Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 29
Sect: 31. examined, concerning his ſubjecting the Church under the Claſſis, without their conſent.
THe authority and power, which they complaine that theyr Church is ſubjected under, is ſtill by the Complainants declared to be undue by another inſtance, in that it is ſuch as is not competent to any men that are not ſubject to errour, and hereunto they add another aggravation, viz, that it is done without the Churches conſent.Lib. 3. Cap. 26. p. 370. M. Parker in his learned diſcourſe of Eccleſiaſticall policy ſheweth, at large, that Churches are no furher under the authority of Synods then they have ſubjected themſelves by their owne conſent. And, as for binding men to reſt in their determinations, as if they were infallible, both Dr. Whittaker, and Iunius, in ſhewing that Councills are ſubject to errour, have given ſufficient light for diſcovery of the evill of that practiſe.
But let us ſee what he anſwereth to this complaint, in ſeaven particulars.
1. His firſt is, after his uſuall manner, It is untrue, but, when, the Church is hindred from making an order for the decent & orderly adminiſtration of holy things, by their owne power, under pretence of his taking adviſe of the Claſsis, as it was in the queſtion about Baptiſme, & when J was required (& that for a cōdition whereupon I was to be admitted or refuſed) to reſt in a wright…ng of five Miniſters, no rule being ſhewne me by them from the Scripture to warrant their ſo doing, theſe things ſhewed it to be true.
2. His ſecond anſwer is, that the ſame thing may be alleadged againſt any Paſtor in the reformed Churches. But this is an injury to all reformed Churches and Paſtors, unleſſe he can prove that, in the fame particulars, they ſubject their Churches to the ſame undue power of Claſſes, and in the ſame manner as he hath done. Which he never will be able to doe. It is true, that Claſſicall aſſemblies (or ſuch like) are a ſpeciall bond of union and ſinew of government, in them all, but to argue, from the lawfull uſe, to juſtify the unlawfull abuſe of them, is unſound reaſoning.
3. His third anſwer is to their charging him with doing this under a pretence of aſking, and taking adviſe of the Claſſis. Which he denyeth, and ſayth that he profeſſeth openly the authority and power of Synods and Claſſis to be lawfull and neceſſary, as well as their counſail and adviſe. Neither doe they deny the authority, and due power of Synods and Claſſes to be lawfull, and neceſſary, but they complaine of an undue power and authority aſcribed to Claſſes by the Anſwerer, and they declare, by inſtances, what that power is which they account undue. Now, unleſſe he can prove that power to be due, which they have affirmed to be undue, he hath not anſwered their complaint, which is, that, under pretence of aſking and taking their adviſe, he ſubjecteth the Church under that power, which they affirme to be undue. That he doeth ſo ſubject them hath bene ſhewed, and that he pretendeth onelyonly to aſke, and take their adviſe, his owne expreſſions, both by ſpeeches, at other times, and in diverſe paſſages of this booke, declare ſufficiently.
4. His fourth anſwer is to their ſaying that the Church never acknowledged any ſuch power to be due, whereunto he anſwereth, 1. by ſhewing the agreement betweene the ancient Engliſh inhabitants there, the Magiſtrates, and the Dutch Miniſters, which was to have ſuch an Engliſh Church as ſhould accord with the Dutch, in the ſame order of Diſcipline and Government. 2. By declaring that, ſince his firſt comming (but he ſayth not how long after his firſt comming) he was admitted to be a member of the Claſſis. 3. By ſhewing the manner of their receiving members, viz, by profeſſion of the ſame fayth with them, and by ſolemne promiſe covenanting to ſubmit unto the diſcipline of this Church according to the rule of Chriſt.
But, what is in all theſe paſſages to prove their ſubmiſſion to any undue power and authority of the Claſſis? Nay, when they profeſſe to ſubmit unto the diſcipline of this Church, according to the rule of Chriſt, doe they not therein implicitly profeſſe againſt ſubmiſſion to any undue power of the Claſſis? And, as litle doeth the practiſe of any members ſince, in reſorting to the Claſſis, upon occaſion of aſking their judgment in matters controverted among them, eſtabliſh any undue power of theirs. And, to what end ſhould thoſe that joyne with his Church, leaving their ſeparation, come with a proteſt againſt the undue power of the Claſſis, when they knew not of their ſubjection thereunto, no more being required of them in their Covenant, at their firſt admiſſion, then ſubmiſſion to the diſcipline of this Church, according to the role of Chriſt? As for that, which he addeth, of their chuſing rather to continue as they were, then to be of the Engliſh Synod, this doeth not teſtifye their acknowledgment of their ſubjectiō to any undue power of the Claſsis. But, how, were they under the Claſsis, when, not long before that, the Anſwerer himſelfe (as Mr. Forbes aſſured me) laboured to ſet up an Engliſh Claſsis or Synod, which not ſucceeding, in his indeavour at that time, he never after attempted to procure, nor would joyne with, being after ſet up, at the procurements of others. As for St: Offw: report of Geneva; we have already ſhewne ſome difference betweene the aſſociation of Churches in Geneva, and the Claſſes in theſe Countryes. But, be that as it may, it makes nothing for the warranting of any undue power of the Claſsis.
5. His fifth anſwer is to that paſſage in the complaint, when they ſay that the power, which they complaine of, is ſuch, as the Scriptures doe not in any place give to ſuch a company of Miniſters. The fault that he findeth herewith is, that they doe not alleadge any one place of Scripture to condemne the ſame. As though Negative Arguments from Scripture were not ſufficient proofes of the unlawfullnes of a thing in matter of Religion. By the helpe of St. Offw: booke he accommodateth the 15. of the Acts. concerning the Church at Antioch ſeeking helpe of the Church at Ieruſalem, in a difficult queſtion, to the preſent queſtion. But what is that to the undue power of the Claſsis whereof they complaine? In his next anſwer, it may be, he will give me occaſion of ſhewing that that very place of Scripture maketh ſtrongly againſt that undue power, which he aſcribeth to the Claſſis, in the particulars complained of, and ſuch like.
6. His ſixth anſwer is to that part of the Complaint, when they ſay, that the undue authority (whereof they complaine) is ſuch as doeth not become any, except the Apoſtles, that could not erre, to have. This, he ſayth, is falſe, and abſurd, and, upon this occaſion, he reproveth me for a like ſpeech, in my letter to the Claſſis, touching my conſent required to the wrighting of the five Miniſters, namely, that ſuch a ſubjection is greater then may be yeelded unto any Councill, whether of Claſſes or Synods &c. that thereby the wrightings and decrees of men are made infallible, and aequall with the word of God, which is intolerable.
Reply. Jt is true that I ſo wrote, and that which I wrote herein is true. Let us now ſee what he anſwereth. He ſayth, what wiſe man is there that ſees not the ſtrange folly and vanity of ſuch aſſertions as theſe? Iunius was a wiſe man, and yet he ſaw no folly, nor vanity, nor ſtrangenes in a like aſſertion, and ſo was Bogerman who relates it roundly, and without haeſitancy from him, in theſe words.Bogerm: Annot: in Hug: Grot ex Iuni: p. 225. Servus mandatum Domini ſui referens ad conſervum ſuum obligat illius conſcientiam inſtrumentali ministerio ſuo, at cognitioni ſuae, aut foro ſuo minimè obligat. Hoc nunquam Dominus quiſquam daturus, nunquam fervus fidelis aſſumpturus. i. e. A ſervant relating the command of his Lord to his fellow ſervant bindeth his conſcience by his inſtrumentall miniſtry (that is, as I conceive it, ſo farr as he reporteth the Lords mind and command) but doeth not bind him to his owne outward juriſdiction. This no Lord will ever give, nor any faithfull ſervant aſſume. But, did not they aſſume this, and more, when they would bind me to reſt in that wrighting, and to be accountable to them for my conformity to it, not having convinced or inſtructed me, that it was the will of our Lord that I ſhould doe ſo? Alſo Dr. Whittaker was a wiſe man,Whitt. de Concil: Queſt: 3. Chap. 2. & yet he ſaw no folly, nor vanity, nor ſtrangenes in a like aſſertion. For, ſpeaking of the definitions of Councills concerning matters to be beleived, or to be done, he ſheweth, that to define a thing, ſignifieth, either 1. to declare what we are to beleive & doe, upō the authority of the Scripture, becauſe the Scripture teacheth, that it aught to be ſo beleived and done, and that therefore they that beleive or doe otherwiſe, are in an errour. 2. or elſe it ſignifyeth to appoynt and preſcribe, by their owne authority, what we are to beleive or doe, ſo as men muſt reſt in it, whatſoever reaſon they have againſt it, and may not beleive or doe otherwiſe. The firſt he alloweth, and ſo did I, and deſired nothing elſe but to underſtand ſome rule from the word warranting me to doe that, whereunto they, in that wrighting, would have bound me. The ſecond way of defining he denyeth to belong to any Councill, and affirmeth that it appertayneth onelyonly to God, and to Chriſt, and to the Holy Ghoſt. Here I might be large in alleadging wrighters of the moſt eminent noate affirming the like, and the ſame, for ſubſtance, with me, in this matter, and many of them expreſſing their judgments in the ſame words. But theſe ſhall ſuffice, till a further provocation. Afterwards the Anſwerer demandeth, whether no truth be uttered or deſcribed by men in our times, whereunto the conſent of men may be required? But what is this to the matter in queſtion? Had they declared it to be a truth, I was ready to have teſtifyed my conſent with them in it? But that they did not, nor hath he done it in all this taedious diſcourſe. So that this is to argue ex non conceſſis, from that which is not granted. Or, will he ſay, that, becauſe every truth uttered by men, muſt be conſented to, therefore we are bound to conſent to every thing which men ſhall utter? And to as litle purpoſe is that which he alleadgeth concerning the ſubſcription which the Reformed Churches require to their confeſſions of fayth; Whereas the matter in queſtion is not comprehended in any Article of thoſe Confeſſions, and out of thoſe very Confeſſions we doe diſpute againſt it. But, was not the Anſwerer driven farr, and put hard to his ſhifts, when, to make ſome ſhew of anſwer, he demanded, how I could ſubſcribe my name to my owne wrighting ſent to the Claſſis, to ſhew my conſent to it, and whether I did thereby make my ſelfe an Apoſtle, or my wrighting aequall to the word of God? To let paſſe his improper calling it my conſent to my owne wrighting, my ſubſcription to it was, not in reference to my ſelfe, but to the word of God, whereunto it is conſonant, and it teſtyfyed unto them my perſuaſion that it agreed therewith: but, what is this to the ſubſcription, which they required, to injunctions and praeſcriptions, which were not declared to agree with the Scripture, either in that wrighting which they ſent, or in any conference they had with me, though I told them that unicum Argumentum &c. Any one Argument from the word ſhould prevayle with me, and that, beſides other times, once in the hearing of ſome of the Elders, and others. But, will it follow, that becauſe a man, upon perſuaſion of the truth, may ſubſcribe to other mens wrightings, or to his owne, that therefore he may ſubſcribe to thoſe wrightings concerning the truth whereof he is not perſuaded?
Whileſt he was wrighting theſe things a ſecret Monitour from within ſuggeſted to him that all humane judicatoryes are ſubject to errour, and that, when that errour is ſhewed by the word of God, it aught to be corrected. But, if the queſtion be, who may judge of this errour, and ſhew it them? Here his anſwer is defective. He ſayth one Synod often reformeth that which hath bene decreed by another. This ſheweth indeed that Synods are ſubject to errour. And doe they not therefore erre becauſe they fetched not their definitions and praeſcriptions from the Scriptures? And is it not the beſt way, for rectifying them, to reduce them to that rule? And how ſhall this be done, but by the courſe which thoſe Noble Beraeans tooke, by comparing them with,Act. 17.11. and examining them by the Scriptures? And to whom doeth this belong? Indeed the publick Miniſteriall power of judging, in ſuch caſes, belongeth to Synods or Councills themſelves. But the private judgment, which Divines call the judgment of practicall diſcretion, belongeth to every Chriſtian. So that no man is bound abſolutely to ſubmit to, or to reſt in the judgment of any man or Councill, but to trye them by the Scripture, and to conſent with them no further then they appeare to conſent with that rule. This the Scriptures abundantly declare,Mat. 24.4 1. Theſſ. 5.21. 1. Ioh. 4.1. Gal. 1.8. Mat. 23.8 when they command all Chriſtians to beware of Seducers, to trye all things, to trye the ſpirits. Alſo, when they are called upon to receive the word of Chriſt onelyonly, as their onelyonly Maſter. And to deny men the uſe of their private judgment, in things taught them by their Paſtors, or injoyned, and praeſcribed by Claſſes, or Synods, what is it elſe, but to deprive man of his reaſon, & mans underſtanding of its end, which is to ſearch & find out the truth? yea, to deprive Chriſtians of the fruite of their fayth, and ſupernaturall illumination, and of the ſpirit of Revelation?1 Cor: 14.20. Eph: 4.14 Euſeb: li. 5. C: 12. Or, at leaſt, to make thoſe of riper yeares to be alwayes as Children in underſtanding? This were to revive the haereſy of Apelles, foreign. that people aught not accurately to weigh and examine what is propounded to them: Hieron: in proem: ad Gal:from which Ierom was ſo farr that he much commended Marcella, a good woman in Rome, for this, that ſhe, wherever ſhe met him, would be putting good queſtions to him, and received his anſwers, not as Pythagoras his ſchollers did his ſayings (or as the Anſwerer would have had me to reſt in the judgment of the five Miniſters) but ſhe examined and weighed all things, ſo that he thought himſelfe to have, non tam diſcipulam, quam judicem, not ſo much a ſcholler as a judge, and as he allowed a good woman this liberty in trying the wordes of a learned and godly Teather, ſo Hylary giveth the ſame liberty to all private Chriſtians in examining the decrees of Councells.Hylar: de Synod: adv: Arrian. Si contraria invicem ſenſerint Concilia, debemus, quaſi judices, probare meliora. If Councills (or Synods) differ in their determinations, we aught, as judges of our owne actions, to approve of that which is better.
Whereas he addeth. Yet doeth not this take away their authority for the judging and deciding of controverſies. For by ſuch reaſoning they might take away all government and bring in confuſion. I grant that it taketh away no due ſubordinate Miniſteriall authority frō them, but a ſupreme Praetorian, or Magiſteriall authority, as that is, when they bind men to reſt in their determinations, without convincing them, that they are according to the mind of God in the Scriptures, or ſo much as declaring to them ſufficient ground out of the word for their ſo doing. And ſo to doe is not to take away all, or any government, but tyranny, nor to bring in confuſion, but to prevent it, and to eſtabliſh order.
Whereas he addeth that, by theſe and ſuch like injurious ſpeeches, they doe exceedingly gratifye many ſorts of Libertines, Arrians, Socinians and other haereticks &c. What injury is it to witneſſe againſt undue power, which is a teſtifying againſt injury? And how can the Libertines, Arrians, &c. be gratifyed by pleading againſt that undue power which is excerciſed in upholding that diſorder of promiſcuous baptiſing which ſerveth to ſtrengthen them in their damnable errours, as hath bene ſhewen in the examination of the 12 Section? Nay, doeth not this undue power, which he aſcribeth to Claſſes, both ſtrengthen them in their oppoſition to that way of Government, and gratifye the Papiſts alſo in their dangerous errours about the infallibility of Councills and the Pope, and about implicite fayth and blind obedience? For, it is not ſubſcription to any truth which is excepted againſt, but ſubſcription to mens cuſtoms and appointments, not agreeing with the truth, impoſed merely by their authority.