deeds Ambrose is ill joyned with Austine seeing in the place alledged he hath not the same but another more large definition containing under it Originall sinne also when he sayth (t) Tom. 4. lib. de Paradiso c. 8. What is sinne but a praevarication against the Law of God c. This praevarication is as well in the nature and disposition of man as in actuall sinnes The judgement of Aquinas and such Popish Schoolemen is not to be much esteemed in this poynt while they teach that originall corruption in those that are baptised justifyed is not properly any sinne at all therefore are rejected herein of all Orthodox Divines ARGVM VI. If the Apostle gave commandement unto the Eldership of Ephesus for the whole administration of all Ordinances in that Church Then may the Eldership of every particular Congregation administer among themselves all Gods ordinances But the first is true Therefore the second The Major is proved two wayes 1. By Scripture Act. 20. vers 17.28.2 By the testimony of the learned Whitaker c. The Minor is undenyable For as Mr Brightman sayth there was one forme c. ANSVV. I. Mr Canne here againe wanders from the question goes about to prove that which I never denyed viz. that the Eldership of every particular Church may administer all Gods ordinances among themselves Even those solemne acts of communion with other Churches both in things spirituall and corporall being the ordinances of God are to be performed by the direction of the Eldership This hinders not but that any Eldership or Church it self being found in errour or other unfaithfull dealing may be subject to the censure of many Churches united in their Synods II. If it belong to the Eldership of every particular Church to administer all Gods ordinances then how can the ordinances of God be duely administred in that Church of the Brownists whereof Mr Canne is Bishop alone where there is no Eldership where there is neither teaching nor ruling Elder beside himself Seeing there is no Ruler in his owne Company but himself he denyes all other rule over him by Synods doth he not make himself a kinde of Ecclesiasticall Monarch or sole Governour of the Separation III. Mr Canne doth here againe bewray his notorious ignorance of Logick whereof he professeth so great skill in the framing of so many Syllogismes and yet like the children that know not the right hand from the left cannot discerne betwixt the Major and the Minor of his Syllogismes This appeareth here when he calles that his Major which he proves by Act. 20.17.28 and by the testimony of D. Whitaker viz. that the Apostle gave commandement unto the Eldership of Ephesus c. which is his Assumption or Minor and againe by calling that his Minor for which he cites Mr Brightman and other treatises which serve to prove one forme of Church-government common to all Churches as any Logician that lookes upon his Argument may easily discerne When he propounded Simple or Categovicall Syllogismes then was he not so deceyved in his guessing at a Major or Minor But so oft as he useth any Hypotheticall Syllogisme so oft he is as a man wandring in a wood or wildernes And the reason hereof seemes to be this whereas in a Hypotheticall Syllogisme the Antecedent of the Major is assumed usually in the Minor and that which is but a part of the Major comes to be the whole Minor he mistaking a part for the whole doth therefore call that which is onely the Antecedent of the Major by the name of the whole Major Proposition when as indeed it is the whole Minor Proposition and so to be called Had not W. Best bene a Simplician as the Brownist noted him to be he would never have placed his confidence in the skill of this simple Logician nor rested under the shadow of his Syllogismes ARGVM VII (v) Churc plea. p. 72. Such Offices and callings without which the Church of God is complete and perfect for Government are superfluous and humane But the Church of God may be complete and perfect for Government without Classicall and Synodicall Offices and callings Therefore these Offices and callings are superfluous humane This Argument the Protestants have used against the Pope the Reformists against Bishops Arch-Bishops Chancellours c. Now the same is every-way as firme good against Synods and Classes for without them the Church of God is fully brought to complete perfection and unity D. Fulke (x) Learn Disc Eccl. Gov. p. 10.11 confidently affirmeth so much That which D. Whitaker (y) De Cōc qu. 1. p. 22.23 writes of Generall Councills is by Mr Parker (z) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. p. 133. applyed and rightly unto particular Synods The Church of God sayth he can wel subsist without them for she was sometimes without them besides we are not bound by any speciall commandement of God to have them ANSVV. I. This Argument concludes nothing against us neither toucheth it the Question When did I ever speake of any Synodicall offices And what are those Offices that here he intends The members of Classes and Synods are no other then the ordinary Officers or Deputies of particular Churches considering together and determining so as they judge best for the edification of their flockes II. If he imagine or conceive that the Praesident which propoundeth matters in Synods or the Scribe that recordeth them be distinct Synodicall Officers he might as well think and we might as well say that the Brownists also had other distinct Ecclesiasticall Offices besides Pastours Teachers or Elders namely Praesidents and Scribes because heretofore in the dayes of Mr Iohnson and Mr Ainsworth they with their Elders did by course propoūd matters in their Church had also a Scribe to write downe their speciall businesses now in Mr Cannes time when they have no Eldership if he alone propound matters and keep record of them in writing it may then be sayd that he hath two or three Ecclesiasticall offices as well as so many Mechanicall trades III. If propounding of matters as the Praesident and writing them as the Scribe doe constitute new offices then many other members of the Brownists Church may be reputed for Ecclesiasticall Officers for Praesidents and Scribes For Mr Canne being now their onely Governour if it fall out that any among them shall make complaint against his doctrine or practise then those members of the Church that shall propound the same to the Church and moderate the action or keep record thereof in writing in behalf of the Church he being unfit to doe it himself in his owne cause must then be accounted new Officers Praesidents Scribes of the Church IV. That which he sayth of Classes and Synods that without them the Church of God is fully brought to complete perfection and unity comparing them to Lordly Prelates Chancellours c. it is utterly false He onely affirmes it and no word of Scripture is
Regall authority to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by Divine or Apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents It is here to be observed how he notes onely what they thinke without approbation thereof he declares their opinion but doth not acknowledge it to be his owne judgement Neither had he reason so to judge for in the primitive Church when there were no Christian Magistrates there was then a lawfull use of Synods and that by Divine and Apostolicall ordinance as hath bene shewed before And as for particular consents if any Church walked disorderly and offensively there is no reason to think that the censures and decrees of Synods against such Churches should be differed untill they did consent unto the censuring of themselves It was sufficient that at their first combination there was a generall and free consent to submit themselves in the Lord mutually unto other Churches Synodically assembled And yet more plainely in the same place he professeth that he differeth in judgement from them when he concludes Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defence of those later Disciplinarians from whom although in somethings I confesse I dissent yet I cannot consent to the D. taking away of their innocency Though in some things Dr D. did unjustly charge them yet Mr S. the Refuter of D. D. did also judge that in some things there was just cause to dissent from them IV. Besides the foresayd Refuter of D. Down there is also another learned man who besides his great learning having also as great experience in the discipline and government of the Church according to the practise of the Reformed Churches hath of later time written a compleat and large refutation of D. Downam And in this refutation he hath dealt more plainly and circumspectly in this poynt then Mr S. hath done For whereas D. D. relating the opinion of these later Disciplinarians as new and false sets downe their assertion in these words (p) Sermon at Lambeth p. 4. That every parish by right hath sufficient authority within it selfe immediately derived from Christ for the government of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall this assertion is not admitted but with sundry cautions To omit the rest these are the two last wherein the authority of Synods is evidently acknowledge viz. (q) Gersom Bucer Dissert de Gub. Eccl p. 14. The fourth caution is that the authority given to a particular Church is not sufficient for the handling of all Ecclesiasticall causes by their owne judgement but for those onely which are so particular that they may be deemed altogether proper unto it For whatsoever case falles out belonging unto the common order of neighbour Churches we judge that the same is to be brought unto a more generall assembly wherein these Churches doe joyntly meet together The last caution is that both the institution and observation of all things especially if they seeme to procure any discommodity or not to make for aedification be subjected unto the judgement of the next Churches meeting together in one For we doe not permit that the Governours of parishes should dispatch all things as they list but will have them to submit themselves to the inspection of the Churches For we think that of Augustine ought by all meanes to be observed (r) Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. in Donat. ca. 9. Semper universum partibus jure optimo praeponi that by good right the whole is alwayes to be preferred above the parts c. Thus expressely hath this Authour given warning that the whole combination of many Churches united in Synods is of greater authority then any part that particular Churches owe a subjection unto the same Lastly as for those many other Authours the Centurists Illyricus D. Andrewes B. of Winch. D. Fulk Willet Thom Bell Cyprian Augustine Gerson Ferus whose names are here alledged by Mr Dav. without specifying their words they are all of them except one or two alledged by Mr Canne and in answer unto him (f) Chap. 7. sect 1.2.4.6 hereafter it is shewed that all every one of them are against Mr Davenp his opinion all giving a cleare and plaine testimony for the jurisdiction of Synods SECT VII His Allegation of D. Voetius examined IO. DAV (t) Apol. reply p. 242 243. Desp caus Pap. lib. 2. sect 2. cap. 11. p. 186. To the same purpose hath a worthy and learned wrighter of these countries Voetius Professour of Divinity in Vtrecht whose words I thus translate The Church is the spouse of Christ which is the proper and adaequate subject of that power to whom Christ hath committed that delegate right reserving the chiefe to himself Which ought to be and to remaine so proper to the Church that it neither may be snatched away by the authority of others nor lost by their voluntary concession nor committed to the trust of any other although divers acts belonging to the calling of a Minister may ought to be performed by certaine members of the Church ANSVV. All that is here affirmed by this worthy Writer being granted of us yet is not Mr Dav. his opinion justifyed nor the authority and jurisdiction of Synods overthrowne hereby for I. Christ was the Bridegroome of his Church and the Church was the Spouse of Christ and honoured with this title under the old Testament as well as under the new Sol. song ch 1. 2. c. Esa 50.1 Ezek. 16.8 Hos 1. 2. 3. 1. c. And yet it is confessed by my opposites that under the old Testament before Christs comming in the flesh particular Congregations and Synagogues were subject unto the Synedrion and that all jurisdiction was not limited unto the severall villages or cities in Israel or to the Synagogues therein And therefore this title of Spouse and Bridegroome doth not inferre any restraint of jurisdiction in the new Testament more then in the old II. As when the Church of Antioch sent their Delegates or Deputies unto Ierusalem and the controversy raised in their Church was decided and determined by the definitive sentence and decree of the Synod Act. 15. they did not thereby loose their power but it still remained with them for the judgement of their causes so those Churches that now submit their causes to the judgement of Classes and Synods are not thereby spoyled of their power yea it is their owne authority and power which by their Delegates is â—â—â—rcised in those Assemblies Moreover the Churches are herein so farre froâ—â—oosing their power that on the contrary they might be sayd to loose their liberty right and power if they had not authority for their owne help and others thus to send their messengers unto such assemblies III. It is to be observed how Mr Dav. doth mistranslate the words of D. Voetius by omitting a word of speciall importance which both he and D. Ames also (v) Cas coÌ„s
l. 4 c. 25. q. 5. th 26. using the like speech have expressely mentioned for whereas their words touching the power of the Church and the propriety thereof are these ut alienae fidei planè committi non possit that it may not altogether be committed to the trust of others he omitting this word planè which signifyes altogether utterly or quite and cleane doth hereby corrupt the testimony which he alledgeth For though the Church may not utterly or quite and cleane commit her power to the trust of others yet in some kinde and in some measure it may and ought to be done For the kindes D. Voetius gives instance in divers acts belonging to the calling of a Minister which may and ought to be performed by some certaine members thereof and the same is to be considered for divers other acts of like nature And for the measure so as he also notes that Christ the Bridegroome reserve the supreme authority unto himself which is then acknowledged by his people when they doe not receive nor follow the authority or sentence of any man or Officer of any particular Congregation or of any Synod further then they in their consciences finde it to agree with the sentence of Christ revealed in his word As the Lord himself by an immediate call committed power and authority unto the trust of his servants whose faithfulnes is thereupon commended 1. Tim. 1.11 12. 1. Cor. 9.17 Gal. 2.7 so doth the Church also both in the ordinary calling of men unto office and in the occasionall sending of them about particular workes and affaires of the Church Phil. 2.25 2. Cor. 8.19 23. 1. Cor. 16.3 especially in communicating their power unto them to give sentence in Synods IV. That D. Voetius doth allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods we have many testimonies our of this very book of his which Mr D. alledgeth I. Though he shew that Ecclesiasticall power of judgement is first and immediately in particular Churches yet he notes withall (x) Desp caus Pa. l. 2. s 1. c. 5. p. 96. that this power arising thence is by a certaine fit proportion applyed unto many Churches united in some kingdome or kingdomes or in the whole world This is done in Nationall Generall Synods II. Speaking of a publick Reformation which he calles authoritative he shewes (y) Ibid. p. 62. how it being universall may be done either in an universall Synod or without a Synod Speaking of Reformation made by instruction exhortation or invitation he sayth it may be done of any one Preacher yea and in some sort of any one Christian but for the Reformation wherein there is an actuall change of publick worship he saith it is necessary that the help and consent of many and those not of one order doe concurre and that one or a few are not sufficient unlesse it fall out that the authority and parts of those many who are interested therein be devolved unto them Thus he alloweth the jurisdiction of Synods while he acknowledgeth that the authority of many may be derived and communicated unto a few which is the very thing wherein the jurisdiction of Synods doth consist III. He defends (z) P. 79. Luther appealing from the sentence of excommunication given out by Pope Leo the tenth unto a lawfull Generall Synod he allowes the like appeale made by the Arch-bishop of Colen and the appeale of the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde the forme whereof was affixed or set up at Rome in all which the authority of Synods is acknowledged IV. He allowes (a) P. 85. the example of those Churches which determined matters by a publick and Nationall or Provinciall judgement Speaking of the Reformers of Religion he sayth (b) P. 169. Luther had the right of suffrage and used the same in the University of Wittebergh as one of the Professours in the Church as one of the Pastours in the neighbour-churches of Saxony as a member of them in the name and by commission from the Church of Witteberg and not further So did Zuinglius Farell Viret Calvin and all the rest A just patterne of the Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction exercised in the Reformed Churches in these countries at this day V. He avoucheth and maintaineth (c) P. 201. that a lawfull Synod or Church by their sentence and authority may and ought to depose Ministers that are Idolatrous Hereticall and the like An expresse testimony that Synods have not onely right of counsell and admonition but also of exercising Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the censuring of offenders He addeth there that the Westerne Churches ought to remove such Clerkes or keep them out from entring either by a common or each of them by their particular judgement either in a Synod or without a Synod VI. Even in this very page place that Mr D. alledgeth (d) P. 186. D. Voetius alledging the example of the Synod at Ierusalem Act. 15.3.4 22 23. to shew that Ecclesiasticall power is given to many in the Church doth thereby acknowledge the authority of Synods If he had thought they might onely counsell and admonish then had this place alledged bene insufficient to prove the thing propounded by him nor suitable to the other places alledged together in the same place viz. Matt. 18.17 2. Cor. 2.6 with 1. Cor. 5.4 which are to be understood of the jurisdiction and authority of the Church in censuring This power is also againe (e) P. 187. 189. poynted at by him in the same chapter Lastly to come from his words unto his practise Whereas this learned Minister of Christ was deputed and sent (f) Act. Sy. nod Nat. Dordr sess 2. with others unto the last famous Nationall Synod at Dort was reckoned among those Worthies whose praise is so great in the Gospell being the messengers of the Churches and the glory of Christ when as he there among the rest did exercise the authority of suffrage for the decision of divers controversies and gave sentence with others in the (g) Ibid. ses 138. censure and deposition of divers both Ministers and Elders it appeareth hereby that he did not thinke all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Congregation If Synods might goe no further then to counsell and admonish then had D. Voetius with the rest bene an usurper of unlawfull power Besides this order of Classicall and Synodall assemblies together with their jurisdiction and authority in such sort as it was before and is still practised in these Reformed Churches was confirmed and established (h) Rerckēorden Nat. Syn. Dordr Art 22.52 in that same Nationall Synod where D. Voetius appeared as a member thereof and according to which he was bound to practise both while he was Minister at Heusden and since also at Vtrecht being not onely Professour in the University but also Pastour of the Church in the sayd city So that there is no cause to doubt but that his
occasion of the dissention IV. It appeares that the primitive Churches at their first constitution by the Apostles were not independent bodies in a speciall respect more then any in our times because they were then subject to the extraordinary government by Apostles and Evangelists who besides that which they did in ordinary course of judgement with the Churches concurrence as 1. Cor. 5. had also of themselves extraordinary authority and power granted unto them over all Churches for the correcting of the wicked therein as appeareth 1. Cor. 4.21 2. Cor. 10.2 3 6 8 10. Act. 5.9 10. 3. Ioh. 10. REAS. IX (m) Churc plea p. 77. By the titles given to all particular Congregations it appeares evidently that Ecclesiasticall authority is or at least ought to be in every one of them distinctly wholy intirely viz. a Kingdome Matt. 3.2 a Family Eph. 2.19 a Body 1. Cor. 12.20 a Queene Psal 45. c. For what more senceles then to say a Kingdome or family standing under another Politicall or Oeconomicall government out of themselves a body having all parts members yet may neither receive in nor put out without anothers leave and consent many such absurdities followeth Mr Pagets lately-devised Tenets ANSVV. I. That which seemes senseles and absurd unto the transcendent understanding of Mr Can. and W. Be. is not withstanding found reasonable in the judgement of sober men As for Kings and their kingdomes we see in the story of the new Testament that the three King-Herods and the fourth King Agrippa both they and their kingdomes did stand under another Politicall government under the Romane Empire under the authority of Caesar to whom they payd tribute Mat. 2. 14. Act. 12. 25. 26. with Luk. 2.1 Matt. 22.21 Iohn 19.12 15. And in the old Testament we read that Zedekias King of Judah stood under the Politicall government of the King of Babel Ierem. 27.12 2. Chron. 36.13 And other stories shew that this was no strange thing The Kings and Kingdomes of Bohemia and Hungary at this day stand under the command of the Emperour As for families and their Oeconomicall government in regard of that obedience which children owe to their parents by vertue of the fift Commandement Honour thy father and thy mother Exo. 20.12 inferiour families owe subjection unto superiour Those families that descended from Adam for six or seven generations together and those families that descended of Noah Shem Arpacshad Shelah and Eber though in their habitations they were divided after the Flood did yet owe subjection unto these fathers and grand-fathers and in matters of greatest moment and controversy concerning their families as about family-worship mariages and the like they were bound to submit unto their censure and determinations in the Lord those five Patriarkes being then all alive in those corrupt times after the confusion of languages Gen. 11. As for the bodies of men it is not unreasonable or absurd to thinke that the members of any mans body should not be cut off at his owne will without the consent and approbation of sundry experienced and skillfull Chirurgeons according to the order appoynted by the Governours of this City and practised therein II. Those Scriptures alledged to shew the titles given to particular Congregations doe not prove the matter intended By the kingdome of heaven Matth. 3.2 is not understood simply a particular Congregation but the abundance of grace revealed and exhibited either unto particular persons Congregations or the whole Church of God throughout the world c. Thus the kingdome of heaven or the kingdome of God is in every severall beleever and they are all Kings Rom. 14.17 Rev. 1.6 now according to Mr Cannes reasoning not any one of them should stand under any other spirituall government under any Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves because they are kings themselves and have a spirituall kingdome within them By the houshold of God Ephes 2.19 may be understood the whole universall Church of God as well as a particular Congregation and so by the one body 1. Cor. 12.20 and so by the Queene Psal 45.9 And therefore these places prove nothing for the restraint and limitation of all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely which is the late-devised tenent of the Brownists REAS. X. The acts of the Apostolique Churches proove directly our assertion For it is without all contradiction that they elected their owne Ministers excommunicated offenders sent messengers and performed all other Church matters among themselves ANSVV. This reason taken from the acts of the Apostolick Churches is for substance the same with the first third fourth and sixt Syllogisticall arguments before and there answered and here by him idly repeated to increase the number of his Reasons REAS. XI Lastly let it be observed that Mr Paget in this accordeth with the (n) Bellar de Eccl. l. 5. c. 5. Papists for they say as hee doth that particular Churches are not independent bodies but stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves The which thing our Writers deny and proove the contrary ANSVV. I. The accord of Papists is no sufficient reason for refutation seeing they accord with us in many poynts of religion against Arrians Anabaptists Brownists and others II. See the partiality of Mr Canne in his eight Reason before he alledgeth for himself how the Papists doe accord with him to this the Papists assent sayth he here in this place he alledgeth against me their accord assent with me presently after againe in the same and following pages he doubts not but to make it manifest that the Papists are with him c. Thus when they accord with him it must serve for the confirmation of his reason when they accord with me it must still serve for confirmation of his reason and for the condemning of me Whether it be their assent or dissent it is all one to him he can ground his arguments upon one as well as the other Such are his reasonings III. Mark his false allegation of Bellarmine de Eccl. l. 5. c. 5. when as there is no such fift booke extant written by Bellarmine IV. How farre we differ from the Papists and Popish Hierarchy in this controversy about Synods hath bene noted (o) Pag. 29.30 at first in the State of the Question and may be seene at large in manifold passages set downe before out of (p) P. 125-132 Iunius and (q) P. 133-141 D. Whitaker their disputes against Bellarmine and out of (r) P. 101-104 Mr Parker his refuration of the Hierarchy in this particular which to repeat in a case so cleare were to imitate Mr Canne in his needles and superfluous quotations CHAP. VII The Allegations of Mr Canne examined AFter the former 21 Arguments against the authority of Synods Mr Canne falles to flatter himself rejoyces in himself to thinke what the Reader will imagine when he sees his manifold Reasons (a) Churc plea p. 77.
Priest sayd to make him polluted or to make him cleane Lev. 13.3.6 c. in such (f) timme tibar phrases as in their full signification doe expresse unto us the judiciall sentence of their remoovall out of the host as well as a bare declaration of their opinion in the matter even as the like use of other phrases in the Scripture Deut. 25.1 Prov. 17.15 signifying to (g) hitsdik hirshiagn make just to make wicked doe also import the judiciall sentence of absolution condemnation not onely a declaration of the Iudges opinion thereabouts 2. It is noted of the Prieft that in doubtfull cases in the tryall of the leprosy he should shut up him that had the plague seven daves Levit. 13.4 5. now as he had the power of suspension in a doubtfull case to shut up for a time so by your owne doctrine it will follow that in a manifest case of leprosy he had the power of shutting out the leper untill the time that he was cleane 3. The Lord requires the like submission subjection unto the judgement sentence of the Priests in matters of controversy betweene plague plague as he doth unto the Iudge in his judgements Deut. 17 8-13 and therefore as the Iudges had the power of judgement giving sentence Civilly so had the Priefts power of judgement Ecclesiastically 4. Whereas you (h) Confes art 25. shew every member of the Church to be subject unto the censure of excommunication by alledging 2. Chron. 26.20 you may thereby discerne the weaknes of your proportion for the power of the people for in that storye you see how the King Vzziah so soone as his leprosy appeared was hastily remooved caused to depart out of the Temple and this by the authority of the Priests without waiting to ask the consent of the people And therefore if Ministers Elders have now as much power to excommunicate as the Priests had then to remoove that Leper then your proportion for the people vanisheth as a smoak 5. Though the children of Israel be commanded to put the Leper out of the campe Num. 5.2 yet is the practise thereof to be understood according to the diversity of mens callings namely so that the Priests did put out the Leper by giving sentence pronoucing him uncleane the people by complaining bringing the matter unto the Priest in the first place helping to execute it in the last place 6. Whereas you grant a proportion herein thus farre (i) Animadv p. 19.20 that as every Priest then might according to the Law declare what was leprosy so every Minister now may ought by the law to declare what is sinne heresy this though it be without or against the consent of the Church of all the world your grant herein is nothing worth while you grant as much both to the Prophets people under the Law as well as to the Priests and to the Prophets people now as well as to the Ministers Elders The declaration of sinne the triall conviction of sinne you doe now allow to one as well as to the other Lastly as the Lord commands the children of Israel to remoove the leper our of the campe so he gives them the like charge for those that were defiled by the dead or by uncleane issues Numb 5.2 And yet who will say that the judgement dayly administration of these actions did belong unto the multitude of the Congregation or that they were bound to come together in a solemne assembly upon such occasions of remooving these persons receyving them againe at their cleansing The law of their purification requires no such thingâ— â—um 19.18 19. Levit. 15.13 14 c. And therefore howsoever the act of remooving these uncleane persons in the time of the Law may be held as a generall type to shew the exclusion of wicked persons froÌ„ the holy things of God under the Gospel yet the persons by whom these Legall Ceremoniall separations were ordinarily administred performed cannot serve for a sufficient proofe that obstinate sinners are to be cenfured and remooved by the whole Congregation assembled for that purpose II. Another of your wrested proportions from the practise of Israel you may see in your Apology where you labour to prove that the power of Excommunication is in the body of the Church by this reason because (k) Apol. p. 62. the duety of putting away leaven out of their houses at the feast of Passeover unleavened bread was by the Lord himself layd upon all Israel and not committed or injoyned onely to the Officers 1. Cor. 5.7 12 13. compared with Exod. 12.3 15. Lev. 23.2 5 6. Deut. 16 1-4 Here unto I answer 1. If the power of Excommunication be in the members of the Church now as the power of putting away leaven was in the Israelites of old then as every particular Israelite under the Law had power of himself to remoove leaven out of his house yea was bound to doe the same whether the rest of the Congregation consented or not as appeares in the places of Scripture here alledged by yourself so now in like manner every particular member of the Church should have power in his hand to excommunicate remoove a wicked man out of the Congregation whether the rest of his brethren consented or not 2. If you further intend that as each Israelite for himself was to put away leaven so also he was to looke to others that they did the same this I grant so farre as the meanes of admonition exhortation and complaint might reach but that the Israelites had all of them judiciall authority and power to judge those that offended herein about which authority the question is the Scriptures by you alledged doe not prove the same 3. As for that place 1. Cor. 5.7 where the Apostle shewes that the incestuous person ought to be excommunicate by an allusion unto the ceremony of purging out the leaven he therein onely teacheth the duety that is to be done but as for the authority of the persons by whoÌ„ the censure was to be executed though he teach them that also in other verses of that chapter yet doth he not derive the ground thereof from the ceremony of the leaven put away therein is your errour to stretch rack the proportion too farre The fourth Errour IN the fourth place your warrant ground for the peoples power is insufficient when as you derive the same from that separation which you say was appointed of God before the Law This you teach wheÌ„ as you would confirme the same unto us from (l) Apol p. 62. pos 8. with p. 44. pos 3. the trueth proofes of the third Position in your Apology where among other testimonves of Scripture you would prove your Separation by these allegations Gen. 4.16 26. with 6.2 9.27 12.1 13.6 7 8. Exod. 5.3 But these Scriptures doe
due unto them unlesse some other study and work together with the labour of hearing examining and judging of causes did require the same II. As for Mal. 2.7 the knowledge in the Priests lips there spoken of was that which he principally manifested in his office of publick preaching the law of God Deut. 33.10 Lev. 10.11 in which office the Elders doe not succeed them and so have no speciall maintenance due in that regard Againe the knowledge in the Priests lips appeared secondarily in judiciall causes which they heard examined judged Deut. 17.8 9-12 2 Chron. 19.8 Zech. 3.7 This power you give unto the people now as well as unto the Elders who therefore by your doctrine deserve no more maintenance for the same then doe the people in this regard III. Though we grant that Elders are to have their ordinary meetings apart for the Church-affaires yet doth not your allegation from Act. 21.18 prove the same for that meeting being upon extraordinary occasion to entertaine the Apostle Paul and those that were with him who being new come to Ierusalem they came together to salute embrace one another to heare tidings of the successe of the Gospel to rejoyce together in the Lord vers 19. and then consulted further of such things as tended to the edification of the Church vers 20. c. You might as well conclude that strangers of other Congregations should be present in the ordinary assembly of the Elders because we doe here read of some such who being in Pauls company were now also present at this speciall meeting of the Elders in Ierusalem Act. 21.15 16 17 18. H. AINSVV. Fourthly when apparant sinners so convicted by witnesses are to be judged by the Church there is no time more fit then the Sabbath day wherein all men are board to leave their owne works Exo. 20.10 tend to the Lords of which sort this is REPL. I. Though I doe not hold it simply unlawfull to judge causes on the Sabbath day yet that this day is the fittest your allegation from Exod. 20. shewes it not Men may then leave their owne works tend to the Lords though they heare no controversies pleaded yea much more fitly comfortably and fruitfully may they attend upon the publick administration of the Word Prayer Sacraments and sanctify themselves thereunto in private both by dueties of preparatiō before and by dueties of meditation repetition conference c. afterward if the mindes of Minister people be not distracted or hindred by other controversies and contentions Psal 26.6 Matt. 5.8 Exo. 19.10 30 18-21 Act. 17.11 Psal 119.11 c. That there hath bene such a disturbance and hindrance among you it is testifyed not onely by strangers which sometimes hearing you doe complaine hereof but also by your owne Ministers as Mr Iohnson Mr Clyfton and your owne people both such as have left you and even such as still remaine with you II. As Ecclesiasticall judgements are the Lords works so are Civill judgements also which the Magistrates sitting on the Lords throne in stead of the Lord their God doe administer execute in his name 2. Chron. 19.6 9.8 And by this reasoning you might make the Sabbath to be the fittest day for them also H. AINSVV. Or if that day suffice not they may take any other for them convenient for c. REPL. You doe hereby yeeld unto us that you have walked in an uncleane way and that you have according to your owne doctrine an uncleane and polluted people for seeing as Mr Iohnson confesseth witnesseth (m) Treat on Matt. 18. p. 17. your wonted manner hath bene to heare matters on the week day at which time there was seldome half the Church together if now according to (n) Anim. adv p. 42. your former arguing from 1. Tim. 5.22 men cannot keep themselves pure from partaking with other mens sinnes unlesse they see heare the conviction of those whom they doe reject then hath half your Church together bene defiled many times while they have consented to the excommunication of such at the hearing and examination of whose cause they have not bene present H. AINSVV. For unto publick affaires the Church is to be assembled 1. Cor. 5.4 Act. 14.27 15.4 30. 21 18-22 REPL. This your generall and indefinite speech doth admit many exceptions for I. Even the Elders when they have their meetings apart as you grant unto them doe consider together of the publick affaires and there you see then that the Church is not alwayes to be assembled unto publick busines II. If the whole Church and all the members thereof men women children and servants must assemble to heare the proceedings against them whom they are to avoyd reject according to your plea and this also on the week dayes though it should be day after day as may come to passe in great Congregations and when many cases are to be heard c. as was (o) R Clyfr Advert p. 42. before objected unto you what reason is there that the Elders should have speciall maintenance in respect of this work where all the members of the Church are bound to attend upon the work as well as they To this you say nothing III. Even unto the publick administration of the word and prayer you doe not binde your people on the week day but leave it free for them to come or not to come unto the same And shall the hearing of examinations proceedings against particular men have more honour then the word preached Yea which is much more by this your opinion and reasoning you doe more binde your people to be present at controversies even on the week day then to heare the word and prayer even on the Lords day for to be absent from judiciall proceedings on the week day doth not onely require acknowledgment of a fault as doth the absence from publick worship on the Lords day but by your doctrin it doth also require a reversing repeating of the proceedings or else a refusall to allow the same in not rebuking or rejecting them who are publickly censured rebuked or excommunicated by the Church IV. As in respect of the ease commodity of the Church the hearing of some publick affaires is to be committed to the Eldership as hath bene shewed before so also for the avoyding of scandall offence for example the examination of each particular act and circumstance serving for the conviction of offendours in some uncleane filthy sinnes and the open repetition naming hereof before the whole Congregation men women young old your owne people strangers that come to heare cannot but be very offensive so is found to be for it is a shame even to speak of the things which are done of many in secret Eph. 5.12 And even shame it self as it seemes hath forced you sometimes to leave this your practise which you so earnestly plead for As heretofore in the case
time they came more then twise so farre unto Synods Had this combination of Churches and their authority in judging brought the Churches into Antichristian bondage as the Brownists call it See before Pag. 32. then might it have bene sayd unto all these travellers as once unto the Idolatrous Jewes O ye swift dromedaries c. keep your feet from barenes and your thoat from thirst Ier. 2.23.25 IV. It is to be observed how he omitteth the things that were specially intended by me for the conviction of those I had to deale with by the testimony and reasoning of one of their owne fellowes Whereas I grounded my reproof of them upon his confession and the conclusion I made did arise from the premisses of his assertion this is passed by so that the Reader cannot understand the force of my reasoning in that place and yet he cryes out to me teaching his client to say But before you make such hasty conclusions have a little patience to heare us to speak for ourselves W.B. should rather have sayd to heare what a Brownist can say for us and how Mr Canne can defend the matter I desire the Reader to look on my (t) Answ to W.B. p 87. 88. first Answer and then to judge whether that was a hasty conclusion wherein the ancientest of themselves went before me But let us heare how he proceeds I. CAN. (v) Churches plea. p. 34. I pray how can you prove that the Officers of these two Churches being 200 miles asunder were combined and met ordinarily together as the Classes doe to determine the cases of many Churches ANSVV. I. Their combination is manifest in this act of communion and comming together for the judgement and decision of the controversy raised among them II. That they met ordinarily together I never sayd neither doe I affirme it this being not a Classicall but a Synodall Assembly according to the common distinction thereof and according to the practise among us III. That they determined the cases of many Churches I shewed * Pag. 69. before from Act. 15.23 16.4 I. CAN. Orhow doe you prove that there was any officer at all of Antioch in Ierusalem at this time ANSVV. I prove it I. Because Paul and Barnabas were both speciall Deputies of the Church of Antioch and likewise had such a generall calling as made them Officers of every Church II. Because the Apostles which then remained at Ierusalem as Peter and Iames were as well Officers of Antioch as of Ierusalem Apostles being Governours of all Churches III. For the other messengers sent from Antioch seeing Elders are approved by the Church as sittest to mannage the affaires thereof therefore it was reasonable that at least some of them should be sent about this busines thereupon Iunius as is * Pag. 68. before noted takes it for granted that the Elders of the Church of Antioch were among those that judged in this Synod I. CAN. Briefly or how doe you proove that the brethren sent from Antioch exercised authority in the Church at Ierusalem ANSVV. That the Deputies sent from Antioch had authority and power of suffrages in the Synod at Ierusalem appeareth by the generall and speciall commissions given unto them as is mentioned in the answer to his former demand As Paul once answered for himself and for Barnabas upon another occasion when he was carped at by some in the Church of Corinth Or I onely and Barnabas have we not power c. 1. Cor. 9.6 so might he have answered for both in this case for let Mr C. shew if he can what publick Ecclesiasticall meeting could have bene in those times in any Church touching any controversy that concerned any generall doctrine of the Gospell yea or the censure of manners in any other person wherein Paul and Barnabas might not exercise authority with others I. CAN. Yet all this you must make good otherwise you are guilty of abusing and perverting the Scripture in affirming that the power which the Classis exerciseth was practised at Antioch and Ierusalem and by Apostolicall direction This you have spoken but it is untrue c. ANSVV. I. Suppose I had not made good all that he required me to proove suppose the Church of Ierusalem alone had judged the controversy and that no Officer of the Church of Antioch had bene among them with any authority yet this example of one Church judging the controversy risen in another doth shew that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church within itself but that the causes of one Church may be submitted unto the judgement of another This is the substance of the Question betwixt us and this being granted it followes that Churches have liberty to appoint Classes and Synods for the mutuall judging of their causes as occasion shall require II. By charging me with untrueth in such manner as here he doeth he makes himself guilty of double untrueth for 1. This affirmation here mentioned was not mine at that time but his in whose name I repeated it and that with condition if it were so If the Churches here doe practise c. as may be plainly seen in the forementioned place of my Answer 2. Though at that time I intended not to dispute the cause but first waited for the proofes of such as accused me yet had I then used such an affirmation yet it had bene true as I shew throughout this Chapter and therefore it was an untrueth in Mr Canne to avouch the contrary And as for that place Ier. 23.31 which he misapplyeth against me the threatning contained therein is to be feared of him who hereafter abuseth perverteth so many Scriptures for the subverting of Synods I. CAN. IIII. It is certaine that at Ierusalem not onely the Apostles and Elders met together but as Luke expresseth it vers 12 22. the Church also being interested in the thing And therefore gave sentence with the rest to the decree then made Observe what D. Whitaker replyes unto Bellarmine denying the multitude to be called It was alwayes sayth hee (x) De Cōc Qu. 8. c. 3. Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 96. 97. the practise of the Apostles in common cases to call the whole Church together and no doubt but they did so here Now there was no need to have it mentioned seeing it had bene their constant custome formerly so to doe Mr Parker (y) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 108. 126. 334. affirmes the same So the Authours of the Cent. (z) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. p. 547. 548. And it seemes in Cyprians (a) Lib. 4. Epist 16. time the Church was not deprived of her right herein howsoever the Papists (b) Bellarm. de Conc. Eccl. l. 1. c. 16. p. 39. in those dayes teach otherwise and Mr Paget and others doe otherwise practise ANSVV. I. In that not onely the Apostles and Elders but other brethren also gave sentence with therest to the decree then made
able to resolve the controversie True it is the Hierarchie (d) D. Whit. g. T. C. 3. deny this of whose opinion Mr Paget must either be or els the Classes as they now rule must fall to the ground for any relief that this Scripture Act. 15. will yeeld unto them ANSVV. 1. Had Mr Canne well understood the state of the question or what he saith and whereof he affirmes he might easily have knowne that we are of the same minde with Mr Parker in this that as Antioch so every other particular Church hath like authority to end their owne controversies if they finde themselves able This condition concealed by Mr Canne is foure or five times repeated by Mr Parker in the (e) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301 302. place alledged speaking of Antioch and other particular Churches with these expresse words si modo possit si modo vires suppetivissent c. if they could if they had ability if they found not themselves too weak in case of impotency c. Mr Canne hiding these conditions from the eyes of his Readers doth hereby hood-wink them and keeps them in darknes from seeing the right meaning of Mr Parker 11. Besides the case of impotency alledged by Mr Parker there was another reason why this controversy at Antioch was to be brought unto a Synod viz. because it was causa communis a common cause that concerned both many other Churches in regard of the matter and in speciall the Church of Ierusalem because the authours of this controversy were not members of the Church of Antioch but came from Iudaea and from them of Ierusalem Act. 15.1 24. and therefore that Church of Ierusalem had more right and authority to judge of them then they of Antioch had 111. Whereas he would have it to be well observed that the Church of Antioch sent to them of Ierusalem not as being a dependent body standing under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves the right and well observing hereof stands in this that we acknowledge particular Churches to be dependent bodies not by way of subjection unto any one supposed to have more authority then the rest but so dependent that every one is equally and mutually subject to one another as occasion requireth The Churches of Ierusalem of Antioch of Samaria and others were all of equall authority and yet each standing under the authority of a Synod compounded of them all and this appeareth by the instance of this controversy referred here to the decision of the Synod at Ierusalem IV. For the testimony of D. Whitaker (f) Conc. qu. 1. c. 1. that the Church of Antioch sent not to Ierusalem as being bound in duety thereto 1. It is misalledged by him for in the Chapter mentioned by him there are no such words to be found the words are indeed Mr Parkers and not of another as he sayth poynting at D. Whit. in his margine He jumbles testimonies together that which one sayth he sets downe in anothers name and followes the mistake that is in Mr Parkers (g) Pa. 314. book through the Printers or Writers fault And though in the (h) De Cōc Qu. 1. c. 2. p. 6. Chapter following D. Whit. sayth of Ierusalem that there was as it were a certaine castle of Religion and the head of the Church yet the other words are none of his So licentious and negligent is Mr C. in his quotations 2. For the thing it self though in the combination of Churches into Synods they are not limited and simply bound in duety ex obligato as Mr Parker sayth to any one Church more then another yet this freeth them not from their duety of uniting themselves to some Classes or Synods even as particular persons though they be not simply bound to one Congregation more then another but may use a Christian liberty therein yet are they bound in duety to joyne themselves as members to some Chuch and further where no absolute necessity is imposed yet godly wisedome teacheth men a duety in respect of circumstances and accidentall occasions to make choyse of one Church rather then another V. He alledgeth D. Whitg so defectively that no man by his quotation can tell how to finde his words But whereas he sayth of the Hierarchy that I must either be of their opinion or els the Classes as they now rule must fall to the ground for any relief c. this consequence remaines to be declared and proved by him I. CAN. VI. When the Hierarchie alledge Act. 15. to proove their Diocesan and Provinciall Synods lawfull marke how they are answered by the Reformists (i) Park Polit Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 315 316. The particular acts of the Apostles in cases alike must alike be observed If this reason be effectuall as indeed it is against them then it is no lesse effectuall against the Classes Now I have in part already shewed how quite contrary their doings are unto the Example in Act. 15. unto which this further may be added that the matter carried from Antioch to Ierusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church Pag. 338. and sent thither by their mutuall desire and consent And hence our Divines teach that the power of bringing things from one Congregation to another belongeth not to any one Officer but to the whole Church If this be true by what word of God then doth Mr Paget by his * Thus he is accused by our Elders in the records of our Church Oct. 6. 1631. owne authoritie and without the consent of the Consistory or any one of them carry matters to the Classis and there he and they together undoe all that which the Elders with the Churches consent had before joyntly concluded ANSVV. 1. That the particular acts of the Apostles in cases alike must alike be observed I doe willingly grant and thereupon ground our Argument for the authority of Synods To this end it is alledged of Mr Parker in this very place which Mr C. doth cite viz. to shew how controversies are to be brought from particular Churches not to one person to a Bishop or Arch-Bishop as the Hierachy would have it but unto a Synod according to the example in Act. 15. How Mr Canne doth imagine that this should be effectuall against Classes he neither declareth neither can I conjecture II. Whereas he addeth that the matter carried from Antioch to Ierusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church c. I argue thence if a whole Church sometime be so offended and troubled by false teachers that they hold it needfull to seek help of a Synod it is lesse marvell that sometimes one or two should be driven to seek such help Had there bene but one person in Antioch troubled and unsatisfyed in conscience about that poynt of justification and salvation by the works of the Law who could have forbidden him to seek help of the Synod either by way of counsell or judgement when he could not finde it
same is to be referred unto such judges who as is before noted may either (r) S. Theol l. 7. p. 243 244. confirme or make voyd the Election A plaine acknowledgmēt of a lawfull power out of a particular Church to judge the cause thereof IV. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in the description (ſ) Ibid. p. 245 246. both of the Elders office in generall and of the Ruling Elders in particular where the warrant and authority of their office is derived from the Elders in Israel and from the government of the Jewish Church as appeares in those testimonies of Scripture which he alledgeth for proof thereof as namely these beside other Lev. 4.13 14 15.2 Kin. 6.32 Ier. 19.1 Ezek. 8.1 Neh. 8.5.8.10 Act. 4.5 6.12 5.21 Now seeing he derives their offices from that forme of government which is confessed not to have bene a single uncompounded policie this is an evidence that he also did not hold jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Church V. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in distinguishing the Presbytery or Eldership of many Churches (t) Ibid. p. 281. into a Synod or a Generall Councill And not to speak of other things he omitteth that description of a Generall or Vniversall Councill viz. that it is a Presbyterie consisting of the deputies of many Synods to determine and compound those things that may be profitable for the whole Church or for the greatest part thereof The word which he useth to expresse the authority exercised therein when he saith ad ea statuenda t.i. to determine to make a statute or decree imports more then a bare admonition or counsell and therefore it is manifest from hence that Mr F. did not allow of this new Discipline which denyes the authority of Synods II. His unfaithfull translation of Mr Fenner is also to be observed in divers points I. When speaking of the Eldership of one particular Church (v) Apol. reply p. 238. he tells how Mr F. saith it is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of Mr F. are that it is (x) S. Theol l. 7. p. 279. proprio nomine sie dictum so called with the proper name His meaning is that in common use of speech it had the proper name given unto it even as it comes to passe oft times that a part is called by the proper name of the whole and one species or one sort receives the proper name of the whole kinde as when in speaking commonly of the Ministers and Elders of a Church the ruling Elders are so called with a proper name that belongs to the whole kinde seeing Ministers of the word are Elders as well as they 1. Tim. 5.17 so when the ruling Elders are called with the proper name of Governours 1. Cor. 12.28 though Ministers of the word are governours also as well as they And unlesse we thus understand Mr Fen. there should be no trueth in his words for as he himself saith (y) Ibid. p. 245. there is a Synecdoche in the name of Elders when it is given to Ecclesiasticall Governours and therefore there must be a double improper or figurative speech a double Synecdoche when the assembly of some Officers in a particular Church is called with the proper name of the Eldership whereas but some of them are elderly or aged men and whereas the assembly of such men in a Synod is an Eldership as well as the other II. It is a notable falsification of Mr Fenners testimony when as he distinguishing the Ecclesiasticall Eldership into the Eldership of a particular Church and into the Eldership of many Churches and giving before-hand in the first place a generall definition of the Eldership common to both those kindes Mr Dav. comes and restraines that generall definition to one kinde and brings in Mr F. speaking on this manner The Eldership of the first sort he sayth is a compound office wherein all the Elders doe in the name of the whole Church administer all the businesses c. But this Mr F. hath not sayd I desire the Reader to look on the (z) S. Theol l. 7. p. 276. place as also on that which followes in his * Pag. 279. transition from the generall unto the species and severall sorts of the Eldership and there to behold how grosly Mr D. corrupteth the words of Mr F. and abuseth the reader and that in a point of maine consequence touching our question for while Mr F. gives the same generall definition to the Eldership of many Churches viz. to Classes and Synods which he gives unto the Eldership of a particular Church thereby the same authority and jurisdiction which he gives herein unto a particular Church is also given by him unto a Synod the Eldership of many Churches and then are not Synods for counsell onely or admonition but they are to exercise a jurisdiction and power as well as particular Churches III. Another instance of his unfaithfull translation is to be observed from those words of Mr F. (a) Ibid. p. 278. postea autem auditis assentientibus decernenda pro decretis Ecclesiis proponenda sunt which he translates thus (b) Apol. reply p. 239. and afterwards the opinions and assent of all being declared matters are to be concluded Those last words should have bene translated thus matters are to be decreed and to be propounded unto the Churches for decrees and being thus translated they import an act of authority and a power of jurisdiction in making decrees which are more then counsell or admonition especially when those matters so decreed are propounded unto the Churches for decrees But the word of concluding which Mr D. useth is ambiguous and is applyed sometimes to the reasonings of men either in private or publick where there is no authority to give definitive sentence or to make decrees for the Churches Mr Canne himself though he condemne the Classes and Synods of the Reformed Churches yet doth he allow Ministers and brethren of divers Churches to come together (c) Churches plea p. 95. to conferre of things yea and to conclude if they can what they judge meet c. This use of the word conclude serves to elude and frustrate this pregnant testimony of their power IV. Another mis-translation is when in the same page those words of Mr F. leges maximi momenti constituendae are thus translated by him orders also of the greatest moment to be made This I doe therefore note the rather because Mr D. keeps so great a quoile about the strict difference betwixt orders and lawes and saith (d) Apol. rep p. 257. 258. that orders lawes are ill confounded by me and is large in declaring his minde therein His friend also that made the Alphabeticall Table for him and prefixed it before his book notes this as a remarkable matter therein * Letter L. Lawes and orders differ Now if these things be so then hath he done very ill
in confounding lawes and orders by translating the word leges orders when he should have translated it lawes according to the right and proper signification thereof If he had disliked Mr F. for using the word leges or lawes and would correct it by putting in the word orders this was more then an exact and faithfull Translatour might doe He should rather have translated the word truely according to the right signification and then have given warning to the Reader touching the fault of Mr Fenner in the ill confounding of lawes and orders and putting one for the other After these unfaithfull omissions and mistranslations Mr Dav. hath not bene afraid to say confidently of himself Thus have I faithfully translated the words of this eminent light in his time Mr Dudley Fenner who was joyned with Mr Cartwright c. To his commendation of him I doe willingly assent he was indeed an eminent light and why then hath Mr Dav. gone about to obscure his light by depraving his testimony and labouring to put this bright-burning candle under a bushell that men should not see his light Whether he make strongly for him or against me let others judge III. Moreover after these omissions and mistranslations come we to consider his miscollections from him which without any just deduction or inference upon the lame and imperfect recitall of his words he thus propoundeth (e) Ibidē The Reader may see how he leaveth the wholl power of jurisdiction in the particular Church c. How untrue this is it may appeare I. By Mr F. his alledging those (f) S. Theo. l. 7. p. 276. Scriptures Deut. 17.9 with 2. Chron. 19.8 11. Matt. 18.18 1. Tim. 4.14 to shew what authority there is in a Classis or Synod comprehended by him under that generall definition of a Presbyterie as well as the Eldership of a particular Church thereby he confesseth that there is a power of judgement censure and jurisdiction in Synods because those testimonies of Scripture speak of such jurisdiction and judgement of binding and loosing of imposition of hands or ordination c. II. Though Mr F. speaking of excommunication and absolution from it sayth that they are to be done in the assembly by the authority of the whole Church which last words Mr D. for speciall observation causeth to be printed in great capitall letters yet this doth not prove that he left the whole power of jurisdiction in the particular Church seeing in the same (g) Pa. 277 place speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements administred by the Synod or Presbytery in deciding of doubts he saith also etsi authoritas communis sit ministris tamen sententiam dicendi eam exponendi maxima facienda potestas that is though the authority be common yet the greatest power of giving sentence and declaring it is to be yeelded unto the Ministers Therefore did he not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church III. Mr F. a little after againe speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements and censures and still of administring them by the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Presbytery which contained the Synod as well as a particular Eldership he sayth of them (h) Ibidē In quibus per omnes Ecclesias summa Ecclesiastica potestas Presbyterio demandata est that is In which throughout all Churches the highest or chiefest Ecclesiasticall authority is committed to the Presbytery And hereby also it appeares that he did not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church But these passages Mr D. omitted when he translated other parts of the same periods He thought it not to be for his advantage to have his Reader take knowledge of them IV. Whereas Mr F. requireth that in matters of greatest moment after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fore-consultation of the Presbytery comprehending both Classis and particular Eldership their counsels be told unto the Church that thing ordinarily is thus performed in these Reformed Churches viz. after that in the Classicall assembly of Ministers and Elders it hath bene found just and requisite that any persons should be excommunicated or any Ministers called these censures and elections are then first solemnely propounded unto the particular Church whom these things specially concerne and so accomplished with their consent and not otherwise if the greater part of the Church dissent and allow not the excommunication or election then for the avoyding of strife the matter is againe referred ad majorem Senatum unto a greater Ecclesiastical Senate Classis or Synod to judge thereof and to compose the dissention V. Mr F. in the same chapter (i) Pag. 278 279. shewes from the Scriptures that in these Presbyteriall assemblies there ought to be a mutuall office performed in the same in speciall manner towards one another not onely for counsels but also for the censures of such as are members of those assemblies And this is also agreeable to the order prescribed both in the (k) Kercken-Ordeninge Art 43. Nationall Synod at Dort and in divers others for the censure of such faults as are committed in those meetings or by contempt of the admonitions of inferiour assemblies Hereby also it appeares that he allowed an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in Synods and Classes and did not limit all jurisdiction unto a particular Church VI. After Mr F. had spoken in generall both of the Presbytery of one and of many Churches joyntly together then he comes to speak of each of them severally and there againe speaking of the Presbytery of many Churches that is of Classes and Synods he saith (l) S. Theol. l. 7. p. 280. Hic autem leges Ecclesiasticae condendae sunt Here are Ecclesiasticall lawes to be made This was a power of jurisdiction more then of admonition or counsell This Mr D. passeth over also it was no pollicy for him to draw collections from such testimonies VII That one testimony of Scripture which Mr F. oft (m) Ibid. p. 280 281. alledgeth 2. Cor. 8.19 23. not to speak of others alledged with it is an evidence of the authority of Synods It is there specifyed that the brother who was chosen to be a messenger of the Churches was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elected by saffrages now this election was an act of authority exercised by sundry Churches in one businesse touching one person and hence it appeareth that a combination of Churches may exercise jurisdiction together touching such as are no peculiar members of one particular Church And if such election may be made by many Churches then may censures be decreed by many Churches together as occasion requires Lastly Mr F. having spoken of the first part of Ecclesiasticall politie touching such as administer the same both by a simple and compound office in the Presbytery both of one or more Churches in Synods or Generall Councils he comes at last to speak of the duety of the Saints other members of the Church which are not promoted unto any Ecclesiasticall office and (n)
shewes the contrary He saith (t) P. 358. 359. 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 Metropoliticall or Episcopall jurisdiction Churches have not their owne government but are spoyled 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 externall 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 After the combination of many Churches into one Eldership and one Classis Mr Parker proceeds (v) Pol. Eco lib. 3. c. 25. p. 362. to speak of that combination of many Churches in many Classes which is into one Synod and that either Provinciall Nationall or Generall 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 sheweth 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) P. 364. 365. Mr 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 often 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 addeth further in the same place that the Hierarchy is crept in in place of the Synod taking 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 censure and jurisdiction in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes Touching the second controversy about Synods viz. the authority and power of them (y) Ibid. c. 26. p 367. 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 followes that as the Consistories or Elderships have a jurisdiction and power of government in them and are not onely for counsell so the Synods in like manner When as he saith further (z) P. 368. 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) P. 370. 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 either 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 For the Convocation of Synods which is the third controversy (b) Ibid. c. 27. p. 371. Mr Parker doth maintaine and much commend the practise and order observed in these Reformed 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 Synods but where there is a Christian Magistrate (c) P. 372. this power is regulated of the Magistrate He brings (d) P. 373. c. 10 Arguments to prove that this power of calling Synods is not in a Metropolitane Bishop He sayth touching Ecclesiasticall persons (e) P. 375. 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 itself 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 The fourth controversy about Synods is concerning the Persons (f) Ibid. c. 28. p. 379. c. 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 Mr 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 Synods and thereby he acknowledgeth the jurisdiction exercised in them He saith (g) P. 387. 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 A fift controversy is about the Praesident or Moderatour in Synods (h) Ibid. c. 29. Mr 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) P. 402. 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 himself 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 confessed to be in Synods it appeareth hence also that Synods are not onely for counsell admonition but also for the exercise of jurisdiction A sixt controversy about Synods concernes the Execution of the Synodall Canons (k) Ibid. l. 3 c. 30. Mr 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) P. 428. 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 making of these Canons in the Synod and then Synods have not onely liberty of giving counsell and admonition but power of jurisdiction also which Mr Daven denyeth This conclusion and inference is afterward noted by Mr Parker himself also when as he addeth (m) P. 432. 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 The seventh controversy about Synods is concerning the Conditions (n) Ibid. c. 31. thereof And among other conditions Mr Parker (o) P. 452. 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 Archbishops He notes (p) P. 454. 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 onely to counsell or admonish AS that which Mr Parker hath written particularly touching the combination of Churches in Classes and Synods doth sufficiently shew his minde touching this controversy and that Mr Dav doth in vaine seek to shrowd himself under his shadow so that which he writes more generally in defence of the Discipline practised in the Reformed Churches where the authority and jurisdiction of Synods is maintained doth serve for a more full declaration thereof He laboureth to prove q by 10 Arguments (q) Pol. Ecc. lib. 1. c. 29. p. 84. that the Church of England is bound to imitate the Reformed Churches in their Discipline which yet if Mr 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 Mr Parker following Mr Brightman in his exposition of the Revelation (r) Ibid. p. 84.85 86. 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 Mr 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 Mr 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 determined 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 Mr 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 lawfull liberty to be held fast by them then should he with Mr Canne (f) Churches plea. p. 74. 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 Mr 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 Mr 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 Mr 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
Voetius Lastly for that (k) Cas consc l. 4. c. 29. place which Mr Canne objecteth out of D. Ames I acknowledge that there is something more found against the authority of Synods then in any thing that Mr Dav. hath alledged out of him But all that D. Ames there writes is not easily to be admitted For in that chap. the Question being made (l) Ibid. qu. 11. Whether whole Churches or members of another Church may be excommunicated He answereth They cannot properly be excommunicated He bringeth 3 Reasons 1. Because every Church hath communion in it self out of which it can no more be cast then out of it self But this reason is insufficient 1. Because though every Church hath communion in it self yet not onely in it self and with it self but with other Churches also Eph. 4.4 5 6. 1. Cor. 12.13 and by excommunication it may be deprived and cut off from that comfortable fellowship to the great grief terrour and shame thereof for their humiliation thereby and for the warning of others 2. Because an obstinate and rebellious Church by a sentence of excommunication may be cast out of it self and deprived of communion in it self either in the dissolution of that unlawfull society while the Magistrate helpes to execute the sentence or otherwise in making their communion abhominable even unto their owne consciences by the hand of God working with his owne ordinance in delivering them to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and depriving them of inward rest notwithstanding any pretended security of the obstinate His 2d reason is Because the power of excommunicating flowes from some superiority but all Churches are constituted of Christ with an authority altogether equall This is also a weak reason for 1. Though all Churches be equall and no one above another yet many meeting together in a Synod are superiour to one as was shewed before by Mr Parker (m) Pol. Eccles 3. p. 129. Greater is the power of a Synod then of any one prime and parishionall Church 2. When two Churches onely are by speciall covenant united together as it may fall out necessarily upon occasion though this combination be more imperfect yet is this (n) Ibid. p. 345. 346. reputed for a Synod and though these Churches be in themselves equall yet when one of them falles into errour offence then it becomes subject to the other and the other hath authority over it to rebuke censure the same This is to be observed by proportion of two brethren members of one Church though both of them be in their estate equall yet he that offendeth becomes subject to the other who thereupon hath power over him in a degree of binding and loosing a power of loosing and forgiving him if he repent a power of retaining his sinne and binding him over to further proceeding if he doe not repent Luk. 17.3 4. with Matt. 18. On this manner that generall commandement of mutuall subjection to one another 1. Pet. 5.5 ought to take place in two Churches as well as in two persons His 3d reason is Because the members of one Church are neither subject to the government of another neither doe they belong immediately unto the communion of other Churches but by the communion of their owne Church comming betwixt The first part of this reason touching subjection is answered before and for the second part of it there is no weight therein for those that belong unto the communion of other Churches but mediately are not therefore exempted from the jurisdiction and authority of them And againe the covenant of communion made at the first confederation of Churches for their mutuall government by a Synod remaineth firme for the continuance and exercise of authority either for or against some particular members of any one Church in that combination although that Church unjustly violating their covenant should refuse to consent or communicate with the Synod in their acts of Ecclesiasticall judgement and censure of some scandalous persons among them Moreover that which D. Ames writes in the same chapter may justly lead us to acknowledge the necessity of Synods and their authority in the censure of offendours 1. He addes in his answer to the same question touching whole Churches members of another Church that though they may not properly be excommunicated (o) Cas cōs l 4. c 29. q. 11. th 26. yet for manifest heresies or great faults they may be condemned forsaken rejected which is proportionable to excommunication If he grant this authority unto Synods thus to condemne whole Churches then he confesseth that they have more power then onely to counsell or admonish If he grant this authority unto any other Ecclesiasticall persons and not to Classes or Synods the warrant from Scripture ought to be shewed A censure proportionable to excommunication requires an authority proportionable to theirs that may excommunicate for the exequution thereof II. In the same chapter propounding this case of conscience (p) Ibid. q. 10. What is to be done of the Pastour where a fit Eldership is wanting or where the people doe not consent unto ajust excommunication His resolution is The solemne proceeding may be omitted yet a good Pastour ought to give all diligence hereunto with the rest of the faythfull members that the substance of the matter be so farre preserved that holy things be not given unto dogs swine Mat. 7.6 and that all publick scandals be publickly reprooved But by this direction neither is the peace of the Ministers conscience provided for nor yet the safety of the Church For by what warrant may a Pastour by his sole authority determine and reject some members as dogs and exclude them from the holy things from the Sacraments and this not onely without allowance of the Eldership but against the consent of the people and body of the Congregation or the greatest part of it This is in effect an excommunication or as he calles it the essence or substance of the matter for excommunication greater or lesse is the onely Ecclesiasticall judgement appointed of God to keep holy things from being given unto dogs To permit this authority unto the Pastour alone is to open a dore for tyranny and oppression of the Church and is condemned by those 4 reasons which he gives for confirmation of his answer unto the 9th question immediately going before It is the denyall of Synods that drives unto such extremities III. That which he here saith of publick reproving all publick scandals is againe empeached by that which was sayd before (q) Ibid. q. 4. th 12 13. that in those Churches which through want of discipline are troubled with confusion it is not alway necessary for the person offended to admonish the offendour because he should oftentimes in vaine beginne that which he had no power to finish that the commandement of solemne admonishing of a brother offending doth then onely binde when there is some hope that the same will
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 committed 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 power 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) P. 88. 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 sundry 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 Synods Let us heare his next Author SECT VI. His Allegation of the Replyer upon D. Downam examined IO. DAV r Apol. reply p. 242. Part. 2. l. 2. p. 104 105. c. i With whom I might joyne the Replyer upon Dr Downams defence who not onely declareth his owne judgement herein concurring with the above mentioned but also joyneth with them the suffrages of divers others at the Centurists Illyricus D. Andrewes Bishop of Winchester Dr Fulke Willet Thom Bell Cyprian Augustine Gerson Ferus ANSVV. I. If this Authour did in his judgement concurre with the above mentioned and in speciall with Mr Baynes next above mentioned as Mr Dav. affirmes then did he allow the jurisdiction and authority of Synods for the censure of things done in particular Churches then did he judge each Congregation to be subject unto the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled II. This testimony of the Refuter of D. Downa is alledged also and more plainly by Mr Canne who expresseth his words and sayth (k) Churches plea p. 86. he often affirmeth (l) Lib 2. par 2. p. 104 that the administration of all Church-matters at first was in every Congregation the right in the Church the execution in the Presbytery thereof And besides this he alledgeth another place where he sayth For this purpose he instanceth Cenchrea (m) Lib. 1. part 2. p. 22 23. howsoever it was the Port of Corinth and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lime-house to London yet is was a distinct Church from that of Corinth and alike indued with full power of Ecclesiasticall government But in all this the jurisdiction of Synods is not denyed as is manifest by a like instance here in these Reformed Churches The villages of Diemen and Sloten this on the one side and that on the other side of Amsterdam and not farre from it and in all apperance farre lesse in comparison of Amsterdam then Cenchrea was in respect of Corinth yet are these small Congregations distinct Churches from that of Amsterdam alike endued with full power of all Ecclesiasticall government That which Mr Canne by a Note in the margine would have specially to be marked may as well be observed touching these and many other little Churches hereabout that they have in themselves the administration of all Church-matters and the execution thereof by their Presbyteries as fully and as amply as the Church of Amsterdam or any other of the greatest Churches in these countries being alike combined together in the Classis and equally subject to one another in the Lord for their mutuall guidance III. Even this Replyer upon D. Downam Mr S. who now resteth in the Lord hath bene very carefull not to prejudice the authority of Synods as may appeare further if we consider what he answereth concerning those whom D. D. calleth the late Disciplinarians such as were of Mr Iacobs opinion First he saith (n) Reply par 1. l. 2. p. 106. As for Synods if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctour can give neither more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their Protestation sheweth Art 8.12 13 14. Now as for the present Synods such as are in these Reformed Churches they are such as he mentioneth here called and assembled by authority of the Magistrates and their Acts approved confirmed and ratifyed by them This may be seen in the Records of that Nationall Synod holden at Dort Anno 1618. and 1619. where (o) Act. Synod Dordr Ses 138. the Decree of the States Generall which are the soveraigne and supreme Magistrates in these countries is inserted among the Acts of the Synod for the ratification thereof And this is not onely observed in Nationall Synods but in the Provinciall Synods also held every yeare where the States have also their Deputies Civill Magistrates which ordinarily are present in those Assemblies to see that all things be well ordered therein Thus farre therefore according to his relation there is an obedience and subjection due unto Synods Againe whereas he proceedeth to describe their opinion on this manner If they want
judgement touching this controversy is the same with that which I have here noted out of his writings and for the substance of the matter no other then that which I maintaine throughout this discourse SECT VIII Touching the English Church at Franckford in Q. Maries time IO. DAV (i) Apol. reply p. 243. A discourse of the troubles in the Engl. Chur. at Franckf Art 62. Art 67. And to conclude thus it was ordered in the English Church at Franckford among the exiles in those Marian dayes that if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected or found parties if any appeale be made from them that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation c. and that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare and determine the said matter or matters as it shall seeme good to the Congregation Againe If any controversy be about the doubtfull meaning of any word or words in the Discipline that first it be referred to the Ministers or Seniors and if they cannot agree thereupon then the thing be referred to the whole Congregation ANSVV. I. It is to be observed that these two Articles of Discipline being alledged against me by (k) Churches plea p. 36. Mr Canne as well as by Mr Dav. there is this difference betwixt them that Mr Canne addes more words then he should and Mr Daven omits some words that should have been added That which Mr Canne addes is against himselfe and serves to condemne the practise of the Brownists when he faith of the Ministers and Seniors that they have authority to heare determine c. That which Mr Dav. omits and refuseth to expresse serveth to reproove such as complaine unjustly of excepting against the Elders judgement For when that 62d Article speakes of appeale to be made unto the body of the Congregation the Ministers Seniors parties excepted this latter clause shewes there is just cause of excepting against the Elders judgement sometimes and that they are to be refused as incompetent judges being parties This brief clause being of speciall use in our controversy ought not to have bene omitted by Mr Dav. II. That which they alledge for appeale unto the body of the Congregation doth not overthrow the authority of Synods This granting one kinde of appeale doth not exclude or deny another Seeing particular Congregations are subject to errour and many of them dayly doe erre why should not appeale be granted from them unto Classes and Synods especially where there is no Magistrate that can or will judge of such errours III. This appeale made unto the body of the Congregation was not usually permitted but extraordinarily in cases of speciall necessity when the Ministers and Seniors were not able to end the controversies brought unto them the expresse words of the Article are (l) â—isc of troubl in Engl Ch. at Franckf art 57. in case they cannot end them then afterwards to be referred to the whole Congregation Their ordinary practise was otherwise as appeares in other Articles of their Discipline where it is plainly ordained (m) Ibid. art 59. that the Ministers and Seniors shall have authority to heare and determine on the behalf of the whole Church all offences determinable by the Congregation committed by any person in the Congregation unlesse the partie called before them have just occasion to take exception to the sayd Ministers and Seniors or to appeale from them as not competent judges And afterwards againe there is another strict and severe decree (n) Art 63. If any person doe unjustly take exceptions to any of the Ministers or appeale from the whole ministery that then such persons beside the punishment for the principall cause shall also be punished as a contemner of the Ministery and a disturber of the Church This order as it serves to condemne the practise of the Brownists as tending to the disturbance of the Church while they give no power of judging and deciding causes unto the Eldership so it serves for the reproofe both of them and Mr Davenp in denying the authority of Synods for if the Church may in ordinary cases commit their authority unto an Eldership not deprive themselves of their right then why may they not doe so likewise unto Classes and Synods IIII. This English Church at Franckford did commit and delegate the power of judging controversies not onely to their Elders but upon occasion even unto other particular and private members of the Church which had no Ecclesiasticall office and this in divers degrees as 1. In case some of the Eldership though the lesser part were excepted against as parties 2. When the greater part were excepted against 3. When all the Ministers and Seniors were suspected c. Thus they did erect as it were three severall sorts of Classes or Synods within themselves for the judicature of such causes as could not be ended by the Eldership Thus they ordained in these three severall Articles of their Discipline which follow Of the first sort (o) Art 60. Item if any have just occasion to take exception to some of the Ministers and Seniors and not to the more part that then those of the Ministers and Seniors to whom the exception is made in this case shall not be judges but in this case for the time removed from the ministery and that the rest of the Ministers and Seniors to whom no exception shall be made with as many of the Congregation joyned to them as they be in number which shall be excepted shall be arbiters and judges in the sayd causes and that the sayd persons so to be joyned to the Ministers and Seniors shall be appoynted by the Congregation the Ministers and Seniors not excepted giving their voyces as others of the Congregation Of the second sort (p) Art 61. Item if exception be taken to the more part of the Ministers and Seniors that then the Church shall appoynt six moe to be judges with the rest of the Ministers against whom exception is not made the same rest of the Ministers having their voyces in the election of the six as other members of the Church Of the third sort (q) Art 62. Item if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected or found parties or if any appeale be made from them that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation the Ministers Seniors and parties excepted And that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare and determine the sayd matter or matters as it shall seeme good to the Congregation Now as in all these CoÌ„missions the Church did not loose her authority but did rather exercise the same herein this very act of delegation being a testimony of her power so in like manner if the example of this Church alledged against me may be followed of us other Churches may also send their Deputies and Delegates unto Classes Synods for the judgement
being such parties also as had bene already censured about that controversy And see the dawbing between Mr Canne and W.B. The conclusion spoken of was not the conclusion of the Congregation and Mr Canne himself allowes not a Consistory to make any such conclusions without the Congregation and by his profession it doth not belong unto a Consistory and yet he helps W.B. to exclaime for that wherein he himself is of another minde Touching the words of the Prophet abused and misapplyed by them to frame their complaint Woe unto us we are spoyled Ier. 4.13 I answer 1. The liberty of appeales unto Classes and Synods is that which preserveth a Church and the members thereof from being spoyled by any faction And by their help we enjoy our liberty and peace and are established and furnished with such Ministers as agree with us in the trueth and are endued with such gifts as are meet for our edification 2. On the contrary for want of combination with Classes Mr Can. may justly take up the complaint Woe unto us we are spoyled Since his comming unto them beside former dissipations their Church is rent in the midst by incurable contentions their people scattered he himself deposed and rejected by the Elders people they mutually one half abandoning another avoyding one anothers companies as excommunicates Loe here a Spoyle ARGVM X. It is a sinne against God to adde any thing to that forme and manner of ordering Churches which Christ our heavenly Prophet hath set forth unto us in the New Testament To subject particular Congregations under any other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves is to adde unto that forme and manner of ordering Churches which c. Therefore it is a sinne to doe it The Proposition cannot be excepted against for the Scriptures herein are evident Deut. 4.2 c. Many learned men c. The Assumption cannot for shame be denyed onely because the weight of the controversy leaneth upon it I will speak further of it in the next Section ANSVV. For the Proposition I. If it be well understood I doe willingly grant it And Mr Canne doth againe trifle in alledging so many Scriptures Ancient fathers and other later Writers for the proof thereof II. Both the Scriptures and other Writers alledged by him doe as well condemne such as take from the word of God as those that adde unto it And therefore they serve to reprove Mr Can. that detracts from it by denying the authority of Synods taught in the forementioned Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament The Kings coyne is adulterate as well by clipping and diminishing the same as otherwise This crime are they guilty of that clip the authority of Synods III. The Fathers here mentioned doe give expresse testimony for Synods by speciall particular allowance of them and therefore they are doubly abused being thus alledged against their meaning For the Assumption he incurreth a threefold shame I. It is a bold and shameles assertion for him to say it cannot for shame be denyed when as it is evidently false and generally denyed by the most godly and learned in all ages II. Another shame it is that though he here confesse the weight of the controversy leaneth upō it yet here he brings nothing at all for the confirmation thereof This is his manner where no need of proof is there he idlie abounds with Scriptures Fathers and other Writers where the poynt of difference is on which the weight of the controversy leaneth there he leaves his Assumptions naked and without proof III. It is a further shame to put us off to the next Section and to tell us he will there speak further of it where he onely alledgeth the testimonies of men Is this answerable to the profession of the Brownists that boast so much To the Law and to the Testimony HAving thus examined his Arguments which he hath honoured with the ornaments of his Art by propounding them in Syllogisticall formes we will now proceed to consider another sort of his Reasons to which he doth not vouchsafe so much respect but propounds them more carelesly and nakedly without such complete Logicall attire Of these he sayth There are yet other reasons to proove our Assertion the which I will here lay downe more briefly REAS. I. (i) Church plea p. 75. If every Eldership have a like equall power as Hierome Cyprian Bucer and others affirme then may not the Officers of one Congregation seeke by authority to suppresse the acts and decrees concluded in another ANSVV. I. The consequence of this reason is denyed by us Though every Eldership be of equall power yet the Ministers and Elders of one Congregation being joyned together in a Classis or Synod with the Deputies of many Churches these may lawfully seek by their joynt authority to suppresse any unlawfull acts or decrees of another Congregation The reason is because as D. Whitaker (k) De Cōc qu. 1. c. 3. reasoneth from Matt. 18.20 and Mr Parker (l) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 13. § 4. alledgeth againe from him Vis unita fortior Power combined is the stronger The concurrence of power from many Churches is the ground on Synodall and Classicall authority over particular Churches though otherwise in themselves considered apart they be all equall II. Note here againe the trifling and shifting of Mr Canne To prove the equality of Elderships he alledgeth the testimonies of Hierome Cyprian Bucer and others though I had before granted it and shewed that in the Classis our Eldership had (m) Answ to W. B p. 86. the same liberty and power in giving our voyces equally with others and that our Elders (n) Ibid. p. 90. have exercised as much authority as any member of the Classis by giving their voyces for deciding judging and determining any controversy c. yet needlesly he brings divers Writers for proof of this confessed and practised trueth and for the confirmation of his most false consequence he offers not to bring any proof at all from any word of God or man REAS. II. It is against sence that a Minister should undertake the care of more Churches then one onely who reads in Scripture of a steward over many families a sheep heard over divers flockes c. Nature hath ordained saith (o) Lib. 1. c. 2. Aristotle one unto one ANSVV. I. We read in Scripture of Jaacob that was a shepherd over divers flockes both of his owne and of Labans Gen. 30.36 40. II. We read in Scripture of the Apostles that were stewards and shepherds over divers flockes having the care of all Churches 1. Cor. 4.1 with 2. Cor. 11.28 Ioh. 20.15 16. Mr Canne ought at least to have excepted extraordinary Shepherds III. Though ordinary Pastours or Ministers have the peculiar and proper charge of no more then one flock yet in regard of a common and joynt care of many Churches combined in Classes and Synods we read in Scripture that the
Elders and Shepherds of the Church in Ierusalem did undertake the care and exercise with others authority in judging the cause of the Church of Antioch It is against sense against nature against Scripture but that the members of the body should have care one for another 1. Cor. 12.25 c. IV. The use of Classes and Synods for counsell and admonition is allowed by my opposites and yet the care and labour therein for travelling to meet in such assemblies for deliberation for disputing for convincing such as they admonish and their counsell given unto Churches for the rejecting of Hereticks and other obstinate offendours more or lesse is as great in effect as if they should give definitive sentence therein As little distraction ariseth from one work as from the other To counsell a Church to excommunicate a sinner is as great a burden and labour for a Synod as if they should pronounce the sentence themselves V. It doth least of all become Mr Canne to plead and reason on this manner If nature have ordained one to one as he argueth out of Aristotle though in his quotation he forgat to tell where then must Mr Canne be a man against nature above many other in transgressing the law and ordinance of nature How durst he take the Pastorall charge of a Church upon him and this alone without assistance of an Eldership and yet in the meane time undertake the care and charge of divers other trades as of a Printers work-house in one place of a Brandery or Aquavitae shop in another place and specially of an Alchymists laboratory in another place Is this paragon of the Separation a fit man to be an Advocate or Patron of the Churches to write a booke and intitle it the Churches plea whereas if his example were followed it would bring confusion upon all Churches and on all the Ministers thereof What Pluralist or Non-resident is there that will not thinke he hath some colour to justify himself from this practise of Mr Canne REAS. III. Is it a like thing that the Classicall power should be of Gods approving and yet he never mention it in his word This argument the Hierarchy use against Popish Offices and the Reformists against theirs Now let the discreet Reader judge if it proove not the point in hand as well Here I may not omit Zwinglius his speech speaking of Synods (p) Zwingl Art 8. expl Wee willingly beleeve sayth hee that you are a representative Church for a true Church you are not But I pray you shew us whence you fetch this name Who hath given you this name who hath given you power to make Canons impose things on mens shoulders grieve their consciences c. ANSVV. I. This Reason is in substance the same with his fift Argument before and therefore idly repeated The grounds of Classicall power are shewed (q) Chap. 2. 3. 4. before from the Scriptures and the cavills of Mr Canne against the same refuted II. Note his errour of speech in distinguishing the Hierarchy from Popish Offices by opposing them one against the other whereas according to the common acception of the word the Hierarchy doth consist in the Popish offices and the corruption of offices which he intends is but a fragment thereof and therefore ought not to carry the name rather then the whole when both are spoken of together Otherwise in proper speech the true Hierarchy imports the lawfull offices and government prescribed in the Scriptures III. That which he alledgeth out of Zwinglius touching a representative Church is to be understood of the Romish Church and of the Popish government for against them did Zwinglius then write and against them there was just cause to complaine so as he did IV. If any thinke that by representative Churches he meant all Synods whatsoever that exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in the judging of causes then against the testimony of Zwinglius we oppose the testimony of all ages and of the learned Writers therein old and new Papists and Protestants that generally are against him Mr Parker (r) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 26. p. 368 369. sayth well All ages have called the Synod a representative Church beside many other witnesses he alledgeth D. Whitaker arguing thus against the Papists (f) De Cōc qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169. The Church is represented in the Synod therefore if the Church be above Peter then is the Synod also Mr Parker argues further Except the Synod did consist of the Deputies of Churches Synods could not represent the Churches and having there brought many testimonies of Scripture to shew the power of Churches in sending their Deputies or Delegates he concludes in the words of D. Whitaker (t) Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 103. Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the person of the Church But touching the judgment of Zwinglius more hereafter when he is againe alledged by Mr Canne REAS. IV. (v) Church plea p. 76. Whosoever shall deny our aforesayd assertion must of necessity hold two distinct formes of Church-government one wherein particular Congregations doe in and of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances the other where they stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Now to hold this is directly all one as to hold two wayes to heaven distinct and opposite in themselves which is very scandalous in Religion and that which cannot stand with truth ANSVV. I. Whatsoever Mr Canne here affirmeth is but his bare assertion without Scripture or other proof to confirme his reason But Mr Can. is not yet come to such credit with us that his ipse dixit his bare word may goe for currant II. It is false which he sayth of holding two distinct formes of Church-government c. The particular Congregations here in these Reformed Churches doe in and of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances and yet withall stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Synodall authority being one of Gods ordinances Though in regard of the locall and personall presence of all the members of the Church this authority is exercised out of themselves yet in regard of their confederation and combination with neighbour Churches and in regard of their Deputies Ministers and Elders or others that have place and suffrage in these Synods this authority is exercised in and of themselves And though here be another act of authority yet is there but one distinct forme of government III. It is as false which he sayth of holding two wayes to heaven and this not onely in respect of these Reformed Churches among themselves having the same government both by Elderships at home and by Synods abroad but also in respect of divers Churches having different formes of government The Church of England and of these Countries though they have a different order of Church-government yet holding together the same fundamentall trueths of the Gospell◠they both doe hold but one way to heaven and so doe both mutually
be pronounced by them (n) Sleid. Comment lib. 1. he appealed from the Pope to a Councell or Synod The compleat forme of his Appeale is recorded (o) Tom. 1. f. 231. edit 1545. among his workes wherein he doth plainly acknowledge the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods both by the whole drift and substance thereof and when he saith that a sacred Councell being lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost representing the holy Catholick Church is in causes concerning the faith above the Pope c. This his Appeale was repeated and further urged in the yeare 1520 when the Pope had condemned and excommunicated him Among other reasons which he useth to reenforce his Appeale he alledgeth this (p) Tom. 2. f. 52. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 2. that the Pope most wickedly preferred his owne tyranny above the power of the Councell c. and therefore he beseecheth the Emperour and other Magistrates that for the glory of God and for the maintaining of the liberty of a Councell they would admit of his Appeale and represse the others tyranny c. In the yeare 1539 he wrote a booke in the German tongue de Conciliis concerning Councels or Synods where though he inveigh severely and not without cause against the Pope for his frustrating the desires of those that sought a Generall Councell admitting of none but where he might sway all by his owne authority and command yet he doth fully approve of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had bene formerly exercised in Synods Councells lawfully assembled and rightly ordered A Councell saith (q) Oper. German Tom. 7. f. 260. edit 1562. he is nothing els but a Consistory a Court of justice an Imperiall Chamber or the like where the Iudge having heard the parties pronounceth sentence but with this condition that it be according to Law c. Thus a Councell condemnes an Heretick not according to their owne opinion but according to the Royall law that is according to the holy Scripture as they professe which is the Law of the holy Church Speaking of the right and power of Councells having shewed (r) Ibid. f. 257. c. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 12. that it is not lawfull for them to make new Articles of faith to command any new work to binde mens consciences to new ceremonies nor to intermeddle with Civill government he declareth withall that it is their duety to condemne new doctrines contrary to the Scriptures and to censure the persons to remove and condemne new ceremonies that are superstitious or unprofitable for the Church and to examine and judge of those things that are controverted as it is prescribed in the word of God Moreover demanding what the office or work of a Councell is he answeâ—s (Å¿) Ubi supra f. 260. Anathematisamus we pronounce Anathema so is their office called Anathematisat Ecclesia the holy Church condemnes or excommunicates So farre was Luther from denying the authority of Synods that he allowes them the power of pronouncing this heavie sentence of Anathema or Excommunication To proceed unto his other witnesses there is nothing in the words alledged out of Chemnitius and Polycarpus Lyserus who is the Authour of that part of the Harmony quoted under the name of Chemnitius that by any just consequence can be opposed unto our doctrine and practise touching election excommunication examination of sentences c. Onely observe how Mr Canne here abuseth his Authour and his Readers by his imperfect allegation setting downe this testimony of Chemnitius in such manner as if that which was sayd with an expresse condition had bene uttered simply and absolutely without any such restraint Chemnitius sayth indeed that election or calling doth belong unto the whole Church but how that Mr Canne leaves out as unfit for his purpose which his Authour addes immediately in the same period saying that it belongs unto the whole Church certo quodam modo in such wise that both the Presbytery and the people have each their owne share in the choyse or calling Chemnitius in that (t) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram Ord. Can. 7. learned discourse touching the calling of Ministers intends principally to prove against the Councell of Trent that the consent of the people and of the Christian Magistrate is requisite in elections but withall he gives as full and plaine testimony for the judgement examination and approbation of the Presbytery under which he comprehends the Ministers of other Congregations called Bishops and Clerkes in the places alledged by him And this kinde of election he shewes to be agreeable unto the practise of the Apostolick primitive ancient and their owne moderne Churches Besides Chemnitius doth sufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods which is our maine question in divers pregnant passages of that book which he wrote against the Councell of Trent He (v) Exam. Conc. Trid par 1. praef alledgeth commendeth the words of Augustine saying that most wholesome is the authority of Councels in the Church while they judge according to the rule and square of the holy Scripture c. He saith (x) Ibid. Exam. Decret 1. 2. that many have often wished and long waited for a true lawfull free and Christian Councell as the right medicine for the curing of those manifold errours and abuses that were crept into the Church He doth frequently alledge and approve the acts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in former Synods throughout that whole booke He saith indeed in one of the places cited by Mr Canne (y) Ibid. praef that the decrees of Councells are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture but this doth no more empaire that authority of Synods which we asscribe unto them then it doth the power of all Church-acts and sentences whatsoever concerning which Chemnitius (z) Exam. par 1. de bon op qu. 2. sayth the same thing and Mr Canne cannot deny but that they are to be examined and tryed by the word of God though they be made in such manner as he himself (a) Ch. pl. p. 95. requireth There is another allegation of Chemnitius touching the distinction betwixt power and the administration of it which Mr Canne hath taken at all adventures as it seemes from Mr Parker or rather from the Scribe or Printer that caused that quotation Exam. c. 6. to stand so defectively (b) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 26. in his booke and as he is thus briefe and obscure in the quotation so he is as sparing in the application of this testimony unto his purpose bidding us onely observe what is attributed to the Congregation what to the guides thereof to the first power to the latter the administration of it For the thing it self we grant that there is such a distinction alledged out of Luther and explained by Chemnitius teaching (c) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram in geÌ„ Can. 10. that Christ hath delivered and commended the Keyes that is the
ministery of the Word and Sacraments unto the whole Church but not so that everie one rashly and of his owne accord should take unto himself and exercise that ministery without a lawfull calling but that after immediate calling hath ceased God sends the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments by the calling and election of the Church if it be performed according to the direction of his word so that the chiefe power of the Word and Sacraments is in God secondly that the ministery is in the Church as by which God doth mediately call choose and send Ministers thirdly in those who are lawfully chosen and called of God by the Church as in the Ministers to whom is commanded the exercise or administration of the ministery of the Word and Sacraments Not to speake of some difference which the Reader may easily perceive betwixt Mr Cannes allegation and his Authors words there is nothing here sayd that doth any way prejudice the jurisdiction of Synods neither can he from hence inferre any thing against us Moreover if that distinctiō be considered according to the meaning of the Authors from whence it is taken it doth flatly contradict the opinion and practise of Mr Canne and others of the Separation who will have not onely the power but also the execution or administration of it to be in the people promiscuously when all causes must be brought to the body of the Congregation there to be heard and determined Thus Mr Parker (d) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 26. opposeth this distinction unto the Democratie or popular government of Morellius whom Mr Iacob in this respect parallels with them of the Separation as was noted (e) P. 176. before These maintaine that the people are to exercise their power in judging of causes which the sayd Authors both Chemnitius and Mr Parker conceive to be derived into the Aristocraticall part or Officers of the Church for the ordinary exercise of it she still retaining her interest therein so farre that in matters of speciall moment nothing be concluded without her knowledge and consent That moderating and guiding of the action which Mr Canne and those of his minde reserve onely unto the Officers of the Church in which respect he doth here call them Guides cannot make that difference betwixt the judiciall exercising of power as it is in the Officers and the first receyving of that power which is sayd to be in the whole Church by those that maintaine that distinction In a word they say that the exercise of this power doth not ordinarily belong unto the people he saith that it doth Such is the agreemēt betwixt Mr Canne and his witnesses Melanchthon whom he alledgeth for the same purpose with Chemnitius as Mr Parker had done (f) Ubi supra p. 26. before hath not any thing in the place mentioned that sounds that way He speakes there Loc. Theol. de Regno Christi onely of the spirituall kingdome of Christ against the Jewes and some sorts of Anabaptists Neverthelesse seeing he was one of speciall eminency among those with whom he is here joyned it may be usefull to observe how Mr Canne is condemned by this witnesse also whom he hath sought to produce against us in this controversy touching the authority of Synods Among other Articles propounded unto the Protestants to ensnare them this being also questioned Whether the holy Oecumenicall and receyved Synods have erred Melanchthon answers (g) Respōs ad Artic. Bavar Art 7. By this generall demand they seek to kindle hatred against us as if we seemed to reprehend all Synods all things that have been acted in Synods But we professe openly that there ought to be judgements in the Church and we affirme that there have been many godly Synods and profitable unto the Church and we doe greatly wish now in these dissentions that the judgement of the Church might be rightly settled If he had bene of Mr Cann minde he should have answered farre otherwise viz. that all those Synods erred that exercised any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction that they were to be blamed for the making of all those Actes wherein such authority and power was implyed such as were generally all the Actes of the Synods of Antioch Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon Gangra c. which as he saith in the same place their Churches doe imbrace he should have sayd also according to Mr Cannes principles that though there may and ought to be judgements that is Ecclesiasticall sentences and censures in particular Congregations that yet they ought not to be in Synods or Assemblies of Ministers of severall Congregations that these have no such power to judge that no such determinations are to be desired But Melanchthon we see declares himself to be an opposite unto such conceits and lest we should thinke that by the judgements of the Church he meant not such as are exercised in Synods or that by judgements he understood rather acts of consultation inquisition deliberatiō then of determination and pronouncing of sentences heare how he explaines himself elswhere saying (h) Enarr Symb. Nic. Tom. 1. f. 391. There are in the Church judgements concerning doctrine which are called Synods And againe Synods are ordinary judgements which are pronounced against the unwilling as they use to say And the Church is commanded to make a lawfull inquiry which being done if sentence be rightly pronounced obedience is to be yeelded And if any doe not obey he is justly punished He hath also upon other occasions given plaine and pregnant testimonies of his judgement in this particular among the rest that especially is worthy our observation which he writes in a certaine Disputation concerning Synods it being one of those Disputations which Luther by a preface thereunto prefixed hath commended unto the Readers for which cause it seemes they are also inserted among Luthers workes as being in speciall manner approoved by him (i) Luth. Tom. 1. f. 444 445. There Melanthon intending to speak of Synods reasoneth thus It is most true and most agreeable unto the nature of men that which Plato sayth that the best state of a Common-wealth is that which is the meane betwixt Tyrannie and Democratie or popular government This is to be framed and maintained as in all government so especially in the Church Both these Tyrannie and Democratie are to be avoyded and detested in the Church as most noysome plagues It is Tyrannie to constraine men to approve of manifest impietie to obey contrary to the cleare word of God c. Againe Democratie also must be removed from the Church that is the common people without difference are not to have licence or power granted unto them to alter doctrines or to give sentence concerning doctrines for the Multitude also as Herodotus sayth is a most cruell Tyrant But a middle state is to be sought that is Aristocratie ought to be established wherein by proportion the authority of the learnedest and best men may be the greatest This Aristocratie Paul
Virell neither of them can be justly alledged for his witnesses in this cause For Viret he is (k) Beza in vita Calv. Calv. Epist 25 39.54 .c recorded to have bene a speciall assistant unto Calvine in the work of the Lord for the settling of that forme of Discipline by which the power of an Ecclesiasticall Judicatorie over divers particular Congregations was established at Geneva That weed of Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods as Mr Canne here (l) Ch. pl. p. 94. calles it was planted by the hand of Viret as well as of Calvine And then what reason is there to judge but that Viret did esteeme it a plant of the heavenly Father not to be rooted out of the gardē of his Church seeing he joyned with him in that work For Virell he writes touching the outward calling of Ministers in the (m) Groūds of Relig. b. 3. c. 1. p. 2. 7 708 edit 12. place alledged that it is the lawfull choyse of a visible Church met together in the name of Christ that there be three things required thereunto first that there be a search and tryall both of the conversation and learning of him that is to be chosen c. Another is this that men come not to it by any corruptiō of gifts but that it be free so as they that have the power to chose should have onely the glory of God and the edification of his Church before their eyes Thirdly that he which is chosen have a Church appointed unto him for the execution of his office whose duety it is to looke unto it diligently carefully And more then this he saith not that can with any colour be thought to looke towards this cōtroversy And in all this what one word hath he against the authority of Synods Nay it is the work of Classes and Synods to see that all things here required be accordingly performed in particular Churches and if any of these be omitted to correct and reforme the same Bullinger next alledged though he say that the Church hath power to elect ordaine fit Ministers yet he was not of Mr Cannes minde to thinke that the Church looseth her right and is bereaved of her due power when it is not exercised by herself alone or in that popular way which he requireth for even in the place (n) Decad. 5. Ser. 4. which Mr Canne hath cited he saith It skilleth not much whether fit Ministers be ordained by grave men chosen by the Church or by the whole Church itself and that either by votes or by lots or in any other convenient and holy manner For godlinesse doth not contend about these things so that all be done holily and according to order And afterwards againe he speakes to the same purpose It is well knowne that true Churches have the right of ordaining Pastours whether it be done by the votes of the whole Church or by the lawfull judgement of them that be chosen by the Church It appeares by these the following words that he alludes unto the practise of the Helvetian Churches concerning which we are to make further mention (o) Sect. 7. hereafter when we come to speak of their Confession Touching the Ecclesiasticall power of Synods Bullinger declares his judgement also in this same booke when (p) Decad. 5. Ser. 1. speaking of the power of the Church in judging of doctrines he gives instance in the gathering of a Synod which saith he the Church of God doth according to the power receyved from the Lord even as we read in the Actes of the Apostles that the Apostles of the Lord have done c. Againe he (q) Decad. 5. Serm. 10. cites and approves the decree of Justinian the Emperour for the yearely celebrating of Synods where matters arising might be examined and by due correction healed He urgeth this decree against the Bishops and warnes the Magistrates to take heed they doe not connive at the others negligence to the destruction of the whole Church and of all the Ministers of Christ. Behold here the difference betwixt Bullinger and Mr Canne that which the one holds to be the soveraigne remedy to preserve the safety of Churches of the ministery the other rejects as an unprofitable weed and that which tends to the undoing and (r) Ch. pl. p. 74. spoyling of Churches Danaeus his testimony is likewise unjustly alledged against us seeing he speakes not in the palce mentioned of the point in controversy betwixt us viz. the authority of Classes Synods or the totall excluding of the same in those things which belong unto elections Onely he doth there (ſ) In. 1. Tim. 5.22 reproove the grosse errour of those that in regard of such popular circumstances as Mr Canne seemes most to plead for doe bring as he saith a very great confusion into the Church by asscribing unto the people more then is due unto them while he shewes that the electing and presenting of the person that is to be called unto any Ecclesiasticall office whereby he understands the first taking notice of him the examining of his life doctrine and the publishing or propounding of him unto the whole Church that this belongs unto the Presbytery and that the approving and accepting of the person so examined and propounded doth belong unto the people they also having a convenient time allowed unto them that if there be just cause they may testify their dislike and bring in their exceptions against him This is the course there described and maintained by Danaeus and the same with that which is practised in our Church And thus the Witnesses produced against us doe still declare their consent with us As for the authority of Synods and the divine right by which it is due unto them Danaeus gives his verdict when in the exposition of the fourth commandement having spoken of the jurisdiction and power of the Church he saith (r) Ethic. Christ Lib. 2. cap. 10. Here comes in the Question concerning Synods which if they be right and keep themselves within their owne bounds their authority is ordained by this Commandement Gualter in the (v) Homil. in Act. 13.2 first place alledged having spoken of the due suffrages or voices of the Church in elections to prevent such a construction as Mr Canne seemes to make of his words addes presently This place doth clearly teach that some parts are committed to the Church in this businesse And againe he saith there that the election of Ministers doth in some part belong to the Church c. He doth not therefore exclude that part which herein we asscribe unto the Classis by proceeding with their advise and consent In the other (x) Ibid. in cap. 14.23 place for Mr Cannes marginall quotation 13.22 seemes to be misprinted he saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood not onely the gathering of voices but also imposition of hands and in his opinion the latter acception
Catharists were excommunicated by a Synod holden at Rome consisting of 60 Bishops with many Elders and Deacons how k L. 7. c. 29. Paulus Samosatenus was deposed and excommunicated by a Synod holden at Antioch He declares l De vita Const l. 3. c. 6 7 c. at large and celebrates the piety of Constantine the great friend maintainer of Christian religion for assembling the Nicene Synod wherein Arius was condemned And in like manner he shewes the m Ibid. l. 1. c. 44. impiety of the Emperour Licinius the enemy of God who by a mischievous devise sought to ruinate the Churches of God by depriving them of their liberty in meeting together in Synods for deciding of their controversies So expressely and clearely doth Eusebius give testimony unto Synods That which is collected out of Athanasius viz. that elections excommunications c. according to the Apostles precept ought to be done in the publick Congregation by the Ministers they taking first the peoples voyce or consent is such as I doe willingly assent unto Neither was there ever any election either of Minister Elder or Deacon nor any excommunicatiō of any offender among us but that the matter was first solemnely communicated with the Church and declared severall times in the publick Congregation the consent of the people required obtained before any such act was confirmed finished among us But what is this to the purpose Athanasius notwithstanding this doth witnesse unto us that the causes and controversies of particular Churches were in his time submitted to the censure of other Churches and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves This Athanasius shewes in these very places here alledged against me And in the first of them having n Tom. 1. Epist ad ubiq Orthodoxos made a lamentable narration of the miseries procured to the Church of Alexandria by the intrusion and cruelty of an Arian Bishop he then most vehemently supplicates unto those that were members of the same body with them in other Churches that as the former yeare their brethren at Rome were willing to have called a Synod but that they were hindred so they having greater occasion to vindicate the Church of God from new evills would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their suffrages condemne and reject the Authors of such mischiefes And more plainely in the 2d place he declares o Epist ad Solit. vitam agentes at length that in the Synod holden at Sardica where Hosius was President and whither the accusers of Athanasius were cited the cause being heard the Synod did not onely advise and counsell what was meet to be done but did give sentence touching the matters of controversy absolved Athanasius and deposed the Bishops that were found guilty such as Stephanus Menophantus Acacius Georgius Vrsacius Valens Theodorus Narcissus As for the third allegation Epist cont Nicae c. 9. Ecc. Hist it seemes to be misquoted I finde no such Title in all the works of Athanasius Instead thereof therefore let us see another testimonie of his wherein he teacheth what the government of the Church was in those times namely ruled by authoritie of Synods where the weightier causes were judged decided Of this he p Tom. 2. Epist ad Rusinian gives instances in the Synods of Alexandria Greece and Spaine where Euzoius Eudoxius and such principall offenders were deposed from their offices and other upon their repentance retained And the like Ecclesiasticall authority is in many other places throughout his writings by him commended unto us Let us heare how Mr C. proceeds I. C. To these we will adde Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose Cyrill Hillarie and Greg. Nazianzen writers in noe age Touching Ecclesiasticall Government these to this purpose speake Particular Churches may lawfully ordaine their owne Bishops without other Presbyters assisting them Epiph. cont Haer. 73. and among themselves excommunicate offenders Id. l. 1. Haeres 30. Tom. 2. Haer. 5. ANSVV. I. Here be three places at once misalledged In the two latter viz. Haer. 30. and Haer. 5. there is nothing at all spoken touching this poynt In the first of them viz. Haer. 73. he doth but catch at a shadow and pervert the words of Epiphanius and falsify them by changing some and adding other and omitting other that might give light unto the question His words upon occasion of Meletius his confession and suffering for the trueth are these There are many people of this order of this Synod which setting Bishops over themselves doe make a marvellous confession touching the faith doe not reject the word Coessentiall Yea and say they are ready if there were a perfect Synod to confesse not to deny it Here is no mention of particular Churches or Congregations nor of lawfully ordayning nor of doing this without other Presbyters assisting them But that which is recorded touching the acknowledgement of a lawfull or perfect Synod that is omitted Thus he varyeth from the Latine translation of Epiphanius the Originall Greek in divers Copies is further from the matter having this beside other differences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which made themselves to be Bishops instead of lawfully ordaining their owne Bishops Such are the Allegations of Mr Canne II. Suppose the words Epiphanius had bene the same that Mr C. relates yet had not the authority of Synods bene any thing diminished thereby Is it not the common and ordinary practise in these Reformed Churches that where two or more Ministers are in one Congregation there the newly elected Ministers are ordained and confirmed without any other Presbyters from other Churches to assist them Yet this is no good argument to prove they want Classes and Synods And though also they doe among themselves excommunicate offenders yet this hinders not but that Classes or Synods may exercise their authority in judging or censuring such as have unjustly excommunicated any or proceeded contrary to their advise therein III. That Epiphanius did approve the authority and jurisdiction of Synods it is manifest by his practise It is q Socrat. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 9. recorded of him that he being Bishop of Salamis or Constantia in Cyprus procured a Synod to be called in that Iland wherein the bookes of Origen were condemned a decree made that none should read his bookes IV. Epiphanius did not onely approve the lawfull authority of Synods but he went further and did maintaine the unlawfull authoritie of particular persons over divers Churches This appeareth in his r Epiph. Haer. 75. condemning of Aërius of heresie that held Bishops Presbyters to be the same by divine institution whom D. Whitaker ſ De Pont. Rom. q. 1. p. 104 105 106. doth justly defend against Bellarmine and others and shewes that Hierome and other ancient Fathers were of the same minde with Aërius therein and sayth that we are not to regard the absurd men that doe so often object Aërius unto us he sayth Epiphanius doth foolishly and childishly
answer the testimonies produced by Aërius and wonders that such a Divine that tooke upon him to refute all Heretickes did not see his owne foule errour Yea it is further t Soc. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 11.13 recorded of Epiphanius that he disorderly intruded himself into the charge of Chrysostome contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons observed in those times by celebrating the Lords supper ordaining a Deacon in the Church at Constantinople And thus we see Mr Cannes witnesses are in extremity opposite unto himself Another of his witnesses is Ierome from whom he alledgeth that v Jer. ad Gal. q. 10. In every Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders To this I answer I. This is nothing against the authority of Synods The Reformed Churches have in every Congregation such a Senate of Elders and yet this hinders not but that they have ought to have Classes Synods also both for direction and correction of Elderships and for decision of the controversies arising in particular Churches II. Though every Congregation ought to have a Senate of Elders yet Ierome doth not avouch so much in the place alledged His words are falsifyed for in the place which they misquote ad Gal. instead of ad Alg. the words of Jerome are these x Ad Algas qu. 10. How great the traditions of the Pharisees are which at this day they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what old wives fables I cannot expresse For neither doth the greatnes of the booke permit and many of them are so filthy that I blush to tell And yet saith he I will tell one of them to the ignominy of that envyous nation They have Rulers in their Synagogues of their wisest men deputed unto a filthy work c. What this filthy work was though Jerome expresse it yet I thinke it shame to publish And this which he saith in detestation of the Jewes without approbation of their order is all that he there saith for an assembly of Elders So vaine and insufficient are the Allegations of Mr Canne III. That Hierome allowed the authority of Synods above particular Churches it may appeare by that he sayth y Ad Euagriu ep 85. Si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe If we seek for authority greater is the world then the city that is as D. Whitaker expounds the same the Churches dispersed through the world he sayth z De Pont. Rom. qu. ◠p. 9◠99. All the authority of the Church of Rome is not so great as is the authority of all Churches every where And thereby he acknowledgeth the authority of Synods arising from the deputation of many Churches to be greater then the single authority of any one particular Church Besides whereas Damasus Bishop of Rome was a zealous opposite to the Arian Macedonian and other heresies and in divers Synods furthered the censure and condemnation of such as persisted in those errours and wrote divers Synodicall Epistles which witnesse the exercise of that authority by Synods Hierome a Ad Gerontiam confesseth that in the writing of those Synodall letters he did assist and help Damasus which he could not with good conscience have done unlesse he had allowed the authority of Synods Lastly if Hierome wrote that in every particular Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders then is Mr Canne and his Congregation condemned by Hierome because they have now for many yeares had no Senate nor assembly of Elders to governe them Mr Canne being sole governour of them without an Eldership In the next place touching this assembly of Elders he addes that The power of choosing them is in the people And for this he alledgeth three Authours together b Ad Rust Hil. ad Cōst August Cyr. in Ioh. 20.21 Hierome Hilarie Cyrill I answer For Hierome ad Rusticum there is nothing at all spoken touching the matter but he is falsely alledged For Hilary I. He is also falsely alledged he sayth nothing touching the Senate or assembly of Elders of which Mr C. speakes II. Though he entreat Constantius the Arian Emperour who had banished many worthy Bishops that he would permit the people to heare those Teachers and Ministers of the Sacraments whom they would whom they thought good and whom they had chosen that they might offer up prayers for his safety and felicity yet doth he not hereby prejudice the authority and jurisdiction of Synods This hinders not but that Synods might censure and judge of the elections made by the people and of other controversies of particular Churches III. Hilary also c Cent. Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 10 col 1134 1135. wrote a peculiar booke touching Synods exstant among his workes which he had translated out of Greek into Latine wherein the Acts and decrees of divers Synods that censured and condemned the Arian heresy are recorded Had he thought with my opposites that this jurisdiction of Synods had bene an usurped and unlawfull power he ought not to have given so much approbation of them in alledging their authority for defense of his opinion without some testification against their power Besides what colour of reason hath Mr C. to shew that Hilarius should vary from the judgement of Orthodox Bishops who in that age d Ib. Cent. 4. c. 7. col 519. 528 c. ordinarily used to meet together in Synods for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction For Cyrill in Ioh. 20.21 whom he also brings to prove that the Senate or assembly of Elders ought to be chosen by the people he is in like manner abused and falsely alledged by him For I. Cyrill upon those words of Christ As the Father hath sent me so send I you sayth that Christ in those words ordained the Teachers of the world and Ministers of the divine mysteries c. That therefore Paul is true saying No man takes this honour unto himself c. Heb. 5. c. He shewes how Christ called his Disciples but hath not a word neither touching an assembly of Elders nor of their choosing by the people Such falshood and forgery there is in the Allegations of Mr C. And yet if he had spoken as much as is here pretended it had bene no empeachment unto the authority of Synods as was shewed before II. That this Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria did acknowledge the use of Synods not onely for counsell and admonition but for censure and judgement of causes it appeareth evidently by his practise while in the e Euagr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 4. Synod holden at Ephesus in the time of Theodosius he being a principall member of that Synod did together with others give sentence against Nestorius and deposed him from his office for his obstinacy in refusing to appeare before them and for his heresy whereof he had bene convicted The next witnesse abused by him is Ambrose who is alledged to shew what the Senate or assembly of Elders is to doe viz.
Christ from having a keye of power in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes Had he proved that the title of the Church belongs onely to a particular Congregation in the full assembly thereof and not at all unto a Synod then had it bene something to the purpose in the meane time nothing And that the minde of Augustine was otherwise it appeares by the great approbation which he (v) Epist ad Ianuar. Ep. 118. De Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 3. gives unto the use and authority of Synods as being most wholesome in the Churches of God D. Whitaker (x) DePont Rom. q. 4. p. 484. 497 alledgeth often the presence of Augustine at divers Synods And it is recorded in the Acts of the third Councell of Carthage where Augustine was both present and subscribed with the rest unto the decrees which were then agreed upon (y) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. co 866 867. that there should be kept a yearely Synod unto which they were to repaire out of divers Provinces that those which having controversies with others being called unto the yearely Synod did refuse to come should be held guilty and be excluded from the communion or excommunicated And it is (z) Ib. Col. 870 c. noted further that the like decrees were made at another Synod held at Hippo the place where Augustine lived and that the same decrees were againe confirmed by another Synod at Carthage Hence it appeares that Augustine as well as others in his time did hold that the causes of particular Congregations were to be judged decided by another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves After Augustine he alledgeth Chrysostome whose name is also abused for confirmation of this opinion For I. Chrysostome in the place alledged viz. De Sacerd l. 3. c. 4. speakes of no such matter as he pretends In that whole third book I finde no one word against the authority of Synods And for the fourth chapter which Mr C. alledgeth there is in the best editions of Chrysostome no such chapter they are not at all distinguished into any Chapters and where there is a division of Chapters found yet there is no such matter to be found in that fourth Chapter Mr Canne it seemes never read the Authours he alledgeth for would he then have so falsely cited them II. Chrysostome is plaine for the authority of Synods For speaking of the honour due unto the Deputies or messengers of the Churches in Synods he saith the Apostle (a) In 2. Cor. 8.24 maketh his speech more terrible saying in the sight of the Churches He saith it for the glory of the Churches for their honour For if ye honour them ye shall honour the Churches which sent them c. And then he concludeth This shall be no small matter for great is the power of a Synod that is of the Churches III. When as a wrongfull sentence had bene given against Chrysostome being unjustly procured by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria he then (b) Tom. 5. Epist ad Innocent appealed unto a Synod of many Bishops both before and after the sentence was pronounced The summe of his defence afterward was this that he was willing to be judged by a Synod And he complaines that his adversaries dealt with him contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons In those Canons it had bene oft decreed that there should be liberty of appeale unto Synods IV. When Bellarmine pleading for the Popes authority alledged the request of Chrysostome unto Innocentius Bishop of Rome desiring him to write for him that those things which were unjustly done against him might not prevayle c. Chamierus expounding the words of Chrysostome (c) Panstra Cath. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 23 distinguisheth betwixt admonition and giving of sentence and shewes that Chrysostome desired an admonition should be given by Innocentius but that he exspected sentence from a Synod Chamier sayth this is confirmed to be his meaning because he appealed to the Synod c. And hereby he expressly and distinctly confesseth that Synods have jurisdiction to give sentence and not onely a liberty of admonishing V. When after this Chrysostome (d) Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. having bene both deposed from his place and banished out of the city was yet called back by the Emperour from his banishment and was by the people desired to enter upon his ministery againe he professed he might not doe it untill his cause was further examined he proved innocent by greater judges or in a greater judicatory (e) Edit gr R. Steph. l. 6. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he acknowledged a power of Synods not onely above a particular Congregation but also of one Synod above another as of a Generall Synod above a Nationall or Provinciall c. VI. The minde of Chrysostome touching Church-government may further be knowne to us by this that he (f) In Matt. 18. will have those words Tell the Church to be understood of the Presidents or Governours of the Church And againe speaking of Priests or Bishops the Ministers of the Gospell he thus describeth their speciall power (g) De Sacerd l. 3. Col. 508. Edit Basil It is granted unto them to dispense the things that are in heaven power is given unto them which God would not have to be given either unto Angels or Arch-angels For it was not sayd unto them Whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Earthly Princes have also the power of binding but of the bodies onely But that binding by the Priests whereof I speake remaineth unto the soule commeth up to the heavens so that whatsoever the Priests doe below that God ratifyeth above the Lord confirmeth the sentence of his servants What els can you say this to be but that all power of heavenly things is granted unto them of God For the sayth Whose sinnes ye retaine they are retayned What power I pray you can be greater then this one The next perverted witnesse is Basil touching whom observe I. Their threefold false allegation in citing three severall bookes of his viz. Constit Monach. l. 4. 14. 6.2 7. c. 35. whereas Basil wrote onely one booke with such a title and as for the 4th 6 t 7th here mentioned by Mr C. there be none such What grosse dealing is this II. Suppose it was the Printers fault that these bookes were thus misalledged and that it was but Mr Cannes oversight to let them passe without correction yet even for that one book of Monasticall constitutions which Basil did write therein also is nothing to be found against the authority of Synods nor any such matter as Mr C. pretends It is a great forgery and abuse of the ancient Fathers thus to pretend the vaile of their authority for covering of errour when as the places pretended have not a word sounding to such purpose III. That Basil allowed
31. Article of the Belgick Confession which is poynted at hath nothing that serves their turne against me neither doe they shew what clause therein they intend for their purpose And what seemes most to accord with their former allegations I haue answered before But for the Synods of these Countries whereas Mr C. saith (i) Ch. pl. p. 91.92 What those Synods were of whom Mr Paget speaketh in pag. 66. who decreed that particular Congregations should not practise among themselves all Gods ordinances I doe not yet know but this I know that no Reformed Church hath made this an Article of their faith And therefore it is certaine if such a thing be it was onely the invention of some particular men It is here to be observed 1. That Mr Canne falsifyeth my words that which I sayd was this (k) Answ to W.B. p. 66. When the busines is so weighty that by former generall consent of Churches testifyed by their Deputies meeting together in their Synods it hath bene agreed that the same shall not be proceeded in without advise of the Classis such as is the election of Ministers the excommunication of offenders and the like that in such cases ordinarily matters are brought unto the Classis c. Now this voluntary agreement not to proceed without advise of the Classis before matters of so great weight were determined was not to hinder particular Congregations from the practise of all Gods ordinances among them but onely to prevent and restraine abuses in the manner of doing and to direct them for the better performance thereof among themselves 11. What those Synods were wherein such agreements were made it had bene easy for Mr C. to have knowne if he had used diligence in enquiry and search for them To help him herein let him consider these (l) Kerckē-Ordeningē der Gerefo Nederlātsc Kerckē Nation Syno tot Embdē An. 1571. Art 13 14. 33 34. Nat. Syn. tot Dordr An. 1578. Art 4.8 99.100 Nat. Syn. tot Middelb An. 1581. Art 3.4 62.63 Nat. Syn. in 's Graven-Hag An. 1586. Art 3.4.5.36 47.69.70.72 Nat. Syn. tot Dordr An. 1618 1619. Art 3 4 11 12 76 77 79. plaine evidences recorded in divers Synods viz. that men shall not proceed to election or deposition of Ministers or excommunication of offenders without the advise and judgement of a Classicall assembly And besides the decrees of these Nationall Synods the like agreements and resolutions have bene made in sundry (m) Provinc Syn. tot Dordr An. 1574. Art 12. Prov. Syn. tot Middelb An. 1591. Art 3 4 9 58 68 69. Provinciall Synods so that from time to time after ripe deliberation long experience these Acts of their Synods have still bene renewed and confirmed from the beginning of their Reformation even unto this day III. Besides these generall acts and agreements of severall Synods we have their practise also for confirmation hereof to declare that the causes of particular Churches were judged by another Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves Thus it is witnessed (n) Triglād van de Moder p. 56.57 that Caspar Coolhaes was excommunicated by the Provinciall Synod of Holland holden at Haerlem Anno 1582. that the cause of Hermannus Herberts was judged and he suspended from his Ministery by a particular Synod of South-Holland holden in the Haghe Anno 1591. Novemb. 6. that Cornelius Wiggertsz was also judged and excommunicated by a particular Synod of North-Holland by reason of the errours holden by him that (o) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr An. 1618. Ses 22. Nicolaus Grevinchovius Minister at Rotterdam was removed from his ministery by the sentence of the South-Holland Synod holden at Delph that (p) Ib. pref Adolphus Venator Minister at Alcmaer that Ioannes Valesius Ioannes Rodingenus and Isaacus Welsingius Pastours of the Church at Horne were suspended from their ministery by the North-Holland Synod and that divers others in Gelderland were in like manner censured by the Synods holden in that Province at Arnhem is also recorded in that historicall preface prefixed before the Acts of the last Nationall Synod at Dort And in the (q) Ses 22 23. booke itself it is likewise testifyed that Simon Goulartius Minister of the Gallo-Belgick or Walloens Church at Amsterdam was removed from his place by the Gallo-Belgick Synod By these and sundry other like acts and sentences that might be noted it is evident that the Synods held in these Reformed Churches are not onely for counsell and admonition but for the exercise of jurisdiction in censuring offenders judging of controversies that their meaning is perverted when their Confession of faith is objected against me That which Mr Canne (r) Ch. pl. p. 91. alledgeth from the Synod of Middelburgh An. 1581. is also mistaken by him there being no such thing found in that Synod as he mentioneth touching election done by voyces publickly in the Temple And if it had bene there yet should not that prejudice the authority of Synods or Classes in allowing or censuring such elections either before or after they were made Againe it is objected The Synod of Tilleburgh in Nasovia determined the like as Zepperus (ſ) Pol. Ecc. p. 831. writeth ANSVV. The determinations of this Synod being like unto those before mentioned are therefore directly against my opposites as the former were Zepperus in his preface to the Articles agreed upon in this Synod telles us how the Earle of Nassau having seene the Articles of the Synod held in Middelburgh Anno 1581. he took such liking thereof that in the yeare following he called the speciall Ministers of his country together unto a Synod in Tilleburgh requiring that the agreements of the aforesayd Synod might be applyed unto the use of the Churches under his dominion so farre as they well could Hereupon the principall conclusions thereof were receaved and confirmed among them and so farre as doth shew their full consent in the poynt of our controversy viz. that particular Congregations are to be subject unto an Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods and Classes Therefore it was agreed (t) Ib. p. 833 Art 4. that the calling of Ministers should be made by the judgement of the Classis c. That (v) P. 834. where divers examined of the Church or of it the Classicall assembly together were judged to be fit then the election was to be in the power of the Church and to be done by suffrages publickly in the temple and if they were equall then to use lots c. This seemeth to be the Article which Mr C. stumbled at before as if it had bene so written in the Synod of Middelb 1581. which yet doth not exclude the precedent allowance of the Classis in such elections Moreover it was there agreed (x) P. 837. Art 23. that if any complaine of wrong done in a lesser assembly or Synod he may referre the matter by appeale unto a superiour Synod (y) P. 843. Art 61.
that no man be excommunicated without the consent of a Classicall assembly (z) Art 63. that the deposition of Ministers be done by the judgement of a Classicall assembly and consent of the Magistrate These and the like Articles there concluded doe shew how farre the Nassovian Churches were from that opinion of the Brownists and some other in denying the subjection of particular Congregations unto any Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Where could Mr C. finde more pregnant testimony against himself then in such resolutions of Reformed Churches as these be With the former Reformed Churches alledged by Mr Canne doe agree all the other so farre as I can learne by any enquiry For the Church of England B. Jewell testifveth (a) Def. of Apol. of Ch. of Engl. par 6. c. 17. div 1. 2. that we have had ere now in England Provinciall Synods and have governed our Churches by home made lawes and he maintaineth that without wayting for a Generall Councell it was rather thought good to doe that which both rightly might be done and hath many a time bene done as well of other good men as also of many Catholick Bishops that is to remedie our Churches by a Provinciall Synod And besides other examples there is a (b) Syntag. Confes p. 125 136 speciall monument recording the Acts and Articles agreed upon in the Synod holden at London Anno D. 1562. and againe of another Synod Anno 1571. confirming the Articles of the former Synod ratifyed by the approbation of Qu. Elizabeth to be observed through the whole Kingdome c Now howsoever there be great difference in divers Churches touching the manner of celebrating these Synods yet herein which is the poynt of our present controversy they doe all agree viz. that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods to judge and determine the affaires of particular Congregations The testimony of the Church of Scotland for the authority of Presbyteries and Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations is most cleare In the admission of Ministers to their offices there was (c) First book of Discipline p. 29. ed. 1621 required not onely the consent of the people and Church whereunto they should be appoynted but also approbation of the learned Ministers appointed for their examination Touching all sorts of Synods among them it was concluded that (d) Sec. b. of Discip ch 7. p. 80. they have power to execute Ecclesiasticall discipline and punishment upon all transgressours and proud contemners of the good order and policie of the Kirke and so the whole Discipline is in their hands Touching Provinciall Synods which they call the lawfull conventions of the Pastors Doctors and other Elders of a Province gathered for the common affaires of the Kirkes thereof c. they (e) Ib. p. 81. say Thir assemblies are institute for weightie matters to be intreated by mutuall consent and assistance of the brethren within that Province as need requires This Assembly hath power to handle order and redresse all things committed or done amisse in the particular assemblies It hath power to depose the office-bearers of that Province for good and just causes deserving deprivation And generally thir Assemblies have the whole power of the particular Elderships whereof they are collected Besides these Canons and rules of their Discipline there be also divers Actes of their Generall Assemblies prefixed before the foresayd First and Second bookes of their Discipline which by many instances doe shew how that power of Synods was exercised and put in practise in the Church of Scotland For example we read (f) P. 14. Edinb Iul. 5. 1570. that there was an Excommunication directed against Patrik called B of Murray to be executed by M. Robert Pont Commissioner their with the assistance of the Ministers of Edinburgh We finde there in another Assembly (g) P. 15. Edinb Aug. 6. 1573. that Alexander Gordoun B. of Galloway being accused of divers offences it was concluded that he should make publick repentance in Sackcloth three severall Sundaies first in the Kirk of Edinburgh secondly in Halyrudhous thirdly in the Queenes Colledge under the paine of Excommunication We finde in another Assembly (h) P. 16. Edinb Mar. 6. 1573. that the B. of Dunkell was ordained to confesse his fault publickly in the Kirk of Dunkell for not exequuting the sentence of the Kirk against the Earle of Athol For the confirmation of this Synodall authority there is added in the same place an Act of Parliament (i) P. 19. 20 c. The 12 Parl. at Edinb Iun. 5. 1592. prefixed also before the sayd bookes of their Discipline having this Title Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk of generall and Synodall Assemblies of Presbyteries of Discipline c. The Confession of fayth made by the Church of Scotland both for the Doctrine and for the Discipline thereof is yet further confirmed unto us both by generall Subscription and by a most Solemne Oath The formall words of that Subscription and Oath are thus recorded unto us (k) Syntag. Confes p. 158 160. We beleeve with our hearts confesse with our mouth subscribe with our hands c. promising and swearing by that great name of the Lord our God that we will continue in the Doctrine Discipline of this Church and that we will defend the same according to our calling and power all the dayes of our life under paine of all the curses contained in the law danger of body and soule in the day of that dreadfull judgement of God Hereunto is annexed in the same place the Mandate of the Kings Majestie whereby he enjoyneth all Commissioners and Ministers of the Word throughout his kingdome that they require this confession of all their Parishioners c. And so farre as I can learne even unto this day there is still observed this substantiall and maine poynt of Discipline namely a power in Synodall assemblies to judge the controversies that doe arise in particular Congregations Here Mr Canne instead of a Iurie of 24 men to condemne my position for an errour and untrueth as he (l) Ch. pl. p. 83. speakes may see a Iurie of more then thrice 24 Congregations in Scotland maintayning my position and condemning his errour by their example The Reformed Churches in Savoy as that of Geneva (m) Kerckel Ordon der gemeēte van Geneven p. 9 10 c. and the Churches in the villages thereabout standing under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in Geneva were combined together for their mutuall guidance and the Ministers of those Churches meeting weekly together were subject to the censure of such Ecclesiasticall assemblies and the affaires of those Churches judged therein The knowledge of this is so common a thing that in appearance hereupon grew the reproach reported by Mr Canne himself that (n) Ch. pl. p. 94. at Geneva subjecting of Churches to this order first began The Evangelicall Churches in the greater
(n) Pag. 156. 157. c. 164. c. before III. If he would have spoken to the purpose he should have shewed that particular Congregations standing under no other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves are not thereby exposed to manifold disorders confusion and dissipation Or if he would have retorted this argument upon the Defendant he ought to have prooved that Classicall and Synodall government of its owne nature brings with it manifold disorders confusion and dissipation of Churches But instead of this he mentioneth onely the offences which in many things many times have been observed in about the execution And behold what he saith for proofe hereof I. C. And this I am sure no good Christian will deny I could give divers instances for it but it needs not Onely it is not amisse to set downe Nazianzens (o) Epist 42. ad Proc. words who was an Elder or Bishop I am minded sayth hee to shunne all assemblies of Bishops because I never saw any good event in any Councell c. Whither things are better caryed now then they were in his time I will not nor am able to judge ANSVV. I. If he will not nor cannot judge whether the same abuses be now committed which Nazianzen complained of it followes that he ought not to have the will nor ability to conclude that this government should now be remooved as it seemes he would inferre from such a reason as was used by Nazianzen for his dislike of the Synods of his time II. This testimony of Nazianzen hath been sufficiently answered (p) P. 222. 223. before out of D. Whitaker where it hath been also shewed that it makes as much against those Assemblies of Bishops which Mr C. himself allowes as against any other But to make it appeare that this is no new objection that we need not seek any further answer unto it loe here what others have sayd touching the same testimony Beza among other counsels to the Emperour States of Germany for the settling of the peace of Christian Churches doth specially give advice for the celebrating of a Synod seeing he doth not onely answer the foresayd exception but withall notably declare the lawfull ancient and profitable use of Synodall authority I have here set downe his words at large as worthie our observation for this purpose Churches (q) Consâ—l ad Caes Stat. c. Tract Theol vol. 2. p. 111. 112. saith he cannot be rightly governed by their Pastours unlesse beside the sowing of good seed they doe also by the word of God as with a sickle cut downe evill herbes yea root them out according to their power But because that cannot oftentimes be performed by the authority of one or a few neither happily were it meet therefore since Churches began to be settled the Bishops of the Provinces did meet together as often as there was need and that according to the example of the Apostles lest any should think this hath been the device of man The Synod of the Church of Jerusalem and Antiochia celebrated in the Actes of the Apostles is well knowne Afterwards followed that first Oecumenicall Synod of Nice where Ecclesiasticall Provinces being more accurately then happily divided this also was ordained that every yeare two Provinciall Synods should be gathered by the Metropolitanes which custome if it had bene diligently observed certainly it is likely that many and most great calamities of the Church might have bene prevented But here some doe object unto us that for the most part dissensions have been rather kindled then quenched by these Synods insomuch that the famous Bishop Nazianzene by a certaine sentence of his hath as it were condemned all those assemblies But we make no doubt to oppose unto this opinion partly that Apostolicall example and partly also the historie of things done Indeed the Nicene Synod hath not quite allayed the furies of Arius no nor some that followed after But who shall therefore judge that there hath been no fruit of that Synod which even at this very time we doe abundantly reap Yea that Apostolicall Synod hath not altogether restrained Cerinthus and those obstinate maintainers of Circumcision But who would therefore deny that it was necessary for the Church Therefore every one sees that that sentence of Nazianzene doth not concerne Synods rightly ordered unlesse we thinke that he would detract from the Synod of Nice which indeed is very absurd seeing it is well knowne how great a defender he hath been thereof If neverthelesse Arians ceased not to rage through the world how much the more may we thinke that they would have done it if the authority of that holy Synod agreeing whith the word of God so often objected against them had not repressed their renewed endeavours The same we avouch concerning the Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians and their issue whom as many Oecumenicall Synods if not with one wound yet with reiterated blowes have by the word of God stricken downe insomuch that they doe afford us armes against the same springing up againe in this our age Yet when we say these things we doe not hold that the Church is grounded upon the authority of such Assemblies or that all Conventicles by whatsoever name they be called are to be accounted Synods but this one thing we say that God is to be intreated by us in these calamities of the Church that we may duely and holily use these remedies also which are given unto us of God Thus farre Beza The same objection out of Nazianzene is to like purpose answered by Vrsinus when he saith (r) Admon de lib Concord c. 12. Op. tom 2. col 686. The complaint of Nazianzene that he saw no good issue of any Synod we make no generall rule unlesse we would condemne the Orthodoxe Oecumenicall Councels of the ancient Church to have had an evill event which Nazianzene doth not say who speakes of the Synods of his time whereof some were Arian Synods some perhaps confusedly undertaken governed Sibrandus Lubbertus speaks in like manner touching the same testimony of Nazianzene saying (Å¿) De Concil l. 1. c. 1. This unhappines of the events must not be asscribed unto the Councels themselves but to the ambition desire of command in those that assemble as the same Nazianzene doth also testify I. C. ANSVV. V. If the infirmities of the people be a good reason to take away their liberty in practising among themselves all Gods ordinances then the contrary vertues which oftentimes have bene found in them as in staying the rage of the Scribes Pharisies (t) Mat. 21.26 Act. 3.26 in preferring sincere Christians before Arrians (v) Zezom l. 7. c. 7. being themselves sound in the faith (x) Theod. l. 2. cap. 7. when their Ministers have bene Heretickes is a good reason to maintaine their liberty still REPL. 1. This answer is beside the question which is not here touching the peoples liberty as they are distinguished
that it is not capable of them Yet that they of Geneva doe allow the use of Classes and Synods Mr Parker hath there manifested from their writings and the confessions of their adversaries and it doth also appeare by their practise while their joynt Presbyterie doth not greatly differ from a Classis But to speake properly it is not a Classis and to speak truely they are not the first that have approved and practised such kinde of combined government But lest Mr C. should seeme to urge us with the testimonies of these Authours behold what proofes he addes to this purpose I. C. Touching these Assertions I cannot see how Mr Paget or any other is able to disproove them It is acknowledged on all sides that in the first hundred yeares after the Apostles Ministers and Brethren of sundry Congregations met sometimes to conferre mutually together of common Church-affaires yet so as every particular Congregation had alwayes as the Centuries (v) Cent. l. 2. c. 4. p. 391. write power and authority in themselves to chuse their Officers reject Heretickes excommunicate offenders and the like ANSVV. 1. There is nothing here sayd to proove the foresaid assertions but what is grounded upon a false supposition which the Authour-hath before (x) Pag. 30.156 157 164 c. often discovered viz. that particular Congregations have not still their power authority in elections and censures when they are combined with others subject to the power belonging to such combinations for their direction correction in case they offend Mr C. leaving this without proofe the assertions which he offers to maintaine are in like manner left without defence for ought he hath here sayd II. The Magdeburgenses never understood that the consociation of Churches in such sort as it is maintained by the Defendant is inconsistent with that power which they have in themselves as hath been shewed (y) P. 173.174 175. before out of other places of the same Authours according to which the place here quoted must be explained where they speak onely of the Apostles times and of particular Congregations considered in themselves without excluding their confederacy with others for their mutuall help in iudging and deciding of causes I. C. So againe for a hundred yeares next after we read in Eusebius (z) L. 3. c. 22. L. 5. c. 16. L. 3. c. 19. Iraeneus (a) L. 3. c. 1.2.3 Nicephorus (b) L. 4. c. 23. and others that neighbour Ministers came often together when there was any dangerous errour broched or weighty points to be determined serving for generall good but this they did of liberty not of duety partly to preserve mutuall society as Zipperus (c) L. 3. c. 7. sayth partly that they might hereby be the more able to resist adversaries as Mr Parker (d) Eccl. Pol. p. 329 330. sayth ANSVV. His quotations here as they use to be are either misprinted or impertinent howbeit the things themselves for which they are alledged may easily be granted But the question is whether the Synods or meetings of Ministers held in that age did not exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in determining of weighty points and deciding of controversies If so be they did which cannot be denyed seeing as hath been (e) Prof. Leyd Censur Confes Remonstr Pref. § 14. Vedel de Arcan Armin l. 2. c. 6. p. 186. noted against the Arminians such a deciding of Ecclesiasticall controversies was used in all the Synods of the ancient Orthodox Church then it must needs follow that those times have given testimony unto such Synods as are here maintained But to avoyd this Conclusion Mr C. puts in this shift which we must take upon his owne credit saying this they did of liberty not of duety But to what purpose is this evasion 1. The opposing of dangerous errours the preserving of mutuall society and seeking help for the resisting of adversaries the things here spoken of are necessary dueties and therefore to be done of duety and not of liberty See before p. 78. Men are bound to the performance itself though there may be liberty used in the choyce of the circumstances 11. Mr Parker saith expressely in the very place here cited by Mr C. that (f) De Pol. Eccl. l. 3. p. 329. the ground of the combination of Churches is the duety of maintaining mutuall society c. and that bond of mutuall help which Moses mentioneth Num. 32.6 where the Reubenites and Gadites are urged to their duety not left to their liberty In the next place he telles us his opinion touching the limits of Synodall actions to wit that (g) Ch. pl. p. 95. Ecclesiasticall Officers may conclude what they judge meet good but not make a Church-act or sentence unlesse the Church first know it give their free consent unto it As if to any effectuall purpose weighty points could be determined mutuall society preserved and adversaries resisted when dangerous errours are broched which are the reasons he himself hath allowed for assembling in Synods while every Church is left free to itself to approve or reject what is so concluded His reason is because the power authoritie to make church-Church-acts is in the body of the Congregation The proofe hereof as it is understood applyed by him is yet to be expected _____ Comming downe to the next hundred yeares he seemes to acknowledge the practise of those times to be against him but to excuse the matter he alledgeth Casaubon D. Whitaker Mornaeus Brightman yea and Cyprian Eusebius and Ambrose testifying that in those times men began to devise a new order and manner of governing Churches c. Observe here a notable fallacy in his insinuating that to be the cause of such speeches which indeed was not It is true that these and other Authours have complained of changes and corruptions crept into the Church in those times but not because of Synodall authority then exercised nay this hath ever been accounted the happines of those times that the Churches had more liberty to assemble in Synods then they could have before in the times of persecution under Heathen Emperours Constantine is every where commended for his religious respect unto the welfare of the Church in assembling the Synod of Nice On the other side the wickednes of Licinius is noted by his forbidding the use of such Assemblies Though Episcopall dignity grew to a greater height in those times then before yet Synodall jurisdiction was the same that had been used formerly save onely that the favour of the Emperours publick liberty and the increase of offences together with the inlargement of the Churches are (h) Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 10. c. 3. Iun. Animadv in Bellarm. de Concil l. 1. c. 10. n. 2. Camerar Hist Syn. Nic. p. 212. edit Niceph observed to have made the Assemblies more generall and frequent then in former ages And therefore whatsoever Mr C. affirme there is no reason why we should dissent from
not make decrees for the deciding of controversies as Vedelius (t) De Arcan Armin. l. 2. c. 6. p. 183.184 sheweth against the Arminians III. Though the decrees of Synods have no absolute authority yet being framed according to the word of God they doe specially binde the Churches that are in combination with them as when a church-Church-act or sentence is made so as Mr C. would have it he will not deny but that the Congregation is bound to observe it The other exceptions here added are already answered IN the next place he undertakes to answer what was objected touching the long continuance of that which some of later times onely did complaine of Here Mr C. brings in W.B. pretending ignorance of the former state of that Cogregation yet in such termes as might hide the point in question from the inconsiderate Reader But not to speak of what hath been frequently noted before the colour given to this pretēce which W.B. probably never dreamed of till it was suggested by Mr C. is when he makes him say The thing specially which induced me so to thinke was his owne words written to Mr Ainsworth reporting how he was first made our Minister hee saith (v) Arrow ag Separ p. 116. The Dutch Eldership in this City being desired both for their counsell help in his ordination deputed three of their brethren to assist us in this businesse c. this they did not as assuming authoritie * Note to themselves over us but in our name by our request c. If the Classis assumed not then any authority unto themselves over us how comes it to passe that they doe it now Or how will it hang together that their power is ancient and yet 20 or 30 yeares past they used it not This to me seemes grosse contradiction c. REPL. This his conceit of a grosse contradiction which he is so taken with that he spends almost a whole page of his Rhetorick upon it is no better then a grosse mistake of his owne which he hath blindely runne into by not discerning betwixt things that differ 1. He confounds these two things as if they were one the same viz. the Dutch Eldership of that city the Classis which being two distinct assemblies there can be no contradiction in affirming that of the one which is denyed of the other The Dutch Eldership is not the Classis no more then the English Eldership of the same city They are both members of the Classis together with other Congregations of the neighbour townes villages Now the Elderships of particular Churches are not subject one to another neither doth one exercise authority over another as hath been shewed (x) Pag. 29 30 159. before It is the Classis or combination of more Churches or Elderships sending their Deputies thither to whom is asscribed the power of determining the matters of particular Congregations And this is so evident that if Mr C. had but consulted hereabout with W. B. in whose name he pleades on this manner he might have been sufficiently informed of this trueth Yea he might easily have learnt it out of the Authours former book where he saith of the same Dutch Consistory (y) Answ to W. B. p. 70 71. Though they had no power to judge determine the matter by their sentence yet they refused not to give their counsell c. 11. Though it had been spokē of the Classis which was sayd of the Dutch Consistory yet there had been no contradiction in the Authors words saying that they assumed no authority to themselves over them in his Ordination yet avouching that the power which they exercised of later times is the same which they had practised long before for 1. The power which the Classis exerciseth is not by them assumed but given unto them acknowledged to be their due by the Congregations that either at first or afterwards enter into this confederacy for the submitting of themselves unto such an assembly in all requisite cases 2. The orders according to which the Classes doe here exercise their authority (z) Kerckē Orden Nat. Syn. Dordr Art 4. doe not in ordinary cases require the manifestation thereof in the Ordination of Ministers which being onely (a) Ames Medul l. 1. c. 39. th 34. the solemne introduction of the Minister already chosen into the free exercise of his function the Classis doth leave it to the Congregation itself after they have consented to the choyce of the Minister 3. When a Congregation destitute of fit men for the solemnising of an Ordination doth seek unto a neighbour Classis Consistory or Minister for their counsel help herein they that in such cases doe yeeld unto their desire doe not exercise authority over that Congregation where the Minister is ordained seeing they performe that work in the name at the request of the sayd Congregatiō Whatsoever power authoritie is therein exercised by a neighbour Minister is not by him assumed but received from the desire of those that seek his help for the performance of this service unto them in a time of need as the Authour had before explained himself in the (b) Arrow ag Separ p. 111 112.114 same book And therefore he hath herein no way contradicted himself neither can this excuse W.B. from that which was objected unto him But by the conclusion of this plea it seemes Mr C. did not so much intend thereby the defence of his client as the casting of some disgrace upon the Authours book called An Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists which he loves to have a fling at upon all occasions but his beating of the aire is apparent to those that observe his blowes mark where they light From what is now said it is manifest how vainely he hath here applyed against the said book what the Author had sayd touching Mr Robinsons Iustification of Separation viz. that it was sick of King Iehorams incurable disease c. which Mr C. himself hath (c) Stay against straying p. 142. elswhere in his wonted language acknowledged to be true But to hasten to an end to oppose somewhat unto this censorious the forementioned slanderous conclusion of Mr C. that the Reader may partly understand what entertainment that Arrow against the Separation hath had among the godly learned what they have judged of the Authors paines therein I have here set downe the testimony of that worthy servant of Christ Frō Bunb Iul. 8. 1619. Mr Hy. as it was written by himself to the Authour in these words I thanke you for the Arrow of your owne Quiver which now of late I have receaved according to your letter You have fashioned feathered it so well headed poynted it with such diligence care drawne it up to the head with such strength directed discharged it with such so sure ayme skill that it hath pierced