hath ordained these Holy assemblies with promise that they being gathered together in the name of Christ he himself will be among them With the Synod the Pastour hath authority to determine concerning regiment of the Church Againe (d) P. 115 116. 117. Let us returne to the authority of the Synod which consisteth in deciding and determining such matters as cannot otherwise in particular Churches be concluded either because they concerne the common state of all Churches or because they lack sufficient authority in some one Church First therefore the lawfull Synod hath to consider if any controversy of doctrine doe arise that it be determined by the word of God c. Secondly it hath to determine of the use of the ceremonies not of will without reason or ground of Scripture but upon necessary causes of avoiding offence and similitude of superstition of bearing with the weak of order and comelinesse and edification So did the Synod of the Apostles and Elders command for a time abstinencie from meat offered to Idols otherwise lawfull in it selfe for offences sake c. Also for order and comelines and best edification the Synod hath to determine what shall be observed in particular charges as of the time place and forme of preaching and praying and administring of the Sacraments For who should be able to know what order comelines and edification requireth according to Gods word but they that be teachers and preachers of the same unto all others For it is absurd that they should be taught by such in these small things as ought to learne the trueth of them in all matters c. (e) P. 118. It is out of all controversy that before there were any Christian Magistrates this authority was proper unto the Synod Which authority we know to be granted to the Church by our Saviour Christ practised by his Apostles continued by their successours three hundred yeares before there were any Christian Emperours and long time after there were Christian Emperours even as long as any puritie continued in religion untill both Emperours and Synods were thrust out of all lawfull authoritie which they ought to have in the Church by the tyrannie of Antichrist In the same learned Discourse of Ecclesiasticall Government it is further added (f) P. 122. 123. 124. The Synod hath further authority concerning Discipline to reforme and redresse by Ecclesiasticall Censure all such defaults and controversies as cannot be determined in the particular Churches as for example If the Pastour himselfe have need to be severely punished where there is but one Pastour in a Church or if Elders which should be reformers of others have notoriously misgoverned themselves or if they have beene led by affection to condemne an innocent or to justifye the ungodly in these and such like cases all contention is to be concluded by the authority of the Synod Some example we have thereof Act. 15. where those contentious Schismatiques that withstood Paul and Barnabas at Antiochia were constrained to yeeld by authority of the Councell and Paul and Barnabas restored to their credit For which causes Synodes ought oftentimes to be assembled though not generall of the whole Realme but particular of every Province or Shire as it may be most conveniently that such things as are to be reformed may be redressed with speed These and many other such like assertions in allowance of Synods and their authority hath this learned Authour whom yet they have alledged against me Had Will. Best but had so much wit or conscience as to have duely looked upon these English Authors being but small treatises and perused them diligently he might easily have learned hereby what order God requires in the Government of his Church But taking so much upon trust and presuming blindely upon the fidelity and skill of a Brownist therefore is he runne into Scandall having published many slanders against the Churches of Christ and wrested so many witnesses against their meanings In the next place the Testimony of Mr Fenner doth fitly offer itself to be examined of us for seeing he tooke upon him the Defence of the former Authour against Bridges who impugned that learned Discourse of Eccles Gov. we have reason to exspect that he also will defend the authority of Synods in like manner As for the two pages which Mr Ca. (g) Against Bridges p. 15 16. alledgeth he neither specifyeth his words neither doe I finde in either of those pages any one word against the use of Classes or Synods amōgst us but on the contrary a cleare testimony which he gives unto them For speaking there in pag. 16. of the forme of Discipline appoynted of God and of the severall points thereof particularly set downe in the word of God with other he reckoneth up these the joynt care of Elderships and Synods Afterwards he speaketh more fully in praise of this government and saith (h) Def. of Ecc. Disci ag Bridg. p. 105. The nature of this order itself which admitteth no Minister but learned nor any decision of weight but by advise of many with appointed conferences and Synods of learned men for such purposes besides the assurance of Gods favourable blessing of his owne ordinance and the experience of the Synodes of the Reformed Churches the comparison of their judgements Canons and other constitutions with the like of the other in any part beareth witnesse whether the want of learning and pietie both must needes be greater in it then in the other Whereas D. Fulk had given unto these Churches which have a Classicall and Synodall government the title and praise of (i) Learn Disc of Ecc. Gov. p. 7. rightly reformed Churches when D. Bridges was offended therewith Mr Fenner maintaines that praise to be due unto them and commends k their entire and whole obedience which they yeeld to God in receyving all the holy doctrine of our Saviour Christ both concerning things to be beleeved and also concerning the spirituall policie Discipline and order for guiding of his Church And further in the same place he repeats and undertakes to defend D. Fulkes words perswading to imbrace that most beautifull order of Ecclesiasticall regiment which God doth so manifestly blesse and prosper in our neighbours hands Hereby it may appeare how farre Mr Fenner was from that erroneous and slanderous spirit of Mr C. and W.B. And here by the example of W. Best all simple ignorant men are to be warned of publishing such false things as he hath done upon the credit of other men that are strangers from the Churches of Christ Moreover the judgement of Mr Fenner in approving this use of Synods for the government of Churches and judgement of causes may be clearly seen in sundry other testimonies which he hath given to this purpose and which I have (l) P. 84-88 before noted where among the rest when having maintained the right of Synods to be jure divino alledging many Scriptures for the warrant thereof he
what was before (i) P. 204. alledged out of D. F. whom he had cited for his witnesse who speaking of the authoritie of Synodes sayth Which authoritie we know to be granted to the Church by our Saviour Christ practised by his Apostles cōtinued by their successours 300 yeares before there were any Christian Emperours Afterwards falling againe to the point of Popular Government he sayth (k) Ch. pl. p. 95. Mr Beza is very streyt to the people hardly granting the liberty which the very Iesuits doe he should have shewed wherein for the Iesuites are knowne to (l) Bellarm. de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 5. Mariana Em. Sa in Mat. 18.17 expound the word Church by Prelates in the place whereunto he sends us in Maldonate To evince the late rising of Presbyteriall authoritie in elections he argueth from the 13th Canon of the Synod of Laodicea mentioned (m) Respōsi ad Tract de Ministr Evang. grad c. 22. p. 154 155. by Beza where it was ordered that the election of Ministers should not be permitted to the multitude or people but 1. He doth not rightly interpret the Canon when he saith that this Synod prohibited the body of the Congregation from using that liberty and power which they before alwayes had in Ecclesiasticall government For as Beza saith in the place by him quoted the manner of election here forbidden was not essentiall but accidentall Chemnitius also (n) Exam. Concil Trident par 2. p. 411 412. ed. 1606. shewes that the people were not thereby excluded from the election but that their consent was still required that this Synodall decree was occasioned by the peoples abusing their right unto tumults seditions and diverse confusions 2. By a like inference he might conclude that other erroneous opinions and disordered practises condemned in the Councils and Synods of those times were before allowed and used in the Church THat which he pretends to answer in the third place is taken from this expression which the Authour used in his Preface saying That which some will have to be the slavery bondage of a Church that I esteeme to be the liberty safety and preservation of Churches That which they count a Tyrannicall government that I beleeve to be a Sanctuary against Tyranny and afterwards in the book itself (o) Pag. 83. If I should in doctrine oppugne and in practise deny unto the members of this Church this liberty of appeale unto the Classis as they doe here condemne it in me then might they justly complaine of tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine then had they cause to bewayle their slavery and bondage Thus he declared his judgement touching the benefit of this kinde of government in opposition to the Title prefixed unto the printed Complaints which Mr C. knew best who framed The matter of Argument couched in these words is sufficiently explained and vindicated (p) P. 36 41. before where the libertie of Appeales suitable to common equity and instituted in the Law is prooved to be agreeable unto the doctrine of the Gospel I. C. ANSVV. I. It is a strange course when there ariseth a controversy touching two contrary opinons which of them is true to be embraced to draw the resolution hereof to the consideration of the usefulnes of the opinions or practises questioned As if because a thing is usefull therefore it is to be concluded it is true c. REPL. 1. It is strange Mr C. did not discerne that there is no other course of reasoning in the Authours holding Classicall government to be a Sanctuary against Tyranny the denyall of Appeales a matter of slavery bondage then in Mr Cannes others accounting Independency to be the libertie freedome of a Church subjection to Classicall government slavery bondage What is here sayd unto the one may as fitly be applyed against the other If his answer be found he doth plainely overthrow his owne (q) Ch. pl. p. 71. 76. Arg. 9. Reas 7. Arguments built upon the same foundation which here he seeks to destroy There was no usefulnes mentioned in the Authours words nor any other to be understood then such as is implyed in the sayd other the like expressions and reasonings of Mr C. 11. Though it be certaine that every trueth of God is usefull to be used without gainsaying when it appeareth to be such yet when this trueth is denyed and the point controverted it is no strange course to proove it to be law by the agreement which it hath with that which is confessed to be law This the Authour hath done in the place above mentioned And besides seeing according to that * Salus populi suprema lex esto law of lawes commonly received the safetie of the people is the highest law and that Appeales are (r) Luth. Tom. 1. f. 231. for the relief of the oppressed and a remedy against wrongs injuries why may we not conclude that such a government where they are in due manner admitted is a Sanctuarie against Tyranny and in this respect rather to be embraced then Independency where the same are denyed I. C. ANSVV. II. The Papists and Hierarchie for their Discipline give the very same reason viz. that there may be no Tyranny and oppression among brethren c. REPL. And so doth Mr C. for Independencie (ſ) Ch. pl. p. 76. that a particular Congregation may not of a Mistres become a servant instead of being a superiour wilfully vassall enslave herself c. I. C. ANSVV. III. I doe deny that this government by Classes Synods serves better for the Churches welfare then that which the Apostles instituted c. REPL. And so wil we when he hath prooved that Independency is the government instituted by the Apostles I. C. ANSVV. IV. If it should be granted that particular Congregations by this kinde of government shall have peace profit credit other worldly respects yet this is no sufficient reason c. REPL. The Defendant never used such a reason this is a skarre-crow of his owne setting up and therefore we must give him leave to please himself in that fivefold shot which he makes as it THe fourth reason which he supposeth he hath found in the Authours book is the mention which he made of the determinations of Nationall Synods concerning the power exercised by the Classis and the consent of all Reformed Churches Hereunto he answers I. Councils may erre c. II. These testimonies are all humaine c. III. This reason is the same which the Papists use c. REPL. I. The Decrees of Synods were not alledged to proove the lawfulnes of this government but to shew the established exercise of it before the Author either knew the Classis or they him that therefore he hath not subjected the Church to this power II. Though Coūcils may erre yet it doth not therfore follow that they do alwayes erre that they may
no new rule in the new Testament when the like order was established for going first unto the Eldership and seeking redresse of evill by them Mr Ainsw acknowledgeth that (v) Ibid. p. 451. the keyes of the kingdome of heaven are in more speciall manner given unto them and therefore in speciall manner ought they to be told and spoken unto for the reformation of evils seeing they were to guide and goe before the people as in other affaires so in administring the censures of the Church therefore ordinarily matters were to be brought unto them before they were brought unto the whole Congregatiō 11. As it is the ordinance of God in the new Testament 1. Cor. 5. accordingly the practise of the Reformed Churches in these countries that the more weighty affaires censures of the Church should not be administred without knowledge and consent of the body of the Church so that none is either received for a member of the Church or cast out by excommunication but they doe first tell the Church even the whole Congregatiō is solemnely publickly acquainted therewith liberty granted unto them to shew their assent or dissent therein so Mr Ainsw himself acknowledgeth that there was a like order in the old Testament The Scriptures which he alledgeth and his manner of arguing from them doth import so much Of Israel he saith (x) Cōmun of S. c. 18. § 8. Vnto all every of the Israelites was commended the care observation of all Gods statutes that neither all nor any of them man nor woman nor familie nor tribe should forsake the Lord nor suffer among them any root to bring forth gall and wormwood c. Deut. 29.18 So of the multitude of beleevers and people in the new Testament he writes in like manner that (y) Ibid. § 9. they were willed to exhort and admonish each other even the Officers of the Churches c. and to look that no root of bitternes sprung up and troubled them c. Heb. 12.15 c. Againe he saith (z) Ibid. c. 18. § 8. Even the leprous unclean though the tryall of them apperteyned to the Priests Lev. 13. yet all the children of Israel were to look that such were removed out of the host yea the care of the Priests purity in their administration apperteyned to all the people Levit. 21.1 8 24. And long after both in counsels in the redressing of publick evils and trespasses all Israel indifferently had their hand and presence as the Scripture sheweth 2. Chron. 30.21 23. Ezra 10.1 9 12 c. Then presently he parallels the course of the Churches in the New Testament with this supposed practise in the Old saving The Churches in the Apostles dayes had also the like right and liberty for the multitudes of beleevers were both beholders and actors in the common affaires c. Afterwards againe speaking of the rules of admonition of the censures of the Church he saith (a) Ibid. c. 22. § 12 p. 449. The keeping of which rules belongeth to all the Saints as the commandement directed of old to the children of Israel Num. 5.2 Levit. 19.17 and in the new Testament to all the brethren Church doth shew Matt. 18.15 1. Cor. 5. And thus by his owne confession yea even according to his owne opinion in respect of the Churches power and the peoples right there was no new rule given by Christ in Mat. 18. Whereas it is objected that the Jewish Synedrion (b) H. Barr. Resut of Giff. p. 76. by the institution of God was merely Civill c. that (c) D. Bilsō perpet gov ch 4. p. 21. Moses appointed neither Iudges nor Elders in Citie or Synedrion but they were Magistrates to execute the judgements of the law had the sword to chastise the body and punish with death c. The errour of this assertion hath bene shewed (d) Pag. 34 35.41 before from the Scriptures Deut. 17. 2. Chron. 19. From these places is the distinction of Civill and Ecclesiasticall judgements maintained by many learned Writers as (e) Conf. with Hart c. 6. div 2. p. 203 204. D. Rainolds (f) First reply to D. Whitg p. 192. Secōd reply latter part p. 152.153 Mr Cartwright (g) Counterp in part of Regist p. 490.491 Mr Fenner and the (h) Ibid. p. 522. Defender of him and most largely by (i) Diss de Gub. Eccl. p. 59. c. G. Bucerus As for H. Barrow he sufficiently resutes himself when he acknowledgeth that the Priests did beare the charge and had the deciding of all Ecclesiasticall causes Numb 18. Deut. 17. This they could not doe without judging of them therefore it appeareth hence that they had a double Synedrion one Ecclesiasticall the other Civill CHAP. VI. The third Argument taken from the practise of the primitive Churches in the Apostles times OUr third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitive Christian Churches after the Ascension of Christ from which we reason on this manner That government of the Church which is commended unto us approved by the example of the Apostles and Apostolick Churches is worthily to be embraced of us But the government of the Church by Synods which besides their counsell and admonition doe also with authority judge and determine the weightiest causes and affaires of particular Churches is commended unto us as is above sayd Therefore c. The Assumption of this Argument is proved I. By that holy assembly or Synod which is recorded Act. 1 15-26 wherein there was not onely counsell given but also an exercise of Ecclesiasticall power authoritie and that in such a busines as was of great and rare importance in the choyse of a new Apostle This Assembly was not an ordinary Congregation or particular Church but it was a Synodicall assembly and performed such a work as did not belong unto any one particular Church This appeares divers wayes I. In respect of the persons of whom this Assembly did consist and these againe of two sorts First of Apostles who being such persons as were not tyed unto any particular Church but had an universall charge Matt. 28.19 Rom. 10.15 18. This commission was unto them as much as if they had had a speciall delegation from many or all Churches so that their presence and concurrence was sufficient to make this Assembly in some measure as a generall or universall Synod These eleven Apostles having also a peculiar charge to be at this time at Ierusalem the place of this Assembly and to tarry there for a while Luk. 24.49 Act. 1.4 were by divine direction brought unto this Synod Secondly for other persons the Disciples that were present at this Assembly it appeares they were from divers places some of them from Galilee as the brethren of Christ there mentioned Act. 1.14 with Mat. 13.55 56. how many of them were inhabitants of Ierusalem or Iudaea it is not specifyed
so that the 120 persons met together at this time Act. 1.15 cānot be sayd to have bene a distinct particular Church of persons dwelling in Ierusalem but an occasionall assembly or Synod upon such ground as the story of the Scripture doth manifest II. In respect of the busines it self here performed viz. the election of an Apostle it was such a work as did not appertaine unto any one particular Church but all Churches had interest therein seeing the care of all the Churches was cōmitted unto the Apostles 2. Cor. 11.28 All Churches were alike bound to beware of false Apostles that could transforme themselves into the Apostles of Christ 2. Cor. 11.13 It had bene a presumption in any one Church and a wrong unto all the rest if without their consent one alone should have chosen an Apostle especially considering there were even at this time a multitude of the faithfull in other places whom this work concerned Many had bene lately converted by the ministery of Iohn Baptist Matt. 11.12 and now immediately before the Ascension of Christ we read of more then 500 brethren at once which were witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ 1. Cor. 15.6 These 120 had done injury unto them save that these generall persons the Apostles called of God for the service of all Churches did for them by divine appointment appeare in this Synod III. In respect of the manner of this election which was made with a threefold limitation 1. Unto one of those men which had companyed with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Iesus went in and out among them beginning from the baptisme of Iohn even untill that same day that he was taken up from them Act. 1.21 22. Now these Disciples that thus waited on Christ such as Barsabas and Matthias were being no inhabitants of Ierusalem what power had a particular Church to determine and dispose of them that were no members of their particular society 2. There was a restraint from absolute electing of any one of these they were onely allowed to present two and to offer them unto the choyse of the Lord. vers 23.24 3. The way and meanes of inquiring the will of God herein was determined and restrained unto a Lot whereby the judgment and definitive sentence of God was declared unto the Synod that rested therein And by these extraordinary directions it pleased God to honour this first Synod of the new Testament It is here also to be observed that although some Writers have spoken of this election as made by a particular Church yet we have sundry learned men consenting with us in the exposition of this story who labouring to shew the profit and necessity of Synods (a) Whitak de Concil qu. 1. c. 3. doe argue from this place Act. 1. and affirme that in the New Testament the Apostles and whole Church did celebrate a Synod for the choosing of Matthias into the place of Iudas The Professours of Leyden to the same purpose (b) Synops pur Theol. Disp 49. alledge this example Act. 1. and call it the first Synod at Ierusalem II. The example of that renowned Synod which is recorded Act. 15. is a sufficiēt warrant wherein the use and authority of Classes and Synods is commended unto us and this not onely for counsell and admonition but also for the judgement of causes and for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction As that which went before the Synod namely the great dissention about a dangerous errour with seeking of redresse by a solemne deputation of messengers from the Church of Antioch Act. 15.1 2. did call for help in the most effectuall manner so the things done in the Synod are an evidence of the authority which they used therein both by a definitive sentence which they pronounced concerning that controversy which was brought unto them vers 28 29. and by an authentick ambassage of chosen men sent from that Assembly of Apostles Elders and brethren both to carry the Epistle that was written and by word of mouth to declare the same things vers 22 23 25 27. That also which is noted to have bene done after the Synod in the publication of the acts thereof doth also beare witnesse touching the authority of those acts in that they are called the decrees ordained of the Apostles and Elders c. Act. 16.4 The fruit also which by the blessing of God followed hereupon in being a meanes of great consolation and establishment of the Churches in the faith Act. 15.31 16.5 is to be considered as an argument whereby the H. Ghost doth further commend unto us the authority of such Synods in the right government of the Church Upon this example doe generally all judicious Writers build the authority of Synods as upon a sure foundation groundwork Calvine saith that (c) Cōment in Act. 15.6 here is prescribed of God the forme and order of gathering Synods c. Beza upon this place (d) Annot. maj in Act. 15.12 V. 23. having shewed that here was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or foregoing consultation of the Apostles and Elders which was related unto the whole Church and ratifyed in the common assembly thereof he affirmeth that this was the right forme of a lawfull and true Apostolick Synod c. And both these are to be understood of such Synods as exercised authority of Ecclesiasticall censure according to the practise of those Churches wherein they lived of which more hereafter Bullinger observeth here as is noted by (e) Expos Eccles in Act. 15.6 Marlorate that this custome was in old time diligently kept of the holy Bishops in imitation of the Apostles and complaineth of the neglect thereof D. Rainolds when as the Papist objected unto him that there must be a chief Iudge to end controversies to keep the trueth of faith peace of the Church that it be not pestered with heresies and schismes he answers thereunto (f) Conf. with Hart. c. 6. div 2. p. 206. that The wisedome of God hath committed that chieftie of judgement so to call it not to the soveraigne power of one but to the common care of many For when there was a controversy in the Church of Antioch about the observation of the law of Moses some Iewes teaching contrarie to that which Paul and Barnabas taught they ordained that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should goe up to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question Act. 15.2 And so by their common agreement decree the controversy was ended the trueth of faith kept and peace maintained in the Church After which example the (g) Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. 21. 22. lib. 7. c. 26. 28. Cypr. epist 6. 14 31. 53. 72. 75. Concil Ancyr Gangr Antioch Laodic c. Bishops that succeeded them made the like assemblies on the like occasions and by common conference took order for such matters both of doctrine and discipline
as concerned in common the state of their Church So did the Apostles and Apostolike men provide against schismes and heresies Their wisedome reached not unto the policie of one chiefe judge Thus D. Rainolds doth many wayes acknowledge the authority of Synods he calleth that power which they have the chieftie of judgement he avoucheth that they have it by divine right that the wisedome of God hath committed it unto them he pleadeth from the forenamed warrant Act. 15. he extendeth this power unto matters both of Doctrine and Discipline the testimonies which in his margine he alledgeth out of the Ecclesiasticall history to shew that the like assemblies were kept in succeeding times are such as speak of their excommunicating wicked Hereticks viz. Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. c. l. 7. c. 26 28. c. whereby it appeares that he allowed unto Synods not onely counsell or admonition but a power of exercising Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction censure Those Councels mentioned and poynted at by him for instances of this chieftie of judgement were such as did not onely admonish but also determine and judge of causes The Synod of (h) Barthol Carranza Summa Concil p. â—3 c. Ancyra in Galatia made most severe Ecclesiasticall lawes for the excluding of such as did fall in time of persecution The Synod of (i) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 3. col 111. c. 6. col 463 Gangris in Paphlagonia exercised Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in deposing Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia for his errours and the like might be noted for the rest Whatsoever particular errours were in any of these yet the authority and jurisdiction it self is approved of him as proceeding from the wisedome of God declared in this place Act. 15. D. Whitaker in his disputation against Bellarmine touching Councels layes downe this Text Act. 15.6 for a ground of that which he takes occasion to intreat of and (k) De Concil Qu. 1. c. 1. p 1 3 4 c. often repeats that text applying it to each of the questions which he discusseth And whereas our Opposites doe grant a lawfull use of Synods for counsell but not to judge nor to give judiciall sentence for the deciding of causes D. Whitak describing the State of the Question betwixt us and the Papists touching the persons that are to be called to a Synod shewes that (l) Ibid. qu. 3. c. 1. p. 79. the Papists will have onely the Bishops or greater Prelates to be allowed for judges and the Presbyters or inferiour Clergie to be onely inquisitors disputers or consulters to give counsell but not to have suffrages in giving definitive sentences This is the opinion of the (m) Bellar. Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 15. Romish Church Now D. Whit. in the refutation of the Papists doth as wel refute the Brownists and other opposites while he proves (n) De Concil qu. 3. c. 3. that all who have a lawfull deputation and calling are to be allowed for judges and not for counsellers onely and that their suffrage is not onely for consultation but for decision as is hereafter shewed more at large Observe onely at this time that the first argument in that dispute is taken from this very place Act. 15. G. Bucerus pleads from this same ground of Scripture and writes (o) Dissert de Gub. Ecc. p. 65. that not onely severall particular Churches had their proper distinct Presbyteries but that the history of the Apostles witnesseth that when greater controversies did arise which could not be ended in lesser Colleges then more Churches under the new Testament did runne unto a Generall Synod Act. 15. And what power they were wont to exercise therein he shewes by a distinction of persons comming to the Synod As D. Whit. refuting the popish distinction of greater and lesser Clergie shewes that there was a right and power of suffrages judgement in the Synod so Bucerus (p) Ibid. p. 107. 108. c. confirming the distinction of Iunius viz. that some persons came to the Synods as Delegates sent from the Churches which therefore did give definitive sentence of matters propounded that others comming without such deputation and commission might give their advise and counsell but without suffrages doth hereby acknowledge a power of jurisdiction in the Synod by those that were peculiarly called to be judges therein Zepperus (q) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 8. de Syn. p. 713. 714. 715. c. alledging Act. 15. for a patterne of Synods declares that after the Apostles the primitive Church in the new Testament being most studious of this consociation or combination in Synods did not onely communicate by letters but meeting together in Nationall or Generall Councels did heare the causes of Hereticks others that appeared before them so convinced condemned and excommunicated them sent their decrees unto all Churches with the names heresies of those that were excommunicate c. Thus did he acknowledge the right of Synods not onely for counsell admonition but also for jurisdiction in censuring Piscator (r) Thes Theolog. vol. 1. Loc. 23. p. 361-364 writing of Councels and Synods and of the seven questions concerning them doth seven times alledge this place Act. 15. for a ground of direction in each of them And for the authority of Synods he plainly expresseth his meaning when speaking of the government of the Church in generall he sayth * Thes 62 63. it consisteth chiefly in Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and againe distinguishing this jurisdiction into two parts he sayth that the one part consisteth in the power of making lawes potissimum spectatur in Conciliis that is it is chiefly seen in Synods Bucanus (f) Loc. CoÌ„ Loc. 43. qu. 21 22 25 27. writes much to the same purpose and asscribeth unto Synods authority of making lawes of deciding controversies and this from the example of that Synod Act. 15. often mentioned by him Mr Fenner (t) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 278-281 briefly and methodically describing the nature of Synods the kindes the use authority of them doth derive their authority from this ground Act. 15. which even in that short description is more then tenne times alledged by him Many other such Testimonies might be produced to shew the consent of judicious and learned Divines in this poynt of which somewhat more is to be sayd when I come to give answer touching that multitude of Authors which Mr Canne alledgeth against me Let us now heare what my Opposites say concerning this Example Mr Dav. his Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered I. DAV * Apol reply p. 254. 255. This Text Act. 15. is alledged by Bellarmine to prove the binding force of the decrees of Councills and by the Answerer to shew the authority of the Classis whereunto Iunius giveth 2 answers also 1. Non sequitur ex particulari si custodienda fuerint decreta Concilii Apostolici ergo omnium servari oportere It
doeth not follow from a particular that because the decrees of an Apostolicall Councill are to be observed therefore the decrees of all Councills must be so kept Contr. 3. li. 4. cap. 16. And whereas Bellarmine affirmeth that the question there was not defined by Scripture but by the voyces of the Apostles Iunius denyeth that any thing was ordained in that Councill but from the Scriptures as he had before demonstrated and thereunto referreth the Reader ANSVV. I. It may be observed here how untrue it is which Mr Dav. pretends in excuse of his large writing saying (v) Pref. to the Reader For the help of the Reader in comparing the Reply with the Answer I have inserted his owne words every where This hath he not done here nor in many other places I shewed (x) Answ to unj cōpl p. 88. how this place Act. 15. had bene alledged by another against the Brownists and that this his allegation served to condemne both himself and his fellowes Mr D. hath neither inserted mine owne words nor yet the words of him that had alledged this place II. In alledging the two answers of Iunius unto Bellarmine he wanders wide from the question in hand I am of the same minde with Iunius in both those answers Though the decrees of that Apostolicall Synod were infallibly true and just yet is it not so with other Synods many whereof are to be rejected for their erroneous and unjust decrees All the decrees in that Synod Act. 15. were grounded upon the Scriptures and rested not merely upon the suffrages of men Iunius had just cause so to answer Bellarmine that maintained an unlawfull and absolute authority of Synods and exacted obedience of necessity to all their decrees Is not this to abuse both me and his Readers and to bleare their eyes that they should not rightly discerne the state of the question III. That the Reader may better conceive in what manner an authority and power is asscribed to Classes and Synods let the authority of particular Churches be considered as an example and modell of that authority which is in Synods My opposites themselves confesse that there is in particular Congregations an authority and power to judge and censure offendours and yet they will not deny but that they may erre in their judgements that they want such infallible direction as the Apostles had and that their decrees and Ecclesiasticall censures are to be regarded no further then they are grounded upon the Scriptures So is it with the authority of Classes Synods I. DAV (y) Apol. reply p. 255. And whereas Bellarmine sayth that the decree of the Apostles was not left to the examination of the Disciples but that they were simply commanded to obey Iunius chargeth him with falsely supposing two things 1. That the Apostles alone made this order For the Elders concurred with the Apostles in this sentence and the whole Church all of them being taught by the spirit of trueth to think the same thing And this he saith is the manner of proceeding in those Councills where Christ is praesident 2. That the same respect is to be had to the determination of others as of the Apostles Which is an errour he sayth For it was the singular priviledge of the Apostles that they had immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and infallibility in their Apostolicall determinations so that what they delivered was to be received without examination whereas the dictates and sentences of all other are to be examined by their writings whereby it appeareth that the Scripture acknowledgeth no such power of making lawes to be due to the Classes unlesse they can produce some other texts which when they shall be alledged shall be further examined if God permit ANSVV. I. All that Mr Davenp hath here set downe is wholy impertinent and all being granted our assertion touching the lawfull authority of Synods Classes remaineth firme We grant with Iunius (z) Animadv in Bellarm Contro 4. l. 1. c. 18. § 11. that the Apostles alone did not judge but the Elder and others also concurred with them not onely in counsell but in giving judiciall sentence with them We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of others as of the Apostles we grant that no such power of making lawes is due to Classes that is no such power of infallible determinations c. and yet we hold they have a lawfull authority of judging and deciding controversies c. The like we hold concerning particular Churches with their Elderships we grant they have no such power of infallible determinations and yet a lawfull power to determine and judge of causes We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of particular Churches as of the Apostles and yet a due respect not onely for admonition and counsell but also for power to censure and to give sentence We grant that the censures sentences and judgements as well of Elderships and Churches as of Synods and Classes are in like manner to be tryed and examined by the Scriptures and yet this grant impeacheth not the lawfull authority of either of them in exercising a power of judgement II. For the better direction how to discerne judge of the actions of the Apostles and how farre their example is a rule of practise and imitation to the Church of God it shall not be amisse to set downe a profitable and usefull distinction observed by Iunius (a) Ibid. lib. 2. c. 16. n. 6. which is that the Apostles had a twofold manner of Power Common and Proper The Common is that ordinary power which they had together with the Elders as they were Bishops The Proper or peculiar is that extraordinary povver which was for a while given unto the Evangelicall Church at the springing up thereof in respect of which the Apostles were above the whole Church According to that common power Peter was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fellow Elder 1. Pet. 5.1 according to this peculiar power he destroyed Ananias and Sapphira Act. 5. By that common power Paul sayth 1. Cor. 5.4 You and my spirit being gathered together in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ but by that peculiar power he sayth what will you shall I come unto you with a rod c. 1. Cor. 4.20 This he sets downe elswhere more fully and applyes it to the power exercised Act. 15. saying (b) Ibid. l. 1 c. 16. n. 1. Here the Aposles are sayd to have used communication therefore this power was common to the Church and not a peculiar action of the Apostles in this Synod at Ierusalem We doe therefore thus determine distinctly concerning this thing All that were furnished with gifts and calling judged in this Synod first the Apostles and Apostolick men then the Elders that laboured in the ministery of the Word as well they of the place in Ierusalem as those of Antioch if any moreover
were come from other places c. Therefore when we alledge this example Act. 15. to shew the authority and power of Synods in judging of controversies those that to frustrate elude this example doe plead and except that the Apostles had extraordinary power they are here reproved by Iunius who shewes that though the Apostles had extraordinary gifts in judging which might procure the more respect in that regard yet the power it self by which they did judge Act. 15. was not extraordinary and peculiar to the Apostles but ordinary and common to Ministers Elders other Deputies of the Churches therefore commonly perpetually to be observed used as occasion requireth Mr Can's Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered BEfore he comes to the point he intreats me to resolve five Questions the two latter whereof I have answered (c) Pag. 34. before the other with their answers are as followeth I. CAN. I. (d) Churches plea p. 32 33. Whither the Assembly mentioned in Act. 15. there a Synod or Classis ANSVV. The Assembly mentioned Act. 15. was a Synod and not properly a Classis according to the usuall acception of the word in these places Classes are Assemblies of Ministers comming often together out of neighbour Churches within a lesser circuit Synods have a larger extent comprehend many Classes under them come more seldome together I. CAN. II. How it can be manifested from that place that both are divine institutions as here is affirmed ANSVV. This place Act. 15. or any other that yeelds warrant for one of these Assemblies yeelds it for both because both are of like nature and differ not essentially but in circumstantiall matters of time place number of persons In both these is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority over particular Churches in respect of both there appeareth a mutuall dependence of Churches that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church which is the Question betwixt us I. CAN. III. How he can naturally from thence rayse this doctrine viz. Excommunications and elections of Ministers are actions belonging unto Classes and Synods ANSVV. When I rayse such a doctrine from Act. 15. as he mentions which I have not done any where then is it time for me to manifest how the same ariseth naturally from the Text. Election of Ministers is an action belonging to severall Congregations and not to Classes and Synods but if any particular Churches doe offend in choosing unlawfull and unfit persons then are Classes and Synods to judge thereof and to hinder such elections Had the Church of Antioch gone about to elect for a Minister among them one of that Sect which taught the brethren there Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Act. 15.1.5 then had the Synod at Ierusalem authority to have hindred that election which appeareth because they had power to make a decree against such false doctrine Act. 15.28 And thence also it followeth that if any of the Christian Pharisees had stood obstinately in such errours tending to the subversion of soules to the bringing in of another Gospel and making Christ become of no effect unto men Act. 15.24 Gal. 1.6 7. 5.2 3 4. then after due conviction that Synod at Ierusalem had authority as well to censure the person as to condemne his errour having in readines a revenge against all disobedience 2. Cor. 10.6 with Gal. 1.8 9. especially if the particular Church whereof such a person was a member should refuse to doe the same according to their direction I. CAN. To the point now I doe deny that this place Act. 15. proveth any such thing for which it is alledged For I. Here was no combination of many Ministers of divers Churches but onely a few messengers sent from Antiochia unto the Congregation at Ierusalem about a controversy there specifyed Hence it is affirmed by many learned men (e) D. Brid pag. 1224. that as this was an assembly of one onely particular Church so it binds (f) D. Whit. de Conc. qu. 2. p. 6. 67 onely but in a speciall or particular meeting ANSVV. I. It is untrue which he sayth that here was no combination of many Ministers of divers Churches because here were the Ministers of all Churches even the Apostles that had the care of all the Churches of whom all Churches might say these are our Ministers Act. 15.6.2 Cor. 11.28.1 Cor. 3.21 22. Mat. 28.19 This was the noblest combination of Ministers that ever was II. It is without warrant that he saith onely a few messengers were sent from Antiochia for besides Paul and Barnabas the deputies and messengers of that Church which might stand for many other it is sayd that certaine other of them were sent Act. 15.2 but how many or how few it is not specifyed III. That which he alledgeth from D. Bridges is unsound viz. that this was an Assembly of one onely particular Church As it is expressely against the text so I may oppose against in the testimony of Iunius * Pag. 68. before noted who speaking of them that judged in this Synod reckons up first the Apostles and Apostolick men then the Elders that laboured in the ministery of the Word as well them of the place in Ierusalem as those of Antioch and if any moreover were come from other places c. IV. Whereas he citeth D. Whitaker as if he affirmed of this Synod at Ierusalem that it bindes onely but in a speciall or particular meeting he doth herein falsify the testimony of D. Whitak for though he distinguishing Synods into Particular Provinciall or Nationall Universall doth in (g) De Concil Qu. 1. c. 2. p. 6. that place call this a Particular Synod yet hath he no such assertion as though it should binde onely in a speciall or particular meeting and it had bene against the text Act. 15.23 16.4 where it is noted that the Synodicall Epistle was sent unto the Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch Syria Cilicia that they might observe the decrees thereof As for that (h) Ibid. p. 67. other place out of D. Whit. it is misalledged there being no such matter at all there mentioned Instead of that mistaken place let him consider what Mr Cartwright saith hereof (i) Confut. of Rhem. Annot. on Act. 15.6 We will not strive whether the Councell were Generall or Provinciall but it may be counted a Generall Councell in respect of the presence of the Apostles which were Governours of all the Churches of the world I. CAN. II. As Mr Cartwright saith (k) Refut of Rhem. on the place Paul and Barnabas went not up to Ierusalem to submit their judgement to the judgement of the Apostles for that had diminished the authoritie of their doctrine then which there was no greater in the world they being both infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost Onely they went up to conferre with them and for countenance of the truth in respect of men
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
he so boldly affirmeth to be unquestionably certain viz. that which is indeed the first part of this Argument is on the contrary most certainly false This consequence of his Major proposition remaines to be proved Scripture he alledgeth none at all and for those eleven Authors mentioned by him there is not one of them that confirmes his consequence Why did he not expresse their words apply them to his purpose enforce thē against us if he thought they would have served his turne It is sayd to have bene a stratageme of theeves that to affright men they have taken many hats and set them upon stakes afarre of that passengers imagining them to be men partakers with those theeves that came unto them might the sooner yeeld Thus doth Mr Canne who sets downe the names of many Authors and their writings in his marginall quotations as if they were of his minde or partakers of his cause when as there is no such matter to be found in them Let us heare how he proceeds I. CAN. Againe whereas the Papists and Hierarchy do say much after Mr Pagets new doctrine that the Church of Corinth had not sole and alone authority in itself to exercise Ecclesiasticall government our writers viz. (l) Ref. Rhem. 1. Cor. 5.4 Mr Cartwright (m) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 4. p. 17. 18. c. Mr Parker others refute them and prove the contrary by many reasons ANSVV. That which he saith here of sole and alone authority c. is more then he propounded in his Syllogisme I acknowledge that the Church of Corinth did exercise Ecclesiasticall government within herself and I affirme as much for our owne and other particular Congregations here and Mr Canne with as good reason might argue that we doe not stand under Classes and Synods if there were any soundnes in his Syllogisme My opinion touching the Church of Corinth may be discerned sufficiently by that which I noted touching the 7 Churches in answer to his former argument And as for Mr Cartwright and Mr Parker whom he specially alledgeth they help him not at all I acknowledge Mr Parker doth justly oppose them that held the Church of Corinth did not excommunicate the incestuous person but Apostle alone But I doe more fully assent unto Mr Cartwright who differing something from Mr Parker and refuting the Rhemists most effectually by many reasons doth yet withall shew that the authority and power both of the Apostle and of the Church did concurre in this excommunication Whereas the Rhemists would have the Corinthians to be onely witnesses Mr Cartwright in his third reason against them sayth (n) Conf. of Rhem. upon 1. Cor. 5.4 If the Church were assembled onely to beare witnesse and not to have authority in this case it followeth that Paules spirit was there also onely to look on and beare witnesse considering that the personall presence of the Church and the Apostles spirituall presence are associated in this affaire of the Church Thus he joyneth both together and so afterwards againe reasoning from those words Do not you judge of those that are within 1. Cor. 5.12 he sayth thereupon that the Apostle giveth more unto the Church in excommunication then to be witnesses and lookers on For he useth the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 5.3.12 word to declare the Churches interest that he used before to note his owne If then you will say that the Churches judgement in excommunication is but to beare witnesse it followeth that the Apostles then and consequently their successours now are onely to beare witnesse of the excommunication Hereunto commeth also that the release of this censure is asscribed in the same word of forgivenes or absolutiō unto the Church as unto Paul 2. Cor. 2.10 Now to have the same word in the same verse and the same cause to be understood diversly and referred to Paul to have the proper signification of remitting but referred to the Church to signify a witnessing of remission needeth more learning for the defence of it then falleth unto the Iesuites capacity Thus he shewes that neither the sole authority of the Church on the one side nor the sole authority of Paul on the other side did determine this busines Againe had there a dangerous contention risen in Corinth which by their sole authority they could not end what should have hindred them from following the example of the Church at Antioch in seeking help both by counsell and authority of other Churches for the judgement thereof I. CAN. The latter part is proved before in the Minors of the 1. and 3. arguments ANSVV. It it manifest that he did not know the Minor from the Major in some of his former Syllogismes and so in this place it appeares he doth not discerne the first from the latter part of his argument But what he objected before is already answered it is vaine helples for him to rely upon his former poofes ARGVM V. (o) Churc plea. p. 71. Such actions the Church may lawfully doe wherein no Law of God is broken But there is no Law of God broken when particular Congregations doe in among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances Therefore they may lawfully doe it The proof of the Proposition doth arise from the definition of sinne which as (p) Cōt Fan. l. 22. c. 27. Augustine and (q) Lib. de Paradis c. 8. Ambrose truely define it is either a deed or word or thought against some Divine Law (r) Lib. 2. dist 35. Lombard (ſ) Th. 12. q. 71. Aquinas and other Schoolemen as they are called agree hereto The Assumption is manifest in our first Argument the first part of it ANSVV. This Argument toucheth not the question we grant his Conclusion that particular Congregations may in among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances and among the rest this ordinance of combining themselves in Synods for the decision of their controversies This may be sayd as well to be in among themselves as the use of Synods for counsell which my opposites allow for an ordinance of God And as particular Churches may refuse the counsell of Synods if it be unlawfull so ought they to disobey the sentences and decrees of Synods if they determine any thing contrary to the word of God His Proposition being so manifest it was needles to bring proof for it But the definition of sinne which he brings needlesly is insufficient because it comprehends not all sinne under it There is an originall corruption and depravation of nature which is Sinne considered distinctly apart beside thoughts words or deeds The Law requireth integrity of nature and all disconformity with that Law is sinne though not yet come so farre as thoughts Deut. 6. with 1. Iohn 3.4 The saying of Augustine is to be taken rather for a distribution then for a definition and for a distribution not simply of Sinne but onely of Actuall sinnes as they are either thoughts words or
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.
observe 1. How little Mr Canne understands what the Authors be whom he alledgeth not knowing whether they were Papists or Protestants placing Saravia in the number of Papists so well is he acquainted with the Authors he alledgeth at second hand such injury he doth to his witnesses So afterward (i) P. 93 98. againe in this same book he wrongeth Saravia by setting him among the Popish Writers and making him of their profession and religion by accusing me to make the same objection and to use the same reason that Papists doe and then giving instance in Saravia for one of them What a blindenes and inconsideratenes is this in Mr Canne 11. He perverts the meaning both of Saravia and Schola Parisiensis for what though they grant that all Ecclesiasticall authority belongeth to the Church primarily c. doth it follow hence that the power of Classicall and Provinciall Synods is an undâ—â— power as W.B. and Mr C. accuse them doth it not rather follow that there is a due power secondarily and by delegation in Synods where the Deputies of the Churches meet together in their name Mr Parker (k) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 29.30 42. from whom he hath both these testimonies doth not so alledge them against the authority of Synods He might have seen these words in the same place cited by Mr Parker out of Saravia whereby authority is asscribed not onely unto the Church but also unto Synods when he is (l) Ibid. p. 42. brought in saying Bishops Arch-bishops have no authority but what is conferred and bestowed upon them by the Church and Synods III. He perverts the meaning of Schola Parisiensis which speakes not of particular Congregations but of the Universall Church and specially as it is represented in a Generall Councell This is plaine and evident throughout that whole writing IV. He doth deale deceitfully in his translation of that testimony of Schol. Paris for the Doctours of Sorbon doe there say that all Ecclesiasticall authority doth belong to the Church primarily properly essentially but unto the Romane Pope and other Bishops instrumentally ministerially and for execution onely c. instead of the Romane Pope and other Bishops he puts in the word Officers onely to blinde the eyes of the Readers who if those words had not bene left out might easily have seene that they spake of such transcendent and usurped authority as is exercised by the Pope and his Bishops c. Hence it may appeare what is to be judged of that which he inferres from this testimony to make it serve his purpose in oppugning of Synods As for Alphonsus de Castro and Franciscus Victoria 1. It is an errour to approve their testimony there (m) Ch. pl. p. 78.79 alledged viz. that all Bishops doe receive jurisdiction and power immediately from God for then should they all have an extraordinary calling such as the Apostles had Gal. 1.1 15 16. whereas all ordinary Ministers have their jurisdiction not immediately from God but mediately by men and from the Church How erroneously doe W.B. and Mr C. put light for darknes and darknes for light when they avouch that thus God ordered these mens tongues to give witnesse unto his trueth 11. All the shew of help which they pretend to have from this testimony is grounded upon that groundlesse consequence whereby they inferre that Classes Synods have no authority over particular Congregations because all Churches Elderships and Officers are equall This their assertion remaines yet to be proved which we doe expressely deny as I have (n) P. 159. shewed in my answer unto his first Reason The testimonies of the three next Popish Authors viz. Cusanus de concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11 c. Sanders de visib Mon. l. 1. c. 6. Scultingius Hierarch Anarch l. 4. pag. 103. are all of them before alledged by (o) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 1. p. 2. c. 3. p. 11. Mr Parker from whence it seemes Mr Canne hath taken them but without judgement not applying them aright for 1. When they affirme that Christs promise of giving the keyes unto Peter must be referred unto the whole Church as also that Peter in person presented the body of the Church though these speeches shew the power of binding and loosing to be in the Church yet can it not hence be inferred that a particular Congregation ought not to be subject unto the censure of Classes and Synods or to stand under the authority of any Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of itself when that Congregation is complained of for errour or wrong doing It is a perverting of these speeches and a false consequence which is drawne from hence that because a Congregation hath power to judge the members thereof therefore no other have power to judge of it 11. When Mr Canne inferreth hence that the power of electing Ministers is not in Classes or Synods he beates the ayre erres from the Question When did I ever affirme any such matter or when did the Classis ever offer to obtrude a Minister upon us III. These testimonies touching the Keyes given unto the Church shew what power is in the Church originally and primarily but yet they doe not import that the execution and exercise of this power is in the whole Church Preaching and administration of the Sacraments are a part of that Ecclesiasticall authority comprehended in the power of the Keyes and yet the exercise thereof is not permitted to the whole Church by the confession of the Brownists themselves For his next witnesse having alledged the words of Ferus upon Act. 11. that the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also depose them and reject them altogether if they be not fit c. he insulteth hereupon and gloryeth saying What can be more for us then this I answer This might have bene more for you if he had sayd that when a Congregation hath deposed their Minister there is no other Ecclesiasticall judicatory that may judge whether they have done well or ill This had bene to the purpose then had he absolutely granted you the thing which the Brownists stand for but this he doth not When Mr Canne was deposed from his ministery by them of the Separation and when they rejected him altogether and left both his ministery and the fellowship of all that took part with him was it not his their misery that there was none to judge betwixt theÌ„ When he alledgeth the names of Gratian Gregorie P. Aeneas Sylvius Pope Anacletus Sixtus Senensis Thomas of Aquine Alexander of Ales Iohn Scot c. some of them affirming that the greatest authority is in the Church that the keyes were given to all the Apostles others that all Bishops are equall in power and the like these and the like speeches being alledged to prove the undue power of Classes and Synods they are all perverted neither can the question in controversy be ever concluded from hence against us
It is a most false consequence to inferre that because all Bishops are equall in power therefore Synods have no power to judge and as false it is to inferre that because the Keyes were given to all the Apostles therefore there is no Ecclesiasticall power to judge the actions of a particular Congregation In summe Mr Canne doth most ignorantly and grosly abuse all these Papists against their words their writings and their continuall profession and practise For though there be this maine difference betwixt the Papists that some of them doe asscribe the greatest authority unto the Church that is unto a Generall Synod or Councell maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope power to depose the Pope others of thē asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope rather then unto the Church or a Generall Councell representing the same yet doe they all agree in this that there is a superiour power above particular Congregations to judge the same The University of Paris and the Doctours of Sorbon have in speciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the Pope they (p) De Eccl. Polit. Pot. pag. 1. c. edit 1612. Paris bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same They alledge the sentence of Pope (q) Ibid. p. 16. Zozimus confessing himself to be inferiour unto the Councell They avouch that (r) Ibid. p. 19. the frequent edebrating of Synods is simply and absolutely necessary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church Whereas a certaine Frier Ioannes Sarrazin had by word and writing under his hand preferred the authority of the Pope above the Synods they (ſ) Ibid. p. 46-56 record at large and publish in print a most solemne decree made by the Theologicall faculty of that University whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion and a forme of recantation was prescribed according to which he confessed his fault acknowledged the power of Synods above the Pope The (t) Acts Monum p. 546 547. An. D. 1414. c. Councell of Constance did not onely exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in condemning of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage but also decreeing the authority of Synods and Councells to be above the Pope did actually depose divers Popes as Iohn the 23th and Benedict who was likewise excommunicate by them even as the Councell held at (v) An. D. 1083. Act. Mon. p. 164. Brixia had in former time by their sentence condemned Pope Hildebrand and judged him to be deposed So in like manner did the Clouncell held at (x) Ibid. p. 632.634 Bafile depose Pope Eugenius put another in his place By all which it is evident what the Papists then judged of the authority and power of Synods As all these so the other faction of Papists and the Iesuites in speciall that maintaine the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods Councells whatsoever that their decrees are not of force unlesse they be approved by the Pope these doe evidently teach that the affaires and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superiour judicatories out of themselves This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings where he shewes (y) Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 9 10 11. l. 2. c. 2. c. the causes the necessity and the authority of Generall and Provinciall Synods the (z) Tom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7 8 9 10. 14. c. power of elections and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter The same is maintayned by him in his (a) Tom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14 l. 2. c. 1 c. treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies plenary or for a certaine number of dayes for the living or for the dead And the like is to be found in (b) Tom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 c. Tom 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1 2 3 c. sundry other of his writings And to these might be added more then an hundred of other witnesses of the Romish Church acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes controversies of particular Churches Instead of many other the Councell of Trent called by (c) Concil Trid. Bul. Indict p. 8. Pope Paulus the third continued by (d) Bul. Resumpr p. 66.67 Pope Iulius the third and confirmed by (e) Bul. Confirm p. 243 c. Pope Pius the fourth together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in severall Sessions of that Councell doe give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts. Onely to conclude this Section let it be remembred how of old in our owne countrie the like testimony hath bene given to shew the authority of Synods We read (f) Act. Mon. p. 112. col 2. art 7. of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provinciall Synods should be kept within the Realme at least once a yeare Another Synod (g) Ibid. p. 155. was held at Winchester Anno D. 1070. where Stigandus Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed for receyving his pall from Benedict the fift And another (h) P. 157. was after held at London where many decrees were made in the time of Lanfranck the Archbishop c. This being the continuall and universall practise of the Papists what sense was there in Mr Canne to alledge their testimonies in such a poynt wherein they are so full and pregnant against him It is the fault of Papists that they give too much authority unto Synods and it is as grosse a fault of these my opposites to pervert their testimonies contrary to their meaning practise further then their words will beare SECT II. Touching the Testimonies of Lutheranes IN their first allegation taken from Lutheranes they say It is affirmed by the Centuries of Meydenburg that from Christs ascension unto Trajans time which is about a 100 yeares every particular Church was governed by the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the same Cent. 1. c. 4. To this I answer This allegation comes short of the question in hand and is therefore insufficient and perverted to prove that the Churches then did not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority for it is not affirmed by them of Meydenburgh in their Centuries that the Churches were governed by them alone or that there were no Synods in those times to judge of the actions of Bishops Elders and Deacons in cases of controversy which could not be well ended in particular Churches but the contrary is expressely taught by the same (i) Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. de
not onely the head but the heart of the Brownists cause Rabbines fancyes forgeries wherein I professe you have given me better satisfaction both of your owne sufficiency for polemicall imployment in the Lords service whereof notwithstanding I ever held a very good opinion of the weaknesse vanity of all their forces fortresses raised advanced against either Gods Church or Gods word then hitherto I ever had or could ever by any thing that I have heard or seene attaine unto Which if I might not speake as truely as freely or did not thinke as unfainedly as I write it willingly I should feare this might savour of some spice of flattery which I have I know you neither love nor looke for at my hand The substance of this his judicious unpartiall approbation hath been confirmed by sundry others in like manner eminent for learning piety shall doubtles be further verifyed hereafter according to His gracious disposing who hath sayd * Prov. 10.7 Psal 112.6 The memory of the just is blessed and The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance The Contentes of THE FIRST PART Touching a Particular Eldership CHAP. I. The occasion of this writing and the State of the Question PAG. 1. CHAP. II. Arguments to prove the power of the Eldership in judging and ending some cause without the knowledge of the Congregation PAG. 2. CHAP. III. A Refutation of sundry Errours whereupoÌ„ Mr Ainsworth grounds their Popular Government PAG. 7. CHAP. IV. Whether the people be bound to be present at the proceedings against offendours PAG. 19. THE SECOND PART Touching Classes and Synods CHAP. I. The State of the Question and the importance thereof PAG. 29. CHAP. II. The first Argument taken from the words of the Law Deut. 17 8-12 PAG. 34. CHAP. III. The second Argument taken from the words of Christ Math. 18 15-20 PAG. 42. CHAP. IV. The third Argument takeÌ„ from the practise of the primitive Churches in the Apostles times PAG. 61. Mr Dav. his Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered PAG. 66. Mr Cannes Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered PAG. 81. CHAP. V. An Answer to the Allegations of Mr Davenport touching the Authority of Synods SECT I. His Allegation of Mr Cartwright answered PAG 81. SECT II. His Allegation of Mr Fenner examined PAG 84. SECT III. His Allegation of Mr Parker examined PAG. 88. SECT IV. His Allegation of Dr Ames examined PAG. 106. SECT V. His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined PAG. 111. SECT VI. His Allegation of the Repâ—â—â— upon Dr Doâ—man examined PAG. 116. SECT VII His Allegation of Dr Voetius examined PAG. 118. SECT VIII Touching the English Church at Francford in Q. Maries time PAG. 121. SECT IX Mr Dav. his pretence of agreement with Iunius examined PAG. 125. SECT X. His pretence of agreement with Dr Whitaker examined PAG 133. SECT XI His Allegation of Chamierus examined PAG. 141. CHAP. VI. An Answer to Mr Cannes Arguments PAG. 145. CHAP. VII The Allegations of Mr Canne examined PAG. 16â— SECT I. Touching the Testimonies of Papists PAG 169. SECT II. The Testimonies of Lutheranes PAG. 173. SECT III. The Testimonies of Calvinists PAG. 184. SECT IV. The Testimonies of English Conformists PAG. 196. SECT V. The Testimonies of English Non-Conformists PAG. 200. SECT VI. The Testimonies of ancient Fathers Councels and Emperours PAG. 213. SECT VII The Testimonies of Reformed Churches PAG. 227. A Supplements for answer unto that which followeth in Mr Cannes book touching the evill consequents of Indepudency the Antiquity of Classes and Synods c. PAG. 240. FINIS
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
and for the stopping of the mouthes of such deceivers as pretended they were sent by the Apostles vers 24. In a word that no suspicion might remaine in the minds of the people as if Paul in doctrine differed from the rest ANSVV. I. Mr Canne corrupteth and falsifyeth the words of Mr Cartwright by adding unto them this word Onely Though Paul and Barnabas went up to conferre yet the words of Mr Cartw. are not Onely they went up to conferre as here they are alledged Againe those words that follow which Mr Canne sets downe in such a letter as if Mr Cartw. had spoken word for word in such manner viz. for countenance of the trueth in respect of men and for the stopping of the mouthes of such deceivers as pretended they were sent by the Apostles v. 24. these are the words of Mr Robinson (l) Iustif of Sepat p. 199. verbatim taken out of his writing and therefore ought rather to have bene alledged in his name then in Mr Cartwrights II. Though Paul and Barnabas went up for such ends as are here propounded for countenancing of the trueth c. yet those ends doe not argue that therefore the Synod at Ierusalem did not exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in giving definitive sentence touching the controversy brought unto them seeing those ends were more effectually and fully obtained thereby for by such judiciall sentence the truth was countenanced before men and the mouthes of deceyvers more effectually stopped and suspicion of difference betwixt the Apostles more clearly taken away III. Though Paul and Barnabas went not up to submit their judgement to the judgement of the Apostles yet this hinders not their going to procure that the judgement of those deceyvers which had troubled the Church of Antioch and likewise that the judgement of such as had bene made to doubt by them might be submitted unto the judgement of the Apostles or that those deceyvers might be censured by the Synod if after conviction they should persist in their evill IV. That which Mr Cartw. speakes of P. and Barn not submitting their judgement unto the judgement of the Apostles as if it would have diminished the authority of their doctrine c. is to be understood as I conceive as spoken by way of opposition to the Rhemists and other Papists against whom he dealt who say as well concerning Paul and Barnabas as concerning the other deceivers (m) Rhem. on Act. 15.2 that they did not stand stifly to their owne opinion on either side but condescended to referre the whole controversy and the determination thereof to the Apostles Priests or Ancients c. who hold from Jerome that (n) Rainol Conf. with Hart. c. 4. div 3. p. 133 Paul had not had security of preaching the Gospel unles it had bene approved by the sentence of Peter and of the rest that were with him Such a submission might have diminished the authority of their doctrine and therefore is not to be acknowledged Otherwise there was even in the Apostles themselves a lawfull submissiō unto the judgement of the Church 1. Peter himself as Iunius well (o) Animadv in Bell. de Concil l. 2. c. 16. § 5. observes judicio Ecclesiae subjicitur atque ad cam remittitur voce Christi jubentis Dic Ecclesiae Mat. 18. alibi that is he was subjected unto the judgement of the Church sent unto it by the voyce of Christ commanding Tell the Church Mat. 18. elswhere D. Whitaker also (p) Contro de Concil Qu. 5. c. 3. p. 172. affirmes and confirmes the same thing concerning Peter and why may it not be sayd of Paul and Barnabas as well as of him 2. Seeing Paul and Barnabas were certaine that the Apostles did agree with them in judgement and could not erre in their sentence they knew that the same should not diminish the authority of their doctrine but rather magnify and illustrate the same I. CAN. III. If Ierusalem lay northward 200 miles from Antioch as I read (q) Itiner N. Test fol. 96. it did Surely then he hath small reason to bring this Scripture as the ground and foundation of the Classicall Assembly yea and to tell us * Pag. 88. that it is a remarkable place of Scripture to warrant the exercise of that power which we deny And a little after This one allegation is sufficient to evince the falshood of their assertion ANSVV. I. He mistakes and so perverts the testimony of the Author whom he alledgeth directly contrary to his expresse words who (r) Itiner N.T. p. 66. 82. edit 1624. p. 82. 101. edit 1635. in divers places of this book as is to be seen in the severall editions sayth not as it is alledged that Ierusalem lay Northward from Antioch but on the contrary that Antioch lay Northward from Ierusalem So uncircumspect is he in his quotations II. Suppose it had bene written in his Author so as he alledgeth it yet then it was a great simplicity and want of judgement in him that could not of himself have corrected such a manifest and palpable errour Had he had a very small measure of knowledge in the Geographicall descriptions of the holy Land and the countries bordering thereupon without the knowledge whereof men cannot well understand the story of the Bible there being so many references which the H. Ghost hath unto the different situation of severall places then might he have knowne that Ierusalem lay Southward and Antioch Northward from Ierusalem for 1. The common Geographers (ſ) Cl. Ptol. Asiae tab 4. Atlas Merc. c. old and new of all sorts doe beare witnesse hereof in their Mappes and ordinary descriptions of the world and those parts thereof 2. Had he gone no further but looked well on this story Act. 15. where the messengers travelling from Antioch to Ierusalem are sayd in their way to passe through Phaenice and Samaria he might have observed that as those countries in the way lay Northward from Ierusalem so must Antioch also from whence in the right way they came to those countries Let others be admonished hereby that they rashly follow not such a guide that will be a great master and teacher of the Churches and yet as the wise man noteth knowes not the way to the City Eccles 10.15 III. I doe willingly grant that Antioch was 200 miles from Ierusalem those 70 Dutch miles which this Authour mentions according to common account make 280 English miles 80 more then Mr Canne reckons Now the further that Antioch was from Ierusalem the stronger is this our Argument from Act. 15. The greater paines they tooke in travell to come unto another superiour judicatory out of themselves doth argue the greater necessity of Synods and shewes that the fruit expected thereby was the more precious in their eyes The Deputies of the Churches that came to the late Synod at Dort from Geneva Zurich and Berne travelled further then these Antiochians did And of old
helpe they sent to Ierusalem freely for the help of their counsell in this matter 3. In case of right and lawfull administration 4. In case of no evill administration presumed by those who finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence appeale to the judgement of the Synod In which 3 last limitations other Churches to whose judgement or advice persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeale doe concurr in way of counsail declaratiō of their judgement to helpe particular Churches to exercise their power aright P. 47. P. 239. in their owne matters as was before noated out of Mr Cartwr Mr Fen. out of the Authour himselfe in the foregoing passages which being so understood doeth not justifie any undue power of jurisdiction if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases manner complained of by the Subscribers how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section will appeare to the indifferent Reader whē he shall have compared both together ANSVV. The judgment of Mr P. is very partially corruptly described by Mr D. in this place for whereas Mr P. here describes 4 bridles of restraint or 4 limitations by which the supremacie of power in particular Congregations is to be moderated and kept within bounds lest it should seem to be absolute by every one of these it is manifest that he acknowledged this authority power and jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely for counsell and admonition He sayth (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301 302. The first limitation is ad rem propriam unto their proper businesse for in a common matter the Synod is chief that is the authority of Churches joyntly gathered together is the chiefest Hence it is confessed that Synods have power of jurisdiction over Churches for 1. In judging these common causes particular Churches though differing one from an other are overswayed by the most voyces and each Congregation is subject to the sentence of the Synod 2. Let any Scripture be alledged by Mr Dav. to shew the summity or soveraignty of Synods in these common causes and he shall finde thereby the use of Synods proved to be for jurisdiction in one Ecclesiasticall cause as well as in another being lawfully brought unto them for what reason is there why the counsell and admonition of a Synod may not suffice for the help of particular Churches in a common controversy as well as in other speciall businesses leaving the sentence and decision unto the prime Churches The second limitation is also in a proper businesse to wit ad casum sufficient is potestatis in the case of sufficient ability for if any Church be found unable to end their owne businesse vvho doubts but that it is bound to require the help of fellow-Churches In this case Mr P. acknowledgeth the superiority or soveraignty of power and authority in Synods but if Synods were onely for counsell admonition what needed a supremacy of power seeing inferiours may give counsell unto their superiours admonish them also of their duety Mr P. shewes well that in case of impotencie or weaknes the Church of Antioch sent to Ierusalem c. Act. 15. But this Mr D. seeks to pervert by his glosse when he saith they sent to Ierusalem for the help of their counsell as though they did not as well desire help by their authority and sentence in determining the controversy If counsell onely had bene sought why did not the Synod at Ierusalem content themselves to give counsell and advise why did they also make a decree and this not onely by authority of the Apostles but also by common authority of Elders and others that were in the Synod Act. 15.23 16.4 The third limitation is in a proper busines and ability also to wit in the case of right and lawfull administration for vve are to think the same of the Church as of every Pastour of the Church now vve have shewed before out of Gerson touching the rectour that he in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration is subject so the Church which in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration doth now beginne to be subject Even as therefore the Pastour erring and offending is subject to no one of his fellowes as to a Bishop but onely to many of his Church so also the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod Hence it is evident that Mr P. asscribed unto Synods more authority then a bare counsell or admonition onely for 1. He often useth the word of subjection which implyes an authority and jurisdiction in those to whom in regard of their calling men be subject This is passed by as unseen or unregarded in Mr D. his allegation 2. He speakes of being subject so as the Pastour erring and offending is subject to many of the Church that is to their jurisdiction and censure 3. He speakes of such subjection as is distinguished from receyving of counsell and admonition otherwise it should not be true which he sayth of the Pastours and Churches subjection seeing every Pastour erring and offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one of his fellowes and the Church erring offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one particular Church though it be not subject to the jurisdiction of any one in speciall but onely to many in a lawfull Synod The fourth limitation is in case of right administration when no evill administration is presumed or imagined for although the Church administer aright yet if any man thinking himself wronged do appeale from it the same is now become obnoxious or subject unto the censure of her fellowes and sisters so that judgement may be given in a Synod touching her administration That Mr P. here also speakes of subjection unto the jurisdiction of Synods it is evident while for the allowance of appeales he alledges in the same place the testimonies of the Synod of Sardica of the University of Paris and of D. Whitaker who doe all speak of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction for the correction and redresse of unrighteous sentences and proceedings by inferiour judges Againe in the same chapter he sayth (g) Pa. 31◠Christ would have every man to be judged of his owne Church Matt. 18. or if the judgement of his owne Church displease him yet alwayes of the Church that is of a Synod of many Churches Againe in the same page We certainly finde Mat. 18. that causes are to be ended by the Synods of the Churches and not by one man if any doe appeale from the judgement of his Church Thus we see 1. that he makes Mat. 18. a common ground for the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches 2. The very phrase of terminating or ending controversies shewes that
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
of the single uncompounded policie Though there were some differences among them concerning the government of the Church yet no one of them or of those other exiles who had sojourned at Strasbrough Basel Zurick Arrow Geneva and other places in Q. Maries dayes that left behinde them any monument of their agreement with Mr Dav. Mr Cann in limiting Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Church But of this story we have occasion to speak further hereafter (y) Chap. 7. Sect. 5. where Mr Can. againe brings more objections from thence SECT IX Mr Dav. his pretence of agreement with Iunius examined BEsides the former Allegations Mr Dav. pretendeth his agreement with Iunius in this question And after his vaine excuse of H. Grotius for slighting the authority of Classes and Synods as he did in that treatise which he published against Sibr. Lubbertus he sayth (z) Apol. reply p. 225. thereupon Bogermannus published his Annotations learnedly and succinctly penned in defence of D. Sibrandus wherein for answer of that part which concerned the necessity and authority of Synods he referred Grotius to what Iunius had written against Bellarmine de nceessitate potestate Conciliorum wherein I fully agree with Iunius ANSVV. Had Mr Dav. fully agreed with Junius then had it bene meet that the should have brought at least some one pregnant testimony out of Junius to have manifested their agreement which he hath not done If he will constantly and fully abide by this confession of his full agreement with Junius in that which he wrote against Bellarmine concerning the necessity and authority of Synods then must he acknowledge that they have jurisdiction over particular Churches for the judging of their causes and that they are not onely for counsell and admonition c. because (a) Animadv ad Bellarm Contr. 4. de Concil Junius is plentifull in witnessing thus much of them as appeareth First Bellarmine complayning how the Protestants by the instigation of Satan did destroy Ecclesiasticall judgements Junius answereth (b) In proefat nota 1. We also complaine of the deceytfull arts of Satan but they are not to be deemed to take away Ecclesiasticall judgements which with Paul 1. Gor. 14. doe urge that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets but that do we urge c. Junius applying this to Synods doth thereby confesse that they are for censure and judgement of causes and persons not for counsell onely He acknowledgeth the Protestants justly desired such a Councell (c) Not. 11. in quo cognosci decerni confici omnia posse confiderent that is wherein they hoped that all things might be examined decreed and dispatched This was more then counselling and implyed jurisdiction and power of judgement More plainely he saith we desire a Councell c. (d) N. 13. after such a manner as we see to have bene done of old in the examples of Synods especially of the first Nicene of the Chalcedon c. Now it is manifest in the Histories that in these Synods there was not onely a giving of counsell but an exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the censure and condemnation of Hereticks as is hereafter shewed at large Againe when Bellarmine accuseth the Protestants that they desire a Generall Councell but such a one as never was Junius answereth (e) N. 38. It is false But if we should desire such a Councell as Mr Dav. describes such a one as should be for counsell and admonition without jurisdiction then should the Answer of Junius be false we should desire such a Synod as never was It cannot be shewed that ever such a Generall Councell was held When Bellarmine accuseth Melancthon for requiring such conditions of a Synod that neither the persons nor causes of men should be condemned and that so nothing at all should be decreed in the Synod Junius answereth that this is fayned or forged of him and shewes further that though it doe not become the Church to use a bloody cure and corporall punishments yet there is a more wholesome order and tells what that is saying (f) N. 40. What Arius being overcome and convinced how was he punished of the Synod How was Macedonius Nestorius Eutyches in those renowned Synods Silence was injoyned them and their office taken away nothing more A most expresse testimony of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in the deposing of evill Ministers This was more then counsell onely After the Preface when in the book it self Bellarmine complaines of Hereticks that they devise a new forme of Synods and then give almost no authority unto them Junius answereth (g) Animadv in Cōtr. 4. de Cōcil l. 1. c. 1. n. 1. As for us we deny both and will God willing confute the first affirmation in the first book and the latter in the second But Mr Dav. cannot justly deny eyther of those assertions for first the single uncompounded policie doth necessarily inferre a new forme of Synods if it be not so let him shew when and where such a forme was ever used of old And for the second it is granted by Mr D. his owne confession when he alledgeth (h) Apol. reply p. 47. that other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good Is not this to give almost no power to Synods Bellarmine to shew the divine originall of Synods alledgeth Matt. 18. there am I in the midst of them Iunius assenting to him sayth (i) In cap. 3. l. 1. de Conc n. 1. It is also demonstrated in these words of the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 14.32 The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets Both places import an authority whereunto subjection is required When Bellarmine sayth of Bishops in Synods that they are not Counsellours but Judges Junius noteth (k) N. 2. that they are neither Counsellours nor Iudges but declarers ministers of the judgement of God in the holy Scripture in which words he asscribeth as much power and jurisdiction unto Synods as he doth unto particular Churches His meaning for both according to his use of speech is that they are not absolute but ministeriall judges Whereas Bellarmine reckoneth up sundry sorts of persons that may be present at Synods some as judges which have a deciding or determining voyce some for disputation which have a consulting voyce some as servitours or attendants some for the defence of the Synod to maintaine peace c. Junius denyeth not this but shewes that his enumeration is insufficient saying (l) Ibid. in c. 15. n. 2. It is to be added others as parties or persons accused whose cause is to be handled for certainly it is inhumane that any should be condemned not cited or not heard Others againe to be Auditours seeking their edification by enjoying that communication of holy things Hereby it is plaine that he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely
a Bishop therefore the Monarchicall primacy of the Romane Bishop is of no divine right As he doth fully condemne the usurpation of one Bishop above another so by way of opposition he doth fully and plentifully avouch the authority of many meeting together in Synods not onely for counsell admonition but for jurisdiction in judging censuring of offendours After this in the prosequution of the second Question Bellarmine pleading for the Monarchy and jurisdiction of Peter because he in speciall was charged to feed the sheep of Christ and among other Pastorall acts noting this for one to judge controversies D. Whit. answers (l) De Pont. Rom. q. 2. c. 7. p. 229. What controversies Of religion But the other Apostles did that also as well as he and the Synods of Bishops and learned men can doe this even as we read that it hath often bene practised in the Churches for many ages before this principality of the Pope was brought into the Church Furthermore D. Whitaker useth this argument to prove a superiority of power in a company or assembly of the Apostles above one or two of them (m) Ibid. p. 260. The Apostles send Peter to Samaria therefore Peter was not the head of the Apostles but rather was in subjection unto their authority Act. 8.14 He sayth A sending doth alwayes and necessarily imply a subjection in him that is sent if he be sayd properly to be sent This manner of reasoning makes for the authority of Synods consisting of a company of Ministers or other Deputies of Churches orderly assembled whiles he argueth that a Colledge or company of the Apostles had superiority of power over some singular persons among them though considered apart they were all equall in power He sayth concerning Peter Iohn (n) P. 261. We read that both of them were sent by the Colledge of the Apostles from whence we doe justly conclude both that these two Apostles were equall that the authority of sending was in the Apostles He shewes also (o) P. 297 297. that the decree made in the Synod Act. 15. was not confirmed by the authority of Peter alone but by common consent of the Apostles the Church for the repressing of false Apostles c. In the examination of the fourth Question whereas Bellarmine would have a double errour to be observed one of those who teach that the Pope may be judged punished and deposed by the Emperour if he discharge not his office aright another of them that maintaine he may be judged and censured by a Synod of Bishops though not by a secular Prince D. Whitaker answereth (p) Ibid. qu. 4. p. 513 514. We acknowledge both of these but we say there is no errour here For the Bishop of Rome may be deposed both by the Emperour when there is cause and by a Synod of Bishops and that not onely Generall but Particular of that Province whereunto Calvine most truely affirmeth him to be subject and that he may be judged of it and those that perswade the Pope otherwise we affirme them to be flatterers parasites rebels to God the Emperour And many the like assertions he hath in the handling of that question wherein the jurisdiction of Synods is witnessed by him In the fift Question concerning Antichrist (q) Ibid. q. 5. p. 674 675. he notes it to be an evidence of Antichristian pride in the Pope that he is by the Jesuites affirmed to be above the Synod Proceeding to the sixt Question touching the errours of Popes (r) Qu. 6. p. 797.805.812 813. he avoucheth the jurisdiction of Synods by alledging many examples and instances wherein they exercised this power as in the condemning of Pope Honorius Gregory the 7th or Hildebrandus John the 23th Eugenius c. Touching the seventh Question about the Popes making of lawes to binde the conscience though D. Whitaker teach that it belongs to God alone to give lawes unto the conscience yet he sayth (ſ) Qu. 7. p. 853. The Church hath authority of making lawes concerning decency it is our duety to obey yet concerning the things themselves the conscience is alwayes free c. He addes Whereas the adversary saith that all true lawes have a coactive or constraining force if he so understand it that they constraine burden the conscience with respect unto the things themselves it is false for certainely even these also doe constraine after a sort to wit if we have respect unto the generall rule so that if there come contempt or offence or schisme the violation of them cannot be excused Againe he saith to like purpose (t) P. 867. Whereas Bellarm. sayth we can abide no lawes therein he doth egregiously slander for we allow much esteeme of lawes even Ecclesiasticall lawes do teach that they are to be obeyed do subject ourselves unto them but we will not that our consciences be bound or ensnared nor the liberty which Christ hath givē to be taken from us How the Church exerciseth this power of making lawes he explaineth (v) De Cōc q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. elswhere namely in Synods And seeing here he teacheth obedience and subjection unto them it is plaine that he allowes unto Synods a greater authority then onely of admonishing or counselling This he expresseth more plainly even in this Question also when he sayth (x) De Pont. Rom. q. 7. p. 849. It is lawfull for Synods both Generall Provinciall to make lawes and to ordaine certaine rites which belong unto good order and the outward policie of the Church and they are to be deposed which doe not keep the same but our consciences are not bound with those lawes except contempt scandall be added as was sayd before SECT XI His Allegation of Chamierus examined BEsides these Allegations set downe in his Apologeticall Reply there remaineth yet to be considered of us the testimony of Daniel Chamierus another learned man whom Mr Dav. had cited before any of these to wit in his letter which he sent to the Classis printed by W. B. saving (y) Book of compl p. 2. The power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters or in things which are proper to it self as a Synod hath the chief power in things that are common to many Churches witnesse Chamiercont Bell. lib. 2. ANSVV. The quotation of this Testimony is imperfectly described so that men cannot finde the same by the direction he gives there being many second bookes in those 4 Tomes of that great work each of them contayning many chapters and none of them specifyed by him It seemes he took this testimony from Mr Parker who hath also imperfectly cited the same for though he mention not onely the second book but also pag. 193. yet is not that testimony there to be found But wheresoever it is he might have * See before pag. 92 93. found in Mr Parker sufficient answer and satisfaction
for it while he addeth three other causes wherein the authority of Synods is superiour unto particular Churches wherein is expressed contained as much power as we asscribe unto Synods But that it may further appeare how Mr Dav. is condemned by his owne witnesse it is to be considered touching this famous light of Gods Church that as he (z) Epist Dedicat. undertook that great work at the appoyntment and command of a Synod as his sonne Adr. Chamierus after his fathers death dedicated that work unto the excellent and faythfull servants of God the Pastours and Elders of the French Churches assembled in a Nationall Synod comparing them to the threescore valiant men of the valiantest in Israel compassing the bed of Salomon all holding swords expert in warre every man with his sword upon his thigh because of feare in the night Sol. song c. 3.7 8. and as againe speaking of the Synod he applyes unto them that which is sayd of the Tower of David where the shields of the mighty men are hanged up c. Sol. song 4.4 so in the book itself there are many ample and pregnant testimonies touching the authority jurisdiction of Synods And first of all where he proves that the government of the Church is Aristocraticall by many and not Monarchicall by one he makes this distinction (a) Chamie Panstrat Cath. Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 5. The government of Churches is either of severall Churches or of many together viz. by Synods In both he maintaines an Aristocracie or jurisdiction of many He doth not restraine jurisdiction to particular Congregations and allow onely counsell or advise to Synods but he useth the same words and phrases to describe the power and government of one sort as well as of the other to note a like kinde of authority in both For the government of many Churches together in a Province he savth (b) Ibid. c. 7. For the disposing and directing of publick affaires Provinciall Synods were appointed that is companies of Bishops in the same Province which were assembled so often as need commodity required For evidence thereof he alledgeth divers Canons commendeth Cyprian for observing that order Touching the administration of all Churches in the world he sayth (c) Ibid. c. 8. He that denyeth these to have bene governed by Vniversall Synods must be either notoriously impudent or ignorant of all antiquity For in the very beginnings when a great question was raysed about the rites of Moses and some would have those that were converted from heathenish Idolatry to be subjected unto them Luke testifyeth that a Synod was assembled Act. 15. The Apostles and Elders came together to looke unto this matter And by the authority of this Synod that question was compounded which authority that they might signify to be the greatest the decree is conceived in these words It seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us And that this was an Oecumenicall or Universall Synod he there maintaineth by divers reasōs against Ioverius who in regard of the small number that met together affirmed it to be a particular Synod It seemes also that this was the place from whence Mr Parker took that which he alledged out of Chamierus because in these two chapters 7. 8. are contained those testimonies which he citeth And here it is that he speakes of causa communis or the common cause which Cyprian would have to be judged by a Synod And here it is that he speakes of some proper causes belonging peculiarly to some Bishops in their speciall charges viz. c. 7. But these things are not onely misquoted by Mr Dav. by putting the 2d book for the 10th but the sense is altered while Chamierus comparing Bishops with Metropolitanes restraines some things from Metropolitanes to such Bishops as had divers countries under them And though he shew how Cyprian brought a common cause unto the Synod yet he doth not affirme that onely such common causes were to be brought unto Synods Chamierus doth not witnesse that the power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters as Mr D. alledgeth him for witnesse thereof And in c. 8. he brings many evidences to witnesse the power of Generall Synods in judging the causes of all Churches Againe in the Question whether the Bishop of Rome may be judged of any Chamierus shewes the opinion of the Protestants whom he calleth Catholicks in opposition to the Papists that (d) Ibid. l. 13. c. 17. No Bishop at all may by divine right be judged of another but of many to wit in a Synod so as it hath most often bene done And when Bellarmine objected the examples of some Synods that refused to judge the Bishop of Rome Chamierus answereth that some of them were particular Synods consisting onely of such as were under the Romane Therefore they could make no generall decree but could onely ordaine that the Bishop of Rome should not be judged of them assembled in a particular Synod which certainely they either did not speak concerning a Generall Synod or els they spoke falsely A plaine confession of the jurisdiction of Synods for had he spoken of counsell or admonition onely why might not any one particular Bishop or Synod have admonished the Pope upon occasion and given their advise touching him In his dispute touching Appeales he sayth (e) Ibid. l. 14. c. 2. We doe not take away all appeales For they are of common equity and truely without them the Discipline of the Church could hardly or not at all subsist And he speakes there of such appeales as were made unto Synods Afterward speaking of the imposture or coosenage of the Bishop of Rome in the sixt Councell of Carthage where appeales denyed to Rome are yet expressely allowed to be made unto the Synods of their owne Province or to a Generall Councell hereupon Chamierus cryes out (f) Ibid. c. 3. Immane quantam crucem c. O how unspeakable a crosse is procured unto our Papists by the sincere constancy of those good fathers among whom were those great men Aurelius of Carthage and Augustine of Hippo c. Now look what weight and strength the testimony of those African fathers hath against the Papists even so much authority hath it against such as stand for the single uncompounded policie which deny the jurisdiction and power of Synods to determine such causes as by appeales are brought unto them For the jurisdiction of Synods in receiving appeales is in the same place as plainly confessed as the jurisdiction of the Pope is denyed by their prohibition of appeales to be made unto him Againe when he proves that the Pope is subject to Ecclesiasticall judgement he doth in the same question with one conclude that there is a superiority of power and jurisdiction in Synods to judge of him He instanceth (g) Ibid. c. 10. in Honorius a Bishop of Rome who by the sixt Synod was not onely judged but condemned as a
abuses about excoÌ„munication he saith Can the Bishop alone excoÌ„municate ExcoÌ„munication doth not belong unto any one man whosoever he be but unto the Church By these the like speeches of Zuinglius it appeares that his testimonies are not prejudiciall unto our practise nor unto that authority of Synods which we maintaine seeing we grant that no one person alone can by right excommunicate any man by his owne authority neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate those that are not in communion with them The other place cited out of Zuinglius touching the calling of Ministers is so farre from prooving any thing against us that being duely considered it may fitly serve to blame those popular courses which Mr Can. pleades for and to justify our practise in not performing this weighty businesse without the advise and approbation of neighbour Ministers assembled in the Classis Zuinglius in that treatise called Ecclesiastes having spoken of the Popish tyranny bereaving most Churches of the liberty of election he reprooves another extreme saving (f) Eccles Tom. 2. f. 54. If there were any Church unto which election was yet left free the common people rashly without all deliberation and without all counsell of learned prudent and faithfull men did choose those whom they did most favour not such as were indued with true vertues beseeming a Bishop Therefore there is nothing so agreeable unto the Divine ordinance and ancient institution as that the whole Congregation of a faithfull people together with some learned and godly Bishops or other faithfull and experienced men doe make choyse of a Pastour Thus he plainly disavowes the independency of Churches in such cases not allowing a Congregation to proceed unto the election of a Minister without the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches and to this effect he explaines himself further in the same place saying It is meet that the power of election should be in the Church being furnished with the counsels of faithfull and learned men For as that matter may not lye in the power of any one man so neither may the rude and unlearned multitude take upon them so great a weight of election c. And in the same leafe speaking of Anabaptists intruding themselves into the Churches of their owne accord he proves that they are no lawfull Ministers because they have not a due calling thus Bishops they are not for they are not chosen of any Church by lawfull and unanimous consent the authority of other Bishops excelling in faith and prudence also concurring Observe how that with the free consent of the people he joynes not onely the counsell or advise as he had called it before but the authority of the Officers of other Congregations Moreover that Zuinglius did not absolutely deny the authority of Synods though he speake much against Popish Synods may appeare if we consider the reasons which he useth against them viz. because they were not assembled in the holy Ghost because they did not judge of matters according to the Scriptures but according to the ordinances and customes of men c. Now this is not to dispute against the thing itself but against the abuse of it And therefore having spoken against such Councels of the Pope Cardinals and Bishops in such sort as Mr Canne had alledged him (g) Ch. pl. p. 75. before he addes withall (h) Art 8. expl I speake onely of these that are such my writings shall not hurt others who set themselves under the Scriptures not above the Scriptures And that these conditions for the want whereof he opposed those Popish Synods may yet be found in other Synods which have made decrees for the deciding of controversies raysed in the Church he acknowledgeth in these words (i) Paraenes ad coÌ„mun Helvet civ Tom. 1. f. 116. If the Councill of Gangra were assembled in the holy Ghost which no good man will deny while he sees that the decrees thereof doe agree with the lawes of the Gospell and with the doctrine of the Apostles it was unworthily done of those that came after that have disanulled the decrees thereof without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures Againe in another place speaking of the foure Generall Councels though he justly blame those that accounted them to be of equall authority with the foure Evangelists yet he saith (k) Archeteles T. 1. f. 137. Truely I would not have any thing to be detracted from them He was not therefore of Mr Cannes minde who will have all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be detracted or removed from Synods Besides Zuinglius doth not onely approve of these Synods held in former times but he also shewes himself ready to joyne in the like practise even in the exercise of the same Ecclesiasticall authority that was used in those Synods For when the Magistrates of Zurich had assembled together all the Ministers of the Churches both in their city and countrie and had procured the presence of divers others for the solemne vindicating of the doctrine taught in their Churches there Faber Vicar of the Bishop of Constance having spoken of a Generall Councell that it onely had authority to determine these things Zuinglius replyes (l) Act. Disp 1. Tom. 2. f. â—10 Whereas in this our assembly there be so many right faithfull men both of our owne countrey and strangers and furthermore seeing here be so many godly learned Bishops present who doubtles have a desire not onely to heare and understand but also to advance divine trueth verily I see nothing to hinder even in this place whereby it should not be lawfull for us according to the Vicars meaning to dispute of these things and to decree what trueth teacheth But other nations he sayth will never consent unto these our decrees c. By these and the like (m) Ibid. f. 621. c. passages it is evident that Zuinglius did allow the Ministers of severall Congregations assembled in a Synod not onely to consult and dispute but also to determine yea and to make decrees for the removing of controversies settling peace in the Church while they did it according to the Scriptures which is the same that we maintaine The words of Mr Luther whom he cites in the next place as they are to no purpose alledged against us seeing they touch not the question as I shewed before so being compared with other his writings they make it appeare that these two propositions may well stand together viz. that the Church hath power to judge to call to depose c. and yet that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation but that Synods Councells have authority to judge of Church affaires and to censure offendours forasmuch as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other In the yeare 1518 having understood that they proceeded against him in the Popes Court at Rome and that an unjust sentence was likely to
the authority of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes it appeareth both by the praise which he (h) Basil Magn. Epi. 60. 78. gives unto the Nicene Synod that for the censuring of Hereticks which was an act of jurisdiction and not of admonition or counsell onely and againe in that he complaineth unto his great friend Nazianzen touching the intermission of Synodall assemblies and saith (i) Ep. 33. If we had yearely met oftner together both according to the ancient Canons and according to that care and solicitude which we owe unto the Churches certainely we had never opened a doore unto slanderers And againe writing unto Athanasius touching such meetings he calleth them (k) Eâ— 48. the way of help for troubled Churches Thus also doe the Centurists (l) Cent. 4. c. 7. col 522 understand him and alledge his testimony to shew the consociation of many Churches in Synods in that age The Author next objected is also misalledged The letter of reference in the line leades us unto a book in the margine which was not written by Socrates and what place he therefore intends in Socrates he must tell us another time In the meane time let it be remembred that this Ecclesiasticall Historiographer doth plainely and plentifully record against my opposites that the causes and controversies arising in particular Churches were judged by another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves to wit by the authority of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in Synods This he shewes in the (m) Hist Ecc. l. 1. c. 5 condemnation of Arius by the Councell of Nice in the (n) L. 2. c. 24. deprivation of Photinus by the Synod of Siâ—mium in the (o) L. 7. c. 33. deposition of Nestorius by the Councell held at Ephesus and in many other the like instances If happily he intended those places misapplyed unto Basil in the former quotation he is not thereby excused seeing in the first place viz. l. 4. c. 14. there is nothing at all spoken of this matter and in the two latter viz. l. 6. 2. 7. 35. Socrates againe declares the authority of Synods in those times Isidorus it seemes must owne the quotation Lib. de Offic. which by the marginall note is assigned to Socrates he having written two bookes concerning Ecclesiasticall Offices These Mr Canne cites at large without specifying either book or chapter But in those bookes of Isidorus as there be many things which Mr C. would not be bound to approve so there is nothing that with any shew of reason can be applyed against the authority of Classes and Synods On the contrary we may justly inferre that he did not there restraine all Ecclesiasticall power unto a particular Congregation as from many other so especially from these his words (p) De Offi. Ecc. l. 2. c. 6 Moreover that a Bishop is not ordained of one but of all the Bishops of the Provinces this is acknowledged to be appointed because of heresies lest by the tyrannicall authority of some one ordaining they should attempt any thing against the faith of the Church Therefore they all concurring he is confirmed and no lesse then three being present the rest consenting by the testimony of their letters Againe for other of his writings to shew his judgement in this poynt this Isidorus is (q) Cus de Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 3. c. sayd to have made a collection of all the Synods that were before his time which booke is (r) Concil Tom. 2. p. 146 147. alledged in a Synodall Epistle of the Councell of Basil to prove the authority of Councels above the Pope For his practise he is (Å¿) Magdeb. Cent. â— col 261-287 513. recorded to have bene President of a Synod at Sevill in Spaine were he was Bishop and as some relate of two other at Toledo wherein appeare divers actes of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the exercise whereof he joyned with others after the manner of Synodall proceedings Bernard is in like manner misalledged through want of attentioÌ„ diligence not onely by a wrong note of reference but by a defective mention of his writing Ad Eugen. For Bernard having written 5 bookes of Consideration Ad Eugen. and besides them more then 30 Epistles Ad Eugen. he doth not specify which of these bookes or which of these Epistles he meanes But whether we consider those bookes or Epistles we finde Bernard in extremity opposite to Mr Canne giving power not onely unto Synods as the Ancient Fathers before mentioned but even to the Pope himself to judge the causes of all Churches For living in a time of great blindenes and height of Poperie when the smoke of the bottomlesse pit had darkned the Sunne and the ayre he was led aside through ignorance to exalt Antichrist and writing unto Pope Eugenius that had bene his disciple he gives him these most ambitious titles and (t) De CoÌ„si ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 8. calles him the great Priest the supreme High Priest the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles Abel in primacy Noah in government Abraham in Patriarkship Melchisedek in order Aaron in dignity Moses in authority Samuel in judgement Peter in power Christ in unction c. the onely Pastour of all flockes and of all Pastours themselves c. the Vicar of Christ c. And though otherwise he gave many lively testimonies of a godly minde that was in him yet not without cause is he (v) Whit. de Pont. Rom. q. 4. p. 425.426 taxed for blasphemy in these unrighteous titles given to the man of sinne More particularly in his first Epistle which he wrote unto Eugenius after he was created Pope upon occasion of the controversy that was betwixt the Archbishop of York the Archbishop of Canterbury he puts this Pope in minde that he (x) Bernar. ad Eugen. Epist 237. hath authority to judge the controversies that arise in other Churches and wisheth him to use the same and to give unto them according to their works that they might know there is a Prophet in Israel And writing againe (y) Ep. 238 of the same matter he calles the Archbishop of York that Idol of York in regard of his intrusion he might better have entitled Eugenius the Idoll of Rome provokes the Pope as having the fullnes of power to cast his dart to give peremptory sentence of deposition against the Arch B. and as the phrase of Bernard is to lighten or strike with the thunderbolt of his power The like exercise of power over those in other Congregations is often elswhere (z) Ad Innoc Epist 189 190. allowed by him And hereby it may appeare how grossely Mr Canne hath alledged these ancient Writers quite contrary to their meaning and Bernard in speciall that subjects Congregations not onely to Councels and Synods as the Fathers before alledged have justly done but doth unjustly subject them to one person even to the
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-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