A defence of church-government, exercised in presbyteriall, classicall, & synodall assemblies; according to the practise of the reformed churches

SECT. III.

His Allegation of Mr Parker examined.

IO. DAV.(o) 1.1 For Mr Parker. He largely and strongly proveth this position,(p) 1.2 Po∣testas Ecclesiastica essentialiter & primariò in ipsâ Ecclesiâ, tanquam in subjecto proprio, residet. The power Ecclesiasticall doth essentially and primarily reside in the Church itself, as in its proper subject. The sense wherein he thus spake, to pre∣vent all suspicion of his pleading for popular confusion, he declareth out of Zanchy, who saith, toti Ecclesiae dedisse Christum claves,* 1.3 sed ita ut in Ecclesiâ certi essent, qui clavi∣bus utantur ad salutem Ecclesiae, honoremque Dei. That Christ gave the keyes to the wholl Church, but so, that there should be certaine men that should use

the keyes 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, and then in the 8. chapter, he commeth to speak of the exercise and ordinary exe∣cution of this power, which is, he sayth, in the Church-officers or rulers, yet with this modera∣tion, that this dispensation of the Churches power in the Officers be according to a well tem∣pered forme, partly Aristocraticall, partly Democraticall, the Church committing those things to the Presbytery, which it cannot commodiously performe by it selfe, and retaining that exercise of power which belongs to the dignity, authority, and liberty which it hath received from Christ. Thus he wholy destroyeth that Democraty, 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 patternes. Of the first sort of things, which the Church committeth to the Rulers, because it cannot commo∣diously performe them by it selfe, he speaketh in cap. 9.10.11. ANSVV. M^r Dav. pro∣fessed and promised touching Mr Parker and these other Writers, that he would shew them to be strongly against me: but though he make a long discourse of his wri∣ting, and doe alledge in grosse eleven chapters at once out of M^r Parker; yet doe I not finde that he applyes any thing to the question against me. for I. Suppose it be granted (which yet some godly and learned men deny) that all power Eccle∣siasticall is essentially and primarily in the Church, as the proper subject thereof, and from thence derived and communicated to other, either particular persons, or assemblies of Classes and Synods; what is this to our question? doth it follow from hence that Synods have no power to judge Ecclesiasticall causes, or that they are onely for counsell or admonition? This is the poynt of our question; but this neither Mr Parker affirmes, neither doth M^r D. offer to conclude it by any just consequence from his words: and so all that he alledgeth is not to the purpose. II. This very derivation of power from particular Churches unto Classes and Synods, is an argument of the power of judgement that is in them: for what great need was there of a derivative power to consult or to admonish onely? M^r D. confesseth that(q) 1.4 every Christian hath power of admonition in another for his good. And shall Synods have no more power then particular and private persons? III. Whereas Mr Parker distinguisheth betwixt the power of the Church and the exercise of that power, and acknowledgeth that the execution of this power in the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in the whole Church, but in some speciall persons appoynted thereunto; it followeth hence that in some things the Ministers and Governours of a Church have a power which the Church cannot exercise without them; and therefore in some respect a greater authority then the whole Church beside them. This is confessed in the practise of the Brownists themselves, who keep their children sometimes unbap∣tised for many yeares together, while they want Ministers that have authority to baptise. IV. The Authors alledged by M^r Parker, to shew that Ecclesiasticall power is originally in the Church, did never draw any such consequence from thence, that therefore there is no power of jurisdiction in Synods, but made the contrary conclusion, that therefore there was a power of jurisdiction in them. And this conclusion was made, not onely by the Councell of Constance and Basill,

Ioh. Gerson & Schola Parisiensis, but by D. Whitaker also, whom M^r Dav.(r) 1.5 alled∣geth as if he made for him, who yet reasons strongly against him, saying,(s) 1.6 If a particular Church have greater authority in judgements then Peter, or any particular man, then much more the universall Church, which is represented in a generall Councell or Synod. V. For Mr Parker himself, though he be very large touching the originall power of particular Churches, and the derivation thereof unto Ministers & Synods; yet he never concludeth from hence a want of jurisdiction in Synods, but declares the contrary in many(t) 1.7 places, as is to be shewed hereafter. In the meane time let us consider how M^r Dav. proceeds in alledging Mr Parker.

I. DAV. Of the second sort of things, which the Church retaineth in it self, because it can commodiously exercise them by it selfe, he speaketh in cap. 12. Wherein by 22 Argu∣ments, 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 aedification, 2. in respect of the application of it to the persons, 3. in respect of regulating the use of it, if it be abused. ANSVV. I. If those 22 Arguments of M^r Park. be good and effectuall to prove the Churches superiority over her Rulers; then have we so many sound Argu∣ments to prove the authority of Classes and Synods. This is evident, because M^r P. applyes those 22 Arguments to prove the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches. His affirmation is(v) 1.8 that the superiorit of jurisdiction is retai∣ned in every Church, so that neither the Pastour in the Prime Church, nor the Praesident in the Combined Church, nor yet any Bishop is above the Church, but under the power of every Church. This distinction of the Church is more plainly declared by him after∣ward, where he saith,(x) 1.9 Est itaque visibilis Ecclesia duplex, Prima et Orta, Prima, est col∣lectio singulorum fidelium in unam Congregationem, et generali nomine Ecclesia dicitur. Or∣ta, est collectio & combinatio Ecclesiarum primarum plurium in unum coetum, & appellatur Synodus. that is, The visible Church is of two sorts, The Prime and the Combined Church. The Prime Church is a collection of severall faithfull persons into one Congregation, and is called by a generall name, the Church. The Combined Church is a collection of more prime Churches into one company, & is called a Synod. Now the jurisdiction which he speakes of, he makes common to both, and expressely applyes it to both, to the com∣bined Church or Synod, as well as to the particular or prime Church. And fur∣ther that in the 12. chapter he spake generally of both these kindes of Churches, he manifests in the first words of the 13. chapter, where he begins thus,(y) 1.10 Hither∣to we have spoken of the Church in generall, so farre as it is the subject of Ecclesiasticall poli∣tie, now let us come to the divers kindes thereof. II. Notwithstanding the superiority of the Church, yet M^r Par.(z) 1.11 acknowledgeth the authority of the Pastour to be very great, as having it immediately from Christ, and not onely the authority, but also the exercise of the same authority and jurisdiction; in which respect he saith he is superiour not to men onely, but to the Angels themselves, Gal. 1.8. as being in Christs stead, 2. Cor. 5.19, 20. so long as he useth this authority lawfully. And repeating the same againe, he proceeds further when he saith, that if he doe not lawfully exercise his authority in the administration of the Word and Sacraments, then he ceaseth to be a Pastour,(a) 1.12 quo casu solo, eum suae Ecclesiae subjectum esse dicimus: in which case alone we say that he is subject unto his Church. If in this case alone (which

I durst not have sayd) then in other cases, the authority of many Pastours & El∣ders, especially meeting together in a Synod, may exercise an authority superiour unto one particular Church.

I. DAV. 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 Keyes, within it selfe) but in the extensive power onely, wherein the Synod hath a power ex∣tended 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. ANSVV. In this 13. chap. (for that number of 18. seemes to be mistaken) Mr Parker doth againe give divers pregnant testimonies for the authority and jurisdiction of Synods. I. In the place alledged his words are these:(b) 1.13 I distinguish touching the power of the keyes, which is intensive or extensive. No prime Church, no not the least of them doth want the intensive power; but it wants that extensive which a Synod hath, seeing the power thereof is extended to many Churches; whereas the power of the prime or particular Church is not extended beyond her owne bounds. The power of the keyes is a power of jurisdiction, an Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing; whether intensive or extensive: this power he confesseth to be in a Synod; and therefore the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition, but for jurisdiction also in the judgement of causes. Whereas according to M^r D. his allegation, the difference betwixt the power of a particular Church and of a Synod is in the extensive power onely; there∣fore the Synod is also of greater power and jurisdiction in extension unto many Churches. II. In comparing the power of a particular Church with a Synod, he sayth expressely,(c) 1.14 Major quidem potestas est Synodi, quam unius alicujus Ecclesiae primae & parochialis. Greater is the power of a Synod, then of any one prime or parishionall Church. But if Synods could onely counsell and admonish, & a particular Church besides that, could censure and use Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, then should a parti∣cular Church have greater power then a Synod: and not onely greater intensive power, but as great extensive; seeing a particular Church, yea or a particular per∣son may give counsell or admonition, either to a Synod, or to many Churches, as occasion shall require. It is true indeed which M^r P. saith, that all the parishio∣nall Churches are greater then their Synods, seeing by a new Synod they may ab∣rogate that which was ordained amisse by their Deputies, without their consent, sentence and will. This he proves by many arguments, and this we willingly consent unto; this is the practise of all the Reformed Churches. But this is suf∣ficient for the question in hand, that a Synod hath the power of the keyes, and jurisdiction, and greater authority then any one Church. III. This is another conclusion of M^r Parkers.(d) 1.15 We say there is one forme of government instituted of Christ in all Churches, both prime and combined: so that we may not dreame there is in the prime Church a different forme from that which is in the combined Church: neither may we imagine that in the combined Church there is another different from that by which the prime Church is governed. If this assertion be true, then M^r Dav. and those of his minde do dreame, when they imagine so different a forme of government to be instituted in the particular Churches and Synods, which he calles the combined Churches,

that one sort of them should onely give counsell & admonition, & the other exer∣cise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction & censure.

I. DAV.(e) 1.16 The same authour, in the 20 chapter, speaking of the summity, or supre∣macy 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 owne matters, not in things common 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, and laboured to compose the difference within themselves, but finding (not a want of right to end it among themselves, but) need of more helpe, they sent to Ierusalem freely for the help of their counsell, in this matter. 3. In case of right and lawfull administration. 4. In case of no evill administration presumed by those, who, finding themselves wronged by an unjust sen∣tence, appeale to the judgement of the Synod. In which 3 last limitations, other Churches (to whose judgement, or advice, persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeale) doe concurr, in way of counsail, & declaratiō of their judgement, to helpe particular Churches to exercise their power aright,* 1.17 in their owne matters, as was before noated out of Mr Cartwr. & Mr Fen. & out of the Authour himselfe in the foregoing passages. which being so understood, doeth not justifie any un∣due power of jurisdiction, if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases & manner complained of by the Subscribers: & how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section, will appeare to the indifferent Reader, whē he shall have compared both together. ANSVV. The judgment of M^r P. is very partially & corruptly described by M^r D. in this place. for whereas M^r P. here describes 4 bridles of restraint, or 4 limitations by which the supremacie of power in particular Congregations is to be moderated and kept within bounds, lest it should seem to be absolute; by every one of these it is manifest, that he acknowledged this authority, power and jurisdiction of Synods, and that they were not onely for counsell and admo∣nition. He sayth,(f) 1.18

The first limitation is ad rem propriam, unto their proper businesse, for in a com∣mon matter the Synod is chief, that is, the authority of Churches joyntly gathered together, is the chiefest. Hence it is confessed that Synods have power of jurisdiction over Churches: for 1. In judging these common causes particular Churches, though differing one from an other are overswayed by the most voyces; and each Con∣gregation is subject to the sentence of the Synod. 2. Let any Scripture be alled∣ged by M^r Dav. to shew the summity or soveraignty of Synods in these common causes, and he shall finde thereby the use of Synods proved to be for jurisdiction in one Ecclesiasticall cause as well as in another being lawfully brought unto them. for, what reason is there, why the counsell and admonition of a Synod, may not suffice for the help of particular Churches in a common controversy as well as in other speciall businesses, leaving the sentence and decision unto the prime Churches?

The second limitation is also in a proper businesse; to wit ad casum sufficient is potesta∣tis, in the case of sufficient ability: for if any Church be found unable to end their owne businesse: vvho doubts but that it is bound to require the help of fellow-Churches? In this case M^r P. acknowledgeth the superiority or soveraignty of power and authority

in Synods: but if Synods were onely for counsell & admonition, what needed a supremacy of power; seeing inferiours may give counsell unto their superiours, & admonish them also of their duety? M^r P. shewes well that in case of impoten∣cie, or weaknes, the Church of Antioch sent to Ierusalem, &c. Act. 15. But this M^r D. seeks to pervert by his glosse, when he saith, they sent to Ierusalem for the help of their counsell, as though they did not as well desire help by their autho∣rity and sentence in determining the controversy. If counsell onely had bene sought, why did not the Synod at Ierusalem content themselves to give counsell and advise? why did they also make a decree, and this not onely by authority of the Apostles, but also by common authority of Elders and others that were in the Synod? Act. 15.23. & 16.4.

The third limitation is in a proper busines, and ability also, to wit in the case of right and lawfull administration. for vve are to think the same of the Church, as of every Pa∣stour of the Church: now vve have shewed before out of Gerson, touching the rectour, that he in case of right administration is subject to none, yet in case of aberration is subject: so the Church which in case of right administration is subject to none, yet in case of aberration doth now beginne to be subject. Even as therefore the Pastour erring and offending is subject to no one of his fellowes, as to a Bishop, but onely to many of his Church: so also the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church, as to a Diocesan, but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod. Hence it is evident that M^r P. asscribed unto Synods more autho∣rity, then a bare counsell or admonition onely: for 1. He often useth the word of subjection, which implyes an authority and jurisdiction in those to whom in re∣gard of their calling men be subject. This is passed by as unseen or unregarded in M^r D. his allegation. 2. He speakes of being subject so as the Pastour erring and offending is subject to many of the Church, that is to their jurisdiction and cen∣sure. 3. He speakes of such subjection as is distinguished from receyving of coun∣sell and admonition: otherwise it should not be true which he sayth of the Pa∣stours and Churches subjection; seeing every Pastour erring and offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one of his fellowes; and the Church erring & offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one par∣ticular Church, though it be not subject to the jurisdiction of any one in speciall, but onely to many in a lawfull Synod.

The fourth limitation is in case of right administration, when no evill administration is presumed [or imagined.] for although the Church administer aright, yet if any man thinking himself wronged, do appeale from it, the same is now become obnoxious [or subject unto the censure of] her fellowes and sisters, so that judgement may be given in a Synod touching her administration. That M^r P. here also speakes of subjection unto the jurisdiction of Synods, it is evident, while for the allowance of appeales he alled∣ges in the same place the testimonies of the Synod of Sardica, of the University of Paris, and of D. Whitaker, who doe all speak of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction for the correction and redresse of unrighteous sentences and proceedings by inferiour judges. Againe in the same chapter, he sayth,(g) 1.19 Christ would have every man to be judged of his owne Church, Matt. 18. or if the judgement of his owne Church displease him, yet alwayes of the Church, that is, of a Synod of many Churches. Againe in the same

page, We certainly finde Mat. 18. that causes are to be ended by the Synods of the Churches and not by one man, if any doe appeale from the judgement of his Church. Thus we see, 1. that he makes Mat. 18. a common ground for the jurisdiction of Synods, as well as of particular Churches. 2. The very phrase of terminating or ending contro∣versies, shewes that he spake of jurisdiction; because counsell alone is not suffici∣ent to end controversies, unlesse there be authority and jurisdiction exercised with∣all. And further, whereas D. Bilson had sayd, that Synods have had more power then Elderships, M^r Parker assenteth, saying,(h) 1.20 So truely it ought to have bene done, that they should onely have more: but this more serveth not your purpose, but contradicteth it: for if they have had onely more, it followeth that the Elderships alwayes ought to have had some power, though lesse. Thus expressely he acknowledgeth a power of jurisdic∣tion in Synods, as well as in Elderships: and many the like assertions (if need were) might further be noted out of the same chapter.

Hereby it appeares how vaine it is which M^r D. saith, that in the 3 last limita∣tions other Churches doe concurr, in way of counsell and declaration of their judgment, as if that were all they did; as if the Synod consisting of those Churches did not give definitive sentence of causes brought unto them. And hereby it may withall appeare, how the judgement of M^r Parker doth agree with the practise of the Re∣formed Churches, which doe exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in their Synods, according to those 4 limitations specifyed by him. There is no matter determined by them and judged in their Synods, but it may be reduced to one of these 4 heads; it is either a common cause, or a case of impotency, where there is need of help, or an unlawfull administration in some, or at least a presumption of evill dealing.

I. DAV.(i) 1.21 Thus have we examined his owne witnesses, and finde them to be wholly for us in this cause. ANSVV. Whether the forenamed witnesses, Mr Cartwr. Mr Fenner, and Mr Parker, be wholly for M^r Dav. and those of his opinion, let the Reader judge. His examination of M^r Par. inspeciall, is done by the halves; but before we come to speak of other pregnant testimonies which M^r P. hath given touching the authority and power of Synods, omitted by M^r D. we will first exa∣mine another allegation which he had set downe before,(k) 1.22 where he labours to prove that the lawfull combination of particular Churches in Classes & Synods, is by way of counsell or brotherly direction, and not otherwise.

I. DAV. The reasons whereby it may be proved, are weighty. Mr Parker hath saved me the labour of this taske, by laying downe six Arguments, for the proofe of this, in those his learned and elaborate treatises, concerning Ecclesiasticall policy, as 1. From the ground of this combination of Churches,* 1.23 which is love, not obedience. 2. From the forme of it, which is communion and consociation, &c. 3. From the matter of it, which are Chur∣ches, who are aequall among themselves, as members in the body, which have a vicissitude of offices mutually to be performed, among themselves. 4. From the object of it, which is res communis, that which concerneth all the Churches in common. 5. From the outward manner of proceeding, which is collatione consiliorum, by conference and communica∣tion of counsells. 6. From the end of this combination, which is, not to receive the mandates of other Churches, but their consent, counsell and approbation. ANSVV. In generall, it

is to be observed, 1. That the scope of M^r Parker in this chapter is to shew in what manner many Churches are combined together in Synods, namely as equals in a mutuall fellowship, and not with subjection to any one Church above the rest. This he propounds in the beginning, as the state of the question; when he savth,(l) 1.24 The Hierarchy will have this combination to be subordinate and joyned with sub∣jection unto their Hierarchy: against the common opinion of all Protestants, which affirme no consociation to be lawfull, but that which is mutuall, such as is wont to be among equalls. He thought not therefore of this new found out combination, by such as maintaine the single uncompounded policie, but of such as is commonly received by all Pro∣testants. His arguments are all directed against the Popish and Hierarchicall com∣bination, which we also disallow with him. This he repeats againe for conclusi∣on after his six arguments, saying,(m) 1.25 By all which it is plenteously demonstrated, that the combination of Churches is not Hierarchicall, with subjection unto any one among the rest, but rather Aristocraticall, wherein equalls are joyned together. Neither could he call the government of Churches by Synods, Aristocraticall, if they did onely direct by way of counsell; seeing an Aristocracy is such a government as exerci∣seth jurisdiction in the judgement of causes. II. If M^r Parkers meaning had bene otherwise, viz. that Classicall and Synodall combinations had no authority nor jurisdiction, or that no Churches ought to be subject unto the same; then had all his 6 arguments bene of no force, neither could they proove any such matter. We may see it plainly in the example of the prime or particular Churches, where in the combination of many members together, though the ground of it be love; though the forme of it be communion; though the matter of it be brethren, which are equall among themselves; though the object of it be res communis, that which concerneth all in common; though the end of it be, not to receive the mandates of any one member, but the consent of many: yet doth it not follow hence, but that such a Church and society hath power of censure and jurisdiction, and that the members thereof are to be subject unto such a combination. And thus also may particular Churches submit themselves to many, combined together in a Synod. III. If M^r Parker did not meane thus, but simply denyed all jurisdic∣tion of Synods & subjection of Churches unto them; then should he be contradic∣tory to himself, in that which he had so expressely and so often acknowledged in other places before: as that, Greater is the power of a Synod, then of any one prime or particular Church: and that the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan, but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod.

Moreover, to come more particularly to each of his 6 Arguments, there is something to be observed in his reasoning in every one of them, that may shew un∣to us how he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods.

I. The first Argument,(n) 1.26 taken from the ground of love and mutuall help, is that which (he saith) is proved by Zepperus, l. 3. c. 7. (mistaken for c. 8.) who in the same chapter, pag. 715. describes the authority of Synods in the exercise of Discipline and the greatest censures thereof, even unto excommunication, & there∣fore not for counsell onely. Againe, all those places of Scripture, Num. 32.6, 17. Eccl. 4.9. Rom. 12.13. Phil. 2.4. 1. Thes. 5.11, 14. Heb. 10.24. & 13.3. 1. Cor. 10.33.

which he together with Zepperus doth alledge for the warrant of this combi∣nation of Churches in Synods for their mutuall help, they are all of them such as doe equally, yea and primarily concerne the communion and society of severall persons and members in a particular Church, where it is confessed by our oppo∣sites that there is jurisdiction as well as counsell. If these places would have re∣moved jurisdiction from Synods, and condemned the subjection of Churches unto a Synod; then would they also have done the like for particular Churches, and have condemned the subjection of members thereunto. Seeing they doe not the one, therefore not the other also.

II. In prosequuting his 2^d Argument,(o) 1.27 taken from the forme of combina∣tion, which is consociation consisting in a mutuall obligation, he confirmeth it by the testimony of D. Whitaker, alledging that Calvine sayd well, that by brotherly charity,* 1.28 not by naked authority, but by letters and admonitions and other such meanes Here∣ticks were deposed in the time of Cyprian. Deposition of Hereticks was an act of juris∣diction in Synods. And againe, alledging Mat. 18. as the fountaine of this com∣bination, he sayth, Many Churches are combined after the same manner, that the prime Churches grow together into one body in their members: and therefore it must be con∣fessed, that as Mat. 18. is a ground of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in particular Chur∣ches, so is it also for Synods.

III. M^r Parker for confirmation of his 3^d Argument,(p) 1.29 taken from the mat∣ter of this combination, which are the severall Churches, equall members of one body, alledgeth the example of the Reubenites, who when they would expresse their combination with the Tribes on this side Iordan, do call it their part in the Lord, which was not unequall because of the distance of place. Ios. 22.24, 25- 28. And from hence then it may appeare, that as the Tribes of Israel equally combined together were not subject to any one Tribe apart, and yet were each of them subject to the whole society and body of Israel: so the particular Churches having each of them equall part in the Ecclesiasticall consociation of Classes and Synods, though they be not subject to any one Church apart, that is exalted above the rest, yet may be subject to the whole society of many Churches concurring together in Synods.

IV. In the explication of his 4^th Argument,(q) 1.30 taken from the object, which is a common matter, concerning all or many Churches, he alledgeth a distinc∣tion(r) 1.31 maintained by D. Rainolds, betwixt questions of the Church, requiring knowledge onely, and causes of the Church, requiring jurisdiction also for the judging of them. Questions of the Church were sent unto them that had no juris∣diction over those that propounded them: but the causes of the Church, not so: They in Africa were(s) 1.32 forbidden to appeale unto them beyond sea; viz, for the decision of their personall causes, which yet were to be judged by the Synods in Africa: whereby it is acknowledged that Synods have a power of jurisdiction, which is more then counsell. Whereas M^r P. addeth, The first combination of Churches is in matters of faith, &c. The second combination of Churches is in personall cau∣ses, yet by accident onely▪ for these properly belong unto each severall Church, as they are proper: yet when they become publick by accident, then Churches are combined indeed. but

without subjection, as it fell out in Cyprians time in causa lapsorum, in the cause of them that fell [in time of persecution] which thereupon became publick, because the offence was com∣mon in many Churches: Lest any should stumble at these his words, it is to be consi∣dered, that as personall causes and offences are by accident the object of Classicall and Synodall judgements; so by like kinde of accident they are the object of that judgement and jurisdiction which is exercised by particular Churches. In that maine ground of Ecclesiasticall discipline, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. all the degrees of admonition and censure are ordained to be used according to those 4 acciden∣tall ifs; If thy brother sinne; If he will not heare thee; If he will not heare the witnesses; If he will not heare the Church: And so in like manner, those 4 limitations before noted by M^r Parker, are 4 accidentall cases, wherein the power of Synods is to be exercised, and wherein it is greater then the authority of particular Churches, viz. if it be a common cause; if the Church be unable; if the Church administer unlawfully. if it be so presumed. Such kindes of accidents are properly the lawfull and just object of Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction, by proportion from the same rule, Matt. 18. If one member sinne or suffer, it becomes a common cause so farre as it is knowne, all the members suffer with it and take care for the redresse of it, in a particular Church: 1. Cor. 12.25, 26. And if one Church sinne & be in danger, it becomes a common cause; all the Churches that are members of the same bo∣dy, especially those that are united by covenant in a Classical and Synodall go∣vernment are to take care for it, and to seek help according to the quality of the danger. Thus the community of cause inferreth combination. And further, for that which he repeats againe, that this combination of Churches by accident, is without subjection, it is still to be remembred that his meaning is, without subjection to any one above the rest: for so he againe largely explaines himself in the same place, giving instance in the Church of Carthage and in Cyprian the Bishop thereof, maintayning against D. Downam, that Cyprian was no Metropolitane, that the province was others as well as his, that in the Synod there held there was a parity, that the Churches were equally combined without subjection to any one, that Bi∣shops & Elders had equall power in giving their suffrages.

V. In setting downe the 5^t Argument,(t) 1.33 taken from the outward manner of proceeding, which was by conference and communication of counsels, he shewes withall, that therein there was an exercise of jurisdiction, when as in the words of Cyprian he shewes the end of those counsels, ut communi consens•• figerentur sententiae; that by common consent firme decrees might be made. And the authority of these judiciall sentences and decrees touching those that were fallen, is further declared by Cy∣prian, when he shewes, that they were(v) 1.34 tempered with discipline and mercy; where∣by it is evident that there was an exercise of discipline or Ecclesiasticall jurisdic∣tion therein: and that Epistle of Cyprian containes in it sundry other sentences, which shew that he spake of the administration of censure, and not of coun∣sell onely.

VI. In his last Argument,(x) 1.35 taken from the end of this combination, which was not to receive mandates, but for consent, counsell and approbation; he sayth it follow∣eth hence that no one Church was superiour unto others, but all were equall among them∣selves.

This he declares by instance in the Church of Rome, which though in an∣cient time it was of great estimation and dignity, yet had it no speciall authority and jurisdiction above other Churches, as he shewes by the testimonies of D. Rain. Whitak. and Iunius. But he doth not collect thence, that many Churches concurring together in Synods doe want authority to judge, and to give defini∣tive sentences in the causes brought unto them. Yea the contrary is manifest: for whereas Bellarmine perverting the testimony of the Magdeburgenses, who had sayd that the unity of faith might be preserved by the consociation of Churches which mutually were to help one another, objecteth,(y) 1.36 Non sat est confilium: imperium requiritur; Counsell is not sufficient, but authority is required: M^r Parker in this(z) 1.37 same chapter alledgeth, alloweth and commendeth the answer which D. Whitaker(a) 1.38 giveth unto Bellarmine, viz. Consensum multorum non minus habere imperii quam unius voluntatem. Sicolim Haeretici per Synodos refutati, et alii in eorum locum suffecti. Quid am∣plius postulas? aut quae melior ratio excogitari potest conservandae pacis? &c. that is, The consent of many, hath no lesse authority then the will of one. Thus have Hereticks bene refu∣ted of old time, and others put into their places. What doe you require more? or what better way of preserving peace can be thought upon? &c. Or what plainer testimony can M^r Dav. require for the jurisdiction of Synods? They doe not answer Bellarmine that counsell alone is sufficient, but plead for authority and power, arising from the consent of many. Iunius also answereth this objection of Bellarmine in like manner, and sayth concerning the power of Synods,(b) 1.39 Et est revera imperium Christi: qui primum jubet per Apostolum, ut spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subji∣ciantur; deinde vero remedium adhibet, 1. Cor. 11.16. quod si cui contentiosum esse videtur, nos ejusmodi consuetudinem non habemus, neque Ecclesiae Dei. There is indeed the power of Christ, who first commands by the Apostle, that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets; and then addeth the remedy, 1. Cor. 11.16. that if any list to be contentious, we have no such custome, nor the Churches of God. And M^r Parker in the same place, reasoning in like manner, confirmeth his answer and enforceth it, saying, What, I pray you, can be answered to this last reason? for the Apostle Paul referreth us from the contentions of any one Church unto many; whose example if it prevaile much, how much more their sentence, when they are assembled together in a Synod?

HAving answered these Allegations of M^r Dav. we may now see what wrong he hath done to Mr Parker, in perverting his words and meaning, and ma∣king him a Patrone of this erroneous opinion that is so prejudiciall to the Church of God in the government thereof by Synods: and yet for the further clearing of the trueth and vindicating of Mr Parker, and for the help of the Reader, that he may better understand his meaning touching Classes and Synods, (for many have not his booke, and many understand it not, being written in Latine) I will set downe his judgement more particularly, touching the divers kindes and degrees of consociation of Churches, with the speciall questions touching Synods, and shew withall how he applyes the same to the practise of the Reformed Chur∣ches for the defence thereof, in all which the jurisdiction of Synods is main∣tained. And

[ I] First, comming to speak of the kindes of conjunction, or consociation, and shewing(c) 1.40 that some are more imperfect by way of Communication, & some more perfect by way of Combination; The Combinations (he sayth) are of two sorts: for some communicate among themselves by Letters onely, and some both by letters & messengers, or Delegates. These communicatory letters were called in old time Pacificall & Synodall letters, and Formatae. And he(d) 1.41 alledgeth divers examples both from the Scripture and from the primitive Church, touching this kinde of communi∣cation by letters. And howsoever he notes from the Magdeburgenses, that this communication by letters did not proceed from dominion and subjection, &c. yet this is to be understood, touching the subjection of any one Church to ano∣ther, and not of subjection to many Churches: for so he expounds himself tou∣ching this particular of communication by letters, as he had often done before in generall. For whereas it is objected, If all Congregations be equall, what shall be done in case of Schisme and Heresy, when there is no Synod nor Christian Magistrate? He answers,(e) 1.42 The time scarsely falles out, when no Synods can be had: or if Synods be wanting, yet Churches may communicate together by letters: and although there be no authority in one Church above another; yet many Churches joyned together, either in a Synod, or by letters, have authority over one Church offending. And in the next page(f) 1.43 againe, alwayes every one Church is subject to many Churches. And thus he expresse∣ly avoucheth a jurisdiction of many Churches over one, even in their commu∣nication by letters. And yet more particularly he applyes this to the present prac∣tise of the Reformed Churches, & highly commendeth the same, saying,(g) 1.44 And now in the Reformed Churches the necessary use of Elderships is acknowledged, ubi commu∣nicatio per literas primaeva purissime floret; where the primitive communication by letters doth flourish in greatest purity.

[ II] Againe, M^r Parker proceedeth in describing the consociation of Churches, and sayth,(h) 1.45 The second communication of Churches followeth, when some deale with others concerning any Ecclesiasticall busines, not by letters onely, but by messengers also. This con∣sideration is of great moment: for unto whomsoever this handling of Ecclesiasticall businesses doth belong, to them also of necessity doth belong the rest of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction. This he often repeateth, but most fully, when speaking of the authority of sending messengers or Delegates, he saith,(i) 1.46 The power of sending Delegates in Ecclesiasticall affaires was not in any one Bishop, but in the Church it self, and therefore all the other juris∣diction. Now it is evident that the Synod at Ierusalem did send Delegates in an Ecclesiasticall businesse, Act. 15.25, 26, 27. and therefore according to M^r Par∣ker, did not onely consult & admonish, but also exercised jurisdiction therein, and had the power of all other jurisdiction. Thus the Reformed Churches doe day∣ly practise: their Classes and Synods doe upon occasion send their Deputies un∣to particular Churches to judge, compound and decide the controversies that arise in the same; and according to M^r Parker doe exercise a lawfull juris∣diction herein.

[ III] From this Communication of Churches, he commeth to speak(k) 1.47 of their Com∣bination, from whence ariseth a combined Church, derived from other Churches. This combination he notes to consist either of two, or more Churches. An in∣stance

of this combination of two, he gives in the Synod at Ierusalem, Act. 15. and sayth. It was a Councell and Synod, and that properly, and that of two Churches, to wit, of Antioch and Ierusalem, for the Messengers sent from Antioch were present, which re∣presented the Church of Antioch, as is usuall in Councels. And notwithstanding an ob∣jection made against the Church of Antioch, yet he sayth that Church was also judge in that Councell, because their Messengers brought the judgement of the same with them. Hereupon he reproveth two Spirits of errour, the one of Grotius, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sayd to reject the use of Synods altogether: for who would write this (saith M^r Par•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be that is bewitched with errour? seeing the Church of God hath alwayes held, that S•…•… are here instituted of God to endure for ever, &c. The second spirit of errour wi•••• ••he reproves is that of the Hierarchy,(l) 1.48 because they condemne the Reformed Synods, as if they were degenerate, quae tamen ad hunc typum accuratissime efformantur; which are notwithstanding most exactly framed according to this patterne. Hence it appeareth that M^r Parker held the Synods of divine institution to be not onely for counsell and admonition, but for jurisdiction also: for otherwise he could not have sayd with truth, that the Reformed Synods, all which exercise jurisdiction, doe an∣swer exactly thereunto; otherwise he might rather have sayd, that the Synods of the Reformed Churches, swarving from the primitive patterne, were indeed a∣dulterare and degenerate, usurping authority and jurisdiction which did not be∣long unto them.

[ IV] The combination of more Churches, M^r Par. describes in divers kindes or de∣grees also:(m) 1.49 and first that which is of many Churches into one Eldership. The reason of this is, because some little Churches knowing their owne weaknes, doe joyne themselves unto the neighbour Churches, and so make but one Eldership onely among themselves. He gives an instance of this in those small Churches about Geneva, which not being sufficient for themselves, doe joyne themselves unto the Church in the next City, so that they come together weekly into the neighbour-Consistory of the City. This combination of lesser Churches into one Eldership or Consistory, M^r Parker approves and justifyes, and declares his judgement touching this kinde of consociation. 1. He sayth, It is grounded upon the communion of Churches, and derived from the wisedome of the Spirit; and complaines of the Hierarchy that doe so virulently impugne the same. 2.(n) 1.50 Whereas no∣thing is more objected against the Reformation in England, then that many Chur∣ches or Parishes are unable for it, wanting fit men to governe and to exercise dis∣cipline in Elderships: M^r Parker answereth hereunto; If it be so, let them joyne them∣selves unto the next Eldership; or erect a common Eldership among themselves; and so from common counsell and help let them seek remedy for their weaknes. Now it is recorded(o) 1.51 that in the Discipline at Geneva, the right of Excommunication is in the power of this Consistory or common Eldership: and hereby then it appeares that all Ec∣clesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church onely; and that M^r Parker allowing of this government at Geneva, is not against the jurisdiction of many Churches over one. Againe, whereas D. Bancroft and D. Field object that the Churches at Geneva, and the villages of the Netherlands, have not the power of Excommunication; and whereas my opposites complaine, that Chur∣ches

are brought into bondage, and loose their liberty, when they may not ex∣communicate without the consent of others; M^r Parkers answer is,(p) 1.52 that the power of Excommunication, ordination, and other jurisdiction remaines pure in them, saving that communion which ought to be among Churches; every Church in greater matters useth the consent and counsell of her neighbours, as of the Classis or Eldership in the City, quod ego Ecclesiis vel perfectissimis non indig••um reor, which I judge (saith he) not to be un∣meet even for the most perfect Churches. Thus he requires not onely counsell, but con∣sent of other Churches in weightier matters; which is that we stand for. This doth not, as he saith,(q) 1.53 import any Hierarchicall subjection in the parishes at Ge∣neva, unlesse happily any can be subjected unto himself; for these parishes, each for their part, and that equally, are this very Eldership. What subjection is it, where all as well City-churches as the Country-churches are equall? for the country-churches are no more sub∣ject unto this Eldership, then are the city-churches.

[ V] The next combination of many Churches, which M^r Parker speaks of,(r) 1.54 is when they are united into one Classis. And of these he giveth instance in the Churches of the Netherlands; and in Scotland, where the 52 Presbyteries, so cal∣led by them, were nothing els but so many Classes. For the warrant of these he bringeth both divers grounds of holy Scripture, and the example of antiquity. He there answereth 10 Objections made by the Hierarchy against these Classes. And it is to be observed that he doth not simply speak of Classes in generall, but of these Classes of the Reformed Churches in these Countries, of our Classes, as he useth to call them, not onely for that he approved them, but because together with us, he was a member of this communion, and lived under the jurisdiction of the Classis with us. If he had not allowed their jurisdiction, which he knew and saw to be exercised by them, how could he with good conscience have praised them as he doth? Speaking of the ancient Discipline used in the Primitive Chur∣ches, he saith,(f) 1.55 Omnia his in politeia nostra & in Classibus nostris similia. O quantum peccat Hierarchia, quae hanc suavissimam Ecclesiarum combinationem eliminavit! that is, All things in our government and in our Classes are like unto these. O how much doth the Hierarchy offend, which hath banished this most sweet combination of Churches! And as well might we cry out, O how much doe the authours of the single, uncom∣pounded policie offend, who likewise seek to banish and overthrow this combi∣nation of Churches in Classes; while they allow them onely for counsell, and re∣gard not their consent; but allow the Churches in combination to proceed in the weightiest affaires, without or against the consent of Classes! Whereas it is objected not onely by my opposites, but by some of the Hierarchy themselves, that these Classes doe take unto themselves that jurisdiction which they seeme to condemne in the Hierarchy; M^r Parker in his answer shewes the contrary: He saith,(t) 1.56 The superiour power that is in Classes, ariseth from the Churches, that are combined in Classes, &c. No Church hath dominion or preheminence over another. He sayth that in the Me∣tropoliticall or Episcopall jurisdiction, Churches have not their owne government, but are spoy∣led of their Elderships and subjected to the power of one, and to an externall Church, namely the Cathedrall. All which things are contrary in our Classes. Every Church injoyeth her owne government by her owne Eldership: the Classis, is no externall Church, much lesse an exter∣nall

Court: for it consisteth of these Churches that are combined: so that here is no authority over many; the parishes doe joyne their authority together, and that equally.

[ VI] After the combination of many Churches into one Eldership and one Classis, M^r Parker proceeds(v) 1.57 to speak of that combination of many Churches in many Classes, which is into one Synod, and that either Provinciall, Nationall, or Ge∣nerall; the Nationall containing under it the Churches of sundry Provinces, and the Generall comprehending the Churches of many Nations. Touching Synods, he speaketh of the 7 controversies about them, and first of the Necessity of Synods. He sayth, he never knew any in the Reformed Churches to deny the necessity of Synods, before Hugo Grotius, that was the great friend of Arminius. He shew∣eth from Bogerman, that the Reformed doe stand for the necessity of Synods more then any other. Whereas D. Sutlive condemneth such as would have status Synodos, Synods kept at certaine set times, and not onely extraordinary, as he saith that Synod of the Apostles was, Act. 15.(x) 1.58 M^r Parker refureth him, and argueth thus from that place, This example of the Apostles sheweth that Synods are to be called, as the necessity and edification of the Church requireth: but there fall out so many abuses, errours, controversies, scandals and other such things; that set and frequent Synods are necessary: for the neglect whereof the English Hierarchy doth sinne grievously, which contenting it self with an extraordinary Synod onely, doth not call a Synod after the example of the Apostles, so of∣ten as abuses, errours, controversies, and scandals doe arise, but contrary to the example of the Apostles, committeth all these things to the care of one Bishop alone. And whereas he ad∣deth further in the same place, that the Hierarchy is crept in in place of the Synod, ta∣king violently unto it self those things which by divine right doe belong unto Synods: he doth herein acknowledge the authority of Synods to be of divine right; for what els or what more doth the Hierarchy snatch unto themselves, then authority of cen∣sure, and jurisdiction in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes?

[ VII] Touching the second controversy about Synods, viz. the authority and power of them,(y) 1.59 he notes that as there is an Aristocraticall government in Elderships: so there is an Aristocraticall government by Synods; and from this his assertion it fol∣lowes, that as the Consistories or Elderships have a jurisdiction and power of go∣vernment in them, and are not onely for counsell, so the Synods in like manner. When as he saith further,(z) 1.60 that the Synods borrow that authority which they have from the prime Churches, this argues that he confesseth they have some authority; els how could they be said to borrow it? To like purpose he argues there againe,(a) 1.61 It appeares by the very obligation that Synods have their authority from the prime Churches: for otherwise Synods should not binde the prime Churches, unlesse by sending their Delegates they did avow their consent; unlesse they have just cause afterwards of dissenting. Thus he acknowledgeth a bond of authority and an obligatory power in Synods: & as for the exception which he addeth, it is as well to be added unto any judicatory, ei∣ther Civill or Ecclesiasticall whatsoever; for there is no jurisdiction nor authority of the highest Governours on earth, that ought to binde us unto the obedience of their decrees, if we have just cause of dissenting.

[ VIII] For the Convocation of Synods, which is the third controversy,(b) 1.62 M^r Parker doth maintaine and much commend the practise and order observed in these Re∣formed

Churches, and declares at large what their manner is from divers acts of their Synods. He sayth, it is cum sapientissime tum saluberrime instituta; a most wise & most wholesome institution. He shewes, that the Church hath power of calling Sy∣nods; but where there is a Christian Magistrate,(c) 1.63 this power is regulated of the Ma∣gistrate. He brings(d) 1.64 10 Arguments to prove that this power of calling Synods is not in a Metropolitane Bishop. He sayth touching Ecclesiasticall persons,(e) 1.65 The power of convocating is in no one, but in many; therefore Synods are not to be called by one, nor by the authority of one, but by the Synods themselves, by the precedent assembly it∣self, as is usuall in the Reformed Churches. And speaking of Act. 15.6. he sayth, Doth not this example binde all ages, that the meeting in Synods be by common consent, even as the Acts in the Synod are by common consent decreed? This decree of calling together is an act of jurisdiction, more then counsell or admonition onely.

[ IX] The fourth controversy about Synods is concerning the Persons(f) 1.66 whereof the Synods consist. Whereas Bellarmine distinguisheth betwixt the greater & lesser Clerkes, and alloweth unto Hierarchicall Bishops to have a deciding voyce, and to the inferiour sort to have onely a consulting voyce, M^r Parker shewes at large that whosoever is lawfully deputed and sent, whether Ministers, Elders, Deacons, or any of the people, have a deciding voyce, and may give definitive sentence in Sy∣nods; and thereby he acknowledgeth the jurisdiction exercised in them. He saith,(g) 1.67 As the materiall foundation of Synodall right, is the excellency of inward gifts, not the dignity of any office: so the formall foundation thereof is delegation from the Church, from which whosoever they be that have receyved authority (and therefore Elders also) they have power of decreeing and judging in Synods. And many other testimonies thereof he gives in that chapter.

[ X] A fift controversy is about the Praesident or Moderatour in Synods.(h) 1.68 M^r Parker labours to prove that this presidency doth not belong to an Hierarchicall Bishop or Arch-bishop, but maintaines the practise and order of the Reformed Churches, where the President of the Synods is elected or chosen by the Synods themselves.(i) 1.69 We argue first, sayth he, from the authority of the Church. for in Matt. 18. Ecclesiasticall authority is given primarily, and originally unto the prime Church: so that no rectour without the election and designation thereof, may challenge any authority unto him∣self. The Synod is a combined or secondary Church, which receiveth authority from the prime Churches: & that under the like condition, to wit that no rectour or Praesident be made without election of the Churches, which are combined in that Assembly. This he declares at large and refutes the contrary arguments. Now this Election of a Praesident is an act of Ecclesiasticall authority, a part of the Churches power; and seeing this is con∣fessed to be in Synods, it appeareth hence also that Synods are not onely for coun∣sell & admonition, but also for the exercise of jurisdiction.

[ XI] A sixt controversy about Synods concernes the Execution of the Synodall Canons.(k) 1.70 M^r Park. holds that this belongs not unto any one Bishop or Arch-bishop, but unto particular Churches and their Elderships. He argues on this manner,(l) 1.71 The execution of Canons, of what kinde soever, whether they be those which are published of Christ, in the Scriptures, or whether they be ordained in Synods according to the Scriptures, is a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, a part of the exercise of the Keyes, as the Parisians call it. But

the Keyes and Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction are not given to one Bishop, but are promised to the Church and Eldership, Mat. 16. and given unto them, Matt. 18. Therefore the execution of Canons, belongeth not unto one Bishop, but unto the Church which importeth many. Now if the execution of Synodall Canons by an Eldership or particular Church be a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, and of the Keyes, then much more is the ma∣king of these Canons in the Synod: and then Synods have not onely liberty of gi∣ving counsell and admonition, but power of jurisdiction also, which M^r Daven. denyeth. This conclusion and inference is afterward noted by M^r Parker himself also; when as he addeth,(m) 1.72 Why should not he be judge in the execution of Canons, who hath power of judging in the sanction or decreeing of the Canons? &c. And againe, If it be not lawfull for them to execute the Canons, neither will it be lawfull to ordaine them: on the other side, if they have authority of making Canons, then have they authority to execute them; and that much more.

[ XII] The seventh controversy about Synods, is concerning the Conditions(n) 1.73 there∣of. And among other conditions, M^r Parker(o) 1.74 requires this for one, that there be a common consent, or a community of suffrages: and he complaines of it as a great corruption when there is in Synods a negative voyce allowed unto Bishops or Arch∣bishops. He notes(p) 1.75 that to be not without reason called an Oligarchicall Synod, when things are not done by common consent, but one maketh frustrate the consent of the rest. Now if it be a violation of the Synods right and authority, when the generall consent of the greatest part is made frustrate by the dissenting of one or of a few; then much more is the authority thereof violated, when as notwithstanding the universall and entire consent of the whole Synod, both of the Praesident, & of all the Deputies of all the Churches there assembled, yet by receiving this erroneous opinion of my opposites, the definitive sentence of them all is made frustrate and disannulled; as if they had no jurisdiction nor power of censure, but were one∣ly to counsell or admonish.

AS that which M^r Parker hath written particularly touching the combination of Churches in Classes and Synods, doth sufficiently shew his minde tou∣ching this controversy, and that M^r Dav doth in vaine seek to shrowd himself un∣der his shadow: so that which he writes more generally in defence of the Di∣scipline practised in the Reformed Churches, where the authority and juris∣diction of Synods is maintained, doth serve for a more full declaration thereof. He laboureth to prove (q) by 10 Arguments,(q) 1.76 that the Church of England is bound to imitate the Reformed Churches in their Discipline; which yet, (if M^r Dav. his opinion were true, they ought not to doe, but rather to avoyd it & flee from it, as being an usurpation of unlawfull power, whereby their people are kept in bondage under the undue power of Classes and Synods. In speciall, M^r Parker following M^r Brightman in his exposition of the Revelation,(r) 1.77 saith that in Philadelphia, which is the type of the Reformed Churches, nothing is reprehended, but all things are commended, and among the rest, the discipline which is noted by the key of David, Rev. 3.7. He saith, that the Angel of the Reformed Churches stands in the Sunne, Rev. 19.17. as being the naturall sonne of the woman clothed with the Sunne. Rev. 12.1. that the Reformed Churches are as the beautifull mountaine, the mountaine of Christs delights,

Rev. 16.16. & the hill of precious fruits. He saith againe, that the Philadelphian Church is the type of the Reformed Churches; that it is commanded to hold fast her crowne. Rev. 3.11. Now if M^r Parker did judge this rare and high commendation to be due unto the Reformed Churches, and that by divine warrant, by the testimony of the holy Ghost foretelling their estate and the purity of the Discipline observed by them; then was he not of M^r D. his minde. for then he should have judged them not to be a free people, while the causes of particular Congregations are judged and de∣termined by another superiour authority in Synods: Then should he rather have judged that their Churches wanted the key of David, and were deprived of their lawfull and proper priviledges and prerogatives, being subject to an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the assembly of the combined Churches. And in summe, then should he (according to M^r D. his opinion) have judged them to carry a yoke of servitude and subjection, to be cast off with all speed, rather then a crowne of law∣full liberty, to be held fast by them: then should he with Mr Canne(f) 1.78 have taught them to complaine in the misapplyed words of the Prophet, Ier. 4.13. Woe unto us, we are spoyled; viz. by the authority of Classes & Synods.

TO conclude, for the judgement of M^r Parker in this controversy, there are few that did better know, or at least had more meanes to know his minde, then I. The trueth is, when he came from Leyden, where he and M^r Iacob had sojourned some while together, he professed at his first comming to Amsterdam, that the use of Synods was for counsell and advise onely, but had not authority to give definitive sentence in the judging of causes. But after much conference with him, when he had more seriously and ripely considered of this question, he plainly changed his opinion, and professed so much not onely unto me, but unto sundry others upon occasion; so that some of M^r Iacobs minde were offended with him, and expostulated not onely with him, but with me also, as being an occasion of altering his judgment. I had meanes to understand his minde aright, and better then those that doe so many wayes pervert his meaning, he being not onely a member of the same Church, but a member of the same family & living under the same roofe with me; where we had continuall and daily occasion to talk of these things, and at that time when M^r Iacob published his unsound wri∣tings touching this question. He being afterwards also a member of the same El∣dership, and by office sitting with us dayly to heate and judge the causes of our Church, and so becomming a member of our Classicall combination, yet did he never testify against the unduepower of the Classis, or complaine that we were not a free people, though the Classis exercised the same authority then, as now it doth. Yea he being also for that time the Scribe of our Consistory, the Acts of our El∣dership and Church being recorded with his owne hand, are extant to shew his agreement with us in the government of this Church. And it appeares hereby that he was of another spirit and judgement, then M^r Davenp. who hath publi∣shed so many vaine cavills against the government and discipline of these Refor∣med Churches, and this under the cloake & pretence of his agreement with M^r Parker. Yea and further it is apparent that the knowledge and experience which M^r Parker got by this his living here in communion with these Churches, hath

bene a speciall help unto him in the writing of those learned treatises of Ecclesi∣asticall policie, which for the substance and maine are as a lively Table wherein the government of these Reformed Churches is plainely pourtrayed before our eyes; his discourse being as it were a narration and defence of their practise; which discourse might yet have bene more perfect, had he lived to finish the same.

Notes

• (o) 1.1

  Apol. re∣ply. p. 240, 241.
• (p) 1.2

  De Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 1
• * 1.3

  Zanch. in praecept. 4. qu. 3.
• (q) 1.4

  Apol. re∣ply. p. 47.
• (r) 1.5

  Ibid. p. 237. 238.
• (s) 1.6

  De Cōc. qu. 5. p. 170.
• (t) 1.7

  Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. & 23, 24. &c.
• (v) 1.8

  Poli. Ec∣cl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 77.
• (x) 1.9

  Ibid. c. 13. p. 117.
• (y) 1.10

  Ibidē.
• (z) 1.11

  Ibid. p. 77.
• (a) 1.12

  Ibid. p. 88.
• (b) 1.13

  Pol. Ec∣cl. l. 2. c. 13. p. 121.
• (c) 1.14

  Ibid. p. 129.
• (d) 1.15

  Ibid. p. 120.
• (e) 1.16

  Apol. re∣ply. p. 241.242.
• * 1.17

  P. 47. P. 239.
• (f) 1.18

  Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301, 302.
• (g) 1.19

  Pa. 31••
• (h) 1.20

  Pa. 303
• (i) 1.21

  Apol. re∣ply. p. 242.
• (k) 1.22

  Ibid. p. 226.227.
• * 1.23

  De Eccl. pol. l. 3. c. 2••. p. 329.
• (l) 1.24

  Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 22. p. 327.
• (m) 1.25

  Ibid. p. 336.
• (n) 1.26

  P. 329.
• (o) 1.27

  P. 330.331.
• * 1.28

  Cont. 4. qu. 4. p. 448.
• (p) 1.29

  P. 331.332.
• (q) 1.30

  P. 332, 333.
• (r) 1.31

  Conf. with Hart. c. 8. d. 5.
• (s) 1.32

  Concil. Carthag. Graec. c. 2•• & Milevita. c. 22.
• (t) 1.33

  P. 334.
• (v) 1.34

  Cypriā. L. 1. Ep. 8.
• (x) 1.35

  P. 335.
• (y) 1.36

  DeRom. Pon. l. 1. c. 9
• (z) 1.37

  P. 327.
• (a) 1.38

  DeRom. Pont. Cont. 4. qu 1. p. 49
• (b) 1.39

  Anim. adv. in Bel∣larm Con∣tr. 3. l. 1. c. 9. u. 74.
• (c) 1.40

  Poli. Ec∣cl. l. 3. c. 22. p. 336.
• (d) 1.41

  P. 337.
• (e) 1.42

  Ibid. c. 21. p. 324.
• (f) 1.43

  P. 325.
• (g) 1.44

  Ibid. c. ••2. p. 337.
• (h) 1.45

  Ibid. p. 338.
• (i) 1.46

  P. 342.
• (k) 1.47

  Ibid. c. 23. p. 345. 340.
• (l) 1.48

  P. 347.
• (m) 1.49

  Ibidē.
• (n) 1.50

  P. 348.
• (o) 1.51

  Calvin. Epist. 167.
• (p) 1.52

  P. 349.
• (q) 1.53

  P. 390.
• (r) 1.54

  Ibid. c. 24. p. 353. &c.
• (f) 1.55

  P. 357.
• (t) 1.56

  P. 358. 359.
• (v) 1.57

  Pol. Eco. lib. 3. c. 25. p. 362.
• (x) 1.58

  P. 364. 365.
• (y) 1.59

  Ibid. c. 26. p 367.
• (z) 1.60

  P. 368.
• (a) 1.61

  P. 370.
• (b) 1.62

  Ibid. c. 27. p. 371.
• (c) 1.63

  P. 372.
• (d) 1.64

  P. 373. &c.
• (e) 1.65

  P. 375.
• (f) 1.66

  Ibid. c. 28. p. 379. &c.
• (g) 1.67

  P. 387.
• (h) 1.68

  Ibid. c. 29.
• (i) 1.69

  P. 402.
• (k) 1.70

  Ibid. l. 3 c. 30.
• (l) 1.71

  P. 428.
• (m) 1.72

  P. 432.
• (n) 1.73

  Ibid. c. 31.
• (o) 1.74

  P. 452.
• (p) 1.75

  P. 454.
• (q) 1.76

  Pol. Ecc. lib. 1. c. 29. p. 84.
• (r) 1.77

  Ibid. p. 84.85, 86.
• (f) 1.78

  Chur∣ches plea. p. 74.