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
Voetius Lastly for that (k) Cas consc l. 4. c. 29. place which Mr Canne objecteth out of D. Ames I acknowledge that there is something more found against the authority of Synods then in any thing that Mr Dav. hath alledged out of him But all that D. Ames there writes is not easily to be admitted For in that chap. the Question being made (l) Ibid. qu. 11. Whether whole Churches or members of another Church may be excommunicated He answereth They cannot properly be excommunicated He bringeth 3 Reasons 1. Because every Church hath communion in it self out of which it can no more be cast then out of it self But this reason is insufficient 1. Because though every Church hath communion in it self yet not onely in it self and with it self but with other Churches also Eph. 4.4 5 6. 1. Cor. 12.13 and by excommunication it may be deprived and cut off from that comfortable fellowship to the great grief terrour and shame thereof for their humiliation thereby and for the warning of others 2. Because an obstinate and rebellious Church by a sentence of excommunication may be cast out of it self and deprived of communion in it self either in the dissolution of that unlawfull society while the Magistrate helpes to execute the sentence or otherwise in making their communion abhominable even unto their owne consciences by the hand of God working with his owne ordinance in delivering them to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and depriving them of inward rest notwithstanding any pretended security of the obstinate His 2d reason is Because the power of excommunicating flowes from some superiority but all Churches are constituted of Christ with an authority altogether equall This is also a weak reason for 1. Though all Churches be equall and no one above another yet many meeting together in a Synod are superiour to one as was shewed before by Mr Parker (m) Pol. Eccles 3. p. 129. Greater is the power of a Synod then of any one prime and parishionall Church 2. When two Churches onely are by speciall covenant united together as it may fall out necessarily upon occasion though this combination be more imperfect yet is this (n) Ibid. p. 345. 346. reputed for a Synod and though these Churches be in themselves equall yet when one of them falles into errour offence then it becomes subject to the other and the other hath authority over it to rebuke censure the same This is to be observed by proportion of two brethren members of one Church though both of them be in their estate equall yet he that offendeth becomes subject to the other who thereupon hath power over him in a degree of binding and loosing a power of loosing and forgiving him if he repent a power of retaining his sinne and binding him over to further proceeding if he doe not repent Luk. 17.3 4. with Matt. 18. On this manner that generall commandement of mutuall subjection to one another 1. Pet. 5.5 ought to take place in two Churches as well as in two persons His 3d reason is Because the members of one Church are neither subject to the government of another neither doe they belong immediately unto the communion of other Churches but by the communion of their owne Church comming betwixt The first part of this reason touching subjection is answered before and for the second part of it there is no weight therein for those that belong unto the communion of other Churches but mediately are not therefore exempted from the jurisdiction and authority of them And againe the covenant of communion made at the first confederation of Churches for their mutuall government by a Synod remaineth firme for the continuance and exercise of authority either for or against some particular members of any one Church in that combination although that Church unjustly violating their covenant should refuse to consent or communicate with the Synod in their acts of Ecclesiasticall judgement and censure of some scandalous persons among them Moreover that which D. Ames writes in the same chapter may justly lead us to acknowledge the necessity of Synods and their authority in the censure of offendours 1. He addes in his answer to the same question touching whole Churches members of another Church that though they may not properly be excommunicated (o) Cas cōs l 4. c 29. q. 11. th 26. yet for manifest heresies or great faults they may be condemned forsaken rejected which is proportionable to excommunication If he grant this authority unto Synods thus to condemne whole Churches then he confesseth that they have more power then onely to counsell or admonish If he grant this authority unto any other Ecclesiasticall persons and not to Classes or Synods the warrant from Scripture ought to be shewed A censure proportionable to excommunication requires an authority proportionable to theirs that may excommunicate for the exequution thereof II. In the same chapter propounding this case of conscience (p) Ibid. q. 10. What is to be done of the Pastour where a fit Eldership is wanting or where the people doe not consent unto ajust excommunication His resolution is The solemne proceeding may be omitted yet a good Pastour ought to give all diligence hereunto with the rest of the faythfull members that the substance of the matter be so farre preserved that holy things be not given unto dogs swine Mat. 7.6 and that all publick scandals be publickly reprooved But by this direction neither is the peace of the Ministers conscience provided for nor yet the safety of the Church For by what warrant may a Pastour by his sole authority determine and reject some members as dogs and exclude them from the holy things from the Sacraments and this not onely without allowance of the Eldership but against the consent of the people and body of the Congregation or the greatest part of it This is in effect an excommunication or as he calles it the essence or substance of the matter for excommunication greater or lesse is the onely Ecclesiasticall judgement appointed of God to keep holy things from being given unto dogs To permit this authority unto the Pastour alone is to open a dore for tyranny and oppression of the Church and is condemned by those 4 reasons which he gives for confirmation of his answer unto the 9th question immediately going before It is the denyall of Synods that drives unto such extremities III. That which he here saith of publick reproving all publick scandals is againe empeached by that which was sayd before (q) Ibid. q. 4. th 12 13. that in those Churches which through want of discipline are troubled with confusion it is not alway necessary for the person offended to admonish the offendour because he should oftentimes in vaine beginne that which he had no power to finish that the commandement of solemne admonishing of a brother offending doth then onely binde when there is some hope that the same will
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
deeds Ambrose is ill joyned with Austine seeing in the place alledged he hath not the same but another more large definition containing under it Originall sinne also when he sayth (t) Tom. 4. lib. de Paradiso c. 8. What is sinne but a praevarication against the Law of God c. This praevarication is as well in the nature and disposition of man as in actuall sinnes The judgement of Aquinas and such Popish Schoolemen is not to be much esteemed in this poynt while they teach that originall corruption in those that are baptised justifyed is not properly any sinne at all therefore are rejected herein of all Orthodox Divines ARGVM VI. If the Apostle gave commandement unto the Eldership of Ephesus for the whole administration of all Ordinances in that Church Then may the Eldership of every particular Congregation administer among themselves all Gods ordinances But the first is true Therefore the second The Major is proved two wayes 1. By Scripture Act. 20. vers 17.28.2 By the testimony of the learned Whitaker c. The Minor is undenyable For as Mr Brightman sayth there was one forme c. ANSVV. I. Mr Canne here againe wanders from the question goes about to prove that which I never denyed viz. that the Eldership of every particular Church may administer all Gods ordinances among themselves Even those solemne acts of communion with other Churches both in things spirituall and corporall being the ordinances of God are to be performed by the direction of the Eldership This hinders not but that any Eldership or Church it self being found in errour or other unfaithfull dealing may be subject to the censure of many Churches united in their Synods II. If it belong to the Eldership of every particular Church to administer all Gods ordinances then how can the ordinances of God be duely administred in that Church of the Brownists whereof Mr Canne is Bishop alone where there is no Eldership where there is neither teaching nor ruling Elder beside himself Seeing there is no Ruler in his owne Company but himself he denyes all other rule over him by Synods doth he not make himself a kinde of Ecclesiasticall Monarch or sole Governour of the Separation III. Mr Canne doth here againe bewray his notorious ignorance of Logick whereof he professeth so great skill in the framing of so many Syllogismes and yet like the children that know not the right hand from the left cannot discerne betwixt the Major and the Minor of his Syllogismes This appeareth here when he calles that his Major which he proves by Act. 20.17.28 and by the testimony of D. Whitaker viz. that the Apostle gave commandement unto the Eldership of Ephesus c. which is his Assumption or Minor and againe by calling that his Minor for which he cites Mr Brightman and other treatises which serve to prove one forme of Church-government common to all Churches as any Logician that lookes upon his Argument may easily discerne When he propounded Simple or Categovicall Syllogismes then was he not so deceyved in his guessing at a Major or Minor But so oft as he useth any Hypotheticall Syllogisme so oft he is as a man wandring in a wood or wildernes And the reason hereof seemes to be this whereas in a Hypotheticall Syllogisme the Antecedent of the Major is assumed usually in the Minor and that which is but a part of the Major comes to be the whole Minor he mistaking a part for the whole doth therefore call that which is onely the Antecedent of the Major by the name of the whole Major Proposition when as indeed it is the whole Minor Proposition and so to be called Had not W. Best bene a Simplician as the Brownist noted him to be he would never have placed his confidence in the skill of this simple Logician nor rested under the shadow of his Syllogismes ARGVM VII (v) Churc plea. p. 72. Such Offices and callings without which the Church of God is complete and perfect for Government are superfluous and humane But the Church of God may be complete and perfect for Government without Classicall and Synodicall Offices and callings Therefore these Offices and callings are superfluous humane This Argument the Protestants have used against the Pope the Reformists against Bishops Arch-Bishops Chancellours c. Now the same is every-way as firme good against Synods and Classes for without them the Church of God is fully brought to complete perfection and unity D. Fulke (x) Learn Disc Eccl. Gov. p. 10.11 confidently affirmeth so much That which D. Whitaker (y) De Cōc qu. 1. p. 22.23 writes of Generall Councills is by Mr Parker (z) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. p. 133. applyed and rightly unto particular Synods The Church of God sayth he can wel subsist without them for she was sometimes without them besides we are not bound by any speciall commandement of God to have them ANSVV. I. This Argument concludes nothing against us neither toucheth it the Question When did I ever speake of any Synodicall offices And what are those Offices that here he intends The members of Classes and Synods are no other then the ordinary Officers or Deputies of particular Churches considering together and determining so as they judge best for the edification of their flockes II. If he imagine or conceive that the Praesident which propoundeth matters in Synods or the Scribe that recordeth them be distinct Synodicall Officers he might as well think and we might as well say that the Brownists also had other distinct Ecclesiasticall Offices besides Pastours Teachers or Elders namely Praesidents and Scribes because heretofore in the dayes of Mr Iohnson and Mr Ainsworth they with their Elders did by course propoūd matters in their Church had also a Scribe to write downe their speciall businesses now in Mr Cannes time when they have no Eldership if he alone propound matters and keep record of them in writing it may then be sayd that he hath two or three Ecclesiasticall offices as well as so many Mechanicall trades III. If propounding of matters as the Praesident and writing them as the Scribe doe constitute new offices then many other members of the Brownists Church may be reputed for Ecclesiasticall Officers for Praesidents and Scribes For Mr Canne being now their onely Governour if it fall out that any among them shall make complaint against his doctrine or practise then those members of the Church that shall propound the same to the Church and moderate the action or keep record thereof in writing in behalf of the Church he being unfit to doe it himself in his owne cause must then be accounted new Officers Praesidents Scribes of the Church IV. That which he sayth of Classes and Synods that without them the Church of God is fully brought to complete perfection and unity comparing them to Lordly Prelates Chancellours c. it is utterly false He onely affirmes it and no word of Scripture is
yeelded considering as they also alledged that the benefit to be expected from dealing in these matters would be but of a narrow extent reaching onely to the satisfaction of a few and little concerning the maine cause that the Authours good name and blessed remembrance is so deeply ingraven in the hearts of those that are acquainted with his wayes and writings that no envie nor obloquie shall ever be able to rase it out Againe they that will but compare the Answer and Replyes together and distinguish betwixt plaine dealing and groundlesse surmises evidence of trueth and uncharitable insinuations shall hardly need any further help for their satisfaction specially if they be mindfull of the Rule 1. Tim. 5.19 from which these opposites have too too frequently swarved and in which respect Mr D. had just cause to intreat his Reader (f) Apol. repl praef neer the end to suspend his censure concerning what he hath said c. Moreover that plausible and colourable name of the Church used by the Replyers when they spake of a few dissenting from the Authour is now further manifested to be inconsistent with those passages whereunto in such sort it was applyed forasmuch as they that then complained doe now quietly enjoy themselves and communion with the Church in the continued observation of the same orders that were practised before except onely W. B. the foreman of the Complaynants now a professed Arminian And of those that once joyned with him some before others since the Authours death have plainly signifyed their better respects unto him and given free and full testimony of his well deservings even of that Church both for Doctrine and Discipline To returne unto his Defence here published the greater part of it is in way of answer to Mr C. who hath been the forwardest and largest in this part of the plea touching Classes and Synods It seemes also that he hath not been a little confident of his paines about this work by the reiterated editions and sundry shapes into which this his writing touching Independent government hath been cast The (g) Printed in the yeare 1635. first edition which the Authour here deales with was seconded with another into which he hath taken onely that which concernes this controversie adorning it with this new and faire title (h) In the y. 1641. Syons Prerogative Royall And this hath been answered (i) Disput Theol. de Unione Ecclesiarum carumque Regimine in Classibus Synodis par post Ultraj 1641. by the famous and truely excellent Divine of these countries D. Voctius A third edition it seemes hath been put forth with some additions against the Presbyteries of particular Churches under another title viz. The Presbyteriall Government examined And this also hath been examined and answered by the Authour of the (k) Edinb 1641. Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland c. in the Postscript thereunto annexed Thus the same writing hath met with severall Refutations whereof though this be the last in birth yet it was the first in conception And here the Authour as he tooke more time so he hath more closely followed his opposite being better acquainted with his condition and courses hath more neerly applyed his answers unto him for further conviction However * August de Trin. l. 1. c. 3. it may be profitable to behold severall learned men avouching and pleading for the same trueth and many blowes may beat downe an errour that could not be felld at once But it may seeme strange that Mr Cannes writings being such as the severall Refuters have observed them to be should yet have the honour of three severall Refutations See afterw p. 145 146. c. Who ever saw such grosse Logicall mistakes in one that makes such a flourish with Syllogisticall reasonings Who ever saw in a serious writing such abundance of quotations so generally perverted or so little to the purpose He vainely alledgeth above an 100 testimonies of Authours old and new to prove that which was never denyed by those whom he opposeth And yet on the other side who so confident of his owne cause amidst such barrenes of proofe where there was need of it either from Scripture or approved Authours Let those that seem to hold with him in this controversie judge whether Mr C. be not in these respects a Disputer one of a thousand as his phrase is (l) Ch. pl. p. 15. elswhere to another purpose How comes it then to passe that they that have been induced to write in defence of Presbyteriall and Classicall government have had no other matter to work upon but what was affoorded by Mr C. or that the cause of Independencie which makes so great a noyse among some yeelds yet so little to be seen for the maintenance of it May not we justly doubt concerning others that seem to favour this way that their judgements are not setled in this poynt by how much they are so slow to professe what they hold and upon what grounds If they agree with Mr D. and Mr C. and their grounds pretences be the same with theirs they may here receive satisfaction But some happily will think the Authour hath been needlesly curious in noting the manifold grosse faylings of Mr C. both in his Reasonings and Quotations For answer hereunto besides that for the most part they be such as in this thorough kinde of refuting used by the Authour could not be passed over with silence it appeares that Mr C. stands in need of being told of these faults for in his latter edition of the same things I finde not any of these foule mistakes amended Herein onely he hath somewhat corrected himself that what he had before (m) Chur. plea p. 74 76. asscribed to Mr Paget now he attributes it (n) Syons prer roy p. 16 21. to the Presbyterian governours and such as stand for Presbyteriall government hereby acknowledging that what he had before called (o) Ch. pl. p. 71. Mr Pagets new doctrine (p) Ibid. p. 77. Mr Pagets lately-devised Tenets (q) Ibid. p. 81. Mr Pagets new opinion was neither his device nor sole opinion but common with him to at least all that allow of the government of the Church of Scotland from whom that Mr C. might professe his dissent he hath put in the words Presbyterie and Presbyterian with Classis and Classicall seeing the Presbyteries in Scotland are in effect the same with the Classis and Classicall seeing the Presbyteries in Sctoland are in effect the same with the Classes in these countries For the publishing of this Treatise I had more need to plead excuse for not setting it forth before according to their judgement who have frequently called upon me and encouraged me unto the finishing of this taske rather then to provide against their displeasure who are apt to censure as unseasonable what in this kinde is unwelcome unto them But for the seasonablenes of it let the
the manner of the Jewish Synagogue Bucanus also describing this Discipline sayth (n) Loc. cō loc 44. de Discipl qu. 12. Christ hath expressely appointed this order translated unto us from the Church of Israel And againe (o) Ibid. qu. 22. Christ doth not describe a temporary but a perpetuall order of his Church Mat. 18.17 where following the custome that had bene alwayes observed in the ancient Church of the Iewes he signifyed that the Church cannot want that spirituall jurisdiction which had bene from the beginning And lest any should blame us that we seeme to be drawne with the judgement and consent of late Writers the same (p) Dissert de Gub. Eccles p. 49.50 Gersom Bucerus doth also alledge divers of the ancient Writers as (q) In 1. Tim 5. Ambrose (r) In 1. Tim. 4. Theodoret (f) In Ioan. l. 6. cap. 20. Cyrill (t) In Cant. cap. 6. Gregorius Magnus agreeing with us that the Church of the new Testament succeeding the Church of the Jewes hath borrowed from thence the forme of her Politie and the order of jurisdiction And to these I might adde many other but that I have further occasion to doe it hereafter in answering the objections from the perverted Testimonies both of new old Writers It is not here to be omitted that Mr Iohnson Pastour of the Separatists who had bene a principall instrument in oppugning this interpretation of Matt. 18. by whose writings many had bene confirmed in their opposition against us hath yet before his death after long experience and consideration confessed his errour in this poynt and a in peculiar Treatise publickly revoked the same And though in other poynts touching the order of government prescribed in Matt. 18. he came not to the cleare sight of the trueth yet thus farre he hath shewed his consent with the former Writers saying (v) Expos of Mat. 18.17 C1 Note here that if Christ now had given a new Rule of government that Israel had not the Disciples to whom it was spoken could not have understood it by these words which were according to the Iewes received phrase practise and the Pharisees other adversaries of Christ would have beneglad if they could have had such an exception against Christ that he had taught contrary to Moses and had led the people from the way order of government which the Lord himself had prescribed in his word AFter evidence of Scripture consent of so many Writers agreeing in the interpretation of this place let us now examine the exceptions of such opposites as maintaine that Christ gave a new rule in Mat. 18. Some object with H. Barrow the unjust ungodly dealing of the Rulers in that time and reason thus that it is not likely or possible that our Saviour should fetch his patterne from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the Iewes c. To these I answer I. Though the Governours of the Jewes in Christs time were most of them wicked men and abused their authority yet the forme of government it self and namely so much of it so farre as it is described in that Rule Mat. 18. that there should be a Synedrion or Presbyterie for the judging of offences in such order as is there specifyed cannot be shewed to be unlawfull nor contrary to that which God had appoynted of old by Moses And therefore our Saviour might well commend the very same unto his Disciples Thus Calvine answereth a like objection (x) Harm Evang. in Mat. 18.17 If any man except that all things were corrupt perverted in the time of Christ so as that tyranny could be accounted nothing lesse then the judgement of the Church the answer is easy Though there was then an adulterate perverse manner yet Christ might worthily commend the order so as it was delivered from the Fathers And when a little after he erected his Church the corruption being removed he restored the pure use of excommunication II. How great soever the abuses and corruptions of Governours Government were in Christs time yet were not the godly required then to renounce or forsake the communion of that Church Christ himselfe both by his example his commandement taught otherwise whiles he both communicated therewith himself Matt. 26.17 18. and likewise required others to doe the same Luk. 17.14 Mat. 8.4 23.2 3. Now forasmuch as the publick worship of God and his ministery are holy ordinances as well as the government of his Church seeing Christ taught his people to goe unto the worship ministery of the Jewes either in Synagogue or Temple what reason is there to think that they should be forbidden to repayre unto their government in their Synedriō or Presbyterie Moreover as our Saviour taught ordinarily in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Iewes alwayes resorted Iohn 18.20 Matt. 4.23 so there were some righteous and faythfull men Governours and Rulers of the Jewes in Christs time who though they consented not unto evill and unrighteous judgements but testifyed against them Luk. 1.6 Ioh. 7.50 51. Luk. 23.50 51. yet were they not required to forsake their offices and their government And if they might lawfully retaine their office and government why might not others resort unto them in their government and seek redresse of offences and so by them tell the Church according to the rule Mat. 18.17 III. For the further clearing of this poynt concerning which many are diversly minded and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty minded and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty doubting what is meet to be done when corruptions doe abound in a true Church as the Jewes in Christs time were when as yet some of the Ministers Governours thereof doe become oppressours of the godly persecutours of the trueth we are therefore to observe divers rules of direction according to which both the Jewes then and Christians now in such case are to carry themselves 1. There is a difference to be put betwixt the causes and matters of complaint about which men had occasion to goe to the Jewes Synedrion or Eldership There were some kinde of sinnes as of open theft adultery extortion sacriledge legall impurity Sabath-breaking divers the like scandals against which the Pharisees and Rulers of the Jewes were very zealous Luk. 18.11 12. Rom. 10.2 Phil. 3.5 6. Luk. 18.18 21. Mark 10.21 And what should hinder the godly from going unto their Presbyterie to seek redresse and so to tell the Church of such offences In other quaestions touching their traditions they had not the like encouragement to goe unto them 11. There was a difference to be put betwixt the Rulers of the Jewes to whom they had occasion to complaine As there was a multitude of Synagogues among them so there was great variety of the Rulers of those Synagogues some of them being more modest humble and attentive to the
so that the 120 persons met together at this time Act. 1.15 cānot be sayd to have bene a distinct particular Church of persons dwelling in Ierusalem but an occasionall assembly or Synod upon such ground as the story of the Scripture doth manifest II. In respect of the busines it self here performed viz. the election of an Apostle it was such a work as did not appertaine unto any one particular Church but all Churches had interest therein seeing the care of all the Churches was cōmitted unto the Apostles 2. Cor. 11.28 All Churches were alike bound to beware of false Apostles that could transforme themselves into the Apostles of Christ 2. Cor. 11.13 It had bene a presumption in any one Church and a wrong unto all the rest if without their consent one alone should have chosen an Apostle especially considering there were even at this time a multitude of the faithfull in other places whom this work concerned Many had bene lately converted by the ministery of Iohn Baptist Matt. 11.12 and now immediately before the Ascension of Christ we read of more then 500 brethren at once which were witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ 1. Cor. 15.6 These 120 had done injury unto them save that these generall persons the Apostles called of God for the service of all Churches did for them by divine appointment appeare in this Synod III. In respect of the manner of this election which was made with a threefold limitation 1. Unto one of those men which had companyed with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Iesus went in and out among them beginning from the baptisme of Iohn even untill that same day that he was taken up from them Act. 1.21 22. Now these Disciples that thus waited on Christ such as Barsabas and Matthias were being no inhabitants of Ierusalem what power had a particular Church to determine and dispose of them that were no members of their particular society 2. There was a restraint from absolute electing of any one of these they were onely allowed to present two and to offer them unto the choyse of the Lord. vers 23.24 3. The way and meanes of inquiring the will of God herein was determined and restrained unto a Lot whereby the judgment and definitive sentence of God was declared unto the Synod that rested therein And by these extraordinary directions it pleased God to honour this first Synod of the new Testament It is here also to be observed that although some Writers have spoken of this election as made by a particular Church yet we have sundry learned men consenting with us in the exposition of this story who labouring to shew the profit and necessity of Synods (a) Whitak de Concil qu. 1. c. 3. doe argue from this place Act. 1. and affirme that in the New Testament the Apostles and whole Church did celebrate a Synod for the choosing of Matthias into the place of Iudas The Professours of Leyden to the same purpose (b) Synops pur Theol. Disp 49. alledge this example Act. 1. and call it the first Synod at Ierusalem II. The example of that renowned Synod which is recorded Act. 15. is a sufficiēt warrant wherein the use and authority of Classes and Synods is commended unto us and this not onely for counsell and admonition but also for the judgement of causes and for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction As that which went before the Synod namely the great dissention about a dangerous errour with seeking of redresse by a solemne deputation of messengers from the Church of Antioch Act. 15.1 2. did call for help in the most effectuall manner so the things done in the Synod are an evidence of the authority which they used therein both by a definitive sentence which they pronounced concerning that controversy which was brought unto them vers 28 29. and by an authentick ambassage of chosen men sent from that Assembly of Apostles Elders and brethren both to carry the Epistle that was written and by word of mouth to declare the same things vers 22 23 25 27. That also which is noted to have bene done after the Synod in the publication of the acts thereof doth also beare witnesse touching the authority of those acts in that they are called the decrees ordained of the Apostles and Elders c. Act. 16.4 The fruit also which by the blessing of God followed hereupon in being a meanes of great consolation and establishment of the Churches in the faith Act. 15.31 16.5 is to be considered as an argument whereby the H. Ghost doth further commend unto us the authority of such Synods in the right government of the Church Upon this example doe generally all judicious Writers build the authority of Synods as upon a sure foundation groundwork Calvine saith that (c) Cōment in Act. 15.6 here is prescribed of God the forme and order of gathering Synods c. Beza upon this place (d) Annot. maj in Act. 15.12 V. 23. having shewed that here was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or foregoing consultation of the Apostles and Elders which was related unto the whole Church and ratifyed in the common assembly thereof he affirmeth that this was the right forme of a lawfull and true Apostolick Synod c. And both these are to be understood of such Synods as exercised authority of Ecclesiasticall censure according to the practise of those Churches wherein they lived of which more hereafter Bullinger observeth here as is noted by (e) Expos Eccles in Act. 15.6 Marlorate that this custome was in old time diligently kept of the holy Bishops in imitation of the Apostles and complaineth of the neglect thereof D. Rainolds when as the Papist objected unto him that there must be a chief Iudge to end controversies to keep the trueth of faith peace of the Church that it be not pestered with heresies and schismes he answers thereunto (f) Conf. with Hart. c. 6. div 2. p. 206. that The wisedome of God hath committed that chieftie of judgement so to call it not to the soveraigne power of one but to the common care of many For when there was a controversy in the Church of Antioch about the observation of the law of Moses some Iewes teaching contrarie to that which Paul and Barnabas taught they ordained that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should goe up to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question Act. 15.2 And so by their common agreement decree the controversy was ended the trueth of faith kept and peace maintained in the Church After which example the (g) Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. 21. 22. lib. 7. c. 26. 28. Cypr. epist 6. 14 31. 53. 72. 75. Concil Ancyr Gangr Antioch Laodic c. Bishops that succeeded them made the like assemblies on the like occasions and by common conference took order for such matters both of doctrine and discipline
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
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
he spake of jurisdiction because counsell alone is not sufficient to end controversies unlesse there be authority and jurisdiction exercised withall And further whereas D. Bilson had sayd that Synods have had more power then Elderships Mr Parker assenteth saying (h) Pa. 303 So truely it ought to have bene done that they should onely have more but this more serveth not your purpose but contradicteth it for if they have had onely more it followeth that the Elderships alwayes ought to have had some power though lesse Thus expressely he acknowledgeth a power of jurisdiction in Synods as well as in Elderships and many the like assertions if need were might further be noted out of the same chapter Hereby it appeares how vaine it is which Mr D. saith that in the 3 last limitations other Churches doe concurr in way of counsell and declaration of their judgment as if that were all they did as if the Synod consisting of those Churches did not give definitive sentence of causes brought unto them And hereby it may withall appeare how the judgement of Mr Parker doth agree with the practise of the Reformed Churches which doe exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in their Synods according to those 4 limitations specifyed by him There is no matter determined by them and judged in their Synods but it may be reduced to one of these 4 heads it is either a common cause or a case of impotency where there is need of help or an unlawfull administration in some or at least a presumption of evill dealing I. DAV (i) Apol. reply p. 242. Thus have we examined his owne witnesses and finde them to be wholly for us in this cause ANSVV. Whether the forenamed witnesses Mr Cartwr Mr Fenner and Mr Parker be wholly for Mr Dav. and those of his opinion let the Reader judge His examination of Mr Par. inspeciall is done by the halves but before we come to speak of other pregnant testimonies which Mr P. hath given touching the authority and power of Synods omitted by Mr D. we will first examine another allegation which he had set downe before (k) Ibid. p. 226.227 where he labours to prove that the lawfull combination of particular Churches in Classes Synods is by way of counsell or brotherly direction and not otherwise I. DAV The reasons whereby it may be proved are weighty Mr Parker hath saved me the labour of this taske by laying downe six Arguments for the proofe of this in those his learned and elaborate treatises concerning Ecclesiasticall policy as 1. From the ground of this combination of Churches De Eccl. pol. l. 3. c. 2â— p. 329. which is love not obedience 2. From the forme of it which is communion and consociation c. 3. From the matter of it which are Churches who are aequall among themselves as members in the body which have a vicissitude of offices mutually to be performed among themselves 4. From the object of it which is res communis that which concerneth all the Churches in common 5. From the outward manner of proceeding which is collatione consiliorum by conference and communication of counsells 6. From the end of this combination which is not to receive the mandates of other Churches but their consent counsell and approbation ANSVV. In generall it is to be observed 1. That the scope of Mr Parker in this chapter is to shew in what manner many Churches are combined together in Synods namely as equals in a mutuall fellowship and not with subjection to any one Church above the rest This he propounds in the beginning as the state of the question when he savth (l) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 22. p. 327. The Hierarchy will have this combination to be subordinate and joyned with subjection unto their Hierarchy against the common opinion of all Protestants which affirme no consociation to be lawfull but that which is mutuall such as is wont to be among equalls He thought not therefore of this new found out combination by such as maintaine the single uncompounded policie but of such as is commonly received by all Protestants His arguments are all directed against the Popish and Hierarchicall combination which we also disallow with him This he repeats againe for conclusion after his six arguments saying (m) Ibid. p. 336. By all which it is plenteously demonstrated that the combination of Churches is not Hierarchicall with subjection unto any one among the rest but rather Aristocraticall wherein equalls are joyned together Neither could he call the government of Churches by Synods Aristocraticall if they did onely direct by way of counsell seeing an Aristocracy is such a government as exerciseth jurisdiction in the judgement of causes II. If Mr Parkers meaning had bene otherwise viz. that Classicall and Synodall combinations had no authority nor jurisdiction or that no Churches ought to be subject unto the same then had all his 6 arguments bene of no force neither could they proove any such matter We may see it plainly in the example of the prime or particular Churches where in the combination of many members together though the ground of it be love though the forme of it be communion though the matter of it be brethren which are equall among themselves though the object of it be res communis that which concerneth all in common though the end of it be not to receive the mandates of any one member but the consent of many yet doth it not follow hence but that such a Church and society hath power of censure and jurisdiction and that the members thereof are to be subject unto such a combination And thus also may particular Churches submit themselves to many combined together in a Synod III. If Mr Parker did not meane thus but simply denyed all jurisdiction of Synods subjection of Churches unto them then should he be contradictory to himself in that which he had so expressely and so often acknowledged in other places before as that Greater is the power of a Synod then of any one prime or particular Church and that the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod Moreover to come more particularly to each of his 6 Arguments there is something to be observed in his reasoning in every one of them that may shew unto us how he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods I. The first Argument (n) P. 329. taken from the ground of love and mutuall help is that which he saith is proved by Zepperus l. 3. c. 7. mistaken for c. 8. who in the same chapter pag. 715. describes the authority of Synods in the exercise of Discipline and the greatest censures thereof even unto excommunication therefore not for counsell onely Againe all those places of Scripture Num. 32.6 17. Eccl. 4.9 Rom. 12.13 Phil. 2.4 1. Thes 5.11 14. Heb. 10.24 13.3 1. Cor. 10.33 which he together with Zepperus doth
controversies that arise in the same and according to Mr Parker doe exercise a lawfull jurisdiction herein From this Communication of Churches he commeth to speak (k) Ibid. c. 23. p. 345. 340. of their Combination from whence ariseth a combined Church derived from other Churches This combination he notes to consist either of two or more Churches An instance of this combination of two he gives in the Synod at Ierusalem Act. 15. and sayth It was a Councell and Synod and that properly and that of two Churches to wit of Antioch and Ierusalem for the Messengers sent from Antioch were present which represented the Church of Antioch as is usuall in Councels And notwithstanding an objection made against the Church of Antioch yet he sayth that Church was also judge in that Councell because their Messengers brought the judgement of the same with them Hereupon he reproveth two Spirits of errour the one of Grotius who 〈◊〉 sayd to reject the use of Synods altogether for who would write this saith Mr Parâ—… 〈◊〉 be that is bewitched with errour seeing the Church of God hath alwayes held that Sâ—… are here instituted of God to endure for ever c. The second spirit of errour wiâ—â—â—he reproves is that of the Hierarchy (l) P. 347. because they condemne the Reformed Synods as if they were degenerate quae tamen ad hunc typum accuratissime efformantur which are notwithstanding most exactly framed according to this patterne Hence it appeareth that Mr Parker held the Synods of divine institution to be not onely for counsell and admonition but for jurisdiction also for otherwise he could not have sayd with truth that the Reformed Synods all which exercise jurisdiction doe answer exactly thereunto otherwise he might rather have sayd that the Synods of the Reformed Churches swarving from the primitive patterne were indeed adulterare and degenerate usurping authority and jurisdiction which did not belong unto them The combination of more Churches Mr Par. describes in divers kindes or degrees also (m) IbideÌ„ and first that which is of many Churches into one Eldership The reason of this is because some little Churches knowing their owne weaknes doe joyne themselves unto the neighbour Churches and so make but one Eldership onely among themselves He gives an instance of this in those small Churches about Geneva which not being sufficient for themselves doe joyne themselves unto the Church in the next City so that they come together weekly into the neighbour-Consistory of the City This combination of lesser Churches into one Eldership or Consistory Mr Parker approves and justifyes and declares his judgement touching this kinde of consociation 1. He sayth It is grounded upon the communion of Churches and derived from the wisedome of the Spirit and complaines of the Hierarchy that doe so virulently impugne the same 2. (n) P. 348. Whereas nothing is more objected against the Reformation in England then that many Churches or Parishes are unable for it wanting fit men to governe and to exercise discipline in Elderships Mr Parker answereth hereunto If it be so let them joyne themselves unto the next Eldership or erect a common Eldership among themselves and so from common counsell and help let them seek remedy for their weaknes Now it is recorded (o) Calvin Epist 167. that in the Discipline at Geneva the right of Excommunication is in the power of this Consistory or common Eldership and hereby then it appeares that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church onely and that Mr Parker allowing of this government at Geneva is not against the jurisdiction of many Churches over one Againe whereas D. Bancroft and D. Field object that the Churches at Geneva and the villages of the Netherlands have not the power of Excommunication and whereas my opposites complaine that Churches are brought into bondage and loose their liberty when they may not excommunicate without the consent of others Mr Parkers answer is (p) P. 349. that the power of Excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction remaines pure in them saving that communion which ought to be among Churches every Church in greater matters useth the consent and counsell of her neighbours as of the Classis or Eldership in the City quod ego Ecclesiis vel perfectissimis non indigâ—um reor which I judge saith he not to be unmeet even for the most perfect Churches Thus he requires not onely counsell but consent of other Churches in weightier matters which is that we stand for This doth not as he saith (q) P. 390. import any Hierarchicall subjection in the parishes at Geneva unlesse happily any can be subjected unto himself for these parishes each for their part and that equally are this very Eldership What subjection is it where all as well City-churches as the Country-churches are equall for the country-churches are no more subject unto this Eldership then are the city-churches The next combination of many Churches which Mr Parker speaks of (r) Ibid. c. 24. p. 353. c. is when they are united into one Classis And of these he giveth instance in the Churches of the Netherlands and in Scotland where the 52 Presbyteries so called by them were nothing els but so many Classes For the warrant of these he bringeth both divers grounds of holy Scripture and the example of antiquity He there answereth 10 Objections made by the Hierarchy against these Classes And it is to be observed that he doth not simply speak of Classes in generall but of these Classes of the Reformed Churches in these Countries of our Classes as he useth to call them not onely for that he approved them but because together with us he was a member of this communion and lived under the jurisdiction of the Classis with us If he had not allowed their jurisdiction which he knew and saw to be exercised by them how could he with good conscience have praised them as he doth Speaking of the ancient Discipline used in the Primitive Churches he saith (f) P. 357. Omnia his in politeia nostra in Classibus nostris similia O quantum peccat Hierarchia quae hanc suavissimam Ecclesiarum combinationem eliminavit that is All things in our government and in our Classes are like unto these O how much doth the Hierarchy offend which hath banished this most sweet combination of Churches And as well might we cry out O how much doe the authours of the single uncompounded policie offend who likewise seek to banish and overthrow this combination of Churches in Classes while they allow them onely for counsell and regard not their consent but allow the Churches in combination to proceed in the weightiest affaires without or against the consent of Classes Whereas it is objected not onely by my opposites but by some of the Hierarchy themselves that these Classes doe take unto themselves that jurisdiction which they seeme to condemne in the Hierarchy Mr Parker in his answer
then those that doe so many wayes pervert his meaning he being not onely a member of the same Church but a member of the same family living under the same roofe with me where we had continuall and daily occasion to talk of these things and at that time when Mr Iacob published his unsound writings touching this question He being afterwards also a member of the same Eldership and by office sitting with us dayly to heate and judge the causes of our Church and so becomming a member of our Classicall combination yet did he never testify against the unduepower of the Classis or complaine that we were not a free people though the Classis exercised the same authority then as now it doth Yea he being also for that time the Scribe of our Consistory the Acts of our Eldership and Church being recorded with his owne hand are extant to shew his agreement with us in the government of this Church And it appeares hereby that he was of another spirit and judgement then Mr Davenp who hath published so many vaine cavills against the government and discipline of these Reformed Churches and this under the cloake pretence of his agreement with Mr Parker Yea and further it is apparent that the knowledge and experience which Mr Parker got by this his living here in communion with these Churches hath bene a speciall help unto him in the writing of those learned treatises of Ecclesiasticall policie which for the substance and maine are as a lively Table wherein the government of these Reformed Churches is plainely pourtrayed before our eyes his discourse being as it were a narration and defence of their practise which discourse might yet have bene more perfect had he lived to finish the same SECT IV. His Allegation of D. Ames examined IO. DAV To these I might adde D. Ames in that which he wrote in his latter time wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set downe his judgement more warily in this matter Casus cōsc l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. c. 25. qu. 5. then formerly See his Cases of Conscience the 4. Booke where he speaketh clearly of this power as essentially belonging to particular Churches ANSVV. Thus instead of Arguments from the Scripture for the confirmation of his cause Mr D. still leads us from one mans testimony to another thither I am forced to follow him And for D. Ames 1. I may justly testify that I have found him wavering in his opinion touching the authority of Synods For through the inward familiarity which I had with him a long time for more then 20 yeares together while he lived in these countries having oftentimes had earnest conference with him touching this question and much complayning of the wrong done to many Ministers by that booke entitled English Puritanisme which he had translated into Latine wherein there is such a peremptory restraint of all Ecclesiasticall authority unto particular Congregations though he did never plainely retract that which he published yet he shewed himselfe divers times enclining to a change of his judgement yea sometimes acknowledged that Synods had power to judge of causes and by their sentence to decree the excommunication of such as had deserved the same II. For his writings D. Ames when he (t) Preface to Mr Par. book de Pol. Eccl. anno 1616. gave so great approbation of Mr Parkers work which he wrote of Ecclesiasticall policie wherein he doth so largely maintaine the power of Classes and Synods might cause the Readers to think that he was of the same judgement with him seeing he gives such generall allowance and commendation thereof without any exception about this question III. It is to be observed that in none of his latter writings he doth use that peremptory phrase in limiting Synods or Churches combined in Classes or Synods onely to counsell or advise in such manner as was done in that (v) Engl. Purit c. 2. first writing IV. And more particularly in his Treatise of Divinity he writes thus of particular Churches (x) Medull SS Theol. l. 1. c. 39. th 27. that as their cōmunion requires the light of nature equity of rules and examples of Scripture doe teach they may and also ought frequently to enter into a mutuall confederation and consociation among themselves in Classes and Synods that they may use common consent and mutuall help as much as commodiously may be done in those things especially which are of greater moment Now as in particular Congregations the greatest acts of power and jurisdiction which are exercised therein receive their strength from common consent and doe consist therein so if in matters of greater weight the common consent of Synods is to be used then is a power and authority asscribed unto them then ought not particular Churches to proceed without and against the authority of common consent in Synods And that mutuall help of other Churches is then most effectuall whē there is not onely advise but authority also to cōfirme the same Though D.A. adde in the same place that this combination doth neither constitute a new forme of the Church neither ought by any meanes to destroy or empaire that liberty power which Christ hath left unto his Church for the directing furthering whereof it onely serveth this we also willingly grant When a particular Congregation is hindred stayed frō the exercise of their authority in an unlawfull businesse in an unjust excōmunication or electiō their liberty power is not hereby destroyed or taken away but rectifyed and preserved Here is to be remembred that which Mr Par. as was noted before sayth upon like occasion when some objected that the Churches of the villages in the Netherlands wanted the power of excommunication he replyes (y) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 349. Imo potestas excommunicandi ordinandi jurisdictionis caeterae illis illibata relinquitur c. The power of excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction remaines unto them uncorrupted c. though they doe not proceed thereunto but with common consent of the Classis V. After this D. Ames in his Disputation against Bellarmine touching Synods or Councels doth sundry times acknowledge that they have more authority then onely to counsell and advise This is to be observed in divers povnts as first in the Question whether the greater Prelates onely have jus suffragii decisivi the right or authority of a determining or definitive suffrage or whether the same belong unto the Elders also or inferiour Officers to whom Bellarmine allowes a consulting voyce but not a definitive Here D. Ames according to the receyved opinion of the Protestants (z) Bellarm. enerv Tom. 2. l. 1. de Conc. c. 2. allowes unto them also the right and authority of suffrages when they are deputed and sent as the Delegates of their Churches unto Synods This he oft repeateth And although he say (a) Ibid. th 8. that in matters of faith there is no
decision of such causes as cannot be so well ended among themselves V. Lest any should object that in all these Deputations the judgement of controversies was referred unto such Officers or members of the Church as were within the same Congregation and that they did not submit their causes to the determination of any other judges out of themselves it is therefore further to be observed that there was an order agreed upon by the English Church at Franckford that in the time of their contention (r) Ibid. p. 37.38 41.48 the matter should be determined by these five notable learned men which were of other Churches to wete Calvin Musculus Martyr Bullinger Viret This agreement was put in writing To that all gave their consents This day was joyfull Thankes were given to God brotherly reconciliation followed c. Yea the holy communion was upon this happy agreement also ministred This agreement is often repeated layd downe as a ground of comfort as a proof of their equity that did most constantly cleave thereunto Afterwards againe when more contention was raysed in that Church both the opposite parties were content not onely to heare the counsell advise of men in other Churches but to submit unto their judgement as farre as men may submit unto the sentence of any particular Church whatsoever And for evidence hereof it is recorded how the one part of the Church declared their minde by this (Å¿) P. 100.101 writing following We offer permit with most willing mindes having the licence of the Magistrate as it may well be for this purpose that all our controversies and contentions whatsoever which have bene sowne and brought in among us sithence the beginning of this breach and since the first day we began to strive untill this present time and houre to be debated decided and determined by Arbiters being none of this our Congregation and yet from among the brethren our countrie men equally and indifferently by the parties disagreeing to be chosen upon this condition that not onely the election of Ministers and besides all other things done by the order of the sayd discipline stand in suspence to be allowed or disallowed by the determination and judgement of the Arbiters to be chosen as is aforesaid written the 5. of April Anno 1557. The other part of the Church did in like manner witnesse their consent by their writing the copie whereof was as followeth We submit ourselves and are contented to commit all manner of controversies that have heretofore risen amongst us in the Church to such Arbiters as the Magistrate hath appointed and to all such as they call unto them to the hearing and determining thereof according to Gods word and good reason And thus simply and plainly without any manner of exception or condition In witnes whereof we have subscribed our names the 5. of April Anno 1557. Though there were some differences betwixt these parties in other particulars yet they all agreed in this to commit authority power unto some out of themselves whom they would set up as Judges over them Hereby it doth appeare that they did not confine and restraine the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes within the limits of one particular Congregation onely And if a particular Church might thus referre their controversies to the judgement of foure or five persons out of themselves then might they as well or better be referred to the judgement of many Churches united together in Classes and Synods VI. This English Church which sojourned at Franckford for foure or five yeares in Q. Maries time was not a setled and established Church they wanted the opportunity of combining themselves with other English Churches It was the misery of this Church that they wanted the help of ordinary Classes and Synods and it is unreasonable to make the speciall defect or want of some one Church a precedent for other Churches to deprive them of that mutuall help which they may conveniently enjoy and which God offers unto them This English Church (t) Disc of troubl in Engl. Ch. at Franckf p. 27 c. p. 62 c. p. 135 c. was exercised with great troubles and continuall dissentions all the time of their abode at Franckford to the great grief and offence of many The forme of their Discipline and these Articles here objected by Mr Dav. and Mr Can. were not fully agreed upon the Pastour and the Elders with some of the Church dissented from the greater part of the Congregation And in such case as Mr Fenner before mentioned doth testify (v) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 278 c. the controversy ought to have bene brought to a greater Senate to a Classis or Synod which he calles a Presbytery of more Churches for the deciding thereof The want of this was the cause of their woe VII The English Church at Franckford in the want of a Classis might so much the rather allow appeales unto the Congregation because there were in that Church many learned men able to discerne and judge of causes In that Church (x) Disc c p. 60. they set up an Vniversity and chose severall men for the reading of Hebrew Greek and Divinity lectures The learned men that repaired unto this Church were also as famous for their piety and sincerity enduring persecution for the Gospell of Christ choosing rather to live in banishment with their afflicted brethren then to enjoy the pleasures and promotions of Antichrist which they might have had in their owne countrie if they would have bowed their necks to his yoke In such a Church it was more tolerable to appeale unto the body of the Congregation then in many other that are farre unlike And yet if such a Church abounding with so many Worthies could not well subsist alone in their want of a Classicall government but fell into so great contentions and scandals this may justly serve for the warning of other Churches and teach them to seek the help of neighbour-churches to submit themselves mutually unto such combinations as the Lord shall give opportunity Lastly when as afterwards it pleased God to visit his people and to restore the light of the Gospel and true Religion unto England by that gracious and noble instrument of his goodnes Qu. Elizabeth of ever blessed memory then these excellent and eminent lights of his Church returning againe into their country did give a plaine testimony unto this trueth that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Congregation Some of them being promoted unto chief places of government in England did by their practise professe that particular Churches may submit themselves unto a superiour authority out of their owne Congregation Some of them became Ministers of the Church of Scotland stood for the maintenance of that Discipline which from the beginning of the Reformation acknowledged the authority and jurisdiction of Synods None of them for ought I ever heard that dreamed
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 to be his witnesses Mr Baynes speaking of particular Congregations at Geneva which doe not proceed in weighty matters without consent of other Churches meeting together by their Deputies sayth (e) Dioces tryall 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 another in that common Presbytery And a little after he sayth Though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in the exercise of it c. Mr Parker also whom Mr Canne so oft alledgeth and seemes to applaud as being of his opinion is very expresse in this poynt as I have noted before in answer to Mr D. He shewes that the government of Classes and Synods as they now are doth not take away the due power of particular Congregations Touching the Churches of the Villages in these Netherlands with whom we are united in the same government he sayth (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c 23. p. 349. The power of excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction illis illibata relinquitur is left pure unto them saving onely that communion which ought to be among Churches every Church useth the counsell and consent of her neighbours as of the Classis or Presbytery in the city which I suppose not to be unmeet even for the most perfect Churches He judged the freest and most perfect Churches to stand in need of this government and that it was no empeachment of their due power But Mr Canne labours to illustrate his assertion with some instances I. CAN. For instance say the Classes and Synods will not permit that a Congregation shall reject some convicted Hereticks then they must if they will beleeve Mr Paget let them alone in their communion against Gods expresse commandement Tit. 3.10 and so obey men rather then God Againe put case some Churches doe want Ministers yet notwithstanding if the Classes and Synods will not give them leave to choose any except unfit and insufficient persons then it seemes by this Synodicall Canon they must take such or remaine destitute still ANSVV. I. If such strange cases and unheared of in our times should fall out that then such oppression and tyranny is not to be imputed unto the Classicall or Synodall order government but to the corruption personall wickednes of such men as should be members of the Classis or Synod Such accidentall evills not springing from the nature of an ordinance are no arguments to prove the unlawfulnes of an ordinance when as the ordinance itself and in its owne nature serves for the preventing or remooving of such evills in particular Churches II. All the force of these objections and all the feare of danger and inconvenience pretended by these instances comes as strongly yea much more heavily upon the heads of those that stand for a single uncompounded policie would have all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction limited unto a particular Congregation for example put case that the greater part of a particular Congregation and of the Eldership therein will choose an offensive and insufficient Minister or will not permit that an obstinate and convicted Heretick among them shall be rejected what shall the other part of the Church doe which is oppressed and hindred from the due exercise of their power by the unrighteous proceeding of the greater part What can follow here according to (g) H. Ains Animadv p. 39. Cōm of Saints c. 23. p. 470. 471. the doctrine and practise of the Brownists but separation dissipation of the Church But by the government of Synods if particular Churches be guilty of errour oppression and tyranny their errour is to be corrected by Classes if Classes erre Synods may correct them and one Synod may be corrected by another greater And so many great evills may be redressed and scandals remooved III. As for the rejection of Hereticks commanded Tit. 3.10 a principall meanes for the accomplishment thereof is the help of Classes and Synods by their discerning convincing and judging of them If that help should faile and those that have authority should neglect or refuse to doe their duety herein the godly after testifying against evill are to tolerate that which they cannot amend even as the Pharisees and Sadduces convicted Hereticks were tolerated by the godly that remained in the Church without separation Lastly suppose that the power of particular Churches had bene in some sort weakned and not strengthned by the government of Classes and Synods as they now are yet is it a grosse falshood when he assumeth or rather lavishly presumeth that their government tends merely or onely to the taking away of the Churches due power as though there were no other fruit or benefit by them This he shall never prove The second proof of his Minor is taken from the practise of the Classis W. Best is (h) Church plea. p. 74. there brought in complaining of the authority which they take over us and our Eldership too yea in truth sayth he so much authority as any Lord can doe over his servant c. But this is a shameles and impudent falshood without trueth for no Lords suffer their servants to sit with them in judgement and to have a voyce for determining matters as well as themselves so as the Elders or Deputies of every Church are allowed in the Classis Beside other manifest differences observe the unbounded and unmeasurable slander in his speaking not onely of that authority which Lords doe take but of that which any Lord can doe over his servant For what is it which the worst Lord cannot doe to his servant That insufficient reason which he brings for the declaration of this authority may as well and more truely in his words be applyed unto the Democracy of the Brownists for so long as any member among them doth what that imperious company will have him doe he is left alone but if he meddle with things against the others liking he is immediately commanded to cease and so must not proceed further Yea that Democraticall judicatory is farre more severe and ready to censure those that resist them then is any Classis in these lands Had any member of them so behaved himself against them as W. Be. hath done to the Classis in this scandalous and reproachfull writing against them as well as against me he had bene long since delivered unto Satan he could not have exspected such lenity and patience from them as the Classis hath used towards this W. Be. My answer unto a writing touching an action joyntly concluded by them as he saith viz. that it did not belong unto them is deceitfully and imperfectly set downe The matter being such as had bene already brought unto the Classis and there judged and decided against them there was no reason that it should be brought back to an inferiour judicatory being such as were parties also
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.
Goulartius also in his annotations thereon observeth that these Synods were kept to this end that the purity of doctrine and the discipline of the Church might be preserved entire and that the disturbers thereof might be excluded from their communion And in many other places Cyprian is so pregnant in this poynt that whosoever shall alledge him against the authority of Synods must either be a very ignorant reader of Cyprian or els a wilfull abuser of him REAS. VII Note the effect if it should be otherwise which is that every particular Congregation must hence necessarily loose her owne proper right in government so of a Mistres become a servant instead of being superiour wilfully vassall and enslave herself which thing is contrary to Gods will revealed in his word Gal. 5.1 1. Cor. 7.23 2. Tim. 1.13 Heb. 4.14 Rev. 2.25 ANSVV. I. This reason is the same for substance with his ninth Argument before and therefore it is here idly repeated II. The vassallage and slavery which he argues from Classicall government is upon a false consequence The liberty of innocent persons oppressed by wrong judgment in a particular Church is to appeale unto Classes and Synods The Democraticall government that denyes this liberty of appeale is no gracious mistresse but a Tyrannicall virago resembling the Romish Lady that by denying appeales from the Pope keeps many in bondage III. The Scriptures cited by him are all perverted and misapplyed for what force of consequence is in these reasonings viz. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free c. Gal. 5.1 therefore stand fast against appeales from particular Congregations Be not the servants of men 1. Cor. 7.23 therefore be subject to no Ecclesiasticall government save onely to the Democracie of a particular Church Hold fast the forme of sound words c. 2. Tim. 1.13 therefore hold fast the independencie of Churches Let us hold fast our profession Heb. 4.14 therefore hold fast the single uncompounded policie Hold fast that which ye have already c. Rev. 2.25 therefore hold this fast that Classes and Synods are onely for counsell and not for authority to censure and judge What unsound inferences and applications of Scripture be these Mr Canne in his 9th Argument before (f) Churches plea p. 73. alledged also 1. Thes 4.6 3. Ioh. 9. Prov. 22.28 Deut. 19.14 together with Gal. 5.1 Mr Dav. also to like purpose (g) Apol. reply p. 237. alledgeth some of these places to wit Prov. 22.28 Gal. 5.1 3. Ioh. 9. But they prove the Question as little as the other for how vaine are these consequences Thou shalt not remove the ancient bounds Prov. 22.28 therefore all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation and he removes the ancient bounds that allowes the authority of Synods Or Diotrephes loved the preheminence 3. Ioh. 9. therefore Classes and Synods have no jurisdiction or power to judge and determine the matters of a particular Congregation What weight is there in such reasonings as these REAS. VIII Seeing the Apostles wheresoever they constituted any Church with doctrine immediately established in it (h) Pol. Ecc. l. 1. p. 20. Ecclesiasticall government for without this as D. Ames (i) De Cōsc l. 4. c. 24. p. 214. sayth there could have bene no coupling of the parts and members together It must needs follow that the primitive Churches were independent bodies and stood not under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Now how Mr Paget will be able to prove a change of this government I doe not yet see especially considering that the Learned as I shewed before doe hold that there is but one certaine necessary perpetuall forme manner of ordering Churches c. ANSVV. 1. The consequence propounded in this reason is false Though the Apostles in the constitution of Churches did immediately establish Ecclesiasticall government therein yet must it not needes follow that they were independent bodies c. For proof of this consequence he brings nothing but his bare assertion neither Scripture nor testimony of any learned Writer To prove an establishment of government in the primitive Churches at first he idly and needlesly alledgeth Mr Parker and D. Ames to prove the perpetuity and unchangeablenes of that government which needed no proof he needlesly according to his manner heapes up testimonies of Calvin of P. Martyr of D. Bilson of the Churches of France of the Low-countries of Scotland and of Papists also but to help his weak unsound consequence that needed confirmation and support there is no proof nor shew of proof II. Though particular Churches in their severall assemblies be acknowledged to be distinct bodies yet in regard of the entire and full communion of Saints they are all members of one body there is but one body Eph. 4.4 And those that are members of one body are not independent The Scriptures that shew this unity and the dueties arising from thence are justly alledged and layd downe as the ground of combination and consociation of Churches And this foundation of Classicall communion being as ancient as the first constitution of Churches it appeareth hereby that the right of this confederation of churches was in them from the beginning with liberty to use and exercise the same as occasion and opportunity should permit Mr Cartwright being required to shew Scripture for the warrant of this practise of Churches answereth (k) T.C. 2. Rep. p 231. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12. The Scripture I prove it by is that St Paul when he teacheth that all the faithfull are members of one Mysticall body of Christ which ought to have a mutuall care one of another layd the foundations of this politie For as in the body of one particular Church every faithfull man compared with another in the same is a member one of another so in a more generall body of a whole Realme every particular Church compared with other is likewise a member of them Therefore as nature teacheth my hand to help the disorder which is in another part of my body so the Spirit of God out of his word through a fellow-feeling teacheth one Church to stretch out her hand to put away as it can the evill which it seeth approch unto another Rom. 15.14 Heb. 3.13 And therefore when the Scripture willeth that one should admonish another it is not onely a commandement to every singular man towards his fellow but also to one whole company towards another societie Mr Parker (l) See before p. 95.96 alledgeth the same ground out of Zepperus who from thence deriveth the authority of Classes and Synods in censuring and judging the causes of many Churches and citeth many such places of Scripture for proof thereof III. When the Church of Antioch brought her controversy unto the Synod at Ierusalem there was no change of government They had this right from the first though then especially it were manifested unto all for the actuall exercise thereof upon
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
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
and lesser Poland in Lithuania Russia and Samogitia have likewise shewed their consent with us in this poynt of subjecting particular Churches under the Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods and have witnessed the same in divers solemne assemblies They professe (o) Syntag. Confes par 2. p. 294. Syn. Posna 1570. Art 19 that when controversies arise which cannot be compounded among themselves the judgement and decree of a generall Synod of all their Churches is then to be required and to be submitted unto They agreed (p) Ib. p. 300 303. Syn. Crac. Xans Wlodisl that divers kindes of Synods were to be held among them some greater some lesse that their Synodicall constitutions were to be put in execution that the violatours thereof were to be subject unto the censures of deposition and excommunication c. They ordained (q) P. 320-326 Syn. Toru 1591 Art 2 3 7.14 17. that every Evangelicall Minister was not onely to have and to read the Canons of their Synods but also to carrie himself and to governe the Church committed unto him according to the prescript thereof and that under paine of Ecclesiasticall censure that the censure of excoÌ„mâ—â—â—â—ation was to be administred publickly either in the Congregation or in the Synod c. Moreover it is worthy to be remembred how the Churches of the Netherlands even at that time when they were scattered abroad in High-dutchland and Eastfriestand in that time of most bloody persecution under the government of Duke d' Alva did then in their banishment and with danger of their lives at home combine themselves in Classes for their mutuall guidance and submitted themselves unto the judgement of such assemblies The distribution of these Churches into severall Classes (r) Synod Embd. An. 1571. Art 10.11 recorded publickly as followeth I. Classis The two Churches at Franckford the Church at Schoenau at Heydelbergh at Franckendael at S. Lambert II. Class The two Churches at Collen the 2 Churches at Aken the Church at Maestricht at Limburgh at Nuys in Gulick-land III. Class The Church of Wesel of Embrick of Rees of Goch of Gennep and other in Cleveland IV. Class The Church of Embden with strangers of Brabant Holland West-Friestland V. Class The 2 Churches at Antwerp the Church at ' sHertoghen-bosch at Breda at Brussel and others in Brabant VI. Class The Church at Gant at Ronsen at Oudenard at Comen and others in East and West-Flanders VII Class The Church of Doornick of Ryssel of Atrecht of Armentiers of Valencienne and other Churches of Walloens VIII Class The Church of Amsterdam of Delph other Churches of Holland of Over-Yssel of West-Friesland The faithfull Ministers and people of these primitive Reformed Churches the Martyrs witnesses of Christ like the woman that fled into the wildernes from the rage of the Dragon have given speciall testimony unto this Classicall government whereunto they submitted themselves even in those hard times when it was difficult dangerous for them to meet together As the Dutch Churches practised among themselves of old so they in the fore-mentioned Synod by common advise agreed (Å¿) Synod Embd. art 12. to exhort the English that they would combine their Churches into a Classis And accordingly this order of government was approved by them as appeares in that booke of their Discipline framed for the use of the English Churches in these countries where it is sayd in the end (t) Forme of Comm. prayer Administr c. printed at Middleb 1602 the 4. edit This may be sufficient for particular Congregations for the visitation whereof and decision of causes which cannot be ended among them and such like Meetings Conferences Synods of Minister and Elders chosen by particular Churches and meetings are to be held as the Ministers for time and place and other circumstances shall think meet With (v) Ibid. p. D 7. b. 8. a b. F 3. a. consent and allowance of these Ministers of such Classes or Conferences together with consent of the Eldership were the Pastours and Teachers of particular Congregations to be elected and then the names of such being signifyed to the Congregation for inquiry after their fitnes warning was given that if within twenty dayes no just exception were taken then their silence should be accounted as the free consent of the Congregation c. To conclude beside the testimony of Reformed Churches severally apart it shall not be amisse to behold the Harmony of their joynt consent in the Deputies of the sayd Churches assembled together in the Nationall Synod of Dort then which it is rightly judged that (x) Molin Anat. Armin praef A 3. there hath not bene for many ages past any Synod more renowmed or more holy or more profitable to the Church When as the Remonstrants upon pretence of partiality schisme in their judges sought to decline the Authority sentence of this Synod the Divines of other nations deputed from severall Churches have given such judgment thereof as shewes a plaine condemnation of my opposites opinion The judgement of the Divines of Great Brittaine who alledged the perpetuall practise of all Churches was this that (y) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr Sess 29. p. 97. the highest power of determining controversies in every Church is in the Nationall Synod lawfully called together framed c. The judgement of Divines out of the Palatinate was like unto the former They (z) Ibid. p. 98. alledge the practise of the Church both in the old new Testament for confirmation thereof and shew their owne practise to have bene such that some authors of novelties being admonished first of their Classis and then of the Ecclesiasticall Senate and being refractory were then dismissed that is deposed from their places The Divines of Hassia agree with the former and upon the like grounds They (a) Ibid. p. 100. shew the practise of their owne Churches that for the repressing of the errour of the Vbiquitarians divers Nationall Synods had bene held by authority of the foure brethren Princes of Hassia and that since againe the Prince Maurice Landgrave af Hassia had called another generall Synod of Hassia wherein the former Synodicall decrees were confirmed sentence pronounced against such as maintained contrary errours The Divines of Switzerland or Helvetia consent hereunto and (b) Ibid. p. 102. alledge the perpetuall practise of ancient later Churches together with the practise of those in Berne in the cause of Huberus in their owne countrey and testify that by such meanes peace was obtained The Divines of Geneva also (c) Ibid. p. 102. 103. avouch that in the Church the supreme power of judgement is in a Synod lawfully called c. That God hath established this order sanctifyed it by the example of the Apostles and all ages of the Church according to the saying of Christ Tell the Church c. The Divines of Breme (d) Ibid. p. 104. maintaine the same thing and hold
which an intelligent Reader might not easily satisfy himself from what hath beene sayd already in the foregoing Treatise yet lest Mr C. should plead there was ought left untouched that with any shew of reason required an answer for their help to whom such directions may be usefull I have here briefly noted what he hath sayd and to what purpose The Reasons or Objections which in this latter part of his booke he assayeth to answer are 1. Concerning the evill consequents of Independency 2. The ancient exercise of the power used in Synodall combinations 3. The liberty freedome hence arising unto Churches the members thereof 4. The determinations of Synods and consent of Reformed Churches in this matter 5. The Authours alledging the former practise of the Church where he was Minister In the sixt place he mentioneth some objections of which he (c) Church pl. p. 100. saith he will not stand to make any particular answer thereto but referreth us in generall to the writings of others which whosoever shall compare with the Authours words against which they are applyed and duely weigh the severall circumstances on both sides may easily discerne that this his generall answer needs no reply In the end lest we should doubt with what affection all the rest was written he graceth his booke with this Conclusion and disireth it may be noted when out of the abundance of his charity he saith Mr Paget would faine have the Classicall Discipline advanced that hee by it might have worldly credit also These are his last words ushered with others of the same stamp that hee seeks to disgrace Christs government to have his owne honoured embraced c. A vile slander not worthy to be answered For the other objections which Mr Canne pretends to answer it is to be observed that the Authour in his former writing hath not framed any Reasons for proofe of this poynt in controversie as he hath often (d) Pag. 40 73. 168. before noted in this Treatise It was not his purpose at that time to propound any Argument first or last but being the Defendant or partie accused to wait for the Arguments of his Accusers And so much was also signifyed in his (e) Answ to W. B. p. 71. 88. other booke which Mr C. had read and from whence those Reasons or pretences as he calles them are taken unto which here he shapes his Answers Yet notwithstanding he will take no notice of this but runnes into two contrary extremes before he affirmed that he brought no proofes because he had none to bring intimating (f) Chur. pl. p. 15. 16. that he hath not left this point unprooved out of forgetfulnes but rather of meere poverty as not having any authenticall records c. Here againe he makes him to bring Reasons Arguments when as he professed that at that time he intended to bring none not out of forgetfulnes or want of ability for he had sayd in the place before mentioned that he had to this purpose in his Sermons divers times alledged sundry evidences grounds of holy Scripture c. And Mr C. knew that he was able to produce such evidences by the occasionall mentioning of those two places Deut. 17. Act. 15. which he hath also undertaken to answer Come we now to the particulars THe first pretended Reason is set downe by Mr C. in these words If particular Congregations should not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves manifold disorders confusion and dissipation of Churches would follow Thus he perverts the Authours words which were not set downe by way of Argument but meerly as a declaration of his judgement touching the benefit of Classes and Synods against the contrary accusation of his opposites His words are these (g) Answ to W. B. Pref. That single uncompounded policie as Mr Iacob calles it whereby particular Congregations are made to be independent not standing under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves that I conceive to bring with it manifold disorders confusion and dissipation of Churches That which the Authour thus set downe as his owne opinion which he held concerning the safety of this government for the maintaining of order setled peace in Churches that Mr C. transformes into an Argument calles it his first reason The Authour had just cause to mention that consideration in such manner as he did to shew the importance of this point in controversie by which he there also hoped that others would be warned to take heed what new formes of Churches and Church-government they frame unto themselves or commend unto others Experience hath taught not once nor twice that in the matter of framing Churches for want of taking such advice some have become like Vtopian Commonwealths men going to work according to their owne Idaeas they have begun a work which they were not able to finish not unlike unto that builder of whom our Saviour speakes Luk. 14.28 29 30. And therefore as before more briefly so now (h) Pag. 32 33. at his entrance into a more full and professed handling of this question the Authour hath hereby declared of what importance this controversy is and given instance in the disorders confusions and dissipations which have happened unto that Church of the Brownists at Amsterdam the rather because of their neglect and contempt of such remedies as from Classicall and Synodall government might have been afforded unto them If those that pretend such accurate exercise of Discipline have fallen into so great and manifold scandals such rash and offensive excommunications schismes depositions as are there mentioned how can it be expected that others in outward appearance more unable to mannage such a kinde of government should be free from running into the like or greater offences If some few single Churches within a few yeares have bewrayed to their losse and shame the great want of a combined government for the establishment of peace and order among them how many instances and examples of the same kinde might we looke for in processe of time where many Churches together should be erected according to this modell of Independent politie To this purpose the Authour hath applyed that observation touching these evill consequents of Independency not by way of argument as Mr C. hath set it downe If he had intended to propound an Argument he would have framed it after another manner for the aggravation of their errour as thus for example That independency of Churches which not being prescribed of God doth occasion manifold disorders c. that is so much the more to be avoyded But such is that Independency which is required of these Opposites Ergo. Or thus That Independency of Churches which not by accident onely but in the very nature thereof is a proper cause of manifold disorders is to be condemned But such is that Independency taught by these Opposites Ergo. The Argument thus propounded and understood principally
of more Churches of this frame seated together where the disorders ensuing would be more apparent and the neglect of the remedy more culpable hath sufficient grounds both of Scripture and Reason to uphold it First there being required a communion betwixt Churches as well as betwixt members of one Church as hath been noted (i) Pag. 109. before and seeing God is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the author of confusion or of unquietnesse but of peace and will have all things done decently in order specially in the Churches of the Saints 1. Cor. 14.33 40. hence we may conclude that such formes of government as doe unavoydably tend to disunion and disorder are not the Ordinances of God Secondly the principles of nature common equity as they may be read in the practise of all times and places doe teach that no humane societies can subsist together without these bonds of combination confederacy whereby it comes to passe that families unite themselves and grow together into greater Corporations Cities Provinces Commonwealths and Kingdomes for their mutuall peace and safety in the way of government The subordination of Courts in Civill government while they are framed according to an Aristocraticall temper is not repugnant unto the nature of Ecclesiasticall politie These things thus premised and applyed unto Classicall and Synodall combinations it may hereby appeare how Mr C. hath played the trifler in so many idle and impertinent answers which he hath made unto his owne frame of reason obtruded upon the Defendant But for further satisfaction behold the substance of his Answers I. C. ANSVV. I. When God hath established an order for the administration of his owne house what presumption of man dares change it Thinkes he that he is wiser then the Almighty c. REPL. I. This answer saith nothing to any part of the proposed argument even as he himself hath framed it unlesse it be a denyall of the Conclusion For of changing an order that God hath established there was no mention nor colour of any such meaning in the Authors words which he undertakes to refute Onely the question is whether Independency be that forme of administration which God hath appointed unto his Churches This Mr C. with vehement asseverations affirmes and complaines of them that deny it If this reasoning were good he might easily beat downe all objections that are made against his Tenet II. Observe with what insolent language he inveigheth against those that oppose his opinion as if they did set themselves poynt blanck against that which they saw to be the ordinance of God Did he thinke the Authour or others of his minde meant to plead in such manner for their judgement practise touching Classes and Synods Sure Mr C. knew it to be otherwise at least by those places of Scripture which he saw mentioned in their defence But herein also he shewes himself to be a disciple and follower of H. Barrow who for the same thing reproaching the Reformists sayth (k) Discov p. 189. 190. they would bring in a new adulterate forged government in shew or rather in despite of Christs blessed government which they in the pride rashnes ignorance and sensualitie of their fleshly hearts most miserably innovate corrupt and pervert c. Mr C. doth here in like manner multiply words to the same purpose I. C. ANSVV. II. Be it well considered that God alwayes abhorreth all good intentes of men that are contrary to the good pleasure of his will revealed in his word c. REPL. I. There is no mention made of any intentes in the supposed Reason it is onely sayd that Independency will be attended with disorders and confusion c. Mr C. therefore disputes with his owne intentes in these his impertinent answers II. How can God be sayd to abhorre good intentes Or how can those be sayd to be good intentes that are contrary to the revealed will of God III. Intention notes the purpose of the will with reference both unto the end at which it aimes and the meanes by which it endeavours to attaine that end If both these be good lawfull the intention also is absolutely good Yet if the end be good though the meanes be unwarrantable the intention is not presently abhorred but sometime commended of God himself as in David when he purposed to build an house for the Name of the Lord 1. King 8.18 with 2. Sam. 7.7 But in this case on their part that maintaine Classicall and Synodall combinations not onely the end they aime at to wit peace order and the establishment of Churches but the meanes also or the practise of such combinations is allowed by the word of God neither doth Mr C. proove ought to the contrary I. C. ANSVV. III. This objection taken up here by Mr Paget is the very same which the Papists and those that way affected use c. REPL. I. If Papists use the very same objection that is if from the same Premisses they make the same Conclusion rejecting Independency Anti-Synodall courses because of the confusions and disorders which doe follow the same then herein they are no Papists forasmuch as Protestants have reasoned in like manner as may be seen in sundry Testimonies before (l) Ch. 7. Sect. 2-7 alledged II. When Papists dispute against any lawfull forme of government with the same argument which we use against that which is unlawfull this can no more prejudice our reasoning then it doth Mr Cannes while both he they reason against lawfull Synods as taking away that right and power which they pretend to be due unto others he asscribing that to the body of the Congregation which they doe (m) Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 4. c. 1. de Verb. Dei l. 3. c. 5. to the Pope viz. the supreme Ecclesiasticall judgement of all controversies and both pleading from the same grounds of Scripture Math. 16 18 c. Men may use the like arguments yet their conclusions be farre unlike contradictory I. C. ANSVV. IV. If particular Congregations must loose their right and power because of the offences which some men have committed in the exercise thereof Then surely by the same reason if Mr Pagets reasoning be worth any thing ought Classes and Synods to lay downe that superiour authority which they have taken over many Churches because they in many things many times have offended in and about the execution REPL. I. The reason here mentioned by Mr C. is a meere fiction and forgerie of his owne The Author never reasoned on this manner he never sayd never thought to say that particular Congregations must loose their right power c. There is no shadow of any such thing in those words which Mr C. hath here set downe for himself to answer II. Particular Congregations doe still retaine their due right power even while they are subordinate unto the superiour authority of Classes and Synods as hath been often shewed