A19884:834
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.
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 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 applyeth to men singularly and individually considered, but I will apply to particular Churches, in reference to Classicall combinations. As all the members agree amongst themselves, because it concerneth the wholl that every one be safe: so men doe 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 fowre particulars. In all which I will passe by the overflowing of his gall, which he too frequently discovereth.
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,
Secondly. To the truth, whilst it is presented to the view of all men under the show of some singular opinion (or error rather) of a particular man, or as a forlorn thing, deserted of all her witnesses, excepting Mr. Jacob, whereas so much as the Complainants seem to require (as appeareth in their referring themselves to the warrant of the word) hath been acknowledged by the faithful witnesses in all ages,1 with which cloud of witnesses we are compassed about, as the Israelites were with that pillar of a cloud, wherein the Lord went before them, by day, 2to lead them in the way. Such were the Apostles, in their time, and those worthies, as Cyprian, and those of whom Eusebius taketh notice,3 in many places, and in some succeeding instances, before the mystery wrought to its full height. The same thing may appear to those who are conversant in the writings of the Centuriators. To these I may add those who have handled the controversies concerning the necessity, and authority of Councils, amongst whom I will instance in Dr. Whittaker, who,4 speaking of the fullness of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church, not to the Pope (which he applieth to the Keys in binding and loosing, shutting and opening, retaining and remitting sins) saith, that this power belongeth primarily, principally, and essentially to the Church, but to the ⟨p. 238⟩several Bishops only accidentally, secondarily, and l•sse principally, and explaineth himself by a rule in philosophy, which is, that when any power is in two, in one necessarily & essentially, in another contingently and accidentally, it is more principally in him, in whom it is necessarily and essentially, then in him, whose it is only contingently and accidentally. As the heat is more principally in the fire then in the water, because it is in the water by reason of the fire. So (saith he) seeing this jurisdiction and fullness of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily, but to the Pope only secondarily, and by the Church, it is manifest that it is more in the Church then in the Pope. What that learned writer saith of the Churches power, in comparison with the Pope, holds in all other parallel instances.
To these I may add those who have written concerning the right ordering of Churches, according to the Scripture. I will not stand to give a Catalogue of their names, though I might be plentiful therein, but will content my self with the three writers of this kind, whom the Answerer pretended, in conference with me, to make for him, and I shall show them to be strongly against him, Mr, Cartwright, and Mr. Fenner and Mr. Parker, men of our own nation.
To these I may add those who have written concerning the right ordering of Churches, according to the Scripture. I will not stand to give a Catalogue of their names, though I might be plentifull therein, but will content my selfe with the three wrighters of this kind, whom the Answerer pretended, in conference with me, to make for him, and I shall shew them to be strongly against him, Mr, Cartwright, and Mr. Fenner and Mr. Parker, men of our owne nation.
11. For Mr. Cartwright. The very place in his book, whereunto the Answerer referred me, I have examined before, and have shown how little help he will have from him.
11. For Mr. Cartwright. The very place in his booke, whereunto the Answerer referred me, I have examined before, and have shewen how litle helpe he will have from him.
12. For M. Fenner. He, speaking of the Ecclesiastical presbytery, distinguisheth between the Eldership of one particular Church (which, he saith, is properly called [Greek or Hebrew]) and the Eldership of many Churches.
12. For M. Fenner. He, speaking of the Ecclesiasticall presbytery, distinguisheth betweene the Eldership of one particular Church (which, he sayth, is properly called 〈non-Latin alphabet〉) and the Eldership of many Churches.
1The Eldership of the first sort, he saith, is a compound office wherein all the Elders do, in the name of the whole Church, administer all the businesses of the Church, that is, of the Lord, by common authority and counsel. And, for this purpose, he allegeth many texts out of the old and new testaments. These businesses, he saith, are either judiciary or extrajudiciary. Judiciary businesses are such things as are to be defined by the judgment of the Church, which are, either matters doubtful, which must be defined by the Scriptures, or ⟨p. 239⟩censures to be administered. Extrajudiciary businesses, are Elections, ordinations, chief care of disposing the holy treasures, keeping of order in the assembly, and all things which are to be done. Yet, in matters of greatest moment, and which concern the good, or ruin of the whole Church, he saith, the Elders, after consultation had among themselves, must tell their opinions to the Church, that, if they have any thing to counsel, or to object, it may be brought in, and afterwards, the opinions and assent of all being declared, matters are to be concluded, unless it be necessary to refer the business to a greater assembly of Elders, for the avoiding, or composing of differences, which is then to be done when the difference is between the greater part of the Church. And these matters, of the greatest moment, are, the censures, excommunication, and absolution from it, which is to be done in the assembly, by the AUTHORITY OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, orders also of the greatest moment to be made, controversies of faith to be composed, the elections and just deposing of Ministers, & other things equal to these, or greater then they all, which must be thus transacted, as he plentifully declareth from Scripture. Thus I have faithfully translated the words of this eminent light, in his time Mr. Dudley Fenner, who was joined with Mr. Cartwright in the public ministry to the English Company in Antwerp, to whom, and to that work of his Mr. Cartwright, in an epistle to him prefixed to that book, giveth a singular testimony, comparing him to Moses, who, from Mount Nebo, viewed the whole land of Canaan, as it were, with one cast of his eye, to whom the Answerer him self referred me (wherein I admire his confidence) as to one that made for him.
1The Eldership of the first sort, he sayth, is a compound office wherein all the Elders doe, in the name of the wholl Church, administer all the buisenesses of the Church, that is, of the Lord, by common authority and counsaile. And, for this purpose, he alleadgeth many texts out of the old and new testaments. These buisenesses, he sayth, are either judiciary or extrajudiciary. Iudiciary buisenesses are such things as are to be defined by the judgment of the Church, which are, either matters doubtfull, which must be defined by the Scriptures, or
The Reader may see how he leaveth the whole power of jurisdiction in the particular Church, and bindeth them no further to make use of other Ecclesiastical Senates, out of themselves, then necessity requireth, and he doeth not acknowledge that it is a case of that necessity; but when the avoiding of troubles and dissentions in the Church makes it necessary. And when is that? Not when one alone contentiously differeth from all the rest. But, when the ⟨p. 240⟩difference is among the greater part. And that, in such a case, the judgment of the whole Church is first to be tried and the opinions, and assent of all being declared, matters are to be concluded.1 Else where he saith, that the presbytery of many Churches is to compose and end such things only as cannot be ended in particular Churches. Act. 15.1. to 8. 2. Chron. 20.33. Act. 16.4. And these are cases, either proper to those Churches, which are brought to them, or things common to many Churches, and so taken up by them. I demand of the Answerer, whether he be of this worthy writers judgment, or not? If not; why did he refer me to him for satisfaction? If yea; why is his practise so different from it? For, in this business, though of so great consequence, that it endangered the breaking of the Church (if I had not sat down quietly, and suffered wrong, for peace sake) the Answerer alone opposing the desire of the Elders, and of the greater part of the Church, and the business being proper to the Church, and which might have been ended among themselves, yet, against the liberty and right of the Church (if Mr. Fenners judgement be right) he would carry it to the Classis, that he might effect his purpose.
The Reader may see how he leaveth the wholl power of jurisdiction in the particular Church, and bindeth them no further to make use of other Ecclesiasticall Senats, out of themselves, then necessity requireth, and he doeth not acknowledge that it is a case of that necessity; but when the avoyding of troubles and dissentions in the Church makes it necessary. And when is that? Not when one alone contentiously differeth from all the rest. But, when the
13. For Mr. Parker. He largely, and strongly proveth this position, potestas Ecclesiastica essentialiter & primario in ipsâ Fccl•siâ, tanquam in subjecto proprio, residet. The power ecclesiastical doeth essentially & primarily reside in the Church it self, as in its, proper subject. The sense wherein he thus spake, to prevent all suspicion of his pleading for popular confusion, he declareth out of Zanchy, who saith,2 toti Ecclesiae dedisse Christum claves, sed ita ut in Ecclesiâ certi essent, qui clavibus utantur ad salutem Ecclesiae, honoremque Dei. That Christ gave the keys to the whole Church, but so, that there should be certain men that should use the keys to the good of the Church and glory of God. For the proof of the former, that the right of power is in every particular Church, he useth five Arguments, in the 6: & 7. chapters, & then, in the 8. chapter, he cometh to speak of the exercise and ordinary execution of this power, which is, he saith, in the Church-officers or rulers, yet, with this moderation, that this dispensation of the Churches power in the officers be according to a well tempered form, partly Aristocratical, ⟨p. 241⟩partly Democratical, the Church committing those things to the presbytery, which it can not commodiously perform by it self, and retaining that exercise of power which belongs to the dignity, authority, and liberty which it hath received from Christ. Thus he wholly destroyeth that democracy, or popular Anarchy, which Beza justly condemneth in Morellius, and is, by some, unjustly imputed to those that plead for a due reformation of Churches, according to the rules of the word, and the primitive patterns. Of the first sort of things, which the Church committeth to the Rulers, because it cannot commodiously perform them by it self, he speaketh in cap. 9.10.11. of the second sort of things, which the Church retaineth in it self, because it can commodiously exercise them by it self, he speaketh in cap. 12. Wherein, by 22. Arguments, he proveth the Churches superiority over her Pastors and rulers, in 3 respects. 1. of the end, the power which they have being given them for her edification. 2, in respect of the application of it to the persons, 3 in respect of regulating the use of it, if it be abused. And in cap. 18.
13, making a comparison between a particular Church, and Churches combined in Synods and Classes, he affirmeth that the difference between them is, not in the intensive consideration of their power (which the congregation hath, in reference to the Keys, within it self) but in the extensive power only, wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects, viz, to many Churches (in things common) whereas the power of a particular Church is confined, and limited within its own compass. The same author, in the 20 chapter, speaking of the summity, or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations, propoundeth the due limits of it, wherein, he conceiveth, it is to be understood, and bounded, as, that the power of particular Churches is chief. 1. in its own matters, not in things common to many Churches. 2. in case it be able to transact its own matters within it self: as, if a doubt or controversy arise, the Church hath power to terminate it, if it can: as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves, & laboured to compose the difference within themselves, but finding (not a want ⟨p. 242⟩of right to end it among themselves, but) need of more help they sent to Jerusalem freely for the help of their counsel, in this matter. 3. In case of right and lawful administration. 4. In case of no evil administration presumed by those, who, finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence, appeal to the judgment of the Synod. In which 3 last limitations, other Churches (to whose judgment, or advice, persons injured by an unjust sentence appeal) do concur, in way of counsel, and declaration of their judgment, to help particular churches to exercise their power aright,1 in their own matters, as was before noted out of Mr. Cartw. and Mr. Fenner, and out of the Author himself in the foregoing passages, with being so understood, doeth not justify any undue power of jurisdiction, if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases & manner complained of by the Subscribers: and how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section, will appear to the indifferent Reader, when he shall have compared both together.2
13, making a comparison betweene a particular Church, and Churches combined in Synods and Classes, he affirmeth that the difference betweene them is, not in the intensive consideration of their power (which the congregation hath, in reference to the Keyes, within it selfe) but in the extensive power onely, wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects, viz, to many Churches (in things common) whereas the power of a particular Church is confined, and limited within its owne compasse. The same authour, in the 20 chapter, speaking of the summity, or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations, propoundeth the due limits of it, wherein, he conceiveth, it is to be understood, and bounded, as, that the power of particular Churches is cheife. 1. in its owne matters, not in things commō to many Churches. 2. in case it be able to transact its owne matters within it selfe: as, if a doubt or controversy arise, the Church hath power to terminate it, if it can: as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves, & laboured to compose the difference within themselves, but finding (not a want
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.
Secondly. To the truth, whilest it is presented to the view of all men under the shew of some singular opinion (or errour rather) of a particular man, or as a forelorne thing, deserted of all her witnesses, excepting Mr. Iacob, whereas so much as the Complainants seeme to require (as appeareth in their referring themselves to the warrant of the word) hath bene acknowledged by the faythfull witnesses in all ages,1 with which cloud of witnesses we are compassed about, as the Israelites were with that pillar of a cloud, wherein the Lord went before them, by day, 2to lead them in the way. Such were the Apostles, in their time, and those worthyes, as Cyprian, and those of whom Eusebius taketh notice,3 in many places, and in some succeeding instances, before the mistery wraught to its full hight. The same thing may appeare to those who are conversant in the wrightings of the Centuriators. To these I may add those who have handled the controversyes concerning the necessity, and authority of Councills, amongst whom I will instance in Dr. Whittaker, who,4 speaking of the fullnes of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church, not to the Pope (which he applyeth to the Keyes in binding and loosing, shutting and opening, retayning and remitting sinnes) sayth, that this power belongeth primarily, principally, and essentially to the Church, but to the ⟨p. 238⟩severall Bishops onely accidentally, secundarily, and l•sse principally, and explaineth himselfe by a rule in philosophy, which is, that when any power is in two, in one necessarily & essentially, in another contingently and accidentally, it is more principally in him, in whom it is necessarily and essentially, then in him, whose it is onely contingently and accidentally. As the heate is more principally in the fire then in the water, because it is in the water by reason of the fire. So (sayth he) seing this jurisdiction and fullnes of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily, but to the Pope onely secundarily, and by the Church, it is manifest that it is more in the Church then in the Pope. What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power, in comparison with the Pope, holds in all other paralell instances.
