarrantable customs, or conclusions of their own, as a condition without which Ministers may not lawfully be received by such a Church into the pastoral office, or, 4, that their saying a man is not fit for such a place, whom themselves acknowledge to be fit for any ⟨p. 232⟩other place, and that without showing the equity of that their judgement from the Scriptures, or equally and judiciously weighing the lawful desires of the Church, and their right in this particular, through a partial adhering to one party, should, or may deprive the Church of such men. or, 5. that the Church may not enjoy a man, against whom there is no just and sufficient exception, as an assistant, for a time, or to preach amongst them a sermon or two, as a passant, without their leave: or, 6. that matters, proper to the Church and which may be ended in their own Consistory commodiously, yet being brought to them, though but by some one man, out of opposition to the rest, that he may sway matters according to his own mind, by their help, may be taken from the Church and concluded by them, in favour of one, against the mind of the Church, and the Church must be bound to rest in their determination, though they show no warrant from the Scripture to satisfy their consciences about the equity of their so determining and doing. In a word, whatsoever power they assume, or others give them, to deprive the Church of that power which Christ hath given it, in its own matters, is against the end of their association and so an undue power.
2. Consect: That, if Classes, under pretence of these ends and benefits, assume unto themselves such a primacy of power, or such an authority of jurisdiction over particular Churches, as 1, that they shall not choose their owne Ministers, excommunicate their members, &c. Without a power derived from them, or, 2, that, the Church is hindred from injoying Ministers of sound judgment, and unblameable behaviour, at their pleasure. or, 3. that they may impose conformity to unwarrantable customs, or conclusions of their owne, as a condition without which Ministers may not lawfully be received by such a Church into the pastorall office, or, 4, that their saying a man is not fit for such a place, whom themselves acknowledge to be fit for any
Now, for the Hypothesis, or particular application of those generals to the present question] The Answerer is challenged by the Complainants for subjecting their Church under an undue power of the Classis, for his own ends, and without warrant from the word. Out of question, if it be an undue power, it is not only without warrant from the word, but also contrary to the rule. But, it may be, they mean that he hath done this, without showing them any word which warranted his so doing. And, in that sense, it is a complaint of too masterly and self-willed a carriage of himself in Church affairs. Which they seem indeed to intend by that addition, when they say, that he doeth it, for his own ends. Now, to detract from another for a mans own commodity is against nature, as the heathen man could say, and he proved it thus,1 because, if that be done, the destruction of society and community amongst men will necessarily follow. With-whom another agreeth, expressing the same thing, under a Metaphor, ⟨p. 233⟩which he applieth to men singularly and individually considered, but I will apply to particular Churches, in reference to Classical combinations. As all the members agree amongst themselves, because it concerneth the whole that every one be safe: so men do spare one another, because we are borne for communiō. 2Salva enim esse societas, nisi amore & custodiâ partium, non potest: For a society cannot otherwise be safe then by keeping the parts, whereof it is compounded, from being hurt. But let us examine his answer to this complaint, which consists of four particulars. In all which I will pass by the overflowing of his gall, which he too frequently discovereth.
Now, for the Hypothesis, or particular application of those generalls to the present question] The Answerer is chalenged by the Complainants for subjecting their Church under an undue power of the Classis, for his owne ends, and without warrant from the word. Out of question, if it be an undue power, it is not onely without warrant from the word, but also contrary to the rule. But, it may be, they meane that he hath done this, without shewing them any word which warranted his so doing. And, in that sense, it is a complaint of too masterly and selfewilled a carriage of himselfe in Church affayres. Which they seeme indeed to intend by that addition, when they say, that he doeth it, for his owne ends. Now, to detract from another for a mans owne commodity is against nature, as the heathen man could say, and he proved it thus,
1. In his first answer he chargeth them with slandering the Classis, when they charge it with an undue power, which slander, he saith, is against the very state of government, and form of discipline observed and practised in these reformed Churches, and calleth for proof. Wherein, me thinketh, he had forgotten himself: for, in the three next Sections, he himself produceth the proofs which they brought: In examining his answers to those proofs, I doubt, it will appear, that the complaint is just, whereunto I refer the Reader, praying him, in the mean space, to note that the thing complained of, is, not all power exercised by the Classis, but only an undue power, whereof whilst they complain, they do implicitly acknowledge so much power to be due, as the word of God warranteth to them, and they suppose that the government and discipline of these Reformed Churches acknowledgeth no other power to be due to them. So that, if it shall be found that the Classis have assumed to themselves an undue power over their Church, in any particular, the complaint against the Classis is just, and the slandering of the very state of the government of these Churches, is to be charged upon himself, not upon them.
1. In his first answer he chargeth them with slandring the Classis, when they charge it with an undue power, which slander, he sayth, is against the very state of government, and forme of discipline observed and practised in these reformed Churches, and calleth for proofe. Wherein, me thincketh, he had forgotten himselfe: for, in the three next Sections, he himselfe produceth the proofes which they brought: In examining his answers to those proofes, I doubt, it will appeare, that the complaint is just, whereunto I referr the Reader, praying him, in the meane space, to noate that the thing complained of, is, not all power excercised by the Classis, but onely an undue power, whereof whilest they complaine, they doe implicitely acknowledge so much power to be due, as the word of God warranteth to them, and they suppose that the government and discipline of these Reformed Churches acknowledgeth no other power to be due to them. So that, if it shall be found that the Classis have assumed to themselves an undue power over their Church, in any particular, the complaint against the Classis is just, and the slandring of the very state of the government of these Churches, is to be charged upon himselfe, not upon them.
2. In his second answer, he chargeth them with slander, for saying that he hath subjected the Church under an undue power. This also will appear in the proofs of the justness of this complaint, in the following Sections, whereunto I refer the Reader.
2. In his second answer, he chargeth them with slander, for saying that he hath subjected the Church under an undue power. This also will appeare in the proofes of the justnes of this complaint, in the following Sections, whereunto I referr the Reader.
3. In his third answer he chargeth them with slander, for saying ⟨p. 234⟩that he hath done this merely for his own ends. This, he saith, is a great arrogancy, and setting of themselves in Gods stead, whose peculiar it is to search, and to judge the heart, and reins. But, is this to answer complaints? or is it not to give new cause of complaints? that, whereas formerly they complained that he deprived the Church of the power, which Christ had given it, now they may complain, that he would put out the eyes of the members, and deprive them of the reason and understanding which God hath given them. For, if men may not judge of mens intentions, how is it that our Lord hath left it for a rule, whereby to discern false prophets whose intentions are wolvish, and to raven, how sheepish and harmless soever they seem to be, in their pretences, when he saith, Ye shall know them by their fruits? 1Which I do not, nor dare apply personally to the Answerer, of whom I have better thoughts, and esteem, but only to show that it is lawful for men, in some cases, and so far as they keep to the rule, to judge of others mens intentions. It is true; it is Gods prerogative to judge the heart. But, what then? may not men, by the light of reason, which he hath given them,2 judge the actions? God knoweth the thoughts a far off, in their hidden causes, and seminal preparations, and that, infallibly, this is his peculiar glory, which is not arrogated by man, whilst he professeth only to judge the cause by the effect, and the end by the means, which is, as if a man should say. The smoke appeareth out of the chimney; therefore there is some fire in the house, or the man chooseth such a way; therefore his intent is to travail to such a place. The light of reason and sense enableth a man thus to judge, and the light of Scripture warranteth it. How then can any man justly condemn it? As for the Answerers ends, in this action, reason in any of the complainants saith, they must be, either public, or private. If his ends were the public good of the Church, the means would be directed thereunto: but it seems to them that the means are such as tend rather to deprive the Church of men, whom they warrantably desire, and to straiten the Churches liberty and power in her own matters, Hereupon they conjecture that his end is not their public good, but some private
This judgment is but humane, and therefore fallible. For it is possible that a man, by an error in his judgment, may pursue a good end in wrong means: & so the Answerer, thinking it to be more for the good of the Church to be straitened thus and limited by the Classis, then to be otherwise, might have a good end, but mistook the means. And therefore, if they missed of the matter of the complaint, in challenging him for unlawful ends, yet the complaint will be found just, if they accuse him of using unwarrantable means. Yet I cannot free him, as I desire, from their accusation of self-aims, in what he hath done, till he shall deny it, & declare his intendments to have been for the public good, which when he shall have done, the Complaint will appear to have been a slander, and I shall rejoice to see his integrity cleared, in this particular.
This judgment is but humane, and therefore fallible. For it is possible that a man, by an errour in his judgment, may pursue a good end in wrong meanes: & so the Answerer, thincking it to be more for the good of the Church to be streightned thus and limited by the Classis, then to be otherwise, might have a good end, but mistooke the meanes. And therefore, if they missed of the matter of the complaint, in chalenging him for unlawfull ends, yet the complaint will be found just, if they accuse him of using unwarrātable meanes. Yet I cannot free him, as I desire, from theyre accusation of selfe-aymes, in what he hath done, till he shall deny it, & declare his intendments to have bene for the publick good, which when he shall have done, the Complaint will appeare to have bene a slander, and I shall rejoyce to see his integrity cleared, in this particular.
4. In his fourth answer, he would fain know, he saith, what that due power is, by which they would have the Church to be governed. The truth is. In all this passage appeareth much sarcastical bitterness, unworthy of the learning, gravity, and holy function of the Answerer. Yet, I suppose, the Complainants would be ready, if they were called, to answer soberly that they desire no other Church government, unto which they would willingly be subject, then that which Christ hath appointed the Church to be under. What that is, if they know not, he aught to teach them: If they know it, and desire it, he aught to lead them out, and to go before them, as a faithful shepherd, that the sheep may follow him, as he followeth Christ, & not to prejudice them against any good way, by a scoffing proposal of mens differences in judgment, about some particular tract, or turning in the way, to the great scandal and offence of many, and the dishonour of the Gospel, and the hindrance of Reformation, by his joining with the enemies thereof, in an old cavil which hath turned many out of the way, and caused some to return back to a mere neutrality in religion, till the professors of it agree among themselves about the path, wherein they will walk.
4. In his fourth answer, he would faine know, he sayth, what that due power is, by which they would have the Church to be governed. The truth is. In all this passage appeareth much sarcasticall bitternes, unworthy of the learning, gravity, and holy function of the Answerer. Yet, I suppose, the Complainants would be ready, if they were called, to answer soberly that they desire no other Church government, unto which they would willingly be subject, then that which Christ hath appoynted the Church to be under. What that is, if they know not, he aught to teach them: If they know it, and desire it, he aught to lead them out, and to goe before them, as a faythfull shepheard, that the sheep may follow him, as he followeth Christ, & not to praejudice them against any good way, by a scoffing proposall of mens differences in judgment, about some particular tract, or turning in the way, to the great scandall and offence of many, and the dishonour of the Gospel, and the hindrance of Reformation, by his joyning with the enimyes thereof, in an old cavill which hath turned many out of the way, and caused some to returne back to a mere neutrality in religion, till the professours of it agree among themselves about the path, wherein they will walke.
Whereas he taketh occasion again, without provocation, to mention Mr. Jacob as an enemy to Classes and Synods, that I might speak a word in the cause of the dumb, and of the ⟨p. 236⟩dead, I have examined what he hath written concerning this point (more, upon this occasion, then formerly I had done, and, it may be,1 more then else I should have done) and do find that he professeth his agreement, (that I may use his own words) even to an hair; with Calvin and Beza, touching the substance of this matter, and that he acknowledgeth, with them, both the parishionall and Diocesan presbyteries: yea, the provincial, and larger too, if occasion serve. How he explaineth himself herein the diligent Reader will easily observe in other passages of the same book. And else where he acknowledgeth that there may be, and, on occasion, there ought to be, on earth, a consociation of Congregations, and Churches, and namely, by way of Synods, but not a subordination, or, surely, not a subjection of the Congregations under any higher spiritual authority absolute, save only Christs, and the holy Scriptures. Whereby it appeareth, that the single uncompounded policy, which Mr, I, required, is not contrary to the government of these reformed Churches, by Classes and Synods rightly ordered;2 nay rather he so far approveth of it, that he saith, it is Apostolical for many ordinary Congregations, consociating together, in their spiritual government, to have a Diocesan or larger Synod, or presbytery over them, for their better direction, and, he addeth, such the reformed Churches, at this day, do enjoy. But, if he think, by mentioning the name of Mr. Jacob, to leave the Complainants under the suspicion of adhering to some sect, or of depending upon the authority of man, & not upon the word of Christ, for their rule, about Church matters, he will be found to be injurious, not to them alone, but to Christ also,3 and to the truth.
Whereas he taketh occasion againe, without provocation, to mention Mr. Iacob as an enimy to Classes and Synods, that I might speake a word in the cause of the dumbe, and of the ⟨p. 236⟩
First. To Christ, seeing they acknowledge all that power to be due (and thereunto they are willing to submit) which, by the word, is warranted to be that whereby Churches should be governed, according to the mind of Christ, & which agreeth with the pattern which Christ left to his disciples, and which the Apostles exactly followed, in planting those primitive Churches of Corinth, Coloss, Ephesus, the 7 golden Candlesticks in Asia, among whom Christ walked. &c. and which Paul so strictly charged Timothy to observe, in all Church affairs which: is no other then the power committed by Christ to particular Churches, ⟨p. 237⟩as his delegates, for the right ordering of themselves, in their Church government, and in all holy administrations and ordinances, according to his command and direction in the Scripture, without dependence upon any Classes or Synods, or whatsoever humane spiritual power for license or authority to be received from them for their so doing. And, as they thus acknowledge all that power, under which the Church is subjected by warrant of the word, to be due; so they profess all that power, under which the Church is subjected, to be undue, which the word doeth not warrant, and which taketh away from particular Churches that power which, by Christ his ordinance, is due to them, which, what is it but to remove the ancient bounds, 1& to thrust the Churches from the liberties wherein they are commanded to stand fast, and to affect an undue preeminence in the Church?
First. To Christ, seing they acknowledge all that power to be due (and thereunto they are willing to submit) which, by the word, is warranted to be that whereby Churches should be governed, according to the mind of Christ, & which agreeth with the patterne which Christ left to his disciples, and which the Apostles exactly followed, in planting those primitive Churches of Corinth, Colosse, Ephesus, the 7 golden Candlesticks in Asia, among whom Christ walked. &c. and which Paul so streightly charged Timothy to observe, in all Church affayres which: is no other then the power committed by Christ to particuler Churches, ⟨p. 237⟩as his delegates, for the right ordering of themselves, in their Church government, and in all holy administrations and ordinances, according to his command and direction in the Scripture, without dependance upon any Classes or Synods, or whatsoever humane spirituall power for license or authority to be received from them for their so doing. And, as they thus acknowledge all that power, under which the Church is subjected by warrant of the word, to be due; so they professe all that power, under which the Church is subjected, to be undue, which the word doeth not warrant, and which taketh away from particular Churches that power which, by Christ his ordinance, is due to them, which, what is it but to remove the ancient bounds,
3. In his third answer he chargeth them with slāder, for saying ⟨p. 234⟩that he hath done this merely for his owne ends. This, he sayth, is a great arrogancy, and setting of themselves in Gods stead, whose peculiar it is to search, and to judge the heart, and reynes. But, is this to answer complaints? or is it not to give new cause of complaints? that, whereas formerly they complained that he deprived the Church of the power, which Christ had given it, now they may complaine, that he would put out the eyes of the members, and deprive them of the reason and understanding which God hath given them. For, if men may not judge of mens intentions, how is it that our Lord hath left it for a rule, whereby to discerne false prophets whose intentions are wolvish, and to raven, how sheepish and harmelesse soever they seeme to be, in their pretences, when he sayth, Ye shall know them by their fruits? 1Which I doe not, nor dare apply personally to the Answerer, of whom I have better thoughts, and esteeme, but onely to shew that it is lawfull for men, in some cases, and so farr as they keepe to the rule, to judge of others mens intentions. It is true; it is Gods praerogative to judge the heart. But, what then? may not men, by the light of reason, which he hath given them,2 judge the actions? God knoweth the thoughts a farr off, in their hidden causes, and seminall preparations, and that, infallibly, this is his peculiar glory, which is not arrogated by man, whilest he professeth onely to judge the cause by the effect, and the end by the meanes, which is, as if a man should say. The smoake appeareth out of the chimney; therefore there is some fire in the house, or the man chuseth such a way; therefore his intent is to travayle to such a place. The light of reason and sense inableth a man thus to judge, and the light of Scripture warranteth it. How then can any man justly condemne it? As for the Answerers ends, in this action, reason in any of the complainants sayth, they must be, either publick, or private. If his ends were the publick good of the Church, the meanes would be directed thereunto: but it seemes to them that the meanes are such as tend rather to deprive the Church of men, whom they warrantably desire, and to streighten the Churches liberty and power in her owne matters, Hereupon they conjecture that his end is not their publick good, but some private ⟨p. 235⟩selfe respect.
