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
it followeth hence from the consideration of that which is here confessed to be done by each kinde of person here mentioned that the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition but also to give sentence and to make decrees which are acts of authority and power The errour of Bellarmine and the Papists is (c) De Con. cil l. 1. c. 15. 16. that onely Majores Praelati the greater sort of Prelates such as are their Bishops and Archbishops and by priviledge or custome Cardinals Abbots and Generals of Orders have jus suffragii decisivi that is authority to give definitive sentence that Presbyters Elders and other Doctours or learned men in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum a voyce in consultation liberty to give counsell to deliberate and dispute but not to give definitive sentence in the deciding of any matter Thus they take away the right and power of judging from one half or more of those persons that are to appeare in Synods The errour of the Brownists and other our Opposites is that all the persons in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum onely power to deliberate to advise and give counsell that all jurisdiction is limited unto a particular Church and so they destroy wholly the authority of Synods which the Papists doe in part The Papists deprive one half of the persons of their power and these deprive all the persons of their power But now in this case Mr Canne by his confession refutes both these errours granting jurisdiction a power of giving sentence and making decrees unto the people as well as others Thus is he condemned out of his owne mouth Thus is he condemned by those whom he alledgeth when D. Whitaker sayth of Act. 15. (d) De Cōc qu. 3. c. 3. p. 97. In hoc ergo Concilio quivis laicus Presbyter definitivum suffragium habuit non minus quam Petrus that is In this Synod every lay-man and Elder had a definitive voyce as well as Peter Thence it followes that there was an authority and jurisdiction in the Synod it was not onely for advise and counsell He saith againe (e) Ibid. c. 2. p. 85. The end of Synods is to decide controversies to prescribe Canons to correct abuses to set Churches in order c. What plainer evidence of their power can we seek for This same authority of Synods is in like manner proved by that which (f) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 108 126. 334. Mr Parker to like purpose witnesseth together with D. Whitak and others II. Mr Canne here doth yet blame our practise in depriving the Church of her right and the people of their interest and is so eager in seeking to blame the manner of our keeping Synods that unawares he hath yeelded us the matter itself about which we dispute viz. an authority of giving sentence and not onely a giving of counsell by Synods His reprehension is that Mr Paget and others doe otherwise practise But who be those others beside me Why did he not name them as well as me Are they any other then all the knowne Reformed and Orthodox Churches in Europe He might well think that if he had mentioned these the very naming of them and my following of their practise would have bene not so great a blame unto me as an occasion of making himself suspected and condemned for his unjust opposing of them That it may the better appeare how unjustly he blameth our practise let us examine more particularly what he hath sayd and withall set downe some observations whereby the peoples right in Synods may the better be discerned I. To shew the peoples interest he alledgeth Act. 15.12 22. where there is mention made of the multitude that was present and of the whole Church sending messengers c. But by the multitude we may understand not the whole number of the Church at Ierusalem which consisted of many thousands but rather the multitude of such speciall persons as were met in the Synod So Beza interpreteth it (g) Annot. maj in N.T. in Act. 15.12 Multitudinis autem nomine intellige non totam Ecclesiam c. By the name of the multitude understand not the whole Church which was not yet wholy adjoyned but the whole company of the Apostles and Elders as appeareth before from the 6 verse c. Piscator likewise (h) Schol. in Act. 15.12 approves this interpretation and addes some further light unto it from the reference of the Greek article though he also give liberty for another interpretation So for that phrase the whole Church mentioned vers 22. Iunius (i) Animad in Contr. 4. de Conc. l. 1. c. 15. n. 19. c. 16. n. 1. expounds the same of the Elders and Deacons or the whole Clerus or Clergy serving that Church these saith he are designed by the common name of the Church Calvine also (k) Cōmen in Act. 15.6 writes to the same purpose Luke saith not that the whole Church was gathered together but those that were men of learning and judgement and which by vertue of their office were lawfull judges of this cause It may be indeed that the disputation was before the people but lest any man should think that the common people were promiscuously admitted to handle the cause Luke expressely nameth the Apostles and Elders as more sit to take cognition thereof II. We grant that besides Ministers and Elders other members of the Church may have suffrages or voyces and give sentence in Synods as well as those that are Officers alwayes provided that they be lawfully deputed and sent thereunto Thus D. Whitaker explaines himself touching his allowance of lay-men to have voyces in Synods and sayth (l) De Conc. qu. 3. c. 2. p. 92. Every man ought not to be admitted into the Synod nor to speak therein but he that shall be chosen of the Church and designed thereunto Againe he saith (m) Ibid. c. 3. p. 103. Not onely Bishops are to be chosen of the Church to be sent unto Synods but other godly prudent learned men which happily can dispute more skilfully and inquire into controversies better then the Bishops Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the Church And so (n) p. 97. 98. 104. oft in other places Iunius in like manner (o) Animadv de Cōc l. 1. c. 15. n. 4. c. 16. n 1. n. 10. requires of such as have voyce in Synods that they be furnished with gifts and calling whether Officers or any others And this also is the practise of the Reformed Churches in these parts where upon occasion divers times some such are deputed and sent unto Synods which have no Ecclesiasticall office and even in the Nationall Synod at Dort divers other members of the Church which were neither Ministers nor Elders were sent thither allowed to be Delegates were to have not onely deliberative but also definitive voyces as well as any other
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
and approbation he sayth it followeth hence that no one Church was superiour unto others but all were equall among themselves This he declares by instance in the Church of Rome which though in ancient time it was of great estimation and dignity yet had it no speciall authority and jurisdiction above other Churches as he shewes by the testimonies of D. Rain Whitak and Iunius But he doth not collect thence that many Churches concurring together in Synods doe want authority to judge and to give definitive sentences in the causes brought unto them Yea the contrary is manifest for whereas Bellarmine perverting the testimony of the Magdeburgenses who had sayd that the unity of faith might be preserved by the consociation of Churches which mutually were to help one another objecteth (y) DeRom Pon. l. 1. c. 9 Non sat est confilium imperium requiritur Counsell is not sufficient but authority is required Mr Parker in this (z) P. 327. same chapter alledgeth alloweth and commendeth the answer which D. Whitaker (a) DeRom Pont. Cont. 4. qu 1. p. 49 giveth unto Bellarmine viz. Consensum multorum non minus habere imperii quam unius voluntatem Sicolim Haeretici per Synodos refutati et alii in eorum locum suffecti Quid amplius postulas aut quae melior ratio excogitari potest conservandae pacis c. that is The consent of many hath no lesse authority then the will of one Thus have Hereticks bene refuted of old time and others put into their places What doe you require more or what better way of preserving peace can be thought upon c. Or what plainer testimony can Mr Dav. require for the jurisdiction of Synods They doe not answer Bellarmine that counsell alone is sufficient but plead for authority and power arising from the consent of many Iunius also answereth this objection of Bellarmine in like manner and sayth concerning the power of Synods (b) Anim. adv in Bellarm Contr 3. l. 1. c. 9. u. 74. Et est revera imperium Christi qui primum jubet per Apostolum ut spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subjiciantur deinde vero remedium adhibet 1. Cor. 11.16 quod si cui contentiosum esse videtur nos ejusmodi consuetudinem non habemus neque Ecclesiae Dei There is indeed the power of Christ who first commands by the Apostle that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets and then addeth the remedy 1. Cor. 11.16 that if any list to be contentious we have no such custome nor the Churches of God And Mr Parker in the same place reasoning in like manner confirmeth his answer and enforceth it saying What I pray you can be answered to this last reason for the Apostle Paul referreth us from the contentions of any one Church unto many whose example if it prevaile much how much more their sentence when they are assembled together in a Synod HAving answered these Allegations of Mr Dav. we may now see what wrong he hath done to Mr Parker in perverting his words and meaning and making him a Patrone of this erroneous opinion that is so prejudiciall to the Church of God in the government thereof by Synods and yet for the further clearing of the trueth and vindicating of Mr Parker and for the help of the Reader that he may better understand his meaning touching Classes and Synods for many have not his booke and many understand it not being written in Latine I will set downe his judgement more particularly touching the divers kindes and degrees of consociation of Churches with the speciall questions touching Synods and shew withall how he applyes the same to the practise of the Reformed Churches for the defence thereof in all which the jurisdiction of Synods is maintained And First comming to speak of the kindes of conjunction or consociation and shewing (c) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 22. p. 336. that some are more imperfect by way of Communication some more perfect by way of Combination The Combinations he sayth are of two sorts for some communicate among themselves by Letters onely and some both by letters messengers or Delegates These communicatory letters were called in old time Pacificall Synodall letters and Formatae And he (d) P. 337. alledgeth divers examples both from the Scripture and from the primitive Church touching this kinde of communication by letters And howsoever he notes from the Magdeburgenses that this communication by letters did not proceed from dominion and subjection c. yet this is to be understood touching the subjection of any one Church to another and not of subjection to many Churches for so he expounds himself touching this particular of communication by letters as he had often done before in generall For whereas it is objected If all Congregations be equall what shall be done in case of Schisme and Heresy when there is no Synod nor Christian Magistrate He answers (e) Ibid. c. 21. p. 324. The time scarsely falles out when no Synods can be had or if Synods be wanting yet Churches may communicate together by letters and although there be no authority in one Church above another yet many Churches joyned together either in a Synod or by letters have authority over one Church offending And in the next page (f) P. 325. againe alwayes every one Church is subject to many Churches And thus he expressely avoucheth a jurisdiction of many Churches over one even in their communication by letters And yet more particularly he applyes this to the present practise of the Reformed Churches highly commendeth the same saying (g) Ibid. c. â—2 p. 337. And now in the Reformed Churches the necessary use of Elderships is acknowledged ubi communicatio per literas primaeva purissime floret where the primitive communication by letters doth flourish in greatest purity Againe Mr Parker proceedeth in describing the consociation of Churches and sayth (h) Ibid. p. 338. The second communication of Churches followeth when some deale with others concerning any Ecclesiasticall busines not by letters onely but by messengers also This consideration is of great moment for unto whomsoever this handling of Ecclesiasticall businesses doth belong to them also of necessity doth belong the rest of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction This he often repeateth but most fully when speaking of the authority of sending messengers or Delegates he saith (i) P. 342. The power of sending Delegates in Ecclesiasticall affaires was not in any one Bishop but in the Church it self and therefore all the other jurisdiction Now it is evident that the Synod at Ierusalem did send Delegates in an Ecclesiasticall businesse Act. 15.25 26 27. and therefore according to Mr Parker did not onely consult admonish but also exercised jurisdiction therein and had the power of all other jurisdiction Thus the Reformed Churches doe dayly practise their Classes and Synods doe upon occasion send their Deputies unto particular Churches to judge compound and decide the
shewes the contrary He saith (t) P. 358. 359. The superiour power that is in Classes ariseth from the Churches that are combined in Classes c. No Church hath dominion or preheminence over another He sayth that in the Metropoliticall or Episcopall jurisdiction Churches have not their owne government but are spoyled of their Elderships and subjected to the power of one and to an externall Church namely the Cathedrall All which things are contrary in our Classes Every Church injoyeth her owne government by her owne Eldership the Classis is no externall Church much lesse an externall Court for it consisteth of these Churches that are combined so that here is no authority over many the parishes doe joyne their authority together and that equally After the combination of many Churches into one Eldership and one Classis Mr Parker proceeds (v) Pol. Eco lib. 3. c. 25. p. 362. to speak of that combination of many Churches in many Classes which is into one Synod and that either Provinciall Nationall or Generall the Nationall containing under it the Churches of sundry Provinces and the Generall comprehending the Churches of many Nations Touching Synods he speaketh of the 7 controversies about them and first of the Necessity of Synods He sayth he never knew any in the Reformed Churches to deny the necessity of Synods before Hugo Grotius that was the great friend of Arminius He sheweth from Bogerman that the Reformed doe stand for the necessity of Synods more then any other Whereas D. Sutlive condemneth such as would have status Synodos Synods kept at certaine set times and not onely extraordinary as he saith that Synod of the Apostles was Act. 15. (x) P. 364. 365. Mr Parker refureth him and argueth thus from that place This example of the Apostles sheweth that Synods are to be called as the necessity and edification of the Church requireth but there fall out so many abuses errours controversies scandals and other such things that set and frequent Synods are necessary for the neglect whereof the English Hierarchy doth sinne grievously which contenting it self with an extraordinary Synod onely doth not call a Synod after the example of the Apostles so often as abuses errours controversies and scandals doe arise but contrary to the example of the Apostles committeth all these things to the care of one Bishop alone And whereas he addeth further in the same place that the Hierarchy is crept in in place of the Synod taking violently unto it self those things which by divine right doe belong unto Synods he doth herein acknowledge the authority of Synods to be of divine right for what els or what more doth the Hierarchy snatch unto themselves then authority of censure and jurisdiction in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes Touching the second controversy about Synods viz. the authority and power of them (y) Ibid. c. 26. p 367. he notes that as there is an Aristocraticall government in Elderships so there is an Aristocraticall government by Synods and from this his assertion it followes that as the Consistories or Elderships have a jurisdiction and power of government in them and are not onely for counsell so the Synods in like manner When as he saith further (z) P. 368. that the Synods borrow that authority which they have from the prime Churches this argues that he confesseth they have some authority els how could they be said to borrow it To like purpose he argues there againe (a) P. 370. It appeares by the very obligation that Synods have their authority from the prime Churches for otherwise Synods should not binde the prime Churches unlesse by sending their Delegates they did avow their consent unlesse they have just cause afterwards of dissenting Thus he acknowledgeth a bond of authority and an obligatory power in Synods as for the exception which he addeth it is as well to be added unto any judicatory either Civill or Ecclesiasticall whatsoever for there is no jurisdiction nor authority of the highest Governours on earth that ought to binde us unto the obedience of their decrees if we have just cause of dissenting For the Convocation of Synods which is the third controversy (b) Ibid. c. 27. p. 371. Mr Parker doth maintaine and much commend the practise and order observed in these Reformed Churches and declares at large what their manner is from divers acts of their Synods He sayth it is cum sapientissime tum saluberrime instituta a most wise most wholesome institution He shewes that the Church hath power of calling Synods but where there is a Christian Magistrate (c) P. 372. this power is regulated of the Magistrate He brings (d) P. 373. c. 10 Arguments to prove that this power of calling Synods is not in a Metropolitane Bishop He sayth touching Ecclesiasticall persons (e) P. 375. The power of convocating is in no one but in many therefore Synods are not to be called by one nor by the authority of one but by the Synods themselves by the precedent assembly itself as is usuall in the Reformed Churches And speaking of Act. 15.6 he sayth Doth not this example binde all ages that the meeting in Synods be by common consent even as the Acts in the Synod are by common consent decreed This decree of calling together is an act of jurisdiction more then counsell or admonition onely The fourth controversy about Synods is concerning the Persons (f) Ibid. c. 28. p. 379. c. whereof the Synods consist Whereas Bellarmine distinguisheth betwixt the greater lesser Clerkes and alloweth unto Hierarchicall Bishops to have a deciding voyce and to the inferiour sort to have onely a consulting voyce Mr Parker shewes at large that whosoever is lawfully deputed and sent whether Ministers Elders Deacons or any of the people have a deciding voyce and may give definitive sentence in Synods and thereby he acknowledgeth the jurisdiction exercised in them He saith (g) P. 387. As the materiall foundation of Synodall right is the excellency of inward gifts not the dignity of any office so the formall foundation thereof is delegation from the Church from which whosoever they be that have receyved authority and therefore Elders also they have power of decreeing and judging in Synods And many other testimonies thereof he gives in that chapter A fift controversy is about the Praesident or Moderatour in Synods (h) Ibid. c. 29. Mr Parker labours to prove that this presidency doth not belong to an Hierarchicall Bishop or Arch-bishop but maintaines the practise and order of the Reformed Churches where the President of the Synods is elected or chosen by the Synods themselves (i) P. 402. We argue first sayth he from the authority of the Church for in Matt. 18. Ecclesiasticall authority is given primarily and originally unto the prime Church so that no rectour without the election and designation thereof may challenge any authority unto himself The Synod is a combined or
secondary Church which receiveth authority from the prime Churches that under the like condition to wit that no rectour or Praesident be made without election of the Churches which are combined in that Assembly This he declares at large and refutes the contrary arguments Now this Election of a Praesident is an act of Ecclesiasticall authority a part of the Churches power and seeing this is confessed to be in Synods it appeareth hence also that Synods are not onely for counsell admonition but also for the exercise of jurisdiction A sixt controversy about Synods concernes the Execution of the Synodall Canons (k) Ibid. l. 3 c. 30. Mr Park holds that this belongs not unto any one Bishop or Arch-bishop but unto particular Churches and their Elderships He argues on this manner (l) P. 428. The execution of Canons of what kinde soever whether they be those which are published of Christ in the Scriptures or whether they be ordained in Synods according to the Scriptures is a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction a part of the exercise of the Keyes as the Parisians call it But the Keyes and Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction are not given to one Bishop but are promised to the Church and Eldership Mat. 16. and given unto them Matt. 18. Therefore the execution of Canons belongeth not unto one Bishop but unto the Church which importeth many Now if the execution of Synodall Canons by an Eldership or particular Church be a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and of the Keyes then much more is the making of these Canons in the Synod and then Synods have not onely liberty of giving counsell and admonition but power of jurisdiction also which Mr Daven denyeth This conclusion and inference is afterward noted by Mr Parker himself also when as he addeth (m) P. 432. Why should not he be judge in the execution of Canons who hath power of judging in the sanction or decreeing of the Canons c. And againe If it be not lawfull for them to execute the Canons neither will it be lawfull to ordaine them on the other side if they have authority of making Canons then have they authority to execute them and that much more The seventh controversy about Synods is concerning the Conditions (n) Ibid. c. 31. thereof And among other conditions Mr Parker (o) P. 452. requires this for one that there be a common consent or a community of suffrages and he complaines of it as a great corruption when there is in Synods a negative voyce allowed unto Bishops or Archbishops He notes (p) P. 454. that to be not without reason called an Oligarchicall Synod when things are not done by common consent but one maketh frustrate the consent of the rest Now if it be a violation of the Synods right and authority when the generall consent of the greatest part is made frustrate by the dissenting of one or of a few then much more is the authority thereof violated when as notwithstanding the universall and entire consent of the whole Synod both of the Praesident of all the Deputies of all the Churches there assembled yet by receiving this erroneous opinion of my opposites the definitive sentence of them all is made frustrate and disannulled as if they had no jurisdiction nor power of censure but were onely to counsell or admonish AS that which Mr Parker hath written particularly touching the combination of Churches in Classes and Synods doth sufficiently shew his minde touching this controversy and that Mr Dav doth in vaine seek to shrowd himself under his shadow so that which he writes more generally in defence of the Discipline practised in the Reformed Churches where the authority and jurisdiction of Synods is maintained doth serve for a more full declaration thereof He laboureth to prove q by 10 Arguments (q) Pol. Ecc. lib. 1. c. 29. p. 84. that the Church of England is bound to imitate the Reformed Churches in their Discipline which yet if Mr Dav. his opinion were true they ought not to doe but rather to avoyd it flee from it as being an usurpation of unlawfull power whereby their people are kept in bondage under the undue power of Classes and Synods In speciall Mr Parker following Mr Brightman in his exposition of the Revelation (r) Ibid. p. 84.85 86. saith that in Philadelphia which is the type of the Reformed Churches nothing is reprehended but all things are commended and among the rest the discipline which is noted by the key of David Rev. 3.7 He saith that the Angel of the Reformed Churches stands in the Sunne Rev. 19.17 as being the naturall sonne of the woman clothed with the Sunne Rev. 12.1 that the Reformed Churches are as the beautifull mountaine the mountaine of Christs delights Rev. 16.16 the hill of precious fruits He saith againe that the Philadelphian Church is the type of the Reformed Churches that it is commanded to hold fast her crowne Rev. 3.11 Now if Mr Parker did judge this rare and high commendation to be due unto the Reformed Churches and that by divine warrant by the testimony of the holy Ghost foretelling their estate and the purity of the Discipline observed by them then was he not of Mr D. his minde for then he should have judged them not to be a free people while the causes of particular Congregations are judged and determined by another superiour authority in Synods Then should he rather have judged that their Churches wanted the key of David and were deprived of their lawfull and proper priviledges and prerogatives being subject to an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the assembly of the combined Churches And in summe then should he according to Mr D. his opinion have judged them to carry a yoke of servitude and subjection to be cast off with all speed rather then a crowne of lawfull liberty to be held fast by them then should he with Mr Canne (f) Churches plea. p. 74. have taught them to complaine in the misapplyed words of the Prophet Ier. 4.13 Woe unto us we are spoyled viz. by the authority of Classes Synods TO conclude for the judgement of Mr Parker in this controversy there are few that did better know or at least had more meanes to know his minde then I. The trueth is when he came from Leyden where he and Mr Iacob had sojourned some while together he professed at his first comming to Amsterdam that the use of Synods was for counsell and advise onely but had not authority to give definitive sentence in the judging of causes But after much conference with him when he had more seriously and ripely considered of this question he plainly changed his opinion and professed so much not onely unto me but unto sundry others upon occasion so that some of Mr Iacobs minde were offended with him and expostulated not onely with him but with me also as being an occasion of altering his judgment I had meanes to understand his minde aright and better
for counsell both because he allowes a distinction of them in the Synod which had the authority of a determining voyce from them that did onely dispute or consult and because he intimates a judiciall proceeding in the Synods by mentioning parties accused their citing or calling of them the condemning of them which imports a further matter then onely of admonition or counsell Whereas Bellarmine accuseth us that we allow any learned men though Laicks to have a determining voyce let their office be what it will Junius answereth (m) N. 4. These things have none of us sayd or thought as they are here layd downe This is that which we say such are to be taken into the Synod which are furnished with gifts and calling which for gifts are godly honest learned for their calling which are either ordinarily appointed to teach or extraordinarily sent for and brought by just authority Now this necessity of a calling which he so (n) See c. 16. n. 10. 18. 20. c. 17. n. 1. often urgeth and requireth to be in the members of a Synod doth argue a speciall power and authority belonging unto them by vertue whereof they may give sentence in the judgement of causes whereas to admonish or counsell requires no more power then that which every Christian hath in another for his good as Mr D. himself confesseth To the same purpose Junius shewes against Bellarmine that the meaning of Theodosius and Valentinian was not to admit Bishops onely but that (o) Ibid. c 15. n. 13. those onely might heare examine and give sentence in a Synod which being sent from the Churches unto the Synod were reckoned up of the Bishops according to their letters of publick authority which they were wont to exhibit Againe he sayth (p) N. 15. They which are present without the authority of the Church of them some may onely heare as the laicks or common people some may be used in consultations as the learned men especially Ecclesiasticall persons but they may not give definitive sentence And thus still by distinguishing those that gave counsell from those that gave sentence in the Synod it appeares he acknowledged a power of jurisdiction in Synods and that they were not onely for counsell So when Bellarmine sayth it was a fault in the Councell of Basill that Presbyters or other learned men besides Bishops were allowed to have not onely a consulting voyce but a deciding suffrage affirmeth that this was against the custome of all antiquity c. Junius answereth (q) N. 19. This we denye for it was the first institution Act. 15. and not onely the manner and custome Seeing therefore there was such an institution of the Apostles in their assembly what need was there to alledge custome c. When Bellarmine chargeth the Protestants as holding that a Synod is nothing but an inquisition and that Christ alone and his written word hath a determining voyce Junius sayth (r) Ibid. in c. 18. n. ◠It is false for Synods have both an inquisition of that which is true just holy by religious communication and also a ministeriall giving of sentence Though he shew there and in many annotations following that it is not lawfull for Christians to obey them further then they agree with the Scriptures that their sentence of it self is but a persuasion and not a constraint a ministeriall judgement not of absolute authority of itself c. yet he (ſ) N. 3. grants the Lord hath commanded that we should obey the sentence of a lawfull Synod assembled together in his name c. He sayth (t) N. 14. Synods have true judgements so farre as they are of God according to the tables of his trueth and commandement of themselves they are not judgements but declarations publications and ministeriall pronouncings of the trueth and judgements of God And more then this cannot be yeelded to any Ecclesiasticall judicatory whatsoever Herein he fully grants as much jurisdiction to Synods as belongs to any particular Congregation or Eldership either apart or joyntly together When Bellarmine blames the Protestants for their exception against the Councell of Trent Junius answereth (v) Ibid. in c. 21. n. 1. It is the ordinary way of right in every appeale that the judgement of Synods and the exequution of their sentence be suspended and stayed so long untill the matter be againe examined in another more free or greater Assembly c. This answer had bene needles and impertinent unlesse Synods had more power then of counsell and admonition onely He sayth (x) N. 7. Certainly in every just Synod Hereticks being cited heard present or willfully hiding themselves have bene condemned c. When Bellarm. objects that Protestants will have nothing to be determined in Synods and so strifes to be never ended Junius answers (y) N. 23. that he perverts their meaning and referres us to his preface nota 40. where the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods is plainely avouched IUnius proceeding to the examination of his second book touching Synods where Bellarmine repeats that Synods of Bishops may judge all controversies both of faith and manners Junius answereth (z) Animadv in Bell. l. 2. deCōcl c. 1. n. 1. We have granted it of those that are lawfull Synods When Bellarmine had sayd that nothing is greater then a lawfull and approved Generall Councell Junius answereth (a) Ibid. c. 4. n. 2. It is false for Christ is greater and the Scripture is greater seeing Christ and the Scripture are great of themselves the Church is great by them c. But this answer had bene insufficient not direct enough if my opposites opinion were true For then according to their opinion he might more fitly have answered that the authority of a particular Congregation is greater then the authority of a Generall Synod because though the counsell and advise of the Synod was more to be reverenced in respect of many excellently learned and godly men from many Churches that were in it yet seeing Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation therefore the same is greater in the power of censuring and in the use of the keyes for binding and loosing of impenitent sinners seeing Synods have no jurisdiction at all over any other Churches Againe when Bellarmine sets downe this insolent proposition that the Pope cannot commit neither unto a Synod nor to any man the coactive judgement over himself but onely the discretive Iunius answereth (b) Ibid. in c. 18. n. 1. The proposition is most true he cannot commit because God hath committed it to the Synod and lawfull Councell Wherefore we say on the contrary neither can he commit it for if he be the servant of God God hath committed the judgement concerning him unto his Church neither can he reject it but though he be unwilling yet both the Church is bound to judge concerning him and he to undergoe the judgement thereof discretive and coactive howsoever it
please men to call it If Mr Dav. doe fully agree with Junius as he professeth then must he acknowledge that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Church that lawfull Synods have authority not onely to counsell and admonish the Pope himself and so other obstinate offendours but also to censure thē to give sentence both of directive coactive judgement against them as occasion requires Junius to make this more plaine repeats it againe and speaking of the Synods judging the Pope saith (c) N. 2. Truely we grant that he cannot appoynt judges in his owne cause because God hath already appoynted them by the Apostle saying The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14.32 and that he may appoynt Arbiters but we adde this withall that the judges which God hath ordained may by no right be rejected or refused of him When Bellarmine pretends that divers Popes as Sixtus the 3d Leo the 3d Symmachus and Leo the 4th being accused were willing to have their causes discussed in a Synod of Bishops c. Junius sayth (d) N. 6. And this ought so to be done of them for they are subjected of God to a Synod of Prophets by authority of the word When Bellar. addes that yet the Bishops durst not judge them affirming also that they left the whole judgement unto God Junius answers (e) N. 7. This is a fallacy from that which is not the cause as they call it For they did not therefore abstaine from judging because they wanted authority to judge but partly because they had rather that the Popes being guilty should be first judged of themselves and their owne conscience partly because they thought it better to have their cause examined in another more full Synod partly also because when they would examine it the matter was not evident enough c. Whereas the Popes that thus farre submitted their cause to tryall pretend that by this fact they doe not prescribe a law to their successours whereby they should be constrained to doe the same Junius sayth (f) Ibidē The impudency of these men is so much the greater who after they are delivered from judgement doe after this manner mock their judges and such as examined their cause and will have their ambitious licentiousnes to be esteemed for a lawfull order asscribing the lawfull order of judgements in their cause unto an extraordinary and voluntary dispensation as they call it But had Junius bene of my opposites minde he should have answered after another manner should have sayd The Bishops in the Synods which durst not judge the cause of the Popes but left the whole judgement unto God did well therein if they had knowne what they did and the right ground thereof for they did indeed want authority to judge Synods might advise and counsell but have no jurisdiction to give sentence in censuring either the Pope or any other Synods may onely direct particular Churches to use their power aright but have no power themselves to judge other Congregations or any member thereof c. How farre was Junius from giving such an answer Other examples and instances alledged to shew the power of Synods in the judgement of causes are avouched cleared and maintained by Junius against Bellarmines exceptions as appeares in the cause of (g) Ibid. in c. 19. n. 1. Marcellinus of the (h) N. 3. Donatists and of (i) N. 5. Leo. Had he thought that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction had bene shut up within the bounds of a particular Congregation he ought to have reprehended those Synods rather then to have spent time in vindicating their practise from the cavills of adversaries AS in these books de Conciliis alledged by Mr Dav. Junius hath plainely shewed his agreement with us so in his disputations against Bellarmine de Verbo Dei he hath likewise declared his consent with us touching the authority of Synods He writes there that (k) Animadv in Bell. contr 1. 〈◊〉 Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3. n. 9. there be two kindes of judgements in the Church one Private which belongs to all the faithfull universally and severally the other Publick depending upon a publick calling and authority the law and rule of both these judgements is the holy Scripture the authour and guide is the holy Ghost The publick judgement is either of a particular Church or of many Churches meeting together into one body or of all which body they call a Synod a Councell or an Assembly c. Seeing the Praesident and judge of the private judgement whereof the publick is compact is the Spirit of God and the Scripture the law there can be no other judge or law appoynted in the publick judgement of Synods without most hainous blasphemy against God and reproach to his Church And the Praesidents which are given to Synods have not the dominion and arbritement of the busines but the procuring of order committed unto them to determine matters by that one judge according to his law It is here to be observed that under the publick judgement of the Church he doth in like manner comprehend the authority of particular Churches and of Synods consisting of many Churches he speakes no otherwise of one then of the other as touching the kinde of power that they have he doth not attribute jurisdiction to one counsell to the other he notes both to depend upon a publick calling and authority for a ground of their proceeding And though in both the Spirit of God be the principall judge yet as he (l) Ibid. in c. 5. n. 3.5.28 afterwards notes more plainly he acknowledgeth a ministeriall judgment committed to them for the denouncing of his judgement against such as are guilty according to his word Afterward Junius (m) Ibid. in c. 6. n. 3. shewing how unlike the Councell of Trent was to the Nicene Councell where the Arian Bishops being present were heard convicted by the authority of Gods word and being convicted were condemned though he avoucheth the Bishops of Trent to have bene the enemies of the Gospel yet he sayth (n) N. 4. Otherwise as for lawfull Bishops or Elders and Deacons lawfully called into a Synod holding the same lawfully we acknowledge all these things When Bellarmine alledgeth Basilius Emperour who speaking of the judgment of Ecclesiasticall causes in a Synod sayd To try and search out these things it belongeth unto Patriarkes Bishops and Priests who have an office of government alotted unto them who have the power of sanctifying of loosing and binding who have obtained the keyes of the Church and not unto us which are to be fed which stand in need to be sanctifyed to be bound or loosed from binding Junius answereth (o) Ibid. in c. 7. n. 9. We allow this testimony of Basilius touching the lawfull order of Synods as before Herein we have the expresse confession of Junius touching the authority and jurisdiction of Synods in the use of the
keyes binding and loosing When Bellarmine sends us unto Damascene who sayth touching the controversies in the Church To determine and decree of these things it belongeth not to Kings but to Synods For where two or three saith the Lord are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them Christ hath not given unto Kings the power of binding and loosing but unto the Apostles and their successours to Pastours and Teachers Junius answereth (p) Ibid. in c. 8. n. 6. These things certainly are true and nothing for that famous principality of the Romane Bishop c. We also affirme the same thing as before cap. 3. nota 9. c. 10. Another evident affirmation touching the jurisdiction and power of Synods When Bellarmine saith that Prosper doth no otherwise proove the Pelagians to be Hereticks but because they were condemned of the Romane Bishops Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius Celestine Junius answereth (q) N. 14. No otherwise It is false for Pelagius was first condemned by the Synod of Carthage and of Milevis but when he went beyond sea to Rome where he so craftily infinuated himself that there was great feare lest he should inflict a soarer wound upon the Church at Rome the Africane Bishops did prudently and religiously certify Innocentius by two letters both concerning the sentence of their Synods and concerning the imminent perill of the Romane Church unlesse according to the example of them in Africa they did provide for the publick safety c. Another example of Synodicall jurisdiction allowed by Junius AGaine in his disputations against Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano Junius doth often allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods and shewes his judgement that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Congregation When Bellarmine speaking of a certaine decree made in a Synod of Africa mentioned by Cyprian sayth it was ordained thereby that a cause should first be judged where the crime was committed that it did not forbid but that it might be judged againe in another place Junius answereth (r) Animadv in Bell. contr 3. de Pont. Rom. l. ◠c. 23. n. 3. Certainly this is not forbidden For it is of common right But that which is of common equity in case of appeale to have a cause judged againe by another judicatory is denyed by my opposites in allowing no such Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Whereas Bellarmine condemneth the Magdeburgenses as being altogether absurd and ridiculous for their denyall of appeales Junius denyes the fact and saith (ſ) N. 5. his reasoning is inconsequent that all appeales should be altogether forbidden because the appeales to them beyond the sea were forbidden When Calvine alledgeth a certaine Canon of the Synod held at Milevis in Africa to refute the ambitious usurpation of the Pope and manifests thereby the jurisdiction of Synods in the judgement of causes because it was decreed that appeales should be made to the Africane Synods and not to the Bishop of Rome Junius (t) Ibid. in c. 24. n 2. c. maintaines this allegation and vindicates it against the exceptions of Bellarmine And he (v) N. 11. alledgeth further to this purpose the epistle which the Councell of Africa wrote unto Pope Celestine in these words After due salutation officiously premised we earnestly desire that hereafter you would not admit unto your audience those that come from hence and that you would not receive into your communion those that are excommunicated of us c. This request Junius calles a modest and brotherly prohibition to wit that the Pope should not receive appeales from them But if there were no superiour Ecclesiasticall power to judge the controversies of a particular Congregation then might these Africane Synods have bene accused of usurpation over particular Churches as transgressing the bounds of modesty and of their calling for exercising the power of the keyes in excommunicating some as well as the Pope for his usurped authority of the keyes in receiving appeales from the Synods Then had both the allegation of Calvine and the defence of Junius bene partiall and unjust condemning that in the Pope which they allowed in Synods When Bellarmine acknowledgeth that the Pope is bound to keep the Ecclesiasticall lawes made by Synods but quoad directionem non quoad coactionem according to the distinction of Lawyers touching the Prince meaning that the Pope may use their direction but is not under their correction or constraint which is indeed the same thing in effect which my opposites affirme of particular Churches that they are bound to use the counsell and direction of Synods but are not subject to their censure nor under their jurisdiction Junius (x) Ibid. in c. 27. n. 6. denyes this distinction for though saith he we should grant that it take place in foro soli in civill courts to wit for the judging of Princes yet is it of no force in foro coeli et conscientiae in Ecclesiasticall judicatories because the reason of them is not alike c. And in the next animadversion (y) N. 7. speaking still of those lawes canons made by Synods he affirmeth that as every other Bishop so the Pope also is subject unto them according to the order of the Church When Bellarmine sayth the Councell or Synod of the Greekes could not make a law for the Latines c. Junius (z) N. 16. See also n. 33. denyes the same and gives a reason because that Synod was Oecumenicall or universall Therein he acknowledgeth that they had a greater authority then onely to admonish or counsell Againe when Bellarmine answering the argument of Nilus saith that the Pope is not subject to Canōs viz. of Synods c. that he is subject to Christ not to the Fathers that he doth not contemne the Fathers nor their Canons but useth them for direction though he cannot be compelled by them c. Junius (a) N. 40. opposeth him further saith (b) N. 42. that he ought to be subject both to Christ and to the fathers by Christ who hath so prescribed 1. Cor. 14.29 32. and addeth further (c) N. 46. If he cannot be compelled by the Canons that he is therefore rightly called by the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wicked one or lawlesse person 2. Thes 2. Whereas some now adayes beginne to speak evill of the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods as of an Antichristian authority Junius is so farre opposite unto them that he accounts the Pope even in this regard to be Antichrist and the Man of Sinne because he refuseth to be subject unto the authority of Synods in their canons and decrees Moreover in comparing of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall estate Junius sayth (d) Ibid. in c. 29. n. 27. Kings have their authority in Civill matters Rom. 13. and the Synod in Ecclesiasticall matters above the Pope as it was defined in the Councell of Constance and Basel And their authority is so
fire yet hereby heat is not denyed to be in the water but on the contrary acknowledged to be derived into the water and experience shewes that by the heat so communicated unto the water many excellent effects are produced for the service of man And so when Ecclesiasticall authority is by the Church committed and communicated to Ecclesiasticall Officers in calling of them then doth it belong unto them though secondarily and lesse principally as both D. Whita confesseth Mr Dav. himself repeateth THat it may yet further appeare how unjustly the name of D. Whitaker is pretended and alledged both by Mr Dav. here by Mr Canne hereafter against the authority of Synods I will here set downe divers pregnant assertions and expresse testimonies of his gathered out of sundry of his writings for help of the Readers In them all may see how fully opposite he was to my opposites To beginne with this treatise de Conciliis of Councells or Synods out of which Mr D. took this allegation above-mentioned This book comprehends 6 Questions touching Synods in handling every one of these Questions he speakes plainly for the authority jurisdiction of Synods These 6 Questions are 1. Touching the necessity and profit of Synods 2. By what authority they are to be assembled 3. Of what persons they consist 4. Who is to be Praesident in them 5. Whether they be above the Pope 6. Whether they can erre For the first Question touching the necessity of Synods There he brings 8 reasons to prove the necessity and profit of them I will not insist upon each of them as I might but mention onely one or two of them The third cause is sayth he (i) Whitak de Conc. q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order and right and lawfull discipline may both be appoynted and maintained and that Canons may be made and confirmed For the Church hath alwayes had authority of making and enacting Ecclesiasticall lawes and of prescribing them to others and of punishing those which did not observe them And this authority hath alwayes bene accounted necessary This was more then counselling or admonishing (k) P. 21. The eight and last and that the chiefest cause of Synods is that even as in Politick and Civill judgements malefactours upon examination are accused and condemned so in the Church Hereticks might be condemned and pronounced anathema by publick judgement and that the trueth might be vindicated from their calumnies But as there judgement is not to be given according to the will of the judge but according to law so here Hereticks enemies of faith and religion are not to be condemned but according to the publick and Imperiall law that is the Scripture For a Synod is as it were a publick Court or Imperiall Chamber or Parliament wherein the Judges hearing both sides do give sentence and decree matters of greatest weight For although Hereticks may be condemned of severall Churches apart yet when they are condemned as it were of the whole Church the sentence is more solemne and of greater weight So Arius was condemned first of Alexander and the Councell at Alexandria but afterward with greater authority by the Synod of Nice c. By these words of D. Whitaker we may see what wrong they doe unto him which pretend that he should deny the jurisdiction of Synods The second Question is by whose authority Synods are to be assembled Here D. Whitaker relating how Bellarmine pleads for the Popes authority (l) De Cōc q. 2 c. 2. p. 42 c. repeats his 4th Argument taken from an ancient Canon wherein it was concluded that without the minde of the Romane Bishop it was not lawfull to celebrate or hold Synods D. Whit. answers that this Canon mentioned by (m) Lib. 2. cap. 8. Socrates is not rightly translated he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify celebrare Concilia to hold Synods as Cassiodorus hath ill translated it whose translation they abuse nor yet Ecclesias consecrare to consecrate Churches as Illyricus doth amisse translate it but leges Ecclesiasticas sancire et canones Ecclesiis praescribere to ordaine Ecclesiasticall lawes to prescribes Canons unto Churches And being thus translated he sayth We acknowledge approve this Canon as most just For reason itself teacheth telleth that that which concerneth all ought to be approved of all Therefore it was meet that those Canons which should be generall should be approved also of the Bishop of Rome who was one of the chief Bishops Now if D. Whita allow that Canon to be most just which grants unto Synods an authority of making Ecclesiasticall lawes and enjoyning the Churches to keep them then it is manifest hereby that he confessed the jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely for counsell admonition And in the same place D. Whitak (n) P. 45 46 relates how the Bishops of the Orientall Churches meeting together in a Synod at Antioch did by common sentence write unto Iulius the Bishop of Rome and by way of rebuke sayd unto him that they were not to be overruled by him that if they would cast any out of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that such ought not to be restored of him even as those whom he cast out could not be restored of them Although D. Whit. acknowledge the errours and faults of some that were in that Synod yet he approveth this their writing in reproof of Julius and sayth they all did gravely rebuke his arrogance insolence Though that Synod abused their power in censuring Athanasius unjustly yet that they had a power of censure casting out of their Churches is not denyed but maintained against the Bishop of Rome The third Question is touching the persons whereof Synods doe consist Here D. Whit. (o) De Cōci Qu. 3. c. 1. first describes the Popish opinion and reckons up the foure sorts of persons whom they allow to come unto Synods namely that Some are present as judges who have a determining voyce Others to dispute and examine difficulties and these have a consultative voyce Others to defend the Synod and to see that peace be kept within without Others to serve as notaries watchmen servants Then he shewes that they allow onely the greater Prelates that is all Bishops and Archbishops to have the right of a determining voyce in universall and particular Synods ordinarily but that Cardinals Abbots Generalls of Orders though they be not Bishops yet by extraordinary priviledge may also have a determining suffrage as for all others whatsoever they be they may be profitable but not have a determining voyce or suffrage After this he shewes the opinion of the Protestants that not onely the greater Prelates but whatsoever learned and godly men are sent being chosen by the Churches of severall Provinces and judged fit for that busines ought to have equall authority in giving suffrages and so to be judges as well as any
lawfully not onely when it condemneth and excommunicateth those which are to be condemned pronounced Anathema but also when it ordaines and maintaines those decrees which agree with the Scripture c. Had he bene of my opposites opinion he should have sayd the contraty viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemne those that deserve to be condemned but onely admonish them and so leave them to others Yea he proceeds further sayth concerning Generall Synods that (b) Ibid. p. 270. In them is a soveraigne power and they have the highest authority in the Church He doth not onely grant unto them jurisdiction but greater then is in any particular Church or in any other Ecclesiasticall judicatory Moreover whereas Bellarmine maintaines that Synods cannot erre when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope and that all their authority depends upon him hereupon D. Whita argueth thus against him (c) Ibid. c. 1. p. 214. If there be such weight in the Pope that without him neither Provinciall nor Generall Synod have in them any force it may worthily be demanded what part the Bishops have in a Synod whether they be onely admonishers or counsellours or whether they be judges for if they be counsellours onely why are none but Bishops admitted unto Synods why not others rather who are more learned then Bishops c. He notes it as a poynt of great absurdity and as a great strait whereunto the Papists are brought against their will against their profession that Bishops should have no other place in Synods but of admonishers and counsellours For indeed what use is their of suffrages of definitive and determining voyces if in the end all be determined by the Pope why might not advises and counsels have sufficed in such case This observation D. Whitaker holds to be of speciall use and worthy to be remembred and therefore repeats it oft (d) Ibi. c. 2. p. 221 222. What place I pray you doe Bishops obtaine in Synods what doe they to whâ—â— end doe they meet Is it that they may judge or is it that they may onely counsell and admonish Are they therefore judges or are they onely admonishers counsellours This indeed some of them thinke that they may onely admonish in Synods that they may move questions and dispute but may not judge Naclantus Bishop of Clug as we taught before in his treatise de potestate Papae Concilii sayth The power of the Pope is royall the power of the Synod is consiliaria by way of counsell the power of the Pope is altogether definitive the power of the Synod is of ambulatory definition that is as I interpret it wandring uncertaine Bellarmine indeed and the Iesuites that now are hold that the Bishops are judges but doubtles they meane an ambulatory judgement that is none at all For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone Now this absurd opinion which he notes to have bene the conceit of Naclantus expressed in plaine words and of Bellarmine and other Papists by consequence is even the same that is professed by Mr Jacob Mr Dav. Mr Cann for though they differ in respect of the power of the Pope yet in respect of the power belonging to Synods they make the persons whereof the Synods consist to be no other then admonishers or counsellours not having any jurisdiction at all D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus but speaking againe of the Popes over-ruling of Synods he doth againe record this observation saying (e) Ibid. c. 3. p. 267. Certainly this is that which we sayd before that Bishops assembled in a Synod are not judges but onely admonishers that the Pope alone is judge of all controversies that the rest have no authority For if Bishops were judges judgement should be done according to the greatest number and the sentence of the most judges should prevaile We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a speciall providence of God and directed by his Spirit thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to poynt out and commend to our consideration this evill consequent of making Synods to be onely admonishers or counsellours that so we might have his writing for a Testimony against this errour which within a while after was to be broached made common by Mr Jacob and some others that which the Brownists had done before being neither so commonly knowne nor regarded VNto this his writing De Conciliis we may adde his treatise De Pontifice Romano in which controversy he discusseth 8 questions and in the most of them he gives testimony for the authority of Synods against my opposites The Questions be these 1. Whether the government of the Church be Monarchicall 2. Whether any Monarchy of the Church was setled in Peter 3. Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome and dyed there 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in a Monarchy Ecclesiasticall 5. Whether the Pope be Antichrist 6. Whether the Pope can erre in the faith 7. Whether the Pope can make lawes to binde the conscience 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be given by Christ to the Pope immediately In handling the first Question whereas the Papists require a Monarch to keep inferiour Officers in order and unity D. Whitaker sayth (f) De Pont. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 19. If any will not doe their duety and discharge their office they are to be admonished and rebuked and except they obey they are at length to be remooved by the judgement of the Church or the Synod or the Christian Magistrate and there are knowne meanes enough of keeping Ministers in their duety and the Church in unity without a Pope He acknowledgeth that Synods have not onely power to admonish which every Christian may doe but after admonition to censure remove or depose the obstinate When Bellarmine to prove the superiority of Bishops objects 1. Tim. 5. Those that sinne rebuke before all D. Whit. answers (g) Ibid p. 43. This equalls also may doe So of old if any Elder or Bishop was accused the Bishops brought the matter unto an Ecclesiasticall Senate or Synod and if he did seeme worthy of it they condemned him by a publick judgement that is they eyther suspended or excommunicated or deposed him He declares (h) P. 48. 49. that the Church hath bene preserved in greatest tempests and troubles by Synods and commends them for their use of jurisdiction in judging of causes and shewes how those that would not yeeld unto such authority were removed from their places and others amended by their examples He sayth (i) P 92. Though one alone could not judge of another yet a Synod and as it were a Senate or Session of Bishops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their causes He observeth againe out of Cyprian (k) P. 93. No Bishop could be judge of another of another I say not of others because a Synod of Bishops could alwayes judge
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
be pronounced by them (n) Sleid. Comment lib. 1. he appealed from the Pope to a Councell or Synod The compleat forme of his Appeale is recorded (o) Tom. 1. f. 231. edit 1545. among his workes wherein he doth plainly acknowledge the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods both by the whole drift and substance thereof and when he saith that a sacred Councell being lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost representing the holy Catholick Church is in causes concerning the faith above the Pope c. This his Appeale was repeated and further urged in the yeare 1520 when the Pope had condemned and excommunicated him Among other reasons which he useth to reenforce his Appeale he alledgeth this (p) Tom. 2. f. 52. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 2. that the Pope most wickedly preferred his owne tyranny above the power of the Councell c. and therefore he beseecheth the Emperour and other Magistrates that for the glory of God and for the maintaining of the liberty of a Councell they would admit of his Appeale and represse the others tyranny c. In the yeare 1539 he wrote a booke in the German tongue de Conciliis concerning Councels or Synods where though he inveigh severely and not without cause against the Pope for his frustrating the desires of those that sought a Generall Councell admitting of none but where he might sway all by his owne authority and command yet he doth fully approve of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had bene formerly exercised in Synods Councells lawfully assembled and rightly ordered A Councell saith (q) Oper. German Tom. 7. f. 260. edit 1562. he is nothing els but a Consistory a Court of justice an Imperiall Chamber or the like where the Iudge having heard the parties pronounceth sentence but with this condition that it be according to Law c. Thus a Councell condemnes an Heretick not according to their owne opinion but according to the Royall law that is according to the holy Scripture as they professe which is the Law of the holy Church Speaking of the right and power of Councells having shewed (r) Ibid. f. 257. c. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 12. that it is not lawfull for them to make new Articles of faith to command any new work to binde mens consciences to new ceremonies nor to intermeddle with Civill government he declareth withall that it is their duety to condemne new doctrines contrary to the Scriptures and to censure the persons to remove and condemne new ceremonies that are superstitious or unprofitable for the Church and to examine and judge of those things that are controverted as it is prescribed in the word of God Moreover demanding what the office or work of a Councell is he answeâ—s (Å¿) Ubi supra f. 260. Anathematisamus we pronounce Anathema so is their office called Anathematisat Ecclesia the holy Church condemnes or excommunicates So farre was Luther from denying the authority of Synods that he allowes them the power of pronouncing this heavie sentence of Anathema or Excommunication To proceed unto his other witnesses there is nothing in the words alledged out of Chemnitius and Polycarpus Lyserus who is the Authour of that part of the Harmony quoted under the name of Chemnitius that by any just consequence can be opposed unto our doctrine and practise touching election excommunication examination of sentences c. Onely observe how Mr Canne here abuseth his Authour and his Readers by his imperfect allegation setting downe this testimony of Chemnitius in such manner as if that which was sayd with an expresse condition had bene uttered simply and absolutely without any such restraint Chemnitius sayth indeed that election or calling doth belong unto the whole Church but how that Mr Canne leaves out as unfit for his purpose which his Authour addes immediately in the same period saying that it belongs unto the whole Church certo quodam modo in such wise that both the Presbytery and the people have each their owne share in the choyse or calling Chemnitius in that (t) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram Ord. Can. 7. learned discourse touching the calling of Ministers intends principally to prove against the Councell of Trent that the consent of the people and of the Christian Magistrate is requisite in elections but withall he gives as full and plaine testimony for the judgement examination and approbation of the Presbytery under which he comprehends the Ministers of other Congregations called Bishops and Clerkes in the places alledged by him And this kinde of election he shewes to be agreeable unto the practise of the Apostolick primitive ancient and their owne moderne Churches Besides Chemnitius doth sufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods which is our maine question in divers pregnant passages of that book which he wrote against the Councell of Trent He (v) Exam. Conc. Trid par 1. praef alledgeth commendeth the words of Augustine saying that most wholesome is the authority of Councels in the Church while they judge according to the rule and square of the holy Scripture c. He saith (x) Ibid. Exam. Decret 1. 2. that many have often wished and long waited for a true lawfull free and Christian Councell as the right medicine for the curing of those manifold errours and abuses that were crept into the Church He doth frequently alledge and approve the acts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in former Synods throughout that whole booke He saith indeed in one of the places cited by Mr Canne (y) Ibid. praef that the decrees of Councells are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture but this doth no more empaire that authority of Synods which we asscribe unto them then it doth the power of all Church-acts and sentences whatsoever concerning which Chemnitius (z) Exam. par 1. de bon op qu. 2. sayth the same thing and Mr Canne cannot deny but that they are to be examined and tryed by the word of God though they be made in such manner as he himself (a) Ch. pl. p. 95. requireth There is another allegation of Chemnitius touching the distinction betwixt power and the administration of it which Mr Canne hath taken at all adventures as it seemes from Mr Parker or rather from the Scribe or Printer that caused that quotation Exam. c. 6. to stand so defectively (b) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 26. in his booke and as he is thus briefe and obscure in the quotation so he is as sparing in the application of this testimony unto his purpose bidding us onely observe what is attributed to the Congregation what to the guides thereof to the first power to the latter the administration of it For the thing it self we grant that there is such a distinction alledged out of Luther and explained by Chemnitius teaching (c) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram in geÌ„ Can. 10. that Christ hath delivered and commended the Keyes that is the
requireth 1. Cor. 14. Gal. 2. and it is most gravely written unto the Romanes that every one must know the measure of his owne faith Rom. 12. Therefore that tyrannicall speech is to be hissed at which takes away this proportion in the Church and asscribes unto the Pope an unbounded Tyrannie viz. which affirmes that greater is the authority of the Pope then of the whole Councell beside c. In the choyse of judges the best way is to follow that meane betwixt Tyrannie and Democratie namely to choose the best and the learnedest When by the consent of both parties good and learned judges are chosen and matters have bene examined in order it is meet there should be an obeying of their judgment for every one ought to know the measure of his owne faith Thus Melanthon hath fully declared himself in this controversy touching the ground of Synodall government together with the power and use of the same yet for further satisfaction it may be observed how that in another place he applyes that which is here spoken against Democratie or popular order unto that part thereof which Mr Canne so much pleades for concerning election unto Church-offices when he sayth (k) Ibid. f. 442. According to ancient custome the Church did choose that is these to whom the Church hath committed this businesse the judgement and approbation of the Bishop ordaining did also concurre Contrary to divine right and to the ancient Church is that Democratie where the people doe snatch unto themselves the election without the judgement approbation of Pastours By Pastours he meanes doubtles the Ministers of other Congregations seeing he speakes of them in the plurall number and seeing it were unreasonable to thinke that in such cases people should neglect the counsell and consent of the Ministers of their owne Church He doth therefore by this plaine testimony justifye our course in the calling of Ministers by how much we doe not proceed therein without taking along with us the advise and approbation of the Classis that is of the Pastours of neighbour Churches Forasmuch as we may easily discerne from that which hath bene hitherto sayd in this Section what the judgement of the chiefe of the Lutheranes is in this controversy and what small credit is to be given unto Mr Cannes allegations and affirmations touching the consent of others with him in these matters of difference betwixt us it may suffice to have examined the testimonies of these Authors whose words he hath set downe and for the rest to judge of them according to the profession of their esteeme of those already mentioned which are of chiefe note among them and according to the publick Confessions of their Churches of which we are to speak (l) Sect. 7. hereafter as also according to their generall practise Concerning this it is testifyed by some of them here named not to speak of other evidences that they are so farre from including all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Church that their Churches are governed by Ecclesiasticall Senates or Consistories as they call them which are gathered out of three rankes of persons Poluticall Ecclesiasticall and Popular or Oeconomicall that these Ecclesiasticall Consistories are appointed and directed by the authority of the chief Magistrate that by these the Magistratâ— doth exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and call Ministers that the election of a Bishop or Superintendent which of old was performed by all the Bishops of the Province in which a new Bishop was to be chosen is now in well ordered Churches rightly performed in the Consistorie where some principall Divines together with Politicall men doe choose a Superintendent who is confirmed by the assent and approbation of the chiefe Magistrate These are the assertions of Mylius Rungius Osiander and others as they are cited and approved by (m) Dise Theol. de Potest Ecc. th 7.10.17.18 arg 10. c. Vestringius one of the same profession Though these Authors doe not accord with us in divers of the foresaid expressions yet Mr Canne had lesse cause to boast of their consent with him seeing they agree in this that their particular Churches are not independent bodies but stand under Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves holding that their Churches in this respect are well ordered What trueth is there then in Mr Cannes words when speaking of these men he saith they consent with us fully As for his jesting at the particular Churches such as all the Reformed Churches are in giving them a title of noun-adjectives that cannot stand without Classes and Synods it may be demanded of him whether among all the Orthodoxe Churches in Europe at this day there was ever heard of such a staggering noun-substantive rent with so many scandalous Schismes as is that Anti-Synodall Church of the Separation whereof Mr Canne calles himself the Pastour Let those that are wise consider of it SECT III. Touching the Testimonies of Calvinists THus Mr C. and W.B. doe though as they say for distinction sake yet unjustly call those Authours whom here they alledge as if there were no other fit and convenient speech to describe Godly and learned Ministers of whom I spake but the name of Calvinists Though it be lawfull to denominate men of their errours and Schismes wherein they stand against the Churches of God and to call such Sectaries by names taken from them that have bene their chief ringleaders as the Brownists of Browne and the Nicolaitans of Nicholas Rev. 2.15 yet is there no warrant so to stile those whom we doe not charge with the like errours and offences Mr Canne (a) Chu pl. p. 81. after an idle and impertinent declaration of his owne surmise and imagination that these Authors as he is perswaded doe not teach the doctrine maintained by me and after an unjust imputation which he implyes as if I should say that the whole Church Officers and brethren wants authority to performe in and for it self all Church-services he comes to name his Authors and alledges the words of foure of them and telles that the rest doe agree with them His Authors are these P. Martyr Iunius Musculus Viret Bullinger Danaeus Gualter Sybrandus D. Mornaeus Morell Tilenus Bastingius Vrsinus Piscator Calvine Paraeus Keckerman Hemmingius Tossanus Polanus Hyperius Praedirius Munster Oecolompadius Beza Bucer Having cited these witnesses to appeare for him he then beginnes to insult and glory saying (b) Chu pl. p. 83. And now Mr Paget what thinke you of these men were they not learned and godly Ministers Reverend and judicious Divines Are they not authentick witnesses If you confesse it then marke what followes viz. your position that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves is hence condemned by a jurie of more then 24 men of your owne choosing for an errour and untruth The reason is because these affirme I say all of them that every particular Eldership with the Churches consent may
inferreth from hence this common law that other members of the Church which have no Ecclesiasticall office are to be subject to this government and ought to advance the same according to their power c. it is thereby evident that he could not like the course of W. B. or any such other schisming from the Church for this cause and complayning that they were not a free people if they were subject to Classes and Synods Mr Udall in the Demonstration of Discipline pag. 24 25. in that edition thereof which I have hath no such matter as is alledged before out of that treatise of English Puritanisme against the authority of Classes and Synods neither is it to be found in any part of that Demonstration that Christ hath not subjected any Congregation unto any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then unto that which is within itself c. And therefore it is untruely affirmed of Mr Canne that there is nothing there sayd but Mr Vdall with others above mentioned hath sayd the like On the contrary in that writing asscribed to Mr Vdall there be sundry testimonies shewing the authority of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations As it was (m) P. 204. before noted out of D. Fulke that there is a double authority of the Pastour one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour the other with the whole Synod or Assemblie whereof he is a member and both these authorities sufficiently authorized in the Scriptures so saith Mr Vdall to like purpose (n) Demōst of Discip c. 1. The word of God hath described sufficient ministers ministeries for doctrine exhortation overseeing distributing and ordering of every particular Church or generall Synod And againe he saith of Bishops or Pastours that (o) Ib. c. 10 they are of equall authority in their severall charges and in the generall government of the Church And in the same chapter he alledgeth the decrees of divers * 2. Concil Carth. tom 1. c. 10. 3 Conc. tom 1. cap. ◠Councels shewing how the causes of one Church or Congregation were judged by many Bishops of other Congregations meeting together In speciall when some (p) Demōst of Disc c. 14 objected that there would be so many Elderships so many divers fashions seeing one may not meddle with another Hereunto he answers The Government desired is uniforme for every Church and admitteth no change no not in outward ceremonies without a Synod of the choyce men of severall Elderships Hereby he plainely declares his meaning what he judged concerning the power of Synods for alterations to be made in particular Churches The Agreement of the English Church at Franckford in Queene Maries dayes is also alledged as a proofe of the Non-conformists dissenting from me whereunto I answer I. Those three Articles of their Discipline objected the one that the Ministers and Seniours severally and joyntly shall have no authority to make any manner of Decrees or Ordinances to binde the Congregation or any member thereof But shall execute such ordinances as shall be made by the Congregation and to them delivered Another that none shall be excommunicated untill the matter be first heard by the whole Church And further that Ministers and Seniours and every of them be subject to Ecclesiasticall discipline as other priváe members of the Church be these doe not at all concerne the question betwixt us For these things being granted it doth not follow that then the authority of Synods is overthrowne that they may not judge of any ordinances made in such a Congregation or that such a Church where these Articles are agreed upon hath thereby denyed and condemned such a Classicall government as we submit ourselves unto II. These Articles of their Discipline are not rightly and plainly but darkly and confusedly cited In the quotation of the first the page 115. is put for pag. 125. The two next are alledged without any quotation at all either of page or number of Article specifyed in the booke and both are joined together as if they were but one Article And in the second Article there is omitted that disjunction which affords an exception touching the strict observation thereof For whereas Mr Canne alledgeth it simply thus None shall be excommunicated untill the matter be heard by the whole Church the (q) Disc of troubl at Frankf p. 129. booke itself admitteth the liberty of a different practise by adding this clause or by such as it shall specially appoynt thereunto This falsification is so much the greater in that Mr Horne objecting against this Article and arguing that thereby (r) P. 163 164. the authority of the Pastour and Seniors is all wiped away for every thing is referred to the confused multitude of the Congregation Mr Whithead in the same booke answereth him on this manner Where he saith all things is referred to the confused multitude it is manifestly false For it is alwayes added by such as the Congregation shall appoint thereto as it is also in the 54 Article added in plaine words Let the Reader observe this deceitfull allegation both against the expresse words of the Article against the plaine explicatiō thereof by Mr Whit. in the name of that English Church at Frankford Whereas Mr Canne (ſ) Chu pl. p. 36. objecteth further from Art 26. 67. that in some cases the forenamed English Church agreed that appeales should be made unto the body of the Congregation I answer that in such cases as are there specifyed If the Ministers and Seniours which have authority to heare determine c. as it is elswhere specifyed though not in this Article be suspected or found to be parties that then they had reason to appeale rather to the body of the Congregation then that parties should be suffered to be judges in their owne cause And no marvell considering what I have noted (t) P. 121-125 before touching the state of that Church where the Reader may see a further answer unto these objections But then he askes me what I say to this and hopes I will not say that they were Brownists I answer His hope is right in this poynt I may not say they were Brownists nor their practise the same with the Brownists 1. Because they made this agreement through necessity when they wanted a Classis whereas the Brownists wilfully oppugne and refuse Classicall combinations 2. Because the Brownists deny authority of judgement unto Ministers and Elders in such cases where they are no parties which this (v) Art 59.63 Church at Frankford did not 3. Because the English Church at Frankford did not teach the doctrine of Separation as the Brownists doe but when they could not obtaine the reformation desired did (x) Disc of troub Frākford p. 187-191 still hold one another brethren in the Lord though greeved for the defects among them But it is wonder that Mr Canne is not ashamed to alledge the example of this English Church
answer the testimonies produced by Aërius and wonders that such a Divine that tooke upon him to refute all Heretickes did not see his owne foule errour Yea it is further t Soc. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 11.13 recorded of Epiphanius that he disorderly intruded himself into the charge of Chrysostome contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons observed in those times by celebrating the Lords supper ordaining a Deacon in the Church at Constantinople And thus we see Mr Cannes witnesses are in extremity opposite unto himself Another of his witnesses is Ierome from whom he alledgeth that v Jer. ad Gal. q. 10. In every Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders To this I answer I. This is nothing against the authority of Synods The Reformed Churches have in every Congregation such a Senate of Elders and yet this hinders not but that they have ought to have Classes Synods also both for direction and correction of Elderships and for decision of the controversies arising in particular Churches II. Though every Congregation ought to have a Senate of Elders yet Ierome doth not avouch so much in the place alledged His words are falsifyed for in the place which they misquote ad Gal. instead of ad Alg. the words of Jerome are these x Ad Algas qu. 10. How great the traditions of the Pharisees are which at this day they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what old wives fables I cannot expresse For neither doth the greatnes of the booke permit and many of them are so filthy that I blush to tell And yet saith he I will tell one of them to the ignominy of that envyous nation They have Rulers in their Synagogues of their wisest men deputed unto a filthy work c. What this filthy work was though Jerome expresse it yet I thinke it shame to publish And this which he saith in detestation of the Jewes without approbation of their order is all that he there saith for an assembly of Elders So vaine and insufficient are the Allegations of Mr Canne III. That Hierome allowed the authority of Synods above particular Churches it may appeare by that he sayth y Ad Euagriu ep 85. Si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe If we seek for authority greater is the world then the city that is as D. Whitaker expounds the same the Churches dispersed through the world he sayth z De Pont. Rom. qu. ◠p. 9◠99. All the authority of the Church of Rome is not so great as is the authority of all Churches every where And thereby he acknowledgeth the authority of Synods arising from the deputation of many Churches to be greater then the single authority of any one particular Church Besides whereas Damasus Bishop of Rome was a zealous opposite to the Arian Macedonian and other heresies and in divers Synods furthered the censure and condemnation of such as persisted in those errours and wrote divers Synodicall Epistles which witnesse the exercise of that authority by Synods Hierome a Ad Gerontiam confesseth that in the writing of those Synodall letters he did assist and help Damasus which he could not with good conscience have done unlesse he had allowed the authority of Synods Lastly if Hierome wrote that in every particular Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders then is Mr Canne and his Congregation condemned by Hierome because they have now for many yeares had no Senate nor assembly of Elders to governe them Mr Canne being sole governour of them without an Eldership In the next place touching this assembly of Elders he addes that The power of choosing them is in the people And for this he alledgeth three Authours together b Ad Rust Hil. ad Cōst August Cyr. in Ioh. 20.21 Hierome Hilarie Cyrill I answer For Hierome ad Rusticum there is nothing at all spoken touching the matter but he is falsely alledged For Hilary I. He is also falsely alledged he sayth nothing touching the Senate or assembly of Elders of which Mr C. speakes II. Though he entreat Constantius the Arian Emperour who had banished many worthy Bishops that he would permit the people to heare those Teachers and Ministers of the Sacraments whom they would whom they thought good and whom they had chosen that they might offer up prayers for his safety and felicity yet doth he not hereby prejudice the authority and jurisdiction of Synods This hinders not but that Synods might censure and judge of the elections made by the people and of other controversies of particular Churches III. Hilary also c Cent. Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 10 col 1134 1135. wrote a peculiar booke touching Synods exstant among his workes which he had translated out of Greek into Latine wherein the Acts and decrees of divers Synods that censured and condemned the Arian heresy are recorded Had he thought with my opposites that this jurisdiction of Synods had bene an usurped and unlawfull power he ought not to have given so much approbation of them in alledging their authority for defense of his opinion without some testification against their power Besides what colour of reason hath Mr C. to shew that Hilarius should vary from the judgement of Orthodox Bishops who in that age d Ib. Cent. 4. c. 7. col 519. 528 c. ordinarily used to meet together in Synods for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction For Cyrill in Ioh. 20.21 whom he also brings to prove that the Senate or assembly of Elders ought to be chosen by the people he is in like manner abused and falsely alledged by him For I. Cyrill upon those words of Christ As the Father hath sent me so send I you sayth that Christ in those words ordained the Teachers of the world and Ministers of the divine mysteries c. That therefore Paul is true saying No man takes this honour unto himself c. Heb. 5. c. He shewes how Christ called his Disciples but hath not a word neither touching an assembly of Elders nor of their choosing by the people Such falshood and forgery there is in the Allegations of Mr C. And yet if he had spoken as much as is here pretended it had bene no empeachment unto the authority of Synods as was shewed before II. That this Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria did acknowledge the use of Synods not onely for counsell and admonition but for censure and judgement of causes it appeareth evidently by his practise while in the e Euagr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 4. Synod holden at Ephesus in the time of Theodosius he being a principall member of that Synod did together with others give sentence against Nestorius and deposed him from his office for his obstinacy in refusing to appeare before them and for his heresy whereof he had bene convicted The next witnesse abused by him is Ambrose who is alledged to shew what the Senate or assembly of Elders is to doe viz.
one Minister or Elder greater authority then another but their questions are determined by most voyces and they are all mutually equally subject unto one another in the Lord. IV. This government of Churches by Classes doth not deprive particular Churches Congregations of their liberty power but serves to direct strengthen them in the right use exercise of their power for example when a particular Church with their Elders or the greater part of them agree together to choose a Minister that is offensive or unfit for them if the Classis upon due consideration of the matter doe disanull their election hinder their proceeding yet doe they not hereby deprive them of their liberty nor take from them their priviledge of election forasmuch as they doe still leave unto them a freedome to choose another fit Minister they doe not in this case goe about to choose for them or to obtrude upon them another Minister against their will but onely exhort them to use their power and liberty aright and to shew more care and godly wisedome in seeking out such an one as may be more inoffensive fit for the edification of their Church Against this authority of Classes and Synods divers opposites have risen up and have pleaded for a new kinde of Discipline contrary to the order of all Reformed Churches and contrary to that Reformation which the ancient Non-conformists in England have so much desired laboured for And yet many of these Opposites doe in the meane time in generall termes seeme to (d) Mr Iacob in his Auestation of Church-gov p. 118. 178. Churches plea. p. 94. embrace Synods and greatly to approve of the benefit that comes by them But herein is the poynt of difference that they doe limit confine all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Congregation Though they acknowledge Synods to be lawfull expedient and necessary yet this they hold to be onely in regard of counsell advise for provocation direction countenance but doe not acknowledge them to have any authority to give sentence for the decision of causes they doe not allow Classes or Synods to use any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction or censure in judging the controversies that arise in particular Congregations They maintaine that (e) Churches plea. pref Mr Dav. Reply p. 229 c. every particular Congregation is independent not standing under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves This opposition of Classes Synods is made specially by the (f) H. Barrow Discov p. 190. 191. Apol. of Brown pos 9. Brownists and by them have the Ministers of England bene reproached for the respect which they had unto Synods After them Mr Iacob in his writings often allowing them for counsell (g) Necess of Reform p. 31 32 33 yet denyes the power authority which we asscribe unto them And in that booke which is intitled English Puritanisme (h) Chap. 2. art 3.6 c. this their opinion is most plainly peremptorily propounded And now also Mr Davenp though he (i) Apolog. Repl. p. 226 allow a combination of particular Churches in Classes and Synods and such a consociation of them as is betweene equalls and is by way of counsaile or brotherly direction yet he saith (k) Ibid. p. 229. that their authority is not a prerogative of jurisdiction but of aestimation reverence rather because Gods ordinance hath limited the former viz. jurisdiction to particular Churches as his delegates in their owne matters it is not in their power to alienate it from themselves But the latter viz. estimation reverence is due to Classes consisting of grave learned prudent and faithfull men for their excelent personall gifts in which respect their judgment is to be much valued receyved with due regard But if any doe asscribe unto Classes a power of jurisdiction over particular Churches and that in things which he calls proper unto themselves this he saith (l) Ibid. p. 230. is to subject particular Churches under an undue power this he calles an usurped power Now then behold what this estimation reverence is which Mr Dav. allowes to Classicall assemblies or Synods viz. not so much power as is allowed to any one man though it were the most ignorant and offensive that is a member of a particular Church for when a controversy ariseth about the election of a Minister the one half of the Congregation giving voyces for him another half excepting against him as unsound in doctrine unfit for thē if a whole Classicall assembly of Ministers Elders deputed from all the Churches round about doe also except against him as unsound and unfit and with one consent judge that he ought not to be called yet for one voyce of that one ignorant person whereby the one part of the Congregation comes to exceed the other in number is that unworthy one to be received called This is that due regard that estimation value which Mr Dav. affords unto this Classis consisting of so many grave learned prudent faithfull men of excellent personall gifts while he maintaines that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to the particular Church and all the counsell brotherly direction of the Classis must be of no authority against the resolution of such a wilfull company to censure their unjust proceedings to stay the same So againe (m) Apol. repl p. 47. he pretendeth Mr Cartwr his authority to prove that other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good The speciall or onely remedy which the Opposites flye unto in such cases is the help of the Magistrate But hereby the importance of this Question and the danger of despising Synods may appeare Though they hold that Christ hath not subjected any Church or Congregation of his to any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then unto that which is within it self c. yet they hold (n) Engl. Purit cap. 2. § 6. 3. that if in the choyse of Ministers any particular Church shall erre that none upon the earth but the Civill Magistrate hath power to controule or correct the same for it c. that in such cases others are to leave their soules to the immediate judgement of Christ and their bodies to the sword of the Civill Magistrate c. But this help remedy is weak insufficient that many wayes for I. The Churches of Christ doe sometimes remaine under heathenish Magistrates that either regard not the cause of the Church refuse to judge their controversies as Paul Gallio Iohn 18.31 Act. 18.14 15. or els seek wholly to root out the same II. The Churches are sometimes dispersed sojourne in the countries of Popish Princes and Magistrates as the Churches which at this day live under the Crosse in Brabant Flanders sundry other places where they keep themselves as secret
live to this onely true forme or els to betake themselves unto some Church so formed as they tender their spirituall safety comfortable assurance in Christ But we on the contrary side though we hold that Classes and Synods are most necessary and profitable for the well being of the Church being also prescribed unto us by divine ordinance See Voet. Desp Caus Pap. p. 65 2. yet doe we not hold that the essence being of the Church doth consist in this much lesse in that forme of government commended by them If a particular Church of God should sojourne among the Indians or among Hereticks where it could not obtaine fellowship with other Churches out of it self or if by violence or other unavoydable inconveniencies any Church should be hindred from enjoying this benefit of combination with other Churches in Classicall government yet doe we acknowledge that notwithstanding this want such a Church might still subsist be reputed a true Church And yet so that we hold every Church bound to seek this dependency union with other Churches as God shall give oportunity meanes and cannot without sinne neglect the same To this place belongs the answer unto two of those Questions which Mr Canne (a) Churches plea. p. 33. propounds upon another occasion I. CAN. Whither it be Jure Divino that Ecclesiasticall Officers of many Churches are necessarily bound to determine by joint authority the cases of many particular Congregations or whither it be a thing arbitrary left unto every mans liberty ANSVV. That the combination of Churches in Classes Synods for judging determining the cases of many particular Churches by joynt authority is a divine ordinance and appointed Jure Divino is that which I maintaine labour to prove in this Dispute in the following Arguments As it is not a thing arbitrary and left unto every mans liberty whether he shall joyne himself as a member unto a particular Church if he have meanes and opportunity to doe it so it is not a thing arbitrary nor left in the liberty of particular Churches whether they shall combine themselves into Classes Synods for their spirituall government if they have opportunity All that neglect to doe it sinne against the communion of Saints walke not as becomes the members of the body of Christ Rom. 12.5 1. Cor. 12.25 Eph. 4.16 I. CAN. Whither all such cases and controversies as are decided by many Ministers combined into Classes Synods must so stand as that particular Congregations may not if they thinke fit reject the same and practise otherwise then hath bene there determined by joint authority ANSVV. Men are bound to stand unto the judgements of Classes Synods so farre as their determinations are found agreeable unto the Word no further Act. 4.19 But if any particular Church reject their sentence determination being consonant unto the Scripture then that Church committeth double sinne once for transgressing against the written word of God and againe for despising the ordinance of God and contemning the joynt authority of such as are met together in his name Particular Churches are so to respect and stand unto the determinations of Classicall or Provinciall Synods even as particular men and members of a Church are bound to stand unto the sentence of that Church where they are members viz. according to the trueth and will of Gods and not otherwise CHAP. II. The first Argument taken from the words of the Lavv Deut. 17 8-12 THe first Argument is taken from the ordinance of God delivered by Moses of old unto Israel where the people of God in particular Congregations were taught to bring their hard difficult controversies as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill unto a superiour Judicatory unto the Priests the Levites or unto the Judge in those dayes according to the quality of the cause for the deciding thereof Deut. 17 8-12 This Order was also reestablished in the dayes of Iehoshaphat who placed and settled in Ierusalem an Ecclesiasticall Synedrion or Senate for the matters of the Lord over which Amariah was President these were to receive the complaints and to judge the causes of their brethren that came up unto them from other cities places of their habitation even as there was also a Civill Synedrion for the affaires of the King over which Zebadiah was President 2. Chron. 19 8-11 This forme of government is commended unto us of David as the praise of Ierusalem when he poynts out distinctly these two kindes of Senates (a) See Iun. Annot. on Psal 122. Ecclesiasticall and Civill thrones of judgement and thrones of the house of David whereunto the Tribes even the Tribes of the Lord did goe up Psa 122.4.5 As Paul once rejoyced in the spirit to see the order of the Colossians Col. 2.5 so David considering the beauty of this order declares the same to be one speciall cause of his spirituall gladnes joy in the Lord witnessed in that Psalme Hereby it is evident that the Assemblies Synagogues of Israel were not independent but stood under an Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves they had no single uncompounded policie all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction was not limited unto particular Congregations Now let us see what our opposites say to this I. CAN. (b) Churches plea. p. 43 44. Hee seekes to strengthen the authority of Classes Synods by the Iewish politie government Now the Papists to establish the Sea of Rome use the same argument And the truth is if Mr Paget intend to dispute this way they will cary it quite away from him But I thinke he will hereafter be more considerate and speake no further of that manner and forme of Church government seeing he knowes the most learned on our side doe condemne the Papists for it viz. (c) Animadv contr 1. l. 3. c. 4. Iunius (d) Inst l. 4. c 6. sect 2. Calvin (e) Ag. Whitg l. 2. p. 614. Cartwright (f) Contr. 4. qu. 1. D. Whitaker others ANSVV. Mr Ainsworth before him speakes much in like manner to this purpose he saith (g) Animadv p. 15.16 It is a mayn pillar of Popery to proportion the Church now in the outward politie to Israel The Rhemists would have (h) Rhem. annot on Mat. 23.2 the see of Rome in the new law to be answerable to the chair of Moses Cardinall Bellarmine (i) De Rom. Pout l. 4. c. 1 maketh his first argument for the Popes judging of controversies from the Priest Judge that was appointed in the Law Deut. 17. c. And there also he alledgeth three of the same witnesses against arguing from the Iewish policie which here Mr Canne citeth againe Mr Davenp pleads to the same effect saying (k) Apol. repl p. 254. The Texts which Bellarmine alledgeth for the power of Councills in making lawes are the same which the Answerer sometimes harpeth upon in this case but Iunius clearly sheweth that they
Elders which represented the person of the Church Christ fitly sayth that those which had offended should then at length be brought publickly to the Church if either proudly they contemned or scurrilously rejected private admonitions We know that from the time that the Jewes returned out of the captivity of Babylon the censure of manners and of doctrine was committed to that chosen Councell which they called Sanhedrin and in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This government was lawfull approved of God and this was the bridle to keep in order the froward untractable Thus hath he fully expressed himself that this commandement of Christ Mat. 18. is no new rule but taken from the Ecclesiasticall Policie of the Jewes Beza in like manner confirmeth this interpretation saying (h) Annot maj in N. Test in Mat. 18.17 This power jurisdiction was in those which are therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers of the Synagogue Mark 5.22 an example of this custome is found Ioh. 9.22 12.42 c. And speaking of this word Church mentioned Mat. 18. he sayth It is to be observed that they doe foulely erre which would prove from this place that all things are to be referred unto the assembly of the whole multitude They say the name of Church is never otherwise taken which from this very place is convinced to be false for certainly it appeares that these things are spoken as of the Jewes at least from this which he addeth Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publicane But all writers of these things doe testify that the judgements of these matters among the Jewes were in the Elders and that the whole multitude of the people was not alwayes wont to be assembled And certainly unlesse Christ had applyed his whole speech unto the custome of his times who could have understood what he spoke Afterwards againe in the same place he addeth this Sed doceo Aristocratiam Christianam non esse novum aliquod institutum c. I teach that the Christian government of the Church by an Eldership is no new institution c. no new rule D. Whitaker to prove the authority of Synods brings warrant evidence not onely from the new Testament but also (i) Cont. 3. de Conc. qu. 1. de necess Concil c. 3. p. 15. from the Church of Israel and from the Ecclesiasticall Policie of the Jewes before Christ in the times of David Ezekias Iosias other godly Princes by which it appeares that he held this part of Church-government not to be a new ordinance but a practise common both to Jewish to Christian Churches And besides from this very place Mat. 18. he drawes a double warrant for Synods first from the commandement given to Peter as well as to others to tell the Church vers 17. from thence he argueth against the Papists that the Pope may be judged of a Councell (k) Ibid. de Concil qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169. 170. If saith he every particular Church hath greater authority in judgement then Peter or any particular man then much more the universall Church which is represented in a generall Councell or Synod Herein he is directly opposite to our opposers who grant a power of jurisdiction to a particular Church but none to any Synod whatsoever further then to counsell and direct Againe he (l) Ibid. qu. 1. c. 3. argueth from the promise of Christ Mat. 18. Where two or three are met together in my name there am I in the midst of them applyes that sentence to the maintenance allowance of Synods particular or generall Iunius in like manner as he is plentifull in giving allowance unto the authority of Synods so he derives this authority from this place Mat. 18. both from the (m) Animadv in Bellarm de Concil l. 2. c. 19. art 8. commandement of telling the Church vers 17. and from the (n) Ibid. in lib. 1. c. 3. promise made unto Ecclesiasticall assemblies to be in the midst of them vers 20. while he allowes that promise alledged by others to be a just ground thereof though he adde other warrant also And further speaking of the Councell or Ecclesiasticall Senate he shewes what reference it had unto the Politie or government of the Jewish Synagogues he saith That which (o) Ecclesiast l. 2. c. 3. the Church of the Iewes called the Synagogue that Christ in like manner called the Church in that place Mat. 18. for as the Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall Counsell was a certaine Epitome of the Church so also is the Presbytery Mr Cartwright above many other is very pregnant in giving plaine testimony that this rule of discipline is no new ordinance and this for that part of the rule in speciall which is most controversall He disputing about the interpretatiō of Mat. 18. saith (p) First Reply to D. Whitg p. 176. edit 2. It is commanded of our Saviour Christ that in such a case when a brother doth not profit by these two warnings it should be told the Church Now I would aske who be meant by the Church here if he say by the Church are meant all the people then I will aske how a mā can conveniently complaine to all the whole congregation or how can the whole congregatiō conveniently meet to decide of this matter I doe not deny but the people have an interest in the excommunication as shall be noted hereafter but the matter is not so farre come he must first refuse to obey the admonitiō of the Church or ever they can proceed so farre Well if it be not the people that be meant by the Church who is it Thē shewing that by the Church one person alone cannot be meant he concludes Seeing then that the Church here is neither the whole congregatiō nor the Pastour alone it followeth that by the Church here he meaneth the Pastour with the Ancients or Elders Or else whom can he meane And as for this manner of speech wherein by the Church is understanded the cheef governours Elders of the Church it is oftentimes used in the old Testamēt from the which our Saviour borowed this manner of speaking For instances he alledgeth Exo. 4.29 30. Ios 20.4 6. 1. Chr. 13.2 4. c. After this he is yet more plaine in respect of the censure saying (q) Ibid. p. 183. Now that this charge of excommunicatiō belongeth not unto one or to the Minister but cheefly to the Eldership Pastour it appeareth by that which the authors of the Admonitiō alledge out of S. Matth. c. 18.17 which place I have proved before to be necessarily understanded of the Elders of the Church And further in the same place It may be the clearlyer understanded that the Presbytery or Eldership had the cheef stroke in this excommunication if it be observed that this was the Polity or discipline of the Jewes and of the Synagogue from whence our Saviour Christ took this and translated it unto
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
time they came more then twise so farre unto Synods Had this combination of Churches and their authority in judging brought the Churches into Antichristian bondage as the Brownists call it See before Pag. 32. then might it have bene sayd unto all these travellers as once unto the Idolatrous Jewes O ye swift dromedaries c. keep your feet from barenes and your thoat from thirst Ier. 2.23.25 IV. It is to be observed how he omitteth the things that were specially intended by me for the conviction of those I had to deale with by the testimony and reasoning of one of their owne fellowes Whereas I grounded my reproof of them upon his confession and the conclusion I made did arise from the premisses of his assertion this is passed by so that the Reader cannot understand the force of my reasoning in that place and yet he cryes out to me teaching his client to say But before you make such hasty conclusions have a little patience to heare us to speak for ourselves W.B. should rather have sayd to heare what a Brownist can say for us and how Mr Canne can defend the matter I desire the Reader to look on my (t) Answ to W.B. p 87. 88. first Answer and then to judge whether that was a hasty conclusion wherein the ancientest of themselves went before me But let us heare how he proceeds I. CAN. (v) Churches plea. p. 34. I pray how can you prove that the Officers of these two Churches being 200 miles asunder were combined and met ordinarily together as the Classes doe to determine the cases of many Churches ANSVV. I. Their combination is manifest in this act of communion and comming together for the judgement and decision of the controversy raised among them II. That they met ordinarily together I never sayd neither doe I affirme it this being not a Classicall but a Synodall Assembly according to the common distinction thereof and according to the practise among us III. That they determined the cases of many Churches I shewed * Pag. 69. before from Act. 15.23 16.4 I. CAN. Orhow doe you prove that there was any officer at all of Antioch in Ierusalem at this time ANSVV. I prove it I. Because Paul and Barnabas were both speciall Deputies of the Church of Antioch and likewise had such a generall calling as made them Officers of every Church II. Because the Apostles which then remained at Ierusalem as Peter and Iames were as well Officers of Antioch as of Ierusalem Apostles being Governours of all Churches III. For the other messengers sent from Antioch seeing Elders are approved by the Church as sittest to mannage the affaires thereof therefore it was reasonable that at least some of them should be sent about this busines thereupon Iunius as is * Pag. 68. before noted takes it for granted that the Elders of the Church of Antioch were among those that judged in this Synod I. CAN. Briefly or how doe you proove that the brethren sent from Antioch exercised authority in the Church at Ierusalem ANSVV. That the Deputies sent from Antioch had authority and power of suffrages in the Synod at Ierusalem appeareth by the generall and speciall commissions given unto them as is mentioned in the answer to his former demand As Paul once answered for himself and for Barnabas upon another occasion when he was carped at by some in the Church of Corinth Or I onely and Barnabas have we not power c. 1. Cor. 9.6 so might he have answered for both in this case for let Mr C. shew if he can what publick Ecclesiasticall meeting could have bene in those times in any Church touching any controversy that concerned any generall doctrine of the Gospell yea or the censure of manners in any other person wherein Paul and Barnabas might not exercise authority with others I. CAN. Yet all this you must make good otherwise you are guilty of abusing and perverting the Scripture in affirming that the power which the Classis exerciseth was practised at Antioch and Ierusalem and by Apostolicall direction This you have spoken but it is untrue c. ANSVV. I. Suppose I had not made good all that he required me to proove suppose the Church of Ierusalem alone had judged the controversy and that no Officer of the Church of Antioch had bene among them with any authority yet this example of one Church judging the controversy risen in another doth shew that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church within itself but that the causes of one Church may be submitted unto the judgement of another This is the substance of the Question betwixt us and this being granted it followes that Churches have liberty to appoint Classes and Synods for the mutuall judging of their causes as occasion shall require II. By charging me with untrueth in such manner as here he doeth he makes himself guilty of double untrueth for 1. This affirmation here mentioned was not mine at that time but his in whose name I repeated it and that with condition if it were so If the Churches here doe practise c. as may be plainly seen in the forementioned place of my Answer 2. Though at that time I intended not to dispute the cause but first waited for the proofes of such as accused me yet had I then used such an affirmation yet it had bene true as I shew throughout this Chapter and therefore it was an untrueth in Mr Canne to avouch the contrary And as for that place Ier. 23.31 which he misapplyeth against me the threatning contained therein is to be feared of him who hereafter abuseth perverteth so many Scriptures for the subverting of Synods I. CAN. IIII. It is certaine that at Ierusalem not onely the Apostles and Elders met together but as Luke expresseth it vers 12 22. the Church also being interested in the thing And therefore gave sentence with the rest to the decree then made Observe what D. Whitaker replyes unto Bellarmine denying the multitude to be called It was alwayes sayth hee (x) De Cōc Qu. 8. c. 3. Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 96. 97. the practise of the Apostles in common cases to call the whole Church together and no doubt but they did so here Now there was no need to have it mentioned seeing it had bene their constant custome formerly so to doe Mr Parker (y) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 108. 126. 334. affirmes the same So the Authours of the Cent. (z) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. p. 547. 548. And it seemes in Cyprians (a) Lib. 4. Epist 16. time the Church was not deprived of her right herein howsoever the Papists (b) Bellarm. de Conc. Eccl. l. 1. c. 16. p. 39. in those dayes teach otherwise and Mr Paget and others doe otherwise practise ANSVV. I. In that not onely the Apostles and Elders but other brethren also gave sentence with therest to the decree then made
173. D. Whitgift calles for proof of Scripture commandement or example to justify this order Mr Cartw. in his second Reply having first shewed other warrant for admonition by Churches proceeds further and saith (h) T.C. 2 Reply p. 231 232. That from the admonition of the Churches it is meet to come to Synods if the judgement of the Churches be contemned may be shewed by proportion from the place of our Saviour Christ in S. Matthew ch 18. for as when one brother is not mooved with the admonition of two or three the matter must be referred unto the Church to see whether the majestie of it will moove him whom the authority of two or three would not even so it is meet that the Church that maketh light of the judgement of two or three Churches should be pressed with the judgements of the Diocesse or Province as shall be in that behalf advised From this proportion seeing the rule Matt. 18. was not onely a rule of admonition but also a rule for the exercise of authority in censuring it followes hence in like manner that many Churches combined in a Synod have power to censure as well as to admonish IV. Mr Cartwr doth further declare his meaning in the same place when he alledgeth the example of the Reformed Churches in this matter If I were in this poynt saith (i) Ibid. p. 232. he destitute of the word of God yet the naked examples of the Reformed Churches ought to weigh downe a Popish custome Now it is undenyable that the Reformed Churches doe allow the use of Classes and Synods not onely for counsell or admonition but also for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall authority and jurisdiction in judging of causes censuring of offendours V. Mr Cartwr speaking of the utmost that can be done by a Classis or by Ministers and Elders of neighbour Churches in time of persecution wanting a Christian Magistrate against an obstinate Church that refuseth to be admonished saith (k) T.C. 1 Repl. p. 52. If they excommunicate the whole Church it is a hard matter and yet if they may doe that there is all they can doe To excommunicate a whole Church together is indeed a hard thing and such a thing as I never heard of in the practise of the Reformed Churches yet this intimates that he thought they had a power of excommunicating at least some if not all upon a just occasion And when D. Whitg (l) Def. of Answ to Adm. p. 675 answering to a testimony of Cyprian alledged by Mr Cartwr saith Who ever denyed but that the Synods might excommunicate Mr C. (m) Rest of 2 Rep. p. 89 replying againe unto him yet shewes no dislike at all or difference from his Opposite herein which yet he ought to have done if he had thought it an undue power to have reproved him for giving this power of the greatest censure even of excommunication unto Synods Hence it appeares that he was farre from limiting all jurisdictiō unto a particular Church that he allowed Synods more power then of counselling or admonishing VI. Mr Parker speaking of this very place in Mr Cartw. and vindicating it from the opposition of D. Whitg shewes that he agrees with me in the interpretation thereof and not with Mr Dav. He sayth (n) Pol. Ecc. lib. 3. c. 24. p. 353. Cum pressisset Thomas Cartwrightus Ecclesiarum Reformatarum morem c. When T. C. had urged the manner of the Reformed Churches in correcting the faulty election of Ministers first by a Classis if that prevayled not by a Synod if that fayled also by the Magistrate c. For if the example custome and practise of the Reformed Churches be urged herein then doth he not speak of hindring an unlawfull election by admonition or counsell onely then doth he acknowledge a further authority of judgement censure in the Classes VII The judgement of Mr Cartwr touching the authority of Synods is manifest by that right which he asscribeth unto them for the decision of causes and not for counsell onely as was shewed * Pag. 47. 48. before and this may further be seen by that blame which is imputed unto him for Scottizing and Genevating declared * Chap. 7. sect 5. hereafter Had he bene of this new opinion he could not have defended the cause of Reformation so as he did but should have opened the mouth of his adversaries against him otherwise then he hath done SECT II. His Allegation of Mr Fenner examined FOr Mr Fenner in the allegation of his Testimony Mr Dav. hath made himself guilty of a threefold unfaithfulnes 1. in the omission of such things as snew his minde fully touching Synods 2. in the mistranslation of his words 3. in the misinterpretation and false collections that he maketh from them I. For his omissions I. He omitteth that definition of Ecclesiasticall politie set downe in the (o) S. Theol l. 7. c. 1. p. 241. beginning of that tractate viz. that it is a divine politie so farre as it is instituted of Christ for the government of particular Churches joyntly and severally This definition being admitted overthrowes that single uncompounded policie maintained by Mr Iacob as also the assertion of Mr Dav. for jurisdiction limited to particular Churches because herein he allowes a compounded policie not onely for counsell but for the government of Churches as well joyntly as severally Herein Ecclesiasticall policie and jurisdiction is extended further then the limits of one particular Church even unto a Synod or Classis because there is no joynt government of Churches perfectly found but in such assemblies The Scriptures also which Mr Fenner alledgeth for confirmation of this definition being many of them taken from the old Testament doe undenyably lead us unto such a joynt compound government of the Church II. He omitteth the definition of a (p) Ibidē particular Church which Mr Fen. applyes as well to the Churches and Synagogues under the old Testament as unto any since This appeares in divers of the Scriptures and instances which he bringeth to confirme his definition as namely 1. Sam. 10.5 Psa 107.32 111.1 Luk. 5.17 Mat. 4.23 Hereby it may appeare how farre different and contrary he is to Mr Iacob and those of his opinion (q) Divine beg instit of Chr. vis Church A 1. A 2. A 4. C 8. c. teaching that the Churches of the old and new Testament and their government doe differ one from the other in the very kinde nature and forme by a specificall and essentiall difference c. Then could not both have had one and the same definition in such sort as Mr F. gives it unto them comprehending also under it such assemblies as stood under a compound policie and were subject to an Ecclesiasticall judicatorie out of themselves III. He omitteth that which Mr Fenner writes touching the election of a Minister where the controversy of the Church upon the peoples objecting against the
same is to be referred unto such judges who as is before noted may either (r) S. Theol l. 7. p. 243 244. confirme or make voyd the Election A plaine acknowledgmēt of a lawfull power out of a particular Church to judge the cause thereof IV. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in the description (ſ) Ibid. p. 245 246. both of the Elders office in generall and of the Ruling Elders in particular where the warrant and authority of their office is derived from the Elders in Israel and from the government of the Jewish Church as appeares in those testimonies of Scripture which he alledgeth for proof thereof as namely these beside other Lev. 4.13 14 15.2 Kin. 6.32 Ier. 19.1 Ezek. 8.1 Neh. 8.5.8.10 Act. 4.5 6.12 5.21 Now seeing he derives their offices from that forme of government which is confessed not to have bene a single uncompounded policie this is an evidence that he also did not hold jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Church V. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in distinguishing the Presbytery or Eldership of many Churches (t) Ibid. p. 281. into a Synod or a Generall Councill And not to speak of other things he omitteth that description of a Generall or Vniversall Councill viz. that it is a Presbyterie consisting of the deputies of many Synods to determine and compound those things that may be profitable for the whole Church or for the greatest part thereof The word which he useth to expresse the authority exercised therein when he saith ad ea statuenda t.i. to determine to make a statute or decree imports more then a bare admonition or counsell and therefore it is manifest from hence that Mr F. did not allow of this new Discipline which denyes the authority of Synods II. His unfaithfull translation of Mr Fenner is also to be observed in divers points I. When speaking of the Eldership of one particular Church (v) Apol. reply p. 238. he tells how Mr F. saith it is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of Mr F. are that it is (x) S. Theol l. 7. p. 279. proprio nomine sie dictum so called with the proper name His meaning is that in common use of speech it had the proper name given unto it even as it comes to passe oft times that a part is called by the proper name of the whole and one species or one sort receives the proper name of the whole kinde as when in speaking commonly of the Ministers and Elders of a Church the ruling Elders are so called with a proper name that belongs to the whole kinde seeing Ministers of the word are Elders as well as they 1. Tim. 5.17 so when the ruling Elders are called with the proper name of Governours 1. Cor. 12.28 though Ministers of the word are governours also as well as they And unlesse we thus understand Mr Fen. there should be no trueth in his words for as he himself saith (y) Ibid. p. 245. there is a Synecdoche in the name of Elders when it is given to Ecclesiasticall Governours and therefore there must be a double improper or figurative speech a double Synecdoche when the assembly of some Officers in a particular Church is called with the proper name of the Eldership whereas but some of them are elderly or aged men and whereas the assembly of such men in a Synod is an Eldership as well as the other II. It is a notable falsification of Mr Fenners testimony when as he distinguishing the Ecclesiasticall Eldership into the Eldership of a particular Church and into the Eldership of many Churches and giving before-hand in the first place a generall definition of the Eldership common to both those kindes Mr Dav. comes and restraines that generall definition to one kinde and brings in Mr F. speaking on this manner The Eldership of the first sort he sayth is a compound office wherein all the Elders doe in the name of the whole Church administer all the businesses c. But this Mr F. hath not sayd I desire the Reader to look on the (z) S. Theol l. 7. p. 276. place as also on that which followes in his * Pag. 279. transition from the generall unto the species and severall sorts of the Eldership and there to behold how grosly Mr D. corrupteth the words of Mr F. and abuseth the reader and that in a point of maine consequence touching our question for while Mr F. gives the same generall definition to the Eldership of many Churches viz. to Classes and Synods which he gives unto the Eldership of a particular Church thereby the same authority and jurisdiction which he gives herein unto a particular Church is also given by him unto a Synod the Eldership of many Churches and then are not Synods for counsell onely or admonition but they are to exercise a jurisdiction and power as well as particular Churches III. Another instance of his unfaithfull translation is to be observed from those words of Mr F. (a) Ibid. p. 278. postea autem auditis assentientibus decernenda pro decretis Ecclesiis proponenda sunt which he translates thus (b) Apol. reply p. 239. and afterwards the opinions and assent of all being declared matters are to be concluded Those last words should have bene translated thus matters are to be decreed and to be propounded unto the Churches for decrees and being thus translated they import an act of authority and a power of jurisdiction in making decrees which are more then counsell or admonition especially when those matters so decreed are propounded unto the Churches for decrees But the word of concluding which Mr D. useth is ambiguous and is applyed sometimes to the reasonings of men either in private or publick where there is no authority to give definitive sentence or to make decrees for the Churches Mr Canne himself though he condemne the Classes and Synods of the Reformed Churches yet doth he allow Ministers and brethren of divers Churches to come together (c) Churches plea p. 95. to conferre of things yea and to conclude if they can what they judge meet c. This use of the word conclude serves to elude and frustrate this pregnant testimony of their power IV. Another mis-translation is when in the same page those words of Mr F. leges maximi momenti constituendae are thus translated by him orders also of the greatest moment to be made This I doe therefore note the rather because Mr D. keeps so great a quoile about the strict difference betwixt orders and lawes and saith (d) Apol. rep p. 257. 258. that orders lawes are ill confounded by me and is large in declaring his minde therein His friend also that made the Alphabeticall Table for him and prefixed it before his book notes this as a remarkable matter therein * Letter L. Lawes and orders differ Now if these things be so then hath he done very ill
in confounding lawes and orders by translating the word leges orders when he should have translated it lawes according to the right and proper signification thereof If he had disliked Mr F. for using the word leges or lawes and would correct it by putting in the word orders this was more then an exact and faithfull Translatour might doe He should rather have translated the word truely according to the right signification and then have given warning to the Reader touching the fault of Mr Fenner in the ill confounding of lawes and orders and putting one for the other After these unfaithfull omissions and mistranslations Mr Dav. hath not bene afraid to say confidently of himself Thus have I faithfully translated the words of this eminent light in his time Mr Dudley Fenner who was joyned with Mr Cartwright c. To his commendation of him I doe willingly assent he was indeed an eminent light and why then hath Mr Dav. gone about to obscure his light by depraving his testimony and labouring to put this bright-burning candle under a bushell that men should not see his light Whether he make strongly for him or against me let others judge III. Moreover after these omissions and mistranslations come we to consider his miscollections from him which without any just deduction or inference upon the lame and imperfect recitall of his words he thus propoundeth (e) Ibidē The Reader may see how he leaveth the wholl power of jurisdiction in the particular Church c. How untrue this is it may appeare I. By Mr F. his alledging those (f) S. Theo. l. 7. p. 276. Scriptures Deut. 17.9 with 2. Chron. 19.8 11. Matt. 18.18 1. Tim. 4.14 to shew what authority there is in a Classis or Synod comprehended by him under that generall definition of a Presbyterie as well as the Eldership of a particular Church thereby he confesseth that there is a power of judgement censure and jurisdiction in Synods because those testimonies of Scripture speak of such jurisdiction and judgement of binding and loosing of imposition of hands or ordination c. II. Though Mr F. speaking of excommunication and absolution from it sayth that they are to be done in the assembly by the authority of the whole Church which last words Mr D. for speciall observation causeth to be printed in great capitall letters yet this doth not prove that he left the whole power of jurisdiction in the particular Church seeing in the same (g) Pa. 277 place speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements administred by the Synod or Presbytery in deciding of doubts he saith also etsi authoritas communis sit ministris tamen sententiam dicendi eam exponendi maxima facienda potestas that is though the authority be common yet the greatest power of giving sentence and declaring it is to be yeelded unto the Ministers Therefore did he not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church III. Mr F. a little after againe speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements and censures and still of administring them by the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Presbytery which contained the Synod as well as a particular Eldership he sayth of them (h) Ibidē In quibus per omnes Ecclesias summa Ecclesiastica potestas Presbyterio demandata est that is In which throughout all Churches the highest or chiefest Ecclesiasticall authority is committed to the Presbytery And hereby also it appeares that he did not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church But these passages Mr D. omitted when he translated other parts of the same periods He thought it not to be for his advantage to have his Reader take knowledge of them IV. Whereas Mr F. requireth that in matters of greatest moment after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fore-consultation of the Presbytery comprehending both Classis and particular Eldership their counsels be told unto the Church that thing ordinarily is thus performed in these Reformed Churches viz. after that in the Classicall assembly of Ministers and Elders it hath bene found just and requisite that any persons should be excommunicated or any Ministers called these censures and elections are then first solemnely propounded unto the particular Church whom these things specially concerne and so accomplished with their consent and not otherwise if the greater part of the Church dissent and allow not the excommunication or election then for the avoyding of strife the matter is againe referred ad majorem Senatum unto a greater Ecclesiastical Senate Classis or Synod to judge thereof and to compose the dissention V. Mr F. in the same chapter (i) Pag. 278 279. shewes from the Scriptures that in these Presbyteriall assemblies there ought to be a mutuall office performed in the same in speciall manner towards one another not onely for counsels but also for the censures of such as are members of those assemblies And this is also agreeable to the order prescribed both in the (k) Kercken-Ordeninge Art 43. Nationall Synod at Dort and in divers others for the censure of such faults as are committed in those meetings or by contempt of the admonitions of inferiour assemblies Hereby also it appeares that he allowed an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in Synods and Classes and did not limit all jurisdiction unto a particular Church VI. After Mr F. had spoken in generall both of the Presbytery of one and of many Churches joyntly together then he comes to speak of each of them severally and there againe speaking of the Presbytery of many Churches that is of Classes and Synods he saith (l) S. Theol. l. 7. p. 280. Hic autem leges Ecclesiasticae condendae sunt Here are Ecclesiasticall lawes to be made This was a power of jurisdiction more then of admonition or counsell This Mr D. passeth over also it was no pollicy for him to draw collections from such testimonies VII That one testimony of Scripture which Mr F. oft (m) Ibid. p. 280 281. alledgeth 2. Cor. 8.19 23. not to speak of others alledged with it is an evidence of the authority of Synods It is there specifyed that the brother who was chosen to be a messenger of the Churches was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elected by saffrages now this election was an act of authority exercised by sundry Churches in one businesse touching one person and hence it appeareth that a combination of Churches may exercise jurisdiction together touching such as are no peculiar members of one particular Church And if such election may be made by many Churches then may censures be decreed by many Churches together as occasion requires Lastly Mr F. having spoken of the first part of Ecclesiasticall politie touching such as administer the same both by a simple and compound office in the Presbytery both of one or more Churches in Synods or Generall Councils he comes at last to speak of the duety of the Saints other members of the Church which are not promoted unto any Ecclesiasticall office and (n)
Ibid. p. 242 with p. 282. sets this downe for a common law unto them all that they be subject in all those things aforesayd and further the same according to their power with their gifts labour and whatsoever way they are able Hebr. 13.17 This peculiar bond of speciall obedience and submission unto such Officers even in Synods as well as in other ordinances is an argument that he thought them to have speciall authority more then of admonition counsell The judgement of Mr Fenner this worthy Writer being thus cleared and vindicated from those unfaithfull omissions mistranslations and miscollections of Mr D. his demand is hereby answered and hereby he may see why I referred him to this book As for those matters of fact which he addes the untrueth thereof is elswhere to be declared We will now proceed to Mr Dav. his third allegation SECT III. His Allegation of Mr Parker examined IO. DAV (o) Apol. reply p. 240 241. For Mr Parker He largely and strongly proveth this position (p) De Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 1 Potestas Ecclesiastica essentialiter primariò in ipsâ Ecclesiâ tanquam in subjecto proprio residet The power Ecclesiasticall doth essentially and primarily reside in the Church itself as in its proper subject The sense wherein he thus spake to prevent all suspicion of his pleading for popular confusion he declareth out of Zanchy who saith toti Ecclesiae dedisse Christum claves Zanch. in praecept 4. qu. 3. sed ita ut in Ecclesiâ certi essent qui clavibus utantur ad salutem Ecclesiae honoremque Dei That Christ gave the keyes to the wholl Church but so that there should be certaine men that should use the keyes to the good of the Church and glory of God For the proof of the former that the right of power is in every particular Church he useth five Arguments in the 6. 7. chapters and then in the 8. chapter he commeth to speak of the exercise and ordinary execution of this power which is he sayth in the Church-officers or rulers yet with this moderation that this dispensation of the Churches power in the Officers be according to a well tempered forme partly Aristocraticall partly Democraticall the Church committing those things to the Presbytery which it cannot commodiously performe by it selfe and retaining that exercise of power which belongs to the dignity authority and liberty which it hath received from Christ Thus he wholy destroyeth that Democraty or popular Anarchy which Beza justly condemneth in Morellius and is by some unjustly imputed to those that plead for a due reformation of Churches according to the rules of the word and the primitive patternes Of the first sort of things which the Church committeth to the Rulers because it cannot commodiously performe them by it selfe he speaketh in cap. 9.10.11 ANSVV. Mr Dav. professed and promised touching Mr Parker and these other Writers that he would shew them to be strongly against me but though he make a long discourse of his writing and doe alledge in grosse eleven chapters at once out of Mr Parker yet doe I not finde that he applyes any thing to the question against me for I. Suppose it be granted which yet some godly and learned men deny that all power Ecclesiasticall is essentially and primarily in the Church as the proper subject thereof and from thence derived and communicated to other either particular persons or assemblies of Classes and Synods what is this to our question doth it follow from hence that Synods have no power to judge Ecclesiasticall causes or that they are onely for counsell or admonition This is the poynt of our question but this neither Mr Parker affirmes neither doth Mr D. offer to conclude it by any just consequence from his words and so all that he alledgeth is not to the purpose II. This very derivation of power from particular Churches unto Classes and Synods is an argument of the power of judgement that is in them for what great need was there of a derivative power to consult or to admonish onely Mr D. confesseth that (q) Apol. reply p. 47. every Christian hath power of admonition in another for his good And shall Synods have no more power then particular and private persons III. Whereas Mr Parker distinguisheth betwixt the power of the Church and the exercise of that power and acknowledgeth that the execution of this power in the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in the whole Church but in some speciall persons appoynted thereunto it followeth hence that in some things the Ministers and Governours of a Church have a power which the Church cannot exercise without them and therefore in some respect a greater authority then the whole Church beside them This is confessed in the practise of the Brownists themselves who keep their children sometimes unbaptised for many yeares together while they want Ministers that have authority to baptise IV. The Authors alledged by Mr Parker to shew that Ecclesiasticall power is originally in the Church did never draw any such consequence from thence that therefore there is no power of jurisdiction in Synods but made the contrary conclusion that therefore there was a power of jurisdiction in them And this conclusion was made not onely by the Councell of Constance and Basill Ioh. Gerson Schola Parisiensis but by D. Whitaker also whom Mr Dav. (r) Ibid. p. 237. 238. alledgeth as if he made for him who yet reasons strongly against him saying (ſ) De Cōc qu. 5. p. 170. If a particular Church have greater authority in judgements then Peter or any particular man then much more the universall Church which is represented in a generall Councell or Synod V. For Mr Parker himself though he be very large touching the originall power of particular Churches and the derivation thereof unto Ministers Synods yet he never concludeth from hence a want of jurisdiction in Synods but declares the contrary in many (t) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. 23 24. c. places as is to be shewed hereafter In the meane time let us consider how Mr Dav. proceeds in alledging Mr Parker I. DAV Of the second sort of things which the Church retaineth in it self because it can commodiously exercise them by it selfe he speaketh in cap. 12. Wherein by 22 Arguments he proveth the Churches superiority over her Pastors and rulers in 3 respects 1. of the end the power which they have being given them for her aedification 2. in respect of the application of it to the persons 3. in respect of regulating the use of it if it be abused ANSVV. I. If those 22 Arguments of Mr Park be good and effectuall to prove the Churches superiority over her Rulers then have we so many sound Arguments to prove the authority of Classes and Synods This is evident because Mr P. applyes those 22 Arguments to prove the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches
His affirmation is (v) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 12. p. 77. that the superiorit of jurisdiction is retained in every Church so that neither the Pastour in the Prime Church nor the Praesident in the Combined Church nor yet any Bishop is above the Church but under the power of every Church This distinction of the Church is more plainly declared by him afterward where he saith (x) Ibid. c. 13. p. 117. Est itaque visibilis Ecclesia duplex Prima et Orta Prima est collectio singulorum fidelium in unam Congregationem et generali nomine Ecclesia dicitur Orta est collectio combinatio Ecclesiarum primarum plurium in unum coetum appellatur Synodus that is The visible Church is of two sorts The Prime and the Combined Church The Prime Church is a collection of severall faithfull persons into one Congregation and is called by a generall name the Church The Combined Church is a collection of more prime Churches into one company is called a Synod Now the jurisdiction which he speakes of he makes common to both and expressely applyes it to both to the combined Church or Synod as well as to the particular or prime Church And further that in the 12. chapter he spake generally of both these kindes of Churches he manifests in the first words of the 13. chapter where he begins thus (y) Ibidē Hitherto we have spoken of the Church in generall so farre as it is the subject of Ecclesiasticall politie now let us come to the divers kindes thereof II. Notwithstanding the superiority of the Church yet Mr Par. (z) Ibid. p. 77. acknowledgeth the authority of the Pastour to be very great as having it immediately from Christ and not onely the authority but also the exercise of the same authority and jurisdiction in which respect he saith he is superiour not to men onely but to the Angels themselves Gal. 1.8 as being in Christs stead 2. Cor. 5.19 20. so long as he useth this authority lawfully And repeating the same againe he proceeds further when he saith that if he doe not lawfully exercise his authority in the administration of the Word and Sacraments then he ceaseth to be a Pastour (a) Ibid. p. 88. quo casu solo eum suae Ecclesiae subjectum esse dicimus in which case alone we say that he is subject unto his Church If in this case alone which I durst not have sayd then in other cases the authority of many Pastours Elders especially meeting together in a Synod may exercise an authority superiour unto one particular Church I. DAV And in cap. 18.13 making a comparison between a particular Church and Churches combined in Synods and Classes he affirmeth that the difference between them is not in the intensive consideration of their power which the Congregation hath in reference to the Keyes within it selfe but in the extensive power onely wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects viz. to many Churches in things common whereas the power of a particular Church is confined and limited within its owne compasse ANSVV. In this 13. chap. for that number of 18. seemes to be mistaken Mr Parker doth againe give divers pregnant testimonies for the authority and jurisdiction of Synods I. In the place alledged his words are these (b) Pol. Eccl l. 2. c. 13. p. 121. I distinguish touching the power of the keyes which is intensive or extensive No prime Church no not the least of them doth want the intensive power but it wants that extensive which a Synod hath seeing the power thereof is extended to many Churches whereas the power of the prime or particular Church is not extended beyond her owne bounds The power of the keyes is a power of jurisdiction an Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing whether intensive or extensive this power he confesseth to be in a Synod and therefore the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition but for jurisdiction also in the judgement of causes Whereas according to Mr D. his allegation the difference betwixt the power of a particular Church and of a Synod is in the extensive power onely therefore the Synod is also of greater power and jurisdiction in extension unto many Churches II. In comparing the power of a particular Church with a Synod he sayth expressely (c) Ibid. p. 129. Major quidem potestas est Synodi quam unius alicujus Ecclesiae primae parochialis Greater is the power of a Synod then of any one prime or parishionall Church But if Synods could onely counsell and admonish a particular Church besides that could censure and use Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then should a particular Church have greater power then a Synod and not onely greater intensive power but as great extensive seeing a particular Church yea or a particular person may give counsell or admonition either to a Synod or to many Churches as occasion shall require It is true indeed which Mr P. saith that all the parishionall Churches are greater then their Synods seeing by a new Synod they may abrogate that which was ordained amisse by their Deputies without their consent sentence and will This he proves by many arguments and this we willingly consent unto this is the practise of all the Reformed Churches But this is sufficient for the question in hand that a Synod hath the power of the keyes and jurisdiction and greater authority then any one Church III. This is another conclusion of Mr Parkers (d) Ibid. p. 120. We say there is one forme of government instituted of Christ in all Churches both prime and combined so that we may not dreame there is in the prime Church a different forme from that which is in the combined Church neither may we imagine that in the combined Church there is another different from that by which the prime Church is governed If this assertion be true then Mr Dav. and those of his minde do dreame when they imagine so different a forme of government to be instituted in the particular Churches and Synods which he calles the combined Churches that one sort of them should onely give counsell admonition the other exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction censure I. DAV (e) Apol. reply p. 241.242 The same authour in the 20 chapter speaking of the summity or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations propoundeth the due limits of it wherein he conceiveth it is to be understood and bounded as that the power of particular Churches is chief 1. in its owne matters not in things common to many Churches 2. in case it be able to transact its owne matters within it selfe as if a doubt or controversy arise the Church hath power to terminate it if it can as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves and laboured to compose the difference within themselves but finding not a want of right to end it among themselves but need of more
he spake of jurisdiction because counsell alone is not sufficient to end controversies unlesse there be authority and jurisdiction exercised withall And further whereas D. Bilson had sayd that Synods have had more power then Elderships Mr Parker assenteth saying (h) Pa. 303 So truely it ought to have bene done that they should onely have more but this more serveth not your purpose but contradicteth it for if they have had onely more it followeth that the Elderships alwayes ought to have had some power though lesse Thus expressely he acknowledgeth a power of jurisdiction in Synods as well as in Elderships and many the like assertions if need were might further be noted out of the same chapter Hereby it appeares how vaine it is which Mr D. saith that in the 3 last limitations other Churches doe concurr in way of counsell and declaration of their judgment as if that were all they did as if the Synod consisting of those Churches did not give definitive sentence of causes brought unto them And hereby it may withall appeare how the judgement of Mr Parker doth agree with the practise of the Reformed Churches which doe exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in their Synods according to those 4 limitations specifyed by him There is no matter determined by them and judged in their Synods but it may be reduced to one of these 4 heads it is either a common cause or a case of impotency where there is need of help or an unlawfull administration in some or at least a presumption of evill dealing I. DAV (i) Apol. reply p. 242. Thus have we examined his owne witnesses and finde them to be wholly for us in this cause ANSVV. Whether the forenamed witnesses Mr Cartwr Mr Fenner and Mr Parker be wholly for Mr Dav. and those of his opinion let the Reader judge His examination of Mr Par. inspeciall is done by the halves but before we come to speak of other pregnant testimonies which Mr P. hath given touching the authority and power of Synods omitted by Mr D. we will first examine another allegation which he had set downe before (k) Ibid. p. 226.227 where he labours to prove that the lawfull combination of particular Churches in Classes Synods is by way of counsell or brotherly direction and not otherwise I. DAV The reasons whereby it may be proved are weighty Mr Parker hath saved me the labour of this taske by laying downe six Arguments for the proofe of this in those his learned and elaborate treatises concerning Ecclesiasticall policy as 1. From the ground of this combination of Churches De Eccl. pol. l. 3. c. 2â— p. 329. which is love not obedience 2. From the forme of it which is communion and consociation c. 3. From the matter of it which are Churches who are aequall among themselves as members in the body which have a vicissitude of offices mutually to be performed among themselves 4. From the object of it which is res communis that which concerneth all the Churches in common 5. From the outward manner of proceeding which is collatione consiliorum by conference and communication of counsells 6. From the end of this combination which is not to receive the mandates of other Churches but their consent counsell and approbation ANSVV. In generall it is to be observed 1. That the scope of Mr Parker in this chapter is to shew in what manner many Churches are combined together in Synods namely as equals in a mutuall fellowship and not with subjection to any one Church above the rest This he propounds in the beginning as the state of the question when he savth (l) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 22. p. 327. The Hierarchy will have this combination to be subordinate and joyned with subjection unto their Hierarchy against the common opinion of all Protestants which affirme no consociation to be lawfull but that which is mutuall such as is wont to be among equalls He thought not therefore of this new found out combination by such as maintaine the single uncompounded policie but of such as is commonly received by all Protestants His arguments are all directed against the Popish and Hierarchicall combination which we also disallow with him This he repeats againe for conclusion after his six arguments saying (m) Ibid. p. 336. By all which it is plenteously demonstrated that the combination of Churches is not Hierarchicall with subjection unto any one among the rest but rather Aristocraticall wherein equalls are joyned together Neither could he call the government of Churches by Synods Aristocraticall if they did onely direct by way of counsell seeing an Aristocracy is such a government as exerciseth jurisdiction in the judgement of causes II. If Mr Parkers meaning had bene otherwise viz. that Classicall and Synodall combinations had no authority nor jurisdiction or that no Churches ought to be subject unto the same then had all his 6 arguments bene of no force neither could they proove any such matter We may see it plainly in the example of the prime or particular Churches where in the combination of many members together though the ground of it be love though the forme of it be communion though the matter of it be brethren which are equall among themselves though the object of it be res communis that which concerneth all in common though the end of it be not to receive the mandates of any one member but the consent of many yet doth it not follow hence but that such a Church and society hath power of censure and jurisdiction and that the members thereof are to be subject unto such a combination And thus also may particular Churches submit themselves to many combined together in a Synod III. If Mr Parker did not meane thus but simply denyed all jurisdiction of Synods subjection of Churches unto them then should he be contradictory to himself in that which he had so expressely and so often acknowledged in other places before as that Greater is the power of a Synod then of any one prime or particular Church and that the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod Moreover to come more particularly to each of his 6 Arguments there is something to be observed in his reasoning in every one of them that may shew unto us how he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods I. The first Argument (n) P. 329. taken from the ground of love and mutuall help is that which he saith is proved by Zepperus l. 3. c. 7. mistaken for c. 8. who in the same chapter pag. 715. describes the authority of Synods in the exercise of Discipline and the greatest censures thereof even unto excommunication therefore not for counsell onely Againe all those places of Scripture Num. 32.6 17. Eccl. 4.9 Rom. 12.13 Phil. 2.4 1. Thes 5.11 14. Heb. 10.24 13.3 1. Cor. 10.33 which he together with Zepperus doth
alledge for the warrant of this combination of Churches in Synods for their mutuall help they are all of them such as doe equally yea and primarily concerne the communion and society of severall persons and members in a particular Church where it is confessed by our opposites that there is jurisdiction as well as counsell If these places would have removed jurisdiction from Synods and condemned the subjection of Churches unto a Synod then would they also have done the like for particular Churches and have condemned the subjection of members thereunto Seeing they doe not the one therefore not the other also II. In prosequuting his 2d Argument (o) P. 330.331 taken from the forme of combination which is consociation consisting in a mutuall obligation he confirmeth it by the testimony of D. Whitaker alledging that Calvine sayd well that by brotherly charity Cont. 4. qu. 4. p. 448. not by naked authority but by letters and admonitions and other such meanes Hereticks were deposed in the time of Cyprian Deposition of Hereticks was an act of jurisdiction in Synods And againe alledging Mat. 18. as the fountaine of this combination he sayth Many Churches are combined after the same manner that the prime Churches grow together into one body in their members and therefore it must be confessed that as Mat. 18. is a ground of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in particular Churches so is it also for Synods III. Mr Parker for confirmation of his 3d Argument (p) P. 331.332 taken from the matter of this combination which are the severall Churches equall members of one body alledgeth the example of the Reubenites who when they would expresse their combination with the Tribes on this side Iordan do call it their part in the Lord which was not unequall because of the distance of place Ios 22.24 25 28. And from hence then it may appeare that as the Tribes of Israel equally combined together were not subject to any one Tribe apart and yet were each of them subject to the whole society and body of Israel so the particular Churches having each of them equall part in the Ecclesiasticall consociation of Classes and Synods though they be not subject to any one Church apart that is exalted above the rest yet may be subject to the whole society of many Churches concurring together in Synods IV. In the explication of his 4th Argument (q) P. 332 333. taken from the object which is a common matter concerning all or many Churches he alledgeth a distinction (r) Conf. with Hart. c. 8. d. 5. maintained by D. Rainolds betwixt questions of the Church requiring knowledge onely and causes of the Church requiring jurisdiction also for the judging of them Questions of the Church were sent unto them that had no jurisdiction over those that propounded them but the causes of the Church not so They in Africa were (ſ) Concil Carthag Graec. c. 2◠Milevita c. 22. forbidden to appeale unto them beyond sea viz for the decision of their personall causes which yet were to be judged by the Synods in Africa whereby it is acknowledged that Synods have a power of jurisdiction which is more then counsell Whereas Mr P. addeth The first combination of Churches is in matters of faith c. The second combination of Churches is in personall causes yet by accident onely for these properly belong unto each severall Church as they are proper yet when they become publick by accident then Churches are combined indeed but without subjection as it fell out in Cyprians time in causa lapsorum in the cause of them that fell in time of persecution which thereupon became publick because the offence was common in many Churches Lest any should stumble at these his words it is to be considered that as personall causes and offences are by accident the object of Classicall and Synodall judgements so by like kinde of accident they are the object of that judgement and jurisdiction which is exercised by particular Churches In that maine ground of Ecclesiasticall discipline Mat. 18.15 16 17. all the degrees of admonition and censure are ordained to be used according to those 4 accidentall ifs If thy brother sinne If he will not heare thee If he will not heare the witnesses If he will not heare the Church And so in like manner those 4 limitations before noted by Mr Parker are 4 accidentall cases wherein the power of Synods is to be exercised and wherein it is greater then the authority of particular Churches viz. if it be a common cause if the Church be unable if the Church administer unlawfully if it be so presumed Such kindes of accidents are properly the lawfull and just object of Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction by proportion from the same rule Matt. 18. If one member sinne or suffer it becomes a common cause so farre as it is knowne all the members suffer with it and take care for the redresse of it in a particular Church 1. Cor. 12.25 26. And if one Church sinne be in danger it becomes a common cause all the Churches that are members of the same body especially those that are united by covenant in a Classical and Synodall government are to take care for it and to seek help according to the quality of the danger Thus the community of cause inferreth combination And further for that which he repeats againe that this combination of Churches by accident is without subjection it is still to be remembred that his meaning is without subjection to any one above the rest for so he againe largely explaines himself in the same place giving instance in the Church of Carthage and in Cyprian the Bishop thereof maintayning against D. Downam that Cyprian was no Metropolitane that the province was others as well as his that in the Synod there held there was a parity that the Churches were equally combined without subjection to any one that Bishops Elders had equall power in giving their suffrages V. In setting downe the 5 t Argument (t) P. 334. taken from the outward manner of proceeding which was by conference and communication of counsels he shewes withall that therein there was an exercise of jurisdiction when as in the words of Cyprian he shewes the end of those counsels ut communi consens◠figerentur sententiae that by common consent firme decrees might be made And the authority of these judiciall sentences and decrees touching those that were fallen is further declared by Cyprian when he shewes that they were (v) Cypriā L. 1. Ep. 8. tempered with discipline and mercy whereby it is evident that there was an exercise of discipline or Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction therein and that Epistle of Cyprian containes in it sundry other sentences which shew that he spake of the administration of censure and not of counsell onely VI. In his last Argument (x) P. 335. taken from the end of this combination which was not to receive mandates but for consent counsell
controversies that arise in the same and according to Mr Parker doe exercise a lawfull jurisdiction herein From this Communication of Churches he commeth to speak (k) Ibid. c. 23. p. 345. 340. of their Combination from whence ariseth a combined Church derived from other Churches This combination he notes to consist either of two or more Churches An instance of this combination of two he gives in the Synod at Ierusalem Act. 15. and sayth It was a Councell and Synod and that properly and that of two Churches to wit of Antioch and Ierusalem for the Messengers sent from Antioch were present which represented the Church of Antioch as is usuall in Councels And notwithstanding an objection made against the Church of Antioch yet he sayth that Church was also judge in that Councell because their Messengers brought the judgement of the same with them Hereupon he reproveth two Spirits of errour the one of Grotius who 〈◊〉 sayd to reject the use of Synods altogether for who would write this saith Mr Parâ—… 〈◊〉 be that is bewitched with errour seeing the Church of God hath alwayes held that Sâ—… are here instituted of God to endure for ever c. The second spirit of errour wiâ—â—â—he reproves is that of the Hierarchy (l) P. 347. because they condemne the Reformed Synods as if they were degenerate quae tamen ad hunc typum accuratissime efformantur which are notwithstanding most exactly framed according to this patterne Hence it appeareth that Mr Parker held the Synods of divine institution to be not onely for counsell and admonition but for jurisdiction also for otherwise he could not have sayd with truth that the Reformed Synods all which exercise jurisdiction doe answer exactly thereunto otherwise he might rather have sayd that the Synods of the Reformed Churches swarving from the primitive patterne were indeed adulterare and degenerate usurping authority and jurisdiction which did not belong unto them The combination of more Churches Mr Par. describes in divers kindes or degrees also (m) IbideÌ„ and first that which is of many Churches into one Eldership The reason of this is because some little Churches knowing their owne weaknes doe joyne themselves unto the neighbour Churches and so make but one Eldership onely among themselves He gives an instance of this in those small Churches about Geneva which not being sufficient for themselves doe joyne themselves unto the Church in the next City so that they come together weekly into the neighbour-Consistory of the City This combination of lesser Churches into one Eldership or Consistory Mr Parker approves and justifyes and declares his judgement touching this kinde of consociation 1. He sayth It is grounded upon the communion of Churches and derived from the wisedome of the Spirit and complaines of the Hierarchy that doe so virulently impugne the same 2. (n) P. 348. Whereas nothing is more objected against the Reformation in England then that many Churches or Parishes are unable for it wanting fit men to governe and to exercise discipline in Elderships Mr Parker answereth hereunto If it be so let them joyne themselves unto the next Eldership or erect a common Eldership among themselves and so from common counsell and help let them seek remedy for their weaknes Now it is recorded (o) Calvin Epist 167. that in the Discipline at Geneva the right of Excommunication is in the power of this Consistory or common Eldership and hereby then it appeares that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church onely and that Mr Parker allowing of this government at Geneva is not against the jurisdiction of many Churches over one Againe whereas D. Bancroft and D. Field object that the Churches at Geneva and the villages of the Netherlands have not the power of Excommunication and whereas my opposites complaine that Churches are brought into bondage and loose their liberty when they may not excommunicate without the consent of others Mr Parkers answer is (p) P. 349. that the power of Excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction remaines pure in them saving that communion which ought to be among Churches every Church in greater matters useth the consent and counsell of her neighbours as of the Classis or Eldership in the City quod ego Ecclesiis vel perfectissimis non indigâ—um reor which I judge saith he not to be unmeet even for the most perfect Churches Thus he requires not onely counsell but consent of other Churches in weightier matters which is that we stand for This doth not as he saith (q) P. 390. import any Hierarchicall subjection in the parishes at Geneva unlesse happily any can be subjected unto himself for these parishes each for their part and that equally are this very Eldership What subjection is it where all as well City-churches as the Country-churches are equall for the country-churches are no more subject unto this Eldership then are the city-churches The next combination of many Churches which Mr Parker speaks of (r) Ibid. c. 24. p. 353. c. is when they are united into one Classis And of these he giveth instance in the Churches of the Netherlands and in Scotland where the 52 Presbyteries so called by them were nothing els but so many Classes For the warrant of these he bringeth both divers grounds of holy Scripture and the example of antiquity He there answereth 10 Objections made by the Hierarchy against these Classes And it is to be observed that he doth not simply speak of Classes in generall but of these Classes of the Reformed Churches in these Countries of our Classes as he useth to call them not onely for that he approved them but because together with us he was a member of this communion and lived under the jurisdiction of the Classis with us If he had not allowed their jurisdiction which he knew and saw to be exercised by them how could he with good conscience have praised them as he doth Speaking of the ancient Discipline used in the Primitive Churches he saith (f) P. 357. Omnia his in politeia nostra in Classibus nostris similia O quantum peccat Hierarchia quae hanc suavissimam Ecclesiarum combinationem eliminavit that is All things in our government and in our Classes are like unto these O how much doth the Hierarchy offend which hath banished this most sweet combination of Churches And as well might we cry out O how much doe the authours of the single uncompounded policie offend who likewise seek to banish and overthrow this combination of Churches in Classes while they allow them onely for counsell and regard not their consent but allow the Churches in combination to proceed in the weightiest affaires without or against the consent of Classes Whereas it is objected not onely by my opposites but by some of the Hierarchy themselves that these Classes doe take unto themselves that jurisdiction which they seeme to condemne in the Hierarchy Mr Parker in his answer
prevaile to take away the offence either immediately or mediately for a meanes is so farre good as it makes to the obtaining of his end As though God did not blesse his owne ordinance above our hope and reason above all that we can thinke or as though we were not to use his meanes and leave the successe unto him He that begins a good work and proceeds so farre till he be stopped by others is accepted of God as if he had finished it SECT V. His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined IO. DAV (r) Apol. reply p. 242. Dioc. tryal p. 13. â—â— To him I may adde Mr Paul Baynes a man of singular noate for learning and piety in Cambridge where he succeeded Mr Perkins who freely expresseth his judgment for the right of particular Churches and their independence in this sense in his Diocesans tryall ANSVV. As Mr Baynes was a man of singular note for learning and piety so is his testimony of singular note to shew the right use power of Synods not onely for counsell but for authority to censure and judge Ecclesiasticall causes so that particular Churches may not doe within themselves what they would without their consent 1. After he had set downe 4 conclusions wherein we agree with the opposites he comes to speak of the poynt of difference and sayth (f) Dioces tryall p. 13. That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish-Churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues that Nationall Church of the Iewes and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches This doe I willingly assent unto And this is no other thing then that which is practised in these Reformed Churches with whom we are united Here is no one head-Church that hath more authority then another all Congregations are equall independent each of other here is no subjection to any one Diocesan all are equally and mutually subject to the Synod consisting of many their dependency is not upon one more then another but it is onely in regard of many combined notwithstanding which combination they have their government within themselves being subject to the Synod onely in some more weighty and difficult cases II. As for that other place when some had pleaded from the example of the Reformed Churches as if they had not bene distinct Churches c. Mr Bayes so explaineth their estate and practise as Mr Parker (t) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 348 349. c. more largely had done before that therein he doth not at all prejudice their subjection to Synods for speaking of the 24 Churches at Geneva and of their combination and subjection unto one Presbytery he sayth (v) Dioc. tryal p. 21. They have power of governing themselves but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbyterie Secondly it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein they shall have no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherein themselves are members and judges with others After that againe he addeth Geneva made this consociation not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect and to make one Church by this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion Thus he notes not onely the counsell but the consent of others required And as at Geneva a particular Church proceeded not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in a common Presbytery so in these Low-countries in weightier affaires they proceed not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring in their Classis III. Mr Baynes having shewed how every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body and having Governours every way equall there is yet no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracie especially when God ordaines it is a forme of government sufficient to preserve order hereupon he propounds this objection (x) Dioc. tr p. 68. But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it self And hereunto he answers thus Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled and to the Civill Magistrate who in case of delinquencie hath directive and corrective power over it And thus we have his expresse testimony and confession that Synods have authority not onely to counsell and advise but to censure that particular Churches are subject to the censure of other Churches that consequently there is a double Ecclesiasticall Aristocracie one in particular Churches severally another in many Churches Synodically assembled that if a particular Church erre in matters of faith and religion that it is subject not to the power of the Magistrate alone but both to him and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall jusridiction arising from the combination of many Churches contrary to that assertion in the English Puritanisme chap. 2. IV. Speaking of Presbyters that is of Ministers and Elders and of their government he saith (y) Ibid. p. 67. There is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo but the Scripture doth asscribe it to them power of suffrage in Councell Act. 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to have bene in the Church of Corinth c. While he alledgeth Act. 15. for an evidence of the Presbyters power in Synods or Councels he doth hereby acknowledge that in Synods there is a lawfull exercise of jurisdiction and of the power of the keyes and that therefore they are not onely for counsell and advise To like purpose he saith afterwards againe (z) P. 82. The Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbyterie with them Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had receyved power of the keyes doing it ex officio and others from discretion and duety of confessing the trueth And a little after he there addeth It is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters had right of suffrage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therefore in Oecumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instruction of Bishops receyved from their Churches V. Whereas one errour useth to accompany another and commonly those that deny the authority of Synods doe also in
Regall authority to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by Divine or Apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents It is here to be observed how he notes onely what they thinke without approbation thereof he declares their opinion but doth not acknowledge it to be his owne judgement Neither had he reason so to judge for in the primitive Church when there were no Christian Magistrates there was then a lawfull use of Synods and that by Divine and Apostolicall ordinance as hath bene shewed before And as for particular consents if any Church walked disorderly and offensively there is no reason to think that the censures and decrees of Synods against such Churches should be differed untill they did consent unto the censuring of themselves It was sufficient that at their first combination there was a generall and free consent to submit themselves in the Lord mutually unto other Churches Synodically assembled And yet more plainely in the same place he professeth that he differeth in judgement from them when he concludes Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defence of those later Disciplinarians from whom although in somethings I confesse I dissent yet I cannot consent to the D. taking away of their innocency Though in some things Dr D. did unjustly charge them yet Mr S. the Refuter of D. D. did also judge that in some things there was just cause to dissent from them IV. Besides the foresayd Refuter of D. Down there is also another learned man who besides his great learning having also as great experience in the discipline and government of the Church according to the practise of the Reformed Churches hath of later time written a compleat and large refutation of D. Downam And in this refutation he hath dealt more plainly and circumspectly in this poynt then Mr S. hath done For whereas D. D. relating the opinion of these later Disciplinarians as new and false sets downe their assertion in these words (p) Sermon at Lambeth p. 4. That every parish by right hath sufficient authority within it selfe immediately derived from Christ for the government of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall this assertion is not admitted but with sundry cautions To omit the rest these are the two last wherein the authority of Synods is evidently acknowledge viz. (q) Gersom Bucer Dissert de Gub. Eccl p. 14. The fourth caution is that the authority given to a particular Church is not sufficient for the handling of all Ecclesiasticall causes by their owne judgement but for those onely which are so particular that they may be deemed altogether proper unto it For whatsoever case falles out belonging unto the common order of neighbour Churches we judge that the same is to be brought unto a more generall assembly wherein these Churches doe joyntly meet together The last caution is that both the institution and observation of all things especially if they seeme to procure any discommodity or not to make for aedification be subjected unto the judgement of the next Churches meeting together in one For we doe not permit that the Governours of parishes should dispatch all things as they list but will have them to submit themselves to the inspection of the Churches For we think that of Augustine ought by all meanes to be observed (r) Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. in Donat. ca. 9. Semper universum partibus jure optimo praeponi that by good right the whole is alwayes to be preferred above the parts c. Thus expressely hath this Authour given warning that the whole combination of many Churches united in Synods is of greater authority then any part that particular Churches owe a subjection unto the same Lastly as for those many other Authours the Centurists Illyricus D. Andrewes B. of Winch. D. Fulk Willet Thom Bell Cyprian Augustine Gerson Ferus whose names are here alledged by Mr Dav. without specifying their words they are all of them except one or two alledged by Mr Canne and in answer unto him (f) Chap. 7. sect 1.2.4.6 hereafter it is shewed that all every one of them are against Mr Davenp his opinion all giving a cleare and plaine testimony for the jurisdiction of Synods SECT VII His Allegation of D. Voetius examined IO. DAV (t) Apol. reply p. 242 243. Desp caus Pap. lib. 2. sect 2. cap. 11. p. 186. To the same purpose hath a worthy and learned wrighter of these countries Voetius Professour of Divinity in Vtrecht whose words I thus translate The Church is the spouse of Christ which is the proper and adaequate subject of that power to whom Christ hath committed that delegate right reserving the chiefe to himself Which ought to be and to remaine so proper to the Church that it neither may be snatched away by the authority of others nor lost by their voluntary concession nor committed to the trust of any other although divers acts belonging to the calling of a Minister may ought to be performed by certaine members of the Church ANSVV. All that is here affirmed by this worthy Writer being granted of us yet is not Mr Dav. his opinion justifyed nor the authority and jurisdiction of Synods overthrowne hereby for I. Christ was the Bridegroome of his Church and the Church was the Spouse of Christ and honoured with this title under the old Testament as well as under the new Sol. song ch 1. 2. c. Esa 50.1 Ezek. 16.8 Hos 1. 2. 3. 1. c. And yet it is confessed by my opposites that under the old Testament before Christs comming in the flesh particular Congregations and Synagogues were subject unto the Synedrion and that all jurisdiction was not limited unto the severall villages or cities in Israel or to the Synagogues therein And therefore this title of Spouse and Bridegroome doth not inferre any restraint of jurisdiction in the new Testament more then in the old II. As when the Church of Antioch sent their Delegates or Deputies unto Ierusalem and the controversy raised in their Church was decided and determined by the definitive sentence and decree of the Synod Act. 15. they did not thereby loose their power but it still remained with them for the judgement of their causes so those Churches that now submit their causes to the judgement of Classes and Synods are not thereby spoyled of their power yea it is their owne authority and power which by their Delegates is â—â—â—rcised in those Assemblies Moreover the Churches are herein so farre froâ—â—oosing their power that on the contrary they might be sayd to loose their liberty right and power if they had not authority for their owne help and others thus to send their messengers unto such assemblies III. It is to be observed how Mr Dav. doth mistranslate the words of D. Voetius by omitting a word of speciall importance which both he and D. Ames also (v) Cas coÌ„s
l. 4 c. 25. q. 5. th 26. using the like speech have expressely mentioned for whereas their words touching the power of the Church and the propriety thereof are these ut alienae fidei planè committi non possit that it may not altogether be committed to the trust of others he omitting this word planè which signifyes altogether utterly or quite and cleane doth hereby corrupt the testimony which he alledgeth For though the Church may not utterly or quite and cleane commit her power to the trust of others yet in some kinde and in some measure it may and ought to be done For the kindes D. Voetius gives instance in divers acts belonging to the calling of a Minister which may and ought to be performed by some certaine members thereof and the same is to be considered for divers other acts of like nature And for the measure so as he also notes that Christ the Bridegroome reserve the supreme authority unto himself which is then acknowledged by his people when they doe not receive nor follow the authority or sentence of any man or Officer of any particular Congregation or of any Synod further then they in their consciences finde it to agree with the sentence of Christ revealed in his word As the Lord himself by an immediate call committed power and authority unto the trust of his servants whose faithfulnes is thereupon commended 1. Tim. 1.11 12. 1. Cor. 9.17 Gal. 2.7 so doth the Church also both in the ordinary calling of men unto office and in the occasionall sending of them about particular workes and affaires of the Church Phil. 2.25 2. Cor. 8.19 23. 1. Cor. 16.3 especially in communicating their power unto them to give sentence in Synods IV. That D. Voetius doth allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods we have many testimonies our of this very book of his which Mr D. alledgeth I. Though he shew that Ecclesiasticall power of judgement is first and immediately in particular Churches yet he notes withall (x) Desp caus Pa. l. 2. s 1. c. 5. p. 96. that this power arising thence is by a certaine fit proportion applyed unto many Churches united in some kingdome or kingdomes or in the whole world This is done in Nationall Generall Synods II. Speaking of a publick Reformation which he calles authoritative he shewes (y) Ibid. p. 62. how it being universall may be done either in an universall Synod or without a Synod Speaking of Reformation made by instruction exhortation or invitation he sayth it may be done of any one Preacher yea and in some sort of any one Christian but for the Reformation wherein there is an actuall change of publick worship he saith it is necessary that the help and consent of many and those not of one order doe concurre and that one or a few are not sufficient unlesse it fall out that the authority and parts of those many who are interested therein be devolved unto them Thus he alloweth the jurisdiction of Synods while he acknowledgeth that the authority of many may be derived and communicated unto a few which is the very thing wherein the jurisdiction of Synods doth consist III. He defends (z) P. 79. Luther appealing from the sentence of excommunication given out by Pope Leo the tenth unto a lawfull Generall Synod he allowes the like appeale made by the Arch-bishop of Colen and the appeale of the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde the forme whereof was affixed or set up at Rome in all which the authority of Synods is acknowledged IV. He allowes (a) P. 85. the example of those Churches which determined matters by a publick and Nationall or Provinciall judgement Speaking of the Reformers of Religion he sayth (b) P. 169. Luther had the right of suffrage and used the same in the University of Wittebergh as one of the Professours in the Church as one of the Pastours in the neighbour-churches of Saxony as a member of them in the name and by commission from the Church of Witteberg and not further So did Zuinglius Farell Viret Calvin and all the rest A just patterne of the Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction exercised in the Reformed Churches in these countries at this day V. He avoucheth and maintaineth (c) P. 201. that a lawfull Synod or Church by their sentence and authority may and ought to depose Ministers that are Idolatrous Hereticall and the like An expresse testimony that Synods have not onely right of counsell and admonition but also of exercising Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the censuring of offenders He addeth there that the Westerne Churches ought to remove such Clerkes or keep them out from entring either by a common or each of them by their particular judgement either in a Synod or without a Synod VI. Even in this very page place that Mr D. alledgeth (d) P. 186. D. Voetius alledging the example of the Synod at Ierusalem Act. 15.3.4 22 23. to shew that Ecclesiasticall power is given to many in the Church doth thereby acknowledge the authority of Synods If he had thought they might onely counsell and admonish then had this place alledged bene insufficient to prove the thing propounded by him nor suitable to the other places alledged together in the same place viz. Matt. 18.17 2. Cor. 2.6 with 1. Cor. 5.4 which are to be understood of the jurisdiction and authority of the Church in censuring This power is also againe (e) P. 187. 189. poynted at by him in the same chapter Lastly to come from his words unto his practise Whereas this learned Minister of Christ was deputed and sent (f) Act. Sy. nod Nat. Dordr sess 2. with others unto the last famous Nationall Synod at Dort was reckoned among those Worthies whose praise is so great in the Gospell being the messengers of the Churches and the glory of Christ when as he there among the rest did exercise the authority of suffrage for the decision of divers controversies and gave sentence with others in the (g) Ibid. ses 138. censure and deposition of divers both Ministers and Elders it appeareth hereby that he did not thinke all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Congregation If Synods might goe no further then to counsell and admonish then had D. Voetius with the rest bene an usurper of unlawfull power Besides this order of Classicall and Synodall assemblies together with their jurisdiction and authority in such sort as it was before and is still practised in these Reformed Churches was confirmed and established (h) Rerckēorden Nat. Syn. Dordr Art 22.52 in that same Nationall Synod where D. Voetius appeared as a member thereof and according to which he was bound to practise both while he was Minister at Heusden and since also at Vtrecht being not onely Professour in the University but also Pastour of the Church in the sayd city So that there is no cause to doubt but that his
decision of such causes as cannot be so well ended among themselves V. Lest any should object that in all these Deputations the judgement of controversies was referred unto such Officers or members of the Church as were within the same Congregation and that they did not submit their causes to the determination of any other judges out of themselves it is therefore further to be observed that there was an order agreed upon by the English Church at Franckford that in the time of their contention (r) Ibid. p. 37.38 41.48 the matter should be determined by these five notable learned men which were of other Churches to wete Calvin Musculus Martyr Bullinger Viret This agreement was put in writing To that all gave their consents This day was joyfull Thankes were given to God brotherly reconciliation followed c. Yea the holy communion was upon this happy agreement also ministred This agreement is often repeated layd downe as a ground of comfort as a proof of their equity that did most constantly cleave thereunto Afterwards againe when more contention was raysed in that Church both the opposite parties were content not onely to heare the counsell advise of men in other Churches but to submit unto their judgement as farre as men may submit unto the sentence of any particular Church whatsoever And for evidence hereof it is recorded how the one part of the Church declared their minde by this (Å¿) P. 100.101 writing following We offer permit with most willing mindes having the licence of the Magistrate as it may well be for this purpose that all our controversies and contentions whatsoever which have bene sowne and brought in among us sithence the beginning of this breach and since the first day we began to strive untill this present time and houre to be debated decided and determined by Arbiters being none of this our Congregation and yet from among the brethren our countrie men equally and indifferently by the parties disagreeing to be chosen upon this condition that not onely the election of Ministers and besides all other things done by the order of the sayd discipline stand in suspence to be allowed or disallowed by the determination and judgement of the Arbiters to be chosen as is aforesaid written the 5. of April Anno 1557. The other part of the Church did in like manner witnesse their consent by their writing the copie whereof was as followeth We submit ourselves and are contented to commit all manner of controversies that have heretofore risen amongst us in the Church to such Arbiters as the Magistrate hath appointed and to all such as they call unto them to the hearing and determining thereof according to Gods word and good reason And thus simply and plainly without any manner of exception or condition In witnes whereof we have subscribed our names the 5. of April Anno 1557. Though there were some differences betwixt these parties in other particulars yet they all agreed in this to commit authority power unto some out of themselves whom they would set up as Judges over them Hereby it doth appeare that they did not confine and restraine the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes within the limits of one particular Congregation onely And if a particular Church might thus referre their controversies to the judgement of foure or five persons out of themselves then might they as well or better be referred to the judgement of many Churches united together in Classes and Synods VI. This English Church which sojourned at Franckford for foure or five yeares in Q. Maries time was not a setled and established Church they wanted the opportunity of combining themselves with other English Churches It was the misery of this Church that they wanted the help of ordinary Classes and Synods and it is unreasonable to make the speciall defect or want of some one Church a precedent for other Churches to deprive them of that mutuall help which they may conveniently enjoy and which God offers unto them This English Church (t) Disc of troubl in Engl. Ch. at Franckf p. 27 c. p. 62 c. p. 135 c. was exercised with great troubles and continuall dissentions all the time of their abode at Franckford to the great grief and offence of many The forme of their Discipline and these Articles here objected by Mr Dav. and Mr Can. were not fully agreed upon the Pastour and the Elders with some of the Church dissented from the greater part of the Congregation And in such case as Mr Fenner before mentioned doth testify (v) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 278 c. the controversy ought to have bene brought to a greater Senate to a Classis or Synod which he calles a Presbytery of more Churches for the deciding thereof The want of this was the cause of their woe VII The English Church at Franckford in the want of a Classis might so much the rather allow appeales unto the Congregation because there were in that Church many learned men able to discerne and judge of causes In that Church (x) Disc c p. 60. they set up an Vniversity and chose severall men for the reading of Hebrew Greek and Divinity lectures The learned men that repaired unto this Church were also as famous for their piety and sincerity enduring persecution for the Gospell of Christ choosing rather to live in banishment with their afflicted brethren then to enjoy the pleasures and promotions of Antichrist which they might have had in their owne countrie if they would have bowed their necks to his yoke In such a Church it was more tolerable to appeale unto the body of the Congregation then in many other that are farre unlike And yet if such a Church abounding with so many Worthies could not well subsist alone in their want of a Classicall government but fell into so great contentions and scandals this may justly serve for the warning of other Churches and teach them to seek the help of neighbour-churches to submit themselves mutually unto such combinations as the Lord shall give opportunity Lastly when as afterwards it pleased God to visit his people and to restore the light of the Gospel and true Religion unto England by that gracious and noble instrument of his goodnes Qu. Elizabeth of ever blessed memory then these excellent and eminent lights of his Church returning againe into their country did give a plaine testimony unto this trueth that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Congregation Some of them being promoted unto chief places of government in England did by their practise professe that particular Churches may submit themselves unto a superiour authority out of their owne Congregation Some of them became Ministers of the Church of Scotland stood for the maintenance of that Discipline which from the beginning of the Reformation acknowledged the authority and jurisdiction of Synods None of them for ought I ever heard that dreamed
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
certaine as it is certaine that he which by force repelleth force is armed with publick authority He distinguisheth their jurisdiction in respect of the causes judged by them and repeats this their authority againe in the (e) N. 28. next animadversion And though these two kindes of government Civill and Ecclesiasticall doe use a different manner of compulsion he sayth (f) N. 29. Nihil refert nos de rei substantia agimus coactionem uterque habet sed hic spiritualem ille temporalem c. It skilleth not we intreat of the substance of the matter both of them have a coactive power or a compulsion but the one spirituall the other temporall c. A most evident assertion of Synodall jurisdiction and that they are not to direct onely by way of counsell but to correct also by way of censure To these I might adde many other testimonies of Iunius but these evidences already cited may be sufficient to shew that he was not of this strange opinion touching the independency of Churches and that Mr Daven therefore hath abused his Readers and sought to blinde their eyes when for the credit of his cause he would have it thought that Iunius was of his minde while he professeth that he doth fully agree with him SECT X. His pretence of agreement with Dr Whitaker examined M R Dav. to colour his opinion as if it were no singular conceit of Mr Iacob and some few others makes mention of the Centuriatours as if they were of the same minde yet he alledgeth not their words to prove the same But instead of others he chooseth out Dr Whitaker as if he had bene a favourer of this opinion which it is likely that he never heard of and sayth (g) Apol. reply p. 237. 238. Whit. de Cōci quest 5. Argum. To these I may adde those who have handled the controversies concerning the necessity and authority of Councills amongst whom I will instance in Dr Whitaker who speaking of the fullnes of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church not to the Pope which he applyeth to the Keyes in binding and loosing shutting and opening retaining and remitting finnes sayth that this power belongeth primarily principally and essentially to the Church but to the severall Bishops onely accidentally secundarily and lesse principally and explaineth himself by a rule in Philosophy which is that when any power is in two in one necessarily essentially in another contingently and accidentally it is more principally in him in whom it is necessarily and essentially then in him whose it is onely contingently and accidentally As the heat is more principally in the fire then in the water because it is in the water by reason of the fire So sayth he seeing this jurisdiction and fullnes of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily but to the Pope onely secundarily and by the Church it is manifest that it is more in the Church then in the Pope What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope holds in all other parallell instances ANSVV. First had Mr Dav. repeated this Argument of D. Whitaker fully and justly as it is set downe by himself then might the Reader have seen therein a plaine evident testimony for the authority of Synods but divers things being omitted in the beginning middle and end of it thereby the trueth is obscured and hidden from his Readers In the beginning of it D. Whitaker propounds it thus If the fullnes of power be in the Church not in the Pope then it is evident that it hath more authority then the Pope but the first is true therefore the second also Now by the Church in this place he meaneth the Generall Synod or Councell as appeares by the title of this Question noted in the beginning of it viz. (h) DeConcil Qu. 5. c. 1. with c. 3. Arg. 5. Whether the Synod be above the Pope and if he had not so meant it this his Argument had bene beside the Question And therefore while D. Whitaker here directly concludeth a fullnes of power in Synods and as he further calles it in this same place that highest authority and jurisdiction which Christ hath left unto his Church it is manifest hereby that he did not hold them to be onely for counsell admonition and so was farre from limiting all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation In the middle in the confirmation of this Argument D. Whit. saith For if all this power were in the Pope or in any one man principally and essentially then he dying it should perish and so the Church should altogether loose it But it is not lost though the Pope dye a thousand times but it remaineth with the Church without which the Pope though living could have no part of this authority Now to argue on this manner against the authority we asscribe unto Synods by comparing them with particular Churches as he doth against the Pope compared with Synods would be inconsequent unequall and no parallel instance because the title of the Church is no where given unto the Pope or unto any one person as it is unto an assembly of Ministers Governours or Deputies of Churches met together in the name of Christ in Synods because though we asscribe unto Synods some jurisdiction yet we doe not say that all power is in them originally and so to be derived unto others as is sayd of the Pope and consequently because there is no such danger that the power of the Church should be lost and perish by the death of such as are members of the Synod as might be by the death of the Pope if all power were primarily and essentially in him alone And therefore it is a vaine assertion of Mr Dav. touching this argument of D. Whit. viz What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope holds in all other parallell instances In the end of this Argument prosequuted by D. Whitak he concludeth thus Wherefore seeing it is certaine that this power is given unto the Church primarily and not unto the Pope but secondarily and by accident and seeing the Church is represented in the Synod it is of necessity that the Synod must be above the Pope And thus most evidently he grants unto the Synod as being a representative Church a power jurisdiction above the Pope a power which consists in binding and loosing shutting opening retaining and remitting of sinnes as himself here explaines it and so is directly contrary to them which allow no more unto Synods but counsell and admonition Why did Mr Davenp omit and refuse to name the Synod which D. Whit. so expressely mentioneth applying yeelding unto the Synod that power which he there pleades for Secondly as for that similitude of fire and water though it be granted that heat is more principally in the fire then in the water because it is in the water by reason of the
others But had D. Whit. bene of my opposites minde he should have condemned each of these opinions both of Papists and Protestants and should have sayd that neither one nor other sorts of persons were to be admitted for judges in Synods but onely for counsellours and admonishers that none of them were to have determining voyces or to give definitive sentence but onely to shew their advise to have a consultative voyce When Bellarmine alledgeth that the Prelates onely as being Pastours of the Church are to have definitive voyces D. Whit. answering his arguments sayth (p) Ibid. c. ◠p. 85. The end of Synods is not to feed viz. by teaching as proper pastours but to decide controversies to prescribe Canons to correct abuses to order Churches and to doe other things which belong unto the peaceable and quiet state of the Church Herein he yeelds unto Synods not onely advise for direction but jurisdiction and power of correction c. To prove this authority of Presbyters or Elders he alledgeth Act. 16.4 where there is mention of the decrees ordained by the Apostles and Elders and sayth thereupon (q) Ibid. c. 3. p. 96. 97. Who dare now denye the Elders to have had a determining suffrage They did not onely dispute or consult but did also judge and decree together with the Apostles For the word * determined ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equally applyed unto both These things are so manifest that no man can gainsay it To this end also he argueth (r) P. 102. 103. that a Generall Synod represents the Vniversall Church that whosoever is sent of a Church represents the person of that Church And finally (ſ) P. 103 104 c. from ancient histories he alledgeth the examples of divers Synods as of Chalcedon Nice and Constantinople wherein this power jurisdiction was exercised A fourth Question is about the Praesident of Synods In this dispute Bellarmine alledging that Constantine professed himself to be subject unto the Bishops and that he ought to be judged of them D. Whitaker allowing and commending that profession answereth and sayth (t) De Cōc q. 4. c. 3. p. 132. What then This hindereth not but that he might be Praesident For if a Bishop had bene Praesident ought be not to have bene judged of other Bishops What godly Prince would not have sayd so Hereby he acknowledgeth that jurisdiction authority of judgement is no undue power of Synods and that even the worthiest persons ought to be subject thereunto A fift Question is whether Synods be above the Pope Here D. Whitaker having first shewed what the Popish opinion is he then declares the opinion of the Protestants and sayth (v) De Cōc q. 5. c. 1. p. 146. Seeing the Pope is the Bishop onely of one Church he is not onely not superiour unto all Bishops assembled together but not so much as superiour unto any of them apart Therefore we say that a Synod may also decree against the will of the Pope may take cognition of the Popes cause may judge the Pope compell him unto order may prescribe lawes unto the Pope which are to have force against his will and finally may condemne the Pope and deprive him of his office if he be worthy of such a punishment Now if a Synod have this power to judge censure and depose the Popes then hath it as much power to judge and censure other Ministers and members of other Churches unlesse it can be shewed that they have more authority then the Pope or some strange priviledge to exempt them from that jurisdiction of Synods whereunto others are in subjection Afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 3 he brings 10 Arguments to prove the superiority of Synods above the Pope And in them there be plenteous evidences touching the authority of Synods Those arguments which prove that the Synods have jurisdiction over the Pope and power to censure him doe alwayes prove that Synods have jurisdiction and power of censure Otherwise though the Pope deserved censure yet it should be an usurpation in the Synod to doe that for which they had no calling nor warrant even as in the execution of Civill judgments it should be a presumptuous and unlawfull usurpation if private men being no Magistrates should take upon them to punish malefactours though they had justly deserved the same Not to insist upon many other things which out of those 10 Arguments might be alledged for our purpose I will onely instance in one example that is there (y) Ibid. p. 195. 196. urged by D. Whitaker and taken out of Sozomen lib. 4. c. 15 or as in some editions c. 14. who recordes that the Synod of Syrmium made an Act whereby Foelix the Bishop of Rome was appoynted to admit Liberius to be his fellow in the administration of the Romane Church Hence D. Whitak inferres So it seemed good unto the Synod therefore the Synod was above the Pope and above that Church Bellarmine answers The Synod did not command but onely exhort Foelix by letters that he would suffer Liberius to sit with him D. Whit. replyes againe Touching letters of exhortation Sozomen makes no mention of them He sayth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They write unto Foelix c. And that these letters were mandatory it appeares because otherwise Foelix would never have yeelded Thus we see from hence that Synods have power at least in the judgement of D. Whit. not onely to exhort admonish which every Christian may doe but also to prescribe injoyne that which is equall just and so that others are to be subject thereunto The sixt and last Question is whether Synods can erre Now lest any should take occasion hereby to deny the authority of Synods it is to be observed that D. Whitaker doth in like manner affirme that any lawfull assembly even of those that are met together in the name of Christ z De Cōc q. 6. c. 2. p. 216. may erre also He sayth a Though Christ be in the midst of them which are assembled in his name it followes not that they doe not erre For all are not free from errour with whom Christ is present And truely two or three which meet in the name of Christ may be deceived may erre in many things and may aske those things which are not to be asked and so be disappointed of their hope and yet Christ be among them For Christ doth not alwayes exempt them from errour with whom he is Wherefore seeing every Ecclesiasticall assembly every Eldership and every particular Church being subject to errour and erring often are not yet deprived of their jurisdiction and power in the judgement of causes so though Synods want infallible judgement and erre sometimes yet are they not therefore without jurisdiction and authority But further he avoucheth plainly that Synods have judiciall authority when he sayth (a) Ibid. c. 3. p. 322. A Synod is sayd to doe
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
should serve for proofe of his Major that he brings for confirmation of his Minor The Scriptures which he alledgeth he referres to the proofe of his mis-named Proposition the Testimonies of Authors here alledged he referres to the proofe of his mis-called Assumption This errour I doe the rather note 1. Because it is no slip or oversight in him through want of attention in this place but an ordinary and frequent errour as appeares in that which followeth 2. Because of his insolent and arrogant boasting against others (c) Churc plea p. 2. 3. 15. Necess of Sep. p. 188 189. for want of art and want of wit of Logick c. Who can relate unto us such an example of a man professing himself a Logicall Disputant with such abundance of printed Syllogismes with such contempt of others and yet to be so rude as not to know the plainest things and the A. B. C. in Logick the difference betwixt the Major and Minor in a Syllogisme 3. Because of his spirituall pride not onely in separating himself from the Churches of Christ as other Brownists doe but taking upon him to be their Pastour their guide their champion for defence of their Separatiō against all men O miserable men that follow so blinde a guide III. A third errour in the prosequution of this Argument is this that although the premisses of this argument being rightly understood are granted to be true yet the Scriptures alledged doe not prove the same Though the Churches planted of the Apostles had power fully in themselves immediately from Christ to practise all his ordinances yet these places 1. Cor. 5.2 3. Act. 14.23 1. Cor. 16.2 Col. 2.5 2. Thes 3.14 doe onely prove their right for the practise of some of his ordinances that are mentioned and poynted at in them but not of all other As for example the administration of the Sacraments though a right belonging to the Church and ordained in other places of Scripture yet is not specifyed in any of these allegations The liberty of appeales in case of oppression the power of sending Deputies unto a Synod for the decision of difficult weighty causes are ordinances of Christ and rights of the Church as hath bene shewed before yet not specifyed in any of these Scriptures alledged by him and therefore his proof for all ordinances is defective IV. For the right understanding of this sentence viz. that every Parish or every particular Church hath full or sufficient authority within it self derived immediately from Christ for the government of it self in all Ecclesiasticall causes I desire the Reader to look back unto the explication thereof by (d) Disse de Gub. Eccl. p. 14. Gersom Bucerus who labouring to make the best interpretation thereof yet shewes that it is not to be admitted without divers cautions some whereof I have expressed * P. 117. 118. before He undertakes the defence hereof against D. Downam but no further then it may be so understood and so expounded as not containing in it any denyall or impeachment of the authority and jurisdiction of Classes and Synods judging the causes of many Churches And indeed how can any Church be sayd to practise all the ordinances of Christ so long as they refuse and deny the combination of Churches or the jurisdiction of them being combined which is shewed to be one of his ordinances ARGVM II. (e) Churc plea p. 69. If Christ in Mat. 18.17 where he sayth Tell the Church doth meane a particular Congregation Then hath every particular Congregation an intire power in of it self to exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all other Gods spirituall ordinances But the first is true Therefore the second The Proposition is cleare and certaine maintained by the most Iudicious Divines c. The Assumption is proved thus That Church which Christ intendeth in Matt. 18. hath absolute power in of itself to performe all Gods ordinances But Christ intendeth in Mat. 18. a particular Congregation Therefore every particular Congregation hath absolute power in and of it self to performe all Gods ordinances c. ANSVV. I. Here is the same fault that was in the former Argument viz. of concluding beside the question This argument being granted there ariseth hence no prejudice to the authority of Classes or Synods The authority of particular Churches and the authority of Synods may well subsist together The arrowes which are shot by Mr Canne are beside the marke of the maine question II. His argument is not onely beside the mark but as an arrow shot up into the ayre and falling downe on his head againe so doth his argument returne upon himself for if a particular Church hath intire power in and of itself to performe all Gods ordinances then hath it power to unite itself with other Churches combined in Synods and to submit unto the judgement thereof according to the divine warrant ordinance Act. 15.2 c. Deut. 17.8 c. III. As before so he blindely stumbles here againe at the same stone in not discerning betwixt the Proposition and Assumption of his owne Syllogisme The Authors which he alledgeth for the maintenance of his Major proposition ought to have bene applyed to the proofe of his Assumption viz. to shew that Christ in Mat. 18.17 where he saith Tell the Church doth meane a particular Congregation for this is that which he assumes when he sayth But the first is true And all the shew of help which he hath from his Authors tends to confirme this Assumption but their testimonies are no direct proofe of his Proposition IV. Another new grosse errour in his Logicall dispute is this that whereas he goes about to prove the Assumption of his first Syllogisme by framing a second Syllogisme he doth not therein according to order conclude that which was his former Assumption whether it be understood as it is indeed or as he miscalles it but instead thereof he ridiculously repeates the Conclusion of his first Syllogisme which Conclusion is neither the Proposition nor the Assumption which he offers to prove but the Question made by him in his maine Argument And thus entangling himselfe with his owne Syllogismes Propositions and Assumptions he hath brought himself into such a maze that he knowes not where he is what he sayth nor whereof he affirmeth Let Logicians tell how oft they have seene the like in print V. Whether all his Authors doe affirme that by the Church in Mat. 18. Christ meant a particular Congregation I will not here examine I shall have further occasion in the next chapter to speak of many of them But in the meane time let it be granted not onely that they have all so affirmed but that it is the trueth Yet doe they not all affirme that onely a particular Congregation was intended by Christ Mat. 18. For both the Eldership of a particular Church and the Synod arising from the combination of many Churches are shewed unto us in Matt. 18. the one
for the judging of lesser causes without bringing them to the whole Congregation the other for the deciding of weightier matters which neither Eldership nor Congregation can so well end And this is acknowledged by sundry of his Witnesses whose names he abuseth in this controversy Mr Parker touching Mat. 18. sayth (f) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 15. p. 160. The Church of the faythfull is intended of Christ not as it is simply considered as we sayd before but as it exerciseth Discipline according to an Aristocraticall temperament in the Eldership For we doe think that the Church mentioned in the first place in those words Tell the Church doth precisely signify the Aristocraticall part that is the Eldership but that which is mentioned in the latter place in these words If he heare not the Church if as Downame teacheth it include the Church excommunicating for contempt and not onely decreeing or examining then it doth also comprehend the Democraticall part of the Church forasmuch as the consent of the people is necessary unto excommunication And a little before he sayth (g) Ibid. p. 159. Almost all interpreters doe agree that those words in vers 19. If two or three doe containe an amplification from the lesse to the greater from a lesse company to a greater so that it is most plaine that under the name of the Church he included as well the greater company as that which consists of two or three How Mr Parker proved the Synod also from Mat. 18. is shewed (h) See Ch. 3. p. 45. 49. before where D. Whitaker Mr Cartwright and others also teach the same thing ARGVM III. (i) Church plea. p. 70. Whatsoever was commanded to the 7 Churches to be practised by each of them apart in and for themselves that no Church of God must now omit But Ecclesiasticall government was commanded to the 7 Churches to be practised by each of them apart in and for themselves Therefore no Churches of God must omit the practise of Ecclesiasticall government apart in and for themselves The Proposition cannot be doubted of For as Chytraeus c. The Assumption is proved clearly in chap. 2. vers 2 14 20. c. Moreover Mr Perkins c. ANSVV. I. This Argument for the forme of it is a misshapen Syllogisme and that in a double respect both because the Minor terminus is superfluously put into the Major Proposition and because the same terminus is confusedly joyned with the Praedicate in the Minor proposition when it should have bene placed with the Subject therein But this is one of the least faults in Mr Cannes reasonings II. For the matter of it this Argument doth also come short of the mark reacheth not home to the question And that which he concludes being well understood may be safely granted of us That which Mr Canne alledgeth from Chytraeus Bullinger Brightman Perkins for the proof of his Proposition Assumption I doe willingly assent unto and it was but an idle labour to bring them for proof of that which is not denyed There be no Churches here among us which refuse to practise Ecclesiasticall government apart in for themselves This they practise after a double manner 1. There be many rebukes and censures against sinne administred in them without the knowledge of Classis or Synod apart in and for themselves 2. When as more hard weighty causes are brought unto the Deputies of other Churches assembled in Classes for their advise and judgement even then also when upon their consideration matters are cleared and there remaineth no scruple they are then remitted againe and referred unto the particular Churches so that the Eldership with consent of the Congregation proceedeth therein as they finde cause according to the repentance or obstinacy of the persons with whom they have to deale And so the sentence is both determined and executed apart in for themselves without the Classis But if by government to be practised apart in and for themselves he meane such a solitary and separate government as refuseth combination with other neighbour Churches such as admitteth no liberty of appeale in case of greatest wrong such as excepteth a particular Congregation from the censure of all other Churches though it should erre never so perniciously and in summe such a government apart as denyeth all authority and jurisdiction of Classes and Synods then is his Assumption most false and all that he alledgeth for proofe thereof helpes him nothing for 1. Though the Angel of the Church of Ephesus be commended for not bearing with the wicked c. and the Angel of the Church of Pergamus and Thyatira be reprehended for suffering divers enormities Rev. 2.2.14.20 by what good consequence can these examples overthrow the authority of Synods There might be occasion at this day to write unto some Ministers standing under the Classes and Synods in these Reformed Churches and some of them might justly be commended for their zeale in not bearing with the wicked others might justly be reprehended for their negligence in tolerating of such as offend now Mr Canne according to this reasoning might as well conclude against experience against the knowne trueth that these Ministers doe not stand under any Classicall government 2. The praise or dispraise which is given to the Angels of severall Churches apart doth not so much serve to argue an independency or disunion in government in these Churches but the very * Rev. 1.16.20 2.1 3.1 forme of the vision in the union of these Starres of the Churches in Christs right hand doth rather argue a consociation of them for their mutuall help in the government of his Church They appeare not scattered in the Firmament but gathered and drawne together What is a Classis or Synod but as a Constellation of so many Starres of the Churches combined together which by their conjunction together doe yeeld both a greater light of direction and a stronger influence of authority for the confirmation of the trueth and conviction of errour And as for the testimony of Mr Perkins though he acknowledge (k) Vpō Rev. 2.20 3.7 God hath given to every Church power and authority to preach the Word administer the Sacraments represse evill men c. yet doth he not thereby exempt those Churches from the censure of others if they be found to pervert the word corrupt the Sacraments and judge unrighteously It is not probable that such a conceit did ever enter into Mr Perkins head neither can it be collected from his words ARCVM IV. If the Church of Corinth had power and authority within herself to exercise Ecclesiasticall government yea and did it I meane the Ministery and the rest of the Church there Then ought not particular Congregations now to stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves But the first is true Therefore the second The first part is unquestionably certain and of this judgement was D. Willet c. ANSVV. That which
Goulartius also in his annotations thereon observeth that these Synods were kept to this end that the purity of doctrine and the discipline of the Church might be preserved entire and that the disturbers thereof might be excluded from their communion And in many other places Cyprian is so pregnant in this poynt that whosoever shall alledge him against the authority of Synods must either be a very ignorant reader of Cyprian or els a wilfull abuser of him REAS. VII Note the effect if it should be otherwise which is that every particular Congregation must hence necessarily loose her owne proper right in government so of a Mistres become a servant instead of being superiour wilfully vassall and enslave herself which thing is contrary to Gods will revealed in his word Gal. 5.1 1. Cor. 7.23 2. Tim. 1.13 Heb. 4.14 Rev. 2.25 ANSVV. I. This reason is the same for substance with his ninth Argument before and therefore it is here idly repeated II. The vassallage and slavery which he argues from Classicall government is upon a false consequence The liberty of innocent persons oppressed by wrong judgment in a particular Church is to appeale unto Classes and Synods The Democraticall government that denyes this liberty of appeale is no gracious mistresse but a Tyrannicall virago resembling the Romish Lady that by denying appeales from the Pope keeps many in bondage III. The Scriptures cited by him are all perverted and misapplyed for what force of consequence is in these reasonings viz. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free c. Gal. 5.1 therefore stand fast against appeales from particular Congregations Be not the servants of men 1. Cor. 7.23 therefore be subject to no Ecclesiasticall government save onely to the Democracie of a particular Church Hold fast the forme of sound words c. 2. Tim. 1.13 therefore hold fast the independencie of Churches Let us hold fast our profession Heb. 4.14 therefore hold fast the single uncompounded policie Hold fast that which ye have already c. Rev. 2.25 therefore hold this fast that Classes and Synods are onely for counsell and not for authority to censure and judge What unsound inferences and applications of Scripture be these Mr Canne in his 9th Argument before (f) Churches plea p. 73. alledged also 1. Thes 4.6 3. Ioh. 9. Prov. 22.28 Deut. 19.14 together with Gal. 5.1 Mr Dav. also to like purpose (g) Apol. reply p. 237. alledgeth some of these places to wit Prov. 22.28 Gal. 5.1 3. Ioh. 9. But they prove the Question as little as the other for how vaine are these consequences Thou shalt not remove the ancient bounds Prov. 22.28 therefore all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation and he removes the ancient bounds that allowes the authority of Synods Or Diotrephes loved the preheminence 3. Ioh. 9. therefore Classes and Synods have no jurisdiction or power to judge and determine the matters of a particular Congregation What weight is there in such reasonings as these REAS. VIII Seeing the Apostles wheresoever they constituted any Church with doctrine immediately established in it (h) Pol. Ecc. l. 1. p. 20. Ecclesiasticall government for without this as D. Ames (i) De Cōsc l. 4. c. 24. p. 214. sayth there could have bene no coupling of the parts and members together It must needs follow that the primitive Churches were independent bodies and stood not under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Now how Mr Paget will be able to prove a change of this government I doe not yet see especially considering that the Learned as I shewed before doe hold that there is but one certaine necessary perpetuall forme manner of ordering Churches c. ANSVV. 1. The consequence propounded in this reason is false Though the Apostles in the constitution of Churches did immediately establish Ecclesiasticall government therein yet must it not needes follow that they were independent bodies c. For proof of this consequence he brings nothing but his bare assertion neither Scripture nor testimony of any learned Writer To prove an establishment of government in the primitive Churches at first he idly and needlesly alledgeth Mr Parker and D. Ames to prove the perpetuity and unchangeablenes of that government which needed no proof he needlesly according to his manner heapes up testimonies of Calvin of P. Martyr of D. Bilson of the Churches of France of the Low-countries of Scotland and of Papists also but to help his weak unsound consequence that needed confirmation and support there is no proof nor shew of proof II. Though particular Churches in their severall assemblies be acknowledged to be distinct bodies yet in regard of the entire and full communion of Saints they are all members of one body there is but one body Eph. 4.4 And those that are members of one body are not independent The Scriptures that shew this unity and the dueties arising from thence are justly alledged and layd downe as the ground of combination and consociation of Churches And this foundation of Classicall communion being as ancient as the first constitution of Churches it appeareth hereby that the right of this confederation of churches was in them from the beginning with liberty to use and exercise the same as occasion and opportunity should permit Mr Cartwright being required to shew Scripture for the warrant of this practise of Churches answereth (k) T.C. 2. Rep. p 231. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12. The Scripture I prove it by is that St Paul when he teacheth that all the faithfull are members of one Mysticall body of Christ which ought to have a mutuall care one of another layd the foundations of this politie For as in the body of one particular Church every faithfull man compared with another in the same is a member one of another so in a more generall body of a whole Realme every particular Church compared with other is likewise a member of them Therefore as nature teacheth my hand to help the disorder which is in another part of my body so the Spirit of God out of his word through a fellow-feeling teacheth one Church to stretch out her hand to put away as it can the evill which it seeth approch unto another Rom. 15.14 Heb. 3.13 And therefore when the Scripture willeth that one should admonish another it is not onely a commandement to every singular man towards his fellow but also to one whole company towards another societie Mr Parker (l) See before p. 95.96 alledgeth the same ground out of Zepperus who from thence deriveth the authority of Classes and Synods in censuring and judging the causes of many Churches and citeth many such places of Scripture for proof thereof III. When the Church of Antioch brought her controversy unto the Synod at Ierusalem there was no change of government They had this right from the first though then especially it were manifested unto all for the actuall exercise thereof upon
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
spread abroad by the authority of Constantine and of that Synod and many confirmed in the profession thereof thereby they were sealed in their foreheads the name both of the Lamb and of the Father was imprinted on their foreheads according to that in Rev. 14.1 In the exposition of that mysticall Song of Solomon where there is mention made of a fountaine of gardens a well of living waters and streames from Lebanon this Mr Brightman doth also (t) Cōment in Cantic c. 4. V. 15. p. 75.76 interpret and particularly apply unto the Synod of Nice The decrees of that Synod are by him avouched to be the living waters to refresh and make fruitfull the gardens of God which are the Churches of Christ And while he alledgeth such divine warrant to prove the fruit and benefit of Synods how injurious is Mr Canne unto him in perverting his testimony yea how injurious to the Church of God in drying up these fountaines of comfort by his impugning the authority of Synods Besides this to omit other the like testimonies of Mr Brightman touching Synods even in that (v) OnRev 12.1 very place mentioned by Mr Canne touching the purity of the primitive Church Mr Brightm maketh mention of Paulus Samosatenus the Synodicall Epistle concerning him and so leadeth us to that story which shewes the power of Synods in that primitive age For there we read that about the yeare of Christ 280 there was a (x) Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 26 27.28 29. edit Basil 1611. Synod held at Antioch where many Bishops and others met together from many Churches and out of divers Provinces who did not onely give counsell about the controversy but gave sentence against Paulus Samosatenus and by common consent rejected and excommunicated him Aurelianus the Emperour using his authority to represse the insolency of that person when he would have resisted the Synod The same story is recorded also by the (y) Cent. 3. c. 9. col 206.207 Magdeburgenses in their Centuries shewing that divers Synods were held at Antioch about that busines before it could be finished Whereas they doe here in their marginall note send me to see what Mr Iacob saith Necess of Reform p. 57. c. I have long since seene what he writes both in that place and in other of his treatises published of later time and though he went too farre in this businesse yet I finde that he disallowes the practise judgment of the Brownists and wonders at their blindenes and bewailes it For speaking of Morellius and the popular government which he strove for he sayth (z) Attestat c. 8. p. 249. Some of the Separation I grant are too offensive this way which I am heartily sory for They take the wordes in Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church more popularly then there is need or then reason or good order would Howbeit in this yet they hold the substance of the true Church-government They erre but in the circumstance of order though it be too (a) Beza Annot. in Mat. 18.17 foule That is they will examine all scandalls c. whatsoever in the presence and under the judgement of the whole multitude perpetually and necessarily I say perpetually and necessarily Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents which will and must ensue many times And afterwards againe in the same (b) P. 280 281. chapter he saith But to hold those popular circumstances in every Church perpetuall and necessary absolutely as the Separation doth it was neither Cyprians meaning nor Christs nor any well advised Christians Yea upon this his testimony touching the disorder of the Brownists he sets this note and mark of his vehement dislike in the margine of that page Separation itself is no such error as this is And this ought seriously to be considered of Mr Canne and his client In the next place (c) Ch. pl. p. 81. he brings divers allegations of Scriptures and other Authors to prove that we may not change the Apostolick Government nor leave their institutions c. In all which he beates the ayre and trifles leaving the question that is betwixt us as I have noted (d) P. 145. c. before seeing they prove not that the authority of Synods is against the Apostolick institution Come we therefore unto his testimonies of Lutheranes of such as he confusedly mingles with them viz. of Zuinglius Luther Chemnitius Melancthon Sarcerius Brentius D. Rungius Hunnius Osiander Salneccer Pelargus D. Mylius Hegendorphin c. These all are notably perverted by him for to answer first in generall What though these teach that the power of excommunication of calling Ministers c. is in the whole Church doth it therefore follow that Synods may not judge the actions of a whole Congregation if they abuse their power If Congregations call a Minister though never so vile or so unworthy or if they would excommunicate an innocent person shall there be no liberty of appeale unto a superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory for the redresse of such wrongs Or doe any of his Lutherane witnesses condemne such an appeale This he ought to have concluded from their Testimonies by some just consequence if he would have spoken to the purpose The insultation of Mr C. and W. B. upon these testimonies is most vaine containeth many falshoods It is false that my opinion is a new opinion as they call it It is false that these Lutheranes are contrary unto me It is false that upon my grounds Officers how vile soever must be left alone if Ministers of other Churches judge them fit to continue It is grossely false that the power which I leave unto particular Churches is just nothing It is an open and foule falshood that these many Authors alledged doe consent fully with them viz. with Mr Canne and W. Best But this will more plainly appeare if we take a particular survey of the chief of those witnesses here produced whose testimonies he vouchsafeth to set downe The first of these is Zuinglius who though he was no Lutherane as Mr Canne notes in his margine who had promised to set downe his allegations taken from Lutheranes next after the Papists yet here he is brought in with Luther And as he is misplaced in respect of the order which Mr C. propounded to himself so his testimonies both touching excommunication and calling of Ministers are unjustly alledged against us In the first sort of testimonies touching excommunication not to speake of Mr Cannes altering and transposing his Authors words to make them serve his owne purpose Zuinglius reprooves the abuses and enormities of the Pope and his Bishops undertaking by their sole authority to excommunicate those that were none of their Church His words are these (e) Art 31. No private man may excommunicate but the Church wherein he that is to be excommunicated doth dwell together with the Bishop And in the explication of that Article having spoken of other
Virell neither of them can be justly alledged for his witnesses in this cause For Viret he is (k) Beza in vita Calv. Calv. Epist 25 39.54 .c recorded to have bene a speciall assistant unto Calvine in the work of the Lord for the settling of that forme of Discipline by which the power of an Ecclesiasticall Judicatorie over divers particular Congregations was established at Geneva That weed of Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods as Mr Canne here (l) Ch. pl. p. 94. calles it was planted by the hand of Viret as well as of Calvine And then what reason is there to judge but that Viret did esteeme it a plant of the heavenly Father not to be rooted out of the gardē of his Church seeing he joyned with him in that work For Virell he writes touching the outward calling of Ministers in the (m) Groūds of Relig. b. 3. c. 1. p. 2. 7 708 edit 12. place alledged that it is the lawfull choyse of a visible Church met together in the name of Christ that there be three things required thereunto first that there be a search and tryall both of the conversation and learning of him that is to be chosen c. Another is this that men come not to it by any corruptiō of gifts but that it be free so as they that have the power to chose should have onely the glory of God and the edification of his Church before their eyes Thirdly that he which is chosen have a Church appointed unto him for the execution of his office whose duety it is to looke unto it diligently carefully And more then this he saith not that can with any colour be thought to looke towards this cōtroversy And in all this what one word hath he against the authority of Synods Nay it is the work of Classes and Synods to see that all things here required be accordingly performed in particular Churches and if any of these be omitted to correct and reforme the same Bullinger next alledged though he say that the Church hath power to elect ordaine fit Ministers yet he was not of Mr Cannes minde to thinke that the Church looseth her right and is bereaved of her due power when it is not exercised by herself alone or in that popular way which he requireth for even in the place (n) Decad. 5. Ser. 4. which Mr Canne hath cited he saith It skilleth not much whether fit Ministers be ordained by grave men chosen by the Church or by the whole Church itself and that either by votes or by lots or in any other convenient and holy manner For godlinesse doth not contend about these things so that all be done holily and according to order And afterwards againe he speakes to the same purpose It is well knowne that true Churches have the right of ordaining Pastours whether it be done by the votes of the whole Church or by the lawfull judgement of them that be chosen by the Church It appeares by these the following words that he alludes unto the practise of the Helvetian Churches concerning which we are to make further mention (o) Sect. 7. hereafter when we come to speak of their Confession Touching the Ecclesiasticall power of Synods Bullinger declares his judgement also in this same booke when (p) Decad. 5. Ser. 1. speaking of the power of the Church in judging of doctrines he gives instance in the gathering of a Synod which saith he the Church of God doth according to the power receyved from the Lord even as we read in the Actes of the Apostles that the Apostles of the Lord have done c. Againe he (q) Decad. 5. Serm. 10. cites and approves the decree of Justinian the Emperour for the yearely celebrating of Synods where matters arising might be examined and by due correction healed He urgeth this decree against the Bishops and warnes the Magistrates to take heed they doe not connive at the others negligence to the destruction of the whole Church and of all the Ministers of Christ. Behold here the difference betwixt Bullinger and Mr Canne that which the one holds to be the soveraigne remedy to preserve the safety of Churches of the ministery the other rejects as an unprofitable weed and that which tends to the undoing and (r) Ch. pl. p. 74. spoyling of Churches Danaeus his testimony is likewise unjustly alledged against us seeing he speakes not in the palce mentioned of the point in controversy betwixt us viz. the authority of Classes Synods or the totall excluding of the same in those things which belong unto elections Onely he doth there (ſ) In. 1. Tim. 5.22 reproove the grosse errour of those that in regard of such popular circumstances as Mr Canne seemes most to plead for doe bring as he saith a very great confusion into the Church by asscribing unto the people more then is due unto them while he shewes that the electing and presenting of the person that is to be called unto any Ecclesiasticall office whereby he understands the first taking notice of him the examining of his life doctrine and the publishing or propounding of him unto the whole Church that this belongs unto the Presbytery and that the approving and accepting of the person so examined and propounded doth belong unto the people they also having a convenient time allowed unto them that if there be just cause they may testify their dislike and bring in their exceptions against him This is the course there described and maintained by Danaeus and the same with that which is practised in our Church And thus the Witnesses produced against us doe still declare their consent with us As for the authority of Synods and the divine right by which it is due unto them Danaeus gives his verdict when in the exposition of the fourth commandement having spoken of the jurisdiction and power of the Church he saith (r) Ethic. Christ Lib. 2. cap. 10. Here comes in the Question concerning Synods which if they be right and keep themselves within their owne bounds their authority is ordained by this Commandement Gualter in the (v) Homil. in Act. 13.2 first place alledged having spoken of the due suffrages or voices of the Church in elections to prevent such a construction as Mr Canne seemes to make of his words addes presently This place doth clearly teach that some parts are committed to the Church in this businesse And againe he saith there that the election of Ministers doth in some part belong to the Church c. He doth not therefore exclude that part which herein we asscribe unto the Classis by proceeding with their advise and consent In the other (x) Ibid. in cap. 14.23 place for Mr Cannes marginall quotation 13.22 seemes to be misprinted he saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood not onely the gathering of voices but also imposition of hands and in his opinion the latter acception
superiour power above one particular Church and that they may judge of the affaires thereof and of the persons therein either Ministers or people This he declares at large in a peculiar treatise touching yearely Synods (f) DeSyno Annuis Opusc Theol. p. 768-870 Bas 1570. wherein after he had shewed the necessity and use of Synods by many divine and humane testimonies he then describes their power not for counsell onely as the Brownists and my opposites doe but for the exercise of all kinde of Ecclesiasticall censures as Rebukes of offenders Suspension Excommunication and Deposition or deportment of Officers from their ministery Of all the men of the Iurie before mentioned there is none that gives a more full and cleare verdict against Mr Canne then this Hyperius doth Oecolompadius another of his Authors hath declared his judgement touching Synods and the authority exercised in them to be such as argues his thstimony alledged by Mr Canne to be perverted while it is produced against the same For in his answer to Luther inserted among the workes of Zuinglius (t) Tom. 2. fol. 491. he doth highly commend the Councell of Nice and specially for decreeing that none should afterwards attempt to adde any new articles unto that Confessiō of faith which they had set downe Which Nestorius being found guilty of Oecolompadius approves of that Act of the Councell of Ephesus whereby he was excommunicated saying For which cause being condemned of the crime of heresie he was by common consent shut out of the Church which was sensible of peace restored unto her by this meanes Hereby it appeareth that the acknowledged Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō censure to be a power due unto Synods and that which may lawfully be exercised by them Beza next alledged upon 2. Thes 3.14 though he there call Excommunication an Ecclesiasticall judgement yet doth he not thereby infringe the authority of Classes and Synods neither can any such thing by any just consequence be gathered from his Annotations on that place But on the other side he shewes (v) Epist 83. De Ministr gradib c. 23 p. 155. c. 24. p. 176. 177. elswhere that Synods have their Ecclesiasticall judgements grounded upon the word of God and a profitable use in the Church of God and that the fanaticall opinion of Morellius much like unto the Brownists hath bene worthily condemned in many Synods And according to his writing so was his practise both at Geneva where he was one of them that had their voyce in the government of that Church by a joynt Presbytery or Classis and in France where he himself was President of that famous (x) Harmo Confes p. 112. edit 1612. Synod at Rochell where the Confession of their faith was subscribed by divers Princes and many Ministers and Elders assembled together And therefore if Mr Canne and W. Best their accusation of me were sound and just they might as well complaine of Beza for bringing the Churches of God into miserable slavery and bondage by his tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine Bucer last alledged accordes with the foregoing Authors and his words in commendation of Synods may serve to close up this kinde of Testimonies being an advise unto King Edward the Sixt for the constant celebrating of them In his Admonition given to the King for the restitution of the Kingdome of Christ in his dominions amidst other wholesome counsels out of the word of God he saith (y) De Regno Christi Lib. 2. c. 12. It shall be the duety of the Bishops of each Province to celebrate two Synods every yeare as it is ordained by so many Canons and Lawes of godly Emperours At which Synods must be assembled and heard not onely the Bishops of the Cities but also inferiour Bishops and other Presbyters and Deacons that are endued with a larger measure of knowledge and zeale for the kingdome of Christ that so the more effectually both the faults crept into the Church may becorrected and the pietie of all repaired He had also spoken before of other inferiour and more frequent assemblies like unto our Classes requiring that all the Ministers within the compasse of about 20 Parishes should often meet together for their mutuall assistance in removing offences advancing the kingdome of Christ Touching Synods he speakes also in (z) De vi usu S. Min. tit de Disci Cler. Opuse f. 582. another place to the same purpose approving the ancient constitution whereby it was ordained that the Bishops of every Province should assemble together with the Presbyters and Deacons as often as the need of the Churches should require but without faile twise in the yeare that they might inquire concerning the doctrine and discipline of Christ how it were administred and did flourish in severall Churches that where any default was discovered they might correct it and where they found things in good state they might confirme and promote the same By that correction spoken of here and in the former testimonie he understands not onely counsell and admonition but the judiciall exercise of authority in Ecclesiasticall censures For he doth plainly distinguish betwixt admonition and correction when in the following words concerning Metropolitanes he saith If any thing were done amisse by the Ministers of the Churches or by the common people which by their admonitions they could not amend that then for the correcting of it they should call a Synod of Bishops for there was no power of judgement allowed unto them which by their owne authority they might exercise in the Churches c. Thus Bucerus also as well as the former hath condemned Mr Cannes position viz. that particular Congregations must not stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves And these are all the Authors here alledged by Mr Canne except onely Morell Praedirius and Munster either not seen at all nor to be procured for the present as the two former or not seen to touch this controversie in the writings at hand as the latter Having now heard what these chosen men of the Iurie all nominated by W. B. his Advocate have testifyed concerning Classes or Synods let the Reader judge whether they have given verdict for or against Synods whether every one of these Authors alledged had not just cause if they were living to complaine of great abuse done to them in perverting their testimonies and making false consequences from their words contrary to their meaning And forasmuch as all these witnesses here examined are so farre from testifying ought against us that they have on the other side witnessed the trueth of that which we maintained against Mr Canne hence it is evident that I had just cause to say that which he would seeme to disprove by alledging these Authors against me viz. that there were a multitude of learned and godly Ministers of the same judgement and practise with me For further proofe whereof it were easy if need were to produce another Iurie of approved
to choose a Bishop which being sent thither as an Embassadour in the Embassage of God it might be granted unto them to glorify God in their meeting together He speakes there not of choosing a Bishop to minister in their owne Church but of choosing one to be their Deputy to travell unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for settling of order in that Church And in the same place to moove them the more he sheweth what was the practise of the Primitive Churches in such cases viz. that alwayes the neighbour Churches did send Bishops and some of them Elders and Deacons Againe writing upon the same occasion unto Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna he saith (e) Epist ad Polyc. p. 97 98. It was meet to gather a Synod comely in the Lord and choose some dearly beloved and diligent person which might be called Theodromos or one that should runne for God who might travell into Syria and thereby celebrate their diligent love to the praise of God And using many arguments to commend that businesse unto him as the work of God he intreateth Polycarpus that he would write unto other Churches that they would doe the same thing that they which were able would send men to travell on foot that others would send their letters to be conveyed by such as Polycarpus should send thither From these testimonies of Ignatius Mr Parker (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. p. 356. concludes that in those times according to the practise of the Reformed Churches with us neighbour Churches were combined together as it were Classically for the mutuall communication of offices And whereas D. Bilson (g) Perpet Gov. c. 7. confesseth that it was the manner of that time if any Church was tossed with waves of discord that neighbour Churches round about did send a Bishop Elder or Deacon for appeasing that tempest Mr Parker inferres justly thereupon If neighbour Churches had right or authority in compounding of strifes why not also in moderating of elections His conclusion in the same place is Let this very right in compounding strife be a sufficient authorization for our Classes Thus then it is apparant that Ignatius was not directly with Mr Canne as he boasteth but his meaning hath bene manifestly perverted contrary to his words Tertullian that is next alledged though misalledged c. 29. being put for c. 39. relating the manner of Christian assemblies in his time saith in effect (h) Apol. c. 39. They came together into the Congregation it is not sayd into one Congregation as Mr C. alledgeth it for to pray unto God for to rehearse the Divine Scriptures and with holy words yo nourish faith stirre up hope and fasten confidence And they used exhortations reproofes and divine Censure I answer I. Though particular Churches met together for such end this hinders not but that the Deputies of those same Churches might meet together in Synods for their mutuall assistance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult causes It followes not because severall Congregations have their due power that therefore the power of Classes is an undue power II. that Tertullian himself intended no such thing it appeares evidently by the great approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods in saying (i) De Jejunüs advers Psychi c. 13 The appoynted Synods are kept through the countries of Graecia in certaine places out of all the Churches whereby both the deeper or more difficult matters are handled in common by that representation of the whole Christian flock they are celebrated with great reverence He alledgeth the words of Origen writing much to the same purpose (k) In Jos Hom. 7. Such as were brought in the third place for sinne unto the Congregation if they stood obstinate by the judgement of the whole Church were excommunication from the body the Elders of the Church pronouncing the sentence And then in his owne words he sayth (l) Ch. pl. p. 90. Observe here he saith not that the matter was caried to a Classis and there first determined c. but names onely the Congregation and Elders thereof notwithstanding had there bene any such superiour judicatorie Assembly it is likely he would have omitted it and mentioned a subordinate and inferiour one ANSVV. I. The words which they alledge in another letter in Origens name as if they had bene his speech verbatim described are not his words He neither speakes of men brought unto the Church nor of the judgment of the Church nor of Elders pronouncing the sentence he shewes how all the people might be polluted by the sinne of one man when the Briefts which rule the people being unmindefull of priestly severity doe not rebuke nor take away evill from them nor make him as a Publicane and Heathen which hath despised the admonition of the Church but not in such words and forme of speech as Mr Canne faineth II. All that Origen there speakes is not repugnant to Classicall government all that he there requireth is dayly performed by the Churches among us which stand under the government of Classes and Synods Obstinate offenders having their names and offences divers times published before the whole Congregation are with the consent thereof excommunicated by the judgement of the Eldership going before III. If Origen in his writings had expressely denyed the authority of Synods it had bene of no great weight against the generall judgement of other ancient Fathers the rather seeing his writings are rejected and condemned by so many especially by Epiphanius and Hieronie the Authours hereafter alledged by Mr Canne And see how vaine many of his glosses were even touching this poynt Speaking of the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Mat. 16. he there telles us of many keyes to open severall gates in heaven◠that (m) Orig in Mat. 16. Tempérance is one key to open the Gate of Temperance in heaven that Iustice is another key to open another Gate and so for all other vertues And afterwards expounding the promise made Matt. 18.18 touching binding and loosing in heaven comparing it with the promise made unto Peter Mat. 16.19 because a word of the plurall number is used in the promise to Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelis and to others a word of the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelo Origen from thence (n) Idem in Mat. 18. teacheth us this Doctrine that Peter did binde and loose in all heavens whereas some others did but binde and loose in one heaven And therefore he concludeth Look how much better he is that bindeth by so much is he that is bound bound in more then one heaven and by how much better he is that looseth by so much the more blessed is he that is loosed because he is loosed in all the heavens Such are many of the interpretations of Origen IV. As Mr Canne misalledgeth Origen to impugne the authority of Classes and Synods so other more learned judicious Writers alledge him
Catharists were excommunicated by a Synod holden at Rome consisting of 60 Bishops with many Elders and Deacons how k L. 7. c. 29. Paulus Samosatenus was deposed and excommunicated by a Synod holden at Antioch He declares l De vita Const l. 3. c. 6 7 c. at large and celebrates the piety of Constantine the great friend maintainer of Christian religion for assembling the Nicene Synod wherein Arius was condemned And in like manner he shewes the m Ibid. l. 1. c. 44. impiety of the Emperour Licinius the enemy of God who by a mischievous devise sought to ruinate the Churches of God by depriving them of their liberty in meeting together in Synods for deciding of their controversies So expressely and clearely doth Eusebius give testimony unto Synods That which is collected out of Athanasius viz. that elections excommunications c. according to the Apostles precept ought to be done in the publick Congregation by the Ministers they taking first the peoples voyce or consent is such as I doe willingly assent unto Neither was there ever any election either of Minister Elder or Deacon nor any excommunicatiō of any offender among us but that the matter was first solemnely communicated with the Church and declared severall times in the publick Congregation the consent of the people required obtained before any such act was confirmed finished among us But what is this to the purpose Athanasius notwithstanding this doth witnesse unto us that the causes and controversies of particular Churches were in his time submitted to the censure of other Churches and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves This Athanasius shewes in these very places here alledged against me And in the first of them having n Tom. 1. Epist ad ubiq Orthodoxos made a lamentable narration of the miseries procured to the Church of Alexandria by the intrusion and cruelty of an Arian Bishop he then most vehemently supplicates unto those that were members of the same body with them in other Churches that as the former yeare their brethren at Rome were willing to have called a Synod but that they were hindred so they having greater occasion to vindicate the Church of God from new evills would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their suffrages condemne and reject the Authors of such mischiefes And more plainely in the 2d place he declares o Epist ad Solit. vitam agentes at length that in the Synod holden at Sardica where Hosius was President and whither the accusers of Athanasius were cited the cause being heard the Synod did not onely advise and counsell what was meet to be done but did give sentence touching the matters of controversy absolved Athanasius and deposed the Bishops that were found guilty such as Stephanus Menophantus Acacius Georgius Vrsacius Valens Theodorus Narcissus As for the third allegation Epist cont Nicae c. 9. Ecc. Hist it seemes to be misquoted I finde no such Title in all the works of Athanasius Instead thereof therefore let us see another testimonie of his wherein he teacheth what the government of the Church was in those times namely ruled by authoritie of Synods where the weightier causes were judged decided Of this he p Tom. 2. Epist ad Rusinian gives instances in the Synods of Alexandria Greece and Spaine where Euzoius Eudoxius and such principall offenders were deposed from their offices and other upon their repentance retained And the like Ecclesiasticall authority is in many other places throughout his writings by him commended unto us Let us heare how Mr C. proceeds I. C. To these we will adde Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose Cyrill Hillarie and Greg. Nazianzen writers in noe age Touching Ecclesiasticall Government these to this purpose speake Particular Churches may lawfully ordaine their owne Bishops without other Presbyters assisting them Epiph. cont Haer. 73. and among themselves excommunicate offenders Id. l. 1. Haeres 30. Tom. 2. Haer. 5. ANSVV. I. Here be three places at once misalledged In the two latter viz. Haer. 30. and Haer. 5. there is nothing at all spoken touching this poynt In the first of them viz. Haer. 73. he doth but catch at a shadow and pervert the words of Epiphanius and falsify them by changing some and adding other and omitting other that might give light unto the question His words upon occasion of Meletius his confession and suffering for the trueth are these There are many people of this order of this Synod which setting Bishops over themselves doe make a marvellous confession touching the faith doe not reject the word Coessentiall Yea and say they are ready if there were a perfect Synod to confesse not to deny it Here is no mention of particular Churches or Congregations nor of lawfully ordayning nor of doing this without other Presbyters assisting them But that which is recorded touching the acknowledgement of a lawfull or perfect Synod that is omitted Thus he varyeth from the Latine translation of Epiphanius the Originall Greek in divers Copies is further from the matter having this beside other differences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which made themselves to be Bishops instead of lawfully ordaining their owne Bishops Such are the Allegations of Mr Canne II. Suppose the words Epiphanius had bene the same that Mr C. relates yet had not the authority of Synods bene any thing diminished thereby Is it not the common and ordinary practise in these Reformed Churches that where two or more Ministers are in one Congregation there the newly elected Ministers are ordained and confirmed without any other Presbyters from other Churches to assist them Yet this is no good argument to prove they want Classes and Synods And though also they doe among themselves excommunicate offenders yet this hinders not but that Classes or Synods may exercise their authority in judging or censuring such as have unjustly excommunicated any or proceeded contrary to their advise therein III. That Epiphanius did approve the authority and jurisdiction of Synods it is manifest by his practise It is q Socrat. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 9. recorded of him that he being Bishop of Salamis or Constantia in Cyprus procured a Synod to be called in that Iland wherein the bookes of Origen were condemned a decree made that none should read his bookes IV. Epiphanius did not onely approve the lawfull authority of Synods but he went further and did maintaine the unlawfull authoritie of particular persons over divers Churches This appeareth in his r Epiph. Haer. 75. condemning of Aërius of heresie that held Bishops Presbyters to be the same by divine institution whom D. Whitaker ſ De Pont. Rom. q. 1. p. 104 105 106. doth justly defend against Bellarmine and others and shewes that Hierome and other ancient Fathers were of the same minde with Aërius therein and sayth that we are not to regard the absurd men that doe so often object Aërius unto us he sayth Epiphanius doth foolishly and childishly
f Amb. Offi. l. 1. c. 1 These with spirituall bridles order men c. I answer I. In the place alledged there is not a word to be found either touching a Senate of Elders or touching spirituall bridles or any thing to like purpose II. If a Senate of Elders be spirituall bridles then the Brownists with Mr C. that now want such a Senate are an unbridled company wanting order c. III. What though an assembly of Elders order men with spirituall bridles Is there therefore no other spirituall bridle in the authority of Synods What consequence is this IV. That Ambrose did allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods it appeares both by his practise he g Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 9. himself being present with Damasus Britto Valerian and other Bishops at the Synod holden at Rome for the censure of Apollinaris and Timotheus his disciple and by his h Amb. Tom. 3. epi. l. 10. ep 78. ad Theoph. exhortation given unto Theophilus and others to judge the cause of Euagrius and Flavianus being deputed thereunto by the Synod of Capua and againe by his i Ib. Epi. 79. ad Theoph Anys exhortation given unto Theophilus Anysius that they being chosen by the same Synod of Capua would give sentence touching Bonosus and his accusers forasmuch as the Synod had givē this authority unto them and they did now supply the place thereof With Ambrose he joynes k In orat fun de patr Nazianzen to testify also that a Senate or assembly of Elders doe with spirituall bridles order men But in the place alledged I finde no such testimony as is mentioned and therefore the three first answers made before unto the testimony from Ambrose may also serve for Nazianzen And further that Gregory Nazianzen did not limit all Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely it may appeare if we observe I. How l Soc. Hist Ecc. l. 4. c. 21. Sozom. Hist Ecc. l. 6. c. 17. he himself was made Bishop of Constantinople by the suffrages of many Bishops met together which is a further degree of Ecclesiasticall authority then that which is exercised in the Classes or Synods of these countries II. How he pleadeth (m) Nazian Epist 1. ad Clidon from a Synodall law touching the receyving of those that were fallen III. How he alloweth the order of convocating and assembling neighbour Bishops about the creating of a new Bishop affirming this to be (n) Epi. 30. ad Caesariē right and according to the Ecclesiasticall law IV. How he in his counsell and exhortation unto the Synod at Constantinope (o) Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 8. asscribes unto them authority and power for his owne dimission and translation for the setting of another unblameable Bishop in his place and thereby withall for the deposition and abdication of Maximus which was accordingly performed That which might with more colour be objected out of Nazianzen against the use of Synods and which is also alledged both by Mr Canne and by Mr Davenp though not directly against the authority of Synods is yet so brought in by the way as might cause a simple Reader to stumble thereat The words of Nazianzen as Mr Canne (p) Ch. pl. p. 93. alledgeth them are these (q) Ep. 42. ad Procop. I am minded saith he to shunne all assemblies of Bishops because I never saw any good event in any Councell that did not rather increase then diminish our evills Their contention and ambition passeth my speech ANSVV. I. Observe how Mr C. mistranslateth those words of Nazianzē 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he rendreth as signifying passeth my speech whereas they signify prevayled more then reason as (r) Apo. tep p. 225. Mr Dav. doth rightly translate them But it is no wonder that Mr Canne should mistake that which some more learned have done before Grosser faults are more common with him II. As for the testimony of Nazianzen the answer of D. Whitaker may give sufficient satisfaction who sayth (ſ) De Cōc qu. 1. c. 3. p. 13.14 15. It may seeme strange that Nazianzen denyes he had seene a good issue of any Synod For in those two Synods viz. of Nice and Constantinople which had beene mentioned before trueth got the victory and heresy was put downe And though it be certaine that Arianisme was encreased and grew strong and troubled the Church after the Synod of Nice more then before yet that is not to be imputed to the Synod but to the contention and ambition of men For as our corrupt nature doth more vehemently resist the knowne law of God and rusheth headlong unto sinne so falshood opposed itself more boldly unto the trueth then explained and openly defended whereupon after that Synod which none excelled greater incōmodities did arise from the wickedness of men c. When Nazianz. saw so wicked dispositions of men he was wholly turned from Councels Although without doubt he disallowed not the thing itself but the wicked indeavours of men Now if any will reason after this manner The issue of Synods is not good or more evils follow thence therefore Synods are to be avoyded that man shall dispute deceitfully from a wrong cause from accident and from the fallacy of consequent But Nazianzen was to be pardoned because he lived in the worst and most turbulent times of the Church when by meanes of Valens the Emperour that degenerated from the Catholick faith Hereticks did more prevayle c. Againe he opposeth Augustine unto Nazianzene and sayth It is most true which Augustine sayth Epist 118. that the authority of Synods in the Church of God is most wholesome which certainly he would not have sayd if he had bene of the same minde with Nazianzen And further he opposeth unto the speech of Nazianz. the testimony of Christ saying Christ himself pronounceth and promiseth Matt. 18.20 Where two or three are assembled together in his name there he will be in the midst of them In which words he signifyeth that the assemblies and Synods of godly and religious men undertaken and appoynted for godly causes are not displeasing unto him III. The testimony of Nazianzen is as much against the opinion of Mr Can and Mr Dav. as against that which we hold touching Classes and Synods For seeing they allow such meetings for counsell and admonition though not for exercise of any jurisdiction and seeing the testimony of Naziā doth extend itself to all kinde of assemblies of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether for counsell or censure without exception of one sort more then another therefore he no more condemneth our Synods then those which my opposites allow Augustine his next witnesse is in like manner perverted as the former Though he in the place (t) DeDoct Chr. l. 1. c. 17. objected doe write that the keyes were given to the Church yet doth he not thereby exclude Synods gathered together in the name of
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
the Church or whether the Officers being chosen with the publick knowledge and free consent of the Church have not by vertue of their calling power to heare judge matters to rebuke and censure offenders without the advise of the multitude yet so that in matters of greater importance more publick concernmēt as admissions excommunications absolutions of members elections depositions of Officers c. the case be made knowne unto determined with the free consent of the people according to the practise above-written The former of these is denyed the latter affirmed maintained in the ensuing discourse CHAP. II. Arguments to prove the power of the Eldership injudging ending some cause vvithout the knovvledge of the Congregation 1. THe titles given by the holy Ghost to Ecclesiasticall Offices Officers are such as import a power of judging causes being such titles as doe expresse declare the power of judgement which was in the Rulers of Israel both Civill Ecclesiasticall as for example 1. A Guide or Leader 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the title given to Ecclesiasticall Officers Heb. 13.7 17 24. is the same that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament agreeable to the Originall is given to Civill Rulers Iosh 13.21 Deut. 1.13 Mica 3.9 11.2 Chro. 5.1 Ezek. 44.3 45.7 Dan. 3.2 as also in the New Testament Act. 7.10 Besides it is the same with another word so often given unto Civill Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 2.6 27.2 Act. 23.24 26 33. 1. Pet. 2.14 c. And so is this word also used by other humane writers abundantly 2. A Bishop or Overseer the title given by the H. Ghost unto Ecclesiasticall Officers to describe their authority power Act. 20.28 Phil. 1.1 1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.7 is the same word that is given to expresse the power of Civill Magistrates in the Greek translation of the Old Testament Num. 31.14 Iudg. 9.28 2. Kin. 11.15 and very often in other Writers 3. An Elder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nafi the title which the Scripture useth to denote shew the office of Ecclesiasticall Elders Act. 14.23 15.2 4. 20.17 1. Tim. 5.17 Tit. 1.5 1. Pet. 5.1 is the same word which is likewise given to Civill Rulers Elders in the gate Iudg. 8.14 Ruth 4.2 3. c. 2. Sam. 5.3 1. Chron. 11.3 4. A Prince or Ruler being the title of Civill Governours in the Common-wealth to signify their authority Num. 7.2 Gen. 25.16 34.2 Levit. 4.22 Rom. 13.3 1. Cor. 2.6 is also given to Ecclesiasticall Rulers to note their office and authority as Act. 23.5 with Exod. 22.28 Mat. 9.18 Luk. 8.41 Ioh. 3.1 Num. 3.24 30 32 35. And hereby it may appeare how untrue it is which Mr Robinson writes concerning the difference betwixt Civill Officers Church-governours when having mentioned some of the titles given to Magistrates he saith (a) Justifie of Sep. p. 135. Ecclesiasticall Officers are not capable of these the like titles which can neither be given without flattery unto them nor received by them without arrogancy And yet the very first of the titles wherein he gives instance is that title which here I shew to be given to Ecclesiasticall Rulers as well as to Civill 5. The title of Heads Rosch wherein Mr Robinson (b) Justific ibid. instanceth in the second place that it may not be given to Ecclesiasticall Officers is yet if we will regard what the Scripture affirmeth given to them as well as to Civill Rulers As it is given to Magistrates in Deut. 1.15 the place alledged by Mr Robinson so is it also given to Ministers in 1. Chron. 15.12 23.24 24.4 26.10 12. 2. Chron. 19.11 Ezra 8.1 17. Nehem. 12.12 22 23 24. 6. The title of Governours or Governments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greekes are (c) Steph. Thes ling. Gr. noted to use to expresse the power of Civill Magistrates thereby by a Metaphor from pilots out of Xenophon Aristotle Plato Cicero c. is the same that the holy Ghost also useth to signify unto us thereby the authority of Church-governours in guiding the ship of Christs Church 1. Cor. 12.28 7. The title of Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which H. Stephanus (d) The saur l. Gr. shewes to be used by Thucydides Demosthenes Herodotus Plato Plutarch others for the Rulers of Cities of Armies Kingdomes is that same which the Scripture useth to describe unto us those Officers that beare rule in the Church which is the City of the living God and his spirituall Kingdome Rom. 12.8 1. Thes 5.12 1. Tim. 5.17 8 The title of (e) Elohim Gods which is so often used to expresse the dignity and authority of Civill Governours Psal 82.1 Exo. 21.6 22.8 1. Sam. 2.25 c. is also given to Ecclesiasticall Officers to declare signify the authority that they have Though Mr Robinson (f) Justif of Sep. p. 135. denyes this title also unto them yet if we diligently weigh what the Scripture saith we may well discerne that this title is also given to Church-governours Ministers for 1. The description of those persons to whom this title is given is that they are such to vvhom the vvord of God comes such as the Father hath sanctifyed sent Joh. 10.35 36. and therefore according to the exposition of our Saviour seeing the word of God is come unto Ecclesiasticall Ministers Rulers giving them thereby a commission to administer in his name seeing such are sanctifyed sent of God we may hereby see how this title belongs unto them 2. By the exposition application of the Apostle those who in Moses are called Gods Rulers Exod. 22.28 are shewed to be Ecclesiasticall Rulers Act. 23.5 And howsoever some differ about this title yet are there of the learnedest that doe (g) Iun. Trem. Annot on Ex. 22.28 Iun. anal expl Ex. 22 28. Ioan. Rainol Cens lib. Apocr tom 1. prael 6. so interpret these places viz. of such as have either Civill or Ecclesiasticall administration committed unto them And if we come unto those Authors that are so much honoured by you they will also confirme the same The (h) Onkelos Targum on Exo. 4.16 7.1 Chaldee Paraphrast upon those places where this title of God is given to Moses translateth it Rab a Master or Doctour which is such a word as is given unto Ecclesiasticall Ministers Others (i) Aben Ezra com on Exo. 22.28 of the learnedest Iew-doctours doe expound that title of the Priests Levites so apply it to Church-governours Another (k) Baal hatturim on Exo. 22.28 Cabalist often alledged in your Annotations doth shew these Gods mentioned in Exo. 22. to be all kinde of Rulers over the people by his Gematria because the numerall letters of the words Elohim venasi yeeld the same number with these hu dajan vecol shehu signifying Iudges of
saying If thy brother sinne against thee c. so had Moses done before Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart c. As Christ requires not onely a simple telling of the fault but a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convincing of the offendour so had Moses taught Israel before * hocheach tochiach thoroughly to reprove or convince and not to suffer sinne upon a brother Mat. 18.15 with Lev. 19.17 As Christ in the same place to encourage unto this duety propounds the winning of a brother so the Lord in the old Testament shewes how the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life and how the wise doe winne soules Prov. 11.30 Thus farre it was no new rule The second degree of admonition was with witnesses If he heare thee not take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established Mat. 18.16 This is expressely taken from grounded upon the Policie of Moses who prescribed the same order for Israel Deut. 19.15 Hitherto therefore it is the same rule The third degree of admonition was by the Church being complained unto and told of the offence Mat. 18.17 This admonition was also observed in Israel wheÌ„ as the Church or those Ecclesiasticall Governours which represented the Church either in Synagogues or as occasion required in superiour Judicatories did teach informe and admonish offenders before they gave sentence of their obstinacy and presumption Deut. 17.9 10 11. 2. Chron. 19.10 Herein likewise the same rule was prescribed And the word thus duely spoken in his place or * gnal ophnan on the wheeles of order in divers degrees of admonition that it might runne and prevayle was like apples of gold in pictures of silver Prov. 25.11 The censure which followed upon the contempt of these admonitions was Excommunication or rejection of the obstinate offender Mat. 18.17 This was no new kinde of censure seeing Excommunication was also an ancient ordinance a part of that Ecclesiasticall Policie under the old Testament yea described by the same phrase of â—â—tting off Exod. 12.19 Num. 15.30 31. which is also used in the Gospell of Christ Gal. 5.12 As in Israel they had a censure of separating from the Congregation Ezra 10.8 so in the new Testament in an equivalent phrase the like judgement was signifyed by denouncing some to be accursed anathema or separate from the Church of God Gal. 1.9 And even in this text Mat. 18.17 the censure of excommunication being described by declaring men to be as Heathens Publicanes there is not onely a manifest allusion and respect unto the estate of the Jewes but a coÌ„mandement of the same order for avoyding the obstinate by denying civill communion of eating drinking with excommunicates as they did unto the Publicanes Mat. 9.11 Luk. 15.2 and both religious civill communion both in publick private as they did unto the Heathen Act. 11.2 3. 21.28 29. neither could this rule be well understood without knowledge of the present practise of the Jewes in this behalf The confirmation of this censure is described in the rule of Christ by a threefold testimony and promise 1. That this judgement of the Church given on earth should be ratifyed in heaven either for binding or loosing Mat. 18.18 And so Moses setting life and death blessing and cursing the judgements of God before Israel calles heaven earth to record for confirmation to binde them to reverence those ordinances of God Deut. 30.19 4.26 2. As Solomon under the Law at the building of the Temple did by his prayer confirme Israel in hope of having their prayers to ascend from earth to heaven 1. King 8.30 31 32. so Christ here promiseth that the prayers of those which agreed touching any thing on earth should be granted in heaven vers 19. 3. As Iosaphat for the establishment of the Iudaicall Policie encouraged the Iudges with the promise of Gods presence assistance that the Lord would be with them in the matter of judgement that the Lord would be with the good 2. Chron. 19.6 11. so here Christ to encourage his servants in the observation of this order promiseth his presence to be in the midst of two or three gathered together in his name vers 20. Thus it appeareth from the enumeration of all the severall parts of this rule compared with the ordinance of God in the old Testament that this is no new rule Though there were many other Ceremoniall and temporary ordinances in the Law for the purging of sinne and uncleannes yet so farre as concernes this Rule Mat. 18. there is no new order prescribed herein here is nothing specifyed which was not taught before EVen those witnesses before alledged by Mr Canne and before him by Mr Ainsw doe testify the same they and others the most excellent servants of God the starres of the Churches subscribing unto this trueth and bearing witnesse with us unto this interpretation of Scripture and arguing divers wayes for the authority of Classes Synods from this place Mat. 18. and specially in this respect that it was no new rule Calvine speaking of this rule and of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction prescribed therein sayth plainly (e) Instit l. 4. c. 11. § 2. 4. Christus nihil hîc novum instituit c. Christ here instituted no new thing but followed the custome alwayes observed in the ancient Church of his owne nation whereby he signifyed that the Church could not want the spirituall jurisdiction vvhich had bene from the beginning c. And this he also applyes unto the jurisdiction exercised in Synods when he writes (f) Ibid. c. 9. § 2. If it be demanded what the authority of Synods is from the Scriptures there is no clearer promise extant then in this sentence of Christ Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them Mat. 18.20 Againe in his exposition of those words Tell the Church he saith (g) Harm Evang. in Mat. 18.17 The quaestion is what he meanes by the name of the Church for Paul commands that the incestuous Corinthian should be excommunicated not by any choyse number but by the whole company of the godly 1. Cor. 5.5 6. and therefore it might seeme probable that the judgement is here referred unto all the people But because there was then no Church which had given the name unto Christ nor such a manner appointed but that the Lord speakes as of an usuall and received custome there is no doubt but that he alludes unto the order of the old Church even as in other places also he applyes his speech unto the knowne custome c. So therefore he now had respect unto the forme of discipline which was received among the Jewes because it would have bene absurd to propound the judgment of a Church which yet was not Moreover seing the power of excommunication among the Jewes was now in the
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
part deny the authority of particular Elderships as we see in the Brownists and therefore after private admonitions doe in a popular order referre the judgement even of lesser matters unto the publick examination and decision of the whole Church assembled together not permitting the same to the judgement of the Eldership Mr Baynes doth also impugne this practise For he speaking of the rule of Discipline Matt. 18. where Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many yet after some other observations touching the meaning of the word Church he further explaineth himself when he addeth these notes and sayth (a) Dioces tryall p. 80. Thirdly as Christ doth speak it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the Congregation For then Christ should give not some but all the members of the Church to be governours of it Fourthly Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderlie complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie as all but Morellius and such Democraticall spirits doe affirme And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church doth shew that often the number of it is but small For where two or three are gathered together in my name c. whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Againe shewing on the other side that Christ by the Church doth not meane the chief Pastour who is virtually as the whole Church and that the word Church doth ever signify a company and never is found to note out one person after other reasons he pleades from the example and practise in the old Testament saying (b) Ibid. p. 81. The Church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtuallie but an assembly of Priests sitting together as judges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie and joynt execution of a representative Church a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours And thus he concludes from Mat. 18. that there is a representative Church of one particular Congregation as before from Act. 15. he acknowledged a representative Church in the Synod for many Churches VI. Whereas Mr Dav. alledgeth out of Mr Parker that the power Ecclesiasticall do the essentially and primarily reside in the Church it self as in its proper subject although this be no ground for the refutation of that power and jurisdiction belonging to Synods as I have shewed (c) P. 89.90 before yet even this ground also is denyed by Mr Baynes who goes not so farre as Mr Parker (d) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 8. p. 28. c. touching the derivation of all Ecclesiasticall authority from a particular Church as from the fountaine but doth in some part oppose that opinion especially in respect of that influence of authority per intuitum viz. that which is in Ministers called immediately of Christ as the Apostles were yet in respect of the end and the whole is sayd to be from the Church mediately c. And therefore though Mr Parker was farre from the opinion of Mr Dav. yet was Mr Baynes farre further from it His judgement herein as being worthy the consideration of the Readers I have thought meet to set downe the more fully And first speaking by occasion of the power of jurisdiction in the Church he sayth (e) Dioc. tryal p. 69. Christ hath committed it originaliter exercitative to the representative Church that they might Aristocratically administer it And afterwards coming to intreat of the third maine question in his booke (f) Ibid. p. 98. Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any one singular person or to a united multitude of Presbyters he there sets downe his judgment more largely in divers conclusions (g) P. 83.84 on this manner Conclus 3. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof was not given to the communitie of the Church or to the whole multitude of the faithfull so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ and virtually deriving it to others This I set downe against the Divines of Constance our prime Divines as Luther and Melancthon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians errour for in his booke depudicitia he maketh Christ to haue left all Christians with like power but the Church for her honour did dispose it as we see The proportion of a politick body and naturall deceived them while they will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omni simile for then should it be the same with the analogatum True it is all civill power is in the body politick the collections of subjects then in a King from them And all the power of hearing seeing they are in the whole man which doth produce them effectually though formally and instrumentally they are in the eare and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the communitie or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the communitie in the King from them but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our King before any in the Church from him But to whom should he first commit this power but to his Queene Answ Considering this power is not any Lordly power but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole communitie which are the Queen of Christ For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herself properly but to have persons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in naturall bodies the power of seeing is first immediately in the man from the man in the eye and particular members In the mysticall body the faith of a beleever is not first immediately in all then in the beleever but first of all and immediately in the personall beleever for whose good it serveth more properly then for the whole every man being to live by his owne faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel so derived to the Priest but immediately from Christ seated in Aaron and his sonnes Object Yea they were given the Church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis totius Answ I but this is not enough that power may be sayd to be immediately received by the Church as the first
receptacle of it and from it derived to others as the power of seeing is not onely given intuitu hominis as the end of it and the totum to whom it agreeth but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the Church For as all are sayd not to have been Apostles so not to have been Doctors But if the power of ordinarie teaching had been given to every beleever all should have been made Doctors though not to continue so in exercising the power Secondly were the power in the Church the Church should not onely call them but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe then should the Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers Besides there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly as women and children This conclusion in my judgement Victoria Soto and others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained Conclus 4. Fourthly ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it to the Senat or Presbyterie of the Church If any faile in any office the Church hath not power of supplying that but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant Conclus 5. Lastly though the community have not power given her yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her that all power is to be executed in such manner as standeth with respect to her excellencie Hence it is that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them Not that they have joynt power of the keyes with them but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with without open dishonour in such things which belong in common to the whole congregation Afterwards againe (h) P. 88. speaking of some derivation of power from the Church in taking in Officers he shewes that the Church doth this onely as an instrument in taking that person whom Christ describeth and would have to be placed in this or that office but hath not this power in herself either formally or virtually And from this Stewardlike power of the Church he declares that Officers in the Church are not to administer in the name of the Church but in the name of Christ As a Butler taken in by a servant doth execute his office not in master Stewards name but in his masters who onely out of power did conferre it on him By these sundry other assertions it is apparant that Mr Baynes was of a farre different opinion from Mr Dav. touching the state of particular Churches the authority of Synods Let us heare his next Author SECT VI. His Allegation of the Replyer upon D. Downam examined IO. DAV r Apol. reply p. 242. Part. 2. l. 2. p. 104 105. c. i With whom I might joyne the Replyer upon Dr Downams defence who not onely declareth his owne judgement herein concurring with the above mentioned but also joyneth with them the suffrages of divers others at the Centurists Illyricus D. Andrewes Bishop of Winchester Dr Fulke Willet Thom Bell Cyprian Augustine Gerson Ferus ANSVV. I. If this Authour did in his judgement concurre with the above mentioned and in speciall with Mr Baynes next above mentioned as Mr Dav. affirmes then did he allow the jurisdiction and authority of Synods for the censure of things done in particular Churches then did he judge each Congregation to be subject unto the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled II. This testimony of the Refuter of D. Downa is alledged also and more plainly by Mr Canne who expresseth his words and sayth (k) Churches plea p. 86. he often affirmeth (l) Lib 2. par 2. p. 104 that the administration of all Church-matters at first was in every Congregation the right in the Church the execution in the Presbytery thereof And besides this he alledgeth another place where he sayth For this purpose he instanceth Cenchrea (m) Lib. 1. part 2. p. 22 23. howsoever it was the Port of Corinth and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lime-house to London yet is was a distinct Church from that of Corinth and alike indued with full power of Ecclesiasticall government But in all this the jurisdiction of Synods is not denyed as is manifest by a like instance here in these Reformed Churches The villages of Diemen and Sloten this on the one side and that on the other side of Amsterdam and not farre from it and in all apperance farre lesse in comparison of Amsterdam then Cenchrea was in respect of Corinth yet are these small Congregations distinct Churches from that of Amsterdam alike endued with full power of all Ecclesiasticall government That which Mr Canne by a Note in the margine would have specially to be marked may as well be observed touching these and many other little Churches hereabout that they have in themselves the administration of all Church-matters and the execution thereof by their Presbyteries as fully and as amply as the Church of Amsterdam or any other of the greatest Churches in these countries being alike combined together in the Classis and equally subject to one another in the Lord for their mutuall guidance III. Even this Replyer upon D. Downam Mr S. who now resteth in the Lord hath bene very carefull not to prejudice the authority of Synods as may appeare further if we consider what he answereth concerning those whom D. D. calleth the late Disciplinarians such as were of Mr Iacobs opinion First he saith (n) Reply par 1. l. 2. p. 106. As for Synods if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctour can give neither more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their Protestation sheweth Art 8.12 13 14. Now as for the present Synods such as are in these Reformed Churches they are such as he mentioneth here called and assembled by authority of the Magistrates and their Acts approved confirmed and ratifyed by them This may be seen in the Records of that Nationall Synod holden at Dort Anno 1618. and 1619. where (o) Act. Synod Dordr Ses 138. the Decree of the States Generall which are the soveraigne and supreme Magistrates in these countries is inserted among the Acts of the Synod for the ratification thereof And this is not onely observed in Nationall Synods but in the Provinciall Synods also held every yeare where the States have also their Deputies Civill Magistrates which ordinarily are present in those Assemblies to see that all things be well ordered therein Thus farre therefore according to his relation there is an obedience and subjection due unto Synods Againe whereas he proceedeth to describe their opinion on this manner If they want
man of sinne With these testimonies of ancient Fathers Mr Canne alledgeth for his opinion that some Councels have granted so much and Christian Emperours by their Lawes confirmed it Two of these viz. the Councell of Nice Constantinople he alledgeth at large and specifyes no Canon which he intendeth for this purpose And as for the 3d Councell of Carthage whereat Augustine was present I have shewed * Pa. 223. before that it makes directly for us That 22th Canon which he alledgeth viz. (a) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. col 868. that no Clerk be or dained without examination by Bishops and testimony of the people empeacheth not the authority of Classes and Synods but confirmeth the order established by them And that Christian Emperours have by their lawes confirmed the authority of Synods it is plaine and undenyable The (b) Sulp. Se. v S. Hist l. 2 Councell of Nice that condemned Arius was authorised by Constantine the Great The (c) Sulp. S. Hist conâ—in ex Sleyd p. 162. Councell of Constantinople that condemned Macedonius was authorised by the Emperour Theodosius the Elder The (d) P. 164. Councell of Ephesus that condemned Nestorius was authorised by Theodosius the younger The (e) P. 170. Councell of Chalcedon that condemned Eutyches was authorised by the Emperour Martianus And as it was in these first Generall Councels so may it be observed in many other Instead of the rest let the (f) Codex Canon Ecc. Univ. edit Christ Just book of Canons suffice confirmed by Iustinian the Emperour there being contained in that book many Canons which ordaine that the causes of particular Churches should be (g) Can. 5 80 83 85. judged by Synods and so decided by another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves At the end of these Canons there is added the sanction or decree of Iustinian (h) Novella consti Just Imper. 131. by which he doth not onely allow them and give force of lawes unto them but with an excessive farre greater honour then is due unto them would have the foure Oecumenicall Councels to be receaved even as the holy Scriptures Now though he offended greatly in this his esteeme of them yet this may serve to shew what little reason Mr Canne had to alledge the decrees of Councels for his opinion SECT VII Touching the Testimonies of Reformed Churches FRom ancient times they come back to the later times of Reformation and say (a) Ch. pl. p. 91. Touching Reformed Churches if we may take the Confession of their faith for testimony then surely we have their consent also with us The Churches consenting with them as they vainely imagine are these according to their order in alledging of them The Bohemian Churches Churches under the Palsgrave the Helvetian Churches the French Churches Churches of the Auspurge Confession of the Low-countries of Nasovia But the trueth is both these and other Reformed Churches doe condemne my oppisites in allowing of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations The Confession of the Bohemian Churches say they hath these words (b) Harm Conf. c. 14. The keyes that is Ecclesiasticall Government are given in trust and granted to the Pastours and to each severall Ecclesiasticall society that is ordinary Congregation whether they be small or great I answer I. This testimony is clipped by Mr Canne who leaves out the words of order which shew their opinion touching the originall and derivation of this power The words of this Bohemian Confession are that the keyes of the Lord or this administration and power of the keyes is granted and delivered first unto the Governours and Ministers of the Church and then unto every Christian Congregation c. Therein they doe not consent with Mr Canne but with the opinion of Mr Baines noted (c) P. 114 115. before And they doe there also apply these words unto absolution given by the Priest of the Church as they call him To this end they alledge those places Ioh. 20.23 Luk. 10.16 Their meaning is declared more fully before where they (d) Harmo Confes Art 5. de Poenit. p. 241. edit 1612. teach that the poenitent are to come unto the Priest and to confesse their sinnes unto God before him c. and to desire absolution of him by the keyes of the Church that they may obtaine remission of sinnes by such a ministery so instituted of Christ. This order seemes to agree with that forme of absolution described and appointed in the English booke of Common prayer at the visitation of the sick 11. It is acknowledged by the Ministers of the Church of the Picards so called in Bohemia and Moravia in the (e) P. 219. preface to the forementioned Confession of their fayth that their fathers had appealed unto a Synod c. where if any thing should be found dissonant from the Scriptures they were willing from the heart and lovingly to be subject and obedient to the censure and appointment of the Synod in all things This shewes their dissent from Mr Canne and his people III. The Combination of the Christian and Orthodox Churches in Bohemia and Moravia called by themselves The Vnitie of the brethren in Bohemie doth give a cleare testimony unto the trueth touching the authority of Synods for the government of particular Churches and judgement of their causes by a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves as appeareth in the booke of their Discipline where they (f) Ratio Discip ordinisq Ecc. in Unitate frat Bohem. c. 2. p. 33.34 38. professe that for weighty causes in providing for the necessities of the whole Vnitie or some Diocesse therein they use to hold Synods either Generall or Particular c. They alledge these 5 ends To confirme brotherly love and concord To strengthen them in the work of the Lord To preserve the vigour of Discipline To exclude scandalous persons out of the number of their Ministers c. To ordaine Ministers c. and for the (g) Ib. p. 41. examination of Ministers before they be confirmed The exercise of this authority is also declared in their (h) Ib. cap. 6. p. 87 88. c. Visitations of the Churches which are in their Vnitie or consociation This example of these brethren of the Vnitie is so much the more to be regarded of us in respect of the singular providence blessing of God in preserving them to this day in the midst of so many persecutions as they have endured being more ancient then other Reformed Churches having continued from the dayes of Iohn Husse and being holpen by the Waldenses that were scattered into those parts so that they (i) Ib. pref p. 2 3. were increased to almost 200 little Congregations in Bohemia Moravia about the yeare 1500 before the time of Luther Their piety love concord and zeale of religion notwithstanding some imperfections appeares by their orders to be very great in speciall their care of sanctifying the
of the Apostle 1. Cor. 11.16 To what end else are those manifold proofes and Allegations which Mr C. hath taken from Authours of all times to shew as he (i) Ch. pl. p. 77-81-89 c. pretends their consent with him and that his opinion may not be thought a Noveltie 11. The due power of Classes Synods is not grounded upon the ancient exercise of it neither is this made an argument to prove the lawfulnes thereof It is onely alledged to shew that others also professing subjection unto the Ordinances of Christ have in like manner understood the divine warrant for the exercise of such government in the Church The Antiquitie whereupon the lawfulnes of this combined politie doth rest is that which it claimeth from the Law and the Gospel as hath been shewed (k) Ch. 2.3 4. before I. C. ANSVV. II. Housoever Mr Paget for the credit of his cause names it the old ancient Discipline yet sure I am to proove it so he never will nor can There are many and I think hee knowes it which doe affirme that the Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods is a weed that grew many yeares after the Apostles A late devise (l) Bilson perp gov c. 16. p 387 and that in all antiquitie there doth not appeare any one step thereof (m) Sutclif Discipl c. 8. p. 138. Also that at Geneva subjecting of Churches to this order first began (n) Bancrost surv c. 22. p. 353. Comp. Ch. p. 91 93 94. And before Calvin came there everie Congregation was free in itself (o) Hook Ecc. Polit. Pref. REPL. 1. These testimonies doe not speak of Synods and the Ecclesiasticall authority exercised by them What trueth is there then in Mr Cannes words when he sayth they affirme that the Ecclesiasticall government exercised by Classes and Synods is a weed c. 11. The distinction which these Authours make betwixt Classes and Synods as it is ungrounded and insufficient to prove the one lesse lawfull or ancient then the other so it can least of all serve Mr Cannes purpose seeing the chief cause why they disallow Classes is because they exclude Hierarchicall authority not simply because they exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdictioÌ„ which is the maine ground whereupon Mr C. doth oppose them III. The place quoted out of D. Bilson where he objecteth unto some their owne device is not properly directed against Classicall government and he seemes to intend it principally against Lay-Elders as they call them as appeares by that which followeth (p) Perpet Gov. p. 388 in his book But to shew how farre he was from uttering any thing that might either disprove the ancient use of Synods or favour independent Church-government and the pretended antiquity thereof mark what he saith elswhere (q) Ibid. p. 376. There is no Christian Realme nor Age wherein the use of Synods hath not bene thought needfull c. as appeareth by the Councils that have bene kept in all kingdomes and countries since the Apostles times when any matter of moment came in question which are extant to this day and likewise by the Synodes that every Nation and Province did yearely celebrate according to the rules of the great Nicene Chalcedon Councils which cannot be numbred were not recorded c. And unlesse you give the Pastor and Presbyters of every Parish full free power to professe what religion they best like to offer what wrongs they will to use what impiety and tyrannie they themselves lift without any restraintor redresse which were an heathenish if not an hellish confusion you must where there is no Christian Magistrate c. yeeld that libertie to the Church of Christ which every humane society hath by the principles of nature to wit that the whole may guide each part the greater number overrule the lesser which without assembling in Synode cannot be done Againe he professeth his judgement touching the danger and noveltie of Independencie when he saith (r) Ibid. p. 378. In questions of faith matters of faction offers of wrong breach of all order equitie shall each place Presbyterie be free to teach doe what they please without depending on or so much as conferring with the rest of their brethren Call you that the Discipline of Christs Church not rather the dissolution of all peace and subversion of all trueth in the house of God I thinke you be not so farre beside yourselves that you strive for this pestilent kinde of anarchie to be brought into the world Our age is giddie enough without this frensie to put them forward Howbeit we seek not what new course you can devise after fifteen hundred yeares to governe the Church but what meanes the ancient and primitive Church of Christ had before Princes embraced the trueth to assemble Synodes pacifie controversies as well touching Religion as Ecclesiasticall regiment c. IV. The words cited by Mr C. out of D. Suâ—cliffe against Classes are expressely answered by Mr Parker when having fet downe the objection here mentioned viz. that in all antiquitle there doth not appeare one step of these Classicall assemblies he sayth (Å¿) De Polit Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. p. 355. What not so much as a step 〈◊〉 there is a step at least extant in the Canonicall law throughout but specially that we be not altogether silent Decret par 2. cap. â— 1. q. 3. c. 4. in the Councils every where in that of Sardica Can. 17. of Africa C. 127. of Laodicea c. 12 whence it appeareth that according to ancient custome neighbour Bishops were alwayes wont to come together in all sorts of difficult cases which the Presbyters at Rome judged to be so necessary that a firme decree could not be made in the farre-spread cause of those that were fallen without the assembling of those that were neer unto them Cypr. L. 2. Epist 3. which course Cyprian himself also followed L. 1. Ep. 8. Cornelius Romanus L. 3. Epist 11. Why doe I spend time There is nothing more evident to him that is acquainted with the ancient monuments of history then that neighbours even besides the Synod did est soone meet together for deciding of strifes for ordinations for dissolving of doubts in sumâ—â—â— for every weighty businesse Of which assemblies the Epistles of Cypâ—â—an 〈◊〉 full And these assemblies what are they els but Classicall assemblies The exceptions that might be made against these things are further answered by Mr Parker in the same place It had behooved Mr C. to have refuted Mr P. herein if he would have us give credit to this assertion of D. Sutcl V. The testimonies next alledged touching Geneva as they are untrue in regard of the state of those Churches so they are unjustly applyed against Classes and Synods seeing as Mr Par. sayth and acknowledgeth with D. Sutcl that (t) Ibid. p. 361.362 Geneva hath neither Classes nor Synods because their territorie is so small