Elders which represented the person of the Church Christ fitly sayth that those which had offended should then at length be brought publickly to the Church if either proudly they contemned or scurrilously rejected private admonitions We know that from the time that the Jewes returned out of the captivity of Babylon the censure of manners and of doctrine was committed to that chosen Councell which they called Sanhedrin and in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This government was lawfull approved of God and this was the bridle to keep in order the froward untractable Thus hath he fully expressed himself that this commandement of Christ Mat. 18. is no new rule but taken from the Ecclesiasticall Policie of the Jewes Beza in like manner confirmeth this interpretation saying (h) Annot maj in N. Test in Mat. 18.17 This power jurisdiction was in those which are therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers of the Synagogue Mark 5.22 an example of this custome is found Ioh. 9.22 12.42 c. And speaking of this word Church mentioned Mat. 18. he sayth It is to be observed that they doe foulely erre which would prove from this place that all things are to be referred unto the assembly of the whole multitude They say the name of Church is never otherwise taken which from this very place is convinced to be false for certainly it appeares that these things are spoken as of the Jewes at least from this which he addeth Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publicane But all writers of these things doe testify that the judgements of these matters among the Jewes were in the Elders and that the whole multitude of the people was not alwayes wont to be assembled And certainly unlesse Christ had applyed his whole speech unto the custome of his times who could have understood what he spoke Afterwards againe in the same place he addeth this Sed doceo Aristocratiam Christianam non esse novum aliquod institutum c. I teach that the Christian government of the Church by an Eldership is no new institution c. no new rule D. Whitaker to prove the authority of Synods brings warrant evidence not onely from the new Testament but also (i) Cont. 3. de Conc. qu. 1. de necess Concil c. 3. p. 15. from the Church of Israel and from the Ecclesiasticall Policie of the Jewes before Christ in the times of David Ezekias Iosias other godly Princes by which it appeares that he held this part of Church-government not to be a new ordinance but a practise common both to Jewish to Christian Churches And besides from this very place Mat. 18. he drawes a double warrant for Synods first from the commandement given to Peter as well as to others to tell the Church vers 17. from thence he argueth against the Papists that the Pope may be judged of a Councell (k) Ibid. de Concil qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169. 170. If saith he every particular Church hath greater authority in judgement then Peter or any particular man then much more the universall Church which is represented in a generall Councell or Synod Herein he is directly opposite to our opposers who grant a power of jurisdiction to a particular Church but none to any Synod whatsoever further then to counsell and direct Againe he (l) Ibid. qu. 1. c. 3. argueth from the promise of Christ Mat. 18. Where two or three are met together in my name there am I in the midst of them applyes that sentence to the maintenance allowance of Synods particular or generall Iunius in like manner as he is plentifull in giving allowance unto the authority of Synods so he derives this authority from this place Mat. 18. both from the (m) Animadv in Bellarm de Concil l. 2. c. 19. art 8. commandement of telling the Church vers 17. and from the (n) Ibid. in lib. 1. c. 3. promise made unto Ecclesiasticall assemblies to be in the midst of them vers 20. while he allowes that promise alledged by others to be a just ground thereof though he adde other warrant also And further speaking of the Councell or Ecclesiasticall Senate he shewes what reference it had unto the Politie or government of the Jewish Synagogues he saith That which (o) Ecclesiast l. 2. c. 3. the Church of the Iewes called the Synagogue that Christ in like manner called the Church in that place Mat. 18. for as the Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall Counsell was a certaine Epitome of the Church so also is the Presbytery Mr Cartwright above many other is very pregnant in giving plaine testimony that this rule of discipline is no new ordinance and this for that part of the rule in speciall which is most controversall He disputing about the interpretatiō of Mat. 18. saith (p) First Reply to D. Whitg p. 176. edit 2. It is commanded of our Saviour Christ that in such a case when a brother doth not profit by these two warnings it should be told the Church Now I would aske who be meant by the Church here if he say by the Church are meant all the people then I will aske how a mā can conveniently complaine to all the whole congregation or how can the whole congregatiō conveniently meet to decide of this matter I doe not deny but the people have an interest in the excommunication as shall be noted hereafter but the matter is not so farre come he must first refuse to obey the admonitiō of the Church or ever they can proceed so farre Well if it be not the people that be meant by the Church who is it Thē shewing that by the Church one person alone cannot be meant he concludes Seeing then that the Church here is neither the whole congregatiō nor the Pastour alone it followeth that by the Church here he meaneth the Pastour with the Ancients or Elders Or else whom can he meane And as for this manner of speech wherein by the Church is understanded the cheef governours Elders of the Church it is oftentimes used in the old Testamēt from the which our Saviour borowed this manner of speaking For instances he alledgeth Exo. 4.29 30. Ios 20.4 6. 1. Chr. 13.2 4. c. After this he is yet more plaine in respect of the censure saying (q) Ibid. p. 183. Now that this charge of excommunicatiō belongeth not unto one or to the Minister but cheefly to the Eldership Pastour it appeareth by that which the authors of the Admonitiō alledge out of S. Matth. c. 18.17 which place I have proved before to be necessarily understanded of the Elders of the Church And further in the same place It may be the clearlyer understanded that the Presbytery or Eldership had the cheef stroke in this excommunication if it be observed that this was the Polity or discipline of the Jewes and of the Synagogue from whence our Saviour Christ took this and translated it unto
this Church that when any man had done any thing that they held for a fault that then the same was punished censured by the Elders of the Church according to the quality of the fault as it may appeare in S. Matthew ch 5.22 c. A little after he addes And if the fault were judged very great then the sentence of Excommunication was awarded by the same Elders as appeareth in S. Iohn cha 9.22 And this was the cause why our Saviour Christ spake so shortly of this matter in the 18. of S. Matthew without noting the circumstances more at large for that he spake of a thing which was well knowne and used amongst the Jewes whom he spake unto To the same purpose he writes in his answer to the Rhemists where speaking of the Governours of the Church which were set over every severall assembly in the time of the Law he saith (r) Confut. of Rhem. transl on Mat. 18.18 Those governing Elders are divers times in the story of the Gospell made mention of under the title of the Rulers of the Synagogue And this manner of government because it was to be translated unto the Church of Christ under the Gospell our Saviour by the order at that present used amongst the Jewes declared what after should be done in his Church Neither doth he speak these things touching the Elderships of particular Congregations onely but applyes the same unto Classicall Synodall Presbyteries also and doth allow of appeales unto them and thereby acknowledgeth a dependency of Churches mutually one upon another It is to be observed here sayth he (ſ) First Reply to D. Whitg p. 187. that both in this part of the Discipline viz. touching excommunication and also in all other parts of it as I have shewed as in harder and difficulter causes things were referred unto the Synods Provinciall Nationall or Generall as the case required so if the Elders of any Church shall determine any thing contrary to the word of God or inconveniently in any matter that falleth into their determination the parties which are greeved may have recourse for remedy unto the Elders and Pastours of divers Churches that is to say unto Synods of Shires or Dioceses or Provinces or Nations of as great or of as small compasse as shall be thought convenient by the Church according to the difficulty or weight of the matters which are in controversy Which meetings ought to be as often as can be conveniently not onely for the decision of such difficulties which the severall Presbyteries cannot so well judge of but also to the end that commō counsell might be takē for the best remedy of the vices or incommodities which either the Churches be in or in danger to be in And as those things which cannot be decided by the Eldership of the Churches are to be reserved unto the knowledge of some Synod of a Shire or Diocese so those which for their hardnes cannot be there decided must be brought into the Synodes of larger compasse as I shave shewed to have bene done in the Apostles times and in the Churches which followed them long after And thus it appeares that according to the order and practise of the Jewes under the Law he allowes and maintaines a liberty of appeales for parties greeved and a superiour judicatory above particular Churches an use of Synods not onely for counsell but for decision of controversies for censuring of offenders even unto excommunication according to divers instances thereof given by him in the precedent pages of which more is to be sayd hereafter Mr Traverse agreeth fully with the former and witnesseth plainly that the Rule of Christ Mat. 18. is no new rule but taken from the Jewish Policie and this both in respect of the persons judging called the Church and in respect of the censure sentence of excommunication there described For the first he sayth speaking of the assembly of Elders (t) Eccles Discipl p. 87. edit 1617. In Mat. 18. our Saviour calleth them by the name of the Church because they rule and governe Church matters under the name and authority of the Church So likewise the name of all the Assembly by Moses is given to the Elders of the Jewes that is to say unto certaine chosen picked out men who were assigned by all the Congregation to the government of the affaires Thus plainly it is taken in Numb 8. where the Lord appointeth the Congregation shall lay hands upon the Levites but I think no man will say this is to be understood of all the congregation that so many thousands should lay their hands upon them as are rehearsed then to have bene in the host of Israel but the Elders and Princes onely as Aben Ezra doth rightly interpret it Which is to be noted the rather because some will have the word of our Saviour to be expounded of all the Church whereas according to the manner of speaking which the Hebrewes use the Consistory or Councell of the Church is called the Church Where also it is to be observed that together with the name the thing it self is translated from the Jewes unto us that looke what a Councell the Jewes used for the government of the Church we ought to understand by this name that such a one is appoynted by our Saviour to be used in the Church Therefore in the same place he attributeth to this Councell the chief government of all Church matters that all such things as cannot otherwise be agreed and ended be at the last brought unto them and ended by their authority judgement As for the second the censures of the Church having spoken before of Suspension and proceeding to speak of Excommunication he saith (v) Ibid. p. 92. This part of Ecclesiasticall censure as also the first were translated unto us from the Jewes for the Church of Christ in all this matter of Discipline hath received all her lawes decrees from the Jewes for as it hath bene shewed before it is plaine manifest that our Saviour in Mat. 18.17 alluded to the manner of the Jewes because that otherwise his speech should have bene very obscure and such as no man had bene able to understand But this appeareth most manifestly by the excommunication of the blind man in the 9. of Iohn c. And further that which he sayth concerning the government of a particular Church he extends also unto the (x) Ibid. p. 98. Synods for the governing of more Churches of which there shall be more occasion to speake againe hereafter Mr Fenner in his Counterpoyson touching the certaine forme of Ecclesiasticall government declares himself to be of the same minde viz. that the Rule of Christ Mat. 18. is no new rule when as he writes (y) Part of a Register p. 479. Our Saviour Christ in setting downe the Ecclesiasticall Presbyterie speaketh according to the Iewes for otherwise the Apostles could not have understood him when he sayd Tell the Congregation or
His affirmation is (v) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 12. p. 77. that the superiorit of jurisdiction is retained in every Church so that neither the Pastour in the Prime Church nor the Praesident in the Combined Church nor yet any Bishop is above the Church but under the power of every Church This distinction of the Church is more plainly declared by him afterward where he saith (x) Ibid. c. 13. p. 117. Est itaque visibilis Ecclesia duplex Prima et Orta Prima est collectio singulorum fidelium in unam Congregationem et generali nomine Ecclesia dicitur Orta est collectio combinatio Ecclesiarum primarum plurium in unum coetum appellatur Synodus that is The visible Church is of two sorts The Prime and the Combined Church The Prime Church is a collection of severall faithfull persons into one Congregation and is called by a generall name the Church The Combined Church is a collection of more prime Churches into one company is called a Synod Now the jurisdiction which he speakes of he makes common to both and expressely applyes it to both to the combined Church or Synod as well as to the particular or prime Church And further that in the 12. chapter he spake generally of both these kindes of Churches he manifests in the first words of the 13. chapter where he begins thus (y) Ibidē Hitherto we have spoken of the Church in generall so farre as it is the subject of Ecclesiasticall politie now let us come to the divers kindes thereof II. Notwithstanding the superiority of the Church yet Mr Par. (z) Ibid. p. 77. acknowledgeth the authority of the Pastour to be very great as having it immediately from Christ and not onely the authority but also the exercise of the same authority and jurisdiction in which respect he saith he is superiour not to men onely but to the Angels themselves Gal. 1.8 as being in Christs stead 2. Cor. 5.19 20. so long as he useth this authority lawfully And repeating the same againe he proceeds further when he saith that if he doe not lawfully exercise his authority in the administration of the Word and Sacraments then he ceaseth to be a Pastour (a) Ibid. p. 88. quo casu solo eum suae Ecclesiae subjectum esse dicimus in which case alone we say that he is subject unto his Church If in this case alone which I durst not have sayd then in other cases the authority of many Pastours Elders especially meeting together in a Synod may exercise an authority superiour unto one particular Church I. DAV And in cap. 18.13 making a comparison between a particular Church and Churches combined in Synods and Classes he affirmeth that the difference between them is not in the intensive consideration of their power which the Congregation hath in reference to the Keyes within it selfe but in the extensive power onely wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects viz. to many Churches in things common whereas the power of a particular Church is confined and limited within its owne compasse ANSVV. In this 13. chap. for that number of 18. seemes to be mistaken Mr Parker doth againe give divers pregnant testimonies for the authority and jurisdiction of Synods I. In the place alledged his words are these (b) Pol. Eccl l. 2. c. 13. p. 121. I distinguish touching the power of the keyes which is intensive or extensive No prime Church no not the least of them doth want the intensive power but it wants that extensive which a Synod hath seeing the power thereof is extended to many Churches whereas the power of the prime or particular Church is not extended beyond her owne bounds The power of the keyes is a power of jurisdiction an Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing whether intensive or extensive this power he confesseth to be in a Synod and therefore the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition but for jurisdiction also in the judgement of causes Whereas according to Mr D. his allegation the difference betwixt the power of a particular Church and of a Synod is in the extensive power onely therefore the Synod is also of greater power and jurisdiction in extension unto many Churches II. In comparing the power of a particular Church with a Synod he sayth expressely (c) Ibid. p. 129. Major quidem potestas est Synodi quam unius alicujus Ecclesiae primae parochialis Greater is the power of a Synod then of any one prime or parishionall Church But if Synods could onely counsell and admonish a particular Church besides that could censure and use Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then should a particular Church have greater power then a Synod and not onely greater intensive power but as great extensive seeing a particular Church yea or a particular person may give counsell or admonition either to a Synod or to many Churches as occasion shall require It is true indeed which Mr P. saith that all the parishionall Churches are greater then their Synods seeing by a new Synod they may abrogate that which was ordained amisse by their Deputies without their consent sentence and will This he proves by many arguments and this we willingly consent unto this is the practise of all the Reformed Churches But this is sufficient for the question in hand that a Synod hath the power of the keyes and jurisdiction and greater authority then any one Church III. This is another conclusion of Mr Parkers (d) Ibid. p. 120. We say there is one forme of government instituted of Christ in all Churches both prime and combined so that we may not dreame there is in the prime Church a different forme from that which is in the combined Church neither may we imagine that in the combined Church there is another different from that by which the prime Church is governed If this assertion be true then Mr Dav. and those of his minde do dreame when they imagine so different a forme of government to be instituted in the particular Churches and Synods which he calles the combined Churches that one sort of them should onely give counsell admonition the other exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction censure I. DAV (e) Apol. reply p. 241.242 The same authour in the 20 chapter speaking of the summity or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations propoundeth the due limits of it wherein he conceiveth it is to be understood and bounded as that the power of particular Churches is chief 1. in its owne matters not in things common to many Churches 2. in case it be able to transact its owne matters within it selfe as if a doubt or controversy arise the Church hath power to terminate it if it can as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves and laboured to compose the difference within themselves but finding not a want of right to end it among themselves but need of more
helpe they sent to Ierusalem freely for the help of their counsell in this matter 3. In case of right and lawfull administration 4. In case of no evill administration presumed by those who finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence appeale to the judgement of the Synod In which 3 last limitations other Churches to whose judgement or advice persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeale doe concurr in way of counsail declaratiō of their judgement to helpe particular Churches to exercise their power aright P. 47. P. 239. in their owne matters as was before noated out of Mr Cartwr Mr Fen. out of the Authour himselfe in the foregoing passages which being so understood doeth not justifie any undue power of jurisdiction if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases manner complained of by the Subscribers how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section will appeare to the indifferent Reader whē he shall have compared both together ANSVV. The judgment of Mr P. is very partially corruptly described by Mr D. in this place for whereas Mr P. here describes 4 bridles of restraint or 4 limitations by which the supremacie of power in particular Congregations is to be moderated and kept within bounds lest it should seem to be absolute by every one of these it is manifest that he acknowledged this authority power and jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely for counsell and admonition He sayth (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301 302. The first limitation is ad rem propriam unto their proper businesse for in a common matter the Synod is chief that is the authority of Churches joyntly gathered together is the chiefest Hence it is confessed that Synods have power of jurisdiction over Churches for 1. In judging these common causes particular Churches though differing one from an other are overswayed by the most voyces and each Congregation is subject to the sentence of the Synod 2. Let any Scripture be alledged by Mr Dav. to shew the summity or soveraignty of Synods in these common causes and he shall finde thereby the use of Synods proved to be for jurisdiction in one Ecclesiasticall cause as well as in another being lawfully brought unto them for what reason is there why the counsell and admonition of a Synod may not suffice for the help of particular Churches in a common controversy as well as in other speciall businesses leaving the sentence and decision unto the prime Churches The second limitation is also in a proper businesse to wit ad casum sufficient is potestatis in the case of sufficient ability for if any Church be found unable to end their owne businesse vvho doubts but that it is bound to require the help of fellow-Churches In this case Mr P. acknowledgeth the superiority or soveraignty of power and authority in Synods but if Synods were onely for counsell admonition what needed a supremacy of power seeing inferiours may give counsell unto their superiours admonish them also of their duety Mr P. shewes well that in case of impotencie or weaknes the Church of Antioch sent to Ierusalem c. Act. 15. But this Mr D. seeks to pervert by his glosse when he saith they sent to Ierusalem for the help of their counsell as though they did not as well desire help by their authority and sentence in determining the controversy If counsell onely had bene sought why did not the Synod at Ierusalem content themselves to give counsell and advise why did they also make a decree and this not onely by authority of the Apostles but also by common authority of Elders and others that were in the Synod Act. 15.23 16.4 The third limitation is in a proper busines and ability also to wit in the case of right and lawfull administration for vve are to think the same of the Church as of every Pastour of the Church now vve have shewed before out of Gerson touching the rectour that he in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration is subject so the Church which in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration doth now beginne to be subject Even as therefore the Pastour erring and offending is subject to no one of his fellowes as to a Bishop but onely to many of his Church so also the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod Hence it is evident that Mr P. asscribed unto Synods more authority then a bare counsell or admonition onely for 1. He often useth the word of subjection which implyes an authority and jurisdiction in those to whom in regard of their calling men be subject This is passed by as unseen or unregarded in Mr D. his allegation 2. He speakes of being subject so as the Pastour erring and offending is subject to many of the Church that is to their jurisdiction and censure 3. He speakes of such subjection as is distinguished from receyving of counsell and admonition otherwise it should not be true which he sayth of the Pastours and Churches subjection seeing every Pastour erring and offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one of his fellowes and the Church erring offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one particular Church though it be not subject to the jurisdiction of any one in speciall but onely to many in a lawfull Synod The fourth limitation is in case of right administration when no evill administration is presumed or imagined for although the Church administer aright yet if any man thinking himself wronged do appeale from it the same is now become obnoxious or subject unto the censure of her fellowes and sisters so that judgement may be given in a Synod touching her administration That Mr P. here also speakes of subjection unto the jurisdiction of Synods it is evident while for the allowance of appeales he alledges in the same place the testimonies of the Synod of Sardica of the University of Paris and of D. Whitaker who doe all speak of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction for the correction and redresse of unrighteous sentences and proceedings by inferiour judges Againe in the same chapter he sayth (g) Pa. 31◠Christ would have every man to be judged of his owne Church Matt. 18. or if the judgement of his owne Church displease him yet alwayes of the Church that is of a Synod of many Churches Againe in the same page We certainly finde Mat. 18. that causes are to be ended by the Synods of the Churches and not by one man if any doe appeale from the judgement of his Church Thus we see 1. that he makes Mat. 18. a common ground for the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches 2. The very phrase of terminating or ending controversies shewes that
part deny the authority of particular Elderships as we see in the Brownists and therefore after private admonitions doe in a popular order referre the judgement even of lesser matters unto the publick examination and decision of the whole Church assembled together not permitting the same to the judgement of the Eldership Mr Baynes doth also impugne this practise For he speaking of the rule of Discipline Matt. 18. where Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many yet after some other observations touching the meaning of the word Church he further explaineth himself when he addeth these notes and sayth (a) Dioces tryall p. 80. Thirdly as Christ doth speak it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the Congregation For then Christ should give not some but all the members of the Church to be governours of it Fourthly Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderlie complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie as all but Morellius and such Democraticall spirits doe affirme And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church doth shew that often the number of it is but small For where two or three are gathered together in my name c. whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Againe shewing on the other side that Christ by the Church doth not meane the chief Pastour who is virtually as the whole Church and that the word Church doth ever signify a company and never is found to note out one person after other reasons he pleades from the example and practise in the old Testament saying (b) Ibid. p. 81. The Church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtuallie but an assembly of Priests sitting together as judges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie and joynt execution of a representative Church a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours And thus he concludes from Mat. 18. that there is a representative Church of one particular Congregation as before from Act. 15. he acknowledged a representative Church in the Synod for many Churches VI. Whereas Mr Dav. alledgeth out of Mr Parker that the power Ecclesiasticall do the essentially and primarily reside in the Church it self as in its proper subject although this be no ground for the refutation of that power and jurisdiction belonging to Synods as I have shewed (c) P. 89.90 before yet even this ground also is denyed by Mr Baynes who goes not so farre as Mr Parker (d) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 8. p. 28. c. touching the derivation of all Ecclesiasticall authority from a particular Church as from the fountaine but doth in some part oppose that opinion especially in respect of that influence of authority per intuitum viz. that which is in Ministers called immediately of Christ as the Apostles were yet in respect of the end and the whole is sayd to be from the Church mediately c. And therefore though Mr Parker was farre from the opinion of Mr Dav. yet was Mr Baynes farre further from it His judgement herein as being worthy the consideration of the Readers I have thought meet to set downe the more fully And first speaking by occasion of the power of jurisdiction in the Church he sayth (e) Dioc. tryal p. 69. Christ hath committed it originaliter exercitative to the representative Church that they might Aristocratically administer it And afterwards coming to intreat of the third maine question in his booke (f) Ibid. p. 98. Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any one singular person or to a united multitude of Presbyters he there sets downe his judgment more largely in divers conclusions (g) P. 83.84 on this manner Conclus 3. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof was not given to the communitie of the Church or to the whole multitude of the faithfull so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ and virtually deriving it to others This I set downe against the Divines of Constance our prime Divines as Luther and Melancthon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians errour for in his booke depudicitia he maketh Christ to haue left all Christians with like power but the Church for her honour did dispose it as we see The proportion of a politick body and naturall deceived them while they will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omni simile for then should it be the same with the analogatum True it is all civill power is in the body politick the collections of subjects then in a King from them And all the power of hearing seeing they are in the whole man which doth produce them effectually though formally and instrumentally they are in the eare and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the communitie or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the communitie in the King from them but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our King before any in the Church from him But to whom should he first commit this power but to his Queene Answ Considering this power is not any Lordly power but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole communitie which are the Queen of Christ For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herself properly but to have persons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in naturall bodies the power of seeing is first immediately in the man from the man in the eye and particular members In the mysticall body the faith of a beleever is not first immediately in all then in the beleever but first of all and immediately in the personall beleever for whose good it serveth more properly then for the whole every man being to live by his owne faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel so derived to the Priest but immediately from Christ seated in Aaron and his sonnes Object Yea they were given the Church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis totius Answ I but this is not enough that power may be sayd to be immediately received by the Church as the first
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
for it while he addeth three other causes wherein the authority of Synods is superiour unto particular Churches wherein is expressed contained as much power as we asscribe unto Synods But that it may further appeare how Mr Dav. is condemned by his owne witnesse it is to be considered touching this famous light of Gods Church that as he (z) Epist Dedicat. undertook that great work at the appoyntment and command of a Synod as his sonne Adr. Chamierus after his fathers death dedicated that work unto the excellent and faythfull servants of God the Pastours and Elders of the French Churches assembled in a Nationall Synod comparing them to the threescore valiant men of the valiantest in Israel compassing the bed of Salomon all holding swords expert in warre every man with his sword upon his thigh because of feare in the night Sol. song c. 3.7 8. and as againe speaking of the Synod he applyes unto them that which is sayd of the Tower of David where the shields of the mighty men are hanged up c. Sol. song 4.4 so in the book itself there are many ample and pregnant testimonies touching the authority jurisdiction of Synods And first of all where he proves that the government of the Church is Aristocraticall by many and not Monarchicall by one he makes this distinction (a) Chamie Panstrat Cath. Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 5. The government of Churches is either of severall Churches or of many together viz. by Synods In both he maintaines an Aristocracie or jurisdiction of many He doth not restraine jurisdiction to particular Congregations and allow onely counsell or advise to Synods but he useth the same words and phrases to describe the power and government of one sort as well as of the other to note a like kinde of authority in both For the government of many Churches together in a Province he savth (b) Ibid. c. 7. For the disposing and directing of publick affaires Provinciall Synods were appointed that is companies of Bishops in the same Province which were assembled so often as need commodity required For evidence thereof he alledgeth divers Canons commendeth Cyprian for observing that order Touching the administration of all Churches in the world he sayth (c) Ibid. c. 8. He that denyeth these to have bene governed by Vniversall Synods must be either notoriously impudent or ignorant of all antiquity For in the very beginnings when a great question was raysed about the rites of Moses and some would have those that were converted from heathenish Idolatry to be subjected unto them Luke testifyeth that a Synod was assembled Act. 15. The Apostles and Elders came together to looke unto this matter And by the authority of this Synod that question was compounded which authority that they might signify to be the greatest the decree is conceived in these words It seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us And that this was an Oecumenicall or Universall Synod he there maintaineth by divers reasōs against Ioverius who in regard of the small number that met together affirmed it to be a particular Synod It seemes also that this was the place from whence Mr Parker took that which he alledged out of Chamierus because in these two chapters 7. 8. are contained those testimonies which he citeth And here it is that he speakes of causa communis or the common cause which Cyprian would have to be judged by a Synod And here it is that he speakes of some proper causes belonging peculiarly to some Bishops in their speciall charges viz. c. 7. But these things are not onely misquoted by Mr Dav. by putting the 2d book for the 10th but the sense is altered while Chamierus comparing Bishops with Metropolitanes restraines some things from Metropolitanes to such Bishops as had divers countries under them And though he shew how Cyprian brought a common cause unto the Synod yet he doth not affirme that onely such common causes were to be brought unto Synods Chamierus doth not witnesse that the power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters as Mr D. alledgeth him for witnesse thereof And in c. 8. he brings many evidences to witnesse the power of Generall Synods in judging the causes of all Churches Againe in the Question whether the Bishop of Rome may be judged of any Chamierus shewes the opinion of the Protestants whom he calleth Catholicks in opposition to the Papists that (d) Ibid. l. 13. c. 17. No Bishop at all may by divine right be judged of another but of many to wit in a Synod so as it hath most often bene done And when Bellarmine objected the examples of some Synods that refused to judge the Bishop of Rome Chamierus answereth that some of them were particular Synods consisting onely of such as were under the Romane Therefore they could make no generall decree but could onely ordaine that the Bishop of Rome should not be judged of them assembled in a particular Synod which certainely they either did not speak concerning a Generall Synod or els they spoke falsely A plaine confession of the jurisdiction of Synods for had he spoken of counsell or admonition onely why might not any one particular Bishop or Synod have admonished the Pope upon occasion and given their advise touching him In his dispute touching Appeales he sayth (e) Ibid. l. 14. c. 2. We doe not take away all appeales For they are of common equity and truely without them the Discipline of the Church could hardly or not at all subsist And he speakes there of such appeales as were made unto Synods Afterward speaking of the imposture or coosenage of the Bishop of Rome in the sixt Councell of Carthage where appeales denyed to Rome are yet expressely allowed to be made unto the Synods of their owne Province or to a Generall Councell hereupon Chamierus cryes out (f) Ibid. c. 3. Immane quantam crucem c. O how unspeakable a crosse is procured unto our Papists by the sincere constancy of those good fathers among whom were those great men Aurelius of Carthage and Augustine of Hippo c. Now look what weight and strength the testimony of those African fathers hath against the Papists even so much authority hath it against such as stand for the single uncompounded policie which deny the jurisdiction and power of Synods to determine such causes as by appeales are brought unto them For the jurisdiction of Synods in receiving appeales is in the same place as plainly confessed as the jurisdiction of the Pope is denyed by their prohibition of appeales to be made unto him Againe when he proves that the Pope is subject to Ecclesiasticall judgement he doth in the same question with one conclude that there is a superiority of power and jurisdiction in Synods to judge of him He instanceth (g) Ibid. c. 10. in Honorius a Bishop of Rome who by the sixt Synod was not onely judged but condemned as a
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
being such parties also as had bene already censured about that controversy And see the dawbing between Mr Canne and W.B. The conclusion spoken of was not the conclusion of the Congregation and Mr Canne himself allowes not a Consistory to make any such conclusions without the Congregation and by his profession it doth not belong unto a Consistory and yet he helps W.B. to exclaime for that wherein he himself is of another minde Touching the words of the Prophet abused and misapplyed by them to frame their complaint Woe unto us we are spoyled Ier. 4.13 I answer 1. The liberty of appeales unto Classes and Synods is that which preserveth a Church and the members thereof from being spoyled by any faction And by their help we enjoy our liberty and peace and are established and furnished with such Ministers as agree with us in the trueth and are endued with such gifts as are meet for our edification 2. On the contrary for want of combination with Classes Mr Can. may justly take up the complaint Woe unto us we are spoyled Since his comming unto them beside former dissipations their Church is rent in the midst by incurable contentions their people scattered he himself deposed and rejected by the Elders people they mutually one half abandoning another avoyding one anothers companies as excommunicates Loe here a Spoyle ARGVM X. It is a sinne against God to adde any thing to that forme and manner of ordering Churches which Christ our heavenly Prophet hath set forth unto us in the New Testament To subject particular Congregations under any other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves is to adde unto that forme and manner of ordering Churches which c. Therefore it is a sinne to doe it The Proposition cannot be excepted against for the Scriptures herein are evident Deut. 4.2 c. Many learned men c. The Assumption cannot for shame be denyed onely because the weight of the controversy leaneth upon it I will speak further of it in the next Section ANSVV. For the Proposition I. If it be well understood I doe willingly grant it And Mr Canne doth againe trifle in alledging so many Scriptures Ancient fathers and other later Writers for the proof thereof II. Both the Scriptures and other Writers alledged by him doe as well condemne such as take from the word of God as those that adde unto it And therefore they serve to reprove Mr Can. that detracts from it by denying the authority of Synods taught in the forementioned Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament The Kings coyne is adulterate as well by clipping and diminishing the same as otherwise This crime are they guilty of that clip the authority of Synods III. The Fathers here mentioned doe give expresse testimony for Synods by speciall particular allowance of them and therefore they are doubly abused being thus alledged against their meaning For the Assumption he incurreth a threefold shame I. It is a bold and shameles assertion for him to say it cannot for shame be denyed when as it is evidently false and generally denyed by the most godly and learned in all ages II. Another shame it is that though he here confesse the weight of the controversy leaneth upō it yet here he brings nothing at all for the confirmation thereof This is his manner where no need of proof is there he idlie abounds with Scriptures Fathers and other Writers where the poynt of difference is on which the weight of the controversy leaneth there he leaves his Assumptions naked and without proof III. It is a further shame to put us off to the next Section and to tell us he will there speak further of it where he onely alledgeth the testimonies of men Is this answerable to the profession of the Brownists that boast so much To the Law and to the Testimony HAving thus examined his Arguments which he hath honoured with the ornaments of his Art by propounding them in Syllogisticall formes we will now proceed to consider another sort of his Reasons to which he doth not vouchsafe so much respect but propounds them more carelesly and nakedly without such complete Logicall attire Of these he sayth There are yet other reasons to proove our Assertion the which I will here lay downe more briefly REAS. I. (i) Church plea p. 75. If every Eldership have a like equall power as Hierome Cyprian Bucer and others affirme then may not the Officers of one Congregation seeke by authority to suppresse the acts and decrees concluded in another ANSVV. I. The consequence of this reason is denyed by us Though every Eldership be of equall power yet the Ministers and Elders of one Congregation being joyned together in a Classis or Synod with the Deputies of many Churches these may lawfully seek by their joynt authority to suppresse any unlawfull acts or decrees of another Congregation The reason is because as D. Whitaker (k) De Cōc qu. 1. c. 3. reasoneth from Matt. 18.20 and Mr Parker (l) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 13. § 4. alledgeth againe from him Vis unita fortior Power combined is the stronger The concurrence of power from many Churches is the ground on Synodall and Classicall authority over particular Churches though otherwise in themselves considered apart they be all equall II. Note here againe the trifling and shifting of Mr Canne To prove the equality of Elderships he alledgeth the testimonies of Hierome Cyprian Bucer and others though I had before granted it and shewed that in the Classis our Eldership had (m) Answ to W. B p. 86. the same liberty and power in giving our voyces equally with others and that our Elders (n) Ibid. p. 90. have exercised as much authority as any member of the Classis by giving their voyces for deciding judging and determining any controversy c. yet needlesly he brings divers Writers for proof of this confessed and practised trueth and for the confirmation of his most false consequence he offers not to bring any proof at all from any word of God or man REAS. II. It is against sence that a Minister should undertake the care of more Churches then one onely who reads in Scripture of a steward over many families a sheep heard over divers flockes c. Nature hath ordained saith (o) Lib. 1. c. 2. Aristotle one unto one ANSVV. I. We read in Scripture of Jaacob that was a shepherd over divers flockes both of his owne and of Labans Gen. 30.36 40. II. We read in Scripture of the Apostles that were stewards and shepherds over divers flockes having the care of all Churches 1. Cor. 4.1 with 2. Cor. 11.28 Ioh. 20.15 16. Mr Canne ought at least to have excepted extraordinary Shepherds III. Though ordinary Pastours or Ministers have the peculiar and proper charge of no more then one flock yet in regard of a common and joynt care of many Churches combined in Classes and Synods we read in Scripture that the
on 1. Cor. 5.5 doth thus interpret the words Let such a one be delivered to Satan to wit by the Church or by the Pastours and Elders of the Church which are the mouth of the Church For by these the Church speaketh and dealeth Without this order there would be confusion if in a publick action every one might speake and deale which undoubtedly the Apostle would not bring in This we grant and it is not against us but against the confused practise of the Brownists But for the poynt in hand that Classes and Synods have power to judge of the actions of particular Congregations Paraeus is a plaine witnesse for us in (d) Colleg. Theol. Decur Coll. 9. Disp 8. Auccar 1. Co. 10. Disp 22. th 1-10 Disp 24. th 9. other of his writings And againe speaking of a lawfull Synod and the authority thereof in deciding of controversies in the Church he saith that therein (e) Eirenic cap. 5. men renowmed in regard of their learning understanding and piety whether they be of the Laity or Clergy have not onely a voice of delibertion and counsell but also of judgement and power of defining And hereunto accordes his (f) Act. Sym. Nar. Dordr Ses 98. Epistle written unto the Nationall Synod holden last at Dort wherein excusing his absence that he could not come in respect of his age as he much desired yet he shewes his approbation of such a meeting as being the ordinary medicine for healing the wounds of the Church and rejoyceth greatly in the spirit for the benefit exspected from that Synod which judged censured the errours of particular men in divers Churches What reason then had Mr Canne thus to abuse the words of Paraeus against his meaning and publick profession Keckerman also agreeth with the former witnesses touching the poynt in controversy For in the book alledged by Mr Canne when as the parts of the government of the Church are there described he shewes that (g) System Theo. l. 3. c. 6. p. 401.402 the convocation of Synods belongeth unto Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and is contained under the same Hemmingius though more sound and moderate then other Lutheranes yet being a disciple and follower of Melancthon there was no reason why he should not have bene joyned with his Master in the foregoing ranke of Testimonies if Mr Canne had either knowne his Authour or regarded the order which he had set downe to himself But for his judgement touching the jurisdiction of Synods he hath witnessed his consent with the Writers mentioned both in this the former Section and testifyed against Mr Canne in this cause For speaking of that part of Ecclesiasticall Discipline unto which he referres the deposition and excommunication of Ministers he commends the order of the ancient Church where he saith (h) Enchir. Theo. Clas 3. c. 11. the execution of this discipline was chiefly committed to the Bishops who therefore sometimes twise sometimes oftner in the yeare called Provinciall Synods where the matter was handled not by the censure of one Bishop but by the sentence of the whole Clergy assembled Tossanus mentioned in the next place hath plainely declared himself to be of the same minde with us in allowing Synodall and Classicall assemblies to judge determine the causes of particular Churches and persons He (i) Pastor Evang. p. 61 edit 1603. maintaines against Thyraeus that which he had formerly written in these words In controversies of religion we appeale from Luther and from the censures and judgements of private men unto the judgement of the Catholick Church and of a Synod He proves this to be sound and orthodoxe from the Apostles referring the decision of the controversie concerning Iustification and the Ceremonies of the Law unto the Councell at Ierusalem Act. 15. Speaking of somewhat that was wanting in most of the German Churches about the ordaining of Ministers he saith that (k) P. 40. godly Pastours and Overseers doe dayly bewaile the scarsitie of faithfull labourers and that the Presbyteries and well ordered Ecclesiasticall Senates doe indeavour that both in Synods and yearely visitations and in Classicall meetings the failings of Ministers may be amended according to their power In which words he hath reference unto the practise of the Churches in the Palatinate concerning which we are to speake (l) Sect. 7. hereafter where he joyned with them in the exercise of the sayd government being (m) D. Toss Vita p. 38. at Neustadt a moderator of the Ecclesiasticall counsels of the Consistory and sometime also President of a Synod and afterwards at Heidelberg (n) Ib. P. 44. a member of the Ecclesiasticall Senate How unjustly therefore untruely hath Mr Canne dealt with Tossanus and his readers in reckoning him among those who as he saith (o) Ch. pl. p. 83. have condemned for an errour untrueth that position touching particular Congregations standing under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves As for Polanus to grant Mr Canne that he was of the same minde with the former Authours touching the Churches power in excommunicating though so much can hardly be manifested out of the (p) Synt. Theol. l. 7. c. 18. place alledged yet what is that to our question The Churches power in excommuncating doth not exclude the authority of Synods in judging of a particular Congregation Polanus speaking of Synods expressely confesseth that (q) Ib. c. 14 the liberty or power of those Ecclesiasticall assemblies is a right given of God unto his Church c. that An Ecclesiasticall Synod is a publick assemblie of godly men lawfully sent and gathered together from divers Churches also of divers Provinces that they may handle and determine according to the power that is granted unto them of God touching holy affaires c. He alledgeth sundry Scriptures and examples of the Ancient Churches for declaration hereof And againe in the same place he notes it for a condition of a lawfull Synod that those which are chosen and deputed of the Churches may have a deliberative or consulting and also a deciding voyce or giving of sentence c. When he requires another condition of a lawfull Synod that every one may have free accesse and recesse yet he addes this withall that whosoever is convicted of heresy or any crime and remaineth obstinate should undergoe Ecclesiasticall censure that is deposition from his Ecclesiasticall office or Suspension or Excommunication And to like purpose he writes in (r) Ib. c. 16. Syllo Thes Theol. par 1 de Concil other places This being the judgement of Polanus touching the authority of Synods how uncircumspect was W. Best his abettour to call for a Iurie of such Divines as have given such pregnant sentence and so peremptory verdict against them Hyperius next alledged though he deny not the power of particular Congregations yet in his writings it is evident that he holdes the power of Synods consisting of the Deputies of many Churches to be a
of that order which for election of Church-officers is practised at Geneva saying (q) Ibid. p. 105. that it is religiously and prudently observed Mr Canne might there have seen himself condemned under the name of Morellius even by this Replyer also as well as by Beza seeing it is as true of him as of the other that which is there sayd that he hath presumed by word and writing to reprehend that order c. our course being in substance the same and opposed by Mr C. in like manner as theirs was by Morellius Againe in the (r) P. 106. next page the sayd Authour doth expressely reject and detest that popular government practised among the Brownists and pleaded for by Mr Canne when having sayd that the peoples consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment according to that which we teach and practise he addes withall Notwithstanding a meere Democracie wherein all matters are handled of all aequato jure by an equall right we doe no lesse detest then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates which other reformed Churches have abolished And afterwards (Å¿) P. 113. when he allowes a preheminence for orders sake unto some one to be the mouth of the rest in executing that which was by the whole Presbytery decreed and then explaines that one to be the President of the Presbyters that is to say in each Congregation the Pastor and in a Synod or assembly of the Pastors and Presbyters of many Churches that one which with the consent and choyse of his brethren moderates the action there is no reason why we should not hence conclude his approbation of Synods such as are and have bene celebrated in well ordered Churches even such as doe not onely advise but also decree what is meet as he had sayd of the Presbyterie in generall As for the other places alledged out of this Authour I referre the Reader unto that which I have sayd (r) P. 116.117 before touching the same in my answer to Mr Davenport Mr Parker next alledged speakes downe right in this thing saith Mr Canne The words cited out of Mr Parker are these All Ecclesiasticall power is alwayes in the whole Congregation from hence it flowes as from the fountaine and to the same it returneth as to the Sea For answer hereunto 1. This Testimony here alledged by Mr C. is not onely cited amisse viz. Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 6. instead of c. 8. p. 28. and some words also unjustly added by him unto the testimony to make it seeme more full for his purpose but being taken as he sets it downe it doth not infringe the authority of Classes and Synods For though all Ecclesiasticall authority be sayd to flow from the Church as from a fountaine this hinders not but rather shewes how power may be and is derived unto Classes when particular Churches as fountaines doe by deputation and delegation send forth a streame of authority and power in Classicall and Synodall Assemblies in such manner as Mr Parker himself doth afterward (v) Pol. Eccl l. 3 c. 13. c. 23 24 25 c. often shew unto his Reader II. For the downe-right speech of Mr Parker wherein Mr Canne glorieth I desire the Readers that understand to review those passages which I have (x) P. 89-105 before noted at large out of Mr Parkers booke them that are able to looke upon those places in the booke itself and then to judge whether Mr Canne be not either very blinde in alledging the testimonies of learned men when he knowes not what they say or els very impudent and dishonest in corrupting and perverting their testimonies contrary to their meaning As for Mr Baines he is confusedly alledged viz. Dioces Tryall Conclus 4. for whereas in that booke there is often mention of Conclus 4. who can tell what place he meanes The trueth is that none of those fourth Conclusions in any part of his booke doe by any word empeach the authority of Classes or Synods But on the contrary in that his writing he gives plaine and evident testimonies of his agreement with us as I have (y) P. 111-116 already sufficiently declared Come we now to the testimony (z) Chu pl. p. 23. alledged in the name of D. Fulke whom Mr Canne praiseth to be a man famous and of rare learning They object unto me that he saith (a) Learned Discours of Eccl. Gov. p. 84. There ought to be in every Church an Eldership which ought to have the hearing examination and determining of all matters pertayning to the Discipline Government of that Congregation Hereunto I answer that such authority is to be exercised by the Eldership yet so as that the judgement and consent of the Congregation in weightier matters be not excluded and so also that the judgement of the Classis or Synod be not refused or denyed This Author will have the Eldership to determine all matters if they be able to doe it so he expounds himself shewing afterward that there be divers matters which the Eldership is not able by themselves to finish without help of a Synod And because Mr Canne in the margine of his booke sets his marke over against this place desiring us to Note this so I desire both him and others to note wel what this Author writes concerning the authoriy necessity and use of Synods I am glad to heare Mr C. to give so great commendation unto this indeed Learned Author who is so pregnant a witnesse for me and for Synods against the Brownists This is that which he (b) Ibid. p. 82.83 saith Seeing our Saviour Christ promised his presence and authoritie to every Church indifferently Matt. 18.19.20 None may challenge any such prerogative afore other but as the Churches are limited out for order and conveniencie so is every one of them of like authority in itself but because they make all but one Church and one body of Christ therefore there is but one authority in them to determine of matters concerning them all By which there appeareth to be a double authority of the Pastor one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour the other with the whole Synod or assembly whereof he is a member and both these authorities we finde sufficiently authorised in the Scripture c. Againe (c) Ibid. p. 111. 112. There is a double authority of the Pastour the one joyned with the Elders of the Church whereof he is Pastour the other with the Synod or holy assembly whereof he is a member There ariseth oftentimes in the Church divers Controversies which cannot otherwise be expressed pertayning to the state of the whole Church then by a generall assemblie of all the Pastours of that Church which is called a Synod or Generall Councell Also there be divers cases wherein the severall Churches are driven to pray the ayde of the Synod where matters cannot be determined among themselves For this cause the Holy Ghost
at Frankford for whereas G. Iohnson in a peculiar (y) Disc of troub in the banish English Church at Amsterd p. 21-73 treatise which he wrote against his brother Franc. Iohnson and that Church of the Brownists whereof he was Pastour hath compared the troubles of these two Churches together in the first part of this treatise which is entitled The agreement between the banished English Church at Frankford in Q. Maries dayes and some troubles in the banished English Church at Amsterdam in Q. Elizabeths dayes he brings more then an 100 severall instances to shew that where any disorder scandall or offence was in the English Church at Frankford the like evills scandals and offences were also to be found and observed in the English Church of the Separatists in Amsterdam And in the second part of this treatise entitled (z) Ibid. p. 73-93 Differences between the Pastor Elders people in the troubles at Frankford in Q. Maries dayes and the Pastor Elders and people in the troubles at Amsterdam in Q. Elizabeths dayes he brings more then 20 severall instances to shew that the English Church of the Separation was worse then the other and that where divers good orders and practises were in the English Church at Frankford the same were wanting in the Church of the Brownists at Amsterdam And in particular let this be observed that concerning the English Church at Frankford G. Iohnson (a) P. 74. alledgeth that there was agreement among them that the matter should be decided by learned men But concerning those at Amsterdam he saith These differ farre from them herein they will not consent hereunto they will not be persuaded or intreated to let the Reformed Churches heare try judge and end the controversy between them and us For proof hereof he notes in his margine This is witnessed by the testimony of the Dutch Preachers given to the Pastors father Now instead of pleading from the orders of that Church at Frankford it had bene fitter for Mr Canne to have taken warning from these unparalleld offences of his predecessours not to maintaine the like disorders or els to have answered these parallels and censures of G. Iohnson and so to have removed if he could the scandall and blame which hath so long lien upon his fellowes for not answering this book HAving considered the particular testimonies of Non-conformists and how they have bene perverted by Mr Canne in applying them against the authority of Synods it shall not be amisse to adde yet further a threefold Testimony to manifest this poynt more clearly and fully and so to conclude this Section namely by the Petitions of Non-conformists to Qu. Elizabeth and to the Parliament the opposition of the Prelates to the Non-conformists the scorne of the Brownists against Non-conformists First when as the Ministers have made request unto Q. Elizabeth for reformation of things amisse shewing how controversies may be compounded they say (b) Petit. to the Q. most excel Maj. p. 3. that a free Nationall or Provinciall Councell at home were much to be wished c. And in a treatise annexed thereunto entitled Opinions of such as sue for Reformation among other things which they hold sue for this is one (c) Ibid. § 19. p 57. That if any dissention grow or cause of grievance be given in any particular Church by the Minister or Officers the partie grieved might appeale to a particular Synod from the particular Synod to a Provinciall Synod from a Provinciall Synod to a Nationall Synod Which Synods should be appointed at set times the more particular the Synod is the more often for the time to be moderated by some fit man changeably by election that might write speak and pray in the behalfe and at the direction of the rest c. And a little after againe (d) § 21. they doe professe and protest that they can and will avow this Reformation which they desire to be most agreeable to the Scriptures to have the testimonie of the best most learned men that have bene since the Apostles c. If Mr Ca. will not winke with his eyes he may here see what reformation hath bene sought and held needfull and that Iure Divino In like manner Mr Travers testifieth of these conferences or Classes Synods (e) Eccles Disc p. 98. with p 103. 104. reprin 1617. that nothing could be more profitable then these Assemblies being so used as they are appointed to be used by the word of God and used by other purer and better reformed Churches c. and concludes that his treatise of Discipline with an humble supplication unto Qu. Elizabeth of happy memory for the establishing of such a Discipline in her dominions To like purpose doe they write which were the Authours of the Admonition to the Parliament holden in the 13. year of Q. Eliz. begun Anno 1570 and ended 1571. They (f) Admon to Parl. p. 51 52. ed. 1617 describing the platforme of 2 Church reformed and presenting their desire to the consideration of the Parliament doe therein commend the use of Conferences and of Synods Provinciall Nationall and Generall for determining the weighty causes which could not be ended in particular Churches And they require that men should stand unto these determinations unlesse they can be shewed to be contrary to the Scriptures Secondly such as have bene speciall maintayners of the Prelacie doe confesse and testify that the Ministers which sought for reformation did therein seek for government of the Church by Classes and Synods and that not for counsell onely but to judge the causes of particular Churches and to censure such persons as were found guilty It is by one of them manifested in a speciall (g) Danger Positio for Presbyteri Governm l. 3. c. 2-15 Record that when divers Ministers not conforming were cast into prison and some of them brought into the Starre-Chamber and examined upon their oathes they declared the earnest endeavours of many Ministers for the obtayning of Classes And there among such as gave pregnant testimonie in allowance of Classicall government are nominated these following Mr Chark Mr Travers Mr Gardiner Mr Barber Mr Chester Mr Crook Mr Egerton Mr Field Mr Wilcox Mr Standen Mr Iackson Mr Bonham Mr Crane Mr Sâ—inctloe Mr Edwards Mr Cholmeley Mr Wright Mr Gifford Mr Gelibrand Mr West Mr Browne Mr Knewstubs Mr Wight Mr Walker Mr Cartwright Mr Fen Mr Oxenbridge Mr Perkins Mr Allen Mr Dike Mr Culverwell c. And about Northampton-shire alone are (h) Ib. p. 77 recorded more then 20 of this minde About Northampton Mr Snape Mr Penrie Mr Sibthorp Mr Edwards Mr Litlâ—ton Mr Bradshaw Mr Larke Mr Fleshware Mr Spicer c. About Daventrie Mr Barbon Mr Rogers Mr King Mr Smart Mr Sharp Mr Promdlos Mr Elliston c. About Kettring Mr Stone Mr Williamson Mr Fawsbrook Mr Patinson Mr Massey c. The lawes rules and order both in Classes and in Synods described in
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
H. Ia. against whom he disputed by writing about the subject you speake of The author resteth fully perswaded of that he hath written yet referreth againe as he did before his doings to censure and that by you Mr Ames and Mr Parker or either of you to alter c. soe be that the adversarie he answered Afterwards he explained himself more fully on this manner Had my beloved altered what he deemed untrue or insufficient he had done but what I desired and would have bene well pleased with soe he that it had not weakned the answer But to come to the particulars 1. Concerning the Synods both their institution and power what it is belongeth to another question neither conceive I how ought from that assertion in the Reply which you except against can be drawne to prejudice the judgment or practise of the Churches governed by Synods for I conceive not so of their Synods that they robbe the particular Churches whereof Elders there sit to determine of causes of the power of government by their Presbyteries Nay rather seeing their Synods have their power by and from the deputation which the Elders there assembled have from the particular Churches if I be not deceyved it will follow that the power of government originally resteth in them and not in the Synods c. Observe in these passages of Mr Sh. 's letters besides what I intended and mentioned before 1. His judgment set downe here more plainly then in any place of his book touching the power of Synods in the determining of causes agreeable unto that which the Authour maintaineth in this Treatise considering what he saith in his (a) Pag. 89. 90. 203. answer to the objections alledged out of Mr Parker 2. The difference then acknowledged betwixt Mr Iacob and other Non-conformists concerning the authority of Synods which Mr D. would seeme to excuse (b) Apol. repl p. 236. by some words of Mr I. wherein he speakes not directly touching this poynt in controversy 3. The Authours care to maintaine the due power of Classes and Synods even in those times when there could be no suspicion of his owne advantage or private ingagement therein wherewith his Opposites doe unjustly (c) Apol. repl p. 61 63 232 235. Chur. pl. p. 11. 41. 100. upbraid him faining it to be the cause of his late pleading for them Moreover whereas the Authour hath taken the liberty upon occasion to witnesse his dissent from D. Ames touching certaine particulars in this controversy he hath done no more then D. A. was wont to allow unto all ingenuous Readers of his writings and in speciall unto the Authour When he put forth his first Dispute against Grevinchovius which he inscribed unto our Authour in his (d) De Armin sentēt Discept scholast An. 1613. Praef. ad I. P. Ex memet ipso judicium faciens tibi vir amicissime sicut affirmāti facile credo sic ut postulanti nunc tandē cedam non aegre quidē adducor c. Ibid. p. 57. Vito doctissimo D.P. Hoc quidem recte judicas judiciosissime vir c. Epistles printed with it where he calles him a most loving most learned and most judicious man he wrote unto him withall in his private letter As I leave it to you to print mine or not to print so also to blotte out or alter what you see amisse To like purpose he wrote unto him concerning his Reply to D. Morton When his booke called the Marrow of Divinity first came forth he sent him a Copie with this expresse condition that he should write unto him his animadversions upon it And in like manner on the other side when the Author was to publish his Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists he sent the severall parcels first to D. Ames to be perused by him who answered sometime on this wise For this part of your writing unto Mr Ainsw I finde nothing in it but good Of another part he saith In it I finde much good paines and as usefull as the subject would permit no defect of any moment c. And againe I have perused all the rest of the sheets and finde nothing which I can mend c. Your paines have been very great in this businesse I pray God the fruit may answer thereunto Such was the judgement of these godly learned and famous men touching the Authour and his sufficiencie for businesses of this kinde I have set downe nothing here but what I have to shew in black and white as the Author of the Preface to D. Ames his last booke (e) Fresh suit praef p. G. 1. b. saith upon somewhat the like occasion To come neerer unto the work in hand the occasion of this writing touching Classes and Synods cannot but be accounted grievous unto such as have hearts to be affected with the dissensions of brethren But bitter roots doe many times yeeld sweet and wholesome fruits God hath here also many wayes ordered for good that which in itself was and tended to evill I need not inlarge about that whereof they that are desirous may easily be informed from what hath been heretofore published In a word Complaints were made by those whom it least beseemed These being divulged first in written copies and afterwards in print gave just occasion unto as publick an Answer Unto this Answer hath been returned a twofold Reply the one called Apologeticall by him that had holpen to complaine the other entitled The Churches plea for her right by a knowne Schismatick standing in opposition to all the Reformed Churches and in his behalfe who refused to joyne as a member unto his Church when he schismed from that whereof he was a member when the complaints were framed These Replyes undertake to handle besides matters of fact these two poynts that were at the same time opposed to wit the due power of Classes and Synods and the lawfulnes of baptising infants whose parents are no members of a particular Congregation The former of these is sufficiently maintained in the ensuing Treatise For the other though the Author have not gone so farre in it as in this yet he hath layd such a foundation as upon which it will not be difficult to build what may satisfy for the clearing of that controversie Whereof more hereafter as conveniency and publick benefit shall require Touching personall concernment though I acknowledge my self doubly and trebly bound to vindicate the Authors reputation at whose feet I have been brought up and from whom I have received farre more then by such or better meanes I am ever able to requite and though it were easy to shew how his opposites have offended in many untrueths touching matters of fact and vaine pretences of meeknes in the midst of great bitternes c. yet I am resolved to passe by and to bury these things in silence unlesse further cause be given for the publishing of them And hereunto as I have been advised by others so I have the rather
all sorts the sayd words as they are written in their owne letters being compared together eyther joyntly or severally II. If the Deacons may distribute some almes ūto the poore without the knowledge of the whole Congregation then may the Elders also judge some causes without the knowledge of the whole Church But the first is true Therefore c. The consequence of the Propositiō is proved by this Because the whole Church hath as much right authority to dispose of the Church-treasure almes as they have to judge of the offences that are committed therein This the Scripture sheweth by the examples of sundry Churches of Antiochia Macedonia Achaia c. Act. 11.29 30. Rom. 15 25-28 1. Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8.1.4.19 Phil. 2.25 with c. 4.18 The Assumption is manifest and your owne practise confirmeth it III. If Arbiters chosen by consent of some particular persons may judge the causes of wrong injury whether publick or private wherein they strive against one another then may the Elders chosen by consent of the whole Church judge the causes offences that arise when they willingly submit unto the same But Arbiters so chosen may judge the causes referred unto them Therefore the Elders may doe it also The truth of the Proposition appeares because the free solemne consent of the Church in any election gives authority unto such persons either in generall or speciall workes as well as the choyse of any particular men in their causes Act. 14.23 2. Cor. 8.19 The truth of the Assumption appeares by the doctrine of the Apostle giving such power of judgement unto Arbiters 1. Cor. 6.4 5. If you answer hereunto as you (l) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyfton p. 43. elswhere expound this place that these controversies to be referred unto Arbiters are for civill things of this life that such are not Church-matters nor there to be heard c. this is insufficient and will not help you seeing it appeares by the text that these Controversies in Corinth might as well have bene sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as Civill and belonging to the judgement of the Church as of the Magistrates or Arbiters Had their controversies bene touching a wound or stroke given touching any slander or theft which may be sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as belonging to the judgement of the Church yet might the Apostle have sayd unto them thereupon all that he doth 1. Cor. 6 1-9 for 1. These are businesses which Infidell Magistrates in those times used to judge and the generall speech of the Apostle imports as much v. 1. 6. 2. The reason which the Apostle useth taken from the honour dignity of Saints in their judgement of Angels the world serves to perswado them to submit the judgment of such causes to one another mutually as well as any other causes v. 2 3. 3. The reason taken from their shame as if there were no wise men among them to judge these causes serves to reprove them for a want of wisedome in Ecclesiasticall things as well as Civill 4. The matters of controversy among them were of wrong injury done to brethren v. 7 8 9. And these being sinnes scandals belong to the judgment of the Church as doth the judgment of * 2. Cor. 10.4 5 6. 1. Cor. 5.7 all knowne sinnes This Argument is in effect yeelded unto by your self when you (m) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyf ton p. 9. allow the Articles of the Discipline agreed upon in the Reformed English Church which was at Franckford in Q. Maries dayes for whereas in the 62. art thereof in case of difference betwixt the Governours of the Church others it is there concluded that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare determine the sayd matter or matters as it shall seeme good unto the Congregation hereupon in approbation of this Discipline you observe that hereby the reader may see what the learned most conscionable of the Church of England held heretofore which if they had continued in would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacy the bane of so many Churches And hereupon I observe further against you how the reader may hereby see that if the body of the Church may appoint so many Arbiters as they will to heare determine matters then may the Elders of the Church receive this authority as well as any others then is it no unlawfull usurpation for them to heare determine some matters among the brethren by themselves IV. If particular persons may lawfully passe by some lesser offences leave them unto the consciences of the offenders without prosequuting thē or bringing them to the Church for any judgment at all then may the Church also leave some lesser offences unto the judgment of the Elders But the first is true Therefore the second also The consequence of the Proposition is proved because God doth no more require the Church to judge of sinnes made knowne unto the same then he doth require particular persons to prosequute and to deale against the offences made knowne unto them the Scripture speaking as fully giving unto particular persons as ample commission charge to * Mat. 18.15 16 17. Lev. 19.17 admonish and complaine of sinne as it doth unto the Church to judge censure the same The Assumption is proved 1. By expresse testimonyes of Scripture that teach us to passe by some sins offences and not to prosequute them Prov. 19.11 Eccl. 7.21 2. Particular persons being taught to love their neighbour as themselves to doe good unto all Levit. 19.18 Matt. 22.39 Rom. 13.9 Gal. 5.14 Iam. 2.8 are thereby bound to admonish them that are without those that are not mēbers of the same Church with them but of any other eyther true or false or of none Now if this be to be done it followes necessarily that the reproofes of many lesser faults are to be omitted because otherwise men could never discharge this duety neither would their time suffice to performe these dueties of admonition to all such as they should finde subject thereunto both within the Church without Yea suppose they had no other calling to attend upon yet could not the whole age of man be sufficient to testify effectually in order against all such transgressions which an intelligent person might discerne to be committed dayly before his eyes both in private publick 3. Even yourself seem to acknowledge this also when touching the difference of offences you say (i) Com. of Saints cap. 22. § 2. 3. when offences arise it shal be our glory if we can passe them by as Solomon hath sayd But if the trespasse be such as we may not but insist upon both for the honour of God who is offended soule of the sinner which is endangered our owne or neighbours good who are endammaged thereby then are we bound to admonish the trespasser hereof
c. Doth not this distinction of offences different manner of dealing allowed by yourself shew that for some trespasses we are not bound to admonish the trespasser nor to insist upon them V. If Magistrates may lawfully passe by the judgment of some lesser sinnes then may the Church also passe by the publick censure of some lesser offences But the Magistrates may doe it Therefore the Church also The consequence of the Proposition appeareth because the Church is not more strictly bound to judge any sinne then the Magistrate is his commission for the judgement of all kinde of sinne great or small being as large as the Churches he being ordained of God to keep all the words of his Law to be a keeper of both Tables and to judge all evill according to the nature of it as well as farre as the Church is Deut. 17.18 19. Iosh 1.7 8. 1. Kin. 2.3 1. Chron. 28.7 8. 29.19 Prov. 20 8. Rom. 13.3 4. The Assumption appeareth likewise to be true from the first proofe of the Assumption in the former Argument as also from this that men are sometimes reproved for bringing their brethren before the Magistrates even in cases of injury sinne committed against them 1. Cor. 6 1-8 whereas if they were absolutely bound to let no small offence passe without judgement then should it also be the fault of others not to bring the same unto them this whether they were Christians or Infidels the like law charge being given unto them both VI. The ending of some controversies judging of some publick offences without the knowledge of the whole Congregation is by yourself acknowledged to be lawfull in the approbation of that Discipline in the English Church at Franckford which was there confirmed by the Church Magistrate for whereas it was there agreed that (k) Disc of troub at Franckf pag 115. c. art 53. if admonition with witnesses prevayled not the offence was then to be declared to the Ministers Elders to whom the Congregation hath given authority to take order in such cases according to the Discipline of the Church that (l) Art 54. there be three degrees of Ecclesiasticall Discipline first that the offendour acknowledge his fault and shew himselfe penitent before the Ministers Seniors secondly that if he will not so doe as well his originall crime as also his contempt of the Ministers Elders who have the authority of the Church be openly declared by one of the Ministers before the whole Congregation c. that (m) Art 67. if any controversy be upon the doubtfull meaning af any word or words in the Discipline that first it be referred to the Ministers Seniors if they cannot agree thereupon then the thing to be brought and referred to the whole Congregation Hereupon after recitall of these Articles held by the learned and most conscionable of the Church of England heretofore you adde as I noted before in another particular that (t) Animad vers p. 8.9 if they had continued herein it would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacie c. And further as you would there have it to be observed by the reader against Mr Clyfton Mr Iohnson in your third note upon the allegation of these Articles so may we as fitly observe against yourself in your owne words that if you had looked upon the examples which yourselves alledge you might have seen your errours resisted by others against which the Lord hath now called me also to witnesse CHAP. III. A Refutation of sundry errours vvhereupon Mr Ainsvvorth grounds their Popular Government The first Errour YOu seek to build the government of the Church upon unsure foundations these of sundry sorts First in that you argue from the examples of Civill Government in the Common-wealth to demonstrate the power of the people in the one by the authority exercised in the other This errour is to be observed in you divers wayes 1. In your (a) Art 24. Confession of faith and (b) Pos 8. p. 60. Apology you describe labour to prove the power given unto each Christian Congregation for the cutting off of any member to be in the whole body together from the Law of God mentioning a Civill judgment to be executed by the people of the Land in killing the man that should give his children unto Molech Lev. 20.4 5. and from the commandement that bound the Israelites to bring the Blasphemer without the campe to stone him to death Lev. 24.14 But 1. These judgements were Civill corporall punishments not spirituall censures 2. These were to be executed on strangers and such as were no members of the Church as well as upon them that were members thereof Lev. 20.2 24.16 3. These were to be executed on the offendours without exception whether they repented or not By what manner of reasoning then can the power of Ecclesiasticall censures be deduced or demonstrate from such examples as these II. In your (c) Animad vers p. 28. answer to Mr Iohnson you confesse that you alledged Numb 15.33 27.2 35.12 to give light unto the Question touching the power of Excommunication by shewing what was the peoples right then under the Law and under the Magistrate which may be more but cannot be lesse now under the Gospel c. Now those Scriptures the examples contained therein even as those before mentioned doe concerne Civill judgements pleas controversies as the stoning to death of the Sabbath-breaker the dividing of inheritances and possessions unto the daughters of Zelopehad the preserving of him that had staine a man unawares from the avenger of blood unlesse therefore you can shew that the power of excommunication is in all those that have power to execute the sentence of death and of the like Civill punishments you doe in vaine alledge all these examples wrest the word of God unjustly for the maintenance of your owne opinions III. This errour is so much the more inexcusable in you in that you condemne it in others and yet will not acknowledge and see it in yourself When Mr Iohnson would shew the power of the Elders in Ecclesiasticall judgements by the power which the Magistrates had in Israel you tell him that he (d) Anim. adv p. 14. streynes too farre you alledge the testimonies of sundry learned men that disclayme such manner of arguing say that to reason (e) Ibid. p. 16. from the Magistrate to the Minister from the sword to the word from the Law to the Gospell c. the leap is so great that cart-ropes will not tye the conclusion to the premisses that the argument is not good from Civill government to Ecclesiasticall and againe that the example is altogether unlike of temporall empire spirituall ministery betweene these there is not neither ought neither can a proportion or comparison be rightly made And how then comes it now to passe that the reasoning
from the peoples power in Civill judgements unto their power in Ecclesiasticall judgements should not be as unlawfull as the reasoning from the power of Civill Elders unto Ecclesiasticall Elders or why might not Mr Iohnson derive the power of the Elders in Ecclesiasticall matters from Civill as well as you may derive the power of the people from Civill judgements unto the spirituall judgements of the Church IV. The excuse which you bring to colour this unsound manner of reasoning in yourself is that (f) Animadv p. 28. the Apostle applyeth many things from Aarons priesthood (g) Heb. 5.4 9.6.7 13.11 12. to Christ yet he maketh Christs priesthood not to be after Aarons order (h) Heb. 7.11 12 15. but Melchizedeks should men now thus carp at his allegations But I answer 1. When the H. Ghost in the New Testament reasoneth from types figures in the Old such reasoning is authenticall infallible but when men doe reason by proportion similitude from types other temporary ordinances in the Old Testament their reasonings serve onely to illustrate things proved in other places of Scripture but els prove nothing of themselves and therefore though the first kinde of reasoning may not be carped at as being divine yet the latter may ofteÌ„ justly be reproved 2. Though some things may be applyed from the Civill government to the Ecclesiasticall yet that shewes not that they are like in this poynt of the persons by whom the power is to be exercised even as Aarons priesthood Melchizedeks though they be like in some things yet not in all 3. If there be any weight or worth in this evasion it may as well serve to excuse Mr Iohnsons reasoning from the Civill authority of the Magistrates as yours from the Civill authority of the people both of you arguing alike from a Civill power of judgement unto an Ecclesiasticall power The Second Errour YOur second errour in the doctrine of Ecclesiasticall government is that you doe not onely derive the power of the Church from the Civill authority exercised in the Common-wealth but also from such a supposed power of Civill judgement in the people as the Scripture no where gives unto them I. All the places before alledged by you to this purpose doe not prove the same As for that allegation Levit. 20.2 4. where the people of the land are commanded to kill an offendour we are thereby to understand both Princes Rulers as wel as the subjects and so that the power of judging giving sentence is to be asscribed unto the Rulers as the liberty duety of complayning before sentence and of execution after sentence belonged unto the subjects This word people is taken diversly in the Scriptures sometimes for subjects alone by way of opposition to Princes as Exod. 18.21 22. Num. 11.16 17. sometimes for the whole body of a nation comprehending Rulers of all sorts together with the subjects as Gen. 25.23 Deut. 4.6 33. and when any thing is in generall commanded unto the people taken in this sense as here such commandements are to be practised according to the severall callings of men but doe not prove the like power of performing those commandements to be in all the people That place Levit. 24.14 shewes that the people did execute the blasphemer but shewes not that they had power to decree that sentence or to pronounce the judgement in the first place which they executed in the last Those Scriptures Num. 15.33 27.2 35.12 doe shew that divers Civill causes were brought before the people as witnesses to heare the same decided but not as Iudges to give sentence upon the same Yourself speake but faintly of the matter when you (i) Animadv p. 29. plead from Ruth 4.2 7 9 11. that the people were also interested with the Elders in these affaires they might have interest to heare those controversies debated but what is this to prove the power of judgement to be in the whole body of the Congregation Besides if such a presence of the people to heare controversies do prove a power of judgement in the people you might as well plead that almost all Civill governments at this day are Democraticall as in England France Germany where malefactours are brought before the Iudges before the multitudes of people assembling together at such places Other pretences also you doe bring to obscure diminish the authority of the Magistrates in Israel as if they had not power to put a man to death to cut off a man from Israel without the consent of the people c. but they are as the former frivolous insufficient H. AINSVV. (k) Animadv p. 20. I know when Gods Law â—â—ndemned a man if it were shewed by all or any one of the Iudges or Priests or Prophets yea or Israelites the people should in order have executed him ANSVV. But what order was that for the people being subjects to take upon them the execution of judgement upon the testimony of any one of the Iudges or Priests when all the rest both of the Iudges Priests Prophets did not assent What warrant did the law of God in any place give unto the people to exercise such power of judgements upon the declaration of any one of the Israelites when all the Rulers both Civill Ecclesiasticall did make a contrary declaration and could not so understand the law of God as one of the Israelites had shewed it What is this order but the plaine way to sedition tumult H. AINSVV. (l) Ibid. Oft times the Heads of the people judged for rewards Mich. 3.11 the Princes as Lions the Iudges as Wolves devoured them the Priests polluted the Sanctuary wrested the Law Zeph. 3.3 4. Isa 1.23 And then the people of the land whose duâ—ty also it was to looke to open wickednes Levit. 20.24 were neither to follows the many nor mighty in evill Exod. 23.2 7. ANSVV. 1. Oft times the people also were wicked rebellious Idolatrous Apostates and presumptuous abettours maintainers of evill sometimes as bad sometimes worse then their Governours Exod. 32.1 c. Numb 14 1-10 16.41 42. Iudg. 2.11 19. c. But what is this to determine the right of authority doth that vary change according to the goodnes wickednes of the persons we are taught the contrary of God Though the Romane Emperour in Pauls time was a Lyon devouring many 2. Tim. 4.17 yet he teacheth submission unto the authority even of such Rom. 13.1 2. c. Though Annas Caiaphas other wicked Priests Scribes Pharisees were wolves devouring widowes houses polluting the Sanctuary wresting the Law Iohn 18. Matt. 23. yet we are taught to acknowledge the authority of such Matt. 8.4 Act. 23.5 2. Though wicked Rulers are not to be obeyed in their unlawfull commandements and therefore the servants of Saul did well not to execute his bloody commandement 1. Sam. 22.17 wherein
releasing one prisoner at the feast whom they would that upon their request Mark 15.6 8. was an evidence of the peoples want of power in judgement for had they had authority to have judged determined such matters what needed they to have petitioned to Pilate or what favour had it bene in the Romane Governour to have granted that unto them for one person at one speciall time which they might have done of their owne authority at any time 4. Though it be sayd that they prevayled with their voyces this is to be understood of their importunate request and voyces of petition as is noted in the same place and not of their suffrages or giving of voyces with authority in the sentence of judgement as the importunate widow prevayled with the unrighteous Iudge Luk. 18.5 so did the Iewes prevayle with Pilate by their importunate requests cryes clamours in begging Barabbas of Pilate desiring him to crucify Christ Act. 3.14 5. This condemnation of Christ was done by the Romane authority the Iewes confesse that it was not lawfull for them to put any man to death Ioh. 18.31 the scepter was now departed from Iuda Luk. 2.1 c. they acknowledged no King but Caesar Ioh. 19.15 and Pontius Pilate a Romane Governour under Caesar gave sentence of death upon Christ the people of the Iewes were now vassals to the Romanes and had not the power pretended when you therefore send to this example you send us to Rome to the Romish government and not unto that order and policie which God had commanded and planted among his owne people II. Whereas you say (v) Animadv p. 20. it is not manifested that the Magistrates in Israel had in themselves full absolute power to cut off a man or to put him to death c. the contrary may be shewed First by the example of David who as he resolved professed for himself that he would cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord Psal 101.8 so when occasion was given he presently condemned the Amalekite to death for slaying Saul 2. Sam. 1.15 he by his owne authority appointed Baanah Rechab to be slaine for killing Isnbosheth without gathering any assembly to aske the peoples consent 2. Sam. 4 8-12 When David heard from Nathans parable of a rich man oppressing the poore he forthwith pronounced the sentence of death against that oppressour not waiting for the counsell or consent of the people though in a rare unusuall case 2. Sam. 12.5 6. When the woman of Tekoah makes request for her sonne that he might be absolved in judgement and delivered from the sentence of death David presently by his owne authority decrees that he shall be pardoned and confirmes it with an oath he stayes not for approbation from the people 2. Sam. 14 4-11 Againe if we looke upon the way of his sonne after him we see the same thing even in Salomon and that both in his doctrine where he teacheth that the power of life death is in the hand of the King Prov. 16.14 15. 20.2 26. and in his practise he confirmed the same in the judgement sentence of death which he forthwith decreed pronounced upon Adoniah swore to have the same accomplished presently without asking consent of the people 1. King 2.23 24 25. III. If the Magistrates in Israel had not in themselves authority to put a malefactour to death without consent of the people then doe you unjustly blame that proportion that might be made betwixt the Elders in the gate and Elders in the Church betwixt Magistrates and Ministers then doe you unjustly impugne the same (x) Animadv p. 14. 15. 16. 19 c. as a disproportion streyned too farre for if the Magistrates in Israel did but guide governe the action in Civill judgements as (y) Ibid. p. 113. Mr Robinson in his answer recorded by you doth note of the Iudges of Assises in England even of the Lord Cheef-Iustice himself with his Bench wishing also that the Ecclesiasticall Elders whom he you oppose would allow the body of the Church the like liberty at their spirituall Sessions that those Iudges allow unto the country or Iury in the judgment of malefactours if the Magistrates in the Common-wealth might not decree the sentence of judgement without consent of the people no more then the Ministers in the Church without consent of the Congregation if the Ministers in the Church might governe the action and the people in their judgements as well as the Elders in the gate is there not then here an even manifest proportion both of government power betwixt the one the other IV. If the power of judgements giving sentence of life death were not in the Magistrates in Israel then doe you contradict the testimony of the Iew-doctours out of their Thalmud alledged not onely by (z) Annot. on Matt. 5.22 Beza many others but by your (a) Animadv p. 17. self also in the description of their severall Courts the authority which they exercised in the same Yea you doe more plainly yet contradict yourself when afterward from the testimonies of Scripture alledged by Mr Iohnson you doe againe (b) Ibid. p. 18 19. confesse that the Magistrates in Israel had power of life death The third Errour A Third errour in the proofe of the Churches power is in that you derive the same from other unsound proportions of the ceremoniall observation in Israel Though you yourself doe acknowledge against Mr Johnson that the drawing of proportions from the government in Israel is one of the (c) Animadv pref 1. p. 15. maine pillars of Popery to underprop the tower of Antichrist yet the trueth is that neither Mr Iohns nor Cardinall Bellarmine himself doe gather more unequall proportions for their supremacies which they plead for then you doe I. Whereas you would prove (d) Confes art 24. Ap. p. 62. Animadv p. 20. the power of excommunication to be in the whole body of every Christian Congregation and not in any one member apart or in more members sequestred from the whole c. and seek to prove this by a proportion drawne from the government in Israel because as you argue from Numb 5.2 3. not the Priest onely but the children of Israel were charged to put the Leper out of the host This proportion faileth unlesse you could shew that the Priests wanted authority to pronounce this judgement of excluding a leper out of the host untill they had the consent of the people We see the contrary namely that the Priests discerning and judging the lepers and others executing their decree might lawfully remoove the leper for 1. The Priest did not onely declare by way of teaching informing who was uncleane as you (e) Ibid. p. 19 20. seeme to insinuate but also by their sentence of judgement by their power to censure therefore is the
then without great presumptiō faine them to be sayd at another time place having no warrant of Scripture for the same I know indeed that (r) R. Solomon Iarchi on Gen. 12.1 some of your Rabbines who doe so often mislead you doe write that this call was from Charran but their authority is too light to rest upon it They will have Nun the last letter of the word (f) In Gen. 11.32 Charran to be written with the head of it downward and the lowest part of it upward contrary to the order to shew (t) R. Sol. ibid. that the wrath of God burned untill Abram One of your authors according to his Cabalisticall art (v) Baal hatturim on Gen. 12.1 tels us that the numerall letters of the word arecha used in the call of Abram Gen. 12.1 doe yeeld the same number that begnananim doth which signifyeth by the clouds to teach us that the clouds went before him shewed him the way in his journey And the inversion of this Nun haphueah is as well as worthy to be observed for matter of meditation instruction as are the great little letters which you (x) Annot. on Gen. 23.2 34.31 Lev. 1.1 mention for like use You tell us in the same place that the Hebrew doctours expound the name Charran by Charon aph that is wrathfull anger R. Menachem on Gen. 12. as if he were now to depart from the place of wrath c. but if you had alledged the place more plainly fully the vanity of that Rabbine would thereby have appeared while he saith that (y) R. Menachem on Gen. 12.4 whē Abram went to give his influence or abundance unto the higher land Lot went with him for that land was to receive from them both and the word Lot is from Levatin which signifyeth curses and this at his going from Charan the word charon signifyeth anger This is the vaine conceit contained in the allegation which you send us unto compare with so many places of Scripture And suppose Charan be denominate of anger yet this will not prove that the calling Gen. 12.1 was from Charan Againe it appeares to be the opinion of other (z) Chazkuni com on Gen. 12.1 Aben Ezra on Gen. 11. 12.1 Rabbines that this calling of Abram Gen. 12.1 was from Vr of the Chaldees before he came to Charan And besides these the judgement of learned (a) Merc. on Gen. 12. Trem. Iun. annot ibid. Calv. Musc com ibid. Christians is herein against you and more to be respected then the Iewish doctours whom you so much follow 3. Besides other things how grosse is that errour when you write (b) Annot. on Gen. 12.5 that the land of Canaan is a country in Asia the lesse c. It appeareth not by the Scriptures that Abram ever came into Asia the lesse And had he gone thither to seek Canaan he should never have found that land unto which he was called of God This your errour of misplacing Canaan is reproved not onely by the generall testimony of the cheefest (c) Ptol. Geogr. lib. 5. c. 2. Asiae tab 1. Strab. Geogr. l. 12. Plin. Hist nat l. 5. c. 27 Solin Polyh c. 43. Geographers but also by the evidence of the holy Scriptures which doe oftē plainly distinguish these countries make it very manifest that Canaan is not a country in Asia the lesse as you say Act. 2.9 16.6 20.16.1 Pet. 1.1 Touching your allegation of Gen. 13.6 7 8. we read there of the riches of Abram and Lot of the strife betwixt their servants of the Cananites and Perizzites dwelling in the land of Abrams care to avoyd strife but how you will conclude your Separation from hence together with the peoples power in excommunications who can imagine or comprehend it we would faine see what face of an argument you can paynt out unto us from this Allegation And as for Exo. 5.3 where Moses Aaron tell Pharaoh how the God of the Hebrewes met them how they desire to goe three dayes journey into the wildernes to doe sacrifice and of the danger of pestilence or sword to come upon them if they did it not by what consequence will you maintaine your Separation from hence and by what second consequence will you then demonstrate the peoples authority from this Separation here implyed as you write These things doe yet lye hid wrapt up in darknes that men cannot discerne what you meane thereby It is a strange folly in matters of so great controversy so barely to alledge such a number of Scriptures which seeme not so much as to looke towards the poynt of the question in hand and this your fault is so much the greater in that yon can finde time leasure to note and publish so many other idle and unproffitable things as when in the explication of this verse you set downe those dotages of Maimony about the Pestilence Deber which have no weight in them no ground or colour of trueth Why did you not rather manifest your Separation from hence if it be here taught as you say for the clearing of your cause plucking others out of the darknes shadow of death wherein according to your profession they do remaine CHAP. IIII. Whether the people be bound to be present at the proceedings against offendours A Nother errour concerning the government of the Church is this that you hold the people bound to be present at the conviction of sinners triall of causes Though Mr Iohnson (a) Advertis of Mr Clyft p. 41.42 left it free for any of the people to come if they would yet you (b) Animadv p. 42.43 hold not that sufficient unlesse they be bound to come to heare the proceedings Against the liberty of being absent or present you alledge many things and plead as followeth H. AINSVV. Is not this to divide the body when the head must be present the shoulders with the other parts and members may be absent ANSVV. It is no division in the body mysticall when the head labours for the good of the body though some members thereof be absent no more then there is a division or disunion among the friends that consult for the comfort of one another though not present no more then there is betwixt the States of these lands the people thereof when the States meet apart to determine some things without the people no more then there was a division when the Elders at Ierusalem met apart without the people Act. 21 18-25 H. AINSVV. The Apostle writing to the Church of Corinth how to doe when they came together for the Lords supper 1. Cor. 11.18 33. writeth also to them how when they were gathered together they should deliver the wicked unto Satan 1. Cor. 5.4 5. We finde no difference but they were bound to come to the one as to the other And if they answer they are bound
to be just and complaine that the Elders have perverted judgment with what comfort of heart can the people now excommunicate him if they have not heard the proceedings against him and yet must execute the Elders sentence upon him Let wise men judge whether this be not spirituall tyranny which the Elders would bring upon the consciences of the Church ANSVV. I. They which consent to the excommunication of a person judged by the Church and doe thereupon reject his fellowship may have the same comfort of heart which your people ordinarily have when themselves upon divers occasions being present neither at the conviction of offendours nor at the pronunciation of sentence against them doe yet rest in the testimony sentence of others and thereupon avoyd such an excommunicate though he plead his cause to be just complaine that the Elders others of the people have perverted judgement II. They may have the same comfort of heart which divers of your people have being souldiers here in the service of the City who together with the rest of the souldiers doe at the Magistrates appointment attend upon the execution of justice of diverse malefactours as pyrates others and though they have not heard the proceedings against them though they have not bene present at the examination and conviction of such persons doe yet help to execute the Magistrates sentence upon them being ready to assist defend the executioner if need should require even then when the condemned persons doe stil plead that they are innocent and complaine that the Magistrates have perverted judgement against them Thus you may see how this your kinde of reasoning brings blood upon the head of your people and so upon your owne your Churches head for retaining of them II. They may have the same comfort of heart which the Israelites had in avoyding the Lepers putting them out of the campe upon the testimony of the Priests Num. 5.2 3. Levit. 13 2-46 though they had not bene present at the proceedings nor come together to see the markes tokens of the leprosy and this even then when the Lepers did plead that they were cleane complained that the Priests had done them wrong IV. The manner of proceeding against offendours both in the Reformed Churches in our particular Congregation is such that any of the people may sufficiently informe themselves both touching the matter of fact right in any question cause before the sentence of excommunication be pronounced They have liberty opportunity to deale with the parties accused and with the Elders also and this not onely with either of these apart but also if they will to heare the conviction of the offendours before the Elders Yea the cause of such offendours is so often publickly propounded to the whole Congregation and the people are so often exhorted stirred up to admonish deale with those which are run into scandall that they may fully discerne the guiltines of such persons before they be cast out and therefore cannot by wise men be judged to be under any spirituall tyranny for consenting unto the rejection of those whose iniquity obstinacy they may so plainly understand V. If the law of God may be expounded according to those select interpretations of the Rabbines which you make speciall choyse of commend unto our consideratioÌ„ above others then are the people to execute the judgemeÌ„ts of the Elders though the proceedings therein be kept in farre greater secrecy then we require for expounding those words Thou shalt not walke a talebearer you say thereupon (d) Annot. on Levit. 19.16 As this Law immediately followeth the former about the Iudges so the Hebrewes apply this precept unto them saying It is unlawfull for any of the Iudges when he goeth out from the judgment hall to say I am he that doth acquit or condemne and my fellowes are against me but what can I doe seing they are moe then I. And if he thus speak he is within the compasse of this HE THAT WALKETH as A TALEBEARER REVEALETH SECRETS Proverb 11.13 Maimony in Sanhedrin ch 22. sect 7. Whereto the Greek version of that place agreeth A double tongued man revealeth counsels or secrets in the Synedrion or Councill And so in Prov. 20.19 To practise according to this exposition of the Jewes which without any note of dislike you publish unto us might justly be called a spirituall Tyranny when even the Judges should not be allowed to testify openly against the oppressions blood other iniquities maintained by wicked men Such smothering of sinne is both against the law of God Exod. 20.16 Prov. 14.25 Eph. 5.11 Esa 59.4 Ier. 9.3 Mic. 7.3 4. and against the law of nature it self which taught even the wicked Pilate to take water and wash his hands before the multitude to make publick protestation of his innocency against them that were authours of unrighteous judgement Matt. 27.24 Ioh. 18.38 19.4 Thus doe your writings lead men into contrary extremities THus farre for answer unto your owne reasons An argument on the contrary side brought to shew the freedome of the people in coming or not coming to heare the examinations convictions going before the censure and to shew that the people are not bound thereunto is thus set downe because (e) R. Clyf Advertism p. 42. Rom. 12.7.8 1. Thes 5.12 13. 1. Tim. 5.17 18. As may coÌ„e to passe in great Congregations and when many cases are to be heard c. So it shall not be enough that the Elders by their Office are bound unto it ought to have maintenance for the doing of it of the other dueties of their Office but the men must without any allowance for it leave their trades callings the women their houses families the children their schooling and employment the servants their work and labour and must come together though it should be day after day to heare judge the cases that fall out between brother brother according to Matt. 18.17 for by this Scripture in 1. Cor. 12. ch they will have it understood of men women children that can sorrow rejoyce with others as before was shewed In your answer hereunto by a crooked winding you turne away from the argument and doe not direct your answer unto the poynt force thereof when as you say (f) Animadv p. â—3 Let them then excommunicate alone as well as try the case alone seing they have maintenance for both let the people be bound to come to neither no nor to the Pastours ministring of the Word and Sacraments if this reason be good because he is more worthy maintenance then the ruling Elders as the Apostle sheweth 1. Tim. 5.17 18. For if the Elders were onely bound to utter and pronounce a sentence of excommunication when the people are gathered to heare the same then should the Elders deserve no more maintenance then the people If the Pastour were not
bound to study all the week to take paines to prepare himself for the ministery of the word and Sacraments but did onely speak the same without labour going before then could not the double honour maintenance mentioned 1. Tim. 5 be due unto him Where there is no speciall work there is no speciall maintenance And therefore while you doe not require double labour of the Elders in trying cases but doe binde the people even to the same labour of enquiring examining trying matters how can you require double honour such speciall maintenance for them But after this generall evasion you proceed unto some more particular answers say there in your Animadversion H. AINSVV. First they restrain things too much when they say between brother brother for what if it be a publick case of heresy oridolatry as that mentioned Deut. 13.12 13 14. c. will they say women children servants were then or are now bound to leave their callings come together to try out the matter Hereunto I reply I. They restrain things no otherwise then Christ himself doth when speaking generally of the sundry sorts of sinne he also notes them to be between brother brother saying If thy brother finne against thee Matt. 18.15 Even to publick sinnes of heresy and idolatry as that in Deut. 13. though immediately they are committed against God yet as they are scandals and occasions of falling unto others so are they cases between man man brother brother to be censured judged by them Deut. 7.4 13.5 6 13. II. If they restrain things too much then doe they no wrong unto you but unto themselves then is there more force in the matter then their words doe make shew of For if it be unmeet to binde all the members of the Church to heare cases dayly between brother brother even in a stricter sense as you would have their words to sound how much more inconvenient shall it be when by a larger bond they shal be required to heare all cases of sinne both betweē brother brother between the Lord and our brethren III. What sense or reason have you to make this question Will they say c. whereas it is not they but you which say plead by all this your arguing that women children servants are bound to leave their callings come together to try out these controversies H. AINSVV. Secondly many controversies between neighbours are for civill things of this life such are (g) Luk. 12.14 not Church matters nor there to be heard but by (h) Rom. 13. Magistrates or arbiters chosen 1. Cor. 6.4 5. REPL. I. Even the controversies about Civill things of this life are Church-matters there to be judged seing all sinnes are there to be judged Matt. 18 15-17 1. Cor. 5.11 2. Cor. 10.4 5 6. If you could prove that men did never make false deceitfull bargaines nor use false weights nor any kinde of extortion oppression coosenage c. then might you exclude controversies for Civill things from the judgement of the Church And the controversies about these things being prosequuted before the Church cannot but require a greater time for the examination of them then the callings workes of men women children servants can well afford so that the force of the argument by this exception is not diminished but further manifested hereby II. For one the same sinne God hath appointed two judgements one Civill another Ecclesiasticall as for example if a man should refuse to divide the inheritance with his brother this man by the Magistrates might be forced thereunto and this judgement is a Civill administration And this is that which our Saviour remooves from himself Luk. 12.13 14. Againe the same man for his deceit covetousnes sinfull oppression of his brother used in this controversy for Civill things of this life might justly be censured by the Church excluded from the same which is an Ecclesiasticall judgement and administration You cannot shew any place of Scripture that denyes this judgement unto the Church Moreover our Saviour at that time was none of the ordinary Iudges no not in Ecclesiasticall causes He did not in his life time erect another judicatory besides that which was already thē established among the Iewes and therefore did not use to excommunicate any or cast them out of the Synagogue And if Christ did not now ordinarily give sentence neither in Civill nor Ecclesiasticall judgements how farre is this his example from proving that controversies for Civill things are to be remooved from the Church III. As for Rom. 13. shewing that controversies for Civill things are to be judged by Magistrates this is not contrary to any thing in the argument neither doth it weaken the same The causes of Murder Adultery Theft Coosenage Slander as they are to be judged by the Magistrate so by the Church also And if all the members thereof men women children servants be bound unto the labour of trying and examining such causes why have they not maintenance for the same as well as either Magistrates or Ecclesiasticall Elders IV. As for matters referred unto Arbiters seeing they are oftentimes matters of sinne of wrong injury 1. Cor. 6.7 8. subject in that respect unto Ecclesiasticall censures this course of deciding controversies doth as wel serve for the ease help of the Elders saves them a labour as well as the people And therefore the consideration hereof doth help to shew that there is still no reason why Elders should have speciall maintenance when their ease excuse from labouring is as much as any others H. AINSVV. Thirdly for doubtfull cases Ecclesiasticall people are to inquire the law (i) Mal. 2.7 at the Priests mouth and to ask counsell of their Elders severally or joyntly who are to have their meetings apart for such other like ends Act. 21.18 so many things may be composed without trouble of the Church REPL. 1. The people are to ask counsell of one another also as well as of their Elders for in the multitude of counsellers is health Prov. 11.14 and all the brethren are to instruct guide and support one another Rom. 2 17-20 15.14 Heb. 3.13 and by your owne confession they are to be used not onely in private but in (k) Animadv p. 40. publick consultations also Yea beside this you acknowledge further that (l) Ibid. p. 39 41. the greatest Errours Heresies Schismes evils have both arisen bene continued by the Elders that sometimes they are blinde guides and without understanding and oftentimes they differ in counsell among themselves and thus in doubtfull cases men become more doubtfull by their counsell and so have the more need to consult among themselves If therefore this duety of giving counsell doe lye upon the people and they be bound unto it this work alone being common to others with the Elders could not shew the double honour maintenance
due unto them unlesse some other study and work together with the labour of hearing examining and judging of causes did require the same II. As for Mal. 2.7 the knowledge in the Priests lips there spoken of was that which he principally manifested in his office of publick preaching the law of God Deut. 33.10 Lev. 10.11 in which office the Elders doe not succeed them and so have no speciall maintenance due in that regard Againe the knowledge in the Priests lips appeared secondarily in judiciall causes which they heard examined judged Deut. 17.8 9-12 2 Chron. 19.8 Zech. 3.7 This power you give unto the people now as well as unto the Elders who therefore by your doctrine deserve no more maintenance for the same then doe the people in this regard III. Though we grant that Elders are to have their ordinary meetings apart for the Church-affaires yet doth not your allegation from Act. 21.18 prove the same for that meeting being upon extraordinary occasion to entertaine the Apostle Paul and those that were with him who being new come to Ierusalem they came together to salute embrace one another to heare tidings of the successe of the Gospel to rejoyce together in the Lord vers 19. and then consulted further of such things as tended to the edification of the Church vers 20. c. You might as well conclude that strangers of other Congregations should be present in the ordinary assembly of the Elders because we doe here read of some such who being in Pauls company were now also present at this speciall meeting of the Elders in Ierusalem Act. 21.15 16 17 18. H. AINSVV. Fourthly when apparant sinners so convicted by witnesses are to be judged by the Church there is no time more fit then the Sabbath day wherein all men are board to leave their owne works Exo. 20.10 tend to the Lords of which sort this is REPL. I. Though I doe not hold it simply unlawfull to judge causes on the Sabbath day yet that this day is the fittest your allegation from Exod. 20. shewes it not Men may then leave their owne works tend to the Lords though they heare no controversies pleaded yea much more fitly comfortably and fruitfully may they attend upon the publick administration of the Word Prayer Sacraments and sanctify themselves thereunto in private both by dueties of preparatiō before and by dueties of meditation repetition conference c. afterward if the mindes of Minister people be not distracted or hindred by other controversies and contentions Psal 26.6 Matt. 5.8 Exo. 19.10 30 18-21 Act. 17.11 Psal 119.11 c. That there hath bene such a disturbance and hindrance among you it is testifyed not onely by strangers which sometimes hearing you doe complaine hereof but also by your owne Ministers as Mr Iohnson Mr Clyfton and your owne people both such as have left you and even such as still remaine with you II. As Ecclesiasticall judgements are the Lords works so are Civill judgements also which the Magistrates sitting on the Lords throne in stead of the Lord their God doe administer execute in his name 2. Chron. 19.6 9.8 And by this reasoning you might make the Sabbath to be the fittest day for them also H. AINSVV. Or if that day suffice not they may take any other for them convenient for c. REPL. You doe hereby yeeld unto us that you have walked in an uncleane way and that you have according to your owne doctrine an uncleane and polluted people for seeing as Mr Iohnson confesseth witnesseth (m) Treat on Matt. 18. p. 17. your wonted manner hath bene to heare matters on the week day at which time there was seldome half the Church together if now according to (n) Anim. adv p. 42. your former arguing from 1. Tim. 5.22 men cannot keep themselves pure from partaking with other mens sinnes unlesse they see heare the conviction of those whom they doe reject then hath half your Church together bene defiled many times while they have consented to the excommunication of such at the hearing and examination of whose cause they have not bene present H. AINSVV. For unto publick affaires the Church is to be assembled 1. Cor. 5.4 Act. 14.27 15.4 30. 21 18-22 REPL. This your generall and indefinite speech doth admit many exceptions for I. Even the Elders when they have their meetings apart as you grant unto them doe consider together of the publick affaires and there you see then that the Church is not alwayes to be assembled unto publick busines II. If the whole Church and all the members thereof men women children and servants must assemble to heare the proceedings against them whom they are to avoyd reject according to your plea and this also on the week dayes though it should be day after day as may come to passe in great Congregations and when many cases are to be heard c. as was (o) R Clyfr Advert p. 42. before objected unto you what reason is there that the Elders should have speciall maintenance in respect of this work where all the members of the Church are bound to attend upon the work as well as they To this you say nothing III. Even unto the publick administration of the word and prayer you doe not binde your people on the week day but leave it free for them to come or not to come unto the same And shall the hearing of examinations proceedings against particular men have more honour then the word preached Yea which is much more by this your opinion and reasoning you doe more binde your people to be present at controversies even on the week day then to heare the word and prayer even on the Lords day for to be absent from judiciall proceedings on the week day doth not onely require acknowledgment of a fault as doth the absence from publick worship on the Lords day but by your doctrin it doth also require a reversing repeating of the proceedings or else a refusall to allow the same in not rebuking or rejecting them who are publickly censured rebuked or excommunicated by the Church IV. As in respect of the ease commodity of the Church the hearing of some publick affaires is to be committed to the Eldership as hath bene shewed before so also for the avoyding of scandall offence for example the examination of each particular act and circumstance serving for the conviction of offendours in some uncleane filthy sinnes and the open repetition naming hereof before the whole Congregation men women young old your owne people strangers that come to heare cannot but be very offensive so is found to be for it is a shame even to speak of the things which are done of many in secret Eph. 5.12 And even shame it self as it seemes hath forced you sometimes to leave this your practise which you so earnestly plead for As heretofore in the case
of H. C. it is testifyed that in the examination of an uncleane fact imputed unto him there were certaine men deputed to heare and examine the cause apart from the Congregation that the eares of women and children and of the whole multitude should not be offended therewith And why may you not now still by the like reason yeeld that the hearing and examining of offendours may be done apart by the Elders which are the Churches deputies thereunto as well as heretofore by some other deputies new chosen Touching the Scriptures alledged by you although that which is sayd already might serve for answer thereunto yet this in particular may be further considered As for 1. Cor. 5.4 there is not a word of the Churches meeting together to examine the fact of the incestuous person but onely of giving sentence after it was sufficiently knowne In Act. 14.27 we read that the Church was gathered together and so with us both on the Lords day and on one of the week dayes there is a gathering of the Church together What an idle thing is it to prove that there should be publick assemblies of the Church which none denyes But this place shewes not that the Church was gathered together to the publick examination of scandals to heare the proceedings against offendours according to the question in hand As for Act. 15.4 the receiving by the Church there mentioned doth not so much as shew that the Church was then gathered together The Church might be sayd to receive Paul Barnabas some others with them and to heare what things God had done by them though not in a publick assembly met together for that end even as the Church of Rome might be sayd to receive Phoebe Rom. 16.2 though not in a publick assembly Gaius might be sayd to be the host of the whole Church Rom. 16.23 consequently to receive the same though not gathered together at one time In Act. 15.30 Luke shewes that the Epistle of the Apostles was delivered to the multitude assembled at Antiochia So we read that the Epistle written to the Colossians was to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Colos 4.16 So the letters and decrees of Princes States at this day are often times upon sundry occasions delivered and openly read to the multitude people in severall cities assembled and called together to heare the same even as these decrees of the Apostles and Elders were delivered in sundry places Act. 16.4 But doe these manner of assemblies prove that no cases of controversy scandall or sinne may be examined heard by the Rulers Governours without the presence of the people gathered together in such an assembly according to the question betwixt us How can such kinde of collections be ever justifyed by you That place Act. 21 18-22 is oft alledged by you to shew the peoples power while it is there sayd that the multitude must needes come together touching which words though neither the Syriack nor the Arabick versions of the New Testament have them though the want of these words from the text in this place is by (p) Inn. Annot in Arab transl in Act. 21.22 some learned men judged not to be unmeet yet will I not insist thereon But 1. to take the words as they are in the Greek the word (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated must needes doth not alwayes signify a duety to be done but sometimes onely a necessity of a thing comming to passe done by men though they ought not to doe it and so this very word is elswhere used by the Apostle when he saith there must be herefies 1. Cor. 11.19 shewing thereby the necessity of an event but not the duety of any person to doe that thing Neither doth any thing hinder but that the word here also in Act. 21. may be taken in like sense viz. that the multitude would needs come together though not bound by duety thereunto 2. Suppose that this comming together of the multitude was according to duety yet seing that both the occasion was extraordinary that also the forme of their comming together is not specifyed whether they were to come as hearers onely of Pauls doctrine or as judges in judiciall manner to examine him how can you now conclude from hence that all cases of controversy among brethren are ordinarily to be examined by the multitude of the Congregation in a publick assembly THE SECOND PART Touching The power of Classicall and Synodall Assemblies CHAP. I. The State of the Question and the importance thereof THe summe substance of the Discipline or Church-government appointed of God practised in the Reformed Churches consists chiefly in this that when as for the remooving of private offences private admonition in the first and second degree prevayles not or when as the offence is publick at first the matter be then brought unto the judgement of the Eldership and so that in weightier cases as receiving of members excommunication election deposition of Ministers c. nothing be concluded executed without the knowledge approbation of the Church likewise that in more weighty difficult cases as the aforenamed or the like the advise help and allowance of the Classis under which they stand and if need be of the Synod unto which the Classis is subordinate be sought rested in this in such manner that if any person eyther Minister Elder or any other even the least member of the Church doe finde any evill to be maintained either against faith or manners either by the Eldership or by the Congregation it is then lawfull for them for the redresse of such evill to repaire unto the Classis or Synod that by their authority sentence the offence may be censured the abuse reformed As the Eldership of a particular Church consists of Ministers Elders chosen out of the same so the Classis consists of many Ministers Elders sent from many Churches assembling together to heare determine the cases above written That the State of the Question may yet more clearly be understood it is to be remembred that in this combination of Classes and Synods I. The authority which they exercise is not absolute nor their decrees held to be infallible but to be examined by the word of God and not to be received further then they doe agree therewith And therefore also (a) Kerckē Ordeninge Synod Nat. Dordr art 31.36 there is liberty of appeale from them from the Classis to the Synod and from a Provinciall Synod to a Nationall II. The authority of Classes Synods is not Civill neither have they power to inflict Civill punishments they (b) Ibid. art 30. judge onely of Ecclesiasticall causes that in Ecclesiasticall manner using no other then spirituall censures III. In the Classicall union consociation of neighbour Churches (c) Ibid. art 84. no one Church hath any prerogative or power above another nor any
one Minister or Elder greater authority then another but their questions are determined by most voyces and they are all mutually equally subject unto one another in the Lord. IV. This government of Churches by Classes doth not deprive particular Churches Congregations of their liberty power but serves to direct strengthen them in the right use exercise of their power for example when a particular Church with their Elders or the greater part of them agree together to choose a Minister that is offensive or unfit for them if the Classis upon due consideration of the matter doe disanull their election hinder their proceeding yet doe they not hereby deprive them of their liberty nor take from them their priviledge of election forasmuch as they doe still leave unto them a freedome to choose another fit Minister they doe not in this case goe about to choose for them or to obtrude upon them another Minister against their will but onely exhort them to use their power and liberty aright and to shew more care and godly wisedome in seeking out such an one as may be more inoffensive fit for the edification of their Church Against this authority of Classes and Synods divers opposites have risen up and have pleaded for a new kinde of Discipline contrary to the order of all Reformed Churches and contrary to that Reformation which the ancient Non-conformists in England have so much desired laboured for And yet many of these Opposites doe in the meane time in generall termes seeme to (d) Mr Iacob in his Auestation of Church-gov p. 118. 178. Churches plea. p. 94. embrace Synods and greatly to approve of the benefit that comes by them But herein is the poynt of difference that they doe limit confine all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Congregation Though they acknowledge Synods to be lawfull expedient and necessary yet this they hold to be onely in regard of counsell advise for provocation direction countenance but doe not acknowledge them to have any authority to give sentence for the decision of causes they doe not allow Classes or Synods to use any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction or censure in judging the controversies that arise in particular Congregations They maintaine that (e) Churches plea. pref Mr Dav. Reply p. 229 c. every particular Congregation is independent not standing under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves This opposition of Classes Synods is made specially by the (f) H. Barrow Discov p. 190. 191. Apol. of Brown pos 9. Brownists and by them have the Ministers of England bene reproached for the respect which they had unto Synods After them Mr Iacob in his writings often allowing them for counsell (g) Necess of Reform p. 31 32 33 yet denyes the power authority which we asscribe unto them And in that booke which is intitled English Puritanisme (h) Chap. 2. art 3.6 c. this their opinion is most plainly peremptorily propounded And now also Mr Davenp though he (i) Apolog. Repl. p. 226 allow a combination of particular Churches in Classes and Synods and such a consociation of them as is betweene equalls and is by way of counsaile or brotherly direction yet he saith (k) Ibid. p. 229. that their authority is not a prerogative of jurisdiction but of aestimation reverence rather because Gods ordinance hath limited the former viz. jurisdiction to particular Churches as his delegates in their owne matters it is not in their power to alienate it from themselves But the latter viz. estimation reverence is due to Classes consisting of grave learned prudent and faithfull men for their excelent personall gifts in which respect their judgment is to be much valued receyved with due regard But if any doe asscribe unto Classes a power of jurisdiction over particular Churches and that in things which he calls proper unto themselves this he saith (l) Ibid. p. 230. is to subject particular Churches under an undue power this he calles an usurped power Now then behold what this estimation reverence is which Mr Dav. allowes to Classicall assemblies or Synods viz. not so much power as is allowed to any one man though it were the most ignorant and offensive that is a member of a particular Church for when a controversy ariseth about the election of a Minister the one half of the Congregation giving voyces for him another half excepting against him as unsound in doctrine unfit for thē if a whole Classicall assembly of Ministers Elders deputed from all the Churches round about doe also except against him as unsound and unfit and with one consent judge that he ought not to be called yet for one voyce of that one ignorant person whereby the one part of the Congregation comes to exceed the other in number is that unworthy one to be received called This is that due regard that estimation value which Mr Dav. affords unto this Classis consisting of so many grave learned prudent faithfull men of excellent personall gifts while he maintaines that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to the particular Church and all the counsell brotherly direction of the Classis must be of no authority against the resolution of such a wilfull company to censure their unjust proceedings to stay the same So againe (m) Apol. repl p. 47. he pretendeth Mr Cartwr his authority to prove that other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good The speciall or onely remedy which the Opposites flye unto in such cases is the help of the Magistrate But hereby the importance of this Question and the danger of despising Synods may appeare Though they hold that Christ hath not subjected any Church or Congregation of his to any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then unto that which is within it self c. yet they hold (n) Engl. Purit cap. 2. § 6. 3. that if in the choyse of Ministers any particular Church shall erre that none upon the earth but the Civill Magistrate hath power to controule or correct the same for it c. that in such cases others are to leave their soules to the immediate judgement of Christ and their bodies to the sword of the Civill Magistrate c. But this help remedy is weak insufficient that many wayes for I. The Churches of Christ doe sometimes remaine under heathenish Magistrates that either regard not the cause of the Church refuse to judge their controversies as Paul Gallio Iohn 18.31 Act. 18.14 15. or els seek wholly to root out the same II. The Churches are sometimes dispersed sojourne in the countries of Popish Princes and Magistrates as the Churches which at this day live under the Crosse in Brabant Flanders sundry other places where they keep themselves as secret
as may be and what help can they expect from the Magistrates which seek to expell them out of their territories III. Other Churches of Christ doe abide in such Popish countries where though they be tolerated to have their meetings as in many parts of France yet it would be in vaine for them to seek help of the Popish Governours that have dominion in some of the places where they have their abode IV. In these Vnited Provinces of the Netherlands where the Reformed Churches are maintained yet forasmuch as here is a toleration of many Sects and Religions and among the rest of the Brownists the Magistrates doe not use to judge their Ecclesiasticall controversies so afford no help unto those Sects in that kinde When did the Brownists ever seek any help from them to represse their contentions and schismes V. That or those Churches wich are secretly gathered in England according to the direction example of Mr Iacob doe they not altogether want the help of the Civill Magistrate in their controversies He prescribes this remedy (o) Necess of Reform p. 28. that if people in their Church-elections c. will presume to be unruly violent then the Princes next dwelling Officers of Justice may ought to make them keep peace quietnes But durst he or his in any of their contentions ever seek that remedy Lastly suppose that in every country the Magistrates did seek the wealth of Sion and did use their authority to correct and punish the disorders committed in true Churches yet would not this remedy be sufficient to humble obstinate offenders God having appointed other meanes of Spirituall censure as well as Civill punishmēt to work upon the consciences of sinners of which more is to be spoken hereafter The importance of this Question may further appeare unto us if we consider the manifold great offences scandals which many have the rather fallen into through their neglect contempt of Classes Synods and through want of that help which they might have obtained by them And this is most evident in the practise course of the Brownists In that infamous contentiō whē Francis Iohns the Pastour with his company did excommunicate not onely his brother George Iohnson a Preacher also but his owne father likewise Iohn Iohnson comming out of England for this purpose to make peace betwixt his two sonnes had they used the help of neighbour Churches permitted them to judge betwixt them it might have bene a meanes through Gods blessing to have preserved them from such extreme courses Hereof George Iohnson oft complaineth in his booke (p) Discourse of troubles c. p. 74. p. 38.39 41. they will not consent hereunto they will not be perswaded nor intreated to let the Reformed Churches heare try judge end the controversy between them and us And this is not the complaint of G. Iohnson alone but the Ministers both of the Dutch and French Churches in Amsterdam doe likewise give testimony thereof being deputed by the Elderships of both those Churches that upon the request of the father to see if they could procure Franc. Ioh. and the Elders of his Church to submit the controversy to their tryall judgement This appeares in the Testimony hereof given unto the father Iohn Iohns by the (q) Iohannes a Vinea Petrus Plancius Iacobus Arminius Simon Goulattius Ministers of these Churches in writing under their hands Yea further the Church of the Separation did so much abhorre to have their causes and affaires submitted unto any censure or judgement out of their owne Church that in the excommunication of the father an old man of 70. yeares that had undertaken so hard a journey as he confessed for the reconcilement of his sonnes sought such meanes from other Churches to end their strife this was set downe as one distinct speciall cause of his excommunication viz. for labouring to draw the Church into Antichristian bondage in the the judging the causes thereof This appeares in the Copy of his Excommunication delivered unto him subscribed by (r) Daniel Studley Stanshall Mercer two of their Elders in the name of their Church And since that time when the Brownists have so often schismed rent in the midst as in Mr Iohnson Mr Ainsworths division whē they separated one from the other when after the death of Mr Ainsworth that company rending againe in the midst one half followed Iohn de Cluse the other Mr Canne when after the death of Mr Robinson his company also rending in peeces they forsooke their old fellowship together when Mr Canne was first rashly elected a Minister by the Brownists when shortly after that election he was censured and deposed from his office by that half that rejected him renounced communion with him In all these the like controversies they wanted help durst not seek the benefit of Classicall Government nor submit their cause unto such an order of tryall and censure lest they should enthrall themselves in Antichristian bondage as they call it They that allow not Synods with authority to decide causes doe yet professe that they are to be approved embraced for counsell advise but it appeares by these other not unlike passages among those that are of the same opinion that they which deny the power of censure in Classes doe seldome enquire after their counsell And although the importance of this controversy doeth hereby appeare plainly enough yet doe we not hold the same to be so great as some of our opposites doe make it as if the essence of the Church our owne salvation depended hereupon Mr Canne calls it (ſ) Churches plea. p. 77. a matter of faith appertaining to life salvation Mr Iacob speaking of this particular Church wherein this single uncompounded policie is maintained saith (t) Necess of Reform p. 5. This onely ought to be allowed beleeved to be a true Church by all Christians and againe (v) Ibid. p. 6. This is the onely true visible Church of Christ having from him the spirituall power of order government in it self ordinarily The proper Ministers thereof are the onely true ordinary Ministers of Christ He saith further (x) The divine begin instit of Christs true visible Church pref The true forme indeed of Christs visible ministeriall Church is an Inward thing It is the Power of a single uncompounded spirituall politie He denyes the Profession of saving faith to be the essentiall forme and often inculcates that the forme essence nature constitution of the Church consists in that power of spirituall politie before rehearsed He complaines of them that doe not practise according to his rule saying (y) Ibid. pref These truly seeme to destroy the conscience faith of the people c. And he gives this exhortation that (z) Ibid. A. 4. All Christians every where ought to frame the visible Church where they
make nothing to the purpose The first is Deut 17. c. Hereunto I answer I. Though the Papists argue from the Jewish politie and from the same places of Scripture alledged by us yet it is false which Mr Canne here saith viz. that they use the same argument They argue thence aâ—â—er another manner make other consequences draw other conclusions from those places then we doe Their abuse of those Scriptures doth not hinder us from the right use of them for then we might be quickly deprived of the whole Scriptures wrested by many unto their destruction 2. Pet. 3.16 The (l) Bellarm. contr de verbo Dei l. 3. c 5. Papists alledge Mat. 18.17 as well as Deut. 17. to stablish their Romish authority yet my opposites think it to be no prejudice to themselves that argue in another manner from the same place II. More particularly the Papists argue from Deut. 17. to prove that there should be one person supreme judge of Ecclesiasticall causes as there was one High Priest among the Iewes This is justly refuted both by (m) Conf. with Hart c. 6. div 2. p. 204. D. Rainolds by (n) DePont Rom. cont 4. qu. 7. p. 818.819 D. Whitakers shewing that the judgement given there was not by the High Priest alone but by a Colledge or Senate of Priests noted in that Text. The Papists argue from Deut. 17. to prove an infallibility of judgement in this one Judge to shew that the Pope cannot erre These such like false collections from the Policy of the Jewes are justly reproved by Orthodox Divines Had I used any such reasonings then had there bene cause to have complained III. Whereas Mr Iohnson used to plead for the power and authority of Elders in the Church and to maintaine the same from the Civill Policy of the Jewes from the authority of the Magistrates in Israel Mr Ainsworth had just cause to dislike the same and doth (o) Animadv p. 16. justly alledge against him the Testimonies of D. Whitakers Iunius Cartwright others It is true which they affirme The argument is not good from Civill Government to Ecclesiasticall and againe The example is altogether unlike of temporall empire and spirituall ministery between these there is not neither ought neither can a proportion or comparison be rightly made viz. in such a confused manner as Mr Iohnson hath done it But as for me I never pleaded on that manner I argue not from the Civill but from the Ecclesiasticall Policie in Israel to shew the lawfull government of the Church by Synods Mr Canne therefore doeth not rightly imitate Mr Ainsw in the allegation of these Writers IV. If Mr Canne would see who they be that doe in speciall manner offend by reasoning from the Iewish Policie and government let him looke yet better upon the writings of the Brownists There he shall finde not onely Mr Iohns worthily complained of for (p) Animadv pref wresting a proportion from the Princes of Israel to the Ministers of the Gospell for (q) Ibid. p. 14. streyning too farre in proportioning the authority and power of Elders in the Church with the authority of the Elders the Magistrates for (r) Ibid p. 19. matching the power of the Ministers in Spirituall things with the power of the Magistrate in Civill things c. But there shall he also finde the rest of the Separation so many as doe allow their Confession Apology pleading from the Jewish Policie government to establish confirme the authority power of particular Churches in their administration of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall censures he shall finde Mr Ainsw proceeding yet further not onely to reason from the Jewish politie but from an imagined power of the people in Civill judgements such a power as was not due unto them by the Law These errours have I noted refuted at large in the (Å¿) Pag. 7-13 former part of this Treatise V. Whereas these Opposers doe often alledge that (t) Animadv pref p. 14 15. c. Moses politie is done away abrogated I answer Though the Ceremonies that were shadowes and figures of things to come be abrogated yet the Judiciall Lawes are not wholly boargated but onely so much as served to establish the Ceremonies or had a peculiar respect to the condition of the Jewes to that land of promise given unto them Otherwise that part of Moses Politie which was of common equity grounded upon principles of reason and nature serving for the maintenance of the Morall Law is perpetuall not changed This is shewed at large by Orthodox Divines Iunius (v) De Poliâ—ia Mosis cap. 3. thes 13 14 15 c. in speciall doth manifest this both in generall rules and in particular instances as in the law of making battlements upon the flat roofes of their houses Deu. 22.8 in the law of not putting to death the childreÌ„ for the offence of the fathers Deut. 24.16 in the law of not admitting one witnesse Deut. 19.15 These and the like Judiciall lawes in the Politie of Moses are not abrogated This is likewise shewed by that learned (x) Gersom Bucerus Discept de Gubern Eccl. p. 51 52. Writer who defending the Government Discipline of the Reformed Churches against D. Downam declares such Judiciall lawes to be ad perpetuam Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the perpetuall good order of the Church Now our present controversy is neither about Ceremoniall ordinances nor other Judiciall lawes peculiar to the Jewes but onely about the liberty of Appeales from one Ecclesiasticall judicatory to another from the judgement of a particular Church unto a Synod Classicall Provinciall or Nationall This liberty of appeales being granted then a dependency of Churches is granted and then the single uncompounded Policie is not to be urged upon us That this liberty of appeales dependeth upon common equity the light of nature the practise of all ages nations generally witnesseth unto us It was the light of nature that taught this law of common equity unto Jethro Moses his father in law approved of God himself Exod. 18 22-26 for there as Iunius interprets the same there was a law appointed touching Appeales from subalterne or subordinate Judges (y) Analy Explic. in Deut. c. 17. That if any matter did either seeme obscure unto them the Judges that they could not determine it or did appeare hard unto the parties contending that they could not rest therein then they were to betake themselves unto superiour Iudges And againe in the same place comparing Deut. 17. with Exod. 18. he writes that according to the summe substance of that counsell which Jethro gave and ex illo fundamento c. from that ground Moses here viz. Deut. 17. defineth the manner of the appealing of parties of consultation to be made by inferiour Iudges when any weighty busines should be c. Thus doth he expound this law of appealing to a
superiour judicatory either Civill or Ecclesiasticall to be among these Iudiciall lawes that are perpetuall arising from the ground of common equity In like manner G. Bucerus speaking of these same judicatories inferiour superiour applying that which he had spoken before in generall unto this particular ordinance shewes that (z) Dissert de Gubern Eccl. p. 65. the judicatories of the Church at this day are lawfully framed according to the same forme and that the reasonis because it clearly appeares that this order being anciently instituted of God most religiously observed of the Fathers did belong onely unto the good order of the Church and not unto the paedagogie of the Law c. and therefore was not to be abolished Againe it was prophecyed of Christ and his kingdome that he should deliver the needy when he cryeth the poore also and him that hath no helper that he should redeeme their soule from deceit violence c. Psal 72.12 14. But if liberty of Appeales be now taken away by the comming of Christ then in respect of Ecclesiasticall government confessed to be a part of Christs kingdome the yoke of the Law should be more tollerable sweet and easy in this poynt of appeales then the yoke of Christ for under the Law the poore being oppressed in judgement by unrighteous Iudges in one place they cryed for help by appealing unto a superiour Synedrion and there found release and so were redeemed from deceit violence but now under the Gospell if it were as our Opposites hold that all spirituall jurisdiction should be limited to a particular Congregation then might the afflicted wronged soules cry in vaine finde no helper there being no Ecclesiasticall judicatory to releeve them and to redeeme their soule from the deceit and violence of their oppressours We read of Cranmer the holy Martyr how that when he was cruelly handled by unrighteous Iudges he sought to comfort himself by his Appeale from them unto a free Generall Councell The forme of his Appeale is exactly set downe by him and he doeth as it were cry out for it with great vehemency of words saying (a) Ioh. Fox Acts Mon. pag. 1709. col 1 edit 1â—10 I desire the first the second the third time instantly more instantly most instantly that I may have messengers if there be any man that will can give me them And I make open promise of prosecuting this mine appellation by the way of disanulling abuse c. But according to the Tenent of our Opposites it should thus have bene answered unto him by them Seek no comfort in such Appeales under Moses Policy they were lawfull but now under the New Testament they are unlawfull There is no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction out of a particular Church that may give sentence in your cause c. What an unworthy conceit is this thus to dishonour the New Testament as if God had shewed more grace and provided more help for afflicted soules under the Law then under the Gospell This erroneous conceit is so much the more blame-worthy in some of the Brownists in that when they plead against the usurpation and injustice of Elders they theÌ„ confesse this same thing in effect saying (b) H. Ains Animadv p. 22. Is it meet that they should be Iudges in their owne cases In Israel when any complayned of wrong in the Synagogues or Cities there was an higher Court to controll unruly Elders to help the oppressed But now 2 or 3 Elders in a Church bearing themselves upon their forged â—â—thority from Mat. 18.17.20 may be lawlesse and who shall let them in their proceedings And for proof of this liberty in Israel they alledge Deut. 17.8 9. 2. Chron. 19.8 10. And why then cannot Mr Canne endure that I should alledge the very same Scriptures to a like end for is it meet that particular Churches should be Iudges in their owne cases In Israel if any complayned of wrong against a whole Synagogue there was an higher Court to controll unruly disordred Congregations and to help those that were oppressed by them And shall now 6 or 7 persons in a Church for sometimes there be no more specially in the new erected Churches of Separatists shall those be lawlesse bearing themselves upon their forged authority falsely collected from Mat. 18 shall there be no meanes by any Synod or by any superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory to let them in their proceedings Againe they confesse that the (c) Ibid. p. 24. Saints have as much more power and libertie in the Gospel now then the Iewes had as the heyr when he is of yeares hath more then in his childhood Gal. 4.1 2 3. And likewise speaking of the peoples right then under the Law and under the Magistrate they say it (d) Ibid. p. 28. may he more but cannot be lesse now under the Gospel where the Church ministery hath not the power of Magistracie over Gods heritage What is then this liberty that the people have In the offensive controversies arising and continuing in a Church the people are either doers of wrong or sufferers of wrong either oppressours or oppressed is it now the right liberty of oppressours that they in their wrong-doing shall be exempted from the judgement of any superiour Church-government to controll them and for the oppressed is this their sory inheritance now under the New Testament that they are deprived of this liberty of appealing to any other judicatory out of themselves so as to seek any help thereby What is this els but to diminish and obscure the grace of the Gospell and to shorten the hand of the Lord as if he did not now stretch it out as farre either in mercy for help of the oppressed by allowing them the liberty and comfort of appeales or in judgement for rebuke of oppressours by permitting them to be lawlesse and secure without danger of further censure after they had once prevayled by an unrighteous proceeding in a particular Congregation D. Whitaker whom Mr Canne often alledgeth and often perverteth contrary to his meaning is very pregnant and full in witnessing this same trueth with me touching the lawfulnes necessity of appeales He sayth (e) Contr. 4 de Pont. Rom. Qu. 4. c. 2. p. 470. Truely appeales are of Divine and naturall right and certainly very necessary in every society because of the iniquity or ignorance of many Iudges Otherwise the innocent person should be undone if it were not lawfull to appeale from an unrighteous sentence and seing many controversies doe arise in causes persons Ecclesiasticall who can deny that the right of Appeales is of necessity to be granted Thus he avoucheth that the denyall of appeales is against common equity against the law of God and the law of nature D. Rainolds also (f) Conf. with Hart c. 9. div 2. p. 572.575 agreeth with D. Whit. in allowing of appeales in Ecclesiasticall causes As both of them condemne the Appeales unto
he carryed from the Consistory to the Classis are of the same nature with those causes between blood blood between law commandement statutes judgements which were deferred to the Levites the Priests c. ANSVV. I. It is here also to be noted how instead of disproving that which I sayd and instead of shewing any dissimilitude of the question brought unto the Classis from those brought unto the judicatories Deut. 17.2 Chron. 19. he leaves his accusation without proof II. As for the proof he requires it is most plaine and evident from the places alledged for in them it is manifest that about whatsoever cause there was any strife or contention in Israel it might be brought unto the judicatories there mentioned All Ecclesiasticall affaires all matters of the Lord were to be brought unto the Ecclesiasticall Senate over which Amariah was President All Civill affaires all matters of the King were to be brought unto the Civill judgement over which Zebadiah was President 2. Chron. 19.11 And what controversy can there be in any Church or Estate that may not be reduced to one of these Iunius in his exposition of these places (Å¿) Anal. Expl. Annot on Deut. 17.8 2. Chron. 19.8 11. plainely distinguisheth these causes questions on this manner Againe whereas 2. Chron. 19. vers 10. there is expresse and generall mention of any cause whatsoever about which there might be controversy between Law Commandement Statutes Iudgements I would demand of Mr Dav. what cause can be excepted or exempted from these judicatories Was there ever any controversy or any contention in any Church which hath not reference to some Law or Commandement And seeing Mr Dav. himself in these disputes pretends the Law and Commandement against us doe not these questions therefore being of such nature belong unto such judicatories Seeing judicatories were therefore originally instituted to take away strife dissention as in Civill causes Deut. 1.12 so also in Ecclesiastical Deut. 17.2 Chron. 19. and withall seeing the causes in question c. have bene speciall meanes and causes of discord among us why should not these matters be brought unto these judicatories for tryall and judgement as well as others And therefore whether those Scriptures above mentioned have bene by me misapplyed or not I leave to the consideration of them that are able to judge CHAP. III. The second Argument taken from the words of Christ Matth. 18 15-20 THe second Argument is taken from that Rule of Discipline delivered by Christ unto his Disciples for the government of his Church in the New Testament Mat. 18.15 16 17 18 19 20. From this rule we may reason divers wayes and chiefly thus If this Rule of Christ be the same that was prescribed unto Israel of old and be translated from the Jewes Synagogues unto the Christian Churches then are not these Churches independent then are they not single uncompounded policies then is not all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction limited within the compasse of particular Congregations then cannot appeales unto superiour judicatories be justly denyed But the first is true Therefore the second also The Assumption of this Argument is denyed by many kindes of opposites H. Barrow cryes out against it (a) Refut of Giff. p. 76. Is it likely or possible that our Saviour Christ would fetch his patterne for the Elders of his Church the execution of these high judgements from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the Iewes which by the institution of God was merely Civill and not ordained for causes Ecclesiasticall as appeareth Exod. 18. Num. 11. Deut. 1. the Priests bearing the charge having the deciding of all Ecclesiasticall causes Num. 18. Deut. 17. But this Councell of theirs was now mixed of the Elders of the people and the Priests handled all causes both Civill Ecclesiasticall indifferently Matt. 26.3 Act. 4.5 How unjustly and ungodly they dealt may appeare by their handling our Saviour and his Apostles from time to time Now as their is no likenes to collect these surmises from that place so is there no one circumstance in that Scripture to lead thereunto Mr Ainsworth would perswade that (b) Animadv p. 18. Christs doctrine in Matt. 18.18 is a new rule which Israel had not and thinks it would be good for men to yeeld unto this perswasion Mr Smith that declined unto Anabaptisme speaking of the order observed in the old Testament sayth (c) Parall Cens Observ Sect. 8. p. 75. The Lord did not then require men to proceed with their brethren in three degrees of admonition and so to bring them to the acknowledgment of their sinne and repentance That is the Lords dispensation for the new Testament But the Lords order for those times was 1. reproof for sinne Lev. 19.17 2. The partie reprooved was to offer a sacrifice which if he did he was cleansed from his sinne visiblie Levit. 4.23 3. If the wilfully refused to hearken he was to be promoted to the Magistrate and put to death for his presumption Numb 15.30 31. Deut. 17.12 This was the Lords oecconmie for those times when this order was violated then all communion was defiled whiles it was observed all was well in the visible communion Let any man declare the contrary if he be able Thus he challenged all men in the confidence of this opinion that Christ gave a new rule Mr Iacob speaking of this rule Mat. 18. sayth (d) Attest c. 8. p. 278.279 The Iewish Church-government cannot be here alluded unto much lesse required to be kept practised by Christians Concerning which together with all other Iewish ordinances the Apostle teacheth and confirmeth unto us that all those old things are passed away and that all things of such nature under the Gospell are made new 2. Cor. 5.17 and that the same things are shaken and changed and remaine not now unto us Heb. 12.27 NOw on the contrary to shew the trueth of the Assumption against these and the like denyals thereof and to prove that Christ gave no new Rule but the very same for substance which was given formerly to the Jewes let us consider it in the severall parts thereof so by induction from them demonstrate that which is affirmed by us _____ In that Rule of Christ Mat. 18 15-20 we have described to us 1. Three degrees of admonition 2. A censure upon contempt of admonition 3. A confirmation of that censure The first degree of admonition is most private betwixt the person admonishing and the person offending alone vers 15. This is no new commandement but taught of old both generally in the equity of the Law to love our neighbour as ourselves Lev. 19.18 and more specially to shew this love by admonition in the rebuke of sinne Lev. 19.17 and that with secrecy Prov. 11.13 25.9 And further as Christ describes the person offending by the name of a brother to shew in what loving manner this duety was to be performed to him
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
doeth not follow from a particular that because the decrees of an Apostolicall Councill are to be observed therefore the decrees of all Councills must be so kept Contr. 3. li. 4. cap. 16. And whereas Bellarmine affirmeth that the question there was not defined by Scripture but by the voyces of the Apostles Iunius denyeth that any thing was ordained in that Councill but from the Scriptures as he had before demonstrated and thereunto referreth the Reader ANSVV. I. It may be observed here how untrue it is which Mr Dav. pretends in excuse of his large writing saying (v) Pref. to the Reader For the help of the Reader in comparing the Reply with the Answer I have inserted his owne words every where This hath he not done here nor in many other places I shewed (x) Answ to unj cōpl p. 88. how this place Act. 15. had bene alledged by another against the Brownists and that this his allegation served to condemne both himself and his fellowes Mr D. hath neither inserted mine owne words nor yet the words of him that had alledged this place II. In alledging the two answers of Iunius unto Bellarmine he wanders wide from the question in hand I am of the same minde with Iunius in both those answers Though the decrees of that Apostolicall Synod were infallibly true and just yet is it not so with other Synods many whereof are to be rejected for their erroneous and unjust decrees All the decrees in that Synod Act. 15. were grounded upon the Scriptures and rested not merely upon the suffrages of men Iunius had just cause so to answer Bellarmine that maintained an unlawfull and absolute authority of Synods and exacted obedience of necessity to all their decrees Is not this to abuse both me and his Readers and to bleare their eyes that they should not rightly discerne the state of the question III. That the Reader may better conceive in what manner an authority and power is asscribed to Classes and Synods let the authority of particular Churches be considered as an example and modell of that authority which is in Synods My opposites themselves confesse that there is in particular Congregations an authority and power to judge and censure offendours and yet they will not deny but that they may erre in their judgements that they want such infallible direction as the Apostles had and that their decrees and Ecclesiasticall censures are to be regarded no further then they are grounded upon the Scriptures So is it with the authority of Classes Synods I. DAV (y) Apol. reply p. 255. And whereas Bellarmine sayth that the decree of the Apostles was not left to the examination of the Disciples but that they were simply commanded to obey Iunius chargeth him with falsely supposing two things 1. That the Apostles alone made this order For the Elders concurred with the Apostles in this sentence and the whole Church all of them being taught by the spirit of trueth to think the same thing And this he saith is the manner of proceeding in those Councills where Christ is praesident 2. That the same respect is to be had to the determination of others as of the Apostles Which is an errour he sayth For it was the singular priviledge of the Apostles that they had immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and infallibility in their Apostolicall determinations so that what they delivered was to be received without examination whereas the dictates and sentences of all other are to be examined by their writings whereby it appeareth that the Scripture acknowledgeth no such power of making lawes to be due to the Classes unlesse they can produce some other texts which when they shall be alledged shall be further examined if God permit ANSVV. I. All that Mr Davenp hath here set downe is wholy impertinent and all being granted our assertion touching the lawfull authority of Synods Classes remaineth firme We grant with Iunius (z) Animadv in Bellarm Contro 4. l. 1. c. 18. § 11. that the Apostles alone did not judge but the Elder and others also concurred with them not onely in counsell but in giving judiciall sentence with them We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of others as of the Apostles we grant that no such power of making lawes is due to Classes that is no such power of infallible determinations c. and yet we hold they have a lawfull authority of judging and deciding controversies c. The like we hold concerning particular Churches with their Elderships we grant they have no such power of infallible determinations and yet a lawfull power to determine and judge of causes We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of particular Churches as of the Apostles and yet a due respect not onely for admonition and counsell but also for power to censure and to give sentence We grant that the censures sentences and judgements as well of Elderships and Churches as of Synods and Classes are in like manner to be tryed and examined by the Scriptures and yet this grant impeacheth not the lawfull authority of either of them in exercising a power of judgement II. For the better direction how to discerne judge of the actions of the Apostles and how farre their example is a rule of practise and imitation to the Church of God it shall not be amisse to set downe a profitable and usefull distinction observed by Iunius (a) Ibid. lib. 2. c. 16. n. 6. which is that the Apostles had a twofold manner of Power Common and Proper The Common is that ordinary power which they had together with the Elders as they were Bishops The Proper or peculiar is that extraordinary povver which was for a while given unto the Evangelicall Church at the springing up thereof in respect of which the Apostles were above the whole Church According to that common power Peter was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fellow Elder 1. Pet. 5.1 according to this peculiar power he destroyed Ananias and Sapphira Act. 5. By that common power Paul sayth 1. Cor. 5.4 You and my spirit being gathered together in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ but by that peculiar power he sayth what will you shall I come unto you with a rod c. 1. Cor. 4.20 This he sets downe elswhere more fully and applyes it to the power exercised Act. 15. saying (b) Ibid. l. 1 c. 16. n. 1. Here the Aposles are sayd to have used communication therefore this power was common to the Church and not a peculiar action of the Apostles in this Synod at Ierusalem We doe therefore thus determine distinctly concerning this thing All that were furnished with gifts and calling judged in this Synod first the Apostles and Apostolick men then the Elders that laboured in the ministery of the Word as well they of the place in Ierusalem as those of Antioch if any moreover
were come from other places c. Therefore when we alledge this example Act. 15. to shew the authority and power of Synods in judging of controversies those that to frustrate elude this example doe plead and except that the Apostles had extraordinary power they are here reproved by Iunius who shewes that though the Apostles had extraordinary gifts in judging which might procure the more respect in that regard yet the power it self by which they did judge Act. 15. was not extraordinary and peculiar to the Apostles but ordinary and common to Ministers Elders other Deputies of the Churches therefore commonly perpetually to be observed used as occasion requireth Mr Can's Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered BEfore he comes to the point he intreats me to resolve five Questions the two latter whereof I have answered (c) Pag. 34. before the other with their answers are as followeth I. CAN. I. (d) Churches plea p. 32 33. Whither the Assembly mentioned in Act. 15. there a Synod or Classis ANSVV. The Assembly mentioned Act. 15. was a Synod and not properly a Classis according to the usuall acception of the word in these places Classes are Assemblies of Ministers comming often together out of neighbour Churches within a lesser circuit Synods have a larger extent comprehend many Classes under them come more seldome together I. CAN. II. How it can be manifested from that place that both are divine institutions as here is affirmed ANSVV. This place Act. 15. or any other that yeelds warrant for one of these Assemblies yeelds it for both because both are of like nature and differ not essentially but in circumstantiall matters of time place number of persons In both these is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority over particular Churches in respect of both there appeareth a mutuall dependence of Churches that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church which is the Question betwixt us I. CAN. III. How he can naturally from thence rayse this doctrine viz. Excommunications and elections of Ministers are actions belonging unto Classes and Synods ANSVV. When I rayse such a doctrine from Act. 15. as he mentions which I have not done any where then is it time for me to manifest how the same ariseth naturally from the Text. Election of Ministers is an action belonging to severall Congregations and not to Classes and Synods but if any particular Churches doe offend in choosing unlawfull and unfit persons then are Classes and Synods to judge thereof and to hinder such elections Had the Church of Antioch gone about to elect for a Minister among them one of that Sect which taught the brethren there Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Act. 15.1.5 then had the Synod at Ierusalem authority to have hindred that election which appeareth because they had power to make a decree against such false doctrine Act. 15.28 And thence also it followeth that if any of the Christian Pharisees had stood obstinately in such errours tending to the subversion of soules to the bringing in of another Gospel and making Christ become of no effect unto men Act. 15.24 Gal. 1.6 7. 5.2 3 4. then after due conviction that Synod at Ierusalem had authority as well to censure the person as to condemne his errour having in readines a revenge against all disobedience 2. Cor. 10.6 with Gal. 1.8 9. especially if the particular Church whereof such a person was a member should refuse to doe the same according to their direction I. CAN. To the point now I doe deny that this place Act. 15. proveth any such thing for which it is alledged For I. Here was no combination of many Ministers of divers Churches but onely a few messengers sent from Antiochia unto the Congregation at Ierusalem about a controversy there specifyed Hence it is affirmed by many learned men (e) D. Brid pag. 1224. that as this was an assembly of one onely particular Church so it binds (f) D. Whit. de Conc. qu. 2. p. 6. 67 onely but in a speciall or particular meeting ANSVV. I. It is untrue which he sayth that here was no combination of many Ministers of divers Churches because here were the Ministers of all Churches even the Apostles that had the care of all the Churches of whom all Churches might say these are our Ministers Act. 15.6.2 Cor. 11.28.1 Cor. 3.21 22. Mat. 28.19 This was the noblest combination of Ministers that ever was II. It is without warrant that he saith onely a few messengers were sent from Antiochia for besides Paul and Barnabas the deputies and messengers of that Church which might stand for many other it is sayd that certaine other of them were sent Act. 15.2 but how many or how few it is not specifyed III. That which he alledgeth from D. Bridges is unsound viz. that this was an Assembly of one onely particular Church As it is expressely against the text so I may oppose against in the testimony of Iunius * Pag. 68. before noted who speaking of them that judged in this Synod reckons up first the Apostles and Apostolick men then the Elders that laboured in the ministery of the Word as well them of the place in Ierusalem as those of Antioch and if any moreover were come from other places c. IV. Whereas he citeth D. Whitaker as if he affirmed of this Synod at Ierusalem that it bindes onely but in a speciall or particular meeting he doth herein falsify the testimony of D. Whitak for though he distinguishing Synods into Particular Provinciall or Nationall Universall doth in (g) De Concil Qu. 1. c. 2. p. 6. that place call this a Particular Synod yet hath he no such assertion as though it should binde onely in a speciall or particular meeting and it had bene against the text Act. 15.23 16.4 where it is noted that the Synodicall Epistle was sent unto the Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch Syria Cilicia that they might observe the decrees thereof As for that (h) Ibid. p. 67. other place out of D. Whit. it is misalledged there being no such matter at all there mentioned Instead of that mistaken place let him consider what Mr Cartwright saith hereof (i) Confut. of Rhem. Annot. on Act. 15.6 We will not strive whether the Councell were Generall or Provinciall but it may be counted a Generall Councell in respect of the presence of the Apostles which were Governours of all the Churches of the world I. CAN. II. As Mr Cartwright saith (k) Refut of Rhem. on the place Paul and Barnabas went not up to Ierusalem to submit their judgement to the judgement of the Apostles for that had diminished the authoritie of their doctrine then which there was no greater in the world they being both infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost Onely they went up to conferre with them and for countenance of the truth in respect of men
time they came more then twise so farre unto Synods Had this combination of Churches and their authority in judging brought the Churches into Antichristian bondage as the Brownists call it See before Pag. 32. then might it have bene sayd unto all these travellers as once unto the Idolatrous Jewes O ye swift dromedaries c. keep your feet from barenes and your thoat from thirst Ier. 2.23.25 IV. It is to be observed how he omitteth the things that were specially intended by me for the conviction of those I had to deale with by the testimony and reasoning of one of their owne fellowes Whereas I grounded my reproof of them upon his confession and the conclusion I made did arise from the premisses of his assertion this is passed by so that the Reader cannot understand the force of my reasoning in that place and yet he cryes out to me teaching his client to say But before you make such hasty conclusions have a little patience to heare us to speak for ourselves W.B. should rather have sayd to heare what a Brownist can say for us and how Mr Canne can defend the matter I desire the Reader to look on my (t) Answ to W.B. p 87. 88. first Answer and then to judge whether that was a hasty conclusion wherein the ancientest of themselves went before me But let us heare how he proceeds I. CAN. (v) Churches plea. p. 34. I pray how can you prove that the Officers of these two Churches being 200 miles asunder were combined and met ordinarily together as the Classes doe to determine the cases of many Churches ANSVV. I. Their combination is manifest in this act of communion and comming together for the judgement and decision of the controversy raised among them II. That they met ordinarily together I never sayd neither doe I affirme it this being not a Classicall but a Synodall Assembly according to the common distinction thereof and according to the practise among us III. That they determined the cases of many Churches I shewed * Pag. 69. before from Act. 15.23 16.4 I. CAN. Orhow doe you prove that there was any officer at all of Antioch in Ierusalem at this time ANSVV. I prove it I. Because Paul and Barnabas were both speciall Deputies of the Church of Antioch and likewise had such a generall calling as made them Officers of every Church II. Because the Apostles which then remained at Ierusalem as Peter and Iames were as well Officers of Antioch as of Ierusalem Apostles being Governours of all Churches III. For the other messengers sent from Antioch seeing Elders are approved by the Church as sittest to mannage the affaires thereof therefore it was reasonable that at least some of them should be sent about this busines thereupon Iunius as is * Pag. 68. before noted takes it for granted that the Elders of the Church of Antioch were among those that judged in this Synod I. CAN. Briefly or how doe you proove that the brethren sent from Antioch exercised authority in the Church at Ierusalem ANSVV. That the Deputies sent from Antioch had authority and power of suffrages in the Synod at Ierusalem appeareth by the generall and speciall commissions given unto them as is mentioned in the answer to his former demand As Paul once answered for himself and for Barnabas upon another occasion when he was carped at by some in the Church of Corinth Or I onely and Barnabas have we not power c. 1. Cor. 9.6 so might he have answered for both in this case for let Mr C. shew if he can what publick Ecclesiasticall meeting could have bene in those times in any Church touching any controversy that concerned any generall doctrine of the Gospell yea or the censure of manners in any other person wherein Paul and Barnabas might not exercise authority with others I. CAN. Yet all this you must make good otherwise you are guilty of abusing and perverting the Scripture in affirming that the power which the Classis exerciseth was practised at Antioch and Ierusalem and by Apostolicall direction This you have spoken but it is untrue c. ANSVV. I. Suppose I had not made good all that he required me to proove suppose the Church of Ierusalem alone had judged the controversy and that no Officer of the Church of Antioch had bene among them with any authority yet this example of one Church judging the controversy risen in another doth shew that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church within itself but that the causes of one Church may be submitted unto the judgement of another This is the substance of the Question betwixt us and this being granted it followes that Churches have liberty to appoint Classes and Synods for the mutuall judging of their causes as occasion shall require II. By charging me with untrueth in such manner as here he doeth he makes himself guilty of double untrueth for 1. This affirmation here mentioned was not mine at that time but his in whose name I repeated it and that with condition if it were so If the Churches here doe practise c. as may be plainly seen in the forementioned place of my Answer 2. Though at that time I intended not to dispute the cause but first waited for the proofes of such as accused me yet had I then used such an affirmation yet it had bene true as I shew throughout this Chapter and therefore it was an untrueth in Mr Canne to avouch the contrary And as for that place Ier. 23.31 which he misapplyeth against me the threatning contained therein is to be feared of him who hereafter abuseth perverteth so many Scriptures for the subverting of Synods I. CAN. IIII. It is certaine that at Ierusalem not onely the Apostles and Elders met together but as Luke expresseth it vers 12 22. the Church also being interested in the thing And therefore gave sentence with the rest to the decree then made Observe what D. Whitaker replyes unto Bellarmine denying the multitude to be called It was alwayes sayth hee (x) De Cōc Qu. 8. c. 3. Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 96. 97. the practise of the Apostles in common cases to call the whole Church together and no doubt but they did so here Now there was no need to have it mentioned seeing it had bene their constant custome formerly so to doe Mr Parker (y) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 108. 126. 334. affirmes the same So the Authours of the Cent. (z) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. p. 547. 548. And it seemes in Cyprians (a) Lib. 4. Epist 16. time the Church was not deprived of her right herein howsoever the Papists (b) Bellarm. de Conc. Eccl. l. 1. c. 16. p. 39. in those dayes teach otherwise and Mr Paget and others doe otherwise practise ANSVV. I. In that not onely the Apostles and Elders but other brethren also gave sentence with therest to the decree then made
it followeth hence from the consideration of that which is here confessed to be done by each kinde of person here mentioned that the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition but also to give sentence and to make decrees which are acts of authority and power The errour of Bellarmine and the Papists is (c) De Con. cil l. 1. c. 15. 16. that onely Majores Praelati the greater sort of Prelates such as are their Bishops and Archbishops and by priviledge or custome Cardinals Abbots and Generals of Orders have jus suffragii decisivi that is authority to give definitive sentence that Presbyters Elders and other Doctours or learned men in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum a voyce in consultation liberty to give counsell to deliberate and dispute but not to give definitive sentence in the deciding of any matter Thus they take away the right and power of judging from one half or more of those persons that are to appeare in Synods The errour of the Brownists and other our Opposites is that all the persons in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum onely power to deliberate to advise and give counsell that all jurisdiction is limited unto a particular Church and so they destroy wholly the authority of Synods which the Papists doe in part The Papists deprive one half of the persons of their power and these deprive all the persons of their power But now in this case Mr Canne by his confession refutes both these errours granting jurisdiction a power of giving sentence and making decrees unto the people as well as others Thus is he condemned out of his owne mouth Thus is he condemned by those whom he alledgeth when D. Whitaker sayth of Act. 15. (d) De Cōc qu. 3. c. 3. p. 97. In hoc ergo Concilio quivis laicus Presbyter definitivum suffragium habuit non minus quam Petrus that is In this Synod every lay-man and Elder had a definitive voyce as well as Peter Thence it followes that there was an authority and jurisdiction in the Synod it was not onely for advise and counsell He saith againe (e) Ibid. c. 2. p. 85. The end of Synods is to decide controversies to prescribe Canons to correct abuses to set Churches in order c. What plainer evidence of their power can we seek for This same authority of Synods is in like manner proved by that which (f) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 108 126. 334. Mr Parker to like purpose witnesseth together with D. Whitak and others II. Mr Canne here doth yet blame our practise in depriving the Church of her right and the people of their interest and is so eager in seeking to blame the manner of our keeping Synods that unawares he hath yeelded us the matter itself about which we dispute viz. an authority of giving sentence and not onely a giving of counsell by Synods His reprehension is that Mr Paget and others doe otherwise practise But who be those others beside me Why did he not name them as well as me Are they any other then all the knowne Reformed and Orthodox Churches in Europe He might well think that if he had mentioned these the very naming of them and my following of their practise would have bene not so great a blame unto me as an occasion of making himself suspected and condemned for his unjust opposing of them That it may the better appeare how unjustly he blameth our practise let us examine more particularly what he hath sayd and withall set downe some observations whereby the peoples right in Synods may the better be discerned I. To shew the peoples interest he alledgeth Act. 15.12 22. where there is mention made of the multitude that was present and of the whole Church sending messengers c. But by the multitude we may understand not the whole number of the Church at Ierusalem which consisted of many thousands but rather the multitude of such speciall persons as were met in the Synod So Beza interpreteth it (g) Annot. maj in N.T. in Act. 15.12 Multitudinis autem nomine intellige non totam Ecclesiam c. By the name of the multitude understand not the whole Church which was not yet wholy adjoyned but the whole company of the Apostles and Elders as appeareth before from the 6 verse c. Piscator likewise (h) Schol. in Act. 15.12 approves this interpretation and addes some further light unto it from the reference of the Greek article though he also give liberty for another interpretation So for that phrase the whole Church mentioned vers 22. Iunius (i) Animad in Contr. 4. de Conc. l. 1. c. 15. n. 19. c. 16. n. 1. expounds the same of the Elders and Deacons or the whole Clerus or Clergy serving that Church these saith he are designed by the common name of the Church Calvine also (k) Cōmen in Act. 15.6 writes to the same purpose Luke saith not that the whole Church was gathered together but those that were men of learning and judgement and which by vertue of their office were lawfull judges of this cause It may be indeed that the disputation was before the people but lest any man should think that the common people were promiscuously admitted to handle the cause Luke expressely nameth the Apostles and Elders as more sit to take cognition thereof II. We grant that besides Ministers and Elders other members of the Church may have suffrages or voyces and give sentence in Synods as well as those that are Officers alwayes provided that they be lawfully deputed and sent thereunto Thus D. Whitaker explaines himself touching his allowance of lay-men to have voyces in Synods and sayth (l) De Conc. qu. 3. c. 2. p. 92. Every man ought not to be admitted into the Synod nor to speak therein but he that shall be chosen of the Church and designed thereunto Againe he saith (m) Ibid. c. 3. p. 103. Not onely Bishops are to be chosen of the Church to be sent unto Synods but other godly prudent learned men which happily can dispute more skilfully and inquire into controversies better then the Bishops Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the Church And so (n) p. 97. 98. 104. oft in other places Iunius in like manner (o) Animadv de Cōc l. 1. c. 15. n. 4. c. 16. n 1. n. 10. requires of such as have voyce in Synods that they be furnished with gifts and calling whether Officers or any others And this also is the practise of the Reformed Churches in these parts where upon occasion divers times some such are deputed and sent unto Synods which have no Ecclesiasticall office and even in the Nationall Synod at Dort divers other members of the Church which were neither Ministers nor Elders were sent thither allowed to be Delegates were to have not onely deliberative but also definitive voyces as well as any other
as appeares (p) Act. Synod Nat. Dordr Sess 4. Art 3. in the lawes orders prescribed by the Illustrious LL. the States Generall c. III. Even of those which by a lawfull election deputation are sent unto Synods whether they be Ministers and Elders or other members of the Church there ought to be a limited and certaine number for if every Church in a whole nation might send as many as they would or could there might be thousands and ten thousands gathered together into some Synods whereby great confusion and disorder in the discussing and judging of many causes would apparently follow D. Whitaker saith (q) De Cōc q. 3. p. 81. Certainly confusion cannot be avoyded when too many meet together And as for that Synod at Ierusalem he saith * Ibid. q. 1. c. 6. That assembly could not be great because they were compassed about with the Priests and Pharisees And therefore also in the practise of these Churches there is a certaine number determined of such as are to be sent unto Synods as appeareth likewise in (r) Act. Synod Nat. Dordr Sess 4. Art 3. those lawes before mentioned If Mr Canne will allow any limitation of number and can therein satisfy himself that he doth not deprive the people Churches of their right he may thereby also satisfy himself for any thing that he objecteth unto us in this behalf IV. We doe further grant this liberty even unto such as are no Delegates or Deputies of the Church that though they be not allowed for judges yet many of them (ſ) Inn. Animadv in Bell. de Concil l. 1. c. 15. n. 2.3 9. as hearers may for their edification be present at the cōmunication conference in the Synod that they may profit in godlines This also is the practise of these Churches both in Provinciall and Nationall Synods so farre as the place will conveniently receive a competent number and so also it was observed in the Nationall Synod at Dort V. This liberty of hearing in Synods is so moderated restrained that though they which have no calling unto the Synod may heare questions touching doctrine and religion discussed yet such are not allowed to be present and to heare when personall matters of scandall and offence come to be examined because as Iunius saith (t) Ibid. c. 15. n. 9. contra charitatem fuisset Nam veritatis cognitio ad omnes pertinet infirmitatum minime that is It had bene against charity for the knowledge of the trueth belongs unto all the knowledge of infirmities not so VI. Touching the right and liberty of Synods there are many other things to be further observed When Mr Cartwright had spoken very much for the liberty of the people in Synods yet for prevention of mistaking and by way of correcting himself after a sort he saith (v) Confut. of the Rhemists Ann. on Act. 15. V. 6. n. 5. Yet write we not this as though the peoples presence either in all Councels where the doctrine is not in controversy were * The negative particle added there seemes to be the Printers fault being concrary to that which went before and followes after making no good sense in his words is therefore to be omitted needfull or that in those Councels where they were present they have like right with those Bishops and Elders For they we mean Bishops and Elders may first by a severall and foreset deliberation take counsell whether it be expedient to propound any such matter as is in cōtroversie in that Councell where the people shall be present Whereby if they perceive any generall and obstinate opposition of them against the truth they may hold that poynt of doctrine back This we see to have been done by Iosias who or ever he assembled the people first of all assembled the Elders of Iuda and Ierusalem 2. King 23.1 Also by Iames who at Pauls arrivall to Ierusalem first assembled the Elders to debate of the matter or ever he was presented before the Church Act. 21.18 19. Secondly if the people should bewray a wilfull stubbornesse against the truth not suspected by them yet the Governours being sound without whom there can nothing be concluded there should not follow any prejudice of the Councels authority against the trueth albeit the number of the people assembled were greater then of those Bishops and Elders Hereupon it commeth that the Decrees of the Councell are after called the Decrees of the Apostles Elders leaving out the brethren which Luke had first set downe And upon the same ground in the decision of doubtfull matters Moses Deut. 17. commandeth that they should have recourse unto the Priests of the Leviticall stocke for that they bare the principall sway in those deliberations Lastly the case of Councels being as it hath bene declared it is no marvell although Augustine call a Generall Councell in some respect the consent of the whole Church considering that not onely those Bishops and Elders but some of the people were in all likelyhood there assembled That which Mr Cartw. sayth of the severall and foreset deliberation agreeth with that which Beza (x) Ann. in Act. 15.12 writes of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or foregoing consultation The same is acknowledged by (y) S. Theo. l. 7. p. 277. Mr Fenner also And hereunto accordeth that which Gersom Bucerus fitly noteth concerning the meaning of Cyprian who writing unto the Elders Deacons that he had determined from the beginning of his government to doe nothing by his owne judgement privately (z) Cyprian l. 3. ep 10. without their counsell and without consent of the people Bucerus explaineth his speech distinctly on this manner (a) Dissent de Gub. Eccles p. 145. Behold first he mentions the counsell which was to be borrowed from the Presbytery and then the consent whereby the judgement of the Presbytery was publickly approved of the people And this he applyes also to the order of that judgement described 1. Cor. 5. But concerning the judgement of Cyprian we have occasion to speak more hereafter I. CAN. V. Howsoever the Church at Antioch sent some Brethren with Paul and Barnabas unto the Church at Ierusalem notwithstanding and let it be well observed they did not this as being a dependent body and standing under another Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves For as Mr Parker (b) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 20. p. 301. 314. excellently proves it the Church at Antioch at this time had absolute power in and for her self to have ended the controversy and might have done it I say in respect of authority without acquainting therewith any other Congregation at all To the same purpose another saith (c) D. Whit. Conc. qu. 1. c. 1. The Church of Antioch sent not to Ierusalem as being bound in duety thereto But in regard it was the chief place of Religion therefore they made choyse freely of that Congregation as knowing them to be best
able to resolve the controversie True it is the Hierarchie (d) D. Whit. g. T. C. 3. deny this of whose opinion Mr Paget must either be or els the Classes as they now rule must fall to the ground for any relief that this Scripture Act. 15. will yeeld unto them ANSVV. 1. Had Mr Canne well understood the state of the question or what he saith and whereof he affirmes he might easily have knowne that we are of the same minde with Mr Parker in this that as Antioch so every other particular Church hath like authority to end their owne controversies if they finde themselves able This condition concealed by Mr Canne is foure or five times repeated by Mr Parker in the (e) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301 302. place alledged speaking of Antioch and other particular Churches with these expresse words si modo possit si modo vires suppetivissent c. if they could if they had ability if they found not themselves too weak in case of impotency c. Mr Canne hiding these conditions from the eyes of his Readers doth hereby hood-wink them and keeps them in darknes from seeing the right meaning of Mr Parker 11. Besides the case of impotency alledged by Mr Parker there was another reason why this controversy at Antioch was to be brought unto a Synod viz. because it was causa communis a common cause that concerned both many other Churches in regard of the matter and in speciall the Church of Ierusalem because the authours of this controversy were not members of the Church of Antioch but came from Iudaea and from them of Ierusalem Act. 15.1 24. and therefore that Church of Ierusalem had more right and authority to judge of them then they of Antioch had 111. Whereas he would have it to be well observed that the Church of Antioch sent to them of Ierusalem not as being a dependent body standing under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves the right and well observing hereof stands in this that we acknowledge particular Churches to be dependent bodies not by way of subjection unto any one supposed to have more authority then the rest but so dependent that every one is equally and mutually subject to one another as occasion requireth The Churches of Ierusalem of Antioch of Samaria and others were all of equall authority and yet each standing under the authority of a Synod compounded of them all and this appeareth by the instance of this controversy referred here to the decision of the Synod at Ierusalem IV. For the testimony of D. Whitaker (f) Conc. qu. 1. c. 1. that the Church of Antioch sent not to Ierusalem as being bound in duety thereto 1. It is misalledged by him for in the Chapter mentioned by him there are no such words to be found the words are indeed Mr Parkers and not of another as he sayth poynting at D. Whit. in his margine He jumbles testimonies together that which one sayth he sets downe in anothers name and followes the mistake that is in Mr Parkers (g) Pa. 314. book through the Printers or Writers fault And though in the (h) De Cōc Qu. 1. c. 2. p. 6. Chapter following D. Whit. sayth of Ierusalem that there was as it were a certaine castle of Religion and the head of the Church yet the other words are none of his So licentious and negligent is Mr C. in his quotations 2. For the thing it self though in the combination of Churches into Synods they are not limited and simply bound in duety ex obligato as Mr Parker sayth to any one Church more then another yet this freeth them not from their duety of uniting themselves to some Classes or Synods even as particular persons though they be not simply bound to one Congregation more then another but may use a Christian liberty therein yet are they bound in duety to joyne themselves as members to some Chuch and further where no absolute necessity is imposed yet godly wisedome teacheth men a duety in respect of circumstances and accidentall occasions to make choyse of one Church rather then another V. He alledgeth D. Whitg so defectively that no man by his quotation can tell how to finde his words But whereas he sayth of the Hierarchy that I must either be of their opinion or els the Classes as they now rule must fall to the ground for any relief c. this consequence remaines to be declared and proved by him I. CAN. VI. When the Hierarchie alledge Act. 15. to proove their Diocesan and Provinciall Synods lawfull marke how they are answered by the Reformists (i) Park Polit Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 315 316. The particular acts of the Apostles in cases alike must alike be observed If this reason be effectuall as indeed it is against them then it is no lesse effectuall against the Classes Now I have in part already shewed how quite contrary their doings are unto the Example in Act. 15. unto which this further may be added that the matter carried from Antioch to Ierusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church Pag. 338. and sent thither by their mutuall desire and consent And hence our Divines teach that the power of bringing things from one Congregation to another belongeth not to any one Officer but to the whole Church If this be true by what word of God then doth Mr Paget by his * Thus he is accused by our Elders in the records of our Church Oct. 6. 1631. owne authoritie and without the consent of the Consistory or any one of them carry matters to the Classis and there he and they together undoe all that which the Elders with the Churches consent had before joyntly concluded ANSVV. 1. That the particular acts of the Apostles in cases alike must alike be observed I doe willingly grant and thereupon ground our Argument for the authority of Synods To this end it is alledged of Mr Parker in this very place which Mr C. doth cite viz. to shew how controversies are to be brought from particular Churches not to one person to a Bishop or Arch-Bishop as the Hierachy would have it but unto a Synod according to the example in Act. 15. How Mr Canne doth imagine that this should be effectuall against Classes he neither declareth neither can I conjecture II. Whereas he addeth that the matter carried from Antioch to Ierusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church c. I argue thence if a whole Church sometime be so offended and troubled by false teachers that they hold it needfull to seek help of a Synod it is lesse marvell that sometimes one or two should be driven to seek such help Had there bene but one person in Antioch troubled and unsatisfyed in conscience about that poynt of justification and salvation by the works of the Law who could have forbidden him to seek help of the Synod either by way of counsell or judgement when he could not finde it
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
pervert this place yet that is no prejudice to our and others right use of it as I shewed before * Pag. 35.36 touching the like exception about Deut. 17. How can I be sayd to misapply this place as the Papists have done seeing I doe not apply it in such sort as they have done either to derogate from the certainty of the doctrine preached by Paul and Barnabas which their opinion noted in those very words of the Rhemists which he cites I have * Pag. 70 before rejected or to prove that Councels have absolute authority and that their decrees are infallible which errour of theirs I have in like manner disclaimed both in my (m) Ans to W. B. p. 89. former writing and at the very * Pag. 29. p. 6 67. See before p. 63 64 65. first entrance into this Dispute In a word seeing I have applyed this place no otherwise then other Orthodox Divines have done before me it is needles to insist further upon this matter CHAP. V. An Answer to the Allegations of Mr Davenport touching the Authority of Synods HAving searched through Mr Day his book for some speciall Arguments from the Scripture to shew the undue power of Classes and Synods whereof he with others doth accuse them I doe therein finde my self deceived and frustrate of my expectation He speaks oft of the warrant of the word but he brings it not where and when it most concerned him I finde onely in one piece of a leafe (a) Apol. reply p. 236. a few testimonies of Scripture but so loosely and ambiguously noted without framing any Argument from them or without applying them directly to the Question that men hardly can guesse at his meaning I finde also the most of the very same testimonies first alledged by Mr Canne before Mr D. his book came forth and by him framed into Arguments and therefore in answer to Mr Can. I shall speak something of them in the next Chapter That which he doth most largely insist upon is the writing and testimonies of men and of these he sayth (b) Ibid. p. 238. I will not stand to give a Catalogue of their names though I might be plentifull therein but will content my self with the three Writers of this kinde whom the Answerer pretended in conference with me to make for him and I shall shew them to be strongly against him Mr Cartwright and Mr Fenner and Mr Parker men of our owne nation SECT I. His Allegation of Mr Cartwright answered FOr Mr Cartwright His owne words undivided are these (c) T. C. ◠Reply p. 49 2 edit And if it should happē which may come to passe that 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 the other Churches round about should advertise first and afterward 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 ministerie And if either the Churches round about doe faile of this duety or the Church which is admonished rest not in their Admonition then to bring it to the next Synode and if it rest not therein then the Prince or Magistrate which must see that nothing in the Churches be disorderly and wickedly done ought to drive that Church from that election to another which is convenient Now upon these words Mr Dav. without any just explication or further declaration thereof makes this bold and unreasonable conclusion (d) Apol. reply p. 47. Thus Mr Cartwright So that in his judgement other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good But that Mr Cartw. giveth more power unto the Churches and Synod then that which every Christian hath more then the power of admonition onely it appeareth thus I. He doth in this place manifestly distinguish betwixt admonition a charge or commandement which implyes a greater power and authority when as he sayth of the Classis or of the Ministers and Elders of the Churches round about that they should advertise first which notes their admonition and afterward sharply severely charge which implyes a commandement and authority therein Therefore in Scripture one and the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word is usually and indifferently translated either to charge or command Matt. 10.5 Luk. 8.29 Act. 1.4 4.18 5.28 1. Tim. 4.11 with Luk. 5.14 8.56 1. Tim. 1.18 5.7 6.13 17. thereby to expresse a speciall authoritie of such as use the same And the propriety of this word is thus declared by Mr Cartwr himself when expounding those words of Paul 1. Tim. 6.13 he saith (e) T. C. 1 Rep. p. 177. It is to be noted that he saith I denounce or I charge he doth not say I exhort or give counsell leaving it to the liberty of Timothie And thus here we are in like manner to understand him when he tells how a Classis of Ministers and Elders were sharply and severely to charge a Church that they used an authority more then of exhorting or admonishing and counselling so that the matter was not left in the liberty of them that were so charged II. He proceeds further and after both admonition and a severe charge or prohibition he shewes that the Classis hath yet more to doe in this busines if their charge be not regarded in respect of the unlawfull election viz. that they confirme it not by suffering him to exercise any ministery Whereas ordinarily Ministers newly elected are confirmed and ordained by imposition of hands by some Ministers of the Churches neere unto them this Mr Cartwr would have to be denyed unto him And this denyall of his ordination after his election is to be esteemed a kinde of censure in some sort proportionable to the deposition of a Minister already confirmed seeing keeping out or casting out from the Ministery are actions of like nature And this is that which Mr Fenner who was well acquainted with the meaning of Mr Cartwr in these things poynteth at when speaking of a controversy rising in a Church about the calling of a Minister he saith (f) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 2. p. 244. that the cause is to be referred unto the judges whom it concerneth and who are after mentioned that they may eyther ratify the election or make it frustrate Now in the Ecclesiasticall politie these judges are no other then Classes or Synods whereof he afterward speakes and this their abrogating and making voyd an unlawfull election is a power more then simple admonition III. Whereas Mr Cartwr here saith that if either the Churches round about doe faile of this duety or the Church which is admonished rest not therein then to bring it to the next Synod c. hereupon (g) Def. of Answ to Admon p.
173. D. Whitgift calles for proof of Scripture commandement or example to justify this order Mr Cartw. in his second Reply having first shewed other warrant for admonition by Churches proceeds further and saith (h) T.C. 2 Reply p. 231 232. That from the admonition of the Churches it is meet to come to Synods if the judgement of the Churches be contemned may be shewed by proportion from the place of our Saviour Christ in S. Matthew ch 18. for as when one brother is not mooved with the admonition of two or three the matter must be referred unto the Church to see whether the majestie of it will moove him whom the authority of two or three would not even so it is meet that the Church that maketh light of the judgement of two or three Churches should be pressed with the judgements of the Diocesse or Province as shall be in that behalf advised From this proportion seeing the rule Matt. 18. was not onely a rule of admonition but also a rule for the exercise of authority in censuring it followes hence in like manner that many Churches combined in a Synod have power to censure as well as to admonish IV. Mr Cartwr doth further declare his meaning in the same place when he alledgeth the example of the Reformed Churches in this matter If I were in this poynt saith (i) Ibid. p. 232. he destitute of the word of God yet the naked examples of the Reformed Churches ought to weigh downe a Popish custome Now it is undenyable that the Reformed Churches doe allow the use of Classes and Synods not onely for counsell or admonition but also for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall authority and jurisdiction in judging of causes censuring of offendours V. Mr Cartwr speaking of the utmost that can be done by a Classis or by Ministers and Elders of neighbour Churches in time of persecution wanting a Christian Magistrate against an obstinate Church that refuseth to be admonished saith (k) T.C. 1 Repl. p. 52. If they excommunicate the whole Church it is a hard matter and yet if they may doe that there is all they can doe To excommunicate a whole Church together is indeed a hard thing and such a thing as I never heard of in the practise of the Reformed Churches yet this intimates that he thought they had a power of excommunicating at least some if not all upon a just occasion And when D. Whitg (l) Def. of Answ to Adm. p. 675 answering to a testimony of Cyprian alledged by Mr Cartwr saith Who ever denyed but that the Synods might excommunicate Mr C. (m) Rest of 2 Rep. p. 89 replying againe unto him yet shewes no dislike at all or difference from his Opposite herein which yet he ought to have done if he had thought it an undue power to have reproved him for giving this power of the greatest censure even of excommunication unto Synods Hence it appeares that he was farre from limiting all jurisdictiō unto a particular Church that he allowed Synods more power then of counselling or admonishing VI. Mr Parker speaking of this very place in Mr Cartw. and vindicating it from the opposition of D. Whitg shewes that he agrees with me in the interpretation thereof and not with Mr Dav. He sayth (n) Pol. Ecc. lib. 3. c. 24. p. 353. Cum pressisset Thomas Cartwrightus Ecclesiarum Reformatarum morem c. When T. C. had urged the manner of the Reformed Churches in correcting the faulty election of Ministers first by a Classis if that prevayled not by a Synod if that fayled also by the Magistrate c. For if the example custome and practise of the Reformed Churches be urged herein then doth he not speak of hindring an unlawfull election by admonition or counsell onely then doth he acknowledge a further authority of judgement censure in the Classes VII The judgement of Mr Cartwr touching the authority of Synods is manifest by that right which he asscribeth unto them for the decision of causes and not for counsell onely as was shewed * Pag. 47. 48. before and this may further be seen by that blame which is imputed unto him for Scottizing and Genevating declared * Chap. 7. sect 5. hereafter Had he bene of this new opinion he could not have defended the cause of Reformation so as he did but should have opened the mouth of his adversaries against him otherwise then he hath done SECT II. His Allegation of Mr Fenner examined FOr Mr Fenner in the allegation of his Testimony Mr Dav. hath made himself guilty of a threefold unfaithfulnes 1. in the omission of such things as snew his minde fully touching Synods 2. in the mistranslation of his words 3. in the misinterpretation and false collections that he maketh from them I. For his omissions I. He omitteth that definition of Ecclesiasticall politie set downe in the (o) S. Theol l. 7. c. 1. p. 241. beginning of that tractate viz. that it is a divine politie so farre as it is instituted of Christ for the government of particular Churches joyntly and severally This definition being admitted overthrowes that single uncompounded policie maintained by Mr Iacob as also the assertion of Mr Dav. for jurisdiction limited to particular Churches because herein he allowes a compounded policie not onely for counsell but for the government of Churches as well joyntly as severally Herein Ecclesiasticall policie and jurisdiction is extended further then the limits of one particular Church even unto a Synod or Classis because there is no joynt government of Churches perfectly found but in such assemblies The Scriptures also which Mr Fenner alledgeth for confirmation of this definition being many of them taken from the old Testament doe undenyably lead us unto such a joynt compound government of the Church II. He omitteth the definition of a (p) Ibidē particular Church which Mr Fen. applyes as well to the Churches and Synagogues under the old Testament as unto any since This appeares in divers of the Scriptures and instances which he bringeth to confirme his definition as namely 1. Sam. 10.5 Psa 107.32 111.1 Luk. 5.17 Mat. 4.23 Hereby it may appeare how farre different and contrary he is to Mr Iacob and those of his opinion (q) Divine beg instit of Chr. vis Church A 1. A 2. A 4. C 8. c. teaching that the Churches of the old and new Testament and their government doe differ one from the other in the very kinde nature and forme by a specificall and essentiall difference c. Then could not both have had one and the same definition in such sort as Mr F. gives it unto them comprehending also under it such assemblies as stood under a compound policie and were subject to an Ecclesiasticall judicatorie out of themselves III. He omitteth that which Mr Fenner writes touching the election of a Minister where the controversy of the Church upon the peoples objecting against the
same is to be referred unto such judges who as is before noted may either (r) S. Theol l. 7. p. 243 244. confirme or make voyd the Election A plaine acknowledgmēt of a lawfull power out of a particular Church to judge the cause thereof IV. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in the description (ſ) Ibid. p. 245 246. both of the Elders office in generall and of the Ruling Elders in particular where the warrant and authority of their office is derived from the Elders in Israel and from the government of the Jewish Church as appeares in those testimonies of Scripture which he alledgeth for proof thereof as namely these beside other Lev. 4.13 14 15.2 Kin. 6.32 Ier. 19.1 Ezek. 8.1 Neh. 8.5.8.10 Act. 4.5 6.12 5.21 Now seeing he derives their offices from that forme of government which is confessed not to have bene a single uncompounded policie this is an evidence that he also did not hold jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Church V. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in distinguishing the Presbytery or Eldership of many Churches (t) Ibid. p. 281. into a Synod or a Generall Councill And not to speak of other things he omitteth that description of a Generall or Vniversall Councill viz. that it is a Presbyterie consisting of the deputies of many Synods to determine and compound those things that may be profitable for the whole Church or for the greatest part thereof The word which he useth to expresse the authority exercised therein when he saith ad ea statuenda t.i. to determine to make a statute or decree imports more then a bare admonition or counsell and therefore it is manifest from hence that Mr F. did not allow of this new Discipline which denyes the authority of Synods II. His unfaithfull translation of Mr Fenner is also to be observed in divers points I. When speaking of the Eldership of one particular Church (v) Apol. reply p. 238. he tells how Mr F. saith it is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of Mr F. are that it is (x) S. Theol l. 7. p. 279. proprio nomine sie dictum so called with the proper name His meaning is that in common use of speech it had the proper name given unto it even as it comes to passe oft times that a part is called by the proper name of the whole and one species or one sort receives the proper name of the whole kinde as when in speaking commonly of the Ministers and Elders of a Church the ruling Elders are so called with a proper name that belongs to the whole kinde seeing Ministers of the word are Elders as well as they 1. Tim. 5.17 so when the ruling Elders are called with the proper name of Governours 1. Cor. 12.28 though Ministers of the word are governours also as well as they And unlesse we thus understand Mr Fen. there should be no trueth in his words for as he himself saith (y) Ibid. p. 245. there is a Synecdoche in the name of Elders when it is given to Ecclesiasticall Governours and therefore there must be a double improper or figurative speech a double Synecdoche when the assembly of some Officers in a particular Church is called with the proper name of the Eldership whereas but some of them are elderly or aged men and whereas the assembly of such men in a Synod is an Eldership as well as the other II. It is a notable falsification of Mr Fenners testimony when as he distinguishing the Ecclesiasticall Eldership into the Eldership of a particular Church and into the Eldership of many Churches and giving before-hand in the first place a generall definition of the Eldership common to both those kindes Mr Dav. comes and restraines that generall definition to one kinde and brings in Mr F. speaking on this manner The Eldership of the first sort he sayth is a compound office wherein all the Elders doe in the name of the whole Church administer all the businesses c. But this Mr F. hath not sayd I desire the Reader to look on the (z) S. Theol l. 7. p. 276. place as also on that which followes in his * Pag. 279. transition from the generall unto the species and severall sorts of the Eldership and there to behold how grosly Mr D. corrupteth the words of Mr F. and abuseth the reader and that in a point of maine consequence touching our question for while Mr F. gives the same generall definition to the Eldership of many Churches viz. to Classes and Synods which he gives unto the Eldership of a particular Church thereby the same authority and jurisdiction which he gives herein unto a particular Church is also given by him unto a Synod the Eldership of many Churches and then are not Synods for counsell onely or admonition but they are to exercise a jurisdiction and power as well as particular Churches III. Another instance of his unfaithfull translation is to be observed from those words of Mr F. (a) Ibid. p. 278. postea autem auditis assentientibus decernenda pro decretis Ecclesiis proponenda sunt which he translates thus (b) Apol. reply p. 239. and afterwards the opinions and assent of all being declared matters are to be concluded Those last words should have bene translated thus matters are to be decreed and to be propounded unto the Churches for decrees and being thus translated they import an act of authority and a power of jurisdiction in making decrees which are more then counsell or admonition especially when those matters so decreed are propounded unto the Churches for decrees But the word of concluding which Mr D. useth is ambiguous and is applyed sometimes to the reasonings of men either in private or publick where there is no authority to give definitive sentence or to make decrees for the Churches Mr Canne himself though he condemne the Classes and Synods of the Reformed Churches yet doth he allow Ministers and brethren of divers Churches to come together (c) Churches plea p. 95. to conferre of things yea and to conclude if they can what they judge meet c. This use of the word conclude serves to elude and frustrate this pregnant testimony of their power IV. Another mis-translation is when in the same page those words of Mr F. leges maximi momenti constituendae are thus translated by him orders also of the greatest moment to be made This I doe therefore note the rather because Mr D. keeps so great a quoile about the strict difference betwixt orders and lawes and saith (d) Apol. rep p. 257. 258. that orders lawes are ill confounded by me and is large in declaring his minde therein His friend also that made the Alphabeticall Table for him and prefixed it before his book notes this as a remarkable matter therein * Letter L. Lawes and orders differ Now if these things be so then hath he done very ill
in confounding lawes and orders by translating the word leges orders when he should have translated it lawes according to the right and proper signification thereof If he had disliked Mr F. for using the word leges or lawes and would correct it by putting in the word orders this was more then an exact and faithfull Translatour might doe He should rather have translated the word truely according to the right signification and then have given warning to the Reader touching the fault of Mr Fenner in the ill confounding of lawes and orders and putting one for the other After these unfaithfull omissions and mistranslations Mr Dav. hath not bene afraid to say confidently of himself Thus have I faithfully translated the words of this eminent light in his time Mr Dudley Fenner who was joyned with Mr Cartwright c. To his commendation of him I doe willingly assent he was indeed an eminent light and why then hath Mr Dav. gone about to obscure his light by depraving his testimony and labouring to put this bright-burning candle under a bushell that men should not see his light Whether he make strongly for him or against me let others judge III. Moreover after these omissions and mistranslations come we to consider his miscollections from him which without any just deduction or inference upon the lame and imperfect recitall of his words he thus propoundeth (e) Ibidē The Reader may see how he leaveth the wholl power of jurisdiction in the particular Church c. How untrue this is it may appeare I. By Mr F. his alledging those (f) S. Theo. l. 7. p. 276. Scriptures Deut. 17.9 with 2. Chron. 19.8 11. Matt. 18.18 1. Tim. 4.14 to shew what authority there is in a Classis or Synod comprehended by him under that generall definition of a Presbyterie as well as the Eldership of a particular Church thereby he confesseth that there is a power of judgement censure and jurisdiction in Synods because those testimonies of Scripture speak of such jurisdiction and judgement of binding and loosing of imposition of hands or ordination c. II. Though Mr F. speaking of excommunication and absolution from it sayth that they are to be done in the assembly by the authority of the whole Church which last words Mr D. for speciall observation causeth to be printed in great capitall letters yet this doth not prove that he left the whole power of jurisdiction in the particular Church seeing in the same (g) Pa. 277 place speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements administred by the Synod or Presbytery in deciding of doubts he saith also etsi authoritas communis sit ministris tamen sententiam dicendi eam exponendi maxima facienda potestas that is though the authority be common yet the greatest power of giving sentence and declaring it is to be yeelded unto the Ministers Therefore did he not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church III. Mr F. a little after againe speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements and censures and still of administring them by the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Presbytery which contained the Synod as well as a particular Eldership he sayth of them (h) Ibidē In quibus per omnes Ecclesias summa Ecclesiastica potestas Presbyterio demandata est that is In which throughout all Churches the highest or chiefest Ecclesiasticall authority is committed to the Presbytery And hereby also it appeares that he did not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church But these passages Mr D. omitted when he translated other parts of the same periods He thought it not to be for his advantage to have his Reader take knowledge of them IV. Whereas Mr F. requireth that in matters of greatest moment after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fore-consultation of the Presbytery comprehending both Classis and particular Eldership their counsels be told unto the Church that thing ordinarily is thus performed in these Reformed Churches viz. after that in the Classicall assembly of Ministers and Elders it hath bene found just and requisite that any persons should be excommunicated or any Ministers called these censures and elections are then first solemnely propounded unto the particular Church whom these things specially concerne and so accomplished with their consent and not otherwise if the greater part of the Church dissent and allow not the excommunication or election then for the avoyding of strife the matter is againe referred ad majorem Senatum unto a greater Ecclesiastical Senate Classis or Synod to judge thereof and to compose the dissention V. Mr F. in the same chapter (i) Pag. 278 279. shewes from the Scriptures that in these Presbyteriall assemblies there ought to be a mutuall office performed in the same in speciall manner towards one another not onely for counsels but also for the censures of such as are members of those assemblies And this is also agreeable to the order prescribed both in the (k) Kercken-Ordeninge Art 43. Nationall Synod at Dort and in divers others for the censure of such faults as are committed in those meetings or by contempt of the admonitions of inferiour assemblies Hereby also it appeares that he allowed an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in Synods and Classes and did not limit all jurisdiction unto a particular Church VI. After Mr F. had spoken in generall both of the Presbytery of one and of many Churches joyntly together then he comes to speak of each of them severally and there againe speaking of the Presbytery of many Churches that is of Classes and Synods he saith (l) S. Theol. l. 7. p. 280. Hic autem leges Ecclesiasticae condendae sunt Here are Ecclesiasticall lawes to be made This was a power of jurisdiction more then of admonition or counsell This Mr D. passeth over also it was no pollicy for him to draw collections from such testimonies VII That one testimony of Scripture which Mr F. oft (m) Ibid. p. 280 281. alledgeth 2. Cor. 8.19 23. not to speak of others alledged with it is an evidence of the authority of Synods It is there specifyed that the brother who was chosen to be a messenger of the Churches was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elected by saffrages now this election was an act of authority exercised by sundry Churches in one businesse touching one person and hence it appeareth that a combination of Churches may exercise jurisdiction together touching such as are no peculiar members of one particular Church And if such election may be made by many Churches then may censures be decreed by many Churches together as occasion requires Lastly Mr F. having spoken of the first part of Ecclesiasticall politie touching such as administer the same both by a simple and compound office in the Presbytery both of one or more Churches in Synods or Generall Councils he comes at last to speak of the duety of the Saints other members of the Church which are not promoted unto any Ecclesiasticall office and (n)
judgement touching this controversy is the same with that which I have here noted out of his writings and for the substance of the matter no other then that which I maintaine throughout this discourse SECT VIII Touching the English Church at Franckford in Q. Maries time IO. DAV (i) Apol. reply p. 243. A discourse of the troubles in the Engl. Chur. at Franckf Art 62. Art 67. And to conclude thus it was ordered in the English Church at Franckford among the exiles in those Marian dayes that if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected or found parties if any appeale be made from them that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation c. and that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare and determine the said matter or matters as it shall seeme good to the Congregation Againe If any controversy be about the doubtfull meaning of any word or words in the Discipline that first it be referred to the Ministers or Seniors and if they cannot agree thereupon then the thing be referred to the whole Congregation ANSVV. I. It is to be observed that these two Articles of Discipline being alledged against me by (k) Churches plea p. 36. Mr Canne as well as by Mr Dav. there is this difference betwixt them that Mr Canne addes more words then he should and Mr Daven omits some words that should have been added That which Mr Canne addes is against himselfe and serves to condemne the practise of the Brownists when he faith of the Ministers and Seniors that they have authority to heare determine c. That which Mr Dav. omits and refuseth to expresse serveth to reproove such as complaine unjustly of excepting against the Elders judgement For when that 62d Article speakes of appeale to be made unto the body of the Congregation the Ministers Seniors parties excepted this latter clause shewes there is just cause of excepting against the Elders judgement sometimes and that they are to be refused as incompetent judges being parties This brief clause being of speciall use in our controversy ought not to have bene omitted by Mr Dav. II. That which they alledge for appeale unto the body of the Congregation doth not overthrow the authority of Synods This granting one kinde of appeale doth not exclude or deny another Seeing particular Congregations are subject to errour and many of them dayly doe erre why should not appeale be granted from them unto Classes and Synods especially where there is no Magistrate that can or will judge of such errours III. This appeale made unto the body of the Congregation was not usually permitted but extraordinarily in cases of speciall necessity when the Ministers and Seniors were not able to end the controversies brought unto them the expresse words of the Article are (l) â—isc of troubl in Engl Ch. at Franckf art 57. in case they cannot end them then afterwards to be referred to the whole Congregation Their ordinary practise was otherwise as appeares in other Articles of their Discipline where it is plainly ordained (m) Ibid. art 59. that the Ministers and Seniors shall have authority to heare and determine on the behalf of the whole Church all offences determinable by the Congregation committed by any person in the Congregation unlesse the partie called before them have just occasion to take exception to the sayd Ministers and Seniors or to appeale from them as not competent judges And afterwards againe there is another strict and severe decree (n) Art 63. If any person doe unjustly take exceptions to any of the Ministers or appeale from the whole ministery that then such persons beside the punishment for the principall cause shall also be punished as a contemner of the Ministery and a disturber of the Church This order as it serves to condemne the practise of the Brownists as tending to the disturbance of the Church while they give no power of judging and deciding causes unto the Eldership so it serves for the reproofe both of them and Mr Davenp in denying the authority of Synods for if the Church may in ordinary cases commit their authority unto an Eldership not deprive themselves of their right then why may they not doe so likewise unto Classes and Synods IIII. This English Church at Franckford did commit and delegate the power of judging controversies not onely to their Elders but upon occasion even unto other particular and private members of the Church which had no Ecclesiasticall office and this in divers degrees as 1. In case some of the Eldership though the lesser part were excepted against as parties 2. When the greater part were excepted against 3. When all the Ministers and Seniors were suspected c. Thus they did erect as it were three severall sorts of Classes or Synods within themselves for the judicature of such causes as could not be ended by the Eldership Thus they ordained in these three severall Articles of their Discipline which follow Of the first sort (o) Art 60. Item if any have just occasion to take exception to some of the Ministers and Seniors and not to the more part that then those of the Ministers and Seniors to whom the exception is made in this case shall not be judges but in this case for the time removed from the ministery and that the rest of the Ministers and Seniors to whom no exception shall be made with as many of the Congregation joyned to them as they be in number which shall be excepted shall be arbiters and judges in the sayd causes and that the sayd persons so to be joyned to the Ministers and Seniors shall be appoynted by the Congregation the Ministers and Seniors not excepted giving their voyces as others of the Congregation Of the second sort (p) Art 61. Item if exception be taken to the more part of the Ministers and Seniors that then the Church shall appoynt six moe to be judges with the rest of the Ministers against whom exception is not made the same rest of the Ministers having their voyces in the election of the six as other members of the Church Of the third sort (q) Art 62. Item if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected or found parties or if any appeale be made from them that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation the Ministers Seniors and parties excepted And that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare and determine the sayd matter or matters as it shall seeme good to the Congregation Now as in all these CoÌ„missions the Church did not loose her authority but did rather exercise the same herein this very act of delegation being a testimony of her power so in like manner if the example of this Church alledged against me may be followed of us other Churches may also send their Deputies and Delegates unto Classes Synods for the judgement
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
Elders and Shepherds of the Church in Ierusalem did undertake the care and exercise with others authority in judging the cause of the Church of Antioch It is against sense against nature against Scripture but that the members of the body should have care one for another 1. Cor. 12.25 c. IV. The use of Classes and Synods for counsell and admonition is allowed by my opposites and yet the care and labour therein for travelling to meet in such assemblies for deliberation for disputing for convincing such as they admonish and their counsell given unto Churches for the rejecting of Hereticks and other obstinate offendours more or lesse is as great in effect as if they should give definitive sentence therein As little distraction ariseth from one work as from the other To counsell a Church to excommunicate a sinner is as great a burden and labour for a Synod as if they should pronounce the sentence themselves V. It doth least of all become Mr Canne to plead and reason on this manner If nature have ordained one to one as he argueth out of Aristotle though in his quotation he forgat to tell where then must Mr Canne be a man against nature above many other in transgressing the law and ordinance of nature How durst he take the Pastorall charge of a Church upon him and this alone without assistance of an Eldership and yet in the meane time undertake the care and charge of divers other trades as of a Printers work-house in one place of a Brandery or Aquavitae shop in another place and specially of an Alchymists laboratory in another place Is this paragon of the Separation a fit man to be an Advocate or Patron of the Churches to write a booke and intitle it the Churches plea whereas if his example were followed it would bring confusion upon all Churches and on all the Ministers thereof What Pluralist or Non-resident is there that will not thinke he hath some colour to justify himself from this practise of Mr Canne REAS. III. Is it a like thing that the Classicall power should be of Gods approving and yet he never mention it in his word This argument the Hierarchy use against Popish Offices and the Reformists against theirs Now let the discreet Reader judge if it proove not the point in hand as well Here I may not omit Zwinglius his speech speaking of Synods (p) Zwingl Art 8. expl Wee willingly beleeve sayth hee that you are a representative Church for a true Church you are not But I pray you shew us whence you fetch this name Who hath given you this name who hath given you power to make Canons impose things on mens shoulders grieve their consciences c. ANSVV. I. This Reason is in substance the same with his fift Argument before and therefore idly repeated The grounds of Classicall power are shewed (q) Chap. 2. 3. 4. before from the Scriptures and the cavills of Mr Canne against the same refuted II. Note his errour of speech in distinguishing the Hierarchy from Popish Offices by opposing them one against the other whereas according to the common acception of the word the Hierarchy doth consist in the Popish offices and the corruption of offices which he intends is but a fragment thereof and therefore ought not to carry the name rather then the whole when both are spoken of together Otherwise in proper speech the true Hierarchy imports the lawfull offices and government prescribed in the Scriptures III. That which he alledgeth out of Zwinglius touching a representative Church is to be understood of the Romish Church and of the Popish government for against them did Zwinglius then write and against them there was just cause to complaine so as he did IV. If any thinke that by representative Churches he meant all Synods whatsoever that exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in the judging of causes then against the testimony of Zwinglius we oppose the testimony of all ages and of the learned Writers therein old and new Papists and Protestants that generally are against him Mr Parker (r) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 26. p. 368 369. sayth well All ages have called the Synod a representative Church beside many other witnesses he alledgeth D. Whitaker arguing thus against the Papists (f) De Cōc qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169. The Church is represented in the Synod therefore if the Church be above Peter then is the Synod also Mr Parker argues further Except the Synod did consist of the Deputies of Churches Synods could not represent the Churches and having there brought many testimonies of Scripture to shew the power of Churches in sending their Deputies or Delegates he concludes in the words of D. Whitaker (t) Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 103. Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the person of the Church But touching the judgment of Zwinglius more hereafter when he is againe alledged by Mr Canne REAS. IV. (v) Church plea p. 76. Whosoever shall deny our aforesayd assertion must of necessity hold two distinct formes of Church-government one wherein particular Congregations doe in and of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances the other where they stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Now to hold this is directly all one as to hold two wayes to heaven distinct and opposite in themselves which is very scandalous in Religion and that which cannot stand with truth ANSVV. I. Whatsoever Mr Canne here affirmeth is but his bare assertion without Scripture or other proof to confirme his reason But Mr Can. is not yet come to such credit with us that his ipse dixit his bare word may goe for currant II. It is false which he sayth of holding two distinct formes of Church-government c. The particular Congregations here in these Reformed Churches doe in and of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances and yet withall stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Synodall authority being one of Gods ordinances Though in regard of the locall and personall presence of all the members of the Church this authority is exercised out of themselves yet in regard of their confederation and combination with neighbour Churches and in regard of their Deputies Ministers and Elders or others that have place and suffrage in these Synods this authority is exercised in and of themselves And though here be another act of authority yet is there but one distinct forme of government III. It is as false which he sayth of holding two wayes to heaven and this not onely in respect of these Reformed Churches among themselves having the same government both by Elderships at home and by Synods abroad but also in respect of divers Churches having different formes of government The Church of England and of these Countries though they have a different order of Church-government yet holding together the same fundamentall trueths of the Gospell◠they both doe hold but one way to heaven and so doe both mutually
acknowledge one another to be in that way IV. This company of Brownists whereof Mr Canne is the sole Governour was formerly governed by an Eldership and now since their division they have no Eldership to rule them Whether it be because they thinke they have none among them fit to be Elders or whether they doe wilfully refuse such as they cannot deny to be fit or whether there be any other cause I leave it to themselves Alwayes this we know that there be some Churches in remote countries that want the benefit of Classicall government because there be no other neighbour Churches neere unto them with whom they may combine themselves for their mutuall guidance and edification But now if the want of an Eldership among the Brownists such as they once had doe not warrant us to say that they hold two distinct formes of Church-government to be lawfull one with an Eldership another without an Eldership consequently that they hold two wayes unto heaven then much lesse can the want of a Synod in respect of the different consideration of the times places occasions and oportunities of severall Churches be any warrant for Mr Canne to object unto us two formes of government or two wayes to heaven c. REAS. V. Let it be observed that for this reason among others the Learned (x) Whit. Cont. 4. qu. 4. Chamier l. 6. cōject 2. say the Pope is Antichrist viz. because he will have men to appeale from their owne Churches unto him and to stand under his sentence and decree And doe not the Classicall assemblies and Synods take upon them an authority much like to it in subjecting many Congregations to them requiring appeales to be made to them and that the Judicatory as Mr Pagets * In his Letter c. phrase is belongeth to them as if their power above all Churches ANSVV. I. Let it be observed how Mr Canne speaking here against appeales made unto Classes and Synods brings no Scripture no word of God to condemne them but onely the testimonies of men he needed not to have reserved hereafter a peculiar Section onely for humane testimonies when he uses them so oft before II. Let it be observed how notably he abuseth even these testimonies also against the meaning of his Authors D. Whitaker (y) DePont Rom. qu. 4. p. 470. pleads for appeales as being both of divine and naturall right Chamier whom Mr Canne doth misquote without the title of the book alledged sayth that appeales (z) Panstrat Catho tom 2. l. 13. c. 17 are of common equity and truely without them the Church could hardly or not at all subsist speaking of appeales unto Synods That which learned and orthodox Writers blame in appeales made unto the Pope is this that they are made unto one man and not unto a Synod asscribing unto him infallibility of judgement giving him power over Churches that are not combined with the Church of Rome and in speciall for this that the Pope allowes no appeales to be made from him unto a Synod This is the Antichristian pride that they condemne in the Pope And herein the Church of the Brownists doth plainly resemble the Pope seeing their Congregation also their Democraticall judicatory allowes no appeale to be made from them unto Classes or Synods unto any Ecclesiasticall judges besides themselves These are two of the most monstrous propositions of the Papists touching the Popes authority viz. that (a) Bellarm. de Conc. l. 2. c. 17. 18. the Pope is above a Generall Synod and acknowledgeth no judgement on earth above him and againe that the Pope cannot commit the coactive judgement over him neither unto a Synod nor unto any man but onely the discretive this discretive judgement they expound to be such a kinde of arbitrement as doth not binde him further then it pleaseth him Now so farre as concernes Ecclesiasticall judgement the Brownists and the maintainers of the single uncompounded policie doe likewise hold that there is no judgement on earth above their particular Congregation and that they may not commit any controversy of theirs unto the censure and decision of any Synod What stronger reason could Mr C. have alledged against himself to shew their unlawfull government then this their denyall of appeales III. Let it be observed how foolishly Mr Canne cavills at my speech touching Classicall assemblies and Synods when he relates it thus the judicatory as Mr Pagets phrase is belongeth unto them for this relation is false that was not my phrase but I sayd the judicature did belong unto them It was the simplicity of his informer or of some ignorant scribe that put judicatory for judicature as may appeare by the writing I made which is yet to be seene Note Mr C. his rashnes in receyving such things REAS. VI. What more meet and reasonable then that every mans case be there heard and determined where the fault was committed So sayth (b) Cypr. li. 1. Epist 3. Cyprian It is not fit that they over whom the Holy Ghost hath made us overseers should goe too fro He speaketh of carying matters away from their owne Church unto others ANSVV. I. Though it be meet and reasonable that every mans cause be first there heard where the fault was committed yet is it as reasonable that if either an unjust sentence be there given the innocent may in the second place have liberty of appeale from their oppressours or if the case be difficult and weighty that the matter be at first brought unto Classicall assemblies according to the order of Reformed Churches II. For confirmation of this reason he brings no word of God but onely the testimonie of Cyprian which also according to his manner he doth most palpably abuse For Cyprian doth not simply blame those that appealed unto Synods but onely such as did inordinately run too and fro such as were not content with the Synods in Africa but sayled over the sea unto the Church of Rome Of such he there speakes And even in the same Epistle Cyprian shēwes both the use of Synods allowed in the Churches of Africa and the authority of Synods in censuring offendours He there gives (c) Lib. 1. e. 3. § 11.12 instances of Privatus condemned in an assembly of 99 Bishops of Foelix of Iovinus Maximus excluded from the communion of the Church by a Synod of Repostus also censured in like manner Their Synods were not onely for counsell but exercise a jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall And as they exercised the power of the keyes in binding obstinate sinners so also loosing and absolving those that repented as appeares in (d) Lib. 1. Ep. 2. § 1. another Epistle going immediately before this alledged and written by the Synod itself In the inscription of that Epistle are prefixed the names of Cyprian Liberalis Caldonius Nicomedes and Caecilius c. as being speciall members of that Synod and writing joyntly together that Synodicall Epistle (e) Ibid. n. 6.
By this time I suppose saith he the indifferent Reader perceiveth that the Scriptures are every way for us and against Mr Paget in this controversy betwixt us Now hee should doe well seeing we dispute about a matter of faith appertaining to life and salvation to rest in them as the onely touch stone for triall of all truth But then further to make way for his new troupes legions of Humane Testimonies against me and because this doth not well suit with his profession that pretends so much warrant of Scripture and to rely onely upon it therefore he seeks to take occasion from my words thereby to excuse his vaine oftentation in alledging so many Writers and saith Notwithstanding considering he makes so much a doe about the multitude of learned and godly Ministers being of the same judgement and practise with him according as Festus knowing Paul to have appealed unto Caesar did reasonably resolve saying Unto Caesar shalt thou goe so I am well contented to heare what reverend and judicious Authors doe say herein And if Mr Paget will stand unto their Testimonies I doubt not but to make it manifest that as the Scriptures so they are also with us c. Hereunto I answer 1. In all my former Answer I have not alledged against them the testimony of any one Author neither have I framed any argument drawne from their words The words of my writing which he alledgeth are onely a part of an answer unto a slanderous accusation both of me and the Classis in a matter of fact wherein I shew how unconscionably and without proof they wrong both me and a multitude of learned and godly Ministers being of the same judgement and practise I desire the Reader to looke upon the (b) Answ to W.B. p. 73. place and to judge thereof II. Whereas he thereupon brings forth an Army of Papists and Lutheranes Ancient fathers and later Writers Conformists Non-conformists c. though it be with lesse reason then Festus sent Paul to Caesar seeing I made no such appeale as Paul did unto Caesar yet I am content to follow him and to heare what his Authors doe say and to shew both how idly and needlesly he alledgeth many of them to prove that which is not denyed and also how he perverts and falsifyes their meanings alledging them for that which is contrary both to their words and practise The severall Bands of that Army which Mr Canne mustereth against us are these as he reckoneth them (c) Churc plea p. 78. The Allegations of the Learned which I purpose here to set downe shall be taken 1. From Papists 2. Lutherians 3. Calvinists 4. English Conformists 5. The Non-Conformists 6. Ancient Writers And lastly the Confession of Reformed Churches SECTION I. Touching the Testimonies of Papists HAving promised to produce the Testimonies of Reverend and judicious Authors as he calles them he brings in the Papists and drawes out the Popish band in the first place against me When Mr Spr. once heretofore had propounded divers Confiderations unto them of the Separation and among other things the testimony and approbation given to the Church of England by sundry learned men as Bucer Martyr Fagius Alasco Knox Calvine Beza c. Mr Ainsworth answers (d) Counterp p. 19. Though you come against us with horsmen and charets yet we will remember the name of the Lord our God c. That which David speakes of his refuge against the forces of the Heathenish Princes Psal 20.7 he applyes against these Worthies which were indeed the horsemen and charets of Israel 2. King 2.12 13.14 But that might I much more justly apply unto Mr Canne that alledgeth against me and so unjustly such a company of Romanists the horsmen and charets of Antichrist the Locusts like horses prepared unto the battell Rev. 9.7 And here first of all let it be considered what open wrong he doth unto the Papists Bellarmine the Rhemists c. in faining that they will not allow that government now which they acknowledge to have bene used of old while he saith Howsoever Romes-Champions will have none now to meddle with Church-government but Priests Bishops Prelates c. yet they doe acknowledge that in the primitive Church according to the precept of Christ in Mat. 18. offenders after the first and second admonition were brought to the whole Congregation c. This which he faineth to be granted by them touching a diversity of Government in respect of times cannot be justly affirmed For Bellarmine in the place (e) DeVerbo Dei l. 3. c. 5. alledged by him pleads for the same Government to be used now which he shewes to have bene ordained and confirmed by Christ and his Apostles and to that end he alledgeth 8 or 9 places of Scripture out of the new Testament as grounds of the same Government And in the (f) Ibid. c. 5 Chapter following he laboureth to prove that the same Government hath bene still retained and practised ever since from the first age of the primitive Church unto this present The Rhemists also (g) Rhem. on Mat. 18.17 1. Cor. 5. derive the government which they now stand for from the institution of Christ and practise of the primitive Church And therefore it is untrue which he sayth viz. that the Papists acknowledge a difference betwixt the government instituted at the first and that which is now maintained by them To prove this generall assertion he alledgeth a particular testimony of Scultingius But that which is sayd of one cannot be asscribed unto all in such generall termes as he hath done saying of Romes-Champions they doe acknowledge that which Scultingius sayth whereas we see that the chief of them avouch the contrary This testimony of Scultingius as it is absurdly fathered upon the Papists in generall so it is unjustly applyed against us Though in the primitive Church offenders being impenitent were excommunicated with consent and approbation of all by the Minister and though this testify the power of the Church for which cause it is alledged by Mr Parker from whom it seemes Mr Canne hath taken this testimony at second hand together with his observation upon it touching the force of trueth in a Papist yet this proves not that the Church was not subject to the censure of a superiour judicatory if they did abuse their power Mr Parker drawes no such consequence from this testimony to exclude the authority of Synods There is nothing sayd by Scultingius here but it hath alwayes bene observed in our Church Offenders are not excommunicated as being impenitent before they have bene denounced as this Authors phrase is or complained of by giving notice of their estate unto the whole Church before whom also the sentence of excommunication is pronounced and this our manner was allowed by Mr Park being sometime one of us as I shewed (h) P. 105. before As for Saravia and Schola Parisiensis whom he alledgeth together in the next place
It is a most false consequence to inferre that because all Bishops are equall in power therefore Synods have no power to judge and as false it is to inferre that because the Keyes were given to all the Apostles therefore there is no Ecclesiasticall power to judge the actions of a particular Congregation In summe Mr Canne doth most ignorantly and grosly abuse all these Papists against their words their writings and their continuall profession and practise For though there be this maine difference betwixt the Papists that some of them doe asscribe the greatest authority unto the Church that is unto a Generall Synod or Councell maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope power to depose the Pope others of thē asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope rather then unto the Church or a Generall Councell representing the same yet doe they all agree in this that there is a superiour power above particular Congregations to judge the same The University of Paris and the Doctours of Sorbon have in speciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the Pope they (p) De Eccl. Polit. Pot. pag. 1. c. edit 1612. Paris bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same They alledge the sentence of Pope (q) Ibid. p. 16. Zozimus confessing himself to be inferiour unto the Councell They avouch that (r) Ibid. p. 19. the frequent edebrating of Synods is simply and absolutely necessary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church Whereas a certaine Frier Ioannes Sarrazin had by word and writing under his hand preferred the authority of the Pope above the Synods they (ſ) Ibid. p. 46-56 record at large and publish in print a most solemne decree made by the Theologicall faculty of that University whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion and a forme of recantation was prescribed according to which he confessed his fault acknowledged the power of Synods above the Pope The (t) Acts Monum p. 546 547. An. D. 1414. c. Councell of Constance did not onely exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in condemning of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage but also decreeing the authority of Synods and Councells to be above the Pope did actually depose divers Popes as Iohn the 23th and Benedict who was likewise excommunicate by them even as the Councell held at (v) An. D. 1083. Act. Mon. p. 164. Brixia had in former time by their sentence condemned Pope Hildebrand and judged him to be deposed So in like manner did the Clouncell held at (x) Ibid. p. 632.634 Bafile depose Pope Eugenius put another in his place By all which it is evident what the Papists then judged of the authority and power of Synods As all these so the other faction of Papists and the Iesuites in speciall that maintaine the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods Councells whatsoever that their decrees are not of force unlesse they be approved by the Pope these doe evidently teach that the affaires and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superiour judicatories out of themselves This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings where he shewes (y) Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 9 10 11. l. 2. c. 2. c. the causes the necessity and the authority of Generall and Provinciall Synods the (z) Tom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7 8 9 10. 14. c. power of elections and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter The same is maintayned by him in his (a) Tom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14 l. 2. c. 1 c. treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies plenary or for a certaine number of dayes for the living or for the dead And the like is to be found in (b) Tom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 c. Tom 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1 2 3 c. sundry other of his writings And to these might be added more then an hundred of other witnesses of the Romish Church acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes controversies of particular Churches Instead of many other the Councell of Trent called by (c) Concil Trid. Bul. Indict p. 8. Pope Paulus the third continued by (d) Bul. Resumpr p. 66.67 Pope Iulius the third and confirmed by (e) Bul. Confirm p. 243 c. Pope Pius the fourth together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in severall Sessions of that Councell doe give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts. Onely to conclude this Section let it be remembred how of old in our owne countrie the like testimony hath bene given to shew the authority of Synods We read (f) Act. Mon. p. 112. col 2. art 7. of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provinciall Synods should be kept within the Realme at least once a yeare Another Synod (g) Ibid. p. 155. was held at Winchester Anno D. 1070. where Stigandus Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed for receyving his pall from Benedict the fift And another (h) P. 157. was after held at London where many decrees were made in the time of Lanfranck the Archbishop c. This being the continuall and universall practise of the Papists what sense was there in Mr Canne to alledge their testimonies in such a poynt wherein they are so full and pregnant against him It is the fault of Papists that they give too much authority unto Synods and it is as grosse a fault of these my opposites to pervert their testimonies contrary to their meaning practise further then their words will beare SECT II. Touching the Testimonies of Lutheranes IN their first allegation taken from Lutheranes they say It is affirmed by the Centuries of Meydenburg that from Christs ascension unto Trajans time which is about a 100 yeares every particular Church was governed by the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the same Cent. 1. c. 4. To this I answer This allegation comes short of the question in hand and is therefore insufficient and perverted to prove that the Churches then did not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority for it is not affirmed by them of Meydenburgh in their Centuries that the Churches were governed by them alone or that there were no Synods in those times to judge of the actions of Bishops Elders and Deacons in cases of controversy which could not be well ended in particular Churches but the contrary is expressely taught by the same (i) Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. de
doth agree best For saith he it is not likely that the Apostles would depart from the first order or course which we have seen to have bene observed in the election of Matthias c. And upon Act. 1.26 he labours to prove that this manner of choosing is still to be observed in the Church as most safe and convenient whereby certaine men being found that are esteemed meet for the office unto which the election is to be made the event of our counsels may be referred unto the judgment of God by casting lots in such sort as Matthias was chosen unto the Apostleship However that he doth not deny the matters of particular Congregations to be subject unto the judgement of the Ministers of other Churches assembled in a Classis or Synod may be gathered from those testimonies which evē in this booke here alledged he gives concerning the authority of Synods and the Divine warrant upon which it is grounded Speaking of the authority of a Generall Councell which many then so much desired he sayth (y) Ibid. in cap. 5.21 To me also it seemes to be a most profitable thing if a free Synod could be obtained in which all controversies might be composed out of the word of God alone such as that Apostolicall Synod was of which we are to speak in chap. 15. and such as we know those of old to have bene viz. of Nice constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and the like c. And afterwards againe (z) Ibid. in cap. 20.17 intreating of Pauls sending from Miletus to Ephesus and calling the Elders of the Church he calles it a Synod By which example he saith as the faithfulnes and industrie of Paul doth appeare so also we are admonished that the assemblies of Ministers are altogether necessary in which Church-affaires may be handled by the common voyces of all This makes greatly for the maintaining of Church-discipline for the restraining of the ambition of Church-governours for the preserving of consent in true doctrine and for the repressing of heresies which if Ministers doe not most faithfully joyne their paines together are wont often to creep in This he declares againe by the example of that Synod Act. 15. and he commends the pietie and prudence of Constantine the great for his frequent assembling of Synods as on the other side he notes the wickednes of Licinius and of Antichrist in resisting and hindring the due exercise of this authority of Synods How doe these things agree with Mr Cannes discourse who yet alledgeth this Author as one of the Jurie by which he saith my position as he calles it is condemned viz. that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves Touching Sibrandus the order of electing Ministers in these Churches (a) Sibrād Lubb. Resp ad Piet. H. Gr. p. 159. approved by him is the same that is used in our Church and approved by me also and he hath notably perverted it in opposing of it unto me For that order hinders not but that there may be another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority in a Classis or Synod to judge of the elections made in particular Congregations or of other controversies This trueth is so often and so earnestly avouched by Sibrandus that scarsely any have bene more vehement in this poynt And in this very book alledged he in his first entrance in the preface to the Senate of Gelderland complaines of Grotius for oppugning this order of Classes and Synods and in the conclusion of his preface he professeth that there was scarsely any other meanes then a Nationall Synod to heale the evills of that time and desires them to perswade the calling thereof Afterward in the (b) P. 140. 141 c. book itself he shewes at large both from the Scriptures and practise of ancient Churches the use the order and the authority of Synods not onely in deliberating but in judging and deciding of controversies In his Disputation with Bertius he shewes (c) Epist Discept de Fide p. 3. that it is altogether needfull to have a Synodicall judgement to heale the wounds of the Church In his book against Vorstius after long dispute (d) Declar. Resp Conr. Vorst p. 142 143.144 in conclusion he offereth yea he provoketh and urgeth him to referre their controversy and differences to the judgement of other Churches which he there nominates And in the preface thereof unto the States Generall of the United Provinces he shewes from the word of God and examples of the godly the necessity of Synods he declares what confusion and distraction of Churches ensueth where they are neglected and makes earnest supplication unto them for the maintenance of this order in government In another of his bookes against Vorstius (e) Cōment ad 99 Errotes C. Vorst pref p. 45 Cōm p. 503 504. p. 841. both in the beginning middle and end of it he harpes upon the same string His appeale unto the judgement of other Churches and his willingnes to submit unto their judgement with his desire of a Nationall Synod is plainely declared therein Speaking of the fruit of Synods he saith (f) Ibid. pref p. 34. 35. that the holding of them in their Churches hath bene next unto God the chief sinew of preserving both the true doctrine and tranquillity of the Churches and that if any man acquainted with their affaires dare deny the same he shall manifest his impudency or make warre with his owne conscience And thus by the verdict of Sibrandus if my opposites understand the Discipline and state of these Churches and deny the fruit of Synods they must be held for impudent and unconscionable persons Moreover in his book against Bellarmine concerning Councells he gives divers testimonies (g) DeCōc Lib. 1. c. 1. l. 2. c. 3. l. 5. c. 1 3 5 8. touching the profitable use of Councels for the determining of controversies their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and the exercise of it in making decrees and censuring offendours By all which it appeares how injurious Mr Canne hath bene unto Sibrandus in producing him as a witnesse against the authority of Synods whereas he hath so often testifyed his judgement to the contrary Mornaeus in the place (h) Histor Pap. p. 542 c. edit 1612. alledged hath no such thing as for which he is quoted unlesse he meane that which is noted in one of the following pages (i) Ib. p. 545 that the Popes of Rome were chosen in publick assemblies of the Priests the Nobility the common people the Senate by the voices of all c. which if it be explained and applyed to the question in hand may easily be discerned to fall short of proving any thing against us But this Author in the same booke shewes plainly his approbation of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes He alledgeth frequently and maintaines against Baronius and Bellarmine the judiciall Acts and sentences of sundry Synods against the Popes of Rome
He calles those decrees of the Councell of Basile (k) P. 1218. Catholick or universall trueths whereby it was enacted 1. That the power of a Generall Councell representing the whole Church is above the Pope and everie other person 2. That the Pope cannot dissolve a Generall Councell without their consent c. 3. That he that doth obstinately oppose the foresaid trueths is to be accounted an Heretick He relates coÌ„mends the speeches of (l) P. 1010. c. Marsilius Patavinus (m) P. 1232 c. Petrus de Alliaco and divers others shewing the power of Councels in judging and censuring the Pope the necessity of them both Provinciall and Generall for the correcting of abuses and amending of all sorts of persons and things with greater authority He approves and defends (n) P. 1341. the renowned Italian Martyr Hieronimus Savanorola for seeking that a Generall Councell might be called for reformation of the Clergie and degenerate estate of the Church c. Besides this he being in his time a principall favourer maintainer of the Discipline in the French Churches where the causes of particular Congregations were judged and determined by Synods could therefore be no favourer of the Brownists opinion which count such government to be a miserable bondage and slavery of the Churches Tilenus that is also called to be one of their Jurie against me doth most expressely give his verdict on my side against the Brownists He teacheth (o) Syntag. Disp Theol. par 2. Disp â—0 thes 1. that the fourefold power of the Church is to be exercised not onely in Presbyteries but also in Councels or Synods that (p) Thes 4. Synods according to the power granted of God unto his Church may take knowledge of Ecclesiasticall causes and by their judgements conferred together according to the word of God may define c. (q) Th. 19. give ministeriall sentence c. And further he saith (r) Th. 38. As it is not to be hoped for that the body of the Church militant on earth shall be free from divers diseases so we may not think that it can want this remedy of Synods which we therefore affirme to be not onely lawfull but also necessary Bastingius shewing how Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church saith nothing but that which is practised both in our and other Reformed Churches of these countries especially if it be marked how he explaines himself in the leafe following where he addes that (f) Expos Catech. Qu. 85. Ecclesiasticall discipline and excommunication itself ought to be administred by them who are ordained thereunto of the Church such as are Ministers of the Word and Elders the rest of the Church consenting thereunto yet with this correction that the multitude of the people doe not rule the action but provide as watchmen that nothing be done by a few as they list themselves Besides he being a member Minister of these Churches and Regent of a Colledge in Leyden there is no reason from these his words to conclude against the authority of Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations if they either could not agree among themselves or should agree in evill For then he should have condemned his owne estate and practise which yet cannot be inferred from this his testimony Vrfinus also though he teach that the unrepentant are to be excommunicated by the common consent of the Church c. yet doth he not thereby deny or exclude the power of Synods in judging of that which is done in particular Congregations but doth plainly give testimony with me For (t) Tom. 2. Admo Chr. de lib. Concord c. 12. col 686. having shewed the conditions and necessity of Synods he saith of them This remedie for the healing of the wounds of the Church is not to be neglected which the holy Ghost hath shewed unto us by the counsell and example of the Apostles which all reason of divine and humane right requires which being lawfully used experience hath proved to be most wholesome for the Church in many most grievous confusions of opinions Neither was this his private opinion but (v) Ibid. Tit. Col. 478. written in the name of other Divines Ministers in the jurisdiction of Prince Casimir and approved by them Piscator saith Excommunication is a decree of the Church therefore ought to be done of the Church (x) In 1. Cor. 5. Obs 1. Art 3. or of the Eldership judging in the name of the Church We grant as much or more in the practise of our Church while the Eldership never exerciseth such power alone without the knowledge and consent of the Church by propounding the same divers times unto them But it is a perverting of this testimony to gather from hence that the actions of the Church or Eldership are not subject to the judgement of Synods if they be complained of for wrong And that Piscator alloweth the authority of Synods (y) In Act. 15. Obser in V. 6. to judge the controversies of Religion and to (z) Thes Theol. Vol. 1. Loc. 23. de Eccl. th 68. 72. make decrees by gathering of voyces in order it is evident from other of his writings Calvine requiring the (a) Instit l. 4. c. 1. sec 15. cognition of the whole Church before any be excommunicate requires no more then is held and practised by us And this is no empeachment to his and our opinion with him that in case of doubt or controversy (b) Ibid. c. 9. sec 13. there is no better nor more certaine remedie then that a Synod of true Bishops meet together where the controversy may be discussed For such a definition shall have much more weight where the Pastours of Churches in common doe agree together c. And this he there confirmes both by Scripture and sundry examples of ancient Churches shewing that from the beginning it was the ordinary way of preserving unitie in the Church so often as Satan began to attempt any thing Besides this not to speak of other testimonies afforded by Calvine to this purpose when as Mr Canne (c) Ch. pl. p. 94. afterward notes the assertions of divers pleading for the Hierarchie of Bishops and oppugning Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods as a weed of later growth saying that at Geneva subjecting of Churches first began And before Calvine came there everie Congregation was free in itself If these assertions be true and that none is able to disprove them as Mr Canne there supposeth how comes it that he thus perverteth Mr Calvines testimony against his profession and practise Let the Reader observe that if these assetions were sound Mr Canne might as well have written a booke to prove the miserable bondage and slavery of the Church at Geneva procured by the tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine of Mr Calvine as he wrote the like title of an unjust complaint upon the like ground against me Paraeus
superiour power above one particular Church and that they may judge of the affaires thereof and of the persons therein either Ministers or people This he declares at large in a peculiar treatise touching yearely Synods (f) DeSyno Annuis Opusc Theol. p. 768-870 Bas 1570. wherein after he had shewed the necessity and use of Synods by many divine and humane testimonies he then describes their power not for counsell onely as the Brownists and my opposites doe but for the exercise of all kinde of Ecclesiasticall censures as Rebukes of offenders Suspension Excommunication and Deposition or deportment of Officers from their ministery Of all the men of the Iurie before mentioned there is none that gives a more full and cleare verdict against Mr Canne then this Hyperius doth Oecolompadius another of his Authors hath declared his judgement touching Synods and the authority exercised in them to be such as argues his thstimony alledged by Mr Canne to be perverted while it is produced against the same For in his answer to Luther inserted among the workes of Zuinglius (t) Tom. 2. fol. 491. he doth highly commend the Councell of Nice and specially for decreeing that none should afterwards attempt to adde any new articles unto that Confessiō of faith which they had set downe Which Nestorius being found guilty of Oecolompadius approves of that Act of the Councell of Ephesus whereby he was excommunicated saying For which cause being condemned of the crime of heresie he was by common consent shut out of the Church which was sensible of peace restored unto her by this meanes Hereby it appeareth that the acknowledged Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō censure to be a power due unto Synods and that which may lawfully be exercised by them Beza next alledged upon 2. Thes 3.14 though he there call Excommunication an Ecclesiasticall judgement yet doth he not thereby infringe the authority of Classes and Synods neither can any such thing by any just consequence be gathered from his Annotations on that place But on the other side he shewes (v) Epist 83. De Ministr gradib c. 23 p. 155. c. 24. p. 176. 177. elswhere that Synods have their Ecclesiasticall judgements grounded upon the word of God and a profitable use in the Church of God and that the fanaticall opinion of Morellius much like unto the Brownists hath bene worthily condemned in many Synods And according to his writing so was his practise both at Geneva where he was one of them that had their voyce in the government of that Church by a joynt Presbytery or Classis and in France where he himself was President of that famous (x) Harmo Confes p. 112. edit 1612. Synod at Rochell where the Confession of their faith was subscribed by divers Princes and many Ministers and Elders assembled together And therefore if Mr Canne and W. Best their accusation of me were sound and just they might as well complaine of Beza for bringing the Churches of God into miserable slavery and bondage by his tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine Bucer last alledged accordes with the foregoing Authors and his words in commendation of Synods may serve to close up this kinde of Testimonies being an advise unto King Edward the Sixt for the constant celebrating of them In his Admonition given to the King for the restitution of the Kingdome of Christ in his dominions amidst other wholesome counsels out of the word of God he saith (y) De Regno Christi Lib. 2. c. 12. It shall be the duety of the Bishops of each Province to celebrate two Synods every yeare as it is ordained by so many Canons and Lawes of godly Emperours At which Synods must be assembled and heard not onely the Bishops of the Cities but also inferiour Bishops and other Presbyters and Deacons that are endued with a larger measure of knowledge and zeale for the kingdome of Christ that so the more effectually both the faults crept into the Church may becorrected and the pietie of all repaired He had also spoken before of other inferiour and more frequent assemblies like unto our Classes requiring that all the Ministers within the compasse of about 20 Parishes should often meet together for their mutuall assistance in removing offences advancing the kingdome of Christ Touching Synods he speakes also in (z) De vi usu S. Min. tit de Disci Cler. Opuse f. 582. another place to the same purpose approving the ancient constitution whereby it was ordained that the Bishops of every Province should assemble together with the Presbyters and Deacons as often as the need of the Churches should require but without faile twise in the yeare that they might inquire concerning the doctrine and discipline of Christ how it were administred and did flourish in severall Churches that where any default was discovered they might correct it and where they found things in good state they might confirme and promote the same By that correction spoken of here and in the former testimonie he understands not onely counsell and admonition but the judiciall exercise of authority in Ecclesiasticall censures For he doth plainly distinguish betwixt admonition and correction when in the following words concerning Metropolitanes he saith If any thing were done amisse by the Ministers of the Churches or by the common people which by their admonitions they could not amend that then for the correcting of it they should call a Synod of Bishops for there was no power of judgement allowed unto them which by their owne authority they might exercise in the Churches c. Thus Bucerus also as well as the former hath condemned Mr Cannes position viz. that particular Congregations must not stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves And these are all the Authors here alledged by Mr Canne except onely Morell Praedirius and Munster either not seen at all nor to be procured for the present as the two former or not seen to touch this controversie in the writings at hand as the latter Having now heard what these chosen men of the Iurie all nominated by W. B. his Advocate have testifyed concerning Classes or Synods let the Reader judge whether they have given verdict for or against Synods whether every one of these Authors alledged had not just cause if they were living to complaine of great abuse done to them in perverting their testimonies and making false consequences from their words contrary to their meaning And forasmuch as all these witnesses here examined are so farre from testifying ought against us that they have on the other side witnessed the trueth of that which we maintained against Mr Canne hence it is evident that I had just cause to say that which he would seeme to disprove by alledging these Authors against me viz. that there were a multitude of learned and godly Ministers of the same judgement and practise with me For further proofe whereof it were easy if need were to produce another Iurie of approved
inferreth from hence this common law that other members of the Church which have no Ecclesiasticall office are to be subject to this government and ought to advance the same according to their power c. it is thereby evident that he could not like the course of W. B. or any such other schisming from the Church for this cause and complayning that they were not a free people if they were subject to Classes and Synods Mr Udall in the Demonstration of Discipline pag. 24 25. in that edition thereof which I have hath no such matter as is alledged before out of that treatise of English Puritanisme against the authority of Classes and Synods neither is it to be found in any part of that Demonstration that Christ hath not subjected any Congregation unto any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then unto that which is within itself c. And therefore it is untruely affirmed of Mr Canne that there is nothing there sayd but Mr Vdall with others above mentioned hath sayd the like On the contrary in that writing asscribed to Mr Vdall there be sundry testimonies shewing the authority of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations As it was (m) P. 204. before noted out of D. Fulke that there is a double authority of the Pastour one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour the other with the whole Synod or Assemblie whereof he is a member and both these authorities sufficiently authorized in the Scriptures so saith Mr Vdall to like purpose (n) Demōst of Discip c. 1. The word of God hath described sufficient ministers ministeries for doctrine exhortation overseeing distributing and ordering of every particular Church or generall Synod And againe he saith of Bishops or Pastours that (o) Ib. c. 10 they are of equall authority in their severall charges and in the generall government of the Church And in the same chapter he alledgeth the decrees of divers * 2. Concil Carth. tom 1. c. 10. 3 Conc. tom 1. cap. ◠Councels shewing how the causes of one Church or Congregation were judged by many Bishops of other Congregations meeting together In speciall when some (p) Demōst of Disc c. 14 objected that there would be so many Elderships so many divers fashions seeing one may not meddle with another Hereunto he answers The Government desired is uniforme for every Church and admitteth no change no not in outward ceremonies without a Synod of the choyce men of severall Elderships Hereby he plainely declares his meaning what he judged concerning the power of Synods for alterations to be made in particular Churches The Agreement of the English Church at Franckford in Queene Maries dayes is also alledged as a proofe of the Non-conformists dissenting from me whereunto I answer I. Those three Articles of their Discipline objected the one that the Ministers and Seniours severally and joyntly shall have no authority to make any manner of Decrees or Ordinances to binde the Congregation or any member thereof But shall execute such ordinances as shall be made by the Congregation and to them delivered Another that none shall be excommunicated untill the matter be first heard by the whole Church And further that Ministers and Seniours and every of them be subject to Ecclesiasticall discipline as other priváe members of the Church be these doe not at all concerne the question betwixt us For these things being granted it doth not follow that then the authority of Synods is overthrowne that they may not judge of any ordinances made in such a Congregation or that such a Church where these Articles are agreed upon hath thereby denyed and condemned such a Classicall government as we submit ourselves unto II. These Articles of their Discipline are not rightly and plainly but darkly and confusedly cited In the quotation of the first the page 115. is put for pag. 125. The two next are alledged without any quotation at all either of page or number of Article specifyed in the booke and both are joined together as if they were but one Article And in the second Article there is omitted that disjunction which affords an exception touching the strict observation thereof For whereas Mr Canne alledgeth it simply thus None shall be excommunicated untill the matter be heard by the whole Church the (q) Disc of troubl at Frankf p. 129. booke itself admitteth the liberty of a different practise by adding this clause or by such as it shall specially appoynt thereunto This falsification is so much the greater in that Mr Horne objecting against this Article and arguing that thereby (r) P. 163 164. the authority of the Pastour and Seniors is all wiped away for every thing is referred to the confused multitude of the Congregation Mr Whithead in the same booke answereth him on this manner Where he saith all things is referred to the confused multitude it is manifestly false For it is alwayes added by such as the Congregation shall appoint thereto as it is also in the 54 Article added in plaine words Let the Reader observe this deceitfull allegation both against the expresse words of the Article against the plaine explicatiō thereof by Mr Whit. in the name of that English Church at Frankford Whereas Mr Canne (ſ) Chu pl. p. 36. objecteth further from Art 26. 67. that in some cases the forenamed English Church agreed that appeales should be made unto the body of the Congregation I answer that in such cases as are there specifyed If the Ministers and Seniours which have authority to heare determine c. as it is elswhere specifyed though not in this Article be suspected or found to be parties that then they had reason to appeale rather to the body of the Congregation then that parties should be suffered to be judges in their owne cause And no marvell considering what I have noted (t) P. 121-125 before touching the state of that Church where the Reader may see a further answer unto these objections But then he askes me what I say to this and hopes I will not say that they were Brownists I answer His hope is right in this poynt I may not say they were Brownists nor their practise the same with the Brownists 1. Because they made this agreement through necessity when they wanted a Classis whereas the Brownists wilfully oppugne and refuse Classicall combinations 2. Because the Brownists deny authority of judgement unto Ministers and Elders in such cases where they are no parties which this (v) Art 59.63 Church at Frankford did not 3. Because the English Church at Frankford did not teach the doctrine of Separation as the Brownists doe but when they could not obtaine the reformation desired did (x) Disc of troub Frākford p. 187-191 still hold one another brethren in the Lord though greeved for the defects among them But it is wonder that Mr Canne is not ashamed to alledge the example of this English Church
England And these Ministers when they are come over are esteemed receaved as Angels in hell and shine as bright starres in these smoky Egyptian fornaces wherein the miserable people of the land are kept in most hard servitude c. These skornfull and reproachfull speeches of H. Barow doe sufficiently testify what the Brownists of old thought of the Dutch Classes and Synods and what they thought of such Ministers in England as desired a Reformation and therein a Classicall government Though H. Barow according to his manner doe overlash and utter much falshood yet he is not guilty of so great fallhood as Mr Canne in denying what the Ministers and forward professours in England as he calles thē did heretofore seek and sue for It is certaine and evident that the Non-conformists have (r) Demōst of Disc c. ◠pr. 3. p. 24 25. Mr Travers of Ecc. Disc p. 19. 20. Admon to Parl. p. 15. edit 1617. held that unto the just calling of a Minister there is required the calling of a particular and certaine Church where he is to administer Yea so much is also confessed touching them by the (ſ) Dang pos l. 3. of Engl. Scoti c. 3. p. 46. c. 14. p. 114. 115. Prelatists when by them it is recorded as a decree of the Synodicall Discipline that none should take upon him an uncertaine and vague ministery though it be offered unto him but such as be called to the ministery by some certaine Church c. And againe that none is to be accounted a full Minister untill some particular Congregation had chosen him c. For though as in these Churches after due examination approbation by a Classis men are allowed to preach and to exercise their gifts occasionally yet are not such esteemed Ministers untill they be called by some Church and confirmed therein But H. Bar. as in divers other things so in this speakes slanderously of the Classes and of the Ministers approoving them when as he saith (t) Discov p 175. Both sides both Bishops and this new Classis take upon them to make Ministers without the people without any charge place or office certaine Though the falshood of H. Bar. be manifest herein yet Mr Canne goes a degree beyond him when he shames not to deny the approbation which the Nonconformists have given to the Dutch Classes and Synods which H. Bar. could not deny for the fact though he impugne them as erring therein Let the Reader now observe here the palpable untrueth of Mr C. of W.B. in their Apish imitation of my words which they so falsely apply against me saying (v) Chu pl. p. 88 89. As Herod to kill one infant spared not to kill a multitude of other infants so he that he might undermine us and blow us up into the ayre he cared not nor spared not with the gunpowder of his fiery contention and reproaches to blow up with us a multitude of Godly and learned Ministers being of the same judgement with us I desire the Readers to looke upon my former (x) Answ to W.B. p. 71 72 73. 18 29.30 c. writing and then to judge whether I had not just cause to complaine of their wounding the Classis through my sides and of their reproaching the Ministers of these Reformed Churches under my name in regard of their consent and practise agreeable to mine I desire that the testimonies confessions and petitions of the ancient Non-conformists above mentioned in allowance of a Classicall Synodall government may be duely pondered then let any indifferent Reader judge whether I undermine them and blow them up into the ayre c. while I confirme their testimonies both by word and practise But these opposites Mr Canne and his client have so little conscience of trueth that they have not cared to utter the grossest falshood so that they might but contradict me Let them remember Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 12.22 SECT VI. Touching the Testimonies of Ancient fathers Councels and Emperours THe Advocate of W.B. not contēt with the testimonies of men in later times leades us back to the testimony of Antiquity and to the Ages long before And though he (a) Ch. pl. p. 89. confesse he had done it already in mentioning some testimonies of the most ancient times yet notwithstanding to shew that he stands not for any Novelty he professeth againe he will shew that the best approved Authors after the Apostles are directly with them in this thing c. Those which he alledgeth are these Ignatius Tertullian Origen Cyprian Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose Cyrill Hilarie Greg. Nazianzen Augustine Chrysostome Basill Socrates Isidorus Bernard And with these he also makes mention of some Councells and Christian Emperours For answer hereunto First in generall it is to be observed that the thing which he here pretends to prove viz. that everie particular visible Church of Christ hath power to exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all other Gods spirituall ordinances in and for itself immediately from Christ this comes short of the question betwixt us For this being granted it doth not follow hereupon that the power of Classes and Synods is an undue power or that particular Churches may not therefore stand under the authority of another superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of themselves This their inference will never be made good from such a ground This beggerly consequence I have oft (b) P. 145 146 149. c. refuted before To come more particularly unto the testimonies of these Authours which he promiseth to set downe according to the times in which they lived And to beginne first with Ignatius from him he alledgeth that it was then the manner of visible Churches (c) Ad Philadelph ad Magnes ad Trall to come together in one place to worship God having Bishops Elders and Deacons unto their Officers whom the people freely chose by voyces or lifting up of hands I answer 1. All that is here sayd being granted it followes not that they were independent and refused to submit their controversies to the judgement of other Churches assembled in Synods Ignatius being Minister of the Church of Antiochia in Syria which had of old submitted their controversy to the Synod held at Ierusalem Act. 15. what reason is there to thinke they forgot their old practise approved by the Apostles themselves 11. Though it be probable and we injudgement of charity are bound to thinke that the Officers Bishops Elders and Deacons of this Church were chosen with the free consent of the people according to the direction of the Apostles yet is not so much specifyed in any of those three Epistles here mentioned in the margine and therefore are they vainely alledged for the proof thereof III. Ignatius labouring for the peace and establishment of the Church of Antiochia after his death desired the Church of Philadelphia (d) Epist ad Philadel p. 76. edit Paris 1562.
to choose a Bishop which being sent thither as an Embassadour in the Embassage of God it might be granted unto them to glorify God in their meeting together He speakes there not of choosing a Bishop to minister in their owne Church but of choosing one to be their Deputy to travell unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for settling of order in that Church And in the same place to moove them the more he sheweth what was the practise of the Primitive Churches in such cases viz. that alwayes the neighbour Churches did send Bishops and some of them Elders and Deacons Againe writing upon the same occasion unto Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna he saith (e) Epist ad Polyc. p. 97 98. It was meet to gather a Synod comely in the Lord and choose some dearly beloved and diligent person which might be called Theodromos or one that should runne for God who might travell into Syria and thereby celebrate their diligent love to the praise of God And using many arguments to commend that businesse unto him as the work of God he intreateth Polycarpus that he would write unto other Churches that they would doe the same thing that they which were able would send men to travell on foot that others would send their letters to be conveyed by such as Polycarpus should send thither From these testimonies of Ignatius Mr Parker (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. p. 356. concludes that in those times according to the practise of the Reformed Churches with us neighbour Churches were combined together as it were Classically for the mutuall communication of offices And whereas D. Bilson (g) Perpet Gov. c. 7. confesseth that it was the manner of that time if any Church was tossed with waves of discord that neighbour Churches round about did send a Bishop Elder or Deacon for appeasing that tempest Mr Parker inferres justly thereupon If neighbour Churches had right or authority in compounding of strifes why not also in moderating of elections His conclusion in the same place is Let this very right in compounding strife be a sufficient authorization for our Classes Thus then it is apparant that Ignatius was not directly with Mr Canne as he boasteth but his meaning hath bene manifestly perverted contrary to his words Tertullian that is next alledged though misalledged c. 29. being put for c. 39. relating the manner of Christian assemblies in his time saith in effect (h) Apol. c. 39. They came together into the Congregation it is not sayd into one Congregation as Mr C. alledgeth it for to pray unto God for to rehearse the Divine Scriptures and with holy words yo nourish faith stirre up hope and fasten confidence And they used exhortations reproofes and divine Censure I answer I. Though particular Churches met together for such end this hinders not but that the Deputies of those same Churches might meet together in Synods for their mutuall assistance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult causes It followes not because severall Congregations have their due power that therefore the power of Classes is an undue power II. that Tertullian himself intended no such thing it appeares evidently by the great approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods in saying (i) De Jejunüs advers Psychi c. 13 The appoynted Synods are kept through the countries of Graecia in certaine places out of all the Churches whereby both the deeper or more difficult matters are handled in common by that representation of the whole Christian flock they are celebrated with great reverence He alledgeth the words of Origen writing much to the same purpose (k) In Jos Hom. 7. Such as were brought in the third place for sinne unto the Congregation if they stood obstinate by the judgement of the whole Church were excommunication from the body the Elders of the Church pronouncing the sentence And then in his owne words he sayth (l) Ch. pl. p. 90. Observe here he saith not that the matter was caried to a Classis and there first determined c. but names onely the Congregation and Elders thereof notwithstanding had there bene any such superiour judicatorie Assembly it is likely he would have omitted it and mentioned a subordinate and inferiour one ANSVV. I. The words which they alledge in another letter in Origens name as if they had bene his speech verbatim described are not his words He neither speakes of men brought unto the Church nor of the judgment of the Church nor of Elders pronouncing the sentence he shewes how all the people might be polluted by the sinne of one man when the Briefts which rule the people being unmindefull of priestly severity doe not rebuke nor take away evill from them nor make him as a Publicane and Heathen which hath despised the admonition of the Church but not in such words and forme of speech as Mr Canne faineth II. All that Origen there speakes is not repugnant to Classicall government all that he there requireth is dayly performed by the Churches among us which stand under the government of Classes and Synods Obstinate offenders having their names and offences divers times published before the whole Congregation are with the consent thereof excommunicated by the judgement of the Eldership going before III. If Origen in his writings had expressely denyed the authority of Synods it had bene of no great weight against the generall judgement of other ancient Fathers the rather seeing his writings are rejected and condemned by so many especially by Epiphanius and Hieronie the Authours hereafter alledged by Mr Canne And see how vaine many of his glosses were even touching this poynt Speaking of the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Mat. 16. he there telles us of many keyes to open severall gates in heaven◠that (m) Orig in Mat. 16. Tempérance is one key to open the Gate of Temperance in heaven that Iustice is another key to open another Gate and so for all other vertues And afterwards expounding the promise made Matt. 18.18 touching binding and loosing in heaven comparing it with the promise made unto Peter Mat. 16.19 because a word of the plurall number is used in the promise to Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelis and to others a word of the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelo Origen from thence (n) Idem in Mat. 18. teacheth us this Doctrine that Peter did binde and loose in all heavens whereas some others did but binde and loose in one heaven And therefore he concludeth Look how much better he is that bindeth by so much is he that is bound bound in more then one heaven and by how much better he is that looseth by so much the more blessed is he that is loosed because he is loosed in all the heavens Such are many of the interpretations of Origen IV. As Mr Canne misalledgeth Origen to impugne the authority of Classes and Synods so other more learned judicious Writers alledge him
answer the testimonies produced by Aërius and wonders that such a Divine that tooke upon him to refute all Heretickes did not see his owne foule errour Yea it is further t Soc. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 11.13 recorded of Epiphanius that he disorderly intruded himself into the charge of Chrysostome contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons observed in those times by celebrating the Lords supper ordaining a Deacon in the Church at Constantinople And thus we see Mr Cannes witnesses are in extremity opposite unto himself Another of his witnesses is Ierome from whom he alledgeth that v Jer. ad Gal. q. 10. In every Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders To this I answer I. This is nothing against the authority of Synods The Reformed Churches have in every Congregation such a Senate of Elders and yet this hinders not but that they have ought to have Classes Synods also both for direction and correction of Elderships and for decision of the controversies arising in particular Churches II. Though every Congregation ought to have a Senate of Elders yet Ierome doth not avouch so much in the place alledged His words are falsifyed for in the place which they misquote ad Gal. instead of ad Alg. the words of Jerome are these x Ad Algas qu. 10. How great the traditions of the Pharisees are which at this day they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what old wives fables I cannot expresse For neither doth the greatnes of the booke permit and many of them are so filthy that I blush to tell And yet saith he I will tell one of them to the ignominy of that envyous nation They have Rulers in their Synagogues of their wisest men deputed unto a filthy work c. What this filthy work was though Jerome expresse it yet I thinke it shame to publish And this which he saith in detestation of the Jewes without approbation of their order is all that he there saith for an assembly of Elders So vaine and insufficient are the Allegations of Mr Canne III. That Hierome allowed the authority of Synods above particular Churches it may appeare by that he sayth y Ad Euagriu ep 85. Si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe If we seek for authority greater is the world then the city that is as D. Whitaker expounds the same the Churches dispersed through the world he sayth z De Pont. Rom. qu. ◠p. 9◠99. All the authority of the Church of Rome is not so great as is the authority of all Churches every where And thereby he acknowledgeth the authority of Synods arising from the deputation of many Churches to be greater then the single authority of any one particular Church Besides whereas Damasus Bishop of Rome was a zealous opposite to the Arian Macedonian and other heresies and in divers Synods furthered the censure and condemnation of such as persisted in those errours and wrote divers Synodicall Epistles which witnesse the exercise of that authority by Synods Hierome a Ad Gerontiam confesseth that in the writing of those Synodall letters he did assist and help Damasus which he could not with good conscience have done unlesse he had allowed the authority of Synods Lastly if Hierome wrote that in every particular Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders then is Mr Canne and his Congregation condemned by Hierome because they have now for many yeares had no Senate nor assembly of Elders to governe them Mr Canne being sole governour of them without an Eldership In the next place touching this assembly of Elders he addes that The power of choosing them is in the people And for this he alledgeth three Authours together b Ad Rust Hil. ad Cōst August Cyr. in Ioh. 20.21 Hierome Hilarie Cyrill I answer For Hierome ad Rusticum there is nothing at all spoken touching the matter but he is falsely alledged For Hilary I. He is also falsely alledged he sayth nothing touching the Senate or assembly of Elders of which Mr C. speakes II. Though he entreat Constantius the Arian Emperour who had banished many worthy Bishops that he would permit the people to heare those Teachers and Ministers of the Sacraments whom they would whom they thought good and whom they had chosen that they might offer up prayers for his safety and felicity yet doth he not hereby prejudice the authority and jurisdiction of Synods This hinders not but that Synods might censure and judge of the elections made by the people and of other controversies of particular Churches III. Hilary also c Cent. Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 10 col 1134 1135. wrote a peculiar booke touching Synods exstant among his workes which he had translated out of Greek into Latine wherein the Acts and decrees of divers Synods that censured and condemned the Arian heresy are recorded Had he thought with my opposites that this jurisdiction of Synods had bene an usurped and unlawfull power he ought not to have given so much approbation of them in alledging their authority for defense of his opinion without some testification against their power Besides what colour of reason hath Mr C. to shew that Hilarius should vary from the judgement of Orthodox Bishops who in that age d Ib. Cent. 4. c. 7. col 519. 528 c. ordinarily used to meet together in Synods for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction For Cyrill in Ioh. 20.21 whom he also brings to prove that the Senate or assembly of Elders ought to be chosen by the people he is in like manner abused and falsely alledged by him For I. Cyrill upon those words of Christ As the Father hath sent me so send I you sayth that Christ in those words ordained the Teachers of the world and Ministers of the divine mysteries c. That therefore Paul is true saying No man takes this honour unto himself c. Heb. 5. c. He shewes how Christ called his Disciples but hath not a word neither touching an assembly of Elders nor of their choosing by the people Such falshood and forgery there is in the Allegations of Mr C. And yet if he had spoken as much as is here pretended it had bene no empeachment unto the authority of Synods as was shewed before II. That this Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria did acknowledge the use of Synods not onely for counsell and admonition but for censure and judgement of causes it appeareth evidently by his practise while in the e Euagr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 4. Synod holden at Ephesus in the time of Theodosius he being a principall member of that Synod did together with others give sentence against Nestorius and deposed him from his office for his obstinacy in refusing to appeare before them and for his heresy whereof he had bene convicted The next witnesse abused by him is Ambrose who is alledged to shew what the Senate or assembly of Elders is to doe viz.
subject unto one another and unto that which is concluded by all Yea this equality is confirmed by the Synodicall decree in this very Article Whereas there be many evidences of the Reformed Churches in France which shew what their judgement and practise is touching the subjection of particular Congregations unto a superiour Ecclesiasticall power yet instead of many one for the rest may suffice which is from the (y) Oordeel en uyrsprake met den Eed vā Approbatie vā het Synode Nation der Gereform Kerckē van Vrancrijck gehoudē tot Ales in de Cevennes besloten en̄ gearresteert den 6. Oct. 1620. Nationall Synod of Ales translated and published in divers languages containing a most pregnant testimony touching this poynt of our controversie Mr C. and W. B. doe falsely tell me of a Iurie of more then 24 men which condemne my position for an errour and untrueth but as we have seene before in the Ministers of the Palatinate so loe here againe a Jurie indeed of more then twise 24 men and of the most choyse Ministers and Elders of all the French Churches and all sworne to submit unto the resolution and sentence concluded by authority of that Synod After a proposition (z) P. 3. ◠made in this Synod by Monsr Turretin touching some meanes to hinder the Arminian Errours c. the Assembly liking wel of that motion and much commending the Synod of Dort as an effectuall remedie to purge the Church and to root out the heresies touching the poynt of praedestination c. after invocation of the name of God they agreed that the Canons of the forenamed Synod of Dort should be read in their full assembly which being done and every Article seriously weighed they were then by universall consent approved as agreeable to Gods word c. Hereupon all the Ministers and Elders deputed unto this Assembly did each of them severally sweare and protest that they consented and accorded with this doctrine and that they should maintaine and defend it with all their might unto the last breath And to (a) P. 4.5 make this concordant agreement the more authentick and to binde all the Provinces thereunto the Assembly ordained that this present Article should be printed and joyned with the Canons of the mentioned Synod and that the same should be read in the Provinciall Synods and in the Universities that there it might be approved sworne and subscribed unto by the Ministers Elders and Professours of the Universities as also by those that desired to be admitted unto the holy Ministery or unto any Academicall profession And if (b) P. 5. any man should reject either in whole or in part the doctrine contayned in the foresaid Synod and defined by the Canons thereof or should refuse to take the Oath of consent and approbation the Assembly ordained that the same should not be receaved unto any ministery in the Church or unto any office of Schoolemaister The forme of oath taken first in the Nationall Synod afterward to be taken in the Provinciall Synods was (c) P. 6. this I N. sweare and protest before God and this holy Assembly that I receave approve and embrace the whole doctrine taught and decided in the Synod of Dort as being wholy conformed unto the word of God and the Confession of our Churches I sweare and promise during my life to continue in the profession of this doctrine and to defend the same according to my utmost power that I neither in preaching nor teaching in the schooles nor in writing will ever depart from this Rule I declare also and protest that I reject and condemne the doctrine of the Arminians seeing it doth hang the election of God upon the will of man diminisheth and disannulleth the grace of God exalts man and the strength of his free will to cast him downe from above brings in againe Pelagianisme excuseth Popery and overthrowes the certainty of salvation So truely let God help me and be mercifull unto me as I doe before him sweare that which is aforesayd without any equivocation or evasion or inward mentall reservation After this followes the (d) P. 7 8 9 10 11. subscription of the names of the principall lights starres of the French Churches the Ministers and Elders deputed and sent unto that Nationall Synod from the Churches in the severall Provinces of France as of Picardie Champagne the French Iland Normandie Bretagne Dauphine Burgundie Languedoc Guienne Poictou Aniou and many others Hereby the Reader may perceave what power and authority is exercised in the Reformed Churches of France that they doe not observe their Synods for to conclude matters by way of advise and counsell onely but by their decrees and ordinances doe binde men to submit unto their sentence and judgement excluding those from the ministery professions in Universities or Schooles that refuse to consent and yeeld unto their resolutions Hereby it appeares how vainely Mr Canne alledgeth their Confessions perverteth them quite contrary to their meanings That which is alledged out of the Confession of Ausburgh comes not neere the question betwixt us For what though it be there affirmed (e) Confes August Art 14. that no man ought to teach publickly in the Church or to administer the Sacraments unlesse he be lawfully called This proves not that calling to be unlawfull which is directed by an Ecclesiasticall authority out of a particular Congregation or that Classes and Synods have no right to hinder the disordred callings of unfit persons when particular Churches doe offend therein And that the Authors of that Confession did approve of the authority of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes it appeareth both by (f) Syntag. Confes par 2. p. 7. their Appeale unto a generall free Christian Councell which they humbly request and seek in their preface unto the Emperour Charles the fift and afterwards againe speaking of the meanes to purge the Church from abuses they say that (g) Ib. p. 28.29 Confes August Art 21. now long agoe all good men in all nations doe desire a Synod And further This is the usuall and lawfull way to end dissensions namely to referre Ecclesiasticall controversies unto Synods This manner the Church hath observed even from the Apostles And the most excellent Emperours Constantine and Theodosius even in matters not very obscure and in absurd opinions would yet ordaine nothing without a Synod that they might preserve the liberty of the Church in the judgements of doctrines And it is most honourable for the Emperour to imitate the example of those the best Princes c. And therefore as in the times of Constantine and Theodosius particular Churches were subject unto another superiour Ecclesiasticall power that judged their causes and censured offendours so they of the Ausburg Confession desired the like of Charles the fift The publick order set forth in these Low countries is in the next place alledged against me But the (h) Art
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