Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 26
The 28. Section examined.
IN this, and the three following Sections, they bring proofes of the juſtnes of their complaint of his ſubjecting the Church under an undue power of the Claſſis. Their firſt proofe is,1. Proofe. his giving them power to keepe out ſuch men as he would have kept out, though they abhorred all haereſy and Schyſme. And they inſtance in Mr. H: and me, which is aggravated. 1. by the primary agent, he, viz the Anſwerer. 2. by the innocency of the perſons injuryed, they being ſuch as abhor all haereſy and ſchyſme &c. 3. by the Anſwerers partiall carriage, he would have had other, that, to this day, hold the ſame opinion.
To keepe out Miniſters, whom the Church deſireth, being free from haereſy or ſchyſme, is not in the power of the Claſſis, by any warrant from the word, or by any order eſtabliſhed in the Synods of theſe countryes. And therefore the power, whereby they doe that, is an undue power, and the complaint of the members againſt it is juſt. Let us examine his anſwers which are ſix.
The 2 firſt, in reference to the firſt aggravation, ſerve to accuſe the Complainants of a double ſlander. 1. of ſlandering the Anſwerer, in ſaying, that he gave the Claſſis this power. 2. of ſlandering the Claſſis, in ſaying, they received and excerciſed this undue power, boath which he aggravateth bitterly enough, after his manner. To be breife in ſo plaine a caſe. Had they power to hinder the ſetling of any Miniſter in any Church, before they had examined his cauſe, or heard what he could ſay, in his owne defence, as they did in Mr. H. caſe? or to deprive the Church of a man, whom they deſired, only becauſe he refuſed to baptiſe all that are preſented, by whomſoever, though they were, neither members of that Church, nor otherwiſe knowne, and that in Amſterdam, as they did in my caſe? Or to proceed againſt men ſo farr that abhorr all haereſy and ſchyſme? From the Scriptures they have no ſuch power, nor from the Churches, nor from the Synods, nor from the fundamentall lawes of their owne conſtitution. Whence then? The anſwerer oppoſeth men, upon needleſſe jealouſyes, and then craveth the helpe of the Claſſis, to keepe them out: they, conceiving it to be their part to defend the miniſters, interpoſe ſtrenuouſly (ab, that I could ſay, juſtly, and orderly!) and judge that ſuch men are not fit to be ſetled in that Church. Hereupon the members complaine that he giveth, and they receive an undue power, in this particular. Where is now the double ſlander? will he deny the fact? It is too evident. Will he deny it to be unduely done? The very forme of ſubſcription, required by the Claſſis it ſelfe, will witnes againſt him, which excludeth not any man from the Miniſtry in theſe Churches for that cauſe. And can they duely and juſtly require that of the preacher of the Engliſh Church, which is not required of any Dutch Miniſter, by the orders of the Claſſis it ſelfe?
But the Anſwerer gave them not this power. The power which the Miniſters of the Claſſis have is not of my gift, ſayth he, they had that power, which they excerciſe, before I wae. The queſtion is not of the power which they have, in generall, but of a power which they excerciſe, in ſome particular, viz, in that, whereof they complaine. And herein, they doe not complaine of his approving their due power, but of his giving them an undue power, depriving them of men, whom they deſired, without ſufficient cauſe. This power they tooke not to themſelves, till they were called upon to interpoſe for the prevention of ſome imagined danger, in the Engliſh Church. Who ſuggeſted thoſe jealouſyes? Did not the Anſwerer? Who importuned them to wright what they did, in the caſes here mentioned? Did not the Anſwerer? Who bound the Church to reſt in the wrightings of thoſe Miniſters, in theſe caſes? Who, but the Anſwerer? Let the Scripture be ſearched, and the text ſhewen, wherein the word hath given them this power, to hinder the Church from chuſing a Miniſter, otherwiſe free from all exception, onelyonly for ſuch cauſes? Let the Synods be examined. Js there one Canon in them all to warrant their excerciſing ſuch a power? Will the Engliſh Church acknowledge that they have given the Claſſis this power? If the Scriptures, the Synods, the Church gave it not them, if themſelves ſaught it not, tooke it not, till it was given them, it muſt needs be that the Anſwerer gave it them. By what right, either he gave it, or they received it, I inquire not, let them agree about that betweene themſelves, or rather let them, in ſimplicity and truth, ſatiſfye, firſt their owne conſciences; then the Complainants.
In his third anſwer he chargeth Mr. Hook: and me with ſchyſme. It was requiſite he ſhould doe ſo, elſe, he knew, that the Claſſis and he muſt beare the blame of uſurping and excerciſing an undue power, to the wronging of the Church. Let us ſee how he proveth it.
Firſt. In Mr. Hooker whom he chargeth with fowre opinions, which tended to ſchyſme, as he ſayth.
1. The two firſt concerne the Browniſts. as, 1. his opinion that they might lawfully be received for members of that Church. 2. that, in ſome caſes, the members of this Church might heare at their aſſemblyes.
To helpe the Reader to a right underſtanding of this cauſe (till Mr. H. ſhall thinck it fit to ſpeake for himſelfe) I will ſhew 3. things. 1. That Mr. H. did not approve of the Browniſts judgment, in the point of Seperation: for, in expreſſe words, he anſwereth to the firſt queſtion. To ſeperate from the faithfull aſſemblies, and Churches in England, as no Churches, is an errour in judgment, and ſinne in practiſe, held, and maintayned by the Browniſts. And therefore to communicate with them, either in this their opinion, or practiſe is ſinfull, and utterly unlawfull. 2. That he delivered his judgement herein with conſiderable cautions. as 1. that men ſhould renounce their opinion and practiſe. 2. that care be taken to prevent offence, either by incouraging them in their way; or by drawing ours to a further approbation of that way then is meet. 3. that whatſoever moderation he allowed, in this caſe,, was to be underſtood. 1. according to the former caution and interpretation, and 2. upon ſuppoſition, 1. that they erred in this point, not obſtinately, but for want of light and conviction, as appeareth in his anſwer to the ſecond queſtion. 2. that the perſon thus opinionated, is, in his judgment and life otherwiſe altogether unblameable, & ſuch an one, as, in the judgment of reaſonable charity, may be counted a member of Chriſt, & ſo a Saint. 1 Cor. 1.2. 3. That the judging a man unfit to be received a mēber, for an erronious opinion in ſuch a kind, is to confirme the Browniſts in that unſupportable and abſurd cenſure which now they maintayne, touching thoſe that hold the Churches in England true Churches, & profeſſe they will occaſionally communicate therein: as appeareth in his anſwer to the third queſtion.
Theſe things being duely weighed, I leave it to the judgment of the indifferent Reader whether a man allowing ſuch men to be received members with that Church, or others differing frō them in judgement and practiſe, about Seperation, to heare with them occaſionally, and extra caſum ſcandali, without offence, and expreſſing himſelfe in theſe points, with ſuch interpretations, cautions, and ſuppoſitions, may juſtly be charged with ſchyſme?
3. The third opinion which he held, and, the Anſwerer ſayth, tended to ſchyſme, was that private men might preach and expound the Scripture &c. In the 17. queſtion propounded to him by the Anſwerer, he expreſſeth his judgment by a diſtinction of a double ground, from which this may be done, viz, either ex officio, or ex dono. i. e. by vertue of an office, (and this no man may doe, without a calling thereunto from the Church,) or from the gift that Chriſt doeth diſpenſe to ſeverall members, according to their meaſure, & the place they hold in the body, and that thus any Chriſtian may privately doe, as opportunity & expediency ſerve, he holdeth, and therein profeſſeth his agreement with Dr. Ames in the 14. Booke of caſes of conſc: cap. 25. who proveth it, both by Scripture and reaſon. And will any man ſay that this is an opinion or practiſe of Schyſme?
4. The fourth opinion, which he held, and for which the Anſwerer accuſeth him of ſchyſme, is, that Churches combined with the Claſſis might chooſe a Miniſter, either without, or againſt the conſent of the Claſſis, under which they ſtood. Let his anſ. wer to the 11. Queſt: be examined, which we will tranſcribe word for word out of the written copy.
11. Whether a particular Congregation have power to call a Miniſter without the approbation of the Claſſis, under which they ſtand? Neg:
Before I anſwer the Quaere, I would aſke one thing, which might give a litle light to that which ſhall be ſaid afterwards, namely, how the firſt Claſſis that ever was upon the face of the earth came to be conſtituted? And, J conceive, it cannot be denyed, but that it was made up by the combination of ſeverall miniſters, and Elders, and of ſeverall Congregations. Whence it muſt needs follow, that thoſe particular Congregations had power from Chriſt for to call, & ſo did, by that their power, chooſe & call their Miniſters fully & compleatly before there was a Claſſis, and therefore had their power not derived from a Claſſis, or by it, but from the direct ordinance and appoyntment of Chriſt, which power they may not give away, and none can take it away, being a legacy left them by the Lord Ieſus, as Dr. Ames diſputes and determines in his 4. booke of his caſes of conſcience. pag. 165.
Touching the Quaere then my opinion is this: A particular Congregation hath compleat power, by Chriſt his inſtitution, to give a compleat call to a miniſter, without any derived power from a Claſſis. They which had compleat and perfect Miniſters, before any Claſſis, had power fully to call them, without any Claſſis. But a particular Congregation, had perfect and compleat Miniſters, i. e. perfectly and compleatly called, before any Claſſis. Ergo. Yet, if by mutuall conſent, the Congregation hath freely combined it ſelfe with the Claſſis, they ſhall doe piouſly and expediently freely to crave the approbation of the Claſſis, that they may be more confirmed, or, if doubts ariſe, better directed in their courſe. Allwayes provided, that, if the Claſſis ſhould not approve, they may lawfully, and without ſinne, chuſe without, or againſt the approbation of the Claſſis, if they ſaw good reaſon, by the convenient fitnes of the party to induce them therunto. And ſo I judge of the 11 Queſt.
VntoUnto all which I will add, that thoſe things were but ſecret, in his owne mind, till the Anſwerer, to get matter againſt him, drew them out by theſe queſtions which he wrote to him, and required his anſwer to them, and they ſhould have ſo remayned for ever (ſuch is the peaceablenes of his diſpoſition) if the Anſwerer had deſired him to conceale his judgment therein, for prevention of offence.
Secondly. As for me; he layeth the ſame accuſation upon me alſo, and bringeth three pretences for it.
D. Feild of the Church. bok. 3. chap. 5.1. My preaching at ſet times in a private houſe.] For the anſwer of this I referr the Reader to my examination of his 20 Section. Whereunto I add a few words, to prove it to be no ſchyſme, which I will declare from Dr. Feild his definition of Schyſme, who deſcribeth it to be a breach of the Ʋnity of the Church. The Vnity of the Church, ſayth he, conſiſteth in three things. 1. The ſubjection of the people to their lawfull Paſtors. 2. The connexion and communion which many particular Churches & Paſtors of them have among themſelves. 3. In holding the ſame rule of fayth. Which of theſe wayes did this action make me guilty of Schyſme? 1. Not in the firſt. For, did I attempt to draw the people, from their Paſtorall relation, to a popular Anarchy, as Corah would have done, in his conſpiracy,Numb. 16.3. under a pretence that all the Lords people are holy? or, did they, by my perſuaſion, flee from their owne Church or Conſiſtory with complaints to other Churches, in ſuch caſes as might have bene ended among themſelves, as thoſe Schyſmaticks did in Cyprian? No.Lib. 1. Epiſt. 3. I was ſo farr from drawing the people from their Paſtor, that, by that very meane, I held them together, my ſelfe giving them example of conſtantly hearing him, and deferring my private excerciſe, till above an howre after the publick was finiſhed. And I am heartily ſorry that my adviſe to their Paſtor, and intreaty, that matters might be quietly ended within themſelves, prevayled not with him to prevent the publiſhing of their diſtractions, in this manner, to the world. 2. Not in the ſecond. For, neither they, nor I refuſed to communicate with any reformed Churches, in the performance of the Acts of Religion, either out of ſelfe-conceit; as did Novatus, Donatus, Lucifer &c. or for any other unwarrantable reſpects. 3. Nor in the third: For the Anſwerer himſelfe confeſſeth (though unwillingly) that, in that excerciſe, I preached againſt ſchyſming, nor doth he, in the middſt of all his bitternes, nor ſhall he ever be able to accuſe me juſtly of forſaking the rule of fayth in any point.
2. My approving the Act of the Elders in admitting me to preach, as an aſſiſtant, without the conſent of the Claſſis] whither did the Anſwerers paſſion tranſport him, when he wrote this for an evidence to prove me guilty of Schyſme? For. 1. who ever heard that it is an act of Schyſme for a man to preach at the deſire of any Church, onelyonly as an aſſiſtant, without the conſent of the Claſſis? By that rule, himſelfe and the wholl Church was guilty of Schyſme for letting Mr. D. preach, a yeare or two together, without conſent of the Claſſis. For he did it as an aſſiſtant. But 2. He doeth not charge me with doing it neither, but onelyonly with approving that act. If I be a Schyſmatick for approving it, what are the Elders that made it? And, why doeth he ſuffer them to come to the Lords table, and to goe on ſo long unconvinced, unreclamed from their Schyſme? Is Schyſme ſuch a ſmall ſinne that he regards it not? or is this proofe of their Schyſme ſo ſlight that he thincks they will not regard it? He bol…ly calleth it Schyſme, but bringeth no proofe that it is ſo from Scriptures nor Reaſon. Why ſo? Is it becauſe it is ſufficient that he ſayth it? or becauſe he cannot prove it? If the firſt; he is deceived: if the ſecond; he deceiveth. 4. If the Church have power to chuſe a meet Paſtor or aſſiſtant, the Miniſters of the Claſſis have no power to deprive them of him, or to hinder him from accepting their call, or from ſatiſfying their lawfull deſire. For, their power is not privative, but cumulative, in that ſenſe. And therefore, in ſuch a caſe, it is a Schyſme from the Church in him that hindereth the Church herein, not in him that aſſiſteth them.
3. My maintayning of the power of particular Churches to be cheife in theyre owne matters, & applying this to the admiſſion of Miniſters to preach as aſſiſtant &c. though theſe Churches be united in Synods and Claſſes. And is this a ſufficient evidence, whereupon to ground ſo deepe an accuſation, as that of Schyſme is? If ſo; let him ſhew it by Scriptures, or good reaſon, but with all, to guide his judgment, let him know that the mere preaching, as aſsiſtant in a Church, at the intreaty of the Church, is not numbred among thoſe common cauſes, which, by the order of theſe reformed Churches, are appropriated to the cognition or conſent of the Claſſes: it is, in it ſelfe, to be accounted among the things which are proper to particular Churches. And, is it a Schyſmaticall tenet to hold that things proper to particular Churches, are under the power of particular Churches, which are cheife in matters that are properly their owne? what then will he ſay to that Canon of the Synod at Midleborough. Thoſe things ſhall not be handled in the greater aſſemblyes, which may be ended in the leſſer. Can. 25. & to the Canons of the Synod of 3 Nations. Cap. 17. & 18. & to the Sinod at Emden. Cap. 2. & to that Canon in the Harmony of the Belgick Sinods, that thoſe matters only ſhall be brought into the Claſſes which cannot be ended in the Conſiſtory cap. 7. art. 6. See Zepperus lib. 3. cap. 5.
Were theſe Synods ſchyſmaticall Conventicles? or, were their Canons ſchyſmaticall concluſions? How then is this, which I affirme, ſchyſmaticall?
To brand me with an imputation of ſchyſme, he ſpareth not theſe Synods which deliver the ſame thing, in effect, that I ſay, and all thoſe worthyes who have written concerning Eccleſiaſticall diſcipline, or the authority of Councills, of whom we ſpake in the former Section, or, which have handled the power of particular Churches in chuſing their owne Paſtors, of whom we ſpake in the foregoing Section: Yea, I wiſh, he may not be found to beare falſe witnes againſt the truth it ſelfe in the Scriptures, which we have declared, in both thoſe Sections, to warrant ſo much as I have ſaid in this matter.
4. His fourth anſwer ſuppoſeth that eminent men may cauſe eminent danger by their private opinions.] The men, in whom he inſtanceth, I confeſſe, were not inferiour to either of us, in learning. But that which he intimateth, concerning opinions held by them which tended to the ruine and deſolation of Churches, if he apply it to this queſtion, about the power of particular Churches to admit of Miniſters to preach as aſsiſtants, I cannot acknowledge to be true, upon the former grounds, but, if he meane any other opinions or practiſes, it is nothing to the matter in queſtion.
5. In his fifth anſwer, upon his obſervation that the Complainants, in their particular greivances, mention me, he inferreth, that their inordinate deſire of me, hath made this trouble to the Church.] But. 1. neither the ground, nor the inference is right. 1. Not the ground. For they mention not me alone, but others alſo. 2, Nor the inference. For, will their complaining of injuryes done to them, in a particular reference to me, prove their deſire of me, to be inordinate. By what medium? Let him frame his Argument into a Syllogiſme, and it will appeare to be Sophiſticall, and ridiculous. But I ſpare him. 2. How eaſily may they, or I, upon the ſame ground & warrant, prove that his inordinate deſire of having his owne will, that I ſay no more, hath made this trouble in the Church, by drawing all the lines of the ſeverall Sections, in the circle and circumference of their complaint to that as the onelyonly centre. But I doe not affect in Circuitu ambulare.
6. In his ſixt anſwer, which is to their parentheſis, wherein they noate, that he would have had others, that, to this day, hold the ſame opinion;] Such is the invincible power of truth, that his owne words concerning thoſe two inſtances are ſufficient to prove the thing which he would deny▪ if what I have written, in the 11. Section, concerning his private conference with me be compared with what himſelfe confeſſeth Mr. B▪ wrote to him, and with his owne acknowledgment of Mr. R. agreement with me, in his third and laſt anſwer to that inſtance. Nor is his deſire of having them, complained of, (for in the injoyment of either of them they had bene happy) but his partiall ſticking at that in me, which he would have paſſed by in them.