A Stay Against Straying, Part 2 · Section 8
SECT. 8.
OVr ſix Objection,Object. 6. as hee layes it downe for us is thus. If there be no communion at all between the Teacher and taught, what profit then commeth by ſuch hearing.
To this his anſwere is. Treat.The Church Officer feedes the ſtocke of Chriſt over which he is ſet, as the object of his miniſtery. Such as come in, (beeing not in Church vnion therewith) heares him ſo doing as a ſtander by heares mee talke or dispute with another, &c, Here is communion onelyonly in the effects of the truths taught. It were vſurpation in any to pertake in a Church previleidge (which the office of miniſtery is) that were not in Church state firſt, & ſo if hearing imported Church Communion none but in Church members might lawfully heare.
The Treat. anſwers, are much like to one that turnes himſelfe many times about, but moves not out of the place. All that he ſaith is (Homoeologia) one thing often ſaid over and over. That is a change of the ſtate of the queſtion, which is not about Church-communion, but whether a beleever, when hee heares a falſe miniſter in a worke of his office, doe ſuch an action as can be proved lawfull by the word of God. Now to this (which is the maine*Sacra ſcriptura tota vera, neceſſaria ſufficiens viatori conſequen dum finē ſuum: nec eſt dubia via ſalutis. Harum etiam explicatio & quantū adcreden da, & quā tum ad ſperanda, et quantum ad operanda ex plicatur, ex diverſis ſcripturae locis. Scotus in 1. ſent. quaeſt. thing) we finde nothing in the Treatiſe, but much paper blotted foreign about queſtions and ſtrifes of words, which are indeed vaine and vnprofitable, & and whereof commeth envie, strife, evill ſurmiſings, rather then edefying which is in faith ſo to doe.
Jf J ſhould ſay nothing to this, ſome would ſay there were ſome thing in it. Therefore I anſwere. 1. It is a falſe kind of reſoning (which Logicians condemne vnderunder the tearme, non cauſae vt cauſae) when a thing is ſpoken either with limitation or without, to conclude more thē the proemiſſes: this fault the Trea. commits here; For he would perſwade vsus, that becauſe the Church-officer & his flocke are relatives, therefore no man, not in Church vnion hath relation to his office.aM. Conſt. Cnrin. Metaph. l. 2. c. 1. R. Goclen. in cōtr…v. log. p. 1, c. 18, Seal. c 93, de cauſ. Lat. But we are not altogether ſuch novices, but know a little how to diſtinguiſh Sopheſtrie from Philoſophie.
Touching Relation, the ſame may be conſidered, 1. in ordinatione, 2. in applicatione. For the firſt, which is a Relation by order, or coniunctione, that is, relatio per ſe, as LogiciansbFonſec. 5. Metaphy. c. 18 Quoeſt. 2, Sect. 3. Timpl. Metap. l. 4. Phraſe it; Here now I grant in this kind of Relation no man hath relation to the office of the Teacher, that is not in Church-communion therewith. But for the ſecond, which is, relatio imperfecta, or per accidens; Here I affirme that in this kind: The Hearer, howbeit not in Church-estate, yet hath relation, to the Office of the Teacher, and ſo farr forth is the object of his Ministerie.
Ariſtotle cMeta. l. 5, c. 5.ſpeaking of ſundry wayes of Relations unto perſons and things, ſets downe theſe particulars: foreign. So then, to goe where unlawfull Miniſters teach, obſerve the time, hearken to their Doctrine, ſhew the like outward ſubmiſſive geſtures and reverence that others doe, performe divine worſhip there with them, and among them: This is to have relation to the idol-state, both of Church and Miniſterie, if the Philoſopher ſpeake truelie.
Againe, conſider a relation in the parts thereof. 1. Here is ſubjectum, viz. Hearing. 2. Fundamentum, i. e. a falſe-ſtate. 3. Terminus, viz. ſuperſtition (but our Oppoſites name it edification) 4. Relatum, to weet, the speaker. 5. Correlatum, viz. the Hearer.
And howſoever, it may be ſaid, that in reſpect of Church-union the Relation, here is properlie in the two later, that is, between the Church-officer and his Flock; notwithſtanding this cannot be denyed: But for the other kind and way of Hearing, albeit it be not the Relation, yet it is in Relation, and belongs reallie to the praedicament or matter of the Relation.
I am ſorry, that J am conſtrained to ſpeake ſo often of Philoſophie, but indeed I can doe no leſſe, conſidering, that leaving the Word of God, he ſeeks to lead men a ſtray, by abſtruſe and ambiguous diſtinctions, ſtrange and wrapping words: Now, howſoever this may puzzel the underſtanding of ſome people, as not able to apprehend the ſtrong deluſion, yet the truth is, let them be brought to the rules and grounds of true Philoſophie, dVera Philoſophia cum S. Theologia nuſquam pugnat: & quod in Theologia verum eſt, etiam in Philoſophia; & contra. Keckerm. diſput. Philoſ. p. 5they are as unable to be defended by art and reaſon this way, as by the Seriptures. Notwithſtanding I doe deſire the perſon, whoſoever he ſhalbe that undertakes the cauſe here againſt me, to prove what he ſaith by divine authoritie; For I would willingly deale with him by that booke alone, as by the book of all truth; Nay, I require Scripture, for without it, I ſhall beleeve nothing, though he bring whole Cartloads of ſuch carnall caveling deviſes. But to proceed.
2. To apply the hearing in queſtion, to a ſtander by, that heares a man to ſpeake occaſionallie, and in a private way: Here againe, as in al the reſt, he takes his ſcope without orbe or order; For where things are done, ex mero alterius obſequio, by a power & institution, there can be no participation in the adminiſtrations thereof,eM. Conſt. Cnirim. Metaph. l. 2. c. 1 but it is a ſubmiſſion to the power, whether it be true or falſe. By ſuch a gloze, the Corinthians might finelie have put of Pauls reproofe: Seeing we are not in union with them, we can at their ſacrifice only as ſtanders by, and in a private way: and ſo have no relation to the idol. But ſuch a ſhift would not ſerve their turne; For whatſoever they did, it was to be determined, and reputed, according to the publick acts, and not as themſelves vainelie fantiſed: Sofcomment: in 1 Sam. c. 27 v. 4 Martyr, Chytraeus, ‡De Euchariſt. p. 216and others.
The time was, when the Treat. thought that there was uſegPreface before religious Commun. of a distinction of Religious actions, into perſonall and Church-actions; & how he underſtood it, he ſhewes afterwards: hTreat. of private Communion, pag. 10in private I communicate onlie with the preſons and perſonall graces of holy men; in publique I communicate with their Church-ſtate and order, as alſo with the publick Miniſtery, and in, and with it with the Prelacy, whence it is.
The truth here, is never the worſe nor leſſe, howſoever he left it, for he that joynes in the exerciſe and practice of publick actions, he muſt neceſſarilie joyne himſelfe tō the State, Order, Ministerie, &c. in which, and by which the ſame are performed.
3. In this anſwer he plainly confutes himſelfe: For marke all Readers that have ſence: In a true Church he grants, there is Communion between the Teacher and taught, and the reaſon which he gives for it, is, becauſe the Flock is the object of his Ministerie.
Now, if that in this way, make a Lawfull Communion; then by neceſſarie conſequence, there can be no hearing in the other way, but muſt be an unlawfull Communion; My reaſon is, becauſe the Office of a Preiſt, is not an inſtitution of any one independent bodie, but of univerſall Hyerarchicall ſtate, and extendeth it ſelfe too, and over all manner of perſons whatſoever, I ſay ſo many, as doe congregate and bend an eare thereto.
If any ſhould object and ſay, but many of them, are Pariſh-Prieſts, and ſo reſident in one place. I anſwer, this reſpects not the state of their Office at all, but onlie imports a licence that ſome have from their Prelate, to doe certaine ſervices ſpeciallie in this or that Aſſembly; not that their Office of Preisthood is here by anie way limited or circumſcribed, but is, (as we ſaid before) univerſall and every where over Sea and Land: Hence then, everie hearer muſt needs be the object of ſuch a Miniſterie, and ſo communicateth therewith, if there be any weight of reaſon in the Treat. words. And here we have verefied the old ſaying.
Ipſe ſibi nocet is alium qui laedere quaerit.
4. Where he ſaith, here is communion only in the effects of the truths taught. Here is another invention of his owne head, and makes true the ſaying,iVno abſurdo dato, mille ſequuntur grant one abſurditie, and a thouſand will follow. That the effects ſhould be dividuated from the working-cauſe, is againſt the rules of reaſon,kClement. Templ. Metaphy. l. 3, p. 251, 260. for common principles ſhew, that there is an eſſentiall connextion between them, and the former is to be conſidered for qualitie & kind, as the later is. Theſe Canons are well known, as is the cauſe, ſo that which is cauſed of the doing of the thing. nIdem qua idem, ſemper facit idem, Ariſt. l. 2. de Gen. & corrupt. c. 10,Againe, lRodolph Goclen. c. 9 p. 90as is the ſame, ſo alwayes followes the ſame effect.
We ſpeake not here, of what may fall out by accident,oAriſt. 2 Topic. c. 9, 5, 31, but of things conſidered in themſelves.mqualis cauſa tale cauſatum, And to take it thus, and ſay, they effects are right and Lawfull, when the inſtruments, and working-cauſes are wrong and unlawfull; Or to ſay, I may communicate in the effects, and yet not with the inſtruments, or working-cauſe. It is (caput vacuum cerebro) as vaine a thing as ever man held.
If a Traitor or Rebel ſhould ſet up one to be a Iudge, another a Major, &c. and give them commiſſion to adminiſter, juſtice publicklie; Were it Lawfull for any of the Kings ſubjects to communicate in the effect of their adminiſtrations, becauſe the ſame in it ſelfe was juſt? I ſay no: For it were treaſon ſo to doe. And is it a leſſer offence, to offend God in a matter of the like nature?
If a man may communicate in the effects of ſuch actions (ſay good in themſelves) whoſe inſtruments and working-cauſes are unlawfull: I ſay, let this be granted, there are few Idolaters, Adulterers, Theeves, Witches, but will eaſilie excuſe themſelves. But as it is a Maxime in the civill Law,pFr. Connanus Comment. juris civil. l. 5, c. 9; and grounded on the Law of God.qMart. Azpilcueta Enchyrio, c: 17, p. 330, cals it a breach of the 7. … Commād. That to have any thing rightlie: juſt and lawfull inſtruments muſt be uſed; So it is in this cauſe here; For howſoever God may uſe what inſtruments he will: I ſay, bring his purpoſe to paſſe by what ſecondary meanes he pleaſeth, yet hath he bound vsus ſtraightlie, not to make uſe of any unlawfull inſtruments or working-meanes, (whether it be Church, Ministerie, Worſhip, or any Rite or Order) in hope thereby to have ſome good effects.
And here I deſire our Oppoſites to tell me, ſeeing as the Treat. rTreat. of pub. commun. p. 29.confeſſeth, that the Chancelour in the Conſiſtorie, and the Preist in the Pulpit or Deſk, doth adminiſter by one and the ſame power: Namelie, that of the Prelate; which, from, and by him, both the one, and other doth receive. Why a man may not as well communicate in the effects of the adminiſtrations, done by the Chancelour in his Conſiſtorie, ſo they are truths: As in the effects of the truths taught by a Prieſt in his Pulpit or Deſk?
5. Though hearing ſimplie imports not Church…communion: yet all hearing in a Church-way, imports a juſtification and allowance of the ſtate, both of the Church and Miniſterie, in which, and by which a man is taught. And this we have alreadie ſo proved, that unleſſe men reſolve not to yeeld to the truth, which is moſt plaine, but to kick againſt the prick, and with Cavils, Glozings, and facing out of things (like ſo many fovle feer to trouble the cleane water) they muſt needs ſee, and ſay, that the Treat. in this point held an errour.