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
superiour judicatory either Civill or Ecclesiasticall to be among these Iudiciall lawes that are perpetuall arising from the ground of common equity In like manner G. Bucerus speaking of these same judicatories inferiour superiour applying that which he had spoken before in generall unto this particular ordinance shewes that (z) Dissert de Gubern Eccl. p. 65. the judicatories of the Church at this day are lawfully framed according to the same forme and that the reasonis because it clearly appeares that this order being anciently instituted of God most religiously observed of the Fathers did belong onely unto the good order of the Church and not unto the paedagogie of the Law c. and therefore was not to be abolished Againe it was prophecyed of Christ and his kingdome that he should deliver the needy when he cryeth the poore also and him that hath no helper that he should redeeme their soule from deceit violence c. Psal 72.12 14. But if liberty of Appeales be now taken away by the comming of Christ then in respect of Ecclesiasticall government confessed to be a part of Christs kingdome the yoke of the Law should be more tollerable sweet and easy in this poynt of appeales then the yoke of Christ for under the Law the poore being oppressed in judgement by unrighteous Iudges in one place they cryed for help by appealing unto a superiour Synedrion and there found release and so were redeemed from deceit violence but now under the Gospell if it were as our Opposites hold that all spirituall jurisdiction should be limited to a particular Congregation then might the afflicted wronged soules cry in vaine finde no helper there being no Ecclesiasticall judicatory to releeve them and to redeeme their soule from the deceit and violence of their oppressours We read of Cranmer the holy Martyr how that when he was cruelly handled by unrighteous Iudges he sought to comfort himself by his Appeale from them unto a free Generall Councell The forme of his Appeale is exactly set downe by him and he doeth as it were cry out for it with great vehemency of words saying (a) Ioh. Fox Acts Mon. pag. 1709. col 1 edit 1â—10 I desire the first the second the third time instantly more instantly most instantly that I may have messengers if there be any man that will can give me them And I make open promise of prosecuting this mine appellation by the way of disanulling abuse c. But according to the Tenent of our Opposites it should thus have bene answered unto him by them Seek no comfort in such Appeales under Moses Policy they were lawfull but now under the New Testament they are unlawfull There is no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction out of a particular Church that may give sentence in your cause c. What an unworthy conceit is this thus to dishonour the New Testament as if God had shewed more grace and provided more help for afflicted soules under the Law then under the Gospell This erroneous conceit is so much the more blame-worthy in some of the Brownists in that when they plead against the usurpation and injustice of Elders they theÌ„ confesse this same thing in effect saying (b) H. Ains Animadv p. 22. Is it meet that they should be Iudges in their owne cases In Israel when any complayned of wrong in the Synagogues or Cities there was an higher Court to controll unruly Elders to help the oppressed But now 2 or 3 Elders in a Church bearing themselves upon their forged â—â—thority from Mat. 18.17.20 may be lawlesse and who shall let them in their proceedings And for proof of this liberty in Israel they alledge Deut. 17.8 9. 2. Chron. 19.8 10. And why then cannot Mr Canne endure that I should alledge the very same Scriptures to a like end for is it meet that particular Churches should be Iudges in their owne cases In Israel if any complayned of wrong against a whole Synagogue there was an higher Court to controll unruly disordred Congregations and to help those that were oppressed by them And shall now 6 or 7 persons in a Church for sometimes there be no more specially in the new erected Churches of Separatists shall those be lawlesse bearing themselves upon their forged authority falsely collected from Mat. 18 shall there be no meanes by any Synod or by any superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory to let them in their proceedings Againe they confesse that the (c) Ibid. p. 24. Saints have as much more power and libertie in the Gospel now then the Iewes had as the heyr when he is of yeares hath more then in his childhood Gal. 4.1 2 3. And likewise speaking of the peoples right then under the Law and under the Magistrate they say it (d) Ibid. p. 28. may he more but cannot be lesse now under the Gospel where the Church ministery hath not the power of Magistracie over Gods heritage What is then this liberty that the people have In the offensive controversies arising and continuing in a Church the people are either doers of wrong or sufferers of wrong either oppressours or oppressed is it now the right liberty of oppressours that they in their wrong-doing shall be exempted from the judgement of any superiour Church-government to controll them and for the oppressed is this their sory inheritance now under the New Testament that they are deprived of this liberty of appealing to any other judicatory out of themselves so as to seek any help thereby What is this els but to diminish and obscure the grace of the Gospell and to shorten the hand of the Lord as if he did not now stretch it out as farre either in mercy for help of the oppressed by allowing them the liberty and comfort of appeales or in judgement for rebuke of oppressours by permitting them to be lawlesse and secure without danger of further censure after they had once prevayled by an unrighteous proceeding in a particular Congregation D. Whitaker whom Mr Canne often alledgeth and often perverteth contrary to his meaning is very pregnant and full in witnessing this same trueth with me touching the lawfulnes necessity of appeales He sayth (e) Contr. 4 de Pont. Rom. Qu. 4. c. 2. p. 470. Truely appeales are of Divine and naturall right and certainly very necessary in every society because of the iniquity or ignorance of many Iudges Otherwise the innocent person should be undone if it were not lawfull to appeale from an unrighteous sentence and seing many controversies doe arise in causes persons Ecclesiasticall who can deny that the right of Appeales is of necessity to be granted Thus he avoucheth that the denyall of appeales is against common equity against the law of God and the law of nature D. Rainolds also (f) Conf. with Hart c. 9. div 2. p. 572.575 agreeth with D. Whit. in allowing of appeales in Ecclesiasticall causes As both of them condemne the Appeales unto
he carryed from the Consistory to the Classis are of the same nature with those causes between blood blood between law commandement statutes judgements which were deferred to the Levites the Priests c. ANSVV. I. It is here also to be noted how instead of disproving that which I sayd and instead of shewing any dissimilitude of the question brought unto the Classis from those brought unto the judicatories Deut. 17.2 Chron. 19. he leaves his accusation without proof II. As for the proof he requires it is most plaine and evident from the places alledged for in them it is manifest that about whatsoever cause there was any strife or contention in Israel it might be brought unto the judicatories there mentioned All Ecclesiasticall affaires all matters of the Lord were to be brought unto the Ecclesiasticall Senate over which Amariah was President All Civill affaires all matters of the King were to be brought unto the Civill judgement over which Zebadiah was President 2. Chron. 19.11 And what controversy can there be in any Church or Estate that may not be reduced to one of these Iunius in his exposition of these places (Å¿) Anal. Expl. Annot on Deut. 17.8 2. Chron. 19.8 11. plainely distinguisheth these causes questions on this manner Againe whereas 2. Chron. 19. vers 10. there is expresse and generall mention of any cause whatsoever about which there might be controversy between Law Commandement Statutes Iudgements I would demand of Mr Dav. what cause can be excepted or exempted from these judicatories Was there ever any controversy or any contention in any Church which hath not reference to some Law or Commandement And seeing Mr Dav. himself in these disputes pretends the Law and Commandement against us doe not these questions therefore being of such nature belong unto such judicatories Seeing judicatories were therefore originally instituted to take away strife dissention as in Civill causes Deut. 1.12 so also in Ecclesiastical Deut. 17.2 Chron. 19. and withall seeing the causes in question c. have bene speciall meanes and causes of discord among us why should not these matters be brought unto these judicatories for tryall and judgement as well as others And therefore whether those Scriptures above mentioned have bene by me misapplyed or not I leave to the consideration of them that are able to judge CHAP. III. The second Argument taken from the words of Christ Matth. 18 15-20 THe second Argument is taken from that Rule of Discipline delivered by Christ unto his Disciples for the government of his Church in the New Testament Mat. 18.15 16 17 18 19 20. From this rule we may reason divers wayes and chiefly thus If this Rule of Christ be the same that was prescribed unto Israel of old and be translated from the Jewes Synagogues unto the Christian Churches then are not these Churches independent then are they not single uncompounded policies then is not all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction limited within the compasse of particular Congregations then cannot appeales unto superiour judicatories be justly denyed But the first is true Therefore the second also The Assumption of this Argument is denyed by many kindes of opposites H. Barrow cryes out against it (a) Refut of Giff. p. 76. Is it likely or possible that our Saviour Christ would fetch his patterne for the Elders of his Church the execution of these high judgements from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the Iewes which by the institution of God was merely Civill and not ordained for causes Ecclesiasticall as appeareth Exod. 18. Num. 11. Deut. 1. the Priests bearing the charge having the deciding of all Ecclesiasticall causes Num. 18. Deut. 17. But this Councell of theirs was now mixed of the Elders of the people and the Priests handled all causes both Civill Ecclesiasticall indifferently Matt. 26.3 Act. 4.5 How unjustly and ungodly they dealt may appeare by their handling our Saviour and his Apostles from time to time Now as their is no likenes to collect these surmises from that place so is there no one circumstance in that Scripture to lead thereunto Mr Ainsworth would perswade that (b) Animadv p. 18. Christs doctrine in Matt. 18.18 is a new rule which Israel had not and thinks it would be good for men to yeeld unto this perswasion Mr Smith that declined unto Anabaptisme speaking of the order observed in the old Testament sayth (c) Parall Cens Observ Sect. 8. p. 75. The Lord did not then require men to proceed with their brethren in three degrees of admonition and so to bring them to the acknowledgment of their sinne and repentance That is the Lords dispensation for the new Testament But the Lords order for those times was 1. reproof for sinne Lev. 19.17 2. The partie reprooved was to offer a sacrifice which if he did he was cleansed from his sinne visiblie Levit. 4.23 3. If the wilfully refused to hearken he was to be promoted to the Magistrate and put to death for his presumption Numb 15.30 31. Deut. 17.12 This was the Lords oecconmie for those times when this order was violated then all communion was defiled whiles it was observed all was well in the visible communion Let any man declare the contrary if he be able Thus he challenged all men in the confidence of this opinion that Christ gave a new rule Mr Iacob speaking of this rule Mat. 18. sayth (d) Attest c. 8. p. 278.279 The Iewish Church-government cannot be here alluded unto much lesse required to be kept practised by Christians Concerning which together with all other Iewish ordinances the Apostle teacheth and confirmeth unto us that all those old things are passed away and that all things of such nature under the Gospell are made new 2. Cor. 5.17 and that the same things are shaken and changed and remaine not now unto us Heb. 12.27 NOw on the contrary to shew the trueth of the Assumption against these and the like denyals thereof and to prove that Christ gave no new Rule but the very same for substance which was given formerly to the Jewes let us consider it in the severall parts thereof so by induction from them demonstrate that which is affirmed by us _____ In that Rule of Christ Mat. 18 15-20 we have described to us 1. Three degrees of admonition 2. A censure upon contempt of admonition 3. A confirmation of that censure The first degree of admonition is most private betwixt the person admonishing and the person offending alone vers 15. This is no new commandement but taught of old both generally in the equity of the Law to love our neighbour as ourselves Lev. 19.18 and more specially to shew this love by admonition in the rebuke of sinne Lev. 19.17 and that with secrecy Prov. 11.13 25.9 And further as Christ describes the person offending by the name of a brother to shew in what loving manner this duety was to be performed to him
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
all sorts the sayd words as they are written in their owne letters being compared together eyther joyntly or severally II. If the Deacons may distribute some almes ūto the poore without the knowledge of the whole Congregation then may the Elders also judge some causes without the knowledge of the whole Church But the first is true Therefore c. The consequence of the Propositiō is proved by this Because the whole Church hath as much right authority to dispose of the Church-treasure almes as they have to judge of the offences that are committed therein This the Scripture sheweth by the examples of sundry Churches of Antiochia Macedonia Achaia c. Act. 11.29 30. Rom. 15 25-28 1. Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8.1.4.19 Phil. 2.25 with c. 4.18 The Assumption is manifest and your owne practise confirmeth it III. If Arbiters chosen by consent of some particular persons may judge the causes of wrong injury whether publick or private wherein they strive against one another then may the Elders chosen by consent of the whole Church judge the causes offences that arise when they willingly submit unto the same But Arbiters so chosen may judge the causes referred unto them Therefore the Elders may doe it also The truth of the Proposition appeares because the free solemne consent of the Church in any election gives authority unto such persons either in generall or speciall workes as well as the choyse of any particular men in their causes Act. 14.23 2. Cor. 8.19 The truth of the Assumption appeares by the doctrine of the Apostle giving such power of judgement unto Arbiters 1. Cor. 6.4 5. If you answer hereunto as you (l) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyfton p. 43. elswhere expound this place that these controversies to be referred unto Arbiters are for civill things of this life that such are not Church-matters nor there to be heard c. this is insufficient and will not help you seeing it appeares by the text that these Controversies in Corinth might as well have bene sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as Civill and belonging to the judgement of the Church as of the Magistrates or Arbiters Had their controversies bene touching a wound or stroke given touching any slander or theft which may be sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as belonging to the judgement of the Church yet might the Apostle have sayd unto them thereupon all that he doth 1. Cor. 6 1-9 for 1. These are businesses which Infidell Magistrates in those times used to judge and the generall speech of the Apostle imports as much v. 1. 6. 2. The reason which the Apostle useth taken from the honour dignity of Saints in their judgement of Angels the world serves to perswado them to submit the judgment of such causes to one another mutually as well as any other causes v. 2 3. 3. The reason taken from their shame as if there were no wise men among them to judge these causes serves to reprove them for a want of wisedome in Ecclesiasticall things as well as Civill 4. The matters of controversy among them were of wrong injury done to brethren v. 7 8 9. And these being sinnes scandals belong to the judgment of the Church as doth the judgment of * 2. Cor. 10.4 5 6. 1. Cor. 5.7 all knowne sinnes This Argument is in effect yeelded unto by your self when you (m) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyf ton p. 9. allow the Articles of the Discipline agreed upon in the Reformed English Church which was at Franckford in Q. Maries dayes for whereas in the 62. art thereof in case of difference betwixt the Governours of the Church others it is there concluded that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare determine the sayd matter or matters as it shall seeme good unto the Congregation hereupon in approbation of this Discipline you observe that hereby the reader may see what the learned most conscionable of the Church of England held heretofore which if they had continued in would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacy the bane of so many Churches And hereupon I observe further against you how the reader may hereby see that if the body of the Church may appoint so many Arbiters as they will to heare determine matters then may the Elders of the Church receive this authority as well as any others then is it no unlawfull usurpation for them to heare determine some matters among the brethren by themselves IV. If particular persons may lawfully passe by some lesser offences leave them unto the consciences of the offenders without prosequuting thē or bringing them to the Church for any judgment at all then may the Church also leave some lesser offences unto the judgment of the Elders But the first is true Therefore the second also The consequence of the Proposition is proved because God doth no more require the Church to judge of sinnes made knowne unto the same then he doth require particular persons to prosequute and to deale against the offences made knowne unto them the Scripture speaking as fully giving unto particular persons as ample commission charge to * Mat. 18.15 16 17. Lev. 19.17 admonish and complaine of sinne as it doth unto the Church to judge censure the same The Assumption is proved 1. By expresse testimonyes of Scripture that teach us to passe by some sins offences and not to prosequute them Prov. 19.11 Eccl. 7.21 2. Particular persons being taught to love their neighbour as themselves to doe good unto all Levit. 19.18 Matt. 22.39 Rom. 13.9 Gal. 5.14 Iam. 2.8 are thereby bound to admonish them that are without those that are not mēbers of the same Church with them but of any other eyther true or false or of none Now if this be to be done it followes necessarily that the reproofes of many lesser faults are to be omitted because otherwise men could never discharge this duety neither would their time suffice to performe these dueties of admonition to all such as they should finde subject thereunto both within the Church without Yea suppose they had no other calling to attend upon yet could not the whole age of man be sufficient to testify effectually in order against all such transgressions which an intelligent person might discerne to be committed dayly before his eyes both in private publick 3. Even yourself seem to acknowledge this also when touching the difference of offences you say (i) Com. of Saints cap. 22. § 2. 3. when offences arise it shal be our glory if we can passe them by as Solomon hath sayd But if the trespasse be such as we may not but insist upon both for the honour of God who is offended soule of the sinner which is endangered our owne or neighbours good who are endammaged thereby then are we bound to admonish the trespasser hereof
to assemble for to excommunicate him but not to heare him by the word convinced in the triall of his cause they may as well teach the people they are bound to come to eat the bread and wine in the Lords supper but not bound to heare the word teaching preparing them hereunto ANSVV. 1. In coming to the Lords supper every man is bound unto a speciall particular examination preparation of himself by his owne knowledge to convince judge himself 1. Cor. 11.28 31. but in coming to the excommunication of offendours a man may lawfully content himself with the testimony of others touching their conviction and so rest in the judgment of the Church Deut. 19.15 16 17. ch 17 8-13 neither doth the Scripture in any place require more of us 2. A man may be fitted prepared unto the Lords supper though he doe not heare the word of God taught and preached at the same time when he comes thereunto True faith repentance make men worthy lawfull communicants able to discerne the body of the Lord though by some meanes they be hindred from hearing the Word immediately before 1. Cor. 3.21 22. Ioh. 6.40 And therefore to follow you in your owne comparison as a man may lawfully come to the Lords supper though he have not heard the word before so may he lawfully come to the excommunication of a sinner and consent thereunto though he have not bene present at his conviction before but onely heare it testifyed by others 3. If you finde no difference but that men are alike bound to come to heare the examination conviction of offendours to come to the Lords supper why doe you not then censure those among you that after your Sermon ended doe depart when you enter upon these convictions disputations continuing sometimes untill eight nine or tenne a clock in the night as well as those that after Sermō should depart refuse to eat the Lords supper with you Doth not your owne conscience and practise reprove you in this poynt H. AINSVV. We doe so understand Gods law that when it commandeth us any thing it doth also command us to use all meanes for the right holy performance of it and all will be little enough ANSVV. Thus doe we also understand the Law but the Question is whether all the meanes for the right and holy performance of this judgement of excommunication cannot be used unlesse all the members of the Church be present at the conviction of the excommunicate The reader is to consider whether this be justly proved by you H. AINSVV. The people therefore that were bound to stone an Idolater in Israel were bound by that Law Thou shalt not slay the innocent Exod. 23.7 to looke that he were duely convicted of the crime ANSVV. But could not the people know that an Idolater were duely convicted unlesse they themselves were all present at his examination conviction By this kinde of reasoning 1. You condemne the just lawfull warre undertaken against the enimies of Church Common-wealth you might as well say that because no souldier may slay the innocent therefore every particular souldier is bound to be present in the assembly of the Rulers where the cause of the warre is tryed and there to heare the examinations convictions of the wrong-doers But how was this possible in Israel where so many hundred thousands were sometimes assembled together unto the warre 2. Chron. 13.2 3. c. or how should it now possibly be observed in our times how should private souldiers with good conscience goe into the field unlesse they may rest in the testimony of their Governours touching the cause of the warre 2. By that commandement Thou shalt not slay the innocent Exod. 23.7 those also are condemned that suffer the innocent to be slaine having authority power in their hands to hinder the same thus according to your reasoning the King or other supreme Magistrates of any country that should suffer any person to be slaine or punished within their dominions should be bound to be present at their examination conviction in like manner contrary to the liberty that God hath given unto Princes in appointing sending Governours for the punishment of evill doers 1. Pet. 2.13 14. And divers other the like unreasonable consequences would follow upon this manner of arguing H. AINSVV. And now by this law Be not partaker of other mens sinnes Keep thy selfe pure 1. Tim. 5.22 every soule that is bound to cast out a man condemned for heresy or other sinne is also bound to see him convicted lest Diotrephes cause to cast out faithfull brethren 3. Ioh. 9 10. ANSVV. 1. The errour of this collection applyed to the Question in hand appeareth by your owne practise when those members of your Church who having bene sick or absent while any person is condemned for heresy or other sinne doe yet upon the testimony of the Church reject him as an excommunicate and cast him out of their society Here you allow a rejection of offendours by such as have not bene present to see their conviction 11. Your errour in this allegation may likewise appeare in this that those who are excommunicate by one true Church are also to be rejected by other true Churches that have not bene present to see the conviction of such persons Luk. 10.16 Matt. 18.18 Ioh. 20.23 1. Cor. 5.3 2. Cor. 2.10 This shewes that a man may keep himselfe pure resting in the testimony of others and that the place 1. Tim. 5.22 is not to be applyed against them that doe upon the witnesse of a Church reject offendours 111. As for Diotrephes causing to cast out faithfull brethrē 1. There is no appearance in the text alledged 3. Ioh. 9 10. that this was done for want of the peoples presence his love of preheminence his tyranny might be exercised in their presence as well as in their absence 2. The reader is here to mark the contradiction of H. Barrow unto you and his further errour who will not have this casting out of the faithful by Diotrephes to be understood of excommunication (c) H. Barr. Refut of Giff. p. 165. nor to be meant of the abuse of any censure of the Church c. 3. For rash excommunications actuall casting out of brethren name any true Church where ever this sinne hath prevayled so notoriously as among yourselves and the Anabaptists where the popular order hath bene most in use If you looke upon all the Reformed Churches their practise where the people are not bound to be present at the conviction and examination of offendours I thinke your owne heart will tell you your mouth will acknowledge that the like rash unjust excommunications have not bene executed among them as among yourselves other Sects of Separatists that use the same manner of proceeding which you doe H. AINSVV. He that stands out to excommunication will commonly plead his cause
bound to study all the week to take paines to prepare himself for the ministery of the word and Sacraments but did onely speak the same without labour going before then could not the double honour maintenance mentioned 1. Tim. 5 be due unto him Where there is no speciall work there is no speciall maintenance And therefore while you doe not require double labour of the Elders in trying cases but doe binde the people even to the same labour of enquiring examining trying matters how can you require double honour such speciall maintenance for them But after this generall evasion you proceed unto some more particular answers say there in your Animadversion H. AINSVV. First they restrain things too much when they say between brother brother for what if it be a publick case of heresy oridolatry as that mentioned Deut. 13.12 13 14. c. will they say women children servants were then or are now bound to leave their callings come together to try out the matter Hereunto I reply I. They restrain things no otherwise then Christ himself doth when speaking generally of the sundry sorts of sinne he also notes them to be between brother brother saying If thy brother finne against thee Matt. 18.15 Even to publick sinnes of heresy and idolatry as that in Deut. 13. though immediately they are committed against God yet as they are scandals and occasions of falling unto others so are they cases between man man brother brother to be censured judged by them Deut. 7.4 13.5 6 13. II. If they restrain things too much then doe they no wrong unto you but unto themselves then is there more force in the matter then their words doe make shew of For if it be unmeet to binde all the members of the Church to heare cases dayly between brother brother even in a stricter sense as you would have their words to sound how much more inconvenient shall it be when by a larger bond they shal be required to heare all cases of sinne both betweē brother brother between the Lord and our brethren III. What sense or reason have you to make this question Will they say c. whereas it is not they but you which say plead by all this your arguing that women children servants are bound to leave their callings come together to try out these controversies H. AINSVV. Secondly many controversies between neighbours are for civill things of this life such are (g) Luk. 12.14 not Church matters nor there to be heard but by (h) Rom. 13. Magistrates or arbiters chosen 1. Cor. 6.4 5. REPL. I. Even the controversies about Civill things of this life are Church-matters there to be judged seing all sinnes are there to be judged Matt. 18 15-17 1. Cor. 5.11 2. Cor. 10.4 5 6. If you could prove that men did never make false deceitfull bargaines nor use false weights nor any kinde of extortion oppression coosenage c. then might you exclude controversies for Civill things from the judgement of the Church And the controversies about these things being prosequuted before the Church cannot but require a greater time for the examination of them then the callings workes of men women children servants can well afford so that the force of the argument by this exception is not diminished but further manifested hereby II. For one the same sinne God hath appointed two judgements one Civill another Ecclesiasticall as for example if a man should refuse to divide the inheritance with his brother this man by the Magistrates might be forced thereunto and this judgement is a Civill administration And this is that which our Saviour remooves from himself Luk. 12.13 14. Againe the same man for his deceit covetousnes sinfull oppression of his brother used in this controversy for Civill things of this life might justly be censured by the Church excluded from the same which is an Ecclesiasticall judgement and administration You cannot shew any place of Scripture that denyes this judgement unto the Church Moreover our Saviour at that time was none of the ordinary Iudges no not in Ecclesiasticall causes He did not in his life time erect another judicatory besides that which was already thē established among the Iewes and therefore did not use to excommunicate any or cast them out of the Synagogue And if Christ did not now ordinarily give sentence neither in Civill nor Ecclesiasticall judgements how farre is this his example from proving that controversies for Civill things are to be remooved from the Church III. As for Rom. 13. shewing that controversies for Civill things are to be judged by Magistrates this is not contrary to any thing in the argument neither doth it weaken the same The causes of Murder Adultery Theft Coosenage Slander as they are to be judged by the Magistrate so by the Church also And if all the members thereof men women children servants be bound unto the labour of trying and examining such causes why have they not maintenance for the same as well as either Magistrates or Ecclesiasticall Elders IV. As for matters referred unto Arbiters seeing they are oftentimes matters of sinne of wrong injury 1. Cor. 6.7 8. subject in that respect unto Ecclesiasticall censures this course of deciding controversies doth as wel serve for the ease help of the Elders saves them a labour as well as the people And therefore the consideration hereof doth help to shew that there is still no reason why Elders should have speciall maintenance when their ease excuse from labouring is as much as any others H. AINSVV. Thirdly for doubtfull cases Ecclesiasticall people are to inquire the law (i) Mal. 2.7 at the Priests mouth and to ask counsell of their Elders severally or joyntly who are to have their meetings apart for such other like ends Act. 21.18 so many things may be composed without trouble of the Church REPL. 1. The people are to ask counsell of one another also as well as of their Elders for in the multitude of counsellers is health Prov. 11.14 and all the brethren are to instruct guide and support one another Rom. 2 17-20 15.14 Heb. 3.13 and by your owne confession they are to be used not onely in private but in (k) Animadv p. 40. publick consultations also Yea beside this you acknowledge further that (l) Ibid. p. 39 41. the greatest Errours Heresies Schismes evils have both arisen bene continued by the Elders that sometimes they are blinde guides and without understanding and oftentimes they differ in counsell among themselves and thus in doubtfull cases men become more doubtfull by their counsell and so have the more need to consult among themselves If therefore this duety of giving counsell doe lye upon the people and they be bound unto it this work alone being common to others with the Elders could not shew the double honour maintenance
of H. C. it is testifyed that in the examination of an uncleane fact imputed unto him there were certaine men deputed to heare and examine the cause apart from the Congregation that the eares of women and children and of the whole multitude should not be offended therewith And why may you not now still by the like reason yeeld that the hearing and examining of offendours may be done apart by the Elders which are the Churches deputies thereunto as well as heretofore by some other deputies new chosen Touching the Scriptures alledged by you although that which is sayd already might serve for answer thereunto yet this in particular may be further considered As for 1. Cor. 5.4 there is not a word of the Churches meeting together to examine the fact of the incestuous person but onely of giving sentence after it was sufficiently knowne In Act. 14.27 we read that the Church was gathered together and so with us both on the Lords day and on one of the week dayes there is a gathering of the Church together What an idle thing is it to prove that there should be publick assemblies of the Church which none denyes But this place shewes not that the Church was gathered together to the publick examination of scandals to heare the proceedings against offendours according to the question in hand As for Act. 15.4 the receiving by the Church there mentioned doth not so much as shew that the Church was then gathered together The Church might be sayd to receive Paul Barnabas some others with them and to heare what things God had done by them though not in a publick assembly met together for that end even as the Church of Rome might be sayd to receive Phoebe Rom. 16.2 though not in a publick assembly Gaius might be sayd to be the host of the whole Church Rom. 16.23 consequently to receive the same though not gathered together at one time In Act. 15.30 Luke shewes that the Epistle of the Apostles was delivered to the multitude assembled at Antiochia So we read that the Epistle written to the Colossians was to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Colos 4.16 So the letters and decrees of Princes States at this day are often times upon sundry occasions delivered and openly read to the multitude people in severall cities assembled and called together to heare the same even as these decrees of the Apostles and Elders were delivered in sundry places Act. 16.4 But doe these manner of assemblies prove that no cases of controversy scandall or sinne may be examined heard by the Rulers Governours without the presence of the people gathered together in such an assembly according to the question betwixt us How can such kinde of collections be ever justifyed by you That place Act. 21 18-22 is oft alledged by you to shew the peoples power while it is there sayd that the multitude must needes come together touching which words though neither the Syriack nor the Arabick versions of the New Testament have them though the want of these words from the text in this place is by (p) Inn. Annot in Arab transl in Act. 21.22 some learned men judged not to be unmeet yet will I not insist thereon But 1. to take the words as they are in the Greek the word (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated must needes doth not alwayes signify a duety to be done but sometimes onely a necessity of a thing comming to passe done by men though they ought not to doe it and so this very word is elswhere used by the Apostle when he saith there must be herefies 1. Cor. 11.19 shewing thereby the necessity of an event but not the duety of any person to doe that thing Neither doth any thing hinder but that the word here also in Act. 21. may be taken in like sense viz. that the multitude would needs come together though not bound by duety thereunto 2. Suppose that this comming together of the multitude was according to duety yet seing that both the occasion was extraordinary that also the forme of their comming together is not specifyed whether they were to come as hearers onely of Pauls doctrine or as judges in judiciall manner to examine him how can you now conclude from hence that all cases of controversy among brethren are ordinarily to be examined by the multitude of the Congregation in a publick assembly THE SECOND PART Touching The power of Classicall and Synodall Assemblies CHAP. I. The State of the Question and the importance thereof THe summe substance of the Discipline or Church-government appointed of God practised in the Reformed Churches consists chiefly in this that when as for the remooving of private offences private admonition in the first and second degree prevayles not or when as the offence is publick at first the matter be then brought unto the judgement of the Eldership and so that in weightier cases as receiving of members excommunication election deposition of Ministers c. nothing be concluded executed without the knowledge approbation of the Church likewise that in more weighty difficult cases as the aforenamed or the like the advise help and allowance of the Classis under which they stand and if need be of the Synod unto which the Classis is subordinate be sought rested in this in such manner that if any person eyther Minister Elder or any other even the least member of the Church doe finde any evill to be maintained either against faith or manners either by the Eldership or by the Congregation it is then lawfull for them for the redresse of such evill to repaire unto the Classis or Synod that by their authority sentence the offence may be censured the abuse reformed As the Eldership of a particular Church consists of Ministers Elders chosen out of the same so the Classis consists of many Ministers Elders sent from many Churches assembling together to heare determine the cases above written That the State of the Question may yet more clearly be understood it is to be remembred that in this combination of Classes and Synods I. The authority which they exercise is not absolute nor their decrees held to be infallible but to be examined by the word of God and not to be received further then they doe agree therewith And therefore also (a) Kerckē Ordeninge Synod Nat. Dordr art 31.36 there is liberty of appeale from them from the Classis to the Synod and from a Provinciall Synod to a Nationall II. The authority of Classes Synods is not Civill neither have they power to inflict Civill punishments they (b) Ibid. art 30. judge onely of Ecclesiasticall causes that in Ecclesiasticall manner using no other then spirituall censures III. In the Classicall union consociation of neighbour Churches (c) Ibid. art 84. no one Church hath any prerogative or power above another nor any
make nothing to the purpose The first is Deut 17. c. Hereunto I answer I. Though the Papists argue from the Jewish politie and from the same places of Scripture alledged by us yet it is false which Mr Canne here saith viz. that they use the same argument They argue thence aâ—â—er another manner make other consequences draw other conclusions from those places then we doe Their abuse of those Scriptures doth not hinder us from the right use of them for then we might be quickly deprived of the whole Scriptures wrested by many unto their destruction 2. Pet. 3.16 The (l) Bellarm. contr de verbo Dei l. 3. c 5. Papists alledge Mat. 18.17 as well as Deut. 17. to stablish their Romish authority yet my opposites think it to be no prejudice to themselves that argue in another manner from the same place II. More particularly the Papists argue from Deut. 17. to prove that there should be one person supreme judge of Ecclesiasticall causes as there was one High Priest among the Iewes This is justly refuted both by (m) Conf. with Hart c. 6. div 2. p. 204. D. Rainolds by (n) DePont Rom. cont 4. qu. 7. p. 818.819 D. Whitakers shewing that the judgement given there was not by the High Priest alone but by a Colledge or Senate of Priests noted in that Text. The Papists argue from Deut. 17. to prove an infallibility of judgement in this one Judge to shew that the Pope cannot erre These such like false collections from the Policy of the Jewes are justly reproved by Orthodox Divines Had I used any such reasonings then had there bene cause to have complained III. Whereas Mr Iohnson used to plead for the power and authority of Elders in the Church and to maintaine the same from the Civill Policy of the Jewes from the authority of the Magistrates in Israel Mr Ainsworth had just cause to dislike the same and doth (o) Animadv p. 16. justly alledge against him the Testimonies of D. Whitakers Iunius Cartwright others It is true which they affirme The argument is not good from Civill Government to Ecclesiasticall and againe The example is altogether unlike of temporall empire and spirituall ministery between these there is not neither ought neither can a proportion or comparison be rightly made viz. in such a confused manner as Mr Iohnson hath done it But as for me I never pleaded on that manner I argue not from the Civill but from the Ecclesiasticall Policie in Israel to shew the lawfull government of the Church by Synods Mr Canne therefore doeth not rightly imitate Mr Ainsw in the allegation of these Writers IV. If Mr Canne would see who they be that doe in speciall manner offend by reasoning from the Iewish Policie and government let him looke yet better upon the writings of the Brownists There he shall finde not onely Mr Iohns worthily complained of for (p) Animadv pref wresting a proportion from the Princes of Israel to the Ministers of the Gospell for (q) Ibid. p. 14. streyning too farre in proportioning the authority and power of Elders in the Church with the authority of the Elders the Magistrates for (r) Ibid p. 19. matching the power of the Ministers in Spirituall things with the power of the Magistrate in Civill things c. But there shall he also finde the rest of the Separation so many as doe allow their Confession Apology pleading from the Jewish Policie government to establish confirme the authority power of particular Churches in their administration of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall censures he shall finde Mr Ainsw proceeding yet further not onely to reason from the Jewish politie but from an imagined power of the people in Civill judgements such a power as was not due unto them by the Law These errours have I noted refuted at large in the (Å¿) Pag. 7-13 former part of this Treatise V. Whereas these Opposers doe often alledge that (t) Animadv pref p. 14 15. c. Moses politie is done away abrogated I answer Though the Ceremonies that were shadowes and figures of things to come be abrogated yet the Judiciall Lawes are not wholly boargated but onely so much as served to establish the Ceremonies or had a peculiar respect to the condition of the Jewes to that land of promise given unto them Otherwise that part of Moses Politie which was of common equity grounded upon principles of reason and nature serving for the maintenance of the Morall Law is perpetuall not changed This is shewed at large by Orthodox Divines Iunius (v) De Poliâ—ia Mosis cap. 3. thes 13 14 15 c. in speciall doth manifest this both in generall rules and in particular instances as in the law of making battlements upon the flat roofes of their houses Deu. 22.8 in the law of not putting to death the childreÌ„ for the offence of the fathers Deut. 24.16 in the law of not admitting one witnesse Deut. 19.15 These and the like Judiciall lawes in the Politie of Moses are not abrogated This is likewise shewed by that learned (x) Gersom Bucerus Discept de Gubern Eccl. p. 51 52. Writer who defending the Government Discipline of the Reformed Churches against D. Downam declares such Judiciall lawes to be ad perpetuam Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the perpetuall good order of the Church Now our present controversy is neither about Ceremoniall ordinances nor other Judiciall lawes peculiar to the Jewes but onely about the liberty of Appeales from one Ecclesiasticall judicatory to another from the judgement of a particular Church unto a Synod Classicall Provinciall or Nationall This liberty of appeales being granted then a dependency of Churches is granted and then the single uncompounded Policie is not to be urged upon us That this liberty of appeales dependeth upon common equity the light of nature the practise of all ages nations generally witnesseth unto us It was the light of nature that taught this law of common equity unto Jethro Moses his father in law approved of God himself Exod. 18 22-26 for there as Iunius interprets the same there was a law appointed touching Appeales from subalterne or subordinate Judges (y) Analy Explic. in Deut. c. 17. That if any matter did either seeme obscure unto them the Judges that they could not determine it or did appeare hard unto the parties contending that they could not rest therein then they were to betake themselves unto superiour Iudges And againe in the same place comparing Deut. 17. with Exod. 18. he writes that according to the summe substance of that counsell which Jethro gave and ex illo fundamento c. from that ground Moses here viz. Deut. 17. defineth the manner of the appealing of parties of consultation to be made by inferiour Iudges when any weighty busines should be c. Thus doth he expound this law of appealing to a
Rome so both do grant liberty of Appeales unto Synods Yea and all the Arguments generally both of Greekes and Latines directed against the appeales made unto the Pope doe yet reserve a liberty of appeale unto Synods This may be observed from D. Whit. in his (g) De Pont. Rom. Qu. 4. p. 4 6. 48â— c. large ample defence of the Arguments of Nilus the learned Bishop of Thessalonica as he calls him and in his maintaining of the Arguments of the Latines also And now if these appeales be granted then is the question clearly granted and fully yeelded unto me then is not all spirituall jurisdiction limited to a particular Church then are not Churches independent then is there a superiour Ecclesiasticall power to judge the controversies of particular Congregations out of themselves Lastly though Mr Canne cannot endure that we should seek to strengthen the authority of Synods from the Policie of the Jewes yet if he would open his eyes he might see beside those above noted others also arguing in like manner The ancient Fathers have often argued from the Judiciall ordinances delivered by Moses unto Israel yea they have often alledged this very place in speciall Deut. 17. to shew thereby the practise of Christians in the New Testament Cyprian (h) Lib. 1. Epist 8. ad plebem p. 94 Epist ad Pompon de virginibus p. 170. Epist ad Rogat p. 192. citeth it often and the like might be observed in other writings of the Fathers Among later Writers the lights of this age Vrsinus (i) Tom. 1. in Expl. Catech p. 295 Tom. 3. Iudic. de Disc Eccl. p. 806.807 pleadeth from Deut. 17. to shew the authority of the Church for the excommunication of obstinate sinners Mr Cartwright (k) First Reply to D. Whitg p. 192. to shew what authority Ministers and Ecclesiasticall Governours have now in the New Testament for the governing of the Church argues from the Jewish Policie and from that Ecclesiasticall Synedrion described 2. Chron. 19.8 11. which had power to judge the causes of particular Synagogues Dudley Fenner speaking of the Presbytery in generall as it containes under it both Classes and Synods as well as the Elderships of particular Churches to shew the authority and use thereof among other places taken from the Jewish Policie (l) 8. Theol. lib. 7. c. 7. p. 276.277 alledgeth this also Deut. 17.9 with 2. Chron. 19.8 11. Zepperus to shew a divine warrant for the government of Churches by Synods (m) Polit. Eccles l. 3. c. 8. p. 707. 709. alledgeth these same places of Scripture Deut. 17.8 2. Chron. 19.8 Ruardus Acronius in like manner in his treatise (n) Cap. 7. with c. 13. of the Church of God the government thereof to teach how the more weighty controversies were to be brought from Synagogues and from particular Congregations unto greater Assemblies he alledgeth out of the Judiciall lawes of Moses this speciall place Deut. 17.8 c. To omit many other how is it that Mr Canne doth so much forget the practise of his owne Sect Is it not their manner frequently to alledge the ordinances of the Jewish Policie to strengthen and confirme that power of the Church and that order of government that is maintained and practised by them of the Separation Their Confession and Apology is full of such reasonings But instead of the rest consider we at this time the writings of H. Barrow who to prove the duety of the Church (o) H. Barr. Disc p. 1. alledgeth this place Deut. 17.8 c. To prove the power of the Church in driving away and keeping out the profane open unworthy from the table of the Lord alledgeth at once (p) Ibid. p. 17. the whole book of Deuteronomy and if the whole book then this 17. chap. also that is contained therein What unreasonable men are these to eat up and devoure at one mouthfull a whole book of Judiciall lawes and not to permit another to have a crumme thereof or to alledge one of those ordinances To prove that Princes for their transgressions are subject unto censure and judgement (q) Ibid. p. 14. 245. to be disfranchised out of the Church and to be delivered over unto Satan as well as any other offendour he alledgeth sundry examples and all out of the Old Testament all of such Kings as stood under the Jewish Policie Can they from the Jewish Policie prove them to be subject to the greatest censure and can they not from the same Law procure them liberry of appeale when they judge they are oppressed Is the Policie of Moses in force to binde them and is it then abrogate when they seek releef by appeale unto a superiour judicatory This is indeed an injury a misery to Princes people to high and low to be brought into greater bondage under Christ in the New Testament then others were under Moses in the Old THese things being duely considered it may hereby also appeare how vaine that is which Mr Dav. excepteth concerning appeales or the bringing of causes unto Classes Touching that which I had sayd upon another occasion from Deut. 17.8 with 1.12 2. Chron. 19.8.9 10. he excepts as followeth I. DAV (r) Apol. Repl. p. 215 The pretended reason c. will not help him in the cases questioned unlesse he can prove I. That the Classes are of the same use by Divine institution for the help of Pastour which have the assistance of their Eldership whereof that judicatory was for the help of Moses c. ANSVV. I. Observe how Mr Dav. being an Accuser and an Advocate of accusers instead of bringing any proof to justify the accusations calls upon me for proof of that established order of government so long enjoyed in these countries II. Seing it appeareth that the order of Ecclesiasticall government prescribed Deut. 17. 2. Chron. 19. was for the substance of it no part of the Ceremoniall law but of common and perpetuall equity and that the power of Classes for the receiving of appeales judging the causes of particular Churches was included therein it is thence also manifest that the power authority exercised by Classes Synods is therefore of Divine institution for the same use from the same grounds of holy Scripture III. What reason had he in describing the use of Classes to mention this onely that they were for the help of Pastours seing both they those judicatories Deut. 17.2 Chron. 19. were for the help benefit of every member of the Synagogues then and the Churches now as well as for the help of Pastours IV. What reason had he also in speaking of Pastours now to adde these words which have the assistance of their Eldership seing in the Synagogues anciently their Pastours Teachers had the assistance of an Eldership and Rulers of the Synagogue as well as now I. DAV It is to be proved II. That the causes in question which
no new rule in the new Testament when the like order was established for going first unto the Eldership and seeking redresse of evill by them Mr Ainsw acknowledgeth that (v) Ibid. p. 451. the keyes of the kingdome of heaven are in more speciall manner given unto them and therefore in speciall manner ought they to be told and spoken unto for the reformation of evils seeing they were to guide and goe before the people as in other affaires so in administring the censures of the Church therefore ordinarily matters were to be brought unto them before they were brought unto the whole Congregatiō 11. As it is the ordinance of God in the new Testament 1. Cor. 5. accordingly the practise of the Reformed Churches in these countries that the more weighty affaires censures of the Church should not be administred without knowledge and consent of the body of the Church so that none is either received for a member of the Church or cast out by excommunication but they doe first tell the Church even the whole Congregatiō is solemnely publickly acquainted therewith liberty granted unto them to shew their assent or dissent therein so Mr Ainsw himself acknowledgeth that there was a like order in the old Testament The Scriptures which he alledgeth and his manner of arguing from them doth import so much Of Israel he saith (x) Cōmun of S. c. 18. § 8. Vnto all every of the Israelites was commended the care observation of all Gods statutes that neither all nor any of them man nor woman nor familie nor tribe should forsake the Lord nor suffer among them any root to bring forth gall and wormwood c. Deut. 29.18 So of the multitude of beleevers and people in the new Testament he writes in like manner that (y) Ibid. § 9. they were willed to exhort and admonish each other even the Officers of the Churches c. and to look that no root of bitternes sprung up and troubled them c. Heb. 12.15 c. Againe he saith (z) Ibid. c. 18. § 8. Even the leprous unclean though the tryall of them apperteyned to the Priests Lev. 13. yet all the children of Israel were to look that such were removed out of the host yea the care of the Priests purity in their administration apperteyned to all the people Levit. 21.1 8 24. And long after both in counsels in the redressing of publick evils and trespasses all Israel indifferently had their hand and presence as the Scripture sheweth 2. Chron. 30.21 23. Ezra 10.1 9 12 c. Then presently he parallels the course of the Churches in the New Testament with this supposed practise in the Old saving The Churches in the Apostles dayes had also the like right and liberty for the multitudes of beleevers were both beholders and actors in the common affaires c. Afterwards againe speaking of the rules of admonition of the censures of the Church he saith (a) Ibid. c. 22. § 12 p. 449. The keeping of which rules belongeth to all the Saints as the commandement directed of old to the children of Israel Num. 5.2 Levit. 19.17 and in the new Testament to all the brethren Church doth shew Matt. 18.15 1. Cor. 5. And thus by his owne confession yea even according to his owne opinion in respect of the Churches power and the peoples right there was no new rule given by Christ in Mat. 18. Whereas it is objected that the Jewish Synedrion (b) H. Barr. Resut of Giff. p. 76. by the institution of God was merely Civill c. that (c) D. Bilsō perpet gov ch 4. p. 21. Moses appointed neither Iudges nor Elders in Citie or Synedrion but they were Magistrates to execute the judgements of the law had the sword to chastise the body and punish with death c. The errour of this assertion hath bene shewed (d) Pag. 34 35.41 before from the Scriptures Deut. 17. 2. Chron. 19. From these places is the distinction of Civill and Ecclesiasticall judgements maintained by many learned Writers as (e) Conf. with Hart c. 6. div 2. p. 203 204. D. Rainolds (f) First reply to D. Whitg p. 192. Secōd reply latter part p. 152.153 Mr Cartwright (g) Counterp in part of Regist p. 490.491 Mr Fenner and the (h) Ibid. p. 522. Defender of him and most largely by (i) Diss de Gub. Eccl. p. 59. c. G. Bucerus As for H. Barrow he sufficiently resutes himself when he acknowledgeth that the Priests did beare the charge and had the deciding of all Ecclesiasticall causes Numb 18. Deut. 17. This they could not doe without judging of them therefore it appeareth hence that they had a double Synedrion one Ecclesiasticall the other Civill CHAP. VI. The third Argument taken from the practise of the primitive Churches in the Apostles times OUr third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitive Christian Churches after the Ascension of Christ from which we reason on this manner That government of the Church which is commended unto us approved by the example of the Apostles and Apostolick Churches is worthily to be embraced of us But the government of the Church by Synods which besides their counsell and admonition doe also with authority judge and determine the weightiest causes and affaires of particular Churches is commended unto us as is above sayd Therefore c. The Assumption of this Argument is proved I. By that holy assembly or Synod which is recorded Act. 1 15-26 wherein there was not onely counsell given but also an exercise of Ecclesiasticall power authoritie and that in such a busines as was of great and rare importance in the choyse of a new Apostle This Assembly was not an ordinary Congregation or particular Church but it was a Synodicall assembly and performed such a work as did not belong unto any one particular Church This appeares divers wayes I. In respect of the persons of whom this Assembly did consist and these againe of two sorts First of Apostles who being such persons as were not tyed unto any particular Church but had an universall charge Matt. 28.19 Rom. 10.15 18. This commission was unto them as much as if they had had a speciall delegation from many or all Churches so that their presence and concurrence was sufficient to make this Assembly in some measure as a generall or universall Synod These eleven Apostles having also a peculiar charge to be at this time at Ierusalem the place of this Assembly and to tarry there for a while Luk. 24.49 Act. 1.4 were by divine direction brought unto this Synod Secondly for other persons the Disciples that were present at this Assembly it appeares they were from divers places some of them from Galilee as the brethren of Christ there mentioned Act. 1.14 with Mat. 13.55 56. how many of them were inhabitants of Ierusalem or Iudaea it is not specifyed
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
then those that doe so many wayes pervert his meaning he being not onely a member of the same Church but a member of the same family living under the same roofe with me where we had continuall and daily occasion to talk of these things and at that time when Mr Iacob published his unsound writings touching this question He being afterwards also a member of the same Eldership and by office sitting with us dayly to heate and judge the causes of our Church and so becomming a member of our Classicall combination yet did he never testify against the unduepower of the Classis or complaine that we were not a free people though the Classis exercised the same authority then as now it doth Yea he being also for that time the Scribe of our Consistory the Acts of our Eldership and Church being recorded with his owne hand are extant to shew his agreement with us in the government of this Church And it appeares hereby that he was of another spirit and judgement then Mr Davenp who hath published so many vaine cavills against the government and discipline of these Reformed Churches and this under the cloake pretence of his agreement with Mr Parker Yea and further it is apparent that the knowledge and experience which Mr Parker got by this his living here in communion with these Churches hath bene a speciall help unto him in the writing of those learned treatises of Ecclesiasticall policie which for the substance and maine are as a lively Table wherein the government of these Reformed Churches is plainely pourtrayed before our eyes his discourse being as it were a narration and defence of their practise which discourse might yet have bene more perfect had he lived to finish the same SECT IV. His Allegation of D. Ames examined IO. DAV To these I might adde D. Ames in that which he wrote in his latter time wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set downe his judgement more warily in this matter Casus cōsc l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. c. 25. qu. 5. then formerly See his Cases of Conscience the 4. Booke where he speaketh clearly of this power as essentially belonging to particular Churches ANSVV. Thus instead of Arguments from the Scripture for the confirmation of his cause Mr D. still leads us from one mans testimony to another thither I am forced to follow him And for D. Ames 1. I may justly testify that I have found him wavering in his opinion touching the authority of Synods For through the inward familiarity which I had with him a long time for more then 20 yeares together while he lived in these countries having oftentimes had earnest conference with him touching this question and much complayning of the wrong done to many Ministers by that booke entitled English Puritanisme which he had translated into Latine wherein there is such a peremptory restraint of all Ecclesiasticall authority unto particular Congregations though he did never plainely retract that which he published yet he shewed himselfe divers times enclining to a change of his judgement yea sometimes acknowledged that Synods had power to judge of causes and by their sentence to decree the excommunication of such as had deserved the same II. For his writings D. Ames when he (t) Preface to Mr Par. book de Pol. Eccl. anno 1616. gave so great approbation of Mr Parkers work which he wrote of Ecclesiasticall policie wherein he doth so largely maintaine the power of Classes and Synods might cause the Readers to think that he was of the same judgement with him seeing he gives such generall allowance and commendation thereof without any exception about this question III. It is to be observed that in none of his latter writings he doth use that peremptory phrase in limiting Synods or Churches combined in Classes or Synods onely to counsell or advise in such manner as was done in that (v) Engl. Purit c. 2. first writing IV. And more particularly in his Treatise of Divinity he writes thus of particular Churches (x) Medull SS Theol. l. 1. c. 39. th 27. that as their cōmunion requires the light of nature equity of rules and examples of Scripture doe teach they may and also ought frequently to enter into a mutuall confederation and consociation among themselves in Classes and Synods that they may use common consent and mutuall help as much as commodiously may be done in those things especially which are of greater moment Now as in particular Congregations the greatest acts of power and jurisdiction which are exercised therein receive their strength from common consent and doe consist therein so if in matters of greater weight the common consent of Synods is to be used then is a power and authority asscribed unto them then ought not particular Churches to proceed without and against the authority of common consent in Synods And that mutuall help of other Churches is then most effectuall whē there is not onely advise but authority also to cōfirme the same Though D.A. adde in the same place that this combination doth neither constitute a new forme of the Church neither ought by any meanes to destroy or empaire that liberty power which Christ hath left unto his Church for the directing furthering whereof it onely serveth this we also willingly grant When a particular Congregation is hindred stayed frō the exercise of their authority in an unlawfull businesse in an unjust excōmunication or electiō their liberty power is not hereby destroyed or taken away but rectifyed and preserved Here is to be remembred that which Mr Par. as was noted before sayth upon like occasion when some objected that the Churches of the villages in the Netherlands wanted the power of excommunication he replyes (y) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 349. Imo potestas excommunicandi ordinandi jurisdictionis caeterae illis illibata relinquitur c. The power of excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction remaines unto them uncorrupted c. though they doe not proceed thereunto but with common consent of the Classis V. After this D. Ames in his Disputation against Bellarmine touching Synods or Councels doth sundry times acknowledge that they have more authority then onely to counsell and advise This is to be observed in divers povnts as first in the Question whether the greater Prelates onely have jus suffragii decisivi the right or authority of a determining or definitive suffrage or whether the same belong unto the Elders also or inferiour Officers to whom Bellarmine allowes a consulting voyce but not a definitive Here D. Ames according to the receyved opinion of the Protestants (z) Bellarm. enerv Tom. 2. l. 1. de Conc. c. 2. allowes unto them also the right and authority of suffrages when they are deputed and sent as the Delegates of their Churches unto Synods This he oft repeateth And although he say (a) Ibid. th 8. that in matters of faith there is no
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
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
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
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
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
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
alledged or so much as pretended for it Is this to goe unto the Law and to the Testimony V. The testimonies of men which he alledgeth are falsifyed and perverted by him D. Fulk shewes the sufficiency of those offices mentioned by him viz. of Doctours Pastours Governours c. but he (a) Disc of Eccl. Gov. p. 111. c. shewes withall expressely how these exercise authority in Synods as well as in the Elderships and particular Congregations Though D. Whitaker and Mr Parker say that the Church of God may subsist without Synods yet he corrupts and falsifyes their testimony when he makes them to say the Church may well subsist without them The Church of God may subsist and be a true Church though it want some divine ordinances Though they be not absolutely necessary to the being and subsistence of a Church yet how needfull they are to the well-being of a Church both those Authors doe shew and prove from divers grounds of Scripture noted before If the want of every ordinance of God should destroy the subsistence of a Church thē that Company of Brownists under Mr Canne wanting the ordinance of an Eldership so long a time must have perished long agoe ARGVM VIII Whatsoever Government cannot be found commanded in the written word of God ought not to have any place in the Church of God But the Government of Classes and Synods over many particular Congregations cannot be found commanded in the written word of God Therefore it ought not to have any place in the house of God The first part is grounded upon these Scriptures Esa 8.20 Mat. 28. ult c. Likewise this is the judgement of many learned men c. The second part is also as manifest for if we onee grant as all learned men have granted that the Churches of the Apostolick constitution were independent bodies and exercised Ecclesiasticall government in and of themselves then it must follow that Classicall Assemblies c. have their rise wholy from the pleasure and will of man ANSVV. The first part of this Argument being of it self plaine enough needed not such store of proof as Mr Canne brings for it The Reader may observe his notable trifling in alledging so many testimonies of Scripture and testimonies of men though some of them be carelesly misalledged for proof of that which he had no reason to imagine that it would be denyed by me The second part of this Argument is most false and he knowes it is denyed by me and yet for proof of it he brings here neither word of God nor word of man no testimony neither Divine nor humane He sayth indeed most untruely that all learned men have granted that the Churches of Apostolick constitution were independent bodies but he names not one learned man that so writes The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament which shew a dependency of Churches in Ecclesiasticall judgements have bene noted already in those Arguments brought for the authority of Synods together with the consent of learned men such late opposites excepted as I my self first named as parties in this cause All other learned Writers doe generally reject that independency which he dreames of ARGVM IX (b) Churches plea. p. 73. That Government which meerly tendeth unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power is unlawfull But the Government of Classes Synods as they now are doth meerly tend unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power Therefore that Government is unlawfull The Major of this Argument may easily be proved by sundry places of Scripture viz. 1. Thes 4.6 c. the definition of justice c. the Etymologie or precise signification of the word both in Greek and Latin c. ANSVV. Here againe he playes the trifler in alledging so many Scriptures testimonies of men to prove that which of itself is cleare enough more plaine then the proofes that he brings for it In speciall that definition of justice which he brings is not sufficiently confirmed by the Etymologies which he speakes of The Greek Etymon noted out of Aristotle is not so currant but that some learned men refuse the same and (c) Avenar in praef Lex Ebr. derive the word from the Hebrew from whence the principall Etymologies of that tongue are to be taken And yet that Etymology which Aristotle brings of justice is not with Mr Canne to demonstrate an entire definition of justice but to shew in part one effect thereof and Mr Canne overspeakes himself when he sayth of the definition so much is imported in the Greek word The Latine Etymologie which Mr Canne brings viz. jus a jure as he sets it downe in his margine is more strange It is likely his Authour whom he alledgeth hath no such thing If Mr Canne should owne it or approove of it in such sort as it stands in his booke it would thereby appeare that his skill in Grammar is like unto his skill in Logick Who ever heard such an Etymology that the Nominative should be derived of the Ablative But admit there should be such a ridiculous Etymology how doth he or how can he apply this to confirme his definition of justice How doth this prove the trueth of his Major proposition What is that which he saith is imported in this Etymology And what is that precise signification which he vainely talkes of but doth not expresse But let us now heare now he seekes to prove his Minor which is most false I. CAN. The Minor is as manifest 1. By Mr Pagets owne testimony in pag. 66. where he confesseth that they have concluded among themselves in their Synods that no particular Congregation without the leave and consent of the Classis shall proceed to the election of Ministers excommunication of offendours and the like c. ANSVV. I. He doth manifestly change and alter my words for when as I had sayd that it had bene agreed in Synods touching election of Ministers excommunication and the like that the same shall not be proceeded in (d) Answ to W.B. p. 66. without advise of the Classis instead of this Mr Canne repeats it without leave and consent of the Classis Now according to the State of the Question betwixt us there is difference betwixt doing a thing without advise and without leave men aske advise of many of whom they aske no leave for doing a thing II. Had I spoken more largely of the allowance and consent of the Classes and Synods yet would not my testimony have proved his Minor viz. that their government tends to the taking away from particular Churches their due power seeing the authority and help of Classes tends to the establishment of their due power by directing and regulating the same and so preventing the undue execution of their power This order takes not away due power but hinders and corrects onely the undue exercise of their power Thus much is confessed by such as Mr Canne himself hereafter calles
Elders and Shepherds of the Church in Ierusalem did undertake the care and exercise with others authority in judging the cause of the Church of Antioch It is against sense against nature against Scripture but that the members of the body should have care one for another 1. Cor. 12.25 c. IV. The use of Classes and Synods for counsell and admonition is allowed by my opposites and yet the care and labour therein for travelling to meet in such assemblies for deliberation for disputing for convincing such as they admonish and their counsell given unto Churches for the rejecting of Hereticks and other obstinate offendours more or lesse is as great in effect as if they should give definitive sentence therein As little distraction ariseth from one work as from the other To counsell a Church to excommunicate a sinner is as great a burden and labour for a Synod as if they should pronounce the sentence themselves V. It doth least of all become Mr Canne to plead and reason on this manner If nature have ordained one to one as he argueth out of Aristotle though in his quotation he forgat to tell where then must Mr Canne be a man against nature above many other in transgressing the law and ordinance of nature How durst he take the Pastorall charge of a Church upon him and this alone without assistance of an Eldership and yet in the meane time undertake the care and charge of divers other trades as of a Printers work-house in one place of a Brandery or Aquavitae shop in another place and specially of an Alchymists laboratory in another place Is this paragon of the Separation a fit man to be an Advocate or Patron of the Churches to write a booke and intitle it the Churches plea whereas if his example were followed it would bring confusion upon all Churches and on all the Ministers thereof What Pluralist or Non-resident is there that will not thinke he hath some colour to justify himself from this practise of Mr Canne REAS. III. Is it a like thing that the Classicall power should be of Gods approving and yet he never mention it in his word This argument the Hierarchy use against Popish Offices and the Reformists against theirs Now let the discreet Reader judge if it proove not the point in hand as well Here I may not omit Zwinglius his speech speaking of Synods (p) Zwingl Art 8. expl Wee willingly beleeve sayth hee that you are a representative Church for a true Church you are not But I pray you shew us whence you fetch this name Who hath given you this name who hath given you power to make Canons impose things on mens shoulders grieve their consciences c. ANSVV. I. This Reason is in substance the same with his fift Argument before and therefore idly repeated The grounds of Classicall power are shewed (q) Chap. 2. 3. 4. before from the Scriptures and the cavills of Mr Canne against the same refuted II. Note his errour of speech in distinguishing the Hierarchy from Popish Offices by opposing them one against the other whereas according to the common acception of the word the Hierarchy doth consist in the Popish offices and the corruption of offices which he intends is but a fragment thereof and therefore ought not to carry the name rather then the whole when both are spoken of together Otherwise in proper speech the true Hierarchy imports the lawfull offices and government prescribed in the Scriptures III. That which he alledgeth out of Zwinglius touching a representative Church is to be understood of the Romish Church and of the Popish government for against them did Zwinglius then write and against them there was just cause to complaine so as he did IV. If any thinke that by representative Churches he meant all Synods whatsoever that exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in the judging of causes then against the testimony of Zwinglius we oppose the testimony of all ages and of the learned Writers therein old and new Papists and Protestants that generally are against him Mr Parker (r) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 26. p. 368 369. sayth well All ages have called the Synod a representative Church beside many other witnesses he alledgeth D. Whitaker arguing thus against the Papists (f) De Cōc qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169. The Church is represented in the Synod therefore if the Church be above Peter then is the Synod also Mr Parker argues further Except the Synod did consist of the Deputies of Churches Synods could not represent the Churches and having there brought many testimonies of Scripture to shew the power of Churches in sending their Deputies or Delegates he concludes in the words of D. Whitaker (t) Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 103. Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the person of the Church But touching the judgment of Zwinglius more hereafter when he is againe alledged by Mr Canne REAS. IV. (v) Church plea p. 76. Whosoever shall deny our aforesayd assertion must of necessity hold two distinct formes of Church-government one wherein particular Congregations doe in and of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances the other where they stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Now to hold this is directly all one as to hold two wayes to heaven distinct and opposite in themselves which is very scandalous in Religion and that which cannot stand with truth ANSVV. I. Whatsoever Mr Canne here affirmeth is but his bare assertion without Scripture or other proof to confirme his reason But Mr Can. is not yet come to such credit with us that his ipse dixit his bare word may goe for currant II. It is false which he sayth of holding two distinct formes of Church-government c. The particular Congregations here in these Reformed Churches doe in and of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances and yet withall stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Synodall authority being one of Gods ordinances Though in regard of the locall and personall presence of all the members of the Church this authority is exercised out of themselves yet in regard of their confederation and combination with neighbour Churches and in regard of their Deputies Ministers and Elders or others that have place and suffrage in these Synods this authority is exercised in and of themselves And though here be another act of authority yet is there but one distinct forme of government III. It is as false which he sayth of holding two wayes to heaven and this not onely in respect of these Reformed Churches among themselves having the same government both by Elderships at home and by Synods abroad but also in respect of divers Churches having different formes of government The Church of England and of these Countries though they have a different order of Church-government yet holding together the same fundamentall trueths of the Gospell◠they both doe hold but one way to heaven and so doe both mutually
doth agree best For saith he it is not likely that the Apostles would depart from the first order or course which we have seen to have bene observed in the election of Matthias c. And upon Act. 1.26 he labours to prove that this manner of choosing is still to be observed in the Church as most safe and convenient whereby certaine men being found that are esteemed meet for the office unto which the election is to be made the event of our counsels may be referred unto the judgment of God by casting lots in such sort as Matthias was chosen unto the Apostleship However that he doth not deny the matters of particular Congregations to be subject unto the judgement of the Ministers of other Churches assembled in a Classis or Synod may be gathered from those testimonies which evē in this booke here alledged he gives concerning the authority of Synods and the Divine warrant upon which it is grounded Speaking of the authority of a Generall Councell which many then so much desired he sayth (y) Ibid. in cap. 5.21 To me also it seemes to be a most profitable thing if a free Synod could be obtained in which all controversies might be composed out of the word of God alone such as that Apostolicall Synod was of which we are to speak in chap. 15. and such as we know those of old to have bene viz. of Nice constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and the like c. And afterwards againe (z) Ibid. in cap. 20.17 intreating of Pauls sending from Miletus to Ephesus and calling the Elders of the Church he calles it a Synod By which example he saith as the faithfulnes and industrie of Paul doth appeare so also we are admonished that the assemblies of Ministers are altogether necessary in which Church-affaires may be handled by the common voyces of all This makes greatly for the maintaining of Church-discipline for the restraining of the ambition of Church-governours for the preserving of consent in true doctrine and for the repressing of heresies which if Ministers doe not most faithfully joyne their paines together are wont often to creep in This he declares againe by the example of that Synod Act. 15. and he commends the pietie and prudence of Constantine the great for his frequent assembling of Synods as on the other side he notes the wickednes of Licinius and of Antichrist in resisting and hindring the due exercise of this authority of Synods How doe these things agree with Mr Cannes discourse who yet alledgeth this Author as one of the Jurie by which he saith my position as he calles it is condemned viz. that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves Touching Sibrandus the order of electing Ministers in these Churches (a) Sibrād Lubb. Resp ad Piet. H. Gr. p. 159. approved by him is the same that is used in our Church and approved by me also and he hath notably perverted it in opposing of it unto me For that order hinders not but that there may be another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority in a Classis or Synod to judge of the elections made in particular Congregations or of other controversies This trueth is so often and so earnestly avouched by Sibrandus that scarsely any have bene more vehement in this poynt And in this very book alledged he in his first entrance in the preface to the Senate of Gelderland complaines of Grotius for oppugning this order of Classes and Synods and in the conclusion of his preface he professeth that there was scarsely any other meanes then a Nationall Synod to heale the evills of that time and desires them to perswade the calling thereof Afterward in the (b) P. 140. 141 c. book itself he shewes at large both from the Scriptures and practise of ancient Churches the use the order and the authority of Synods not onely in deliberating but in judging and deciding of controversies In his Disputation with Bertius he shewes (c) Epist Discept de Fide p. 3. that it is altogether needfull to have a Synodicall judgement to heale the wounds of the Church In his book against Vorstius after long dispute (d) Declar. Resp Conr. Vorst p. 142 143.144 in conclusion he offereth yea he provoketh and urgeth him to referre their controversy and differences to the judgement of other Churches which he there nominates And in the preface thereof unto the States Generall of the United Provinces he shewes from the word of God and examples of the godly the necessity of Synods he declares what confusion and distraction of Churches ensueth where they are neglected and makes earnest supplication unto them for the maintenance of this order in government In another of his bookes against Vorstius (e) Cōment ad 99 Errotes C. Vorst pref p. 45 Cōm p. 503 504. p. 841. both in the beginning middle and end of it he harpes upon the same string His appeale unto the judgement of other Churches and his willingnes to submit unto their judgement with his desire of a Nationall Synod is plainely declared therein Speaking of the fruit of Synods he saith (f) Ibid. pref p. 34. 35. that the holding of them in their Churches hath bene next unto God the chief sinew of preserving both the true doctrine and tranquillity of the Churches and that if any man acquainted with their affaires dare deny the same he shall manifest his impudency or make warre with his owne conscience And thus by the verdict of Sibrandus if my opposites understand the Discipline and state of these Churches and deny the fruit of Synods they must be held for impudent and unconscionable persons Moreover in his book against Bellarmine concerning Councells he gives divers testimonies (g) DeCōc Lib. 1. c. 1. l. 2. c. 3. l. 5. c. 1 3 5 8. touching the profitable use of Councels for the determining of controversies their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and the exercise of it in making decrees and censuring offendours By all which it appeares how injurious Mr Canne hath bene unto Sibrandus in producing him as a witnesse against the authority of Synods whereas he hath so often testifyed his judgement to the contrary Mornaeus in the place (h) Histor Pap. p. 542 c. edit 1612. alledged hath no such thing as for which he is quoted unlesse he meane that which is noted in one of the following pages (i) Ib. p. 545 that the Popes of Rome were chosen in publick assemblies of the Priests the Nobility the common people the Senate by the voices of all c. which if it be explained and applyed to the question in hand may easily be discerned to fall short of proving any thing against us But this Author in the same booke shewes plainly his approbation of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes He alledgeth frequently and maintaines against Baronius and Bellarmine the judiciall Acts and sentences of sundry Synods against the Popes of Rome
He calles those decrees of the Councell of Basile (k) P. 1218. Catholick or universall trueths whereby it was enacted 1. That the power of a Generall Councell representing the whole Church is above the Pope and everie other person 2. That the Pope cannot dissolve a Generall Councell without their consent c. 3. That he that doth obstinately oppose the foresaid trueths is to be accounted an Heretick He relates coÌ„mends the speeches of (l) P. 1010. c. Marsilius Patavinus (m) P. 1232 c. Petrus de Alliaco and divers others shewing the power of Councels in judging and censuring the Pope the necessity of them both Provinciall and Generall for the correcting of abuses and amending of all sorts of persons and things with greater authority He approves and defends (n) P. 1341. the renowned Italian Martyr Hieronimus Savanorola for seeking that a Generall Councell might be called for reformation of the Clergie and degenerate estate of the Church c. Besides this he being in his time a principall favourer maintainer of the Discipline in the French Churches where the causes of particular Congregations were judged and determined by Synods could therefore be no favourer of the Brownists opinion which count such government to be a miserable bondage and slavery of the Churches Tilenus that is also called to be one of their Jurie against me doth most expressely give his verdict on my side against the Brownists He teacheth (o) Syntag. Disp Theol. par 2. Disp â—0 thes 1. that the fourefold power of the Church is to be exercised not onely in Presbyteries but also in Councels or Synods that (p) Thes 4. Synods according to the power granted of God unto his Church may take knowledge of Ecclesiasticall causes and by their judgements conferred together according to the word of God may define c. (q) Th. 19. give ministeriall sentence c. And further he saith (r) Th. 38. As it is not to be hoped for that the body of the Church militant on earth shall be free from divers diseases so we may not think that it can want this remedy of Synods which we therefore affirme to be not onely lawfull but also necessary Bastingius shewing how Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church saith nothing but that which is practised both in our and other Reformed Churches of these countries especially if it be marked how he explaines himself in the leafe following where he addes that (f) Expos Catech. Qu. 85. Ecclesiasticall discipline and excommunication itself ought to be administred by them who are ordained thereunto of the Church such as are Ministers of the Word and Elders the rest of the Church consenting thereunto yet with this correction that the multitude of the people doe not rule the action but provide as watchmen that nothing be done by a few as they list themselves Besides he being a member Minister of these Churches and Regent of a Colledge in Leyden there is no reason from these his words to conclude against the authority of Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations if they either could not agree among themselves or should agree in evill For then he should have condemned his owne estate and practise which yet cannot be inferred from this his testimony Vrfinus also though he teach that the unrepentant are to be excommunicated by the common consent of the Church c. yet doth he not thereby deny or exclude the power of Synods in judging of that which is done in particular Congregations but doth plainly give testimony with me For (t) Tom. 2. Admo Chr. de lib. Concord c. 12. col 686. having shewed the conditions and necessity of Synods he saith of them This remedie for the healing of the wounds of the Church is not to be neglected which the holy Ghost hath shewed unto us by the counsell and example of the Apostles which all reason of divine and humane right requires which being lawfully used experience hath proved to be most wholesome for the Church in many most grievous confusions of opinions Neither was this his private opinion but (v) Ibid. Tit. Col. 478. written in the name of other Divines Ministers in the jurisdiction of Prince Casimir and approved by them Piscator saith Excommunication is a decree of the Church therefore ought to be done of the Church (x) In 1. Cor. 5. Obs 1. Art 3. or of the Eldership judging in the name of the Church We grant as much or more in the practise of our Church while the Eldership never exerciseth such power alone without the knowledge and consent of the Church by propounding the same divers times unto them But it is a perverting of this testimony to gather from hence that the actions of the Church or Eldership are not subject to the judgement of Synods if they be complained of for wrong And that Piscator alloweth the authority of Synods (y) In Act. 15. Obser in V. 6. to judge the controversies of Religion and to (z) Thes Theol. Vol. 1. Loc. 23. de Eccl. th 68. 72. make decrees by gathering of voyces in order it is evident from other of his writings Calvine requiring the (a) Instit l. 4. c. 1. sec 15. cognition of the whole Church before any be excommunicate requires no more then is held and practised by us And this is no empeachment to his and our opinion with him that in case of doubt or controversy (b) Ibid. c. 9. sec 13. there is no better nor more certaine remedie then that a Synod of true Bishops meet together where the controversy may be discussed For such a definition shall have much more weight where the Pastours of Churches in common doe agree together c. And this he there confirmes both by Scripture and sundry examples of ancient Churches shewing that from the beginning it was the ordinary way of preserving unitie in the Church so often as Satan began to attempt any thing Besides this not to speak of other testimonies afforded by Calvine to this purpose when as Mr Canne (c) Ch. pl. p. 94. afterward notes the assertions of divers pleading for the Hierarchie of Bishops and oppugning Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods as a weed of later growth saying that at Geneva subjecting of Churches first began And before Calvine came there everie Congregation was free in itself If these assertions be true and that none is able to disprove them as Mr Canne there supposeth how comes it that he thus perverteth Mr Calvines testimony against his profession and practise Let the Reader observe that if these assetions were sound Mr Canne might as well have written a booke to prove the miserable bondage and slavery of the Church at Geneva procured by the tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine of Mr Calvine as he wrote the like title of an unjust complaint upon the like ground against me Paraeus
Authors more in number then those he hath specifyed and not inferiour for learning and piety unto some of those that he hath named all which in their severall writings Common places Commentaries and other Treatises have in like manner as the former described the use the necessity and the authority of Synods not onely for counsell but for judgement and decision of controversies divers of them alledging not onely examples of ancient Churches but the holy Scriptures also for the warrant of that which they teach and therefore shewing that they maintaine them lawfull jure divino and that their tenure of them is from the grant that Christ hath given unto his Church But the trueth of that assertion touching the multitude of those that consent with me will most plainly appeare when we come to speak of the publick and generall testimonies of whole Churches most solemne assemblies of learned godly men touching this controversie In the meane while let us follow Mr Canne according to his owne Method SECT IV. Touching the Testimonies of English Conformists IN the next place they proceed and in an homely phrase they say Touching the English Conformist the formablest of them are for us in this poynt And here they alledge B. Whitgift D. Bilson Whitaker Bell Willet and Taylor Touching these I answer First for B. Whitgift though he confesse that in the Apostles time the state of the Church was popular See Def. ag T. C. p. 180. 182. because the Church had interest almost in every thing yet this proves not that he thought particular Congregations to be independent and uncontrolable by the Deputies of other Churches assembled in Synods The ordinary practise of B. Whitgift in judging the causes of other Congregations shewed that he was farre from the meaning of the Brownists in this poynt His words are wrested by an unjust consequence to prove independency of Churches and the undue power of Synods For D. Bilson there is notable wrong done to him in clipping his words and defacing his testimonie by omitting that which is most materiall in this controversy For when D. Bilson had sayd (a) Perpet Gover. c. 15 p. 360. Though the Presbyters had more skill to judge yet the people had as much right to choose their Pastour if the most part of them did agree they did carrie it from the Clergie Thus farre Mr Canne reciteth his words but here in the midst of the sentence before the period be ended he breakes off and leaves out this exception that is added viz. so the persons chosen were such as the Canons did allow and the ordainers could not justly mislike In this exception D. B. acknowledgeth that there may be just cause to disanull the election of the people if it be found worthy to be misliked And his meaning is yet more evident by the story which in the sentence immediately preceding he alledgeth out of (b) Lib. 7. cap. 35. Socrates touching the election of Proclus who being chosen by the greater number was yet refused because the election was sayd to be against the Canon of translating Bishops and so the people were forced to hold their peace That which is practised in these Reformed Churches is in this poynt the very same thing that D. B. testifies of the Primitive Church for Classes and Synods doe not use to impose or choose Ministers If particular Congregations doe choose a Minister neither Classes nor Synods can disanull the election if there be no just cause of exception against the person elected And if upon just exception the election be hindred yet then also is the new election of another permitted to the free choyse of the particular Church neither doth the Classis deprive them of their just power and liberty therein That it may more plainly appeare how unjustly and unreasonably D. Bilson is alledged as agreeing with my opposites let it be further observed that in his Dispute against Beza such as approve the Discipline of these Reformed Churches he doth not as my adversaries complaine of the undue power of Synods that judge and determine the causes of particular Congregations He acknowledgeth that (c) Perpet Gover. c. 16 p. 370. the necessity and authority of Synods is not so much in question betwixt us as the persons that should assemble and moderate those meetings c. He would have (d) P. 378 c. Metropolitanes to be the Moderatours and rulers of Synods he would have (e) P. 387 c. lay-Elders thrust out from assembling with Ministers in Synods he complaines (f) P. 386 387. of the intolerable charges and expences of having frequent Synods c. Herein he differs from us and we from him But that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authoritie in Synods to decide the causes of particular Churches which is the poynt in question herein he agreeth with us He saith of such Synods and their power to judge as followeth (g) P. 372. Their warrant so to doe is builded on the maine grounds of all divine and humane societies strengthened by the promise of our Saviour and assured unto them by the example of the Apostles and perpetuall practise of the Church of Christ Afterwards he saith of their meetings in Synods (h) P. 374. This hath in all Ages as well before as since the great Councell of Nice bene approved and practised as the lawfullest and fittest meanes to discerne trueth from falshood to decide doubts end strifes and redresse wrongs in causes Ecclesiasticall yea when there were no beleeving Magistrates to assist the Church this was the onely way to cleanse the house of God as much as might be from the lothsome vessels of dishonour and after Christian Princes began to professe protect the trueth they never had nor can have any better or safer direction amongst men then by the Synods of wise and godly Pastours And many other things to like purpose are written by him complayning that the denyall of this order is (i) P. 376. an heathenish if not an hellish confusion c. That which they bring out of Scultingius a Papist before alledged is idle impertinent untill they heare me avouch such things as he doth for change of the order of Christ let them refraine their surmises and conjectures of imaginary arguments which they guesse that I will use Having brought such Authours against me mark how Wil. B. or Io. Ca. for him doth triumph against me before the victory in these words (k) Chu pl. p. 85. To say that this superiour power of Classes and Synods is Jure Divino I thinke he will not any more doe it there being in the Scriptures no proofe yea I may boldly say nor shew of any proofe for it I confesse indeed it is boldly spoken of him for who so bold al 's blinde B. But whether there be at least shew of proofe in the Scriptures for the superiour authority of Synods in judging the causes of particular
Congregations let us see what his owne witnesse saith D. Whitaker that is next alledged by him doth by many arguments shew the profit and necessity of Synods and to this end he citeth many (l) DeConc qu. 1. c. 3. p. 15.16 q. 2. c. 3. p. 55 56. places of Scripture both from the old new Testament he alledgeth at large (m) P. 17. c. 7 or 8 causes for which they are profitable and of great use and fruit He speaketh also of such Synods as are not onely for discussing and concluding of matters by way of counsell and advise but of those that have power to (n) P. 21. judge and condemne obstinate offenders by a publick judgement and as occasion requires to anathematise or exclude from the fellowship of the Church he maintaines that those which are lawfully called unto Synods have authority of deciding and determining controversies by (o) Ibid. q. 3. c. 3. p. 95.96 c. definitive sentence or suffrage he saith that (p) DePōtif Rom. qu. 4. p. 470. appeales are of divine and naturall right and cannot be denyed in controversies about Ecclesiasticall causes and persons And thus by the testimony of their owne witnesse my adversaries doe offend both against the law of God and the law of nature in denying appeales and in not allowing the actions and judgements of a particular Congregation to be judicially examined by a Synod or Classis The severall testimonies of D. Whitaker to this purpose are alledged (q) P. 39. 133-141 before and applyed at large to declare his judgement in this controversy Though D. Whit. doe (r) DeCōc q. 5. p. 178. grant as is here alledged against me that Ecclesiasticall authority is in the Church principally primarily and essentially c. he doth not hereby contradict himself or deny the power of Synods where Ministers doe judge by vertue of their calling and deputation from many Churches The authority of Churches is manifested in them and by their service therein The like testimony alledged from Saravia and Schola Parisienfis is (ſ) P. 170. before answered Yea the Schoole of Paris doth sufficiently (t) Schol. Paris p. 1 2. explaine this matter by a fit similitude shewing that Ecclesiasticall authority is in the Church primarily and instrumentally in the Ministers as the power of seeing is in man principally but instrumentally in the eye As man sees by his eye so the Church exerciseth Ecclesiasticall authority by the Ministers and rulers thereof and so judgeth of all crimes and offences The testimony of Bell next alledged is in like manner to be understood Whereas from (v) Regim of Chur. ch 2. sect 4. him they object that Excommunication precisely and chiefly pertaineth to the Church and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof to some speciall persons for that purpose and chosen for that end this doth no way condemne but rather illustrate our practise agreeable thereunto And that the meaning of this Authour was not repugnant unto us it appeareth more plainely by another of his writings (x) Bells motiv l. 2. c. 4. concl 3. c. where he evidently declares his minde that Synods have power to exercise Ecclesiasticall authority and to proceed judicially with delinquents even to depose excommunicate though it were the Pope himself upon due conviction And to this end he alledges the confession of many Popish writers and farre more truely and uprightly then Mr Canne hath done in this controversie As for D. Willet if he speak but to the same effect with Bell as they say then the same answer may serve But for the place alledged Synops cont 4. qu. 4. p. 2. I finde no such matter there They alledge p. 2. when as there is no second part of that question But in the same booke he gives plaine evidence against them he acknowledgeth Synods to be (y) Synops Papi Cōt 3. qu. 1 p. 105. an wholesome meanes for the repressing and reforming both of errours in religion and corruption in manners he alledgeth the consent of antiquity to prove that our opinion is grounded upon trueth and Scripture namely that those which are lawfully called unto Synods (z) Qu. 3. p. 109.110 have determining voyces and power to give sentence and giveth instance in the Councell of Antioch where Paulus Samosatenus was condemned and cut off as an enemie to the trueth c. he avoucheth that (a) Qu. 7. p. 123. they have authority to judge examine suspend punish and depose c. And thus D. Willet fully accordeth with us in this poynt that there is a superiour power to judge the causes of particular Congregations D. Taylor next alledged affords them no help Whereas he saith that (b) Com. on Tit. 3.10 p. 712. Excommunication is the common action of the Church and not of any private person or persons we also affirme the same thing Our profession and practise alwayes hath bene never to excommunicate any without common consent of our Church but had we done unjustly at any time therein we might justly have bene subject to the censure of a Synod or Classis and yet then also the Ministers and Deputies assembled in the name of many Churches could with no reason be accounted private persons And though we think ourselves bound to ask counsell of the Classis according to the order of these Churches before we proceed to cut off any member of the Church by excommunication this proves no deprivation but a direction of our power Now whether I have just cause to blush for denying to the Churches of God that due power which the Learned of all professions doe grant unto her as Mr Canne and Will Bdoe without blushing (c) Ch. pl. p. 86. charge me let the judicious impartiall Readers judge SECT V. Touching the Testimonies of English Non-conformists VNder the title of this kinde of witnesses they alledge against me the Replyer to D. Downame Mr Parker the Authour of the English Puritanisme D. Ames Mr Baines Mr Bates Mr Fenner Mr Udall the English Church at Franck ford and Mr Hooker These are (d) Ch. pl. p. 86 c. here produced and in another (e) P. 23. place unto which he referres us for the same purpose he cites also the Protestation of the Kings Supremacic D. Fulke and our Country-men in New-England For answer hereunto First concerning some of these that seeme to be of Mr Cannes minde in denying the authority of Synods in the government of the Church observe how idlie and superfluously he alledgeth them against me when as he knowes that I my self did acknowledge and note so much before as namely the judgement of (f) Answ to W. B. p. 74. Mr Hooker (g) Ib. p. 27 D. Ames and the Author of the booke entitled English Puritanisme by whom also the Protestation of K. Supremacie is sayd to be written These I have confessed to be opposite unto me in this
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
Christ from having a keye of power in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes Had he proved that the title of the Church belongs onely to a particular Congregation in the full assembly thereof and not at all unto a Synod then had it bene something to the purpose in the meane time nothing And that the minde of Augustine was otherwise it appeares by the great approbation which he (v) Epist ad Ianuar. Ep. 118. De Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 3. gives unto the use and authority of Synods as being most wholesome in the Churches of God D. Whitaker (x) DePont Rom. q. 4. p. 484. 497 alledgeth often the presence of Augustine at divers Synods And it is recorded in the Acts of the third Councell of Carthage where Augustine was both present and subscribed with the rest unto the decrees which were then agreed upon (y) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. co 866 867. that there should be kept a yearely Synod unto which they were to repaire out of divers Provinces that those which having controversies with others being called unto the yearely Synod did refuse to come should be held guilty and be excluded from the communion or excommunicated And it is (z) Ib. Col. 870 c. noted further that the like decrees were made at another Synod held at Hippo the place where Augustine lived and that the same decrees were againe confirmed by another Synod at Carthage Hence it appeares that Augustine as well as others in his time did hold that the causes of particular Congregations were to be judged decided by another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves After Augustine he alledgeth Chrysostome whose name is also abused for confirmation of this opinion For I. Chrysostome in the place alledged viz. De Sacerd l. 3. c. 4. speakes of no such matter as he pretends In that whole third book I finde no one word against the authority of Synods And for the fourth chapter which Mr C. alledgeth there is in the best editions of Chrysostome no such chapter they are not at all distinguished into any Chapters and where there is a division of Chapters found yet there is no such matter to be found in that fourth Chapter Mr Canne it seemes never read the Authours he alledgeth for would he then have so falsely cited them II. Chrysostome is plaine for the authority of Synods For speaking of the honour due unto the Deputies or messengers of the Churches in Synods he saith the Apostle (a) In 2. Cor. 8.24 maketh his speech more terrible saying in the sight of the Churches He saith it for the glory of the Churches for their honour For if ye honour them ye shall honour the Churches which sent them c. And then he concludeth This shall be no small matter for great is the power of a Synod that is of the Churches III. When as a wrongfull sentence had bene given against Chrysostome being unjustly procured by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria he then (b) Tom. 5. Epist ad Innocent appealed unto a Synod of many Bishops both before and after the sentence was pronounced The summe of his defence afterward was this that he was willing to be judged by a Synod And he complaines that his adversaries dealt with him contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons In those Canons it had bene oft decreed that there should be liberty of appeale unto Synods IV. When Bellarmine pleading for the Popes authority alledged the request of Chrysostome unto Innocentius Bishop of Rome desiring him to write for him that those things which were unjustly done against him might not prevayle c. Chamierus expounding the words of Chrysostome (c) Panstra Cath. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 23 distinguisheth betwixt admonition and giving of sentence and shewes that Chrysostome desired an admonition should be given by Innocentius but that he exspected sentence from a Synod Chamier sayth this is confirmed to be his meaning because he appealed to the Synod c. And hereby he expressly and distinctly confesseth that Synods have jurisdiction to give sentence and not onely a liberty of admonishing V. When after this Chrysostome (d) Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. having bene both deposed from his place and banished out of the city was yet called back by the Emperour from his banishment and was by the people desired to enter upon his ministery againe he professed he might not doe it untill his cause was further examined he proved innocent by greater judges or in a greater judicatory (e) Edit gr R. Steph. l. 6. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he acknowledged a power of Synods not onely above a particular Congregation but also of one Synod above another as of a Generall Synod above a Nationall or Provinciall c. VI. The minde of Chrysostome touching Church-government may further be knowne to us by this that he (f) In Matt. 18. will have those words Tell the Church to be understood of the Presidents or Governours of the Church And againe speaking of Priests or Bishops the Ministers of the Gospell he thus describeth their speciall power (g) De Sacerd l. 3. Col. 508. Edit Basil It is granted unto them to dispense the things that are in heaven power is given unto them which God would not have to be given either unto Angels or Arch-angels For it was not sayd unto them Whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Earthly Princes have also the power of binding but of the bodies onely But that binding by the Priests whereof I speake remaineth unto the soule commeth up to the heavens so that whatsoever the Priests doe below that God ratifyeth above the Lord confirmeth the sentence of his servants What els can you say this to be but that all power of heavenly things is granted unto them of God For the sayth Whose sinnes ye retaine they are retayned What power I pray you can be greater then this one The next perverted witnesse is Basil touching whom observe I. Their threefold false allegation in citing three severall bookes of his viz. Constit Monach. l. 4. 14. 6.2 7. c. 35. whereas Basil wrote onely one booke with such a title and as for the 4th 6 t 7th here mentioned by Mr C. there be none such What grosse dealing is this II. Suppose it was the Printers fault that these bookes were thus misalledged and that it was but Mr Cannes oversight to let them passe without correction yet even for that one book of Monasticall constitutions which Basil did write therein also is nothing to be found against the authority of Synods nor any such matter as Mr C. pretends It is a great forgery and abuse of the ancient Fathers thus to pretend the vaile of their authority for covering of errour when as the places pretended have not a word sounding to such purpose III. That Basil allowed
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
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
subject unto one another and unto that which is concluded by all Yea this equality is confirmed by the Synodicall decree in this very Article Whereas there be many evidences of the Reformed Churches in France which shew what their judgement and practise is touching the subjection of particular Congregations unto a superiour Ecclesiasticall power yet instead of many one for the rest may suffice which is from the (y) Oordeel en uyrsprake met den Eed vā Approbatie vā het Synode Nation der Gereform Kerckē van Vrancrijck gehoudē tot Ales in de Cevennes besloten en̄ gearresteert den 6. Oct. 1620. Nationall Synod of Ales translated and published in divers languages containing a most pregnant testimony touching this poynt of our controversie Mr C. and W. B. doe falsely tell me of a Iurie of more then 24 men which condemne my position for an errour and untrueth but as we have seene before in the Ministers of the Palatinate so loe here againe a Jurie indeed of more then twise 24 men and of the most choyse Ministers and Elders of all the French Churches and all sworne to submit unto the resolution and sentence concluded by authority of that Synod After a proposition (z) P. 3. ◠made in this Synod by Monsr Turretin touching some meanes to hinder the Arminian Errours c. the Assembly liking wel of that motion and much commending the Synod of Dort as an effectuall remedie to purge the Church and to root out the heresies touching the poynt of praedestination c. after invocation of the name of God they agreed that the Canons of the forenamed Synod of Dort should be read in their full assembly which being done and every Article seriously weighed they were then by universall consent approved as agreeable to Gods word c. Hereupon all the Ministers and Elders deputed unto this Assembly did each of them severally sweare and protest that they consented and accorded with this doctrine and that they should maintaine and defend it with all their might unto the last breath And to (a) P. 4.5 make this concordant agreement the more authentick and to binde all the Provinces thereunto the Assembly ordained that this present Article should be printed and joyned with the Canons of the mentioned Synod and that the same should be read in the Provinciall Synods and in the Universities that there it might be approved sworne and subscribed unto by the Ministers Elders and Professours of the Universities as also by those that desired to be admitted unto the holy Ministery or unto any Academicall profession And if (b) P. 5. any man should reject either in whole or in part the doctrine contayned in the foresaid Synod and defined by the Canons thereof or should refuse to take the Oath of consent and approbation the Assembly ordained that the same should not be receaved unto any ministery in the Church or unto any office of Schoolemaister The forme of oath taken first in the Nationall Synod afterward to be taken in the Provinciall Synods was (c) P. 6. this I N. sweare and protest before God and this holy Assembly that I receave approve and embrace the whole doctrine taught and decided in the Synod of Dort as being wholy conformed unto the word of God and the Confession of our Churches I sweare and promise during my life to continue in the profession of this doctrine and to defend the same according to my utmost power that I neither in preaching nor teaching in the schooles nor in writing will ever depart from this Rule I declare also and protest that I reject and condemne the doctrine of the Arminians seeing it doth hang the election of God upon the will of man diminisheth and disannulleth the grace of God exalts man and the strength of his free will to cast him downe from above brings in againe Pelagianisme excuseth Popery and overthrowes the certainty of salvation So truely let God help me and be mercifull unto me as I doe before him sweare that which is aforesayd without any equivocation or evasion or inward mentall reservation After this followes the (d) P. 7 8 9 10 11. subscription of the names of the principall lights starres of the French Churches the Ministers and Elders deputed and sent unto that Nationall Synod from the Churches in the severall Provinces of France as of Picardie Champagne the French Iland Normandie Bretagne Dauphine Burgundie Languedoc Guienne Poictou Aniou and many others Hereby the Reader may perceave what power and authority is exercised in the Reformed Churches of France that they doe not observe their Synods for to conclude matters by way of advise and counsell onely but by their decrees and ordinances doe binde men to submit unto their sentence and judgement excluding those from the ministery professions in Universities or Schooles that refuse to consent and yeeld unto their resolutions Hereby it appeares how vainely Mr Canne alledgeth their Confessions perverteth them quite contrary to their meanings That which is alledged out of the Confession of Ausburgh comes not neere the question betwixt us For what though it be there affirmed (e) Confes August Art 14. that no man ought to teach publickly in the Church or to administer the Sacraments unlesse he be lawfully called This proves not that calling to be unlawfull which is directed by an Ecclesiasticall authority out of a particular Congregation or that Classes and Synods have no right to hinder the disordred callings of unfit persons when particular Churches doe offend therein And that the Authors of that Confession did approve of the authority of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes it appeareth both by (f) Syntag. Confes par 2. p. 7. their Appeale unto a generall free Christian Councell which they humbly request and seek in their preface unto the Emperour Charles the fift and afterwards againe speaking of the meanes to purge the Church from abuses they say that (g) Ib. p. 28.29 Confes August Art 21. now long agoe all good men in all nations doe desire a Synod And further This is the usuall and lawfull way to end dissensions namely to referre Ecclesiasticall controversies unto Synods This manner the Church hath observed even from the Apostles And the most excellent Emperours Constantine and Theodosius even in matters not very obscure and in absurd opinions would yet ordaine nothing without a Synod that they might preserve the liberty of the Church in the judgements of doctrines And it is most honourable for the Emperour to imitate the example of those the best Princes c. And therefore as in the times of Constantine and Theodosius particular Churches were subject unto another superiour Ecclesiasticall power that judged their causes and censured offendours so they of the Ausburg Confession desired the like of Charles the fift The publick order set forth in these Low countries is in the next place alledged against me But the (h) Art
31. Article of the Belgick Confession which is poynted at hath nothing that serves their turne against me neither doe they shew what clause therein they intend for their purpose And what seemes most to accord with their former allegations I haue answered before But for the Synods of these Countries whereas Mr C. saith (i) Ch. pl. p. 91.92 What those Synods were of whom Mr Paget speaketh in pag. 66. who decreed that particular Congregations should not practise among themselves all Gods ordinances I doe not yet know but this I know that no Reformed Church hath made this an Article of their faith And therefore it is certaine if such a thing be it was onely the invention of some particular men It is here to be observed 1. That Mr Canne falsifyeth my words that which I sayd was this (k) Answ to W.B. p. 66. When the busines is so weighty that by former generall consent of Churches testifyed by their Deputies meeting together in their Synods it hath bene agreed that the same shall not be proceeded in without advise of the Classis such as is the election of Ministers the excommunication of offenders and the like that in such cases ordinarily matters are brought unto the Classis c. Now this voluntary agreement not to proceed without advise of the Classis before matters of so great weight were determined was not to hinder particular Congregations from the practise of all Gods ordinances among them but onely to prevent and restraine abuses in the manner of doing and to direct them for the better performance thereof among themselves 11. What those Synods were wherein such agreements were made it had bene easy for Mr C. to have knowne if he had used diligence in enquiry and search for them To help him herein let him consider these (l) Kerckē-Ordeningē der Gerefo Nederlātsc Kerckē Nation Syno tot Embdē An. 1571. Art 13 14. 33 34. Nat. Syn. tot Dordr An. 1578. Art 4.8 99.100 Nat. Syn. tot Middelb An. 1581. Art 3.4 62.63 Nat. Syn. in 's Graven-Hag An. 1586. Art 3.4.5.36 47.69.70.72 Nat. Syn. tot Dordr An. 1618 1619. Art 3 4 11 12 76 77 79. plaine evidences recorded in divers Synods viz. that men shall not proceed to election or deposition of Ministers or excommunication of offenders without the advise and judgement of a Classicall assembly And besides the decrees of these Nationall Synods the like agreements and resolutions have bene made in sundry (m) Provinc Syn. tot Dordr An. 1574. Art 12. Prov. Syn. tot Middelb An. 1591. Art 3 4 9 58 68 69. Provinciall Synods so that from time to time after ripe deliberation long experience these Acts of their Synods have still bene renewed and confirmed from the beginning of their Reformation even unto this day III. Besides these generall acts and agreements of severall Synods we have their practise also for confirmation hereof to declare that the causes of particular Churches were judged by another Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves Thus it is witnessed (n) Triglād van de Moder p. 56.57 that Caspar Coolhaes was excommunicated by the Provinciall Synod of Holland holden at Haerlem Anno 1582. that the cause of Hermannus Herberts was judged and he suspended from his Ministery by a particular Synod of South-Holland holden in the Haghe Anno 1591. Novemb. 6. that Cornelius Wiggertsz was also judged and excommunicated by a particular Synod of North-Holland by reason of the errours holden by him that (o) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr An. 1618. Ses 22. Nicolaus Grevinchovius Minister at Rotterdam was removed from his ministery by the sentence of the South-Holland Synod holden at Delph that (p) Ib. pref Adolphus Venator Minister at Alcmaer that Ioannes Valesius Ioannes Rodingenus and Isaacus Welsingius Pastours of the Church at Horne were suspended from their ministery by the North-Holland Synod and that divers others in Gelderland were in like manner censured by the Synods holden in that Province at Arnhem is also recorded in that historicall preface prefixed before the Acts of the last Nationall Synod at Dort And in the (q) Ses 22 23. booke itself it is likewise testifyed that Simon Goulartius Minister of the Gallo-Belgick or Walloens Church at Amsterdam was removed from his place by the Gallo-Belgick Synod By these and sundry other like acts and sentences that might be noted it is evident that the Synods held in these Reformed Churches are not onely for counsell and admonition but for the exercise of jurisdiction in censuring offenders judging of controversies that their meaning is perverted when their Confession of faith is objected against me That which Mr Canne (r) Ch. pl. p. 91. alledgeth from the Synod of Middelburgh An. 1581. is also mistaken by him there being no such thing found in that Synod as he mentioneth touching election done by voyces publickly in the Temple And if it had bene there yet should not that prejudice the authority of Synods or Classes in allowing or censuring such elections either before or after they were made Againe it is objected The Synod of Tilleburgh in Nasovia determined the like as Zepperus (ſ) Pol. Ecc. p. 831. writeth ANSVV. The determinations of this Synod being like unto those before mentioned are therefore directly against my opposites as the former were Zepperus in his preface to the Articles agreed upon in this Synod telles us how the Earle of Nassau having seene the Articles of the Synod held in Middelburgh Anno 1581. he took such liking thereof that in the yeare following he called the speciall Ministers of his country together unto a Synod in Tilleburgh requiring that the agreements of the aforesayd Synod might be applyed unto the use of the Churches under his dominion so farre as they well could Hereupon the principall conclusions thereof were receaved and confirmed among them and so farre as doth shew their full consent in the poynt of our controversy viz. that particular Congregations are to be subject unto an Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods and Classes Therefore it was agreed (t) Ib. p. 833 Art 4. that the calling of Ministers should be made by the judgement of the Classis c. That (v) P. 834. where divers examined of the Church or of it the Classicall assembly together were judged to be fit then the election was to be in the power of the Church and to be done by suffrages publickly in the temple and if they were equall then to use lots c. This seemeth to be the Article which Mr C. stumbled at before as if it had bene so written in the Synod of Middelb 1581. which yet doth not exclude the precedent allowance of the Classis in such elections Moreover it was there agreed (x) P. 837. Art 23. that if any complaine of wrong done in a lesser assembly or Synod he may referre the matter by appeale unto a superiour Synod (y) P. 843. Art 61.
that no man be excommunicated without the consent of a Classicall assembly (z) Art 63. that the deposition of Ministers be done by the judgement of a Classicall assembly and consent of the Magistrate These and the like Articles there concluded doe shew how farre the Nassovian Churches were from that opinion of the Brownists and some other in denying the subjection of particular Congregations unto any Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Where could Mr C. finde more pregnant testimony against himself then in such resolutions of Reformed Churches as these be With the former Reformed Churches alledged by Mr Canne doe agree all the other so farre as I can learne by any enquiry For the Church of England B. Jewell testifveth (a) Def. of Apol. of Ch. of Engl. par 6. c. 17. div 1. 2. that we have had ere now in England Provinciall Synods and have governed our Churches by home made lawes and he maintaineth that without wayting for a Generall Councell it was rather thought good to doe that which both rightly might be done and hath many a time bene done as well of other good men as also of many Catholick Bishops that is to remedie our Churches by a Provinciall Synod And besides other examples there is a (b) Syntag. Confes p. 125 136 speciall monument recording the Acts and Articles agreed upon in the Synod holden at London Anno D. 1562. and againe of another Synod Anno 1571. confirming the Articles of the former Synod ratifyed by the approbation of Qu. Elizabeth to be observed through the whole Kingdome c Now howsoever there be great difference in divers Churches touching the manner of celebrating these Synods yet herein which is the poynt of our present controversy they doe all agree viz. that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods to judge and determine the affaires of particular Congregations The testimony of the Church of Scotland for the authority of Presbyteries and Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations is most cleare In the admission of Ministers to their offices there was (c) First book of Discipline p. 29. ed. 1621 required not onely the consent of the people and Church whereunto they should be appoynted but also approbation of the learned Ministers appointed for their examination Touching all sorts of Synods among them it was concluded that (d) Sec. b. of Discip ch 7. p. 80. they have power to execute Ecclesiasticall discipline and punishment upon all transgressours and proud contemners of the good order and policie of the Kirke and so the whole Discipline is in their hands Touching Provinciall Synods which they call the lawfull conventions of the Pastors Doctors and other Elders of a Province gathered for the common affaires of the Kirkes thereof c. they (e) Ib. p. 81. say Thir assemblies are institute for weightie matters to be intreated by mutuall consent and assistance of the brethren within that Province as need requires This Assembly hath power to handle order and redresse all things committed or done amisse in the particular assemblies It hath power to depose the office-bearers of that Province for good and just causes deserving deprivation And generally thir Assemblies have the whole power of the particular Elderships whereof they are collected Besides these Canons and rules of their Discipline there be also divers Actes of their Generall Assemblies prefixed before the foresayd First and Second bookes of their Discipline which by many instances doe shew how that power of Synods was exercised and put in practise in the Church of Scotland For example we read (f) P. 14. Edinb Iul. 5. 1570. that there was an Excommunication directed against Patrik called B of Murray to be executed by M. Robert Pont Commissioner their with the assistance of the Ministers of Edinburgh We finde there in another Assembly (g) P. 15. Edinb Aug. 6. 1573. that Alexander Gordoun B. of Galloway being accused of divers offences it was concluded that he should make publick repentance in Sackcloth three severall Sundaies first in the Kirk of Edinburgh secondly in Halyrudhous thirdly in the Queenes Colledge under the paine of Excommunication We finde in another Assembly (h) P. 16. Edinb Mar. 6. 1573. that the B. of Dunkell was ordained to confesse his fault publickly in the Kirk of Dunkell for not exequuting the sentence of the Kirk against the Earle of Athol For the confirmation of this Synodall authority there is added in the same place an Act of Parliament (i) P. 19. 20 c. The 12 Parl. at Edinb Iun. 5. 1592. prefixed also before the sayd bookes of their Discipline having this Title Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk of generall and Synodall Assemblies of Presbyteries of Discipline c. The Confession of fayth made by the Church of Scotland both for the Doctrine and for the Discipline thereof is yet further confirmed unto us both by generall Subscription and by a most Solemne Oath The formall words of that Subscription and Oath are thus recorded unto us (k) Syntag. Confes p. 158 160. We beleeve with our hearts confesse with our mouth subscribe with our hands c. promising and swearing by that great name of the Lord our God that we will continue in the Doctrine Discipline of this Church and that we will defend the same according to our calling and power all the dayes of our life under paine of all the curses contained in the law danger of body and soule in the day of that dreadfull judgement of God Hereunto is annexed in the same place the Mandate of the Kings Majestie whereby he enjoyneth all Commissioners and Ministers of the Word throughout his kingdome that they require this confession of all their Parishioners c. And so farre as I can learne even unto this day there is still observed this substantiall and maine poynt of Discipline namely a power in Synodall assemblies to judge the controversies that doe arise in particular Congregations Here Mr Canne instead of a Iurie of 24 men to condemne my position for an errour and untrueth as he (l) Ch. pl. p. 83. speakes may see a Iurie of more then thrice 24 Congregations in Scotland maintayning my position and condemning his errour by their example The Reformed Churches in Savoy as that of Geneva (m) Kerckel Ordon der gemeēte van Geneven p. 9 10 c. and the Churches in the villages thereabout standing under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in Geneva were combined together for their mutuall guidance and the Ministers of those Churches meeting weekly together were subject to the censure of such Ecclesiasticall assemblies and the affaires of those Churches judged therein The knowledge of this is so common a thing that in appearance hereupon grew the reproach reported by Mr Canne himself that (n) Ch. pl. p. 94. at Geneva subjecting of Churches to this order first began The Evangelicall Churches in the greater
that if his order of Synods may be refused by such as deserve Ecclesiasticall censures that then a doore should be opened to all heresies sects all the judgements of the Church whereunto Christ sendeth us should be subverted c. The Divines of Embden (e) Ibid. p. 1â—7 accord with the rest and besides other reasons for confirmation of Synodall Authority in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes they alledge that very place of Scripture Act. 20.28 which my opposites pervert to a contrary end against me Neither have they onely in generall shewed what the authority of Synods is and also what this Synod may doe but the Synod goes further and proceeds unto the exercise of this power and pronounceth sentence against those that persisted in their errours In the Copie of that Sentence (f) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr Sess 138. p. 280. there be divers acts of their power to be observed in the severall expressions formes of speech used therein as for example This Synod of Dort doth seriously instantly and according to the authority which it hath by the word of God over all the members of their Churches in the name of Christ require exhort admonish enjoyne all every one of the Pastours in the Churches of the United Provinces Doctours Rectours Masters in the Universities Schooles c. The Synod after invocation of the holy name of God being in conscience well assured of their authority from the word of God following the steps of Ancient late Synods c. (g) P. 281. Doth interdict the persons cited unto this Synod from all Ecclesiasticall charge and deposeth them from their offices and also judgeth them unworthy of Academicall functions untill by earnest repentance c. For the rest whose cognition is not come to this Nationall Synod it committeth unto Provinciall Synods Classes Presbyteries according to the order receaved that with all care they procure c. That they diligently take heed unto themselves that they admit not any man to the holy ministery which refuseth to subscribe unto the doctrine declared in these Synodicall constitutions and to teach the same that they also retaine no man by whose manifest dissension c. This judgement Sentence of the Synod was afterward in most full ample manner (h) Ibid. p. 282. approved confirmed by the Illustrious Lords the States Generall of the United Provinces acknowledging also the businesse of this Synod to be agreat holy work such as heretofore the Reformed Churches never saw c. Besides this Sentence pronounced against those twelve or thirteen of the Remonstrants that by authority of the Synod were (i) Ibid. p. 16 17. cited to appeare before them there is also another speciall sentence (k) P. 204 205. of suspension from their function concluded pronounced against Everhardus Vosculius and Iohannes Schotlerius Ministers at Campen because of their contumacy in not appearing before the Synod being lawfully cited thereunto Moreover it is memorable that the members of this Synod the Deputies of severall Churches did all every one of them take a most solemne oath in testimony of the good conscience which they had in the exercise of this authority The forme of the Oath was (l) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr Sess 23. p. 61. as followeth I doe promise before God whom I beleeve and reverence as the present searcher of the reines and hearts that in this whole Synodall action wherein shal be undertaken an examination judgement decision both touching the five knowne Articles and the difficulties thence arising and also touching all other matters of doctrine I will not take any humane writings but onely the word of God for the certaine undoubted rule of faith and that in this whole cause I shall propound nothing to my self but the glory of God the peace of his Church and in speciall the conservation of the purity of doctrine So let my Saviour Jesus Christ be mercifull unto me whom I most earnestly beseech that he would continually assist me in this purpose with the grace of his Spirit This oath being first taken by the President of the Synod all the other Professours Pastours Elders of the Netherlands deputed unto the Synod and then all the Divines of other nations standing up in order did with a loud voyce every one of them declare that they did holily promise and sweare before God the same thing and testifyed that they came with such minde unto the Synod had hitherto sit downe therein and would hereafter by the grace of God continue Having now such a cloud of witnesses consenting with me I have reason in this place againe to put Mr Canne in minde of his vaine boasting (m) Ch. pl. p. 83. touching a Iurie of more then 24. men condemning me of errour Here may he see a Jurie of more then thrice 24 sworne men and of the most excellent servants of God in so many Reformed Churches and Universities the lights of Christendome the flower of the Churches and the select crowne of learned men as they of Geneva doe (n) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr Sess 3. p. 12. stile them all testifying both by word and practise against him and against the opinion of Mr Dav. touching the jurisdiction of Synods A Supplement annexed by the Publisher for answer unto that vvhich follovveth in Mr Cannes booke THus farre good Reader the Authour hath travelled through those tedious wayes which Mr C. though with lesse trouble yet with more prejudice to his owne cause hath first opened unto him The summe of all is that wading through those streames of Arguments and Reasons wich Mr C. had let out upon him he hath found such as were of any depth to runne another way the other too shallow to hinder the passage of trueth in this controversie And marching through those severall rankes files of learned Authours which Mr C. had mustered brought into the field for his defence and assistance in this conflict he hath found them all excepting those that were to be excepted to be friends instead of enemies testifying plainely in their owne words in the words of sundry others with them that against their wills they were forced to appeare under his banners And therefore in the same order that he marshalled them against the Authority of Synods they now stand in aray against the Independency of Churches There remained yet one part of Mr Can. opposition in this cause to be encountred wherein he pretends to disappoint and conquer such forces as might seeme to be used in defence of that Classicall and Synodall government which he hath hitherto oppugned To this end he (a) Chur. plea p. 92. undertakes to answer certaine Reasons or Objections picked out of divers passages in the Authours (b) Answ to W.B. c first booke supposing by this meanes to have fully acquitted himself in this Dispute Now though there be nothing in these his Answers for