doeth not follow from a particular that because the decrees of an Apostolicall Councill are to be observed therefore the decrees of all Councills must be so kept Contr. 3. li. 4. cap. 16. And whereas Bellarmine affirmeth that the question there was not defined by Scripture but by the voyces of the Apostles Iunius denyeth that any thing was ordained in that Councill but from the Scriptures as he had before demonstrated and thereunto referreth the Reader ANSVV. I. It may be observed here how untrue it is which Mr Dav. pretends in excuse of his large writing saying (v) Pref. to the Reader For the help of the Reader in comparing the Reply with the Answer I have inserted his owne words every where This hath he not done here nor in many other places I shewed (x) Answ to unj cōpl p. 88. how this place Act. 15. had bene alledged by another against the Brownists and that this his allegation served to condemne both himself and his fellowes Mr D. hath neither inserted mine owne words nor yet the words of him that had alledged this place II. In alledging the two answers of Iunius unto Bellarmine he wanders wide from the question in hand I am of the same minde with Iunius in both those answers Though the decrees of that Apostolicall Synod were infallibly true and just yet is it not so with other Synods many whereof are to be rejected for their erroneous and unjust decrees All the decrees in that Synod Act. 15. were grounded upon the Scriptures and rested not merely upon the suffrages of men Iunius had just cause so to answer Bellarmine that maintained an unlawfull and absolute authority of Synods and exacted obedience of necessity to all their decrees Is not this to abuse both me and his Readers and to bleare their eyes that they should not rightly discerne the state of the question III. That the Reader may better conceive in what manner an authority and power is asscribed to Classes and Synods let the authority of particular Churches be considered as an example and modell of that authority which is in Synods My opposites themselves confesse that there is in particular Congregations an authority and power to judge and censure offendours and yet they will not deny but that they may erre in their judgements that they want such infallible direction as the Apostles had and that their decrees and Ecclesiasticall censures are to be regarded no further then they are grounded upon the Scriptures So is it with the authority of Classes Synods I. DAV (y) Apol. reply p. 255. And whereas Bellarmine sayth that the decree of the Apostles was not left to the examination of the Disciples but that they were simply commanded to obey Iunius chargeth him with falsely supposing two things 1. That the Apostles alone made this order For the Elders concurred with the Apostles in this sentence and the whole Church all of them being taught by the spirit of trueth to think the same thing And this he saith is the manner of proceeding in those Councills where Christ is praesident 2. That the same respect is to be had to the determination of others as of the Apostles Which is an errour he sayth For it was the singular priviledge of the Apostles that they had immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and infallibility in their Apostolicall determinations so that what they delivered was to be received without examination whereas the dictates and sentences of all other are to be examined by their writings whereby it appeareth that the Scripture acknowledgeth no such power of making lawes to be due to the Classes unlesse they can produce some other texts which when they shall be alledged shall be further examined if God permit ANSVV. I. All that Mr Davenp hath here set downe is wholy impertinent and all being granted our assertion touching the lawfull authority of Synods Classes remaineth firme We grant with Iunius (z) Animadv in Bellarm Contro 4. l. 1. c. 18. § 11. that the Apostles alone did not judge but the Elder and others also concurred with them not onely in counsell but in giving judiciall sentence with them We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of others as of the Apostles we grant that no such power of making lawes is due to Classes that is no such power of infallible determinations c. and yet we hold they have a lawfull authority of judging and deciding controversies c. The like we hold concerning particular Churches with their Elderships we grant they have no such power of infallible determinations and yet a lawfull power to determine and judge of causes We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of particular Churches as of the Apostles and yet a due respect not onely for admonition and counsell but also for power to censure and to give sentence We grant that the censures sentences and judgements as well of Elderships and Churches as of Synods and Classes are in like manner to be tryed and examined by the Scriptures and yet this grant impeacheth not the lawfull authority of either of them in exercising a power of judgement II. For the better direction how to discerne judge of the actions of the Apostles and how farre their example is a rule of practise and imitation to the Church of God it shall not be amisse to set downe a profitable and usefull distinction observed by Iunius (a) Ibid. lib. 2. c. 16. n. 6. which is that the Apostles had a twofold manner of Power Common and Proper The Common is that ordinary power which they had together with the Elders as they were Bishops The Proper or peculiar is that extraordinary povver which was for a while given unto the Evangelicall Church at the springing up thereof in respect of which the Apostles were above the whole Church According to that common power Peter was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fellow Elder 1. Pet. 5.1 according to this peculiar power he destroyed Ananias and Sapphira Act. 5. By that common power Paul sayth 1. Cor. 5.4 You and my spirit being gathered together in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ but by that peculiar power he sayth what will you shall I come unto you with a rod c. 1. Cor. 4.20 This he sets downe elswhere more fully and applyes it to the power exercised Act. 15. saying (b) Ibid. l. 1 c. 16. n. 1. Here the Aposles are sayd to have used communication therefore this power was common to the Church and not a peculiar action of the Apostles in this Synod at Ierusalem We doe therefore thus determine distinctly concerning this thing All that were furnished with gifts and calling judged in this Synod first the Apostles and Apostolick men then the Elders that laboured in the ministery of the Word as well they of the place in Ierusalem as those of Antioch if any moreover
It is a most false consequence to inferre that because all Bishops are equall in power therefore Synods have no power to judge and as false it is to inferre that because the Keyes were given to all the Apostles therefore there is no Ecclesiasticall power to judge the actions of a particular Congregation In summe Mr Canne doth most ignorantly and grosly abuse all these Papists against their words their writings and their continuall profession and practise For though there be this maine difference betwixt the Papists that some of them doe asscribe the greatest authority unto the Church that is unto a Generall Synod or Councell maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope power to depose the Pope others of thē asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope rather then unto the Church or a Generall Councell representing the same yet doe they all agree in this that there is a superiour power above particular Congregations to judge the same The University of Paris and the Doctours of Sorbon have in speciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the Pope they (p) De Eccl. Polit. Pot. pag. 1. c. edit 1612. Paris bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same They alledge the sentence of Pope (q) Ibid. p. 16. Zozimus confessing himself to be inferiour unto the Councell They avouch that (r) Ibid. p. 19. the frequent edebrating of Synods is simply and absolutely necessary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church Whereas a certaine Frier Ioannes Sarrazin had by word and writing under his hand preferred the authority of the Pope above the Synods they (ſ) Ibid. p. 46-56 record at large and publish in print a most solemne decree made by the Theologicall faculty of that University whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion and a forme of recantation was prescribed according to which he confessed his fault acknowledged the power of Synods above the Pope The (t) Acts Monum p. 546 547. An. D. 1414. c. Councell of Constance did not onely exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in condemning of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage but also decreeing the authority of Synods and Councells to be above the Pope did actually depose divers Popes as Iohn the 23th and Benedict who was likewise excommunicate by them even as the Councell held at (v) An. D. 1083. Act. Mon. p. 164. Brixia had in former time by their sentence condemned Pope Hildebrand and judged him to be deposed So in like manner did the Clouncell held at (x) Ibid. p. 632.634 Bafile depose Pope Eugenius put another in his place By all which it is evident what the Papists then judged of the authority and power of Synods As all these so the other faction of Papists and the Iesuites in speciall that maintaine the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods Councells whatsoever that their decrees are not of force unlesse they be approved by the Pope these doe evidently teach that the affaires and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superiour judicatories out of themselves This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings where he shewes (y) Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 9 10 11. l. 2. c. 2. c. the causes the necessity and the authority of Generall and Provinciall Synods the (z) Tom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7 8 9 10. 14. c. power of elections and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter The same is maintayned by him in his (a) Tom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14 l. 2. c. 1 c. treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies plenary or for a certaine number of dayes for the living or for the dead And the like is to be found in (b) Tom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 c. Tom 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1 2 3 c. sundry other of his writings And to these might be added more then an hundred of other witnesses of the Romish Church acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes controversies of particular Churches Instead of many other the Councell of Trent called by (c) Concil Trid. Bul. Indict p. 8. Pope Paulus the third continued by (d) Bul. Resumpr p. 66.67 Pope Iulius the third and confirmed by (e) Bul. Confirm p. 243 c. Pope Pius the fourth together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in severall Sessions of that Councell doe give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts. Onely to conclude this Section let it be remembred how of old in our owne countrie the like testimony hath bene given to shew the authority of Synods We read (f) Act. Mon. p. 112. col 2. art 7. of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provinciall Synods should be kept within the Realme at least once a yeare Another Synod (g) Ibid. p. 155. was held at Winchester Anno D. 1070. where Stigandus Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed for receyving his pall from Benedict the fift And another (h) P. 157. was after held at London where many decrees were made in the time of Lanfranck the Archbishop c. This being the continuall and universall practise of the Papists what sense was there in Mr Canne to alledge their testimonies in such a poynt wherein they are so full and pregnant against him It is the fault of Papists that they give too much authority unto Synods and it is as grosse a fault of these my opposites to pervert their testimonies contrary to their meaning practise further then their words will beare SECT II. Touching the Testimonies of Lutheranes IN their first allegation taken from Lutheranes they say It is affirmed by the Centuries of Meydenburg that from Christs ascension unto Trajans time which is about a 100 yeares every particular Church was governed by the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the same Cent. 1. c. 4. To this I answer This allegation comes short of the question in hand and is therefore insufficient and perverted to prove that the Churches then did not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority for it is not affirmed by them of Meydenburgh in their Centuries that the Churches were governed by them alone or that there were no Synods in those times to judge of the actions of Bishops Elders and Deacons in cases of controversy which could not be well ended in particular Churches but the contrary is expressely taught by the same (i) Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. de
CoÌ„c col 5 46. c. 7. col 522. 542. Authors Particular Churches among us also are governed by their owne Bishops Elders Deacons though not by them alone especially in matters of greater difficulty Whereas they alledge another place on this manner Cent. 6.7 col 591. there is a notable abuse therein for 1. What reason had they to alledge the history of the sixt Centurie to shew what was done in the first Centurie from Christs Ascension to Trajans time 2. As for the (k) Col. 4â—4 c. 7th chapter of that Centurie there are more then an 100 or 200 testimonies shewing the power of Metropolitane Bishops and of Archbishops which they exercised in many Churches Antichrist being almost come to his height at that time 3. As for that place of the sixt Century poynted at by his marginall quotation viz. Col. 591. All that is there specifyed at large in the story concerning Richaredus a King of Spaine converted from Arianisme submitting himself unto the (l) Syn. Tolet. 3. Synod then assembled is against them that include all Ecclesiasticall authority within one Congregation onely If these quotations be misprinted it was great negligence in Mr Canne to look no better to his work Againe it is alledged from the Magdeburgenses Cent. 2. c. 7. p. 134 135. that from Trajans raigne unto Serverus from the yeare of Christ 100 to 195 If any read the approved Authors of this age he shall see that the order of Government was popular for all Churches had equall power c. This testimony is also abused 1. There is one falsification in mistranslating of the words for they doe not say that then the government was popular as Mr Canne sets it downe nor yet that it was like unto a popular government but onely this is sayd that it was almost like unto a popular government propemodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem fuisse And how great is the difference betwixt these assertions even as much as there is betwixt being a Christian and almost a Christian so plainly distinguished Act. 26.29 2. What though the governmeÌ„t of the Church was almost like a Democracie Or what though all Churches had equall power then Could they not therefore stand under the authority of Synods It is a perverted reasoning so to argue Even here all the Reformed Churches among us have equall power and are partly Democraticall and yet are mutually and equally subject to one another in their Synods 3. There is another egregious falsification in the alledging of this testimony by omitting that which principally concernes the Question for when these of Magdeburg say here that all Churches had equall power of teaching the Word administring of Sacraments excommunicating ordination and deposition of Ministers they adde withall in the same Chapter and in the very same sentence period in the words immediately following touching this equall power of Churches that it was for the gathering of Synods and Assemblies and this not for counsell onely but for the judging and deciding of matters doubtfull and controverted And not onely this but after againe in the same page (m) Col. 135. this power of Synods in judging and excommunicating of Hereticks is further declared and repeated it being the very scope of that Section to describe the power of Synods in the consociation of Churches And further in this same (n) Cent. 2. c. 9. de CoÌ„c col 159.160 c. Century as in others according to their order they doe rehearse divers Synods held in those times as that at Rome at Cesarea in Palestine others in France in Pontus in Achaia c. In the next place confounding the order propounded by himself he brings in among his Lutherane witnesses (o) OnRev 12.1 Mr Brightman who as he saith comes downe lower even unto Constantines time and is of opinion that the primitive puritie of Church government was not yet defloured with the dregges of mans invention Neither had SataÌ„ brought in Prelaticall pride into the sheepfold of the Lord but the Pastours looked every one to the health of his owne flock Hence it appeares sayth Mr Canne that for the space of 200 or 300 yeares after Christ every visible Church had power to exercise Ecclesiasticall government c. Now to shew how vainely this is alledged 1. Observe how farre it is from the Question for though the Pastours looked every one to the health of his owne flock this prooves not that the power of Classes and Synods is an undue power Doth he thinke that either I or any Minister of these Reformed Churches will not acknowledge the same Yea doe not Pastours then looke the better to the safety of their flockes when as in needfull cases they seek the help of Synods therein 2. Let him consider his (p) Magdeb. Cent. 3. c. 7. col 161. c. former witnesses what they say concerning this third age of the Church shewing in what manner Pastours did then looke to the health of their flock If any weighty questions dissensions or Herefies arose they did nothing by their private counsell neither durst they c. but calling together other fellow-Bishops of the same Province either all or many by conferring their judgements together they decided the questions compounded the dissensions refuted the Heresies and excommunicated them that were obstinate c. And this is further shewed at large by many instances and examples in the same place And (q) Cent. 3. c. 9. de Syn. col 192 193 c. after againe they describe divers Synods that were held in those times in Asia Europe and Africa for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in deciding of controversies c. 3. That Mr Brightmans words are perverted and wrested to a wrong end against the authority of Synods contrary to his meaning it appeareth by the rare and pregnant testimony he gives unto them in the (r) On Rev. 8.3 4. same book where he teacheth that the vision and type of the Angel standing at the golden Altar before the throne with a golden censer full of incense was accomplished in Constantine the great gathering together so many holy men in the Synod or Councell of Nice for the deciding of the controversy about Arius and shewes that the wholesome conclusion and happy issue of that Synod effected by the care labour diligence and charges of Constantine was acceptable to God in Christ and as a thick cloud of incense ascending out of the hand of the Angel in the presence of God And thus also he (Å¿) OnRev 7.2 3. interprets a former vision of another Angel that came up from the rising of the Sunne having the seale of the living God to seale the servants of God in their foreheads This he expounds of Constantine and of the Nicene Synod he being the principall instrument to call that Synod While the Godhead of Christ coequall and consubstantiall with the Father was maintained in that Synod and the trueth
England And these Ministers when they are come over are esteemed receaved as Angels in hell and shine as bright starres in these smoky Egyptian fornaces wherein the miserable people of the land are kept in most hard servitude c. These skornfull and reproachfull speeches of H. Barow doe sufficiently testify what the Brownists of old thought of the Dutch Classes and Synods and what they thought of such Ministers in England as desired a Reformation and therein a Classicall government Though H. Barow according to his manner doe overlash and utter much falshood yet he is not guilty of so great fallhood as Mr Canne in denying what the Ministers and forward professours in England as he calles thē did heretofore seek and sue for It is certaine and evident that the Non-conformists have (r) Demōst of Disc c. ◠pr. 3. p. 24 25. Mr Travers of Ecc. Disc p. 19. 20. Admon to Parl. p. 15. edit 1617. held that unto the just calling of a Minister there is required the calling of a particular and certaine Church where he is to administer Yea so much is also confessed touching them by the (ſ) Dang pos l. 3. of Engl. Scoti c. 3. p. 46. c. 14. p. 114. 115. Prelatists when by them it is recorded as a decree of the Synodicall Discipline that none should take upon him an uncertaine and vague ministery though it be offered unto him but such as be called to the ministery by some certaine Church c. And againe that none is to be accounted a full Minister untill some particular Congregation had chosen him c. For though as in these Churches after due examination approbation by a Classis men are allowed to preach and to exercise their gifts occasionally yet are not such esteemed Ministers untill they be called by some Church and confirmed therein But H. Bar. as in divers other things so in this speakes slanderously of the Classes and of the Ministers approoving them when as he saith (t) Discov p 175. Both sides both Bishops and this new Classis take upon them to make Ministers without the people without any charge place or office certaine Though the falshood of H. Bar. be manifest herein yet Mr Canne goes a degree beyond him when he shames not to deny the approbation which the Nonconformists have given to the Dutch Classes and Synods which H. Bar. could not deny for the fact though he impugne them as erring therein Let the Reader now observe here the palpable untrueth of Mr C. of W.B. in their Apish imitation of my words which they so falsely apply against me saying (v) Chu pl. p. 88 89. As Herod to kill one infant spared not to kill a multitude of other infants so he that he might undermine us and blow us up into the ayre he cared not nor spared not with the gunpowder of his fiery contention and reproaches to blow up with us a multitude of Godly and learned Ministers being of the same judgement with us I desire the Readers to looke upon my former (x) Answ to W.B. p. 71 72 73. 18 29.30 c. writing and then to judge whether I had not just cause to complaine of their wounding the Classis through my sides and of their reproaching the Ministers of these Reformed Churches under my name in regard of their consent and practise agreeable to mine I desire that the testimonies confessions and petitions of the ancient Non-conformists above mentioned in allowance of a Classicall Synodall government may be duely pondered then let any indifferent Reader judge whether I undermine them and blow them up into the ayre c. while I confirme their testimonies both by word and practise But these opposites Mr Canne and his client have so little conscience of trueth that they have not cared to utter the grossest falshood so that they might but contradict me Let them remember Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 12.22 SECT VI. Touching the Testimonies of Ancient fathers Councels and Emperours THe Advocate of W.B. not contēt with the testimonies of men in later times leades us back to the testimony of Antiquity and to the Ages long before And though he (a) Ch. pl. p. 89. confesse he had done it already in mentioning some testimonies of the most ancient times yet notwithstanding to shew that he stands not for any Novelty he professeth againe he will shew that the best approved Authors after the Apostles are directly with them in this thing c. Those which he alledgeth are these Ignatius Tertullian Origen Cyprian Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose Cyrill Hilarie Greg. Nazianzen Augustine Chrysostome Basill Socrates Isidorus Bernard And with these he also makes mention of some Councells and Christian Emperours For answer hereunto First in generall it is to be observed that the thing which he here pretends to prove viz. that everie particular visible Church of Christ hath power to exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all other Gods spirituall ordinances in and for itself immediately from Christ this comes short of the question betwixt us For this being granted it doth not follow hereupon that the power of Classes and Synods is an undue power or that particular Churches may not therefore stand under the authority of another superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of themselves This their inference will never be made good from such a ground This beggerly consequence I have oft (b) P. 145 146 149. c. refuted before To come more particularly unto the testimonies of these Authours which he promiseth to set downe according to the times in which they lived And to beginne first with Ignatius from him he alledgeth that it was then the manner of visible Churches (c) Ad Philadelph ad Magnes ad Trall to come together in one place to worship God having Bishops Elders and Deacons unto their Officers whom the people freely chose by voyces or lifting up of hands I answer 1. All that is here sayd being granted it followes not that they were independent and refused to submit their controversies to the judgement of other Churches assembled in Synods Ignatius being Minister of the Church of Antiochia in Syria which had of old submitted their controversy to the Synod held at Ierusalem Act. 15. what reason is there to thinke they forgot their old practise approved by the Apostles themselves 11. Though it be probable and we injudgement of charity are bound to thinke that the Officers Bishops Elders and Deacons of this Church were chosen with the free consent of the people according to the direction of the Apostles yet is not so much specifyed in any of those three Epistles here mentioned in the margine and therefore are they vainely alledged for the proof thereof III. Ignatius labouring for the peace and establishment of the Church of Antiochia after his death desired the Church of Philadelphia (d) Epist ad Philadel p. 76. edit Paris 1562.
some redresse (d) Esth 7.4 I crave leave therfore to suggest a few of the wofull fruits †sad consequents of Prelaticall proceedings * Sad consequents of Prelacy For evē hence it is come to passe that I. Some well affected Parents have beene discouraged from training up their hopefull sonnes in such learning as should fit to the Ministery II. Some conscientious yong men having attained to a good degree of learning have diverted applied their studies otherwaies III. Some in the Ministery concerning the faith have made shipwrack or schismed dangerously entertaining unsoūd unwarrantable opinions courses turning to be Anabaptists Separatists Semi-separatists c. and others become licentious or meerly formall and careles in the execution of their calling IV. Some of the (e) 2. Pet. 2.2 people have follovved their pernicious deceivable waies of Anabaptisme Separation Independēcy Popularity Profanesse by reason of whom the way of trueth is evill spoken of (f) Hos 4.9 Like Priest like People V. But behold greater scandals thē these for hence (g) Ezek. 8.3 the image of jealousy which provoketh to jealousy even (h) 2. Thes 2.7 the Mystery of iniquity hath beene more bold to lift up the head (i) Ezek. 8.12 16. chambers of imagery have beene raised at the upper end of Chācels Altars placed theron and worship directed towards the East VI. Hence * In the yeere 16 17. D. Mortō B. of Chester framed the directions for the first liberty grāted to sports on the Lords day at the same time he soe eagerly prosecuted the Non-conformists about Ceremonies a wide gap hath beene opened to Libertinisme in the audacious profanation of the Lords day grosse contempt of the faithfull ministery scorning at the performances of family duties bolstring of ignorance the stepdame of devotiō countenancing of Wakes Rush-bearings Mixt-dancings May-poles Beare-beatings Stage-playes Revellings Healthings all manner of the like disordered courses with a censuring all strictnes in religion circumspect walking to be foolish precisenes Puritanisme VII Hence have followed those irregular confusions in the popular and independent governmēt of the Brownistically affected breaking in pieces againe and againe to their great reproch yet discovering therby that their (k) Act. 5.38 nevv way is not of God sith it doeth daily come to nought by their owne disuniting and unchurching of themselves viii (l) Iudg. 5.15 Hence have risen those great thoughts of heart amongst brethrē occasioning bitter contentions fruitles janglings censorious words tart galling writings alienation of affections strangenes of countenance breach of Christian fellowship interruption of prayers neglect of necessary mutual offices ix Yea hence doubtles hath issued as from the proper originall that unworthy Remonstrance against Presbytery represented to the house of Peers from divers Noblemen and Gentlemē of Cheshire as appeareth by a printed booke under the name of Sir Thomas Aston Baronet 1641. The greivous scādal offence wherof may in some part be evinced by these short animadversions following Animadversions on the Cheshire Remonstrance I. The title of it A Remonstrance against Presbytery ANIMADVERS Of the title the same may be said which was observed Declaration against Vorstius by the great wise king Iames of famous memory touching the title of Bertius his booke de apostasia sanctorum viz. The title only were enough to make it worthy the fire Because I. The holy Scripture approveth of Presbytery as a divine ordināce both for the (m) 1. Tim. 4.14 impositiō of hands also for (n) 1. Tim. 5.17 the exercise of rule government II. Presbytery is established in the neighbour Reformed Churches which are precious in the eyes of the Lord of all well-affected to the reformed religiō in England III. Prelaticall men are not wont in their writings to contradict it simply How commeth it then to passe that some in Cheshire (o) Numb 12.8 are not afraid to speake against Presbytery II. The pretended occasion of the Remonstrance against Presbytery alledged by the contriver subscribers is A Petition Positions preached at Chester Knutesford annexed to the Remonstrance ANIMADV The occasion of the suggested pretence is but a meere pretence having noe just ground at all For I. Neither the Petition nor Positions anexed to the Remonstrance doe seeke for * Presbyterian discipline mentioned in the positions in greater characters seeme to be the words of Remōst not of the Preacher disaffected to Presbyterian government Presbytery but seeme rather to affect a popular government II. The Patrons of popular government contended for in the positions are for the most part either Separatists or Semi-separatists who are as opposite to Presbyteriall governmēt as they are to Prelacy as is well knowne to them that know them And therfore it behooveth Cheshire men to (p) Iohn 7.24 give righteous judgement when they take upon them to censure in-no-wise confound jumble together opiniōs defenders of them soe directly opposite For (q) 2. Cor. 5.10 we must all appeare at the tribunall of the (r) Gen. 18.25 righteous judge of all the world who will doe right III. REMONSTR taketh for granted that * Provinciall Diocesan B B. are to be understood by the Remonstr otherwise nothing is concluded Provinciall Diocesan Bishops are of Apostolicall institution (f) Philip. 1.1 1. Tim. 3.1 alledging in the margent two texts of Scripture for his proofe ANIMADV Neither of the texts alledged doe inferre an Apostolicall institution of Provinciall Diocesan Bishops For I. The originall words translated * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Overseers * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters or Elders are equivalent names of the same office are soe used in the (t) Act. 20.17 28. 1. Pet. 5.1 2. Scripture II. The pleaders for Hierarchie doe grant that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase are the same III. The text in the Epist to Phil. 1.1 mentioneth Bishops in the plurall number that is such officers as did oversee the Church at Philippi not a Bishop alone superiour to other officers in degree or government according to the opiniō of Hierarchicall men (v) 3. Iohn 9. affecting preeminence IV. The text in 1. Tim. 3.1 mentioneth also office as well as Bishop which office is described in the (x) 1. Tim. 3.2 3 4 5 6 7. subsequent verses to be the office of the Presbyter And this may appeare further by comparing therwith the (y) Tit. 1.5 6 7. Epist to Titus V. It is good to be wise according to sobriety in understanding some things in (z) 2. Pet. 3.16 Pauls Epistles other Scriptures lest for wāt of learning stability they be wrested to destruction This is an usefull item for Cheshire men others also IV. REMONSTR commendeth Bishops that they were the great lights of the Churches and Martyrs in primitive times ANIMADV
There is noe consequence to justify Prelacy hence For 1. Papists pretend the same thing albeit unjustly in the behalfe of their Romish Bishops Hierarchie II. The name of Bishops or Presbyters is oftentimes indifferently by the Fathers attributed to those great lights and Martyrs as is evident in their books sufficiently cleered by Orthodox Writers against the Papists III. Such Bishops as hadia superiority in those times * Ierom. Gomment on Epist to Titus received it from the Church in humane policy not by divine institution V. REMONST asscribeth to Prelates the redemption of the purity of the Gospell now professed in England from Romish corruption ANIMADVERS This assertion seemeth to want the trueth of story For 1. In the booke of Martyrs alledged by the Remonstr the reformation of religion is referred to King Edward himselfe his Counsell Parliamēt II. King Edward approved himselfe better then the best of the Prelates in withstanding toleration of Masse to his sister at the request of the Emperour III. Archb. Cranmer acknowledged to M. Cheke that King Edward had more Divinity in his litle finger then all they had in all their bodies Let the Remonst therfore henceforth take heed of detracting from Kings unjustly to extoll the Bishops unjustly VI. REMONST observeth that divers of the Prelates have beene great assertors of our religion against the common enemies of Rome ANIMADV I. Divers of the Prelates have beene too great friends to Rome as it is famously knowne both heretofore of late also II. The Prelates generally have more vehemently prosecuted the faithfull Ministers refusing conformity to some popish ceremonies albeit of the same religion professed and established in England thē the superstitious idolatrous Papists the grand enemies of the reformed religion II. The Prelates generally doe make use of divers arguments used by Romanists against Protestants for their Hierarchicall discipline Ceremonies IV. The greatest assertors of the reformed religion amongst the Prelates make use against the Papists of the Non-conformists arguments against prelacy superstition V. Non-conformists Ministers of the Reformed Churches where Presbytery is established have approved themselves oppugners of Antichrist to purpose VII REMONST urgeth a continuance of Prelacy sith it is established by the laws of the land ANIMADV I. It somtimes falleth out that (a) 1. King 12.28 29 30 31 32 33. unjust laws are enacted (b) 1. King 16.26 Mic. 6.16 continued in a land professing religiō touching both the Ministery Ceremonies II. Parliaments doe aswell serve to repeale as to enact laws as just cause occasion shall require And accordingly English Parliaments have beene wont to proceed VIII REMONST affirmeth that in the doctrine of the Prelates generally taught nothing is found dissonant from Gods word ANIMADV I. The Prelates generally have taught very seldome soe that it cannot much be taken notice what māner of doctrine they teach Queene Eliz. is reported to say that when she made a Bishop she marred a Preacher ii (c) 2. Cor. 11.13 Deceitfull workers doe somtimes transforme themselves into the Apostles of Christ III. It is well knowne that many of thē their favorites have beene deeply stained with Popish Arminian points IV. The Prelates generally have countenanced Arminians rather then any way opposed them IX REMONSTR suggesteth a danger of tenents preached publickly of printed pamphlets c. ANIMADV I. Such * See above 2. Animadv suggestion against tenents intimated doth not at all reflect on the seekers of Presbyterial government II. Albeit 't were to have beene desired that noe such unwarrantable courses had beene held by preposterous and popular zealots yet it is noe new thing that (d) Math. 13.39 Satā by his instruments should sow tares in Gods wheat field III. Anabaptists in Luthers time were a great scandall to the begun glorious reformation yet not any just ground of prejudice against it X. REMONSTR conceiteth that the 26 Prelates are easily responsall to Parliaments for any of their deviations from the rule of law ANIMADV 1. Deviation that is (e) 2. King 23.15 wholly devious is not at all responsall either to God or rationall men Such a deviation is Prelacy considered as Prelacy in the sense of the * D. Bilson D. Downham D. Hall rigid patrons of it II. Prelates have not beene easily responsall to Parliaments at any time for their deviations in prelacy till this present Parliament III. There are more then 26 Ordinaries that dispense the Civill Canon law viz. Suffraganes Chancellors Cōmissaries Arch-deacons Officials Surrogates Rurall deanes Subdeanes c. IV. It is better to (f) Math. 15.13 roote up the plants which God hath not planted XI REMONST feareth future inconvenience may be found in the government of a numerous Presbytery in England which may consist of neere 40000 Church-governors ANIMADV I. No inconveniēce need be feared in establishing of Christs ordinance II. The errors of Presbyteries in their government are responsall to Classes Synods III. It was the honor of the land (g) 1. Chro. 23.3 4 5. of Israel in King Davids reigne that there were numbred from the age of 30 yeers upward 38000 Church-officers And would it not be the honor of England in the reigne of King Charles to have 40000 Elders to oversee the Lords houses in the daies of the Gospell IV. It is much to be feared such have beene the unhappy fruits of Prelacy that they that should be chosen to oversee in Parishes wil be (h) 2. Chro. 29.34 found too few soe that there wil be great need of uniting or combining severall lesser Parishes adjoyning into one Presbytery XII REMONSTR apprehendeth that presbyterian government may prove to be inconsistent with Monarchie and dangerously conducible to Anarchie ANIMADV I. Monarchie in the civill state and Presbytery being both Gods ordinances are not inconsistent one with another There may be a (i) Matth. 22.21 rendring to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods in one and the same Common-wealth II. King * Basil dor Epist to reader Iames of b. m. knew and found a consistency of Monarchie and Presbytery together in Scotland III. King Charles findeth the same in Scotland at this day IV. The Vnited Netherlands doe finde by experience that Presbytery is noe way conducible to Anarchie But had the reines of Presbytery beene loosed as the Arminians affected what might have ensued may easily be guessed by some begun commotions of that party XIII REMONSTR feareth that the consequents of Presbytery would be the utter losse of learning lawes ANIMADV I. There (k) Psal 53.5 are some that oft feare where noe feare is II. Learning and lawes doe flourish gloriously in the reformed Churches where Presbytery is established III. Prejudice and losse of learning and lawes have in great part beene occasioned by Prelacy For 1. Is it not through the default of Prelates that there are soe many
parchments he left behinde him to publick use for the common benefit of the English nation in a time of need calling for helpe (v) 2. Sam. 15.34 counsel to defeate the dangerous projects of all Achitophels Right honorable ye are as (x) 2. Sam. 14.17 Angels of God to discerne good bad to speake comfortable words to your afflicted banished Countreymen Yee are the great Counsellers Iudges and State-physitians of England Now (y) Isa 9.6 the Wonderfull Counseller the mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of peace furnish your Honors more more with the (z) Isa 11.2 Spirit of wisdome understanding the Spirit of Counsell and might the Spirit of knowledge of the feare of the Lord (a) Psal 20.4 fulfill all your counsells which are for the (b) 1. Cor. 10.31 glory of God for the (c) 1. Pet. 2.17 honor of our gracious King Charles and for the true (d) Iob 22.30 welfare of England Scotland Ireland even soe prayeth Your Honors most humble advertiser and devoted observer THOMAS PAGET The Publisher to the Christian Reader THere are two staves wherewith the Lord Christ the great Shepherd of his sheep doth usually feed his flock Doctrine and Discipline By the one he maketh them to lie downe in greene pastures and leadeth them beside the still waters replenishing their soules with the food of life by the other he guideth them and ordereth them in their going out and comming in for their further peace and safety and both his rodde and his staffe doe comfort them If either of these be wanting the flock is endangered if God in his just judgement cause one of them to faile the other presently comes to be in jeopardy Wofull experience hath taught that where the reignes of Discipline are slackned or ill guided there the soundnes of Doctrine doth hardly subsist long and where the trueth of Doctrine is assaulted there the course of Discipline is not free from injurious attempts Though Doctrine justly challenge the first place yet seeing Discipline also to speak properly is a part of Doctrine being onely the practise of divine trueth revealed concerning the guidance of the Church hence it may not without cause share in the arguments alledged for the necessity and benefit of the other They both being so neerly allyed and joyntly requisite to the welfare of Gods Church the Enemy ever envying the prosperity and plotting the ruine thereof where he cannot prevayle against the one he sets on work his mischievous devices against the other When he cannot hinder the growth of good corne and sound trueths by sowing tares then he makes so much the more furious onsets upon the fences and hedges of due order and government And if his designes may be effected in the one he findes a readyer way to the other But he that hath bruised Satans head is not ignorant of his devices nor slow to resist him in his enterprises Christ doth graciously provide for the safety of his flock against both kindes of evills by such instruments as he is wont to rayse for the explaining and vindicating the trueth of those lawes which he hath given both to direct and maintaine his people in the obedience of his will and to stop the mouth of all iniquity oppugning the same His goodnes therefore is to be acknowledged in whatsoever helps to this purpose are affoorded unto us And that thou mayest the better be provoked hereunto Christian Reader concerning the Treatise now presented unto thee take a brief survey at thy first entrance of somewhat may further fit thee unto a more judicious and profitable perusall of the work it self The maine errours touching the exercise of Church-government may be reduced unto these two extremes whereby men swarve from that middle and safe way prescribed by Christ the onely Prince and Lawgiver of his Church Some ambitious of preeminence making themselves lords over Gods heritage have brought in and seek to maintaine a Tyrannicall kinde of government in the Church by ingrossing all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction into their owne hands as the Popes and Popish Bishops Against these Vsurpers many Worthies have stood up and done valiantly in their Writings whereof divers remaine yet unanswered Others have erroneously fallen into a contrary extreme while opposing Hierarchicall Tyranny they have become pleaders for a meere Democracy and not contēt to reject Provinciall Diocesan Bishops they have impugned the lawfull combination of Churches in Provinciall and Classicall Synods Against this twofold errour the ensuing Treatise is directed The former part thereof was written long agone about the yeare 1618 upon the occasion noted in the Introduction And though it was but a beginning of a larger writing neither finished nor polished for publick view yet considering how little there is extant in this kinde how usefull it may be for these times and what affinity it hath with the other controversy touching Classes and Synods by how much the opposers of such joynt Presbyteries doe seldome allow the due power of particular Elderships I thought good to prefixe it before the other in such wise as it doth now come foorth The second and maine part of this Treatise discusseth at large and more fully then any other yet seene the question concerning the due power of Classicall Synodall Assemblies A controversy in a manner unknowne to former ages and for the present scarcely heard of among the Reformed Churches in other nations For though the positive trueth thereof be manifest from the testimonies of Orthodox Writers of all times and places yet hitherto it hath not beene shewed that ever any Authours of note I meane either of former ages or other nations have maintained the assertions here opposed viz. that the power of Classes Synods is an undue power and that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction must be confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation H. Barrow those of that Sect are noted to be the first that in such sort have opposed this kinde of government The Arminians indeed have spoken much against the jurisdiction deciding sentence of Synods * Censur Confes Remonstr p. 322.326.328 Apol. Remonstr f. 6. 282-290 but upon other grounds to wit so farre as it taketh away that liberty of Prophecy which they plead for and describe to be in effect an unlimited licentiousnes of venting and maintaining almost any thing in matters of religion They doe so contradict the power of Synods that withall they overthrow all Ecclesiasticall judgment and censure at least in matters of heresie false doctrine as well in a particular Congregation as elswhere Herein they differ from the Patrons of Independencie here disputed against These therefore though they be not all Brownists yet they must not take it ill to see this errour in the following Treatise sometimes branded with the mark of Brownisme especially when the Authour deales with Mr Canne a knowne Separatist and hitherto the busiest Disputer for
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
so that the 120 persons met together at this time Act. 1.15 cānot be sayd to have bene a distinct particular Church of persons dwelling in Ierusalem but an occasionall assembly or Synod upon such ground as the story of the Scripture doth manifest II. In respect of the busines it self here performed viz. the election of an Apostle it was such a work as did not appertaine unto any one particular Church but all Churches had interest therein seeing the care of all the Churches was cōmitted unto the Apostles 2. Cor. 11.28 All Churches were alike bound to beware of false Apostles that could transforme themselves into the Apostles of Christ 2. Cor. 11.13 It had bene a presumption in any one Church and a wrong unto all the rest if without their consent one alone should have chosen an Apostle especially considering there were even at this time a multitude of the faithfull in other places whom this work concerned Many had bene lately converted by the ministery of Iohn Baptist Matt. 11.12 and now immediately before the Ascension of Christ we read of more then 500 brethren at once which were witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ 1. Cor. 15.6 These 120 had done injury unto them save that these generall persons the Apostles called of God for the service of all Churches did for them by divine appointment appeare in this Synod III. In respect of the manner of this election which was made with a threefold limitation 1. Unto one of those men which had companyed with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Iesus went in and out among them beginning from the baptisme of Iohn even untill that same day that he was taken up from them Act. 1.21 22. Now these Disciples that thus waited on Christ such as Barsabas and Matthias were being no inhabitants of Ierusalem what power had a particular Church to determine and dispose of them that were no members of their particular society 2. There was a restraint from absolute electing of any one of these they were onely allowed to present two and to offer them unto the choyse of the Lord. vers 23.24 3. The way and meanes of inquiring the will of God herein was determined and restrained unto a Lot whereby the judgment and definitive sentence of God was declared unto the Synod that rested therein And by these extraordinary directions it pleased God to honour this first Synod of the new Testament It is here also to be observed that although some Writers have spoken of this election as made by a particular Church yet we have sundry learned men consenting with us in the exposition of this story who labouring to shew the profit and necessity of Synods (a) Whitak de Concil qu. 1. c. 3. doe argue from this place Act. 1. and affirme that in the New Testament the Apostles and whole Church did celebrate a Synod for the choosing of Matthias into the place of Iudas The Professours of Leyden to the same purpose (b) Synops pur Theol. Disp 49. alledge this example Act. 1. and call it the first Synod at Ierusalem II. The example of that renowned Synod which is recorded Act. 15. is a sufficiēt warrant wherein the use and authority of Classes and Synods is commended unto us and this not onely for counsell and admonition but also for the judgement of causes and for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction As that which went before the Synod namely the great dissention about a dangerous errour with seeking of redresse by a solemne deputation of messengers from the Church of Antioch Act. 15.1 2. did call for help in the most effectuall manner so the things done in the Synod are an evidence of the authority which they used therein both by a definitive sentence which they pronounced concerning that controversy which was brought unto them vers 28 29. and by an authentick ambassage of chosen men sent from that Assembly of Apostles Elders and brethren both to carry the Epistle that was written and by word of mouth to declare the same things vers 22 23 25 27. That also which is noted to have bene done after the Synod in the publication of the acts thereof doth also beare witnesse touching the authority of those acts in that they are called the decrees ordained of the Apostles and Elders c. Act. 16.4 The fruit also which by the blessing of God followed hereupon in being a meanes of great consolation and establishment of the Churches in the faith Act. 15.31 16.5 is to be considered as an argument whereby the H. Ghost doth further commend unto us the authority of such Synods in the right government of the Church Upon this example doe generally all judicious Writers build the authority of Synods as upon a sure foundation groundwork Calvine saith that (c) Cōment in Act. 15.6 here is prescribed of God the forme and order of gathering Synods c. Beza upon this place (d) Annot. maj in Act. 15.12 V. 23. having shewed that here was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or foregoing consultation of the Apostles and Elders which was related unto the whole Church and ratifyed in the common assembly thereof he affirmeth that this was the right forme of a lawfull and true Apostolick Synod c. And both these are to be understood of such Synods as exercised authority of Ecclesiasticall censure according to the practise of those Churches wherein they lived of which more hereafter Bullinger observeth here as is noted by (e) Expos Eccles in Act. 15.6 Marlorate that this custome was in old time diligently kept of the holy Bishops in imitation of the Apostles and complaineth of the neglect thereof D. Rainolds when as the Papist objected unto him that there must be a chief Iudge to end controversies to keep the trueth of faith peace of the Church that it be not pestered with heresies and schismes he answers thereunto (f) Conf. with Hart. c. 6. div 2. p. 206. that The wisedome of God hath committed that chieftie of judgement so to call it not to the soveraigne power of one but to the common care of many For when there was a controversy in the Church of Antioch about the observation of the law of Moses some Iewes teaching contrarie to that which Paul and Barnabas taught they ordained that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should goe up to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question Act. 15.2 And so by their common agreement decree the controversy was ended the trueth of faith kept and peace maintained in the Church After which example the (g) Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. 21. 22. lib. 7. c. 26. 28. Cypr. epist 6. 14 31. 53. 72. 75. Concil Ancyr Gangr Antioch Laodic c. Bishops that succeeded them made the like assemblies on the like occasions and by common conference took order for such matters both of doctrine and discipline
it followeth hence from the consideration of that which is here confessed to be done by each kinde of person here mentioned that the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition but also to give sentence and to make decrees which are acts of authority and power The errour of Bellarmine and the Papists is (c) De Con. cil l. 1. c. 15. 16. that onely Majores Praelati the greater sort of Prelates such as are their Bishops and Archbishops and by priviledge or custome Cardinals Abbots and Generals of Orders have jus suffragii decisivi that is authority to give definitive sentence that Presbyters Elders and other Doctours or learned men in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum a voyce in consultation liberty to give counsell to deliberate and dispute but not to give definitive sentence in the deciding of any matter Thus they take away the right and power of judging from one half or more of those persons that are to appeare in Synods The errour of the Brownists and other our Opposites is that all the persons in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum onely power to deliberate to advise and give counsell that all jurisdiction is limited unto a particular Church and so they destroy wholly the authority of Synods which the Papists doe in part The Papists deprive one half of the persons of their power and these deprive all the persons of their power But now in this case Mr Canne by his confession refutes both these errours granting jurisdiction a power of giving sentence and making decrees unto the people as well as others Thus is he condemned out of his owne mouth Thus is he condemned by those whom he alledgeth when D. Whitaker sayth of Act. 15. (d) De Cōc qu. 3. c. 3. p. 97. In hoc ergo Concilio quivis laicus Presbyter definitivum suffragium habuit non minus quam Petrus that is In this Synod every lay-man and Elder had a definitive voyce as well as Peter Thence it followes that there was an authority and jurisdiction in the Synod it was not onely for advise and counsell He saith againe (e) Ibid. c. 2. p. 85. The end of Synods is to decide controversies to prescribe Canons to correct abuses to set Churches in order c. What plainer evidence of their power can we seek for This same authority of Synods is in like manner proved by that which (f) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 108 126. 334. Mr Parker to like purpose witnesseth together with D. Whitak and others II. Mr Canne here doth yet blame our practise in depriving the Church of her right and the people of their interest and is so eager in seeking to blame the manner of our keeping Synods that unawares he hath yeelded us the matter itself about which we dispute viz. an authority of giving sentence and not onely a giving of counsell by Synods His reprehension is that Mr Paget and others doe otherwise practise But who be those others beside me Why did he not name them as well as me Are they any other then all the knowne Reformed and Orthodox Churches in Europe He might well think that if he had mentioned these the very naming of them and my following of their practise would have bene not so great a blame unto me as an occasion of making himself suspected and condemned for his unjust opposing of them That it may the better appeare how unjustly he blameth our practise let us examine more particularly what he hath sayd and withall set downe some observations whereby the peoples right in Synods may the better be discerned I. To shew the peoples interest he alledgeth Act. 15.12 22. where there is mention made of the multitude that was present and of the whole Church sending messengers c. But by the multitude we may understand not the whole number of the Church at Ierusalem which consisted of many thousands but rather the multitude of such speciall persons as were met in the Synod So Beza interpreteth it (g) Annot. maj in N.T. in Act. 15.12 Multitudinis autem nomine intellige non totam Ecclesiam c. By the name of the multitude understand not the whole Church which was not yet wholy adjoyned but the whole company of the Apostles and Elders as appeareth before from the 6 verse c. Piscator likewise (h) Schol. in Act. 15.12 approves this interpretation and addes some further light unto it from the reference of the Greek article though he also give liberty for another interpretation So for that phrase the whole Church mentioned vers 22. Iunius (i) Animad in Contr. 4. de Conc. l. 1. c. 15. n. 19. c. 16. n. 1. expounds the same of the Elders and Deacons or the whole Clerus or Clergy serving that Church these saith he are designed by the common name of the Church Calvine also (k) Cōmen in Act. 15.6 writes to the same purpose Luke saith not that the whole Church was gathered together but those that were men of learning and judgement and which by vertue of their office were lawfull judges of this cause It may be indeed that the disputation was before the people but lest any man should think that the common people were promiscuously admitted to handle the cause Luke expressely nameth the Apostles and Elders as more sit to take cognition thereof II. We grant that besides Ministers and Elders other members of the Church may have suffrages or voyces and give sentence in Synods as well as those that are Officers alwayes provided that they be lawfully deputed and sent thereunto Thus D. Whitaker explaines himself touching his allowance of lay-men to have voyces in Synods and sayth (l) De Conc. qu. 3. c. 2. p. 92. Every man ought not to be admitted into the Synod nor to speak therein but he that shall be chosen of the Church and designed thereunto Againe he saith (m) Ibid. c. 3. p. 103. Not onely Bishops are to be chosen of the Church to be sent unto Synods but other godly prudent learned men which happily can dispute more skilfully and inquire into controversies better then the Bishops Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the Church And so (n) p. 97. 98. 104. oft in other places Iunius in like manner (o) Animadv de Cōc l. 1. c. 15. n. 4. c. 16. n 1. n. 10. requires of such as have voyce in Synods that they be furnished with gifts and calling whether Officers or any others And this also is the practise of the Reformed Churches in these parts where upon occasion divers times some such are deputed and sent unto Synods which have no Ecclesiasticall office and even in the Nationall Synod at Dort divers other members of the Church which were neither Ministers nor Elders were sent thither allowed to be Delegates were to have not onely deliberative but also definitive voyces as well as any other
at home And in matters of judgement seeing justice is to be done to one person as well as to a multitude Ier. 21.12 22.3 Esa 58.6 Amos 5.12.24 therefore if one person think himself oppressed by a particular Church the liberty of appeale is not to be denyed him III. Whereas they say Hence our Divines teach c. whom do they meane by this phrase our Divines Doth W. B. mean the Arminian Divines unto whom he hath declined and is become one of their disciples Doth Mr C. mean the Divines of the Separation The communion of other Divines is renounced by them And these also are such that if a whole Church together should agree to referre their controversies unto the judgement of a Synod they hold it to be an Antichristian bondage Doe they mean Mr Parker whom they alledged immediately before and unto whom they seem to have reference by that ambiguous quotation so set downe in the margine as if it belonged unto that which went before Yet he is but one and none of theirs Mr Parker saith indeed * Pol. Eccl. p. 338. there that this delegation and power of delegating is not in one Bishop but in the Churches themselves He speakes of that communication of Churches when some deale with others concerning any Ecclesiasticall busines by sending their delegates or messengers unto them which power of sending delegates in Ecclesiasticall affaires he proves to be in the Church it self and not in any one Bishop in opposition unto the Hierarchy who will have such businesses to be done by themselves and in their owne name That which Mr Parker sayth is no way contrary unto the practise of the Classes and Synods where the Deputies and Delegates of the Churches appeare in the name of those severall Churches from which they are sent acknowledging the power of their delegation to be derived unto them from the same Mr C. and W. B. confound these two things which are to be distinguished viz. the dealing in Church affaires in the name of the Church which they onely are allowed to doe who are chosen of the Church and designed thereunto and the propounding of personall grievances in case of appeale or complaint touching any thing that is amisse which as we sayd before is free unto every Officer and member of the Church when he cannot otherwise be satisfyed he doing it still in his owne name Now both these may be understood by that their phrase of bringing things from one Congregation to another whereas Mr Parker meant onely the former as is plaine by his whole discourse in the place mentioned though Mr C. and W. B. would faine apply it unto the latter as appeares by the inference which thence they make against me But for this their opinion they cannot shew any one word of God nor any one Divine whereas I have the * Pag. 37.41 witnesse of both IV. Touching the accusation of me in particular that I have brought matters to the Classis without consent of the Consistory or any one of them c. how earnest soever they be both in the line and in the margine to load me with double rebuke yet their owne words fall upon them and while they seek to accuse they excuse me rather for if it be as they say then it appeares that the matter I took in hand was such as might stand firme upon tryall and examination by the Deputies Ministers and Elders of many Churches when as the contrary proceedings were all undone and came to nothing And yet it is also false which they say of the Churches consent the matter being never propounded unto the Church nor their consent required or asked notwithstanding all that was done by some particular persons The complaints and reproaches with which they make up their 6 Exception are not worth the answering The testimony of the English Church at Franekford is afterward to be considered I. CAN. VII The thing then and there concluded was divine Scripture imposed upon all other Churches of the Gentiles although they had no delegates there v. 22 28. ch 16.4 ANSVV. I. The Argument is not taken from the infallibility of trueth that was in the decrees of this Synod but from the order according to which they were made and the persons determining the things that were then and there concluded being such as did not all belong unto that particular Congregation where the controversy was raysed II. Though the decrees in that Synod were grounded upon the Scriptures as I granted * Pag. 66. before yet they could not be sayd to be divine Scripture untill they were by Luke recorded among the Acts of the Apostles neither was it manifest unto all that they were according to the Scriptures untill it was concluded in the Synod for els it had bene in vaine to have repaired thither for this resolution III. He that would seem to say * Pag. 69. before out of D. Whit. that this assembly did binde onely but in a speciall or particular meeting doth now acknowledge that the thing then and there concluded did binde all other Churches of the Gentiles being imposed upon them all to be observed by them It is true indeed that the decrees of this Synod were directed and delivered unto severall Churches of the Gentiles where the observation of them was judged to be necessary not onely because they were by infallible direction from the holy Ghost which reason is implyed by Mr Robinson from whence this and the substance of most of the former exceptions is borrowed when he addes (k) Iustif of Sep. p. 199. and so imposed upon all other Churches c. but besides because the Apostles were chief judges in this Synod who as I have shewed often * Pag. 62 72. before were as Delegates from all the Churches in which respect as was also noted * Pag. 69. out of Mr Cartwright this Synod may be accounted a Generall Councell I. CAN. VIII It is observable how Mr Paget stumbleth at the same stone and misapplyeth the very same place of Scripture as the Papists (l) Rhem. on the place c. have done before For thus they write Paul and Barnabas condescended to referre the whole controversie the determination thereof to the Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem that is to say to commit the matter to be tryed by the Heads and Bishops and their determination in Councill And indeed such application of it better serves the turne of Iesuits and Priests that seek to set up the Popes Supremacie and a Tyrannicall Hierarchie then those that desire to stand for the Rights and Priviledges which Christ hath given unto his Church ANSVV. There is nothing sayd here but either it is refuted by that which I have sayd already or els it is a mere begging of the question by avouching that which remaines by him to be prooved and which I am to disprove when I come to the examination of his Arguments Though the Papists abuse and
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
alledge for the warrant of this combination of Churches in Synods for their mutuall help they are all of them such as doe equally yea and primarily concerne the communion and society of severall persons and members in a particular Church where it is confessed by our opposites that there is jurisdiction as well as counsell If these places would have removed jurisdiction from Synods and condemned the subjection of Churches unto a Synod then would they also have done the like for particular Churches and have condemned the subjection of members thereunto Seeing they doe not the one therefore not the other also II. In prosequuting his 2d Argument (o) P. 330.331 taken from the forme of combination which is consociation consisting in a mutuall obligation he confirmeth it by the testimony of D. Whitaker alledging that Calvine sayd well that by brotherly charity Cont. 4. qu. 4. p. 448. not by naked authority but by letters and admonitions and other such meanes Hereticks were deposed in the time of Cyprian Deposition of Hereticks was an act of jurisdiction in Synods And againe alledging Mat. 18. as the fountaine of this combination he sayth Many Churches are combined after the same manner that the prime Churches grow together into one body in their members and therefore it must be confessed that as Mat. 18. is a ground of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in particular Churches so is it also for Synods III. Mr Parker for confirmation of his 3d Argument (p) P. 331.332 taken from the matter of this combination which are the severall Churches equall members of one body alledgeth the example of the Reubenites who when they would expresse their combination with the Tribes on this side Iordan do call it their part in the Lord which was not unequall because of the distance of place Ios 22.24 25 28. And from hence then it may appeare that as the Tribes of Israel equally combined together were not subject to any one Tribe apart and yet were each of them subject to the whole society and body of Israel so the particular Churches having each of them equall part in the Ecclesiasticall consociation of Classes and Synods though they be not subject to any one Church apart that is exalted above the rest yet may be subject to the whole society of many Churches concurring together in Synods IV. In the explication of his 4th Argument (q) P. 332 333. taken from the object which is a common matter concerning all or many Churches he alledgeth a distinction (r) Conf. with Hart. c. 8. d. 5. maintained by D. Rainolds betwixt questions of the Church requiring knowledge onely and causes of the Church requiring jurisdiction also for the judging of them Questions of the Church were sent unto them that had no jurisdiction over those that propounded them but the causes of the Church not so They in Africa were (ſ) Concil Carthag Graec. c. 2◠Milevita c. 22. forbidden to appeale unto them beyond sea viz for the decision of their personall causes which yet were to be judged by the Synods in Africa whereby it is acknowledged that Synods have a power of jurisdiction which is more then counsell Whereas Mr P. addeth The first combination of Churches is in matters of faith c. The second combination of Churches is in personall causes yet by accident onely for these properly belong unto each severall Church as they are proper yet when they become publick by accident then Churches are combined indeed but without subjection as it fell out in Cyprians time in causa lapsorum in the cause of them that fell in time of persecution which thereupon became publick because the offence was common in many Churches Lest any should stumble at these his words it is to be considered that as personall causes and offences are by accident the object of Classicall and Synodall judgements so by like kinde of accident they are the object of that judgement and jurisdiction which is exercised by particular Churches In that maine ground of Ecclesiasticall discipline Mat. 18.15 16 17. all the degrees of admonition and censure are ordained to be used according to those 4 accidentall ifs If thy brother sinne If he will not heare thee If he will not heare the witnesses If he will not heare the Church And so in like manner those 4 limitations before noted by Mr Parker are 4 accidentall cases wherein the power of Synods is to be exercised and wherein it is greater then the authority of particular Churches viz. if it be a common cause if the Church be unable if the Church administer unlawfully if it be so presumed Such kindes of accidents are properly the lawfull and just object of Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction by proportion from the same rule Matt. 18. If one member sinne or suffer it becomes a common cause so farre as it is knowne all the members suffer with it and take care for the redresse of it in a particular Church 1. Cor. 12.25 26. And if one Church sinne be in danger it becomes a common cause all the Churches that are members of the same body especially those that are united by covenant in a Classical and Synodall government are to take care for it and to seek help according to the quality of the danger Thus the community of cause inferreth combination And further for that which he repeats againe that this combination of Churches by accident is without subjection it is still to be remembred that his meaning is without subjection to any one above the rest for so he againe largely explaines himself in the same place giving instance in the Church of Carthage and in Cyprian the Bishop thereof maintayning against D. Downam that Cyprian was no Metropolitane that the province was others as well as his that in the Synod there held there was a parity that the Churches were equally combined without subjection to any one that Bishops Elders had equall power in giving their suffrages V. In setting downe the 5 t Argument (t) P. 334. taken from the outward manner of proceeding which was by conference and communication of counsels he shewes withall that therein there was an exercise of jurisdiction when as in the words of Cyprian he shewes the end of those counsels ut communi consens◠figerentur sententiae that by common consent firme decrees might be made And the authority of these judiciall sentences and decrees touching those that were fallen is further declared by Cyprian when he shewes that they were (v) Cypriā L. 1. Ep. 8. tempered with discipline and mercy whereby it is evident that there was an exercise of discipline or Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction therein and that Epistle of Cyprian containes in it sundry other sentences which shew that he spake of the administration of censure and not of counsell onely VI. In his last Argument (x) P. 335. taken from the end of this combination which was not to receive mandates but for consent counsell
and approbation he sayth it followeth hence that no one Church was superiour unto others but all were equall among themselves This he declares by instance in the Church of Rome which though in ancient time it was of great estimation and dignity yet had it no speciall authority and jurisdiction above other Churches as he shewes by the testimonies of D. Rain Whitak and Iunius But he doth not collect thence that many Churches concurring together in Synods doe want authority to judge and to give definitive sentences in the causes brought unto them Yea the contrary is manifest for whereas Bellarmine perverting the testimony of the Magdeburgenses who had sayd that the unity of faith might be preserved by the consociation of Churches which mutually were to help one another objecteth (y) DeRom Pon. l. 1. c. 9 Non sat est confilium imperium requiritur Counsell is not sufficient but authority is required Mr Parker in this (z) P. 327. same chapter alledgeth alloweth and commendeth the answer which D. Whitaker (a) DeRom Pont. Cont. 4. qu 1. p. 49 giveth unto Bellarmine viz. Consensum multorum non minus habere imperii quam unius voluntatem Sicolim Haeretici per Synodos refutati et alii in eorum locum suffecti Quid amplius postulas aut quae melior ratio excogitari potest conservandae pacis c. that is The consent of many hath no lesse authority then the will of one Thus have Hereticks bene refuted of old time and others put into their places What doe you require more or what better way of preserving peace can be thought upon c. Or what plainer testimony can Mr Dav. require for the jurisdiction of Synods They doe not answer Bellarmine that counsell alone is sufficient but plead for authority and power arising from the consent of many Iunius also answereth this objection of Bellarmine in like manner and sayth concerning the power of Synods (b) Anim. adv in Bellarm Contr 3. l. 1. c. 9. u. 74. Et est revera imperium Christi qui primum jubet per Apostolum ut spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subjiciantur deinde vero remedium adhibet 1. Cor. 11.16 quod si cui contentiosum esse videtur nos ejusmodi consuetudinem non habemus neque Ecclesiae Dei There is indeed the power of Christ who first commands by the Apostle that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets and then addeth the remedy 1. Cor. 11.16 that if any list to be contentious we have no such custome nor the Churches of God And Mr Parker in the same place reasoning in like manner confirmeth his answer and enforceth it saying What I pray you can be answered to this last reason for the Apostle Paul referreth us from the contentions of any one Church unto many whose example if it prevaile much how much more their sentence when they are assembled together in a Synod HAving answered these Allegations of Mr Dav. we may now see what wrong he hath done to Mr Parker in perverting his words and meaning and making him a Patrone of this erroneous opinion that is so prejudiciall to the Church of God in the government thereof by Synods and yet for the further clearing of the trueth and vindicating of Mr Parker and for the help of the Reader that he may better understand his meaning touching Classes and Synods for many have not his booke and many understand it not being written in Latine I will set downe his judgement more particularly touching the divers kindes and degrees of consociation of Churches with the speciall questions touching Synods and shew withall how he applyes the same to the practise of the Reformed Churches for the defence thereof in all which the jurisdiction of Synods is maintained And First comming to speak of the kindes of conjunction or consociation and shewing (c) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 22. p. 336. that some are more imperfect by way of Communication some more perfect by way of Combination The Combinations he sayth are of two sorts for some communicate among themselves by Letters onely and some both by letters messengers or Delegates These communicatory letters were called in old time Pacificall Synodall letters and Formatae And he (d) P. 337. alledgeth divers examples both from the Scripture and from the primitive Church touching this kinde of communication by letters And howsoever he notes from the Magdeburgenses that this communication by letters did not proceed from dominion and subjection c. yet this is to be understood touching the subjection of any one Church to another and not of subjection to many Churches for so he expounds himself touching this particular of communication by letters as he had often done before in generall For whereas it is objected If all Congregations be equall what shall be done in case of Schisme and Heresy when there is no Synod nor Christian Magistrate He answers (e) Ibid. c. 21. p. 324. The time scarsely falles out when no Synods can be had or if Synods be wanting yet Churches may communicate together by letters and although there be no authority in one Church above another yet many Churches joyned together either in a Synod or by letters have authority over one Church offending And in the next page (f) P. 325. againe alwayes every one Church is subject to many Churches And thus he expressely avoucheth a jurisdiction of many Churches over one even in their communication by letters And yet more particularly he applyes this to the present practise of the Reformed Churches highly commendeth the same saying (g) Ibid. c. â—2 p. 337. And now in the Reformed Churches the necessary use of Elderships is acknowledged ubi communicatio per literas primaeva purissime floret where the primitive communication by letters doth flourish in greatest purity Againe Mr Parker proceedeth in describing the consociation of Churches and sayth (h) Ibid. p. 338. The second communication of Churches followeth when some deale with others concerning any Ecclesiasticall busines not by letters onely but by messengers also This consideration is of great moment for unto whomsoever this handling of Ecclesiasticall businesses doth belong to them also of necessity doth belong the rest of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction This he often repeateth but most fully when speaking of the authority of sending messengers or Delegates he saith (i) P. 342. The power of sending Delegates in Ecclesiasticall affaires was not in any one Bishop but in the Church it self and therefore all the other jurisdiction Now it is evident that the Synod at Ierusalem did send Delegates in an Ecclesiasticall businesse Act. 15.25 26 27. and therefore according to Mr Parker did not onely consult admonish but also exercised jurisdiction therein and had the power of all other jurisdiction Thus the Reformed Churches doe dayly practise their Classes and Synods doe upon occasion send their Deputies unto particular Churches to judge compound and decide the
shewes the contrary He saith (t) P. 358. 359. The superiour power that is in Classes ariseth from the Churches that are combined in Classes c. No Church hath dominion or preheminence over another He sayth that in the Metropoliticall or Episcopall jurisdiction Churches have not their owne government but are spoyled of their Elderships and subjected to the power of one and to an externall Church namely the Cathedrall All which things are contrary in our Classes Every Church injoyeth her owne government by her owne Eldership the Classis is no externall Church much lesse an externall Court for it consisteth of these Churches that are combined so that here is no authority over many the parishes doe joyne their authority together and that equally After the combination of many Churches into one Eldership and one Classis Mr Parker proceeds (v) Pol. Eco lib. 3. c. 25. p. 362. to speak of that combination of many Churches in many Classes which is into one Synod and that either Provinciall Nationall or Generall the Nationall containing under it the Churches of sundry Provinces and the Generall comprehending the Churches of many Nations Touching Synods he speaketh of the 7 controversies about them and first of the Necessity of Synods He sayth he never knew any in the Reformed Churches to deny the necessity of Synods before Hugo Grotius that was the great friend of Arminius He sheweth from Bogerman that the Reformed doe stand for the necessity of Synods more then any other Whereas D. Sutlive condemneth such as would have status Synodos Synods kept at certaine set times and not onely extraordinary as he saith that Synod of the Apostles was Act. 15. (x) P. 364. 365. Mr Parker refureth him and argueth thus from that place This example of the Apostles sheweth that Synods are to be called as the necessity and edification of the Church requireth but there fall out so many abuses errours controversies scandals and other such things that set and frequent Synods are necessary for the neglect whereof the English Hierarchy doth sinne grievously which contenting it self with an extraordinary Synod onely doth not call a Synod after the example of the Apostles so often as abuses errours controversies and scandals doe arise but contrary to the example of the Apostles committeth all these things to the care of one Bishop alone And whereas he addeth further in the same place that the Hierarchy is crept in in place of the Synod taking violently unto it self those things which by divine right doe belong unto Synods he doth herein acknowledge the authority of Synods to be of divine right for what els or what more doth the Hierarchy snatch unto themselves then authority of censure and jurisdiction in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes Touching the second controversy about Synods viz. the authority and power of them (y) Ibid. c. 26. p 367. he notes that as there is an Aristocraticall government in Elderships so there is an Aristocraticall government by Synods and from this his assertion it followes that as the Consistories or Elderships have a jurisdiction and power of government in them and are not onely for counsell so the Synods in like manner When as he saith further (z) P. 368. that the Synods borrow that authority which they have from the prime Churches this argues that he confesseth they have some authority els how could they be said to borrow it To like purpose he argues there againe (a) P. 370. It appeares by the very obligation that Synods have their authority from the prime Churches for otherwise Synods should not binde the prime Churches unlesse by sending their Delegates they did avow their consent unlesse they have just cause afterwards of dissenting Thus he acknowledgeth a bond of authority and an obligatory power in Synods as for the exception which he addeth it is as well to be added unto any judicatory either Civill or Ecclesiasticall whatsoever for there is no jurisdiction nor authority of the highest Governours on earth that ought to binde us unto the obedience of their decrees if we have just cause of dissenting For the Convocation of Synods which is the third controversy (b) Ibid. c. 27. p. 371. Mr Parker doth maintaine and much commend the practise and order observed in these Reformed Churches and declares at large what their manner is from divers acts of their Synods He sayth it is cum sapientissime tum saluberrime instituta a most wise most wholesome institution He shewes that the Church hath power of calling Synods but where there is a Christian Magistrate (c) P. 372. this power is regulated of the Magistrate He brings (d) P. 373. c. 10 Arguments to prove that this power of calling Synods is not in a Metropolitane Bishop He sayth touching Ecclesiasticall persons (e) P. 375. The power of convocating is in no one but in many therefore Synods are not to be called by one nor by the authority of one but by the Synods themselves by the precedent assembly itself as is usuall in the Reformed Churches And speaking of Act. 15.6 he sayth Doth not this example binde all ages that the meeting in Synods be by common consent even as the Acts in the Synod are by common consent decreed This decree of calling together is an act of jurisdiction more then counsell or admonition onely The fourth controversy about Synods is concerning the Persons (f) Ibid. c. 28. p. 379. c. whereof the Synods consist Whereas Bellarmine distinguisheth betwixt the greater lesser Clerkes and alloweth unto Hierarchicall Bishops to have a deciding voyce and to the inferiour sort to have onely a consulting voyce Mr Parker shewes at large that whosoever is lawfully deputed and sent whether Ministers Elders Deacons or any of the people have a deciding voyce and may give definitive sentence in Synods and thereby he acknowledgeth the jurisdiction exercised in them He saith (g) P. 387. As the materiall foundation of Synodall right is the excellency of inward gifts not the dignity of any office so the formall foundation thereof is delegation from the Church from which whosoever they be that have receyved authority and therefore Elders also they have power of decreeing and judging in Synods And many other testimonies thereof he gives in that chapter A fift controversy is about the Praesident or Moderatour in Synods (h) Ibid. c. 29. Mr Parker labours to prove that this presidency doth not belong to an Hierarchicall Bishop or Arch-bishop but maintaines the practise and order of the Reformed Churches where the President of the Synods is elected or chosen by the Synods themselves (i) P. 402. We argue first sayth he from the authority of the Church for in Matt. 18. Ecclesiasticall authority is given primarily and originally unto the prime Church so that no rectour without the election and designation thereof may challenge any authority unto himself The Synod is a combined or
secondary Church which receiveth authority from the prime Churches that under the like condition to wit that no rectour or Praesident be made without election of the Churches which are combined in that Assembly This he declares at large and refutes the contrary arguments Now this Election of a Praesident is an act of Ecclesiasticall authority a part of the Churches power and seeing this is confessed to be in Synods it appeareth hence also that Synods are not onely for counsell admonition but also for the exercise of jurisdiction A sixt controversy about Synods concernes the Execution of the Synodall Canons (k) Ibid. l. 3 c. 30. Mr Park holds that this belongs not unto any one Bishop or Arch-bishop but unto particular Churches and their Elderships He argues on this manner (l) P. 428. The execution of Canons of what kinde soever whether they be those which are published of Christ in the Scriptures or whether they be ordained in Synods according to the Scriptures is a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction a part of the exercise of the Keyes as the Parisians call it But the Keyes and Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction are not given to one Bishop but are promised to the Church and Eldership Mat. 16. and given unto them Matt. 18. Therefore the execution of Canons belongeth not unto one Bishop but unto the Church which importeth many Now if the execution of Synodall Canons by an Eldership or particular Church be a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and of the Keyes then much more is the making of these Canons in the Synod and then Synods have not onely liberty of giving counsell and admonition but power of jurisdiction also which Mr Daven denyeth This conclusion and inference is afterward noted by Mr Parker himself also when as he addeth (m) P. 432. Why should not he be judge in the execution of Canons who hath power of judging in the sanction or decreeing of the Canons c. And againe If it be not lawfull for them to execute the Canons neither will it be lawfull to ordaine them on the other side if they have authority of making Canons then have they authority to execute them and that much more The seventh controversy about Synods is concerning the Conditions (n) Ibid. c. 31. thereof And among other conditions Mr Parker (o) P. 452. requires this for one that there be a common consent or a community of suffrages and he complaines of it as a great corruption when there is in Synods a negative voyce allowed unto Bishops or Archbishops He notes (p) P. 454. that to be not without reason called an Oligarchicall Synod when things are not done by common consent but one maketh frustrate the consent of the rest Now if it be a violation of the Synods right and authority when the generall consent of the greatest part is made frustrate by the dissenting of one or of a few then much more is the authority thereof violated when as notwithstanding the universall and entire consent of the whole Synod both of the Praesident of all the Deputies of all the Churches there assembled yet by receiving this erroneous opinion of my opposites the definitive sentence of them all is made frustrate and disannulled as if they had no jurisdiction nor power of censure but were onely to counsell or admonish AS that which Mr Parker hath written particularly touching the combination of Churches in Classes and Synods doth sufficiently shew his minde touching this controversy and that Mr Dav doth in vaine seek to shrowd himself under his shadow so that which he writes more generally in defence of the Discipline practised in the Reformed Churches where the authority and jurisdiction of Synods is maintained doth serve for a more full declaration thereof He laboureth to prove q by 10 Arguments (q) Pol. Ecc. lib. 1. c. 29. p. 84. that the Church of England is bound to imitate the Reformed Churches in their Discipline which yet if Mr Dav. his opinion were true they ought not to doe but rather to avoyd it flee from it as being an usurpation of unlawfull power whereby their people are kept in bondage under the undue power of Classes and Synods In speciall Mr Parker following Mr Brightman in his exposition of the Revelation (r) Ibid. p. 84.85 86. saith that in Philadelphia which is the type of the Reformed Churches nothing is reprehended but all things are commended and among the rest the discipline which is noted by the key of David Rev. 3.7 He saith that the Angel of the Reformed Churches stands in the Sunne Rev. 19.17 as being the naturall sonne of the woman clothed with the Sunne Rev. 12.1 that the Reformed Churches are as the beautifull mountaine the mountaine of Christs delights Rev. 16.16 the hill of precious fruits He saith againe that the Philadelphian Church is the type of the Reformed Churches that it is commanded to hold fast her crowne Rev. 3.11 Now if Mr Parker did judge this rare and high commendation to be due unto the Reformed Churches and that by divine warrant by the testimony of the holy Ghost foretelling their estate and the purity of the Discipline observed by them then was he not of Mr D. his minde for then he should have judged them not to be a free people while the causes of particular Congregations are judged and determined by another superiour authority in Synods Then should he rather have judged that their Churches wanted the key of David and were deprived of their lawfull and proper priviledges and prerogatives being subject to an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the assembly of the combined Churches And in summe then should he according to Mr D. his opinion have judged them to carry a yoke of servitude and subjection to be cast off with all speed rather then a crowne of lawfull liberty to be held fast by them then should he with Mr Canne (f) Churches plea. p. 74. have taught them to complaine in the misapplyed words of the Prophet Ier. 4.13 Woe unto us we are spoyled viz. by the authority of Classes Synods TO conclude for the judgement of Mr Parker in this controversy there are few that did better know or at least had more meanes to know his minde then I. The trueth is when he came from Leyden where he and Mr Iacob had sojourned some while together he professed at his first comming to Amsterdam that the use of Synods was for counsell and advise onely but had not authority to give definitive sentence in the judging of causes But after much conference with him when he had more seriously and ripely considered of this question he plainly changed his opinion and professed so much not onely unto me but unto sundry others upon occasion so that some of Mr Iacobs minde were offended with him and expostulated not onely with him but with me also as being an occasion of altering his judgment I had meanes to understand his minde aright and better
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
for counsell both because he allowes a distinction of them in the Synod which had the authority of a determining voyce from them that did onely dispute or consult and because he intimates a judiciall proceeding in the Synods by mentioning parties accused their citing or calling of them the condemning of them which imports a further matter then onely of admonition or counsell Whereas Bellarmine accuseth us that we allow any learned men though Laicks to have a determining voyce let their office be what it will Junius answereth (m) N. 4. These things have none of us sayd or thought as they are here layd downe This is that which we say such are to be taken into the Synod which are furnished with gifts and calling which for gifts are godly honest learned for their calling which are either ordinarily appointed to teach or extraordinarily sent for and brought by just authority Now this necessity of a calling which he so (n) See c. 16. n. 10. 18. 20. c. 17. n. 1. often urgeth and requireth to be in the members of a Synod doth argue a speciall power and authority belonging unto them by vertue whereof they may give sentence in the judgement of causes whereas to admonish or counsell requires no more power then that which every Christian hath in another for his good as Mr D. himself confesseth To the same purpose Junius shewes against Bellarmine that the meaning of Theodosius and Valentinian was not to admit Bishops onely but that (o) Ibid. c 15. n. 13. those onely might heare examine and give sentence in a Synod which being sent from the Churches unto the Synod were reckoned up of the Bishops according to their letters of publick authority which they were wont to exhibit Againe he sayth (p) N. 15. They which are present without the authority of the Church of them some may onely heare as the laicks or common people some may be used in consultations as the learned men especially Ecclesiasticall persons but they may not give definitive sentence And thus still by distinguishing those that gave counsell from those that gave sentence in the Synod it appeares he acknowledged a power of jurisdiction in Synods and that they were not onely for counsell So when Bellarmine sayth it was a fault in the Councell of Basill that Presbyters or other learned men besides Bishops were allowed to have not onely a consulting voyce but a deciding suffrage affirmeth that this was against the custome of all antiquity c. Junius answereth (q) N. 19. This we denye for it was the first institution Act. 15. and not onely the manner and custome Seeing therefore there was such an institution of the Apostles in their assembly what need was there to alledge custome c. When Bellarmine chargeth the Protestants as holding that a Synod is nothing but an inquisition and that Christ alone and his written word hath a determining voyce Junius sayth (r) Ibid. in c. 18. n. ◠It is false for Synods have both an inquisition of that which is true just holy by religious communication and also a ministeriall giving of sentence Though he shew there and in many annotations following that it is not lawfull for Christians to obey them further then they agree with the Scriptures that their sentence of it self is but a persuasion and not a constraint a ministeriall judgement not of absolute authority of itself c. yet he (ſ) N. 3. grants the Lord hath commanded that we should obey the sentence of a lawfull Synod assembled together in his name c. He sayth (t) N. 14. Synods have true judgements so farre as they are of God according to the tables of his trueth and commandement of themselves they are not judgements but declarations publications and ministeriall pronouncings of the trueth and judgements of God And more then this cannot be yeelded to any Ecclesiasticall judicatory whatsoever Herein he fully grants as much jurisdiction to Synods as belongs to any particular Congregation or Eldership either apart or joyntly together When Bellarmine blames the Protestants for their exception against the Councell of Trent Junius answereth (v) Ibid. in c. 21. n. 1. It is the ordinary way of right in every appeale that the judgement of Synods and the exequution of their sentence be suspended and stayed so long untill the matter be againe examined in another more free or greater Assembly c. This answer had bene needles and impertinent unlesse Synods had more power then of counsell and admonition onely He sayth (x) N. 7. Certainly in every just Synod Hereticks being cited heard present or willfully hiding themselves have bene condemned c. When Bellarm. objects that Protestants will have nothing to be determined in Synods and so strifes to be never ended Junius answers (y) N. 23. that he perverts their meaning and referres us to his preface nota 40. where the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods is plainely avouched IUnius proceeding to the examination of his second book touching Synods where Bellarmine repeats that Synods of Bishops may judge all controversies both of faith and manners Junius answereth (z) Animadv in Bell. l. 2. deCōcl c. 1. n. 1. We have granted it of those that are lawfull Synods When Bellarmine had sayd that nothing is greater then a lawfull and approved Generall Councell Junius answereth (a) Ibid. c. 4. n. 2. It is false for Christ is greater and the Scripture is greater seeing Christ and the Scripture are great of themselves the Church is great by them c. But this answer had bene insufficient not direct enough if my opposites opinion were true For then according to their opinion he might more fitly have answered that the authority of a particular Congregation is greater then the authority of a Generall Synod because though the counsell and advise of the Synod was more to be reverenced in respect of many excellently learned and godly men from many Churches that were in it yet seeing Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation therefore the same is greater in the power of censuring and in the use of the keyes for binding and loosing of impenitent sinners seeing Synods have no jurisdiction at all over any other Churches Againe when Bellarmine sets downe this insolent proposition that the Pope cannot commit neither unto a Synod nor to any man the coactive judgement over himself but onely the discretive Iunius answereth (b) Ibid. in c. 18. n. 1. The proposition is most true he cannot commit because God hath committed it to the Synod and lawfull Councell Wherefore we say on the contrary neither can he commit it for if he be the servant of God God hath committed the judgement concerning him unto his Church neither can he reject it but though he be unwilling yet both the Church is bound to judge concerning him and he to undergoe the judgement thereof discretive and coactive howsoever it
please men to call it If Mr Dav. doe fully agree with Junius as he professeth then must he acknowledge that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Church that lawfull Synods have authority not onely to counsell and admonish the Pope himself and so other obstinate offendours but also to censure thē to give sentence both of directive coactive judgement against them as occasion requires Junius to make this more plaine repeats it againe and speaking of the Synods judging the Pope saith (c) N. 2. Truely we grant that he cannot appoynt judges in his owne cause because God hath already appoynted them by the Apostle saying The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14.32 and that he may appoynt Arbiters but we adde this withall that the judges which God hath ordained may by no right be rejected or refused of him When Bellarmine pretends that divers Popes as Sixtus the 3d Leo the 3d Symmachus and Leo the 4th being accused were willing to have their causes discussed in a Synod of Bishops c. Junius sayth (d) N. 6. And this ought so to be done of them for they are subjected of God to a Synod of Prophets by authority of the word When Bellar. addes that yet the Bishops durst not judge them affirming also that they left the whole judgement unto God Junius answers (e) N. 7. This is a fallacy from that which is not the cause as they call it For they did not therefore abstaine from judging because they wanted authority to judge but partly because they had rather that the Popes being guilty should be first judged of themselves and their owne conscience partly because they thought it better to have their cause examined in another more full Synod partly also because when they would examine it the matter was not evident enough c. Whereas the Popes that thus farre submitted their cause to tryall pretend that by this fact they doe not prescribe a law to their successours whereby they should be constrained to doe the same Junius sayth (f) Ibidē The impudency of these men is so much the greater who after they are delivered from judgement doe after this manner mock their judges and such as examined their cause and will have their ambitious licentiousnes to be esteemed for a lawfull order asscribing the lawfull order of judgements in their cause unto an extraordinary and voluntary dispensation as they call it But had Junius bene of my opposites minde he should have answered after another manner should have sayd The Bishops in the Synods which durst not judge the cause of the Popes but left the whole judgement unto God did well therein if they had knowne what they did and the right ground thereof for they did indeed want authority to judge Synods might advise and counsell but have no jurisdiction to give sentence in censuring either the Pope or any other Synods may onely direct particular Churches to use their power aright but have no power themselves to judge other Congregations or any member thereof c. How farre was Junius from giving such an answer Other examples and instances alledged to shew the power of Synods in the judgement of causes are avouched cleared and maintained by Junius against Bellarmines exceptions as appeares in the cause of (g) Ibid. in c. 19. n. 1. Marcellinus of the (h) N. 3. Donatists and of (i) N. 5. Leo. Had he thought that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction had bene shut up within the bounds of a particular Congregation he ought to have reprehended those Synods rather then to have spent time in vindicating their practise from the cavills of adversaries AS in these books de Conciliis alledged by Mr Dav. Junius hath plainely shewed his agreement with us so in his disputations against Bellarmine de Verbo Dei he hath likewise declared his consent with us touching the authority of Synods He writes there that (k) Animadv in Bell. contr 1. 〈◊〉 Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3. n. 9. there be two kindes of judgements in the Church one Private which belongs to all the faithfull universally and severally the other Publick depending upon a publick calling and authority the law and rule of both these judgements is the holy Scripture the authour and guide is the holy Ghost The publick judgement is either of a particular Church or of many Churches meeting together into one body or of all which body they call a Synod a Councell or an Assembly c. Seeing the Praesident and judge of the private judgement whereof the publick is compact is the Spirit of God and the Scripture the law there can be no other judge or law appoynted in the publick judgement of Synods without most hainous blasphemy against God and reproach to his Church And the Praesidents which are given to Synods have not the dominion and arbritement of the busines but the procuring of order committed unto them to determine matters by that one judge according to his law It is here to be observed that under the publick judgement of the Church he doth in like manner comprehend the authority of particular Churches and of Synods consisting of many Churches he speakes no otherwise of one then of the other as touching the kinde of power that they have he doth not attribute jurisdiction to one counsell to the other he notes both to depend upon a publick calling and authority for a ground of their proceeding And though in both the Spirit of God be the principall judge yet as he (l) Ibid. in c. 5. n. 3.5.28 afterwards notes more plainly he acknowledgeth a ministeriall judgment committed to them for the denouncing of his judgement against such as are guilty according to his word Afterward Junius (m) Ibid. in c. 6. n. 3. shewing how unlike the Councell of Trent was to the Nicene Councell where the Arian Bishops being present were heard convicted by the authority of Gods word and being convicted were condemned though he avoucheth the Bishops of Trent to have bene the enemies of the Gospel yet he sayth (n) N. 4. Otherwise as for lawfull Bishops or Elders and Deacons lawfully called into a Synod holding the same lawfully we acknowledge all these things When Bellarmine alledgeth Basilius Emperour who speaking of the judgment of Ecclesiasticall causes in a Synod sayd To try and search out these things it belongeth unto Patriarkes Bishops and Priests who have an office of government alotted unto them who have the power of sanctifying of loosing and binding who have obtained the keyes of the Church and not unto us which are to be fed which stand in need to be sanctifyed to be bound or loosed from binding Junius answereth (o) Ibid. in c. 7. n. 9. We allow this testimony of Basilius touching the lawfull order of Synods as before Herein we have the expresse confession of Junius touching the authority and jurisdiction of Synods in the use of the
keyes binding and loosing When Bellarmine sends us unto Damascene who sayth touching the controversies in the Church To determine and decree of these things it belongeth not to Kings but to Synods For where two or three saith the Lord are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them Christ hath not given unto Kings the power of binding and loosing but unto the Apostles and their successours to Pastours and Teachers Junius answereth (p) Ibid. in c. 8. n. 6. These things certainly are true and nothing for that famous principality of the Romane Bishop c. We also affirme the same thing as before cap. 3. nota 9. c. 10. Another evident affirmation touching the jurisdiction and power of Synods When Bellarmine saith that Prosper doth no otherwise proove the Pelagians to be Hereticks but because they were condemned of the Romane Bishops Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius Celestine Junius answereth (q) N. 14. No otherwise It is false for Pelagius was first condemned by the Synod of Carthage and of Milevis but when he went beyond sea to Rome where he so craftily infinuated himself that there was great feare lest he should inflict a soarer wound upon the Church at Rome the Africane Bishops did prudently and religiously certify Innocentius by two letters both concerning the sentence of their Synods and concerning the imminent perill of the Romane Church unlesse according to the example of them in Africa they did provide for the publick safety c. Another example of Synodicall jurisdiction allowed by Junius AGaine in his disputations against Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano Junius doth often allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods and shewes his judgement that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Congregation When Bellarmine speaking of a certaine decree made in a Synod of Africa mentioned by Cyprian sayth it was ordained thereby that a cause should first be judged where the crime was committed that it did not forbid but that it might be judged againe in another place Junius answereth (r) Animadv in Bell. contr 3. de Pont. Rom. l. ◠c. 23. n. 3. Certainly this is not forbidden For it is of common right But that which is of common equity in case of appeale to have a cause judged againe by another judicatory is denyed by my opposites in allowing no such Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Whereas Bellarmine condemneth the Magdeburgenses as being altogether absurd and ridiculous for their denyall of appeales Junius denyes the fact and saith (ſ) N. 5. his reasoning is inconsequent that all appeales should be altogether forbidden because the appeales to them beyond the sea were forbidden When Calvine alledgeth a certaine Canon of the Synod held at Milevis in Africa to refute the ambitious usurpation of the Pope and manifests thereby the jurisdiction of Synods in the judgement of causes because it was decreed that appeales should be made to the Africane Synods and not to the Bishop of Rome Junius (t) Ibid. in c. 24. n 2. c. maintaines this allegation and vindicates it against the exceptions of Bellarmine And he (v) N. 11. alledgeth further to this purpose the epistle which the Councell of Africa wrote unto Pope Celestine in these words After due salutation officiously premised we earnestly desire that hereafter you would not admit unto your audience those that come from hence and that you would not receive into your communion those that are excommunicated of us c. This request Junius calles a modest and brotherly prohibition to wit that the Pope should not receive appeales from them But if there were no superiour Ecclesiasticall power to judge the controversies of a particular Congregation then might these Africane Synods have bene accused of usurpation over particular Churches as transgressing the bounds of modesty and of their calling for exercising the power of the keyes in excommunicating some as well as the Pope for his usurped authority of the keyes in receiving appeales from the Synods Then had both the allegation of Calvine and the defence of Junius bene partiall and unjust condemning that in the Pope which they allowed in Synods When Bellarmine acknowledgeth that the Pope is bound to keep the Ecclesiasticall lawes made by Synods but quoad directionem non quoad coactionem according to the distinction of Lawyers touching the Prince meaning that the Pope may use their direction but is not under their correction or constraint which is indeed the same thing in effect which my opposites affirme of particular Churches that they are bound to use the counsell and direction of Synods but are not subject to their censure nor under their jurisdiction Junius (x) Ibid. in c. 27. n. 6. denyes this distinction for though saith he we should grant that it take place in foro soli in civill courts to wit for the judging of Princes yet is it of no force in foro coeli et conscientiae in Ecclesiasticall judicatories because the reason of them is not alike c. And in the next animadversion (y) N. 7. speaking still of those lawes canons made by Synods he affirmeth that as every other Bishop so the Pope also is subject unto them according to the order of the Church When Bellarmine sayth the Councell or Synod of the Greekes could not make a law for the Latines c. Junius (z) N. 16. See also n. 33. denyes the same and gives a reason because that Synod was Oecumenicall or universall Therein he acknowledgeth that they had a greater authority then onely to admonish or counsell Againe when Bellarmine answering the argument of Nilus saith that the Pope is not subject to Canōs viz. of Synods c. that he is subject to Christ not to the Fathers that he doth not contemne the Fathers nor their Canons but useth them for direction though he cannot be compelled by them c. Junius (a) N. 40. opposeth him further saith (b) N. 42. that he ought to be subject both to Christ and to the fathers by Christ who hath so prescribed 1. Cor. 14.29 32. and addeth further (c) N. 46. If he cannot be compelled by the Canons that he is therefore rightly called by the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wicked one or lawlesse person 2. Thes 2. Whereas some now adayes beginne to speak evill of the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods as of an Antichristian authority Junius is so farre opposite unto them that he accounts the Pope even in this regard to be Antichrist and the Man of Sinne because he refuseth to be subject unto the authority of Synods in their canons and decrees Moreover in comparing of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall estate Junius sayth (d) Ibid. in c. 29. n. 27. Kings have their authority in Civill matters Rom. 13. and the Synod in Ecclesiasticall matters above the Pope as it was defined in the Councell of Constance and Basel And their authority is so
fire yet hereby heat is not denyed to be in the water but on the contrary acknowledged to be derived into the water and experience shewes that by the heat so communicated unto the water many excellent effects are produced for the service of man And so when Ecclesiasticall authority is by the Church committed and communicated to Ecclesiasticall Officers in calling of them then doth it belong unto them though secondarily and lesse principally as both D. Whita confesseth Mr Dav. himself repeateth THat it may yet further appeare how unjustly the name of D. Whitaker is pretended and alledged both by Mr Dav. here by Mr Canne hereafter against the authority of Synods I will here set downe divers pregnant assertions and expresse testimonies of his gathered out of sundry of his writings for help of the Readers In them all may see how fully opposite he was to my opposites To beginne with this treatise de Conciliis of Councells or Synods out of which Mr D. took this allegation above-mentioned This book comprehends 6 Questions touching Synods in handling every one of these Questions he speakes plainly for the authority jurisdiction of Synods These 6 Questions are 1. Touching the necessity and profit of Synods 2. By what authority they are to be assembled 3. Of what persons they consist 4. Who is to be Praesident in them 5. Whether they be above the Pope 6. Whether they can erre For the first Question touching the necessity of Synods There he brings 8 reasons to prove the necessity and profit of them I will not insist upon each of them as I might but mention onely one or two of them The third cause is sayth he (i) Whitak de Conc. q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order and right and lawfull discipline may both be appoynted and maintained and that Canons may be made and confirmed For the Church hath alwayes had authority of making and enacting Ecclesiasticall lawes and of prescribing them to others and of punishing those which did not observe them And this authority hath alwayes bene accounted necessary This was more then counselling or admonishing (k) P. 21. The eight and last and that the chiefest cause of Synods is that even as in Politick and Civill judgements malefactours upon examination are accused and condemned so in the Church Hereticks might be condemned and pronounced anathema by publick judgement and that the trueth might be vindicated from their calumnies But as there judgement is not to be given according to the will of the judge but according to law so here Hereticks enemies of faith and religion are not to be condemned but according to the publick and Imperiall law that is the Scripture For a Synod is as it were a publick Court or Imperiall Chamber or Parliament wherein the Judges hearing both sides do give sentence and decree matters of greatest weight For although Hereticks may be condemned of severall Churches apart yet when they are condemned as it were of the whole Church the sentence is more solemne and of greater weight So Arius was condemned first of Alexander and the Councell at Alexandria but afterward with greater authority by the Synod of Nice c. By these words of D. Whitaker we may see what wrong they doe unto him which pretend that he should deny the jurisdiction of Synods The second Question is by whose authority Synods are to be assembled Here D. Whitaker relating how Bellarmine pleads for the Popes authority (l) De Cōc q. 2 c. 2. p. 42 c. repeats his 4th Argument taken from an ancient Canon wherein it was concluded that without the minde of the Romane Bishop it was not lawfull to celebrate or hold Synods D. Whit. answers that this Canon mentioned by (m) Lib. 2. cap. 8. Socrates is not rightly translated he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify celebrare Concilia to hold Synods as Cassiodorus hath ill translated it whose translation they abuse nor yet Ecclesias consecrare to consecrate Churches as Illyricus doth amisse translate it but leges Ecclesiasticas sancire et canones Ecclesiis praescribere to ordaine Ecclesiasticall lawes to prescribes Canons unto Churches And being thus translated he sayth We acknowledge approve this Canon as most just For reason itself teacheth telleth that that which concerneth all ought to be approved of all Therefore it was meet that those Canons which should be generall should be approved also of the Bishop of Rome who was one of the chief Bishops Now if D. Whita allow that Canon to be most just which grants unto Synods an authority of making Ecclesiasticall lawes and enjoyning the Churches to keep them then it is manifest hereby that he confessed the jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely for counsell admonition And in the same place D. Whitak (n) P. 45 46 relates how the Bishops of the Orientall Churches meeting together in a Synod at Antioch did by common sentence write unto Iulius the Bishop of Rome and by way of rebuke sayd unto him that they were not to be overruled by him that if they would cast any out of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that such ought not to be restored of him even as those whom he cast out could not be restored of them Although D. Whit. acknowledge the errours and faults of some that were in that Synod yet he approveth this their writing in reproof of Julius and sayth they all did gravely rebuke his arrogance insolence Though that Synod abused their power in censuring Athanasius unjustly yet that they had a power of censure casting out of their Churches is not denyed but maintained against the Bishop of Rome The third Question is touching the persons whereof Synods doe consist Here D. Whit. (o) De Cōci Qu. 3. c. 1. first describes the Popish opinion and reckons up the foure sorts of persons whom they allow to come unto Synods namely that Some are present as judges who have a determining voyce Others to dispute and examine difficulties and these have a consultative voyce Others to defend the Synod and to see that peace be kept within without Others to serve as notaries watchmen servants Then he shewes that they allow onely the greater Prelates that is all Bishops and Archbishops to have the right of a determining voyce in universall and particular Synods ordinarily but that Cardinals Abbots Generalls of Orders though they be not Bishops yet by extraordinary priviledge may also have a determining suffrage as for all others whatsoever they be they may be profitable but not have a determining voyce or suffrage After this he shewes the opinion of the Protestants that not onely the greater Prelates but whatsoever learned and godly men are sent being chosen by the Churches of severall Provinces and judged fit for that busines ought to have equall authority in giving suffrages and so to be judges as well as any
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
lawfully not onely when it condemneth and excommunicateth those which are to be condemned pronounced Anathema but also when it ordaines and maintaines those decrees which agree with the Scripture c. Had he bene of my opposites opinion he should have sayd the contraty viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemne those that deserve to be condemned but onely admonish them and so leave them to others Yea he proceeds further sayth concerning Generall Synods that (b) Ibid. p. 270. In them is a soveraigne power and they have the highest authority in the Church He doth not onely grant unto them jurisdiction but greater then is in any particular Church or in any other Ecclesiasticall judicatory Moreover whereas Bellarmine maintaines that Synods cannot erre when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope and that all their authority depends upon him hereupon D. Whita argueth thus against him (c) Ibid. c. 1. p. 214. If there be such weight in the Pope that without him neither Provinciall nor Generall Synod have in them any force it may worthily be demanded what part the Bishops have in a Synod whether they be onely admonishers or counsellours or whether they be judges for if they be counsellours onely why are none but Bishops admitted unto Synods why not others rather who are more learned then Bishops c. He notes it as a poynt of great absurdity and as a great strait whereunto the Papists are brought against their will against their profession that Bishops should have no other place in Synods but of admonishers and counsellours For indeed what use is their of suffrages of definitive and determining voyces if in the end all be determined by the Pope why might not advises and counsels have sufficed in such case This observation D. Whitaker holds to be of speciall use and worthy to be remembred and therefore repeats it oft (d) Ibi. c. 2. p. 221 222. What place I pray you doe Bishops obtaine in Synods what doe they to whâ—â— end doe they meet Is it that they may judge or is it that they may onely counsell and admonish Are they therefore judges or are they onely admonishers counsellours This indeed some of them thinke that they may onely admonish in Synods that they may move questions and dispute but may not judge Naclantus Bishop of Clug as we taught before in his treatise de potestate Papae Concilii sayth The power of the Pope is royall the power of the Synod is consiliaria by way of counsell the power of the Pope is altogether definitive the power of the Synod is of ambulatory definition that is as I interpret it wandring uncertaine Bellarmine indeed and the Iesuites that now are hold that the Bishops are judges but doubtles they meane an ambulatory judgement that is none at all For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone Now this absurd opinion which he notes to have bene the conceit of Naclantus expressed in plaine words and of Bellarmine and other Papists by consequence is even the same that is professed by Mr Jacob Mr Dav. Mr Cann for though they differ in respect of the power of the Pope yet in respect of the power belonging to Synods they make the persons whereof the Synods consist to be no other then admonishers or counsellours not having any jurisdiction at all D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus but speaking againe of the Popes over-ruling of Synods he doth againe record this observation saying (e) Ibid. c. 3. p. 267. Certainly this is that which we sayd before that Bishops assembled in a Synod are not judges but onely admonishers that the Pope alone is judge of all controversies that the rest have no authority For if Bishops were judges judgement should be done according to the greatest number and the sentence of the most judges should prevaile We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a speciall providence of God and directed by his Spirit thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to poynt out and commend to our consideration this evill consequent of making Synods to be onely admonishers or counsellours that so we might have his writing for a Testimony against this errour which within a while after was to be broached made common by Mr Jacob and some others that which the Brownists had done before being neither so commonly knowne nor regarded VNto this his writing De Conciliis we may adde his treatise De Pontifice Romano in which controversy he discusseth 8 questions and in the most of them he gives testimony for the authority of Synods against my opposites The Questions be these 1. Whether the government of the Church be Monarchicall 2. Whether any Monarchy of the Church was setled in Peter 3. Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome and dyed there 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in a Monarchy Ecclesiasticall 5. Whether the Pope be Antichrist 6. Whether the Pope can erre in the faith 7. Whether the Pope can make lawes to binde the conscience 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be given by Christ to the Pope immediately In handling the first Question whereas the Papists require a Monarch to keep inferiour Officers in order and unity D. Whitaker sayth (f) De Pont. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 19. If any will not doe their duety and discharge their office they are to be admonished and rebuked and except they obey they are at length to be remooved by the judgement of the Church or the Synod or the Christian Magistrate and there are knowne meanes enough of keeping Ministers in their duety and the Church in unity without a Pope He acknowledgeth that Synods have not onely power to admonish which every Christian may doe but after admonition to censure remove or depose the obstinate When Bellarmine to prove the superiority of Bishops objects 1. Tim. 5. Those that sinne rebuke before all D. Whit. answers (g) Ibid p. 43. This equalls also may doe So of old if any Elder or Bishop was accused the Bishops brought the matter unto an Ecclesiasticall Senate or Synod and if he did seeme worthy of it they condemned him by a publick judgement that is they eyther suspended or excommunicated or deposed him He declares (h) P. 48. 49. that the Church hath bene preserved in greatest tempests and troubles by Synods and commends them for their use of jurisdiction in judging of causes and shewes how those that would not yeeld unto such authority were removed from their places and others amended by their examples He sayth (i) P 92. Though one alone could not judge of another yet a Synod and as it were a Senate or Session of Bishops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their causes He observeth againe out of Cyprian (k) P. 93. No Bishop could be judge of another of another I say not of others because a Synod of Bishops could alwayes judge
a Bishop therefore the Monarchicall primacy of the Romane Bishop is of no divine right As he doth fully condemne the usurpation of one Bishop above another so by way of opposition he doth fully and plentifully avouch the authority of many meeting together in Synods not onely for counsell admonition but for jurisdiction in judging censuring of offendours After this in the prosequution of the second Question Bellarmine pleading for the Monarchy and jurisdiction of Peter because he in speciall was charged to feed the sheep of Christ and among other Pastorall acts noting this for one to judge controversies D. Whit. answers (l) De Pont. Rom. q. 2. c. 7. p. 229. What controversies Of religion But the other Apostles did that also as well as he and the Synods of Bishops and learned men can doe this even as we read that it hath often bene practised in the Churches for many ages before this principality of the Pope was brought into the Church Furthermore D. Whitaker useth this argument to prove a superiority of power in a company or assembly of the Apostles above one or two of them (m) Ibid. p. 260. The Apostles send Peter to Samaria therefore Peter was not the head of the Apostles but rather was in subjection unto their authority Act. 8.14 He sayth A sending doth alwayes and necessarily imply a subjection in him that is sent if he be sayd properly to be sent This manner of reasoning makes for the authority of Synods consisting of a company of Ministers or other Deputies of Churches orderly assembled whiles he argueth that a Colledge or company of the Apostles had superiority of power over some singular persons among them though considered apart they were all equall in power He sayth concerning Peter Iohn (n) P. 261. We read that both of them were sent by the Colledge of the Apostles from whence we doe justly conclude both that these two Apostles were equall that the authority of sending was in the Apostles He shewes also (o) P. 297 297. that the decree made in the Synod Act. 15. was not confirmed by the authority of Peter alone but by common consent of the Apostles the Church for the repressing of false Apostles c. In the examination of the fourth Question whereas Bellarmine would have a double errour to be observed one of those who teach that the Pope may be judged punished and deposed by the Emperour if he discharge not his office aright another of them that maintaine he may be judged and censured by a Synod of Bishops though not by a secular Prince D. Whitaker answereth (p) Ibid. qu. 4. p. 513 514. We acknowledge both of these but we say there is no errour here For the Bishop of Rome may be deposed both by the Emperour when there is cause and by a Synod of Bishops and that not onely Generall but Particular of that Province whereunto Calvine most truely affirmeth him to be subject and that he may be judged of it and those that perswade the Pope otherwise we affirme them to be flatterers parasites rebels to God the Emperour And many the like assertions he hath in the handling of that question wherein the jurisdiction of Synods is witnessed by him In the fift Question concerning Antichrist (q) Ibid. q. 5. p. 674 675. he notes it to be an evidence of Antichristian pride in the Pope that he is by the Jesuites affirmed to be above the Synod Proceeding to the sixt Question touching the errours of Popes (r) Qu. 6. p. 797.805.812 813. he avoucheth the jurisdiction of Synods by alledging many examples and instances wherein they exercised this power as in the condemning of Pope Honorius Gregory the 7th or Hildebrandus John the 23th Eugenius c. Touching the seventh Question about the Popes making of lawes to binde the conscience though D. Whitaker teach that it belongs to God alone to give lawes unto the conscience yet he sayth (ſ) Qu. 7. p. 853. The Church hath authority of making lawes concerning decency it is our duety to obey yet concerning the things themselves the conscience is alwayes free c. He addes Whereas the adversary saith that all true lawes have a coactive or constraining force if he so understand it that they constraine burden the conscience with respect unto the things themselves it is false for certainely even these also doe constraine after a sort to wit if we have respect unto the generall rule so that if there come contempt or offence or schisme the violation of them cannot be excused Againe he saith to like purpose (t) P. 867. Whereas Bellarm. sayth we can abide no lawes therein he doth egregiously slander for we allow much esteeme of lawes even Ecclesiasticall lawes do teach that they are to be obeyed do subject ourselves unto them but we will not that our consciences be bound or ensnared nor the liberty which Christ hath givē to be taken from us How the Church exerciseth this power of making lawes he explaineth (v) De Cōc q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. elswhere namely in Synods And seeing here he teacheth obedience and subjection unto them it is plaine that he allowes unto Synods a greater authority then onely of admonishing or counselling This he expresseth more plainly even in this Question also when he sayth (x) De Pont. Rom. q. 7. p. 849. It is lawfull for Synods both Generall Provinciall to make lawes and to ordaine certaine rites which belong unto good order and the outward policie of the Church and they are to be deposed which doe not keep the same but our consciences are not bound with those lawes except contempt scandall be added as was sayd before SECT XI His Allegation of Chamierus examined BEsides these Allegations set downe in his Apologeticall Reply there remaineth yet to be considered of us the testimony of Daniel Chamierus another learned man whom Mr Dav. had cited before any of these to wit in his letter which he sent to the Classis printed by W. B. saving (y) Book of compl p. 2. The power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters or in things which are proper to it self as a Synod hath the chief power in things that are common to many Churches witnesse Chamiercont Bell. lib. 2. ANSVV. The quotation of this Testimony is imperfectly described so that men cannot finde the same by the direction he gives there being many second bookes in those 4 Tomes of that great work each of them contayning many chapters and none of them specifyed by him It seemes he took this testimony from Mr Parker who hath also imperfectly cited the same for though he mention not onely the second book but also pag. 193. yet is not that testimony there to be found But wheresoever it is he might have * See before pag. 92 93. found in Mr Parker sufficient answer and satisfaction
for it while he addeth three other causes wherein the authority of Synods is superiour unto particular Churches wherein is expressed contained as much power as we asscribe unto Synods But that it may further appeare how Mr Dav. is condemned by his owne witnesse it is to be considered touching this famous light of Gods Church that as he (z) Epist Dedicat. undertook that great work at the appoyntment and command of a Synod as his sonne Adr. Chamierus after his fathers death dedicated that work unto the excellent and faythfull servants of God the Pastours and Elders of the French Churches assembled in a Nationall Synod comparing them to the threescore valiant men of the valiantest in Israel compassing the bed of Salomon all holding swords expert in warre every man with his sword upon his thigh because of feare in the night Sol. song c. 3.7 8. and as againe speaking of the Synod he applyes unto them that which is sayd of the Tower of David where the shields of the mighty men are hanged up c. Sol. song 4.4 so in the book itself there are many ample and pregnant testimonies touching the authority jurisdiction of Synods And first of all where he proves that the government of the Church is Aristocraticall by many and not Monarchicall by one he makes this distinction (a) Chamie Panstrat Cath. Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 5. The government of Churches is either of severall Churches or of many together viz. by Synods In both he maintaines an Aristocracie or jurisdiction of many He doth not restraine jurisdiction to particular Congregations and allow onely counsell or advise to Synods but he useth the same words and phrases to describe the power and government of one sort as well as of the other to note a like kinde of authority in both For the government of many Churches together in a Province he savth (b) Ibid. c. 7. For the disposing and directing of publick affaires Provinciall Synods were appointed that is companies of Bishops in the same Province which were assembled so often as need commodity required For evidence thereof he alledgeth divers Canons commendeth Cyprian for observing that order Touching the administration of all Churches in the world he sayth (c) Ibid. c. 8. He that denyeth these to have bene governed by Vniversall Synods must be either notoriously impudent or ignorant of all antiquity For in the very beginnings when a great question was raysed about the rites of Moses and some would have those that were converted from heathenish Idolatry to be subjected unto them Luke testifyeth that a Synod was assembled Act. 15. The Apostles and Elders came together to looke unto this matter And by the authority of this Synod that question was compounded which authority that they might signify to be the greatest the decree is conceived in these words It seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us And that this was an Oecumenicall or Universall Synod he there maintaineth by divers reasōs against Ioverius who in regard of the small number that met together affirmed it to be a particular Synod It seemes also that this was the place from whence Mr Parker took that which he alledged out of Chamierus because in these two chapters 7. 8. are contained those testimonies which he citeth And here it is that he speakes of causa communis or the common cause which Cyprian would have to be judged by a Synod And here it is that he speakes of some proper causes belonging peculiarly to some Bishops in their speciall charges viz. c. 7. But these things are not onely misquoted by Mr Dav. by putting the 2d book for the 10th but the sense is altered while Chamierus comparing Bishops with Metropolitanes restraines some things from Metropolitanes to such Bishops as had divers countries under them And though he shew how Cyprian brought a common cause unto the Synod yet he doth not affirme that onely such common causes were to be brought unto Synods Chamierus doth not witnesse that the power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters as Mr D. alledgeth him for witnesse thereof And in c. 8. he brings many evidences to witnesse the power of Generall Synods in judging the causes of all Churches Againe in the Question whether the Bishop of Rome may be judged of any Chamierus shewes the opinion of the Protestants whom he calleth Catholicks in opposition to the Papists that (d) Ibid. l. 13. c. 17. No Bishop at all may by divine right be judged of another but of many to wit in a Synod so as it hath most often bene done And when Bellarmine objected the examples of some Synods that refused to judge the Bishop of Rome Chamierus answereth that some of them were particular Synods consisting onely of such as were under the Romane Therefore they could make no generall decree but could onely ordaine that the Bishop of Rome should not be judged of them assembled in a particular Synod which certainely they either did not speak concerning a Generall Synod or els they spoke falsely A plaine confession of the jurisdiction of Synods for had he spoken of counsell or admonition onely why might not any one particular Bishop or Synod have admonished the Pope upon occasion and given their advise touching him In his dispute touching Appeales he sayth (e) Ibid. l. 14. c. 2. We doe not take away all appeales For they are of common equity and truely without them the Discipline of the Church could hardly or not at all subsist And he speakes there of such appeales as were made unto Synods Afterward speaking of the imposture or coosenage of the Bishop of Rome in the sixt Councell of Carthage where appeales denyed to Rome are yet expressely allowed to be made unto the Synods of their owne Province or to a Generall Councell hereupon Chamierus cryes out (f) Ibid. c. 3. Immane quantam crucem c. O how unspeakable a crosse is procured unto our Papists by the sincere constancy of those good fathers among whom were those great men Aurelius of Carthage and Augustine of Hippo c. Now look what weight and strength the testimony of those African fathers hath against the Papists even so much authority hath it against such as stand for the single uncompounded policie which deny the jurisdiction and power of Synods to determine such causes as by appeales are brought unto them For the jurisdiction of Synods in receiving appeales is in the same place as plainly confessed as the jurisdiction of the Pope is denyed by their prohibition of appeales to be made unto him Againe when he proves that the Pope is subject to Ecclesiasticall judgement he doth in the same question with one conclude that there is a superiority of power and jurisdiction in Synods to judge of him He instanceth (g) Ibid. c. 10. in Honorius a Bishop of Rome who by the sixt Synod was not onely judged but condemned as a
Monothelite This was more then counsell or admonition He shewes in the same place that many lawes were made concerning Bishops both of the Apostles and of Synods which doe certainly binde all Bishops When Bellarmine answereth that the Pope is bound by Ecclesiasticall lawes in respect of direction not of coaction which distinction is in effect the same which our opposites use now viz. that Synods may binde or be respected for their counsell not for their jurisdiction Chamierus replyeth againe and pleades that the Bishop of Rome is subject unto those lawes not onely for their direction but for their coaction or constraint viz. in regard of Ecclesiasticall censures He sayth further Even as particular Synods doe binde all the Bishops within their owne jurisdiction so Vniversal Synods have power over all the Bishops of the whole world Againe because particular Synods doe binde all the Bishops of their owne Province therefore the Bishop of Rome is subject unto the lawes not onely of an universall but also of his owne particular Synod Moreover he instanceth in divers particular lawes which the sixt Synod prescribed unto the Church of Rome by name touching the permission of marriage fasting c. Moreover when Bellarmine and P. Auratus doe plead for the Popes supremacy as being necessary to the unity of faith and the unity of the Church c. Chamierus answereth (h) Lib. 9. c. 13. Of old when many heresies sprung up they never ran unto any one man by whose authority questions might be decided When disputation was raysed against Paul and Barnabas touching Mosaicall ordinances the Apostles called a Synod Act. 15. which remedy the Church thence-forth used most diligently as often as either heresies or schismes did break the unity thereof He alledgeth divers examples thereof in speciall of Constantine and Innocentius in the question about Chrysostome And speaking of such Synods as used not onely counsell but jurisdiction in censuring the guilty such as was the Councell of Nice he sheweth thence they found no other remedy fit enough to preserve Ecclesiasticall unity in faith love except a Generall Synod He sayth againe We understand that the best and most certaine meanes of nourishing unity is a Synod not one Monarch And among others he alledgeth Aegidius Viterbiensis who disputed on this manner Paul the glory of the Apostles when he would shew the chief poynt of our salvation sayth Without faith we can by no meanes please God but without Synods faith cannot stand therefore without a Synod we cannot be safe And afterwards Whatsoever hath bene done in the Church worthy of praise worthy of honour from the age of Melchiades either to resist the enimy or to settle the Commonwealth that all sprung from Synods and is againe to be referred unto Synods And many other things he there bringeth to maintaine the authority of Synods without any shew that he ever light upon this dreame that they were onely for counsell To conclude whereas Chamierus was translated out of this life before he had fully finished that great work of his Panstratia Catholica and therefore for the finishing of it there is added unto his 4th Tome a Supplement by Alstedius in that Supplement there is also a plaine confession touching the authority of Synods Therein Alstedius treading in the steps of Junius and D. Whitaker (i) De Cōc c. 1. sect 6. doth acknowledge that the originall of Synods is from divine right alledging Deut. 17. Act. 1. ch 15. Mat. 18. Repeating the causes wherefore Synods are to be called he doth not limit them to be for counsell onely but that (k) Cap. 4. sect 2. as malefactours in Civill judgements are tryed accused condemned so in the Church obstinate Hereticks are by publick judgement to be condemned and excommunicated He allowes unto those that are lawfully called unto Synods (l) C. 5. s 2. to have right of giving definitive sentence and of determining matters according to the Scriptures He maintaines that Synods have authority over the Pope and that (m) C. 10. s 21. he is bound to subject himself unto their judgement discretive and coactive not onely to their counsell but to their censure And if these did not suffice there are yet many other cleare testimonies which Alstedius there gives touching the jurisdiction of Synods CHAP. VI. An answer to Mr Cannes Arguments FRom the Allegations of Mr Dav. we come now to the Argumentations of Mr Canne and his client against the authority of Classes and Synods and here first we will examine and consider their Syllogismes and Logicall formes of reasoning ARGVM I. (a) Churches plea p. 68. If those Churches planted by the Apostolique institution had power fully in themselves immediately from Christ to practise all his ordinances Then have all Churches the like power now But the first is true Therefore the second The Proposition is cleare certaine by these Scriptures 1. Cor. 5.2 3. Act. 14.23 1. Cor. 16.2 Col. 2.5 2. Thes 3.14 The Assumption is acknowledged by sundry of our best Divines c. ANSVV. I. The first maine fault in this Argument common to many that follow is that herein is committed a foule fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi that is to say the Conclusion is beside the Question This whole argument being granted yet the authority of Synods remaines still firme and unshaken thereby When or where did I ever affirme that the Churches now have not the like power to practise all the ordinances of Christ as fully as those Churches planted by Apostolick institution The testimonies of learned men here alledged by him to prove that the ancient and first institutions are to be preferred before later inventions I doe willingly assent unto But what can he conclude hence Though Christ have committed power unto a particular Church doth it therefore follow that if such abuse their power and goe astray either wholy or the greater part of it there is then no Ecclesiasticall authority above them to censure them or to restraine them from proceeding in evill This consequence which had bene to the purpose he offers not to prove It was confessed (b) Chap. 5. sect 1. p. 81. before b◠Mr Cartwright one of his owne witnesses here alledged by him that if any Church should desire or choose or consent upon by the most part some that is unmeet either for doctrine or manners then the Ministers and Elders of other Churches round about should advertise first and afterwards as occasion should serve sharply severely charge that they forbeare such election or if it be made that they confirme it not by suffering him to exercise any ministery II. A second extraordinary and grosse errour is to be observed in his Logick while in the prosequution of his Argument he not knowing which is the Major or which is the Minor proposition in his owne Syllogisme that which should be for the proofe of his Minor proposition that he applyes for proofe of the Major that which
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
deeds Ambrose is ill joyned with Austine seeing in the place alledged he hath not the same but another more large definition containing under it Originall sinne also when he sayth (t) Tom. 4. lib. de Paradiso c. 8. What is sinne but a praevarication against the Law of God c. This praevarication is as well in the nature and disposition of man as in actuall sinnes The judgement of Aquinas and such Popish Schoolemen is not to be much esteemed in this poynt while they teach that originall corruption in those that are baptised justifyed is not properly any sinne at all therefore are rejected herein of all Orthodox Divines ARGVM VI. If the Apostle gave commandement unto the Eldership of Ephesus for the whole administration of all Ordinances in that Church Then may the Eldership of every particular Congregation administer among themselves all Gods ordinances But the first is true Therefore the second The Major is proved two wayes 1. By Scripture Act. 20. vers 17.28.2 By the testimony of the learned Whitaker c. The Minor is undenyable For as Mr Brightman sayth there was one forme c. ANSVV. I. Mr Canne here againe wanders from the question goes about to prove that which I never denyed viz. that the Eldership of every particular Church may administer all Gods ordinances among themselves Even those solemne acts of communion with other Churches both in things spirituall and corporall being the ordinances of God are to be performed by the direction of the Eldership This hinders not but that any Eldership or Church it self being found in errour or other unfaithfull dealing may be subject to the censure of many Churches united in their Synods II. If it belong to the Eldership of every particular Church to administer all Gods ordinances then how can the ordinances of God be duely administred in that Church of the Brownists whereof Mr Canne is Bishop alone where there is no Eldership where there is neither teaching nor ruling Elder beside himself Seeing there is no Ruler in his owne Company but himself he denyes all other rule over him by Synods doth he not make himself a kinde of Ecclesiasticall Monarch or sole Governour of the Separation III. Mr Canne doth here againe bewray his notorious ignorance of Logick whereof he professeth so great skill in the framing of so many Syllogismes and yet like the children that know not the right hand from the left cannot discerne betwixt the Major and the Minor of his Syllogismes This appeareth here when he calles that his Major which he proves by Act. 20.17.28 and by the testimony of D. Whitaker viz. that the Apostle gave commandement unto the Eldership of Ephesus c. which is his Assumption or Minor and againe by calling that his Minor for which he cites Mr Brightman and other treatises which serve to prove one forme of Church-government common to all Churches as any Logician that lookes upon his Argument may easily discerne When he propounded Simple or Categovicall Syllogismes then was he not so deceyved in his guessing at a Major or Minor But so oft as he useth any Hypotheticall Syllogisme so oft he is as a man wandring in a wood or wildernes And the reason hereof seemes to be this whereas in a Hypotheticall Syllogisme the Antecedent of the Major is assumed usually in the Minor and that which is but a part of the Major comes to be the whole Minor he mistaking a part for the whole doth therefore call that which is onely the Antecedent of the Major by the name of the whole Major Proposition when as indeed it is the whole Minor Proposition and so to be called Had not W. Best bene a Simplician as the Brownist noted him to be he would never have placed his confidence in the skill of this simple Logician nor rested under the shadow of his Syllogismes ARGVM VII (v) Churc plea. p. 72. Such Offices and callings without which the Church of God is complete and perfect for Government are superfluous and humane But the Church of God may be complete and perfect for Government without Classicall and Synodicall Offices and callings Therefore these Offices and callings are superfluous humane This Argument the Protestants have used against the Pope the Reformists against Bishops arch-Arch-Bishops Chancellours c. Now the same is every-way as firme good against Synods and Classes for without them the Church of God is fully brought to complete perfection and unity D. Fulke (x) Learn Disc Eccl. Gov. p. 10.11 confidently affirmeth so much That which D. Whitaker (y) De Cōc qu. 1. p. 22.23 writes of Generall Councills is by Mr Parker (z) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. p. 133. applyed and rightly unto particular Synods The Church of God sayth he can wel subsist without them for she was sometimes without them besides we are not bound by any speciall commandement of God to have them ANSVV. I. This Argument concludes nothing against us neither toucheth it the Question When did I ever speake of any Synodicall offices And what are those Offices that here he intends The members of Classes and Synods are no other then the ordinary Officers or Deputies of particular Churches considering together and determining so as they judge best for the edification of their flockes II. If he imagine or conceive that the Praesident which propoundeth matters in Synods or the Scribe that recordeth them be distinct Synodicall Officers he might as well think and we might as well say that the Brownists also had other distinct Ecclesiasticall Offices besides Pastours Teachers or Elders namely Praesidents and Scribes because heretofore in the dayes of Mr Iohnson and Mr Ainsworth they with their Elders did by course propoūd matters in their Church had also a Scribe to write downe their speciall businesses now in Mr Cannes time when they have no Eldership if he alone propound matters and keep record of them in writing it may then be sayd that he hath two or three Ecclesiasticall offices as well as so many Mechanicall trades III. If propounding of matters as the Praesident and writing them as the Scribe doe constitute new offices then many other members of the Brownists Church may be reputed for Ecclesiasticall Officers for Praesidents and Scribes For Mr Canne being now their onely Governour if it fall out that any among them shall make complaint against his doctrine or practise then those members of the Church that shall propound the same to the Church and moderate the action or keep record thereof in writing in behalf of the Church he being unfit to doe it himself in his owne cause must then be accounted new Officers Praesidents Scribes of the Church IV. That which he sayth of Classes and Synods that without them the Church of God is fully brought to complete perfection and unity comparing them to Lordly Prelates Chancellours c. it is utterly false He onely affirmes it and no word of Scripture is
acknowledge one another to be in that way IV. This company of Brownists whereof Mr Canne is the sole Governour was formerly governed by an Eldership and now since their division they have no Eldership to rule them Whether it be because they thinke they have none among them fit to be Elders or whether they doe wilfully refuse such as they cannot deny to be fit or whether there be any other cause I leave it to themselves Alwayes this we know that there be some Churches in remote countries that want the benefit of Classicall government because there be no other neighbour Churches neere unto them with whom they may combine themselves for their mutuall guidance and edification But now if the want of an Eldership among the Brownists such as they once had doe not warrant us to say that they hold two distinct formes of Church-government to be lawfull one with an Eldership another without an Eldership consequently that they hold two wayes unto heaven then much lesse can the want of a Synod in respect of the different consideration of the times places occasions and oportunities of severall Churches be any warrant for Mr Canne to object unto us two formes of government or two wayes to heaven c. REAS. V. Let it be observed that for this reason among others the Learned (x) Whit. Cont. 4. qu. 4. Chamier l. 6. cōject 2. say the Pope is Antichrist viz. because he will have men to appeale from their owne Churches unto him and to stand under his sentence and decree And doe not the Classicall assemblies and Synods take upon them an authority much like to it in subjecting many Congregations to them requiring appeales to be made to them and that the Judicatory as Mr Pagets * In his Letter c. phrase is belongeth to them as if their power above all Churches ANSVV. I. Let it be observed how Mr Canne speaking here against appeales made unto Classes and Synods brings no Scripture no word of God to condemne them but onely the testimonies of men he needed not to have reserved hereafter a peculiar Section onely for humane testimonies when he uses them so oft before II. Let it be observed how notably he abuseth even these testimonies also against the meaning of his Authors D. Whitaker (y) DePont Rom. qu. 4. p. 470. pleads for appeales as being both of divine and naturall right Chamier whom Mr Canne doth misquote without the title of the book alledged sayth that appeales (z) Panstrat Catho tom 2. l. 13. c. 17 are of common equity and truely without them the Church could hardly or not at all subsist speaking of appeales unto Synods That which learned and orthodox Writers blame in appeales made unto the Pope is this that they are made unto one man and not unto a Synod asscribing unto him infallibility of judgement giving him power over Churches that are not combined with the Church of Rome and in speciall for this that the Pope allowes no appeales to be made from him unto a Synod This is the Antichristian pride that they condemne in the Pope And herein the Church of the Brownists doth plainly resemble the Pope seeing their Congregation also their Democraticall judicatory allowes no appeale to be made from them unto Classes or Synods unto any Ecclesiasticall judges besides themselves These are two of the most monstrous propositions of the Papists touching the Popes authority viz. that (a) Bellarm. de Conc. l. 2. c. 17. 18. the Pope is above a Generall Synod and acknowledgeth no judgement on earth above him and againe that the Pope cannot commit the coactive judgement over him neither unto a Synod nor unto any man but onely the discretive this discretive judgement they expound to be such a kinde of arbitrement as doth not binde him further then it pleaseth him Now so farre as concernes Ecclesiasticall judgement the Brownists and the maintainers of the single uncompounded policie doe likewise hold that there is no judgement on earth above their particular Congregation and that they may not commit any controversy of theirs unto the censure and decision of any Synod What stronger reason could Mr C. have alledged against himself to shew their unlawfull government then this their denyall of appeales III. Let it be observed how foolishly Mr Canne cavills at my speech touching Classicall assemblies and Synods when he relates it thus the judicatory as Mr Pagets phrase is belongeth unto them for this relation is false that was not my phrase but I sayd the judicature did belong unto them It was the simplicity of his informer or of some ignorant scribe that put judicatory for judicature as may appeare by the writing I made which is yet to be seene Note Mr C. his rashnes in receyving such things REAS. VI. What more meet and reasonable then that every mans case be there heard and determined where the fault was committed So sayth (b) Cypr. li. 1. Epist 3. Cyprian It is not fit that they over whom the Holy Ghost hath made us overseers should goe too fro He speaketh of carying matters away from their owne Church unto others ANSVV. I. Though it be meet and reasonable that every mans cause be first there heard where the fault was committed yet is it as reasonable that if either an unjust sentence be there given the innocent may in the second place have liberty of appeale from their oppressours or if the case be difficult and weighty that the matter be at first brought unto Classicall assemblies according to the order of Reformed Churches II. For confirmation of this reason he brings no word of God but onely the testimonie of Cyprian which also according to his manner he doth most palpably abuse For Cyprian doth not simply blame those that appealed unto Synods but onely such as did inordinately run too and fro such as were not content with the Synods in Africa but sayled over the sea unto the Church of Rome Of such he there speakes And even in the same Epistle Cyprian shēwes both the use of Synods allowed in the Churches of Africa and the authority of Synods in censuring offendours He there gives (c) Lib. 1. e. 3. § 11.12 instances of Privatus condemned in an assembly of 99 Bishops of Foelix of Iovinus Maximus excluded from the communion of the Church by a Synod of Repostus also censured in like manner Their Synods were not onely for counsell but exercise a jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall And as they exercised the power of the keyes in binding obstinate sinners so also loosing and absolving those that repented as appeares in (d) Lib. 1. Ep. 2. § 1. another Epistle going immediately before this alledged and written by the Synod itself In the inscription of that Epistle are prefixed the names of Cyprian Liberalis Caldonius Nicomedes and Caecilius c. as being speciall members of that Synod and writing joyntly together that Synodicall Epistle (e) Ibid. n. 6.
By this time I suppose saith he the indifferent Reader perceiveth that the Scriptures are every way for us and against Mr Paget in this controversy betwixt us Now hee should doe well seeing we dispute about a matter of faith appertaining to life and salvation to rest in them as the onely touch stone for triall of all truth But then further to make way for his new troupes legions of Humane Testimonies against me and because this doth not well suit with his profession that pretends so much warrant of Scripture and to rely onely upon it therefore he seeks to take occasion from my words thereby to excuse his vaine oftentation in alledging so many Writers and saith Notwithstanding considering he makes so much a doe about the multitude of learned and godly Ministers being of the same judgement and practise with him according as Festus knowing Paul to have appealed unto Caesar did reasonably resolve saying Unto Caesar shalt thou goe so I am well contented to heare what reverend and judicious Authors doe say herein And if Mr Paget will stand unto their Testimonies I doubt not but to make it manifest that as the Scriptures so they are also with us c. Hereunto I answer 1. In all my former Answer I have not alledged against them the testimony of any one Author neither have I framed any argument drawne from their words The words of my writing which he alledgeth are onely a part of an answer unto a slanderous accusation both of me and the Classis in a matter of fact wherein I shew how unconscionably and without proof they wrong both me and a multitude of learned and godly Ministers being of the same judgement and practise I desire the Reader to looke upon the (b) Answ to W.B. p. 73. place and to judge thereof II. Whereas he thereupon brings forth an Army of Papists and Lutheranes Ancient fathers and later Writers Conformists Non-conformists c. though it be with lesse reason then Festus sent Paul to Caesar seeing I made no such appeale as Paul did unto Caesar yet I am content to follow him and to heare what his Authors doe say and to shew both how idly and needlesly he alledgeth many of them to prove that which is not denyed and also how he perverts and falsifyes their meanings alledging them for that which is contrary both to their words and practise The severall Bands of that Army which Mr Canne mustereth against us are these as he reckoneth them (c) Churc plea p. 78. The Allegations of the Learned which I purpose here to set downe shall be taken 1. From Papists 2. Lutherians 3. Calvinists 4. English Conformists 5. The Non-Conformists 6. Ancient Writers And lastly the Confession of Reformed Churches SECTION I. Touching the Testimonies of Papists HAving promised to produce the Testimonies of Reverend and judicious Authors as he calles them he brings in the Papists and drawes out the Popish band in the first place against me When Mr Spr. once heretofore had propounded divers Confiderations unto them of the Separation and among other things the testimony and approbation given to the Church of England by sundry learned men as Bucer Martyr Fagius Alasco Knox Calvine Beza c. Mr Ainsworth answers (d) Counterp p. 19. Though you come against us with horsmen and charets yet we will remember the name of the Lord our God c. That which David speakes of his refuge against the forces of the Heathenish Princes Psal 20.7 he applyes against these Worthies which were indeed the horsemen and charets of Israel 2. King 2.12 13.14 But that might I much more justly apply unto Mr Canne that alledgeth against me and so unjustly such a company of Romanists the horsmen and charets of Antichrist the Locusts like horses prepared unto the battell Rev. 9.7 And here first of all let it be considered what open wrong he doth unto the Papists Bellarmine the Rhemists c. in faining that they will not allow that government now which they acknowledge to have bene used of old while he saith Howsoever Romes-Champions will have none now to meddle with Church-government but Priests Bishops Prelates c. yet they doe acknowledge that in the primitive Church according to the precept of Christ in Mat. 18. offenders after the first and second admonition were brought to the whole Congregation c. This which he faineth to be granted by them touching a diversity of Government in respect of times cannot be justly affirmed For Bellarmine in the place (e) DeVerbo Dei l. 3. c. 5. alledged by him pleads for the same Government to be used now which he shewes to have bene ordained and confirmed by Christ and his Apostles and to that end he alledgeth 8 or 9 places of Scripture out of the new Testament as grounds of the same Government And in the (f) Ibid. c. 5 Chapter following he laboureth to prove that the same Government hath bene still retained and practised ever since from the first age of the primitive Church unto this present The Rhemists also (g) Rhem. on Mat. 18.17 1. Cor. 5. derive the government which they now stand for from the institution of Christ and practise of the primitive Church And therefore it is untrue which he sayth viz. that the Papists acknowledge a difference betwixt the government instituted at the first and that which is now maintained by them To prove this generall assertion he alledgeth a particular testimony of Scultingius But that which is sayd of one cannot be asscribed unto all in such generall termes as he hath done saying of Romes-Champions they doe acknowledge that which Scultingius sayth whereas we see that the chief of them avouch the contrary This testimony of Scultingius as it is absurdly fathered upon the Papists in generall so it is unjustly applyed against us Though in the primitive Church offenders being impenitent were excommunicated with consent and approbation of all by the Minister and though this testify the power of the Church for which cause it is alledged by Mr Parker from whom it seemes Mr Canne hath taken this testimony at second hand together with his observation upon it touching the force of trueth in a Papist yet this proves not that the Church was not subject to the censure of a superiour judicatory if they did abuse their power Mr Parker drawes no such consequence from this testimony to exclude the authority of Synods There is nothing sayd by Scultingius here but it hath alwayes bene observed in our Church Offenders are not excommunicated as being impenitent before they have bene denounced as this Authors phrase is or complained of by giving notice of their estate unto the whole Church before whom also the sentence of excommunication is pronounced and this our manner was allowed by Mr Park being sometime one of us as I shewed (h) P. 105. before As for Saravia and Schola Parisiensis whom he alledgeth together in the next place
observe 1. How little Mr Canne understands what the Authors be whom he alledgeth not knowing whether they were Papists or Protestants placing Saravia in the number of Papists so well is he acquainted with the Authors he alledgeth at second hand such injury he doth to his witnesses So afterward (i) P. 93 98. againe in this same book he wrongeth Saravia by setting him among the Popish Writers and making him of their profession and religion by accusing me to make the same objection and to use the same reason that Papists doe and then giving instance in Saravia for one of them What a blindenes and inconsideratenes is this in Mr Canne 11. He perverts the meaning both of Saravia and Schola Parisiensis for what though they grant that all Ecclesiasticall authority belongeth to the Church primarily c. doth it follow hence that the power of Classicall and Provinciall Synods is an undâ—â— power as W.B. and Mr C. accuse them doth it not rather follow that there is a due power secondarily and by delegation in Synods where the Deputies of the Churches meet together in their name Mr Parker (k) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 29.30 42. from whom he hath both these testimonies doth not so alledge them against the authority of Synods He might have seen these words in the same place cited by Mr Parker out of Saravia whereby authority is asscribed not onely unto the Church but also unto Synods when he is (l) Ibid. p. 42. brought in saying Bishops Arch-bishops have no authority but what is conferred and bestowed upon them by the Church and Synods III. He perverts the meaning of Schola Parisiensis which speakes not of particular Congregations but of the Universall Church and specially as it is represented in a Generall Councell This is plaine and evident throughout that whole writing IV. He doth deale deceitfully in his translation of that testimony of Schol. Paris for the Doctours of Sorbon doe there say that all Ecclesiasticall authority doth belong to the Church primarily properly essentially but unto the Romane Pope and other Bishops instrumentally ministerially and for execution onely c. instead of the Romane Pope and other Bishops he puts in the word Officers onely to blinde the eyes of the Readers who if those words had not bene left out might easily have seene that they spake of such transcendent and usurped authority as is exercised by the Pope and his Bishops c. Hence it may appeare what is to be judged of that which he inferres from this testimony to make it serve his purpose in oppugning of Synods As for Alphonsus de Castro and Franciscus Victoria 1. It is an errour to approve their testimony there (m) Ch. pl. p. 78.79 alledged viz. that all Bishops doe receive jurisdiction and power immediately from God for then should they all have an extraordinary calling such as the Apostles had Gal. 1.1 15 16. whereas all ordinary Ministers have their jurisdiction not immediately from God but mediately by men and from the Church How erroneously doe W.B. and Mr C. put light for darknes and darknes for light when they avouch that thus God ordered these mens tongues to give witnesse unto his trueth 11. All the shew of help which they pretend to have from this testimony is grounded upon that groundlesse consequence whereby they inferre that Classes Synods have no authority over particular Congregations because all Churches Elderships and Officers are equall This their assertion remaines yet to be proved which we doe expressely deny as I have (n) P. 159. shewed in my answer unto his first Reason The testimonies of the three next Popish Authors viz. Cusanus de concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11 c. Sanders de visib Mon. l. 1. c. 6. Scultingius Hierarch Anarch l. 4. pag. 103. are all of them before alledged by (o) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 1. p. 2. c. 3. p. 11. Mr Parker from whence it seemes Mr Canne hath taken them but without judgement not applying them aright for 1. When they affirme that Christs promise of giving the keyes unto Peter must be referred unto the whole Church as also that Peter in person presented the body of the Church though these speeches shew the power of binding and loosing to be in the Church yet can it not hence be inferred that a particular Congregation ought not to be subject unto the censure of Classes and Synods or to stand under the authority of any Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of itself when that Congregation is complained of for errour or wrong doing It is a perverting of these speeches and a false consequence which is drawne from hence that because a Congregation hath power to judge the members thereof therefore no other have power to judge of it 11. When Mr Canne inferreth hence that the power of electing Ministers is not in Classes or Synods he beates the ayre erres from the Question When did I ever affirme any such matter or when did the Classis ever offer to obtrude a Minister upon us III. These testimonies touching the Keyes given unto the Church shew what power is in the Church originally and primarily but yet they doe not import that the execution and exercise of this power is in the whole Church Preaching and administration of the Sacraments are a part of that Ecclesiasticall authority comprehended in the power of the Keyes and yet the exercise thereof is not permitted to the whole Church by the confession of the Brownists themselves For his next witnesse having alledged the words of Ferus upon Act. 11. that the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also depose them and reject them altogether if they be not fit c. he insulteth hereupon and gloryeth saying What can be more for us then this I answer This might have bene more for you if he had sayd that when a Congregation hath deposed their Minister there is no other Ecclesiasticall judicatory that may judge whether they have done well or ill This had bene to the purpose then had he absolutely granted you the thing which the Brownists stand for but this he doth not When Mr Canne was deposed from his ministery by them of the Separation and when they rejected him altogether and left both his ministery and the fellowship of all that took part with him was it not his their misery that there was none to judge betwixt theÌ„ When he alledgeth the names of Gratian Gregorie P. Aeneas Sylvius Pope Anacletus Sixtus Senensis Thomas of Aquine Alexander of Ales Iohn Scot c. some of them affirming that the greatest authority is in the Church that the keyes were given to all the Apostles others that all Bishops are equall in power and the like these and the like speeches being alledged to prove the undue power of Classes and Synods they are all perverted neither can the question in controversy be ever concluded from hence against us
spread abroad by the authority of Constantine and of that Synod and many confirmed in the profession thereof thereby they were sealed in their foreheads the name both of the Lamb and of the Father was imprinted on their foreheads according to that in Rev. 14.1 In the exposition of that mysticall Song of Solomon where there is mention made of a fountaine of gardens a well of living waters and streames from Lebanon this Mr Brightman doth also (t) Cōment in Cantic c. 4. V. 15. p. 75.76 interpret and particularly apply unto the Synod of Nice The decrees of that Synod are by him avouched to be the living waters to refresh and make fruitfull the gardens of God which are the Churches of Christ And while he alledgeth such divine warrant to prove the fruit and benefit of Synods how injurious is Mr Canne unto him in perverting his testimony yea how injurious to the Church of God in drying up these fountaines of comfort by his impugning the authority of Synods Besides this to omit other the like testimonies of Mr Brightman touching Synods even in that (v) OnRev 12.1 very place mentioned by Mr Canne touching the purity of the primitive Church Mr Brightm maketh mention of Paulus Samosatenus the Synodicall Epistle concerning him and so leadeth us to that story which shewes the power of Synods in that primitive age For there we read that about the yeare of Christ 280 there was a (x) Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 26 27.28 29. edit Basil 1611. Synod held at Antioch where many Bishops and others met together from many Churches and out of divers Provinces who did not onely give counsell about the controversy but gave sentence against Paulus Samosatenus and by common consent rejected and excommunicated him Aurelianus the Emperour using his authority to represse the insolency of that person when he would have resisted the Synod The same story is recorded also by the (y) Cent. 3. c. 9. col 206.207 Magdeburgenses in their Centuries shewing that divers Synods were held at Antioch about that busines before it could be finished Whereas they doe here in their marginall note send me to see what Mr Iacob saith Necess of Reform p. 57. c. I have long since seene what he writes both in that place and in other of his treatises published of later time and though he went too farre in this businesse yet I finde that he disallowes the practise judgment of the Brownists and wonders at their blindenes and bewailes it For speaking of Morellius and the popular government which he strove for he sayth (z) Attestat c. 8. p. 249. Some of the Separation I grant are too offensive this way which I am heartily sory for They take the wordes in Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church more popularly then there is need or then reason or good order would Howbeit in this yet they hold the substance of the true Church-government They erre but in the circumstance of order though it be too (a) Beza Annot. in Mat. 18.17 foule That is they will examine all scandalls c. whatsoever in the presence and under the judgement of the whole multitude perpetually and necessarily I say perpetually and necessarily Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents which will and must ensue many times And afterwards againe in the same (b) P. 280 281. chapter he saith But to hold those popular circumstances in every Church perpetuall and necessary absolutely as the Separation doth it was neither Cyprians meaning nor Christs nor any well advised Christians Yea upon this his testimony touching the disorder of the Brownists he sets this note and mark of his vehement dislike in the margine of that page Separation itself is no such error as this is And this ought seriously to be considered of Mr Canne and his client In the next place (c) Ch. pl. p. 81. he brings divers allegations of Scriptures and other Authors to prove that we may not change the Apostolick Government nor leave their institutions c. In all which he beates the ayre and trifles leaving the question that is betwixt us as I have noted (d) P. 145. c. before seeing they prove not that the authority of Synods is against the Apostolick institution Come we therefore unto his testimonies of Lutheranes of such as he confusedly mingles with them viz. of Zuinglius Luther Chemnitius Melancthon Sarcerius Brentius D. Rungius Hunnius Osiander Salneccer Pelargus D. Mylius Hegendorphin c. These all are notably perverted by him for to answer first in generall What though these teach that the power of excommunication of calling Ministers c. is in the whole Church doth it therefore follow that Synods may not judge the actions of a whole Congregation if they abuse their power If Congregations call a Minister though never so vile or so unworthy or if they would excommunicate an innocent person shall there be no liberty of appeale unto a superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory for the redresse of such wrongs Or doe any of his Lutherane witnesses condemne such an appeale This he ought to have concluded from their Testimonies by some just consequence if he would have spoken to the purpose The insultation of Mr C. and W. B. upon these testimonies is most vaine containeth many falshoods It is false that my opinion is a new opinion as they call it It is false that these Lutheranes are contrary unto me It is false that upon my grounds Officers how vile soever must be left alone if Ministers of other Churches judge them fit to continue It is grossely false that the power which I leave unto particular Churches is just nothing It is an open and foule falshood that these many Authors alledged doe consent fully with them viz. with Mr Canne and W. Best But this will more plainly appeare if we take a particular survey of the chief of those witnesses here produced whose testimonies he vouchsafeth to set downe The first of these is Zuinglius who though he was no Lutherane as Mr Canne notes in his margine who had promised to set downe his allegations taken from Lutheranes next after the Papists yet here he is brought in with Luther And as he is misplaced in respect of the order which Mr C. propounded to himself so his testimonies both touching excommunication and calling of Ministers are unjustly alledged against us In the first sort of testimonies touching excommunication not to speake of Mr Cannes altering and transposing his Authors words to make them serve his owne purpose Zuinglius reprooves the abuses and enormities of the Pope and his Bishops undertaking by their sole authority to excommunicate those that were none of their Church His words are these (e) Art 31. No private man may excommunicate but the Church wherein he that is to be excommunicated doth dwell together with the Bishop And in the explication of that Article having spoken of other
abuses about excoÌ„munication he saith Can the Bishop alone excoÌ„municate ExcoÌ„munication doth not belong unto any one man whosoever he be but unto the Church By these the like speeches of Zuinglius it appeares that his testimonies are not prejudiciall unto our practise nor unto that authority of Synods which we maintaine seeing we grant that no one person alone can by right excommunicate any man by his owne authority neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate those that are not in communion with them The other place cited out of Zuinglius touching the calling of Ministers is so farre from prooving any thing against us that being duely considered it may fitly serve to blame those popular courses which Mr Can. pleades for and to justify our practise in not performing this weighty businesse without the advise and approbation of neighbour Ministers assembled in the Classis Zuinglius in that treatise called Ecclesiastes having spoken of the Popish tyranny bereaving most Churches of the liberty of election he reprooves another extreme saving (f) Eccles Tom. 2. f. 54. If there were any Church unto which election was yet left free the common people rashly without all deliberation and without all counsell of learned prudent and faithfull men did choose those whom they did most favour not such as were indued with true vertues beseeming a Bishop Therefore there is nothing so agreeable unto the Divine ordinance and ancient institution as that the whole Congregation of a faithfull people together with some learned and godly Bishops or other faithfull and experienced men doe make choyse of a Pastour Thus he plainly disavowes the independency of Churches in such cases not allowing a Congregation to proceed unto the election of a Minister without the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches and to this effect he explaines himself further in the same place saying It is meet that the power of election should be in the Church being furnished with the counsels of faithfull and learned men For as that matter may not lye in the power of any one man so neither may the rude and unlearned multitude take upon them so great a weight of election c. And in the same leafe speaking of Anabaptists intruding themselves into the Churches of their owne accord he proves that they are no lawfull Ministers because they have not a due calling thus Bishops they are not for they are not chosen of any Church by lawfull and unanimous consent the authority of other Bishops excelling in faith and prudence also concurring Observe how that with the free consent of the people he joynes not onely the counsell or advise as he had called it before but the authority of the Officers of other Congregations Moreover that Zuinglius did not absolutely deny the authority of Synods though he speake much against Popish Synods may appeare if we consider the reasons which he useth against them viz. because they were not assembled in the holy Ghost because they did not judge of matters according to the Scriptures but according to the ordinances and customes of men c. Now this is not to dispute against the thing itself but against the abuse of it And therefore having spoken against such Councels of the Pope Cardinals and Bishops in such sort as Mr Canne had alledged him (g) Ch. pl. p. 75. before he addes withall (h) Art 8. expl I speake onely of these that are such my writings shall not hurt others who set themselves under the Scriptures not above the Scriptures And that these conditions for the want whereof he opposed those Popish Synods may yet be found in other Synods which have made decrees for the deciding of controversies raysed in the Church he acknowledgeth in these words (i) Paraenes ad coÌ„mun Helvet civ Tom. 1. f. 116. If the Councill of Gangra were assembled in the holy Ghost which no good man will deny while he sees that the decrees thereof doe agree with the lawes of the Gospell and with the doctrine of the Apostles it was unworthily done of those that came after that have disanulled the decrees thereof without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures Againe in another place speaking of the foure Generall Councels though he justly blame those that accounted them to be of equall authority with the foure Evangelists yet he saith (k) Archeteles T. 1. f. 137. Truely I would not have any thing to be detracted from them He was not therefore of Mr Cannes minde who will have all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be detracted or removed from Synods Besides Zuinglius doth not onely approve of these Synods held in former times but he also shewes himself ready to joyne in the like practise even in the exercise of the same Ecclesiasticall authority that was used in those Synods For when the Magistrates of Zurich had assembled together all the Ministers of the Churches both in their city and countrie and had procured the presence of divers others for the solemne vindicating of the doctrine taught in their Churches there Faber Vicar of the Bishop of Constance having spoken of a Generall Councell that it onely had authority to determine these things Zuinglius replyes (l) Act. Disp 1. Tom. 2. f. â—10 Whereas in this our assembly there be so many right faithfull men both of our owne countrey and strangers and furthermore seeing here be so many godly learned Bishops present who doubtles have a desire not onely to heare and understand but also to advance divine trueth verily I see nothing to hinder even in this place whereby it should not be lawfull for us according to the Vicars meaning to dispute of these things and to decree what trueth teacheth But other nations he sayth will never consent unto these our decrees c. By these and the like (m) Ibid. f. 621. c. passages it is evident that Zuinglius did allow the Ministers of severall Congregations assembled in a Synod not onely to consult and dispute but also to determine yea and to make decrees for the removing of controversies settling peace in the Church while they did it according to the Scriptures which is the same that we maintaine The words of Mr Luther whom he cites in the next place as they are to no purpose alledged against us seeing they touch not the question as I shewed before so being compared with other his writings they make it appeare that these two propositions may well stand together viz. that the Church hath power to judge to call to depose c. and yet that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation but that Synods Councells have authority to judge of Church affaires and to censure offendours forasmuch as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other In the yeare 1518 having understood that they proceeded against him in the Popes Court at Rome and that an unjust sentence was likely to
be pronounced by them (n) Sleid. Comment lib. 1. he appealed from the Pope to a Councell or Synod The compleat forme of his Appeale is recorded (o) Tom. 1. f. 231. edit 1545. among his workes wherein he doth plainly acknowledge the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods both by the whole drift and substance thereof and when he saith that a sacred Councell being lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost representing the holy Catholick Church is in causes concerning the faith above the Pope c. This his Appeale was repeated and further urged in the yeare 1520 when the Pope had condemned and excommunicated him Among other reasons which he useth to reenforce his Appeale he alledgeth this (p) Tom. 2. f. 52. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 2. that the Pope most wickedly preferred his owne tyranny above the power of the Councell c. and therefore he beseecheth the Emperour and other Magistrates that for the glory of God and for the maintaining of the liberty of a Councell they would admit of his Appeale and represse the others tyranny c. In the yeare 1539 he wrote a booke in the German tongue de Conciliis concerning Councels or Synods where though he inveigh severely and not without cause against the Pope for his frustrating the desires of those that sought a Generall Councell admitting of none but where he might sway all by his owne authority and command yet he doth fully approve of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had bene formerly exercised in Synods Councells lawfully assembled and rightly ordered A Councell saith (q) Oper. German Tom. 7. f. 260. edit 1562. he is nothing els but a Consistory a Court of justice an Imperiall Chamber or the like where the Iudge having heard the parties pronounceth sentence but with this condition that it be according to Law c. Thus a Councell condemnes an Heretick not according to their owne opinion but according to the Royall law that is according to the holy Scripture as they professe which is the Law of the holy Church Speaking of the right and power of Councells having shewed (r) Ibid. f. 257. c. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 12. that it is not lawfull for them to make new Articles of faith to command any new work to binde mens consciences to new ceremonies nor to intermeddle with Civill government he declareth withall that it is their duety to condemne new doctrines contrary to the Scriptures and to censure the persons to remove and condemne new ceremonies that are superstitious or unprofitable for the Church and to examine and judge of those things that are controverted as it is prescribed in the word of God Moreover demanding what the office or work of a Councell is he answeâ—s (Å¿) Ubi supra f. 260. Anathematisamus we pronounce Anathema so is their office called Anathematisat Ecclesia the holy Church condemnes or excommunicates So farre was Luther from denying the authority of Synods that he allowes them the power of pronouncing this heavie sentence of Anathema or Excommunication To proceed unto his other witnesses there is nothing in the words alledged out of Chemnitius and Polycarpus Lyserus who is the Authour of that part of the Harmony quoted under the name of Chemnitius that by any just consequence can be opposed unto our doctrine and practise touching election excommunication examination of sentences c. Onely observe how Mr Canne here abuseth his Authour and his Readers by his imperfect allegation setting downe this testimony of Chemnitius in such manner as if that which was sayd with an expresse condition had bene uttered simply and absolutely without any such restraint Chemnitius sayth indeed that election or calling doth belong unto the whole Church but how that Mr Canne leaves out as unfit for his purpose which his Authour addes immediately in the same period saying that it belongs unto the whole Church certo quodam modo in such wise that both the Presbytery and the people have each their owne share in the choyse or calling Chemnitius in that (t) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram Ord. Can. 7. learned discourse touching the calling of Ministers intends principally to prove against the Councell of Trent that the consent of the people and of the Christian Magistrate is requisite in elections but withall he gives as full and plaine testimony for the judgement examination and approbation of the Presbytery under which he comprehends the Ministers of other Congregations called Bishops and Clerkes in the places alledged by him And this kinde of election he shewes to be agreeable unto the practise of the Apostolick primitive ancient and their owne moderne Churches Besides Chemnitius doth sufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods which is our maine question in divers pregnant passages of that book which he wrote against the Councell of Trent He (v) Exam. Conc. Trid par 1. praef alledgeth commendeth the words of Augustine saying that most wholesome is the authority of Councels in the Church while they judge according to the rule and square of the holy Scripture c. He saith (x) Ibid. Exam. Decret 1. 2. that many have often wished and long waited for a true lawfull free and Christian Councell as the right medicine for the curing of those manifold errours and abuses that were crept into the Church He doth frequently alledge and approve the acts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in former Synods throughout that whole booke He saith indeed in one of the places cited by Mr Canne (y) Ibid. praef that the decrees of Councells are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture but this doth no more empaire that authority of Synods which we asscribe unto them then it doth the power of all Church-acts and sentences whatsoever concerning which Chemnitius (z) Exam. par 1. de bon op qu. 2. sayth the same thing and Mr Canne cannot deny but that they are to be examined and tryed by the word of God though they be made in such manner as he himself (a) Ch. pl. p. 95. requireth There is another allegation of Chemnitius touching the distinction betwixt power and the administration of it which Mr Canne hath taken at all adventures as it seemes from Mr Parker or rather from the Scribe or Printer that caused that quotation Exam. c. 6. to stand so defectively (b) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 26. in his booke and as he is thus briefe and obscure in the quotation so he is as sparing in the application of this testimony unto his purpose bidding us onely observe what is attributed to the Congregation what to the guides thereof to the first power to the latter the administration of it For the thing it self we grant that there is such a distinction alledged out of Luther and explained by Chemnitius teaching (c) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram in geÌ„ Can. 10. that Christ hath delivered and commended the Keyes that is the
requireth 1. Cor. 14. Gal. 2. and it is most gravely written unto the Romanes that every one must know the measure of his owne faith Rom. 12. Therefore that tyrannicall speech is to be hissed at which takes away this proportion in the Church and asscribes unto the Pope an unbounded Tyrannie viz. which affirmes that greater is the authority of the Pope then of the whole Councell beside c. In the choyse of judges the best way is to follow that meane betwixt Tyrannie and Democratie namely to choose the best and the learnedest When by the consent of both parties good and learned judges are chosen and matters have bene examined in order it is meet there should be an obeying of their judgment for every one ought to know the measure of his owne faith Thus Melanthon hath fully declared himself in this controversy touching the ground of Synodall government together with the power and use of the same yet for further satisfaction it may be observed how that in another place he applyes that which is here spoken against Democratie or popular order unto that part thereof which Mr Canne so much pleades for concerning election unto Church-offices when he sayth (k) Ibid. f. 442. According to ancient custome the Church did choose that is these to whom the Church hath committed this businesse the judgement and approbation of the Bishop ordaining did also concurre Contrary to divine right and to the ancient Church is that Democratie where the people doe snatch unto themselves the election without the judgement approbation of Pastours By Pastours he meanes doubtles the Ministers of other Congregations seeing he speakes of them in the plurall number and seeing it were unreasonable to thinke that in such cases people should neglect the counsell and consent of the Ministers of their owne Church He doth therefore by this plaine testimony justifye our course in the calling of Ministers by how much we doe not proceed therein without taking along with us the advise and approbation of the Classis that is of the Pastours of neighbour Churches Forasmuch as we may easily discerne from that which hath bene hitherto sayd in this Section what the judgement of the chiefe of the Lutheranes is in this controversy and what small credit is to be given unto Mr Cannes allegations and affirmations touching the consent of others with him in these matters of difference betwixt us it may suffice to have examined the testimonies of these Authors whose words he hath set downe and for the rest to judge of them according to the profession of their esteeme of those already mentioned which are of chiefe note among them and according to the publick Confessions of their Churches of which we are to speak (l) Sect. 7. hereafter as also according to their generall practise Concerning this it is testifyed by some of them here named not to speak of other evidences that they are so farre from including all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Church that their Churches are governed by Ecclesiasticall Senates or Consistories as they call them which are gathered out of three rankes of persons Poluticall Ecclesiasticall and Popular or Oeconomicall that these Ecclesiasticall Consistories are appointed and directed by the authority of the chief Magistrate that by these the Magistratâ— doth exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and call Ministers that the election of a Bishop or Superintendent which of old was performed by all the Bishops of the Province in which a new Bishop was to be chosen is now in well ordered Churches rightly performed in the Consistorie where some principall Divines together with Politicall men doe choose a Superintendent who is confirmed by the assent and approbation of the chiefe Magistrate These are the assertions of Mylius Rungius Osiander and others as they are cited and approved by (m) Dise Theol. de Potest Ecc. th 7.10.17.18 arg 10. c. Vestringius one of the same profession Though these Authors doe not accord with us in divers of the foresaid expressions yet Mr Canne had lesse cause to boast of their consent with him seeing they agree in this that their particular Churches are not independent bodies but stand under Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves holding that their Churches in this respect are well ordered What trueth is there then in Mr Cannes words when speaking of these men he saith they consent with us fully As for his jesting at the particular Churches such as all the Reformed Churches are in giving them a title of noun-adjectives that cannot stand without Classes and Synods it may be demanded of him whether among all the Orthodoxe Churches in Europe at this day there was ever heard of such a staggering noun-substantive rent with so many scandalous Schismes as is that Anti-Synodall Church of the Separation whereof Mr Canne calles himself the Pastour Let those that are wise consider of it SECT III. Touching the Testimonies of Calvinists THus Mr C. and W.B. doe though as they say for distinction sake yet unjustly call those Authours whom here they alledge as if there were no other fit and convenient speech to describe Godly and learned Ministers of whom I spake but the name of Calvinists Though it be lawfull to denominate men of their errours and Schismes wherein they stand against the Churches of God and to call such Sectaries by names taken from them that have bene their chief ringleaders as the Brownists of Browne and the Nicolaitans of Nicholas Rev. 2.15 yet is there no warrant so to stile those whom we doe not charge with the like errours and offences Mr Canne (a) Chu pl. p. 81. after an idle and impertinent declaration of his owne surmise and imagination that these Authors as he is perswaded doe not teach the doctrine maintained by me and after an unjust imputation which he implyes as if I should say that the whole Church Officers and brethren wants authority to performe in and for it self all Church-services he comes to name his Authors and alledges the words of foure of them and telles that the rest doe agree with them His Authors are these P. Martyr Iunius Musculus Viret Bullinger Danaeus Gualter Sybrandus D. Mornaeus Morell Tilenus Bastingius Vrsinus Piscator Calvine Paraeus Keckerman Hemmingius Tossanus Polanus Hyperius Praedirius Munster Oecolompadius Beza Bucer Having cited these witnesses to appeare for him he then beginnes to insult and glory saying (b) Chu pl. p. 83. And now Mr Paget what thinke you of these men were they not learned and godly Ministers Reverend and judicious Divines Are they not authentick witnesses If you confesse it then marke what followes viz. your position that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves is hence condemned by a jurie of more then 24 men of your owne choosing for an errour and untruth The reason is because these affirme I say all of them that every particular Eldership with the Churches consent may
Virell neither of them can be justly alledged for his witnesses in this cause For Viret he is (k) Beza in vita Calv. Calv. Epist 25 39.54 .c recorded to have bene a speciall assistant unto Calvine in the work of the Lord for the settling of that forme of Discipline by which the power of an Ecclesiasticall Judicatorie over divers particular Congregations was established at Geneva That weed of Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods as Mr Canne here (l) Ch. pl. p. 94. calles it was planted by the hand of Viret as well as of Calvine And then what reason is there to judge but that Viret did esteeme it a plant of the heavenly Father not to be rooted out of the gardē of his Church seeing he joyned with him in that work For Virell he writes touching the outward calling of Ministers in the (m) Groūds of Relig. b. 3. c. 1. p. 2. 7 708 edit 12. place alledged that it is the lawfull choyse of a visible Church met together in the name of Christ that there be three things required thereunto first that there be a search and tryall both of the conversation and learning of him that is to be chosen c. Another is this that men come not to it by any corruptiō of gifts but that it be free so as they that have the power to chose should have onely the glory of God and the edification of his Church before their eyes Thirdly that he which is chosen have a Church appointed unto him for the execution of his office whose duety it is to looke unto it diligently carefully And more then this he saith not that can with any colour be thought to looke towards this cōtroversy And in all this what one word hath he against the authority of Synods Nay it is the work of Classes and Synods to see that all things here required be accordingly performed in particular Churches and if any of these be omitted to correct and reforme the same Bullinger next alledged though he say that the Church hath power to elect ordaine fit Ministers yet he was not of Mr Cannes minde to thinke that the Church looseth her right and is bereaved of her due power when it is not exercised by herself alone or in that popular way which he requireth for even in the place (n) Decad. 5. Ser. 4. which Mr Canne hath cited he saith It skilleth not much whether fit Ministers be ordained by grave men chosen by the Church or by the whole Church itself and that either by votes or by lots or in any other convenient and holy manner For godlinesse doth not contend about these things so that all be done holily and according to order And afterwards againe he speakes to the same purpose It is well knowne that true Churches have the right of ordaining Pastours whether it be done by the votes of the whole Church or by the lawfull judgement of them that be chosen by the Church It appeares by these the following words that he alludes unto the practise of the Helvetian Churches concerning which we are to make further mention (o) Sect. 7. hereafter when we come to speak of their Confession Touching the Ecclesiasticall power of Synods Bullinger declares his judgement also in this same booke when (p) Decad. 5. Ser. 1. speaking of the power of the Church in judging of doctrines he gives instance in the gathering of a Synod which saith he the Church of God doth according to the power receyved from the Lord even as we read in the Actes of the Apostles that the Apostles of the Lord have done c. Againe he (q) Decad. 5. Serm. 10. cites and approves the decree of Justinian the Emperour for the yearely celebrating of Synods where matters arising might be examined and by due correction healed He urgeth this decree against the Bishops and warnes the Magistrates to take heed they doe not connive at the others negligence to the destruction of the whole Church and of all the Ministers of Christ. Behold here the difference betwixt Bullinger and Mr Canne that which the one holds to be the soveraigne remedy to preserve the safety of Churches of the ministery the other rejects as an unprofitable weed and that which tends to the undoing and (r) Ch. pl. p. 74. spoyling of Churches Danaeus his testimony is likewise unjustly alledged against us seeing he speakes not in the palce mentioned of the point in controversy betwixt us viz. the authority of Classes Synods or the totall excluding of the same in those things which belong unto elections Onely he doth there (ſ) In. 1. Tim. 5.22 reproove the grosse errour of those that in regard of such popular circumstances as Mr Canne seemes most to plead for doe bring as he saith a very great confusion into the Church by asscribing unto the people more then is due unto them while he shewes that the electing and presenting of the person that is to be called unto any Ecclesiasticall office whereby he understands the first taking notice of him the examining of his life doctrine and the publishing or propounding of him unto the whole Church that this belongs unto the Presbytery and that the approving and accepting of the person so examined and propounded doth belong unto the people they also having a convenient time allowed unto them that if there be just cause they may testify their dislike and bring in their exceptions against him This is the course there described and maintained by Danaeus and the same with that which is practised in our Church And thus the Witnesses produced against us doe still declare their consent with us As for the authority of Synods and the divine right by which it is due unto them Danaeus gives his verdict when in the exposition of the fourth commandement having spoken of the jurisdiction and power of the Church he saith (r) Ethic. Christ Lib. 2. cap. 10. Here comes in the Question concerning Synods which if they be right and keep themselves within their owne bounds their authority is ordained by this Commandement Gualter in the (v) Homil. in Act. 13.2 first place alledged having spoken of the due suffrages or voices of the Church in elections to prevent such a construction as Mr Canne seemes to make of his words addes presently This place doth clearly teach that some parts are committed to the Church in this businesse And againe he saith there that the election of Ministers doth in some part belong to the Church c. He doth not therefore exclude that part which herein we asscribe unto the Classis by proceeding with their advise and consent In the other (x) Ibid. in cap. 14.23 place for Mr Cannes marginall quotation 13.22 seemes to be misprinted he saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood not onely the gathering of voices but also imposition of hands and in his opinion the latter acception
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
on 1. Cor. 5.5 doth thus interpret the words Let such a one be delivered to Satan to wit by the Church or by the Pastours and Elders of the Church which are the mouth of the Church For by these the Church speaketh and dealeth Without this order there would be confusion if in a publick action every one might speake and deale which undoubtedly the Apostle would not bring in This we grant and it is not against us but against the confused practise of the Brownists But for the poynt in hand that Classes and Synods have power to judge of the actions of particular Congregations Paraeus is a plaine witnesse for us in (d) Colleg. Theol. Decur Coll. 9. Disp 8. Auccar 1. Co. 10. Disp 22. th 1-10 Disp 24. th 9. other of his writings And againe speaking of a lawfull Synod and the authority thereof in deciding of controversies in the Church he saith that therein (e) Eirenic cap. 5. men renowmed in regard of their learning understanding and piety whether they be of the Laity or Clergy have not onely a voice of delibertion and counsell but also of judgement and power of defining And hereunto accordes his (f) Act. Sym. Nar. Dordr Ses 98. Epistle written unto the Nationall Synod holden last at Dort wherein excusing his absence that he could not come in respect of his age as he much desired yet he shewes his approbation of such a meeting as being the ordinary medicine for healing the wounds of the Church and rejoyceth greatly in the spirit for the benefit exspected from that Synod which judged censured the errours of particular men in divers Churches What reason then had Mr Canne thus to abuse the words of Paraeus against his meaning and publick profession Keckerman also agreeth with the former witnesses touching the poynt in controversy For in the book alledged by Mr Canne when as the parts of the government of the Church are there described he shewes that (g) System Theo. l. 3. c. 6. p. 401.402 the convocation of Synods belongeth unto Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and is contained under the same Hemmingius though more sound and moderate then other Lutheranes yet being a disciple and follower of Melancthon there was no reason why he should not have bene joyned with his Master in the foregoing ranke of Testimonies if Mr Canne had either knowne his Authour or regarded the order which he had set downe to himself But for his judgement touching the jurisdiction of Synods he hath witnessed his consent with the Writers mentioned both in this the former Section and testifyed against Mr Canne in this cause For speaking of that part of Ecclesiasticall Discipline unto which he referres the deposition and excommunication of Ministers he commends the order of the ancient Church where he saith (h) Enchir. Theo. Clas 3. c. 11. the execution of this discipline was chiefly committed to the Bishops who therefore sometimes twise sometimes oftner in the yeare called Provinciall Synods where the matter was handled not by the censure of one Bishop but by the sentence of the whole Clergy assembled Tossanus mentioned in the next place hath plainely declared himself to be of the same minde with us in allowing Synodall and Classicall assemblies to judge determine the causes of particular Churches and persons He (i) Pastor Evang. p. 61 edit 1603. maintaines against Thyraeus that which he had formerly written in these words In controversies of religion we appeale from Luther and from the censures and judgements of private men unto the judgement of the Catholick Church and of a Synod He proves this to be sound and orthodoxe from the Apostles referring the decision of the controversie concerning Iustification and the Ceremonies of the Law unto the Councell at Ierusalem Act. 15. Speaking of somewhat that was wanting in most of the German Churches about the ordaining of Ministers he saith that (k) P. 40. godly Pastours and Overseers doe dayly bewaile the scarsitie of faithfull labourers and that the Presbyteries and well ordered Ecclesiasticall Senates doe indeavour that both in Synods and yearely visitations and in Classicall meetings the failings of Ministers may be amended according to their power In which words he hath reference unto the practise of the Churches in the Palatinate concerning which we are to speake (l) Sect. 7. hereafter where he joyned with them in the exercise of the sayd government being (m) D. Toss Vita p. 38. at Neustadt a moderator of the Ecclesiasticall counsels of the Consistory and sometime also President of a Synod and afterwards at Heidelberg (n) Ib. P. 44. a member of the Ecclesiasticall Senate How unjustly therefore untruely hath Mr Canne dealt with Tossanus and his readers in reckoning him among those who as he saith (o) Ch. pl. p. 83. have condemned for an errour untrueth that position touching particular Congregations standing under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves As for Polanus to grant Mr Canne that he was of the same minde with the former Authours touching the Churches power in excommunicating though so much can hardly be manifested out of the (p) Synt. Theol. l. 7. c. 18. place alledged yet what is that to our question The Churches power in excommuncating doth not exclude the authority of Synods in judging of a particular Congregation Polanus speaking of Synods expressely confesseth that (q) Ib. c. 14 the liberty or power of those Ecclesiasticall assemblies is a right given of God unto his Church c. that An Ecclesiasticall Synod is a publick assemblie of godly men lawfully sent and gathered together from divers Churches also of divers Provinces that they may handle and determine according to the power that is granted unto them of God touching holy affaires c. He alledgeth sundry Scriptures and examples of the Ancient Churches for declaration hereof And againe in the same place he notes it for a condition of a lawfull Synod that those which are chosen and deputed of the Churches may have a deliberative or consulting and also a deciding voyce or giving of sentence c. When he requires another condition of a lawfull Synod that every one may have free accesse and recesse yet he addes this withall that whosoever is convicted of heresy or any crime and remaineth obstinate should undergoe Ecclesiasticall censure that is deposition from his Ecclesiasticall office or Suspension or Excommunication And to like purpose he writes in (r) Ib. c. 16. Syllo Thes Theol. par 1 de Concil other places This being the judgement of Polanus touching the authority of Synods how uncircumspect was W. Best his abettour to call for a Iurie of such Divines as have given such pregnant sentence and so peremptory verdict against them Hyperius next alledged though he deny not the power of particular Congregations yet in his writings it is evident that he holdes the power of Synods consisting of the Deputies of many Churches to be a
superiour power above one particular Church and that they may judge of the affaires thereof and of the persons therein either Ministers or people This he declares at large in a peculiar treatise touching yearely Synods (f) DeSyno Annuis Opusc Theol. p. 768-870 Bas 1570. wherein after he had shewed the necessity and use of Synods by many divine and humane testimonies he then describes their power not for counsell onely as the Brownists and my opposites doe but for the exercise of all kinde of Ecclesiasticall censures as Rebukes of offenders Suspension Excommunication and Deposition or deportment of Officers from their ministery Of all the men of the Iurie before mentioned there is none that gives a more full and cleare verdict against Mr Canne then this Hyperius doth Oecolompadius another of his Authors hath declared his judgement touching Synods and the authority exercised in them to be such as argues his thstimony alledged by Mr Canne to be perverted while it is produced against the same For in his answer to Luther inserted among the workes of Zuinglius (t) Tom. 2. fol. 491. he doth highly commend the Councell of Nice and specially for decreeing that none should afterwards attempt to adde any new articles unto that Confessiō of faith which they had set downe Which Nestorius being found guilty of Oecolompadius approves of that Act of the Councell of Ephesus whereby he was excommunicated saying For which cause being condemned of the crime of heresie he was by common consent shut out of the Church which was sensible of peace restored unto her by this meanes Hereby it appeareth that the acknowledged Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō censure to be a power due unto Synods and that which may lawfully be exercised by them Beza next alledged upon 2. Thes 3.14 though he there call Excommunication an Ecclesiasticall judgement yet doth he not thereby infringe the authority of Classes and Synods neither can any such thing by any just consequence be gathered from his Annotations on that place But on the other side he shewes (v) Epist 83. De Ministr gradib c. 23 p. 155. c. 24. p. 176. 177. elswhere that Synods have their Ecclesiasticall judgements grounded upon the word of God and a profitable use in the Church of God and that the fanaticall opinion of Morellius much like unto the Brownists hath bene worthily condemned in many Synods And according to his writing so was his practise both at Geneva where he was one of them that had their voyce in the government of that Church by a joynt Presbytery or Classis and in France where he himself was President of that famous (x) Harmo Confes p. 112. edit 1612. Synod at Rochell where the Confession of their faith was subscribed by divers Princes and many Ministers and Elders assembled together And therefore if Mr Canne and W. Best their accusation of me were sound and just they might as well complaine of Beza for bringing the Churches of God into miserable slavery and bondage by his tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine Bucer last alledged accordes with the foregoing Authors and his words in commendation of Synods may serve to close up this kinde of Testimonies being an advise unto King Edward the Sixt for the constant celebrating of them In his Admonition given to the King for the restitution of the Kingdome of Christ in his dominions amidst other wholesome counsels out of the word of God he saith (y) De Regno Christi Lib. 2. c. 12. It shall be the duety of the Bishops of each Province to celebrate two Synods every yeare as it is ordained by so many Canons and Lawes of godly Emperours At which Synods must be assembled and heard not onely the Bishops of the Cities but also inferiour Bishops and other Presbyters and Deacons that are endued with a larger measure of knowledge and zeale for the kingdome of Christ that so the more effectually both the faults crept into the Church may becorrected and the pietie of all repaired He had also spoken before of other inferiour and more frequent assemblies like unto our Classes requiring that all the Ministers within the compasse of about 20 Parishes should often meet together for their mutuall assistance in removing offences advancing the kingdome of Christ Touching Synods he speakes also in (z) De vi usu S. Min. tit de Disci Cler. Opuse f. 582. another place to the same purpose approving the ancient constitution whereby it was ordained that the Bishops of every Province should assemble together with the Presbyters and Deacons as often as the need of the Churches should require but without faile twise in the yeare that they might inquire concerning the doctrine and discipline of Christ how it were administred and did flourish in severall Churches that where any default was discovered they might correct it and where they found things in good state they might confirme and promote the same By that correction spoken of here and in the former testimonie he understands not onely counsell and admonition but the judiciall exercise of authority in Ecclesiasticall censures For he doth plainly distinguish betwixt admonition and correction when in the following words concerning Metropolitanes he saith If any thing were done amisse by the Ministers of the Churches or by the common people which by their admonitions they could not amend that then for the correcting of it they should call a Synod of Bishops for there was no power of judgement allowed unto them which by their owne authority they might exercise in the Churches c. Thus Bucerus also as well as the former hath condemned Mr Cannes position viz. that particular Congregations must not stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves And these are all the Authors here alledged by Mr Canne except onely Morell Praedirius and Munster either not seen at all nor to be procured for the present as the two former or not seen to touch this controversie in the writings at hand as the latter Having now heard what these chosen men of the Iurie all nominated by W. B. his Advocate have testifyed concerning Classes or Synods let the Reader judge whether they have given verdict for or against Synods whether every one of these Authors alledged had not just cause if they were living to complaine of great abuse done to them in perverting their testimonies and making false consequences from their words contrary to their meaning And forasmuch as all these witnesses here examined are so farre from testifying ought against us that they have on the other side witnessed the trueth of that which we maintained against Mr Canne hence it is evident that I had just cause to say that which he would seeme to disprove by alledging these Authors against me viz. that there were a multitude of learned and godly Ministers of the same judgement and practise with me For further proofe whereof it were easy if need were to produce another Iurie of approved
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
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
to choose a Bishop which being sent thither as an Embassadour in the Embassage of God it might be granted unto them to glorify God in their meeting together He speakes there not of choosing a Bishop to minister in their owne Church but of choosing one to be their Deputy to travell unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for settling of order in that Church And in the same place to moove them the more he sheweth what was the practise of the Primitive Churches in such cases viz. that alwayes the neighbour Churches did send Bishops and some of them Elders and Deacons Againe writing upon the same occasion unto Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna he saith (e) Epist ad Polyc. p. 97 98. It was meet to gather a Synod comely in the Lord and choose some dearly beloved and diligent person which might be called Theodromos or one that should runne for God who might travell into Syria and thereby celebrate their diligent love to the praise of God And using many arguments to commend that businesse unto him as the work of God he intreateth Polycarpus that he would write unto other Churches that they would doe the same thing that they which were able would send men to travell on foot that others would send their letters to be conveyed by such as Polycarpus should send thither From these testimonies of Ignatius Mr Parker (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. p. 356. concludes that in those times according to the practise of the Reformed Churches with us neighbour Churches were combined together as it were Classically for the mutuall communication of offices And whereas D. Bilson (g) Perpet Gov. c. 7. confesseth that it was the manner of that time if any Church was tossed with waves of discord that neighbour Churches round about did send a Bishop Elder or Deacon for appeasing that tempest Mr Parker inferres justly thereupon If neighbour Churches had right or authority in compounding of strifes why not also in moderating of elections His conclusion in the same place is Let this very right in compounding strife be a sufficient authorization for our Classes Thus then it is apparant that Ignatius was not directly with Mr Canne as he boasteth but his meaning hath bene manifestly perverted contrary to his words Tertullian that is next alledged though misalledged c. 29. being put for c. 39. relating the manner of Christian assemblies in his time saith in effect (h) Apol. c. 39. They came together into the Congregation it is not sayd into one Congregation as Mr C. alledgeth it for to pray unto God for to rehearse the Divine Scriptures and with holy words yo nourish faith stirre up hope and fasten confidence And they used exhortations reproofes and divine Censure I answer I. Though particular Churches met together for such end this hinders not but that the Deputies of those same Churches might meet together in Synods for their mutuall assistance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult causes It followes not because severall Congregations have their due power that therefore the power of Classes is an undue power II. that Tertullian himself intended no such thing it appeares evidently by the great approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods in saying (i) De Jejunüs advers Psychi c. 13 The appoynted Synods are kept through the countries of Graecia in certaine places out of all the Churches whereby both the deeper or more difficult matters are handled in common by that representation of the whole Christian flock they are celebrated with great reverence He alledgeth the words of Origen writing much to the same purpose (k) In Jos Hom. 7. Such as were brought in the third place for sinne unto the Congregation if they stood obstinate by the judgement of the whole Church were excommunication from the body the Elders of the Church pronouncing the sentence And then in his owne words he sayth (l) Ch. pl. p. 90. Observe here he saith not that the matter was caried to a Classis and there first determined c. but names onely the Congregation and Elders thereof notwithstanding had there bene any such superiour judicatorie Assembly it is likely he would have omitted it and mentioned a subordinate and inferiour one ANSVV. I. The words which they alledge in another letter in Origens name as if they had bene his speech verbatim described are not his words He neither speakes of men brought unto the Church nor of the judgment of the Church nor of Elders pronouncing the sentence he shewes how all the people might be polluted by the sinne of one man when the Briefts which rule the people being unmindefull of priestly severity doe not rebuke nor take away evill from them nor make him as a Publicane and Heathen which hath despised the admonition of the Church but not in such words and forme of speech as Mr Canne faineth II. All that Origen there speakes is not repugnant to Classicall government all that he there requireth is dayly performed by the Churches among us which stand under the government of Classes and Synods Obstinate offenders having their names and offences divers times published before the whole Congregation are with the consent thereof excommunicated by the judgement of the Eldership going before III. If Origen in his writings had expressely denyed the authority of Synods it had bene of no great weight against the generall judgement of other ancient Fathers the rather seeing his writings are rejected and condemned by so many especially by Epiphanius and Hieronie the Authours hereafter alledged by Mr Canne And see how vaine many of his glosses were even touching this poynt Speaking of the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Mat. 16. he there telles us of many keyes to open severall gates in heaven◠that (m) Orig in Mat. 16. Tempérance is one key to open the Gate of Temperance in heaven that Iustice is another key to open another Gate and so for all other vertues And afterwards expounding the promise made Matt. 18.18 touching binding and loosing in heaven comparing it with the promise made unto Peter Mat. 16.19 because a word of the plurall number is used in the promise to Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelis and to others a word of the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelo Origen from thence (n) Idem in Mat. 18. teacheth us this Doctrine that Peter did binde and loose in all heavens whereas some others did but binde and loose in one heaven And therefore he concludeth Look how much better he is that bindeth by so much is he that is bound bound in more then one heaven and by how much better he is that looseth by so much the more blessed is he that is loosed because he is loosed in all the heavens Such are many of the interpretations of Origen IV. As Mr Canne misalledgeth Origen to impugne the authority of Classes and Synods so other more learned judicious Writers alledge him
on the contrary for proof thereof D. Whitaker to vindicate the authority of Synods against the Papists and to prove their power above the Pope argueth (o) De CoÌ„c qu. 5. p. 183. from the greater assistance of the Holy Ghost and of Christ governing his Church to wit in Synods and for declaration hereof brings the testimony of Origen noting upon Rom. 15. that it is sayd to none of the Apostles singularly and to none of the faithfull I will be with thee but unto a multitude of Churches plurally I will be wish you And Mr Parker (p) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 12. p. 89 90. from him repeateth againe the same Argument taken from the testimony of Origen And besides this it is noted by the (q) Cent. 3. c. 9. Magdeburgenses how Origen himself was employed in divers Synods in Arabia for the conviction of sundry heresies Cyprian is in like manner perverted for when as he r Lib. 3. Epist 14. 10. reprooving those Elders that without consent either of the people or of their Pastour had rashly receaved unto the Communion againe such as were fallen and become Apostates before their due confession of fault doth shew that such things ought not to be concluded without common consent of the Church and confesseth also that Å¿ L. 1. ep 4 the people chiefly have power to choose worthy Ministers and to refuse unworthy ones this we also assent unto while that power is used aright But in the same place he gives a cleare testimony for the warrant of Synods in deciding of weightier causes when in that Synodall Epistle written by Cyprian Caecilius Primus Polycarpus and many others in the name of the Synod then assembled together it is sayd that t Art 6 7. it is to be observed and held by divine Ordinance and Apostolicall observation which is also kept among us and almost through all the Provinces that for the right performing of ordination all the next Bishops of that Province are to assemble together unto that people to which an Overseer is ordained c. And of this practise he there gives an instance in the ordination of Sabriâ—â— and in the deposition of Basilides and shewes the reason thereof that by the suffrages of the whole bâ—â—therhood and by the judgement of those Bishops which were presently assembled together the office of a Bishop might be conferred upon him and that hands might belayd upon him instead of Basilides And besides this we finde there many v Cypt. L. 1. ep 2. 5 Firmil ad Cyp. Ep. 75. p. 236. other pregnant evidences of the use necessity and authority of Synods in those times From thence S. Goâ—â—â—â—tius in his answers to Paâ—dius his annotations on Cyprian doth x P. 243. ad annot 14 confirme the liberty of Churches in maintayning yearely their Provinciall Synods c. From thence also Mr Parker confirmes the use of Classicall government in these Reformed Churches and concludes y Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. de Classib p. 356 357. Why doe I spend time There is nothing more evident to him that is acquainted with the ancient monuments of history then that neighbours even besides the Synod did eftsoone meet together for deciding of strifes for ordinations for dissolving of doubts and in summe for every meighty businesse Of which assemblies the Epistles of Cyprian are full And these assemblies what are they els but Classicall assemblies And againe in the same place Hereof we have examples every where in the Epistles of Cyprian A little after Who sees not here the lively portraiture of our Classes And Oh how doth the Hierarchy offend which hath banished this most pleasant combination of Classes Hereby the Reader may judge whether it be not an absurd and senseles boasting of Mr Canne who oppugning this Classicall government is not ashamed to say of Cyprians testimony in these Epistles What can be more full and absolute to our purpose then this With what judgment doth this man read the writings of the Fathers It is sayd in the a Ch. pl. p. 90. next place Eusebius testifyeth that the Churches of the most famous Cities were in their constitution first but one ordinary constant Congregation as Jerusalem b Eus l. 3.11 Ephesus c L. 3.28 Alexandria d 3.13 Hierapolis e 4.1 Corinth f 3.32 Sardis g 4.22 c. This being so then it followes that primitively they were independent and stood not under any other Ecclestasticall authority out of themselves In the allegation of these testimonies out of Eusebius there be divers mistakings and faylings of memory or attention Hierapolis with reference to L. 4.1 where it is not mentioned but in L. 3.32 Corinth with reference to L. 3.32 where it is not found but after in L. 4.22 Sardis alledged with reference to L. 4.22 where there is no mention at all thereof but there is such a mention of Athens as is intended for Sardis These slips of memory are to be noted for help of the Reader that would examine the places but may well be excused in such a number of quotations To leave them and to come unto the great abuses here to be observed I. In all the places here alledged Eusebius doth not testify that the Churches of these Cities were in their constitution first but one ordinary constant Congregation he hath no such words He gives unto them the name and title of a Parish but it is not proved that in every Parish there was but one ordinary constant Congregation Whether they were so or not this title of Parish proves is not II. The consequence made from hence is more evidently false for to admit these Churches were at the first but one ordinary constant Congregation yet doth it not at all follow that therefore primitively they were independent and stood not under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Both our English Church here and generally other Reformed Churches in these countries were in their first constitution and for the most part still are but one ordinary Congregation and yet from the first stood under the Ecclesiasticall authority of Classes and Synods in which they were combined III. Suppose some of the Churches either in Eusebius time or in later times did not at their first constitution stand under the authority of Synods when Churches being so few and so farre distant they wanted opportunity of combining themselves together for their mutuall assistance this hinders not but that upon the encrease of neighbour Churches they might afterwards submit themselves unto this order IV. That the Primitive Churches whereof Eusebius writes in his history did stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves and were subject unto their censures he makes it evident by sundry instances He h Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 14. records how the errour of Montanus was judged and condemned by many Synods in Asia how i L. 6. c. 42. Novatus and the
Catharists were excommunicated by a Synod holden at Rome consisting of 60 Bishops with many Elders and Deacons how k L. 7. c. 29. Paulus Samosatenus was deposed and excommunicated by a Synod holden at Antioch He declares l De vita Const l. 3. c. 6 7 c. at large and celebrates the piety of Constantine the great friend maintainer of Christian religion for assembling the Nicene Synod wherein Arius was condemned And in like manner he shewes the m Ibid. l. 1. c. 44. impiety of the Emperour Licinius the enemy of God who by a mischievous devise sought to ruinate the Churches of God by depriving them of their liberty in meeting together in Synods for deciding of their controversies So expressely and clearely doth Eusebius give testimony unto Synods That which is collected out of Athanasius viz. that elections excommunications c. according to the Apostles precept ought to be done in the publick Congregation by the Ministers they taking first the peoples voyce or consent is such as I doe willingly assent unto Neither was there ever any election either of Minister Elder or Deacon nor any excommunicatiō of any offender among us but that the matter was first solemnely communicated with the Church and declared severall times in the publick Congregation the consent of the people required obtained before any such act was confirmed finished among us But what is this to the purpose Athanasius notwithstanding this doth witnesse unto us that the causes and controversies of particular Churches were in his time submitted to the censure of other Churches and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves This Athanasius shewes in these very places here alledged against me And in the first of them having n Tom. 1. Epist ad ubiq Orthodoxos made a lamentable narration of the miseries procured to the Church of Alexandria by the intrusion and cruelty of an Arian Bishop he then most vehemently supplicates unto those that were members of the same body with them in other Churches that as the former yeare their brethren at Rome were willing to have called a Synod but that they were hindred so they having greater occasion to vindicate the Church of God from new evills would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their suffrages condemne and reject the Authors of such mischiefes And more plainely in the 2d place he declares o Epist ad Solit. vitam agentes at length that in the Synod holden at Sardica where Hosius was President and whither the accusers of Athanasius were cited the cause being heard the Synod did not onely advise and counsell what was meet to be done but did give sentence touching the matters of controversy absolved Athanasius and deposed the Bishops that were found guilty such as Stephanus Menophantus Acacius Georgius Vrsacius Valens Theodorus Narcissus As for the third allegation Epist cont Nicae c. 9. Ecc. Hist it seemes to be misquoted I finde no such Title in all the works of Athanasius Instead thereof therefore let us see another testimonie of his wherein he teacheth what the government of the Church was in those times namely ruled by authoritie of Synods where the weightier causes were judged decided Of this he p Tom. 2. Epist ad Rusinian gives instances in the Synods of Alexandria Greece and Spaine where Euzoius Eudoxius and such principall offenders were deposed from their offices and other upon their repentance retained And the like Ecclesiasticall authority is in many other places throughout his writings by him commended unto us Let us heare how Mr C. proceeds I. C. To these we will adde Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose Cyrill Hillarie and Greg. Nazianzen writers in noe age Touching Ecclesiasticall Government these to this purpose speake Particular Churches may lawfully ordaine their owne Bishops without other Presbyters assisting them Epiph. cont Haer. 73. and among themselves excommunicate offenders Id. l. 1. Haeres 30. Tom. 2. Haer. 5. ANSVV. I. Here be three places at once misalledged In the two latter viz. Haer. 30. and Haer. 5. there is nothing at all spoken touching this poynt In the first of them viz. Haer. 73. he doth but catch at a shadow and pervert the words of Epiphanius and falsify them by changing some and adding other and omitting other that might give light unto the question His words upon occasion of Meletius his confession and suffering for the trueth are these There are many people of this order of this Synod which setting Bishops over themselves doe make a marvellous confession touching the faith doe not reject the word Coessentiall Yea and say they are ready if there were a perfect Synod to confesse not to deny it Here is no mention of particular Churches or Congregations nor of lawfully ordayning nor of doing this without other Presbyters assisting them But that which is recorded touching the acknowledgement of a lawfull or perfect Synod that is omitted Thus he varyeth from the Latine translation of Epiphanius the Originall Greek in divers Copies is further from the matter having this beside other differences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which made themselves to be Bishops instead of lawfully ordaining their owne Bishops Such are the Allegations of Mr Canne II. Suppose the words Epiphanius had bene the same that Mr C. relates yet had not the authority of Synods bene any thing diminished thereby Is it not the common and ordinary practise in these Reformed Churches that where two or more Ministers are in one Congregation there the newly elected Ministers are ordained and confirmed without any other Presbyters from other Churches to assist them Yet this is no good argument to prove they want Classes and Synods And though also they doe among themselves excommunicate offenders yet this hinders not but that Classes or Synods may exercise their authority in judging or censuring such as have unjustly excommunicated any or proceeded contrary to their advise therein III. That Epiphanius did approve the authority and jurisdiction of Synods it is manifest by his practise It is q Socrat. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 9. recorded of him that he being Bishop of Salamis or Constantia in Cyprus procured a Synod to be called in that Iland wherein the bookes of Origen were condemned a decree made that none should read his bookes IV. Epiphanius did not onely approve the lawfull authority of Synods but he went further and did maintaine the unlawfull authoritie of particular persons over divers Churches This appeareth in his r Epiph. Haer. 75. condemning of Aërius of heresie that held Bishops Presbyters to be the same by divine institution whom D. Whitaker ſ De Pont. Rom. q. 1. p. 104 105 106. doth justly defend against Bellarmine and others and shewes that Hierome and other ancient Fathers were of the same minde with Aërius therein and sayth that we are not to regard the absurd men that doe so often object Aërius unto us he sayth Epiphanius doth foolishly and childishly
the authority of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes it appeareth both by the praise which he (h) Basil Magn. Epi. 60. 78. gives unto the Nicene Synod that for the censuring of Hereticks which was an act of jurisdiction and not of admonition or counsell onely and againe in that he complaineth unto his great friend Nazianzen touching the intermission of Synodall assemblies and saith (i) Ep. 33. If we had yearely met oftner together both according to the ancient Canons and according to that care and solicitude which we owe unto the Churches certainely we had never opened a doore unto slanderers And againe writing unto Athanasius touching such meetings he calleth them (k) Eâ— 48. the way of help for troubled Churches Thus also doe the Centurists (l) Cent. 4. c. 7. col 522 understand him and alledge his testimony to shew the consociation of many Churches in Synods in that age The Author next objected is also misalledged The letter of reference in the line leades us unto a book in the margine which was not written by Socrates and what place he therefore intends in Socrates he must tell us another time In the meane time let it be remembred that this Ecclesiasticall Historiographer doth plainely and plentifully record against my opposites that the causes and controversies arising in particular Churches were judged by another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves to wit by the authority of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in Synods This he shewes in the (m) Hist Ecc. l. 1. c. 5 condemnation of Arius by the Councell of Nice in the (n) L. 2. c. 24. deprivation of Photinus by the Synod of Siâ—mium in the (o) L. 7. c. 33. deposition of Nestorius by the Councell held at Ephesus and in many other the like instances If happily he intended those places misapplyed unto Basil in the former quotation he is not thereby excused seeing in the first place viz. l. 4. c. 14. there is nothing at all spoken of this matter and in the two latter viz. l. 6. 2. 7. 35. Socrates againe declares the authority of Synods in those times Isidorus it seemes must owne the quotation Lib. de Offic. which by the marginall note is assigned to Socrates he having written two bookes concerning Ecclesiasticall Offices These Mr Canne cites at large without specifying either book or chapter But in those bookes of Isidorus as there be many things which Mr C. would not be bound to approve so there is nothing that with any shew of reason can be applyed against the authority of Classes and Synods On the contrary we may justly inferre that he did not there restraine all Ecclesiasticall power unto a particular Congregation as from many other so especially from these his words (p) De Offi. Ecc. l. 2. c. 6 Moreover that a Bishop is not ordained of one but of all the Bishops of the Provinces this is acknowledged to be appointed because of heresies lest by the tyrannicall authority of some one ordaining they should attempt any thing against the faith of the Church Therefore they all concurring he is confirmed and no lesse then three being present the rest consenting by the testimony of their letters Againe for other of his writings to shew his judgement in this poynt this Isidorus is (q) Cus de Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 3. c. sayd to have made a collection of all the Synods that were before his time which booke is (r) Concil Tom. 2. p. 146 147. alledged in a Synodall Epistle of the Councell of Basil to prove the authority of Councels above the Pope For his practise he is (Å¿) Magdeb. Cent. â— col 261-287 513. recorded to have bene President of a Synod at Sevill in Spaine were he was Bishop and as some relate of two other at Toledo wherein appeare divers actes of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the exercise whereof he joyned with others after the manner of Synodall proceedings Bernard is in like manner misalledged through want of attentioÌ„ diligence not onely by a wrong note of reference but by a defective mention of his writing Ad Eugen. For Bernard having written 5 bookes of Consideration Ad Eugen. and besides them more then 30 Epistles Ad Eugen. he doth not specify which of these bookes or which of these Epistles he meanes But whether we consider those bookes or Epistles we finde Bernard in extremity opposite to Mr Canne giving power not onely unto Synods as the Ancient Fathers before mentioned but even to the Pope himself to judge the causes of all Churches For living in a time of great blindenes and height of Poperie when the smoke of the bottomlesse pit had darkned the Sunne and the ayre he was led aside through ignorance to exalt Antichrist and writing unto Pope Eugenius that had bene his disciple he gives him these most ambitious titles and (t) De CoÌ„si ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 8. calles him the great Priest the supreme High Priest the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles Abel in primacy Noah in government Abraham in Patriarkship Melchisedek in order Aaron in dignity Moses in authority Samuel in judgement Peter in power Christ in unction c. the onely Pastour of all flockes and of all Pastours themselves c. the Vicar of Christ c. And though otherwise he gave many lively testimonies of a godly minde that was in him yet not without cause is he (v) Whit. de Pont. Rom. q. 4. p. 425.426 taxed for blasphemy in these unrighteous titles given to the man of sinne More particularly in his first Epistle which he wrote unto Eugenius after he was created Pope upon occasion of the controversy that was betwixt the Archbishop of York the Archbishop of Canterbury he puts this Pope in minde that he (x) Bernar. ad Eugen. Epist 237. hath authority to judge the controversies that arise in other Churches and wisheth him to use the same and to give unto them according to their works that they might know there is a Prophet in Israel And writing againe (y) Ep. 238 of the same matter he calles the Archbishop of York that Idol of York in regard of his intrusion he might better have entitled Eugenius the Idoll of Rome provokes the Pope as having the fullnes of power to cast his dart to give peremptory sentence of deposition against the Arch B. and as the phrase of Bernard is to lighten or strike with the thunderbolt of his power The like exercise of power over those in other Congregations is often elswhere (z) Ad Innoc Epist 189 190. allowed by him And hereby it may appeare how grossely Mr Canne hath alledged these ancient Writers quite contrary to their meaning and Bernard in speciall that subjects Congregations not onely to Councels and Synods as the Fathers before alledged have justly done but doth unjustly subject them to one person even to the
that no man be excommunicated without the consent of a Classicall assembly (z) Art 63. that the deposition of Ministers be done by the judgement of a Classicall assembly and consent of the Magistrate These and the like Articles there concluded doe shew how farre the Nassovian Churches were from that opinion of the Brownists and some other in denying the subjection of particular Congregations unto any Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Where could Mr C. finde more pregnant testimony against himself then in such resolutions of Reformed Churches as these be With the former Reformed Churches alledged by Mr Canne doe agree all the other so farre as I can learne by any enquiry For the Church of England B. Jewell testifveth (a) Def. of Apol. of Ch. of Engl. par 6. c. 17. div 1. 2. that we have had ere now in England Provinciall Synods and have governed our Churches by home made lawes and he maintaineth that without wayting for a Generall Councell it was rather thought good to doe that which both rightly might be done and hath many a time bene done as well of other good men as also of many Catholick Bishops that is to remedie our Churches by a Provinciall Synod And besides other examples there is a (b) Syntag. Confes p. 125 136 speciall monument recording the Acts and Articles agreed upon in the Synod holden at London Anno D. 1562. and againe of another Synod Anno 1571. confirming the Articles of the former Synod ratifyed by the approbation of Qu. Elizabeth to be observed through the whole Kingdome c Now howsoever there be great difference in divers Churches touching the manner of celebrating these Synods yet herein which is the poynt of our present controversy they doe all agree viz. that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods to judge and determine the affaires of particular Congregations The testimony of the Church of Scotland for the authority of Presbyteries and Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations is most cleare In the admission of Ministers to their offices there was (c) First book of Discipline p. 29. ed. 1621 required not onely the consent of the people and Church whereunto they should be appoynted but also approbation of the learned Ministers appointed for their examination Touching all sorts of Synods among them it was concluded that (d) Sec. b. of Discip ch 7. p. 80. they have power to execute Ecclesiasticall discipline and punishment upon all transgressours and proud contemners of the good order and policie of the Kirke and so the whole Discipline is in their hands Touching Provinciall Synods which they call the lawfull conventions of the Pastors Doctors and other Elders of a Province gathered for the common affaires of the Kirkes thereof c. they (e) Ib. p. 81. say Thir assemblies are institute for weightie matters to be intreated by mutuall consent and assistance of the brethren within that Province as need requires This Assembly hath power to handle order and redresse all things committed or done amisse in the particular assemblies It hath power to depose the office-bearers of that Province for good and just causes deserving deprivation And generally thir Assemblies have the whole power of the particular Elderships whereof they are collected Besides these Canons and rules of their Discipline there be also divers Actes of their Generall Assemblies prefixed before the foresayd First and Second bookes of their Discipline which by many instances doe shew how that power of Synods was exercised and put in practise in the Church of Scotland For example we read (f) P. 14. Edinb Iul. 5. 1570. that there was an Excommunication directed against Patrik called B of Murray to be executed by M. Robert Pont Commissioner their with the assistance of the Ministers of Edinburgh We finde there in another Assembly (g) P. 15. Edinb Aug. 6. 1573. that Alexander Gordoun B. of Galloway being accused of divers offences it was concluded that he should make publick repentance in Sackcloth three severall Sundaies first in the Kirk of Edinburgh secondly in Halyrudhous thirdly in the Queenes Colledge under the paine of Excommunication We finde in another Assembly (h) P. 16. Edinb Mar. 6. 1573. that the B. of Dunkell was ordained to confesse his fault publickly in the Kirk of Dunkell for not exequuting the sentence of the Kirk against the Earle of Athol For the confirmation of this Synodall authority there is added in the same place an Act of Parliament (i) P. 19. 20 c. The 12 Parl. at Edinb Iun. 5. 1592. prefixed also before the sayd bookes of their Discipline having this Title Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk of generall and Synodall Assemblies of Presbyteries of Discipline c. The Confession of fayth made by the Church of Scotland both for the Doctrine and for the Discipline thereof is yet further confirmed unto us both by generall Subscription and by a most Solemne Oath The formall words of that Subscription and Oath are thus recorded unto us (k) Syntag. Confes p. 158 160. We beleeve with our hearts confesse with our mouth subscribe with our hands c. promising and swearing by that great name of the Lord our God that we will continue in the Doctrine Discipline of this Church and that we will defend the same according to our calling and power all the dayes of our life under paine of all the curses contained in the law danger of body and soule in the day of that dreadfull judgement of God Hereunto is annexed in the same place the Mandate of the Kings Majestie whereby he enjoyneth all Commissioners and Ministers of the Word throughout his kingdome that they require this confession of all their Parishioners c. And so farre as I can learne even unto this day there is still observed this substantiall and maine poynt of Discipline namely a power in Synodall assemblies to judge the controversies that doe arise in particular Congregations Here Mr Canne instead of a Iurie of 24 men to condemne my position for an errour and untrueth as he (l) Ch. pl. p. 83. speakes may see a Iurie of more then thrice 24 Congregations in Scotland maintayning my position and condemning his errour by their example The Reformed Churches in Savoy as that of Geneva (m) Kerckel Ordon der gemeēte van Geneven p. 9 10 c. and the Churches in the villages thereabout standing under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in Geneva were combined together for their mutuall guidance and the Ministers of those Churches meeting weekly together were subject to the censure of such Ecclesiasticall assemblies and the affaires of those Churches judged therein The knowledge of this is so common a thing that in appearance hereupon grew the reproach reported by Mr Canne himself that (n) Ch. pl. p. 94. at Geneva subjecting of Churches to this order first began The Evangelicall Churches in the greater
(n) Pag. 156. 157. c. 164. c. before III. If he would have spoken to the purpose he should have shewed that particular Congregations standing under no other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves are not thereby exposed to manifold disorders confusion and dissipation Or if he would have retorted this argument upon the Defendant he ought to have prooved that Classicall and Synodall government of its owne nature brings with it manifold disorders confusion and dissipation of Churches But instead of this he mentioneth onely the offences which in many things many times have been observed in about the execution And behold what he saith for proofe hereof I. C. And this I am sure no good Christian will deny I could give divers instances for it but it needs not Onely it is not amisse to set downe Nazianzens (o) Epist 42. ad Proc. words who was an Elder or Bishop I am minded sayth hee to shunne all assemblies of Bishops because I never saw any good event in any Councell c. Whither things are better caryed now then they were in his time I will not nor am able to judge ANSVV. I. If he will not nor cannot judge whether the same abuses be now committed which Nazianzen complained of it followes that he ought not to have the will nor ability to conclude that this government should now be remooved as it seemes he would inferre from such a reason as was used by Nazianzen for his dislike of the Synods of his time II. This testimony of Nazianzen hath been sufficiently answered (p) P. 222. 223. before out of D. Whitaker where it hath been also shewed that it makes as much against those Assemblies of Bishops which Mr C. himself allowes as against any other But to make it appeare that this is no new objection that we need not seek any further answer unto it loe here what others have sayd touching the same testimony Beza among other counsels to the Emperour States of Germany for the settling of the peace of Christian Churches doth specially give advice for the celebrating of a Synod seeing he doth not onely answer the foresayd exception but withall notably declare the lawfull ancient and profitable use of Synodall authority I have here set downe his words at large as worthie our observation for this purpose Churches (q) Consâ—l ad Caes Stat. c. Tract Theol vol. 2. p. 111. 112. saith he cannot be rightly governed by their Pastours unlesse beside the sowing of good seed they doe also by the word of God as with a sickle cut downe evill herbes yea root them out according to their power But because that cannot oftentimes be performed by the authority of one or a few neither happily were it meet therefore since Churches began to be settled the Bishops of the Provinces did meet together as often as there was need and that according to the example of the Apostles lest any should think this hath been the device of man The Synod of the Church of Jerusalem and Antiochia celebrated in the Actes of the Apostles is well knowne Afterwards followed that first Oecumenicall Synod of Nice where Ecclesiasticall Provinces being more accurately then happily divided this also was ordained that every yeare two Provinciall Synods should be gathered by the Metropolitanes which custome if it had bene diligently observed certainly it is likely that many and most great calamities of the Church might have bene prevented But here some doe object unto us that for the most part dissensions have been rather kindled then quenched by these Synods insomuch that the famous Bishop Nazianzene by a certaine sentence of his hath as it were condemned all those assemblies But we make no doubt to oppose unto this opinion partly that Apostolicall example and partly also the historie of things done Indeed the Nicene Synod hath not quite allayed the furies of Arius no nor some that followed after But who shall therefore judge that there hath been no fruit of that Synod which even at this very time we doe abundantly reap Yea that Apostolicall Synod hath not altogether restrained Cerinthus and those obstinate maintainers of Circumcision But who would therefore deny that it was necessary for the Church Therefore every one sees that that sentence of Nazianzene doth not concerne Synods rightly ordered unlesse we thinke that he would detract from the Synod of Nice which indeed is very absurd seeing it is well knowne how great a defender he hath been thereof If neverthelesse Arians ceased not to rage through the world how much the more may we thinke that they would have done it if the authority of that holy Synod agreeing whith the word of God so often objected against them had not repressed their renewed endeavours The same we avouch concerning the Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians and their issue whom as many Oecumenicall Synods if not with one wound yet with reiterated blowes have by the word of God stricken downe insomuch that they doe afford us armes against the same springing up againe in this our age Yet when we say these things we doe not hold that the Church is grounded upon the authority of such Assemblies or that all Conventicles by whatsoever name they be called are to be accounted Synods but this one thing we say that God is to be intreated by us in these calamities of the Church that we may duely and holily use these remedies also which are given unto us of God Thus farre Beza The same objection out of Nazianzene is to like purpose answered by Vrsinus when he saith (r) Admon de lib Concord c. 12. Op. tom 2. col 686. The complaint of Nazianzene that he saw no good issue of any Synod we make no generall rule unlesse we would condemne the Orthodoxe Oecumenicall Councels of the ancient Church to have had an evill event which Nazianzene doth not say who speakes of the Synods of his time whereof some were Arian Synods some perhaps confusedly undertaken governed Sibrandus Lubbertus speaks in like manner touching the same testimony of Nazianzene saying (Å¿) De Concil l. 1. c. 1. This unhappines of the events must not be asscribed unto the Councels themselves but to the ambition desire of command in those that assemble as the same Nazianzene doth also testify I. C. ANSVV. V. If the infirmities of the people be a good reason to take away their liberty in practising among themselves all Gods ordinances then the contrary vertues which oftentimes have bene found in them as in staying the rage of the Scribes Pharisies (t) Mat. 21.26 Act. 3.26 in preferring sincere Christians before Arrians (v) Zezom l. 7. c. 7. being themselves sound in the faith (x) Theod. l. 2. cap. 7. when their Ministers have bene Heretickes is a good reason to maintaine their liberty still REPL. 1. This answer is beside the question which is not here touching the peoples liberty as they are distinguished
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