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

SECT. V.

His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined.

IO. DAV.(r) 1.1 To him I may adde Mr Paul Baynes, a man of singular noate for lear∣ning and piety, in Cambridge, where he succeeded Mr Perkins, who freely expresseth his judgment for the right of particular Churches, and their independence, in this sense, in his Diocesans tryall. ANSVV. As M^r Baynes was a man of singular note for lear∣ning and piety, so is his testimony of singular note to shew the right use & power of Synods, not onely for counsell, but for authority to censure and judge Eccle∣siasticall causes; so that particular Churches may not doe within themselves, what they would without their consent.

1. After he had set downe 4 conclusions, wherein we agree with the oppo∣sites, he comes to speak of the poynt of difference, and sayth,(f) 1.2 That wherein we contradict one another, is, we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually, but that all Churches were singular congregations, equall, independent each of other in regard of subjection. Secondly, we say, were there a Diocesan granted, yet will it not follow, that Parish-Churches should be without their government within themselves, but

onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases. As it was with the Synagogues & that Nationall Church of the Iewes, and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches. This doe I willingly assent unto: And this is no other thing then that which is practised in these Reformed Churches, with whom we are united. Here is no one head-Church, that hath more authority then another, all Congregations are equall, independent each of other: here is no subjection to any one Diocesan: all are equally and mutually subject to the Synod consisting of many: their dependen∣cy is not upon one more then another, but it is onely in regard of many com∣bined; notwithstanding which combination they have their government within themselves: being subject to the Synod onely in some more weighty and diffi∣cult cases.

II. As for that other place; when some had pleaded from the example of the Reformed Churches, as if they had not bene distinct Churches, &c. M^r Bayes so explaineth their estate and practise (as M^r Parker(t) 1.3 more largely had done be∣fore) that therein he doth not at all prejudice their subjection to Synods. for spea∣king of the 24 Churches at Geneva and of their combination and subjection unto one Presbytery arrow_forward , he sayth,(v) 1.4 They have power of governing themselves, but for greater edification, voluntarily confederate, not to use nor exercise their power, but with mutuall com∣munication, one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbyterie. Se∣condly, it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory, wherein they shall have no power of suffrage: Another thing to communicate with such a arrow_back Presbytery arrow_forward wherein themselves are members and judges with others. After that againe, he addeth, Geneva made this consociation, not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect, and to make one Church by this union: but because though they were intire Churches, and had the power of Churches, yet they needed this support in exercising of it, and that by this meanes the Mini∣sters and Seniors of it might have communion. Thus he notes not onely the counsell, but the consent of others required. And as at Geneva a particular Church pro∣ceeded not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in a common arrow_back Presbytery: so in these Low-countries in weightier af∣faires they proceed not without or against the consent of many Churches concur∣ring in their Classis.

III. M^r Baynes having shewed how every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body, and having Governours every way equall, there is yet no feare of confu∣sion, seeing Aristocracie, especially when God ordaines it, is a forme of govern∣ment sufficient to preserve order; hereupon he propounds this objection,(x) 1.5 But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it self. And hereunto he answers thus, Not so neither; for it is subject to the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled, and to the Civill Magistrate, who in case of delinquencie, hath directive and corrective power over it. And thus we have his expresse testimony and confession, that Synods have authority not onely to counsell and advise, but to censure; that particular Chur∣ches are subject to the censure of other Churches; that consequently there is a double Ec∣clesiasticall Aristocracie, one in particular Churches severally, another in many Churches Synodically assembled; that if a particular Church erre in matters of faith and religion, that it is subject, not to the power of the Magistrate alone, but

both to him and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall jusridiction, arising from the combination of many Churches, contrary to that assertion in the English Puri∣tanisme, chap. 2.

IV. Speaking of Presbyters, that is of Ministers and Elders, and of their go∣vernment, he saith,(y) 1.6 There is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo, but the Scripture doth asscribe it to them, power of suffrage in Councell, Act. 15. power of excommunication, which is manifest to have bene in the Church of Corinth, &c. While he alledgeth Act. 15. for an evidence of the Presbyters power in Synods or Councels, he doth hereby acknowledge that in Synods there is a lawfull exer∣cise of jurisdiction and of the power of the keyes; and that therefore they are not onely for counsell and advise. To like purpose he saith afterwards againe,(z) 1.7 The Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question, Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbyterie with them. Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered, but be∣cause it was a thing to be determined by many; all who had receyved power of the keyes, doing it ex officio, and others from discretion and duety of confessing the trueth. And a little af∣ter, he there addeth, It is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts, that Presbyters had right of suffrage, not onely in their owne Presbyteries, but in Provinciall Synods, and therefore in Oecumenicall Synods, which doth arise from a combination of the other, to which their mindes went in the instruction of Bishops receyved from their Churches.

V. Whereas one errour useth to accompany another, and commonly those that deny the authority of Synods, doe also in part deny the authority of particular Elderships, as we see in the Brownists, and therefore after private admonitions doe in a popular order referre the judgement even of lesser matters unto the pu∣blick examination and decision of the whole Church assembled together, not per∣mitting the same to the judgement of the Eldership; M^r Baynes doth also im∣pugne this practise. For he speaking of the rule of Discipline, Matt. 18. where Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many, yet after some other observations touching the meaning of the word Church, he further explaineth himself, when he addeth these notes and sayth,(a) 1.8 Thirdly, as Christ doth speak it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly, so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the Congregation. For then Christ should give not some, but all the members of the Church to be governours of it. Fourthly, Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderlie complaine: now this we cannot to the whole multitude. Fiftly, this Church he speaketh of, he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all dis∣cipline and censure. But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie, as all but Morelli∣us and such Democraticall spirits doe affirme. And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church, doth shew that often the number of it is but small: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, &c. whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie ta∣ken for teachers and people are incomparably great. Againe, shewing on the other side that Christ by the Church doth not meane the chief Pastour, who is virtual∣ly as the whole Church; and that the word Church doth ever signify a company, and never is found to note out one person; after other reasons he pleades from the example and practise in the old Testament, saying,(b) 1.9 The Church in the old Testa∣ment never noteth the high Priest virtuallie, but an assembly of Priests sitting together, as

judges in the causes of God. Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particu∣lar Church: So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie, and joynt execution of a representative Church, a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours. And thus he concludes from Mat. 18. that there is a representative Church of one particular Congregation; as before from Act. 15. he acknowledged a representative Church in the Synod, for many Churches.

VI. Whereas Mr Dav. alledgeth out of Mr Parker, that the power Ecclesiasti∣call do the essentially and primarily reside in the Church it self, as in its proper subject: al∣though this be no ground for the refutation of that power and jurisdiction belon∣ging to Synods, as I have shewed(c) 1.10 before; yet even this ground also is denyed by Mr Baynes, who goes not so farre as Mr Parker(d) 1.11 touching the derivation of all Ecclesiasticall authority from a particular Church as from the fountaine, but doth (in some part) oppose that opinion, especially in respect of that influence of au∣thority per intuitum, viz. that which is in Ministers called immediately of Christ, as the Apostles were, yet in respect of the end and the whole, is sayd to be from the Church mediately, &c. And therefore though Mr Parker was farre from the o∣pinion of Mr Dav. yet was Mr Baynes farre further from it. His judgement here∣in, as being worthy the consideration of the Readers, I have thought meet to set downe the more fully. And first, speaking by occasion of the power of jurisdic∣tion in the Church, he sayth,(e) 1.12 Christ hath committed it originaliter & exercita∣tive to the representative Church, that they might Aristocratically administer it. And af∣terwards coming to intreat of the third maine question in his booke,(f) 1.13 Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall, and the exercise of it, to any one singular person, or to a united multitude of Presbyters, he there sets downe his judg∣ment more largely, in divers conclusions(g) 1.14 on this manner.

Conclus. 3. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof, was not given to the communitie of the Church, or to the whole multitude of the faithfull, so that they were the immediate and first receptacle, receiving it from Christ, and virtually deriving it to others. This I set downe against the Divines of Con∣stance; our prime Divines, as Luther and Melancthon, and the Sorbonists, who doe maintaine it at this day. Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians errour; for in his booke depudicitia, he maketh Christ to haue left all Christians with like power, but the Church for her honour, did dispose it as we see. The pro∣portion of a politick body, and naturall, deceived them, while they will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body, not remembring that analogon is not in omni simile, for then should it be the same with the analogatum. True it is, all civill power is in the body politick, the collections of subjects, then in a King from them: And all the power of hearing, seeing, they are in the whole man, which doth produce them effectually, though formally and instrumen∣tally they are in the eare and eye. But the reason of this is, because these pow∣ers are naturall, and what ever is naturall, doth first agree to the communitie or totum, and afterward to a particular person and part, but all that is in this body, cannot hold in Christs mysticall body. In a politick body, power is first in the communitie, in the King from them, but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our

King before any in the Church from him. But to whom should he first com∣mit this power, but to his Queene? Answ. Considering this power is not any Lordly power, but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake: therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons, and not to the whole communitie, which are the Queen of Christ. For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herself properly: but to have per∣sons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her. Second∣ly, in naturall bodies, the power of seeing is first immediately in the man, from the man in the eye and particular members: In the mysticall body, the faith of a beleever is not first immediately in all, then in the beleever, but first of all and immediately in the personall beleever, for whose good it serveth more proper∣ly then for the whole, every man being to live by his owne faith. The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel, so derived to the Priest: but immediately from Christ seated in Aaron and his sonnes. Object. Yea they were given the Church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis & totius. Answ. I but this is not enough, that power may be sayd to be immediately received by the Church as the first receptacle of it, and from it derived to others, as the power of seeing is not onely given intuitu hominis as the end of it, and the totum to whom it agreeth, but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye. But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the Church. For as all are sayd not to have been Apostles, so not to have been Doctors. But if the power of ordinarie teaching had been given to every beleever, all should have been made Doctors, though not to continue so in exercising the power. Secondly, were the power in the Church, the Church, should not onely call them, but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe: then should the Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers. Besides, there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly, as women and children. This conclusion in my judgement Victoria, Soto and others deny, with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained.

Conclus. 4. Fourthly, ordinary power of ministeriall government is commit∣ted with the execution of it, to the Senat or Presbyterie of the Church. If any faile in any office, the Church hath not power of supplying that, but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have pow∣er of office given him in the place vacant.

Conclus. 5. Lastly, though the community have not power given her, yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her, that all power is to be executed in such manner, as standeth with respect to her excellencie. Hence it is, that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them. Not that they have joynt power of the keyes with them, but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ, and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with, without open dishonour in such things, which belong in common to the whole congregation.

Afterwards againe,(h) 1.15 speaking of some derivation of power from the Church, in taking in Officers, he shewes that the Church doth this onely as an instrument,

in taking that person whom Christ describeth and would have to be placed in this or that office: but hath not this power in herself either formally or virtually. And from this Stewardlike power of the Church, he declares that Officers in the Church are not to administer in the name of the Church, but in the name of Christ: As a Butler taken in by a servant, doth execute his office, not in master Stewards name, but in his masters, who onely out of power did conferre it on him. By these & sun∣dry other assertions, it is apparant that Mr Baynes was of a farre different opinion from Mr Dav. touching the state of particular Churches, & the authority of Sy∣nods. Let us heare his next Author.

Notes

• (r) 1.1

  Apol. re∣ply, p. 242. Dioc. tryal. p. 13. & ••••.
• (f) 1.2

  Dioces. tryall, p. 13.
• (t) 1.3

  Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 348, 349. &c.
• (v) 1.4

  Dioc. tryal. p. 21.
• (x) 1.5

  Dioc. tr. p. 68.
• (y) 1.6

  Ibid. p. 67.
• (z) 1.7

  P. 82.
• (a) 1.8

  Dioces. tryall. p. 80.
• (b) 1.9

  Ibid. p. 81.
• (c) 1.10

  P. 89.90
• (d) 1.11

  Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 8. p. 28. &c.
• (e) 1.12

  Dioc. tryal. p. 69.
• (f) 1.13

  Ibid. p. 98.
• (g) 1.14

  P. 83.84
• (h) 1.15

  P. 88.