Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	civil_a	ecclesiastical_a	jurisdiction_n	1,713	5	9.3902	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88947	A modest & brotherly ansvver to Mr. Charles Herle his book, against the independency of churches. Wherein his foure arguments for the government of synods over particular congregations, are friendly examined, and clearly answered. Together, with Christian and loving animadversions upon sundry other observable passages in the said booke. All tending to declare the true use of synods, and the power of congregationall churches in the points of electing and ordaining their owne officers, and censuring their offendors. By Richard Mather teacher of the Church at Dorchester; and William Tompson pastor of the Church at Braintree in New-England. Sent from thence after the assembly of elders were dissolved that last met at Cambridg to debate matters about church-government.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.; Tompson, William, d. 1666.	1644 (1644)	Wing M1274; Thomason E37_19; ESTC R16954	50,642	62

be granted to Generall Councils but there must be liberty of appeals from them also Such consequences do inevitably follow upon that which you suggest as a ground of appealing from particular Congregations And by all this it appeareth that particular Congregations have no such superiour Judicatory above them but according to your grounds there may be liberty of appeals from the same And thence it followeth that there is not the like Reason against their Independency as against the Independency of the Synagogues in Israel because those Synagogues had a Judicatorie above them from which there was no appeal Those may be Dependent which have others above them which are supreame Whereas they which have no such above them may be supreame themselves and consequently be independent Obj. If any shall here ask whether we think it not possible for particular Congregations to erre in their judgement of causes We answer That we confesse they may But in our Judgement that needs not to hinder but they may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction within themselves and not be under the power of any other For that supreame Synedrion at Jerusalem did many times erre and gave corrupt Judgement in causes and yet was not under the power of any other Judicatory When we are enquiring in what Judicatory the supremum of Church-power doth lye it is not our best course to look for such an one as cannot erre for such an one we shall never find but to look out where God hath appointed it to lie and therewith to rest contented Now in the old Testament this supremum by Gods appointment was in that Synedrion at Jerusalem But in the new Testament we know of no appointment of God that the like supremum must be in a Synod but for ought we know a particular Congregation may be answerable to that Synedrion as well as any Classis or Synod and so much the rather because the power in a particular congregation is constant and alwayes ready to be had as it was in that Synedrion whereas Classes and Synods are more seldome and rare and cannot be gathered so often as there may be need of the use of Church power in regard of ordaining of Officers or censuring of offenders and the like Therefore briefly to wind up all sith Congregations in the New Testament are compleat Churches which the Jewish Synagogues were not and sith the Synagogues had a supreame judicatory above them from which there was no appeale which our congregations have not Therefore we conclude That the dependencie of the Synagogues upon that superiour Judicatory doth not prove that our congregations must depend upon the government of a Synod especially this being considered withall that the Judicatory upon which the Synagogues did depend was not any Synod but an Assembly of another nature And though the Supremacie must be some where even where God hath appointed it to be yet the particular congregations may shew as much for that appointment as the Synod And this shall suffice for answer to this first Argument Onely we will adde some observations upon some few passages in that which you write for removall of three exceptions which you say are given by some against this argument of yours 1. That that government was ccremoniall and typicall 2. That Papists alledge it against us for their Hierarchy and appeales to the Pope 3. That the Priests and Levites were then Judges in civill causes wherin it was that the government was then appealative and dependent pag. 5. If any doe make such exceptions we leave it to them that make them to undertake the defence of them or to cleare them as they shall see cause But for us the answer we have given to the Argument is that wherein we do rest That there ought to be one High-Priest in whom all appeales and judgements were to determine pag. 6. Though there was to be one High-Priest among the Jewes yet that all appeals and judgements were to determine in him we suppose is more then can be proved Sure Mr. Paget pag. 35 36. whom you seem in your discourse much to follow doth say that the judgement spoken of Deut. 17. was not given by the High-Priest alone but by a Colledge or Senate of Priests noted in the text and approveth the judgement of Doctor Reynolds and Doctor Whitaker giving this answer as a just refutation of the Papists arguing from this Text to prove there should bee one supreme Judge of Ecclesiasticall causes That there ought to be graduall Judicatories wherein the aggrieved party may appeale from the lesser to the higher There can be no ceremony or type in this This was taught by the light of nature to Jethro Appeals saith Doctor Whitaker are of divine and naturall right pag. 6. If this bee meant in civill causes where more is left to the light of nature and civill prudence according to the general rules of the Word the Word not determining all particulars so fully as it doth in Ecclesiasticall matters then we for our parts doe fully consent thereto And though it were extended to Ecclesiasticall causes also yet this we suppose is cleare likewise by the same light of nature that both for civill causes and Ecclesiasticall there must be some finall and supreame judgement that controversies may not by appeales after appeals be spun out in infinitum Now unlesse it be determined where that supremacie doth lie which is the very thing in question the usefulnesse and necessity of appeals may be granted and yet we shall be still at uncertainty about the thing in question and as much to seek as before That there ought to be appeals till you come to the highest is one thing and that a Synod and not a particular congregation is the highest is another and they are so farre different that though the first were granted yet the latter is not thereby proved That renowned Martyr Cranmer the forme of his appeale to a Councell three times by him urged we have recorded by Mr Fox at large pag. 6. But how this example doth suit the present question we doe not understand for his appeal was not from a particular congregation but from the Pope nor was it to a Synod but to the next generall Councell which from that day to this hath not yet assembled nor been called If we must hold a necessity of appeales to such a Judicatory as Cranmer appealed unto then the supremacie of Synods Provinciall or Nationall is utterly taken away Generally all that write against appeals to the Pope acknowledge yet their necessary usefulnesse to a Synod So did that reverend Martyr Cranmer So besides the whole stream of Antiquity Ursin Zepperus and to come neerer Cartwright Fenner nay Barrow Ainsworth Johnson pag. 6. We doubt it is a speech a good deale too large to say That all these doe acknowledge the necessary usefulnesse of appeales to a Synod especially if you mean of such appeales as you must needs mean or else you speak not to

congregations in Israel did depend on the ministeriall government of a Synod nor will it follow that ours must be dependant as theirs were Touching the former of these to speak first of the minor proposition suppose it were true that the Congregations in Israel did depend upon the government of the Judicatories or Assemblies mentioned in those texts yet that doth not prove they depended upon a Synod And the reason is because the Judicatories there mentioned were not any Synods at all but Assemblies of another nature For first Synods as your selves describe them pag 2. are Assemblies consisting of the severall Pastors whom together with such other members as should be thought fit the several congregations are respectively to chuse send therto But those Judicatories in Deut. 17. and the other Scriptures did not consist of any Pastors or members whom the severall congregations did chuse and send thereto but of the Priests and Levites of the Judges and chiefe of the Fathers of Israel which were constantly resident at Jerusalem the place which the Lord had chosen And the severall congregations had nothing to do either to chuse them or send them Secondly these Jndicatories at Jerusalem were standing Courts and were constantly to continue and therefore they were not Synods for Synods are not wont to stand and continue but onely till they have ended the businesse which was the occasion of calling them and then to be dissolved and ended Thirdly Mr. Page out of whom it seems this argument and much of the discourse about it is taken doth confesse pag. 3. that the authority of Classes and Synods is not civill neither have they power to inflict civill pnnishments they onely judge of Ecclesiasticall causes and that in Ecclesiasticall manner using no other then spirituall censures in pag. 29. of his Defence But the Judicatories in these texts as Mr. Paget also confesseth pag. 34. 35. were for civill causes as well as Ecclesiasticall and so it is said Deut. 21. 5. that by the word of the Priests and Levites every controversie and every stroke mast be tried even in civill causes as that of trying out an uncertain murther which is the cause spoken of in that place By all which it plainly appeares that those superior Judicatories in Israel were not Synods and then suppose their congregations did depend upou those Judicatories and that ours must depend as theirs did yet it will not follow that ours must depend upon Synods And thus your Minor failing this might be enough to take away the whole strength of your Argument Neverthelesse for further answer we may also deny the consequence of your Major proposition For though it were yeelded that the congregations in Israel did depend upon a superiour Judicatory it will not follow that it must be so in these dayes And our reason is because the particular congregations in Israel viz. their Synagogues were not compleat Churches as the Congregations in the New Testament are That they were not entire and compleat Churches may appear by this because the people could not lawfully in them have the use of the most solemne ordinances of God and par●s of his worship though such as were of ordinary and continuall use but they must goe upto Jerusalem for the performing and enjoyment thereof and therefore they wete strightly commanded as not to keep the Passover so not to offer any Offerings or Sacrifices which yet were of very frequent use in any place within any of their gates but onely in Jerusalem the place which God did chuse to put his name there as we read at large Deut. 12. and 16. 5 6. Neither was it lawfull for the chiefe Ministers of the Church to execute the chiefe parts of their office in those synagogues but only at Jerusalem But now with congregations in these dayes it is farre otherwise there is none of the solemne Ordinances of God which are of ordinarie and continuall use but in these Congregations they may be enjoyed nor any ordinarie duties of the Ministery but in them they may be performed as preaching prayer Sacraments Discipline c. which shews they are entire Churches within themselves Dr. Ames hath the saying The Synagogues were not compleat Churches because the whole worship of God and all the sacred communion prescribed at that time could not be exercised in them Med. Theol. lib. 1. ca. 38. Thes. 37. And again There is nothing read in all the New Testament of the institution of any greater Church on which the lesser should depend Nor any worship or sacred ordinance prescribed which is not to be observed in every Congregation Nor any ordinary Minister appointed who is not given to some one Assembly of this kind Lib. 1. cap. 39. Thes. 26. Now if their Congregations could not enjoy all the Ordinances as not being compleat Churches there might be reason why they should be dependent upon Jerusalem and the Synedrion and Temple there where the Ordinances might be enjoyed and yet ours being compleat and enjoying al the Ordinances within themselves need not to be so dependent And another reason why their Congregations might be dependent and ours not so may be this They had a superiour Judicatory to appeal unto which had the supremum of Church power within it self and from whose sentence there was no appeal to any further Judge upon earth for so it is said of that Synedrion at Jerusalem Deut. 17. And Reason requires that some such supream Judicatory there should be for controversies cases of doubt must not be drawn out in Infinitum but of necessity standum est in aliquo supremo we must rest in some supreame and proceed no further But now in the New Testament if we once depart from a particular Congregation or Church where or when shall we find such a Supremum Surely not before we come to an Oecumenicall or Generall Councell For as for Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Synods there is none of these but those Cases which you put of deficiency and possibility of partiality may befall the best of them and therefore if for these causes the single Congregations must not be Independent but there must be appeals from them the Synods being subject to the like there must be liberty of appeals from them also For like as you do alledge that Congregations may be partiall and erre so we suppose it will not be denied but the Classis may erre the Provinciall Synod may erre the Nationall may erre And therefore by this Reason entirenesse of Jurisdiction must be granted to none of these And then whither shall we go but to a Generall Councill which as it hath not been seen for many by past generations so God knows whether ever there shall be any so long as this world shall endure But how if the Generall Councill do erre also Sure learned Doctor Reynolds doth abundantly clear it that such a thing is not impossible Thes. 2. Sect. 15. And so by this reason entirenesse of Jurisdiction must not

argues not any want at all of authority or right In which respect they might be independent notwithstanding their imperfection in the other regard Suppose a father of children or master of a family through want of wisdome or courage be not able to rule his own children and houshold as Eli or suppose a King that is a child as Salomon speaks Eccles. 10. or Princes that are babes as the Prophet termeth them Isai. 3. be not able to govern their own subjects as Rehoboam 2 King 12. would you think this want of sufficient ability a sufficient argument to prove that such a Father or Master had no authority or right to rule his own children or houshold nor such a Prince any right to rule his subjects but that the families of the one must depend upon other families and the common-wealth of the other upon other common-wealths We suppose you would not say so And yet you may as well say it as say as here you doe that if Churches had been independent Antioch had been able her selfe sufficiently to have ended the cause Antioch finding her selfe not able may send to Jerulem for help and yet this sending neither proves right of jurisdiction in them of Jerusalem who are sent unto nor want of jurisdiction in them of Antioch who so doe send Yes say you An obliging the Churches by decrees laid on them as a burden is a use of the keyes in which use of them Ephesus is commended Pergamus and Thyatyra reproved pag. 25. Answ. But if this be a use of the Keyes may it not be of the Key of Doctrine as well as the Key of Discipline sith the burdens laid on them were not burdens of penalty but burdens of duty not punishments to be suffered for offence given but rules of practice to be observed lest offence should be taken as is plaine if the particulars be considered pag. 29. And therefore it seems the imposing these burdens was not so properly an act of jurisdiction and discipline as an act of Doctrine As for Ephesus the use of the Keyes for which they are commended is not as you affirme for imposing decrees as burdens upon one another nor is Pergamus or Thyatyra reproved for neglect of so doing but trying and detecting counterfeit Apostles which was a matter of doctrine and not bearing with them that were evil which was matter of discipline are the things for which Ephesus is commended and suffring them which were evill which was a neglect of Discipline is that for which the other are reproved Rev. 2. 2. 14. 20. But neither is the one commended for imposing decrees nor the other reproved for neglecting so to doe But you will prove that the Synod had jurisdiction and power of the Keyes of discipline because say you This Decree is it self a Rule given wherein and whereby to use the keyes upon such as shall prove stubborn in defending the contrary of what is here decreed and that authority which can give the rule can a fortiori back and punish its breach p. 25. Ans. But is this certain and clear that whoever hath authority by way of doctrine to impose a rule hath also authoritie by way of discipline to punish its breach we propose to consideration these instances for the contrarie First of all the Prophets in Israel Isaiah Joel Amos and the rest had authoritie by way of doctrine as being sent of God for that purpose to deliver the wil of God as a rule to be observed not onely by all the Princes and people but even by the Priests and Levits also for so we read they many times did and yet not being Priests themselves nor Levites they had not authority to punish by way of Discipline such as disobeyed their doctrine and those holy rules which they delivered from the Lord Nextly any one Minister who is truely sent of God may in his doctrine deliver the rules of Gods word to the people he is sent unto and impose those rules as burthens and necessary things to be observed and yet one Minister alone cannot punish the breach of those rules in a way of discipline because Church-discipline is to be dispenced by a Church Matth. 18. 17. and one man alone we are perswaded you will not say can be a Church Further any Minister or Ministers of one Church be it Congregationall or Nationall may upon occasion being desired thereto preach the word of God in another the like Church and so impose burdens of Christian duties to be observed by them that they thus occasionally preach unto yet it would not follow they might by discipline punish such as should walke contrary to those rules because the power of jurisdiction which they have when they are at home in their owne Church doth not reach so farre as unto that other Church where now they are called to preach the doctrine of the word Lastly there is no doubt but any Minister or Ministers of the Gospel if occasion served thereunto might by way of Doctrine deliver rules of faith and obedience unto Pagans and such as are no members of any Christian Church at all and might command them in the name of the Lord to observe those rules and yet it would not therefore follow that they might punish those Pagans in a way of discipline for the breach of those rules because the Apostle saith plainly What have I to doe to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. Yea there are sundry good Writers in reformed Churches who do hold that Doctors in the Church have authority by their office to deliver sound wholsome doctrine from the Scriptures and yet may not meddle with dispensation of Sacraments nor Discipline See among others for this Calvines Instit. lib. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. And if this be so this may be another instance for the same purpose as the rest and by all this we suppose it is clear that some men may have authoritie by way of doctrine to impose rules that must be observed as necessary things and yet not have authoritie by way of discipline to punish those that shall disobey those rules And therefore though the first of these were granted to be within the power of a Synod yet that they have power to do the other also is not proved thereby CHAP. V. Containing an Answer to your fourth Argument taken from 1 Tim. 4. 14. laying on of the hands of the Presbytery HEnce I argue thus Such as are for independency admit of no other rule in Church-government but the Scripture practise or institution but where in all the Scripture read we of any ordination of Pastors but by Presbyters Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Titus was for this very cause left at Creet that he should ordain Elders in every City pag. 26 27. Answ. All that is here said is onely about ordination of Officers which at the most is but one part of the Ecclesiasticall government or jurisdiction And