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
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
live to this onely true forme or els to betake themselves unto some Church so formed as they tender their spirituall safety comfortable assurance in Christ But we on the contrary side though we hold that Classes and Synods are most necessary and profitable for the well being of the Church being also prescribed unto us by divine ordinance See Voet. Desp Caus Pap. p. 65 2. yet doe we not hold that the essence being of the Church doth consist in this much lesse in that forme of government commended by them If a particular Church of God should sojourne among the Indians or among Hereticks where it could not obtaine fellowship with other Churches out of it self or if by violence or other unavoydable inconveniencies any Church should be hindred from enjoying this benefit of combination with other Churches in Classicall government yet doe we acknowledge that notwithstanding this want such a Church might still subsist be reputed a true Church And yet so that we hold every Church bound to seek this dependency union with other Churches as God shall give oportunity meanes and cannot without sinne neglect the same To this place belongs the answer unto two of those Questions which Mr Canne (a) Churches plea. p. 33. propounds upon another occasion I. CAN. Whither it be Jure Divino that Ecclesiasticall Officers of many Churches are necessarily bound to determine by joint authority the cases of many particular Congregations or whither it be a thing arbitrary left unto every mans liberty ANSVV. That the combination of Churches in Classes Synods for judging determining the cases of many particular Churches by joynt authority is a divine ordinance and appointed Jure Divino is that which I maintaine labour to prove in this Dispute in the following Arguments As it is not a thing arbitrary and left unto every mans liberty whether he shall joyne himself as a member unto a particular Church if he have meanes and opportunity to doe it so it is not a thing arbitrary nor left in the liberty of particular Churches whether they shall combine themselves into Classes Synods for their spirituall government if they have opportunity All that neglect to doe it sinne against the communion of Saints walke not as becomes the members of the body of Christ Rom. 12.5 1. Cor. 12.25 Eph. 4.16 I. CAN. Whither all such cases and controversies as are decided by many Ministers combined into Classes Synods must so stand as that particular Congregations may not if they thinke fit reject the same and practise otherwise then hath bene there determined by joint authority ANSVV. Men are bound to stand unto the judgements of Classes Synods so farre as their determinations are found agreeable unto the Word no further Act. 4.19 But if any particular Church reject their sentence determination being consonant unto the Scripture then that Church committeth double sinne once for transgressing against the written word of God and againe for despising the ordinance of God and contemning the joynt authority of such as are met together in his name Particular Churches are so to respect and stand unto the determinations of Classicall or Provinciall Synods even as particular men and members of a Church are bound to stand unto the sentence of that Church where they are members viz. according to the trueth and will of Gods and not otherwise CHAP. II. The first Argument taken from the words of the Lavv Deut. 17 8-12 THe first Argument is taken from the ordinance of God delivered by Moses of old unto Israel where the people of God in particular Congregations were taught to bring their hard difficult controversies as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill unto a superiour Judicatory unto the Priests the Levites or unto the Judge in those dayes according to the quality of the cause for the deciding thereof Deut. 17 8-12 This Order was also reestablished in the dayes of Iehoshaphat who placed and settled in Ierusalem an Ecclesiasticall Synedrion or Senate for the matters of the Lord over which Amariah was President these were to receive the complaints and to judge the causes of their brethren that came up unto them from other cities places of their habitation even as there was also a Civill Synedrion for the affaires of the King over which Zebadiah was President 2. Chron. 19 8-11 This forme of government is commended unto us of David as the praise of Ierusalem when he poynts out distinctly these two kindes of Senates (a) See Iun. Annot. on Psal 122. Ecclesiasticall and Civill thrones of judgement and thrones of the house of David whereunto the Tribes even the Tribes of the Lord did goe up Psa 122.4.5 As Paul once rejoyced in the spirit to see the order of the Colossians Col. 2.5 so David considering the beauty of this order declares the same to be one speciall cause of his spirituall gladnes joy in the Lord witnessed in that Psalme Hereby it is evident that the Assemblies Synagogues of Israel were not independent but stood under an Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves they had no single uncompounded policie all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction was not limited unto particular Congregations Now let us see what our opposites say to this I. CAN. (b) Churches plea. p. 43 44. Hee seekes to strengthen the authority of Classes Synods by the Iewish politie government Now the Papists to establish the Sea of Rome use the same argument And the truth is if Mr Paget intend to dispute this way they will cary it quite away from him But I thinke he will hereafter be more considerate and speake no further of that manner and forme of Church government seeing he knowes the most learned on our side doe condemne the Papists for it viz. (c) Animadv contr 1. l. 3. c. 4. Iunius (d) Inst l. 4. c 6. sect 2. Calvin (e) Ag. Whitg l. 2. p. 614. Cartwright (f) Contr. 4. qu. 1. D. Whitaker others ANSVV. Mr Ainsworth before him speakes much in like manner to this purpose he saith (g) Animadv p. 15.16 It is a mayn pillar of Popery to proportion the Church now in the outward politie to Israel The Rhemists would have (h) Rhem. annot on Mat. 23.2 the see of Rome in the new law to be answerable to the chair of Moses Cardinall Bellarmine (i) De Rom. Pout l. 4. c. 1 maketh his first argument for the Popes judging of controversies from the Priest Judge that was appointed in the Law Deut. 17. c. And there also he alledgeth three of the same witnesses against arguing from the Iewish policie which here Mr Canne citeth againe Mr Davenp pleads to the same effect saying (k) Apol. repl p. 254. The Texts which Bellarmine alledgeth for the power of Councills in making lawes are the same which the Answerer sometimes harpeth upon in this case but Iunius clearly sheweth that they
that the Law is changed and old things passed away doe thereupon plead that the Civill power of the Magistrate and the use of the sword is not to be exercised by Christians in the Church of God under the new Testament II. As for those places Dan. 9.24 26. Luk. 19.41 44. where the destruction of the Citie and Sanctuary is foretold they doe not prove the abolition of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods which we maintaine because this part of Moses politie and this liberty of appeales from one judicatory to another might have continued even among the Jewes themselves though both City and Sanctuary were destroyed and much more may still be retained among Christians that are not tyed unto the Leviticall priesthood nor unto any other legall ceremonies So the inquisition for murder was an ordinance of Moses politie Deut. 21 1-9 though divers ceremonies were in Moses time annexed there unto this hinders not but that those ceremonies being abolished the Iudiciall law it self for inquisition after murders being of common equity ought still to continue among us Againe it is further to be observed how some of our opposites labouring to finde a difference between Moses politie and Christs rule have described unto us such a rule of proceeding in Moses time as is not to be acknowledged Mr Smith as is noted (b) Pag. 42. before makes this to be the order of proceeding in the time of the Law 1. reproof of sinne Levit. 19.17 2. a sacrifice for the cleansing of the party reproved Lev. 4.23 3. death inflicted by the Magistrate upon the partie reproved if he wilfully refused to hearken c. Numb 15.30 31. Deut. 17.12 Mr Ainsworth agreeth with him in this poynt sayth (c) H. Ains Commun of S. c. 22. p. 440. God commanded this duety in his law playnly to rebuke our neighbour Lev. 19.17 that so upon warning and sight of his sinne he might bring his sacrifice reconcile himself unto the Lord whom he had offended Levit. 4 23-28 vvhich if he regarded not but should doe ought with a high hand he then was sayd to blaspheme the Lord and must be cut off from among his people Numb 15.30 31. because he despised the word of the Lord c. Againe he writes (d) Animadv p. 120. 121. That private men forgave not sinnes in Israel so absolutely touching the Church order or politie as Christians doe now is evident by the Law which bound the offender not onely unto repentance and faith in Christ Act. 15.9 11. as also to confesse his sinne Levit. 5.5 and satisfy his neighbour offended Lev. 6.5 but withall to bring a trespasse offering to the Priest the minister of the Church that so the Priest making an atonement for him before the Lord it should be forgiven him Lev. 6.2 5 6 7. Now under the Gospell the law is If thy brother trespasse against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him Luk. 17.3 neyther is such a man bound to goe to a Minister that he may pray for or forgive him as the Papists by proportion (e) Bellar. de Poenit. l. 2. c. 3. doe gather Now for answer hereunto and to shew how they were mistaken about the rule of admonition in the old Testament in teaching that men were bound upon admonition to bring an offering so bound that if they wilfully refused or regarded not to doe it they were to dye or to be cut off from among their people we are to observe that God did not lay such a bond of necessity upon his people and this appeareth by these considerations I. The * vehebi words of the Text Levit. 4 23-28 being rightly translated doe not inferre such a bond Whereas the words are commonly translated then he shall bring his offering c. they should rather have bene thus translated and or if he will bring his offering c. or thus then he may bring his offering c. And so the words being conditionall and not imperative there is no absolute commandement to bring a sacrifice but the ordinance of God in that place is that if they would bring a sacrifice for their sinne then they must doe it in such manner as is there prescribed And there is a double reason for this translation I. The particle vau is (f) Vau omnium aliarum Conjunctionum significationem assumere potest c. aliquando conditionē includit Cevall Bertr in Galeed p. 44. often and very conveniently expounded conditionally by if or and if as Numb 5.13 14. 12.14 Deut. 24.1 3. Exod. 4.23 So the principall Interpreters doe sundry times translate the same the Chaldee Paraphrasts both Onkelos and Ionathan as also the Greek version in Num. 12.14 So the ancient Arabick version of Rabbi Saadias as also that edition of the Chaldee printed at Constantinople in Exod. 4.23 So Tremellius and Iunius in Gen. 18.30 Levit. 26.40 Numb 12.14 So our English translation in Exod. 4.23 Levit. 26.40 Numb 12.14 Deut. 24.3 And to omit a multitude of other interpreters Mr Ainsworth himself doth sometimes so translate the same as in those places before specifyed Exo. 4.23 Lev. 26.40 Numb 12.14 and further (g) Annot. on Lev. 26.40 notes that so it ought elswhere to be translated as in Mal. 1.2 3.8 II. Suppose that the conjunction or particle vau were not conditionall in this place yet the word turned into the future tense by vau hippuc according to the Hebrew speech as other simple (h) See Galeed p. 117. verbs future doth not alwayes necessarily imply a commandement but rather a permission Though sometimes they import an absolute commandement as in the Decalogue yet sometimes they are used to signify what we may doe and what we are permitted to doe This is commonly observed by Translatours who in their translation of the very same forme of the future verb doe sometimes expresse it by a commanding phrase thou shalt doe sometimes by a phrase of permission thou mayest doe for example in our English translation Gen. 2.16 Lev. 11.21 22. Deut. 12.15 20 20.19 23.20 24 25. 24.2 Thou mayest eat Thou mayest lend Thou mayest eat grapes Thou mayest pluck She may goe c. Thus are many of these places translated by Mr Ainsw himself and thus in like manner might this place Lev. 4.23 28. be fitly translated Then he may bring his offering c. And being so interpreted there is no such bond of necessity contained therein II. As the words and forme of speech in the Text doe admit this interpretation so the matter it self the nature of the ordinance doth determine it constraine us to entertaine this translation which shewes it to be a permission because otherwise it had bene impossible ever to observe it in Israel The sinnes spoken of in Lev. 4.2 27. are for the generall nature of them all manner of sinnes great or small except presumptuous sinnes The words of the Text are If
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
alledge for the warrant of this combination of Churches in Synods for their mutuall help they are all of them such as doe equally yea and primarily concerne the communion and society of severall persons and members in a particular Church where it is confessed by our opposites that there is jurisdiction as well as counsell If these places would have removed jurisdiction from Synods and condemned the subjection of Churches unto a Synod then would they also have done the like for particular Churches and have condemned the subjection of members thereunto Seeing they doe not the one therefore not the other also II. In prosequuting his 2d Argument (o) P. 330.331 taken from the forme of combination which is consociation consisting in a mutuall obligation he confirmeth it by the testimony of D. Whitaker alledging that Calvine sayd well that by brotherly charity Cont. 4. qu. 4. p. 448. not by naked authority but by letters and admonitions and other such meanes Hereticks were deposed in the time of Cyprian Deposition of Hereticks was an act of jurisdiction in Synods And againe alledging Mat. 18. as the fountaine of this combination he sayth Many Churches are combined after the same manner that the prime Churches grow together into one body in their members and therefore it must be confessed that as Mat. 18. is a ground of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in particular Churches so is it also for Synods III. Mr Parker for confirmation of his 3d Argument (p) P. 331.332 taken from the matter of this combination which are the severall Churches equall members of one body alledgeth the example of the Reubenites who when they would expresse their combination with the Tribes on this side Iordan do call it their part in the Lord which was not unequall because of the distance of place Ios 22.24 25 28. And from hence then it may appeare that as the Tribes of Israel equally combined together were not subject to any one Tribe apart and yet were each of them subject to the whole society and body of Israel so the particular Churches having each of them equall part in the Ecclesiasticall consociation of Classes and Synods though they be not subject to any one Church apart that is exalted above the rest yet may be subject to the whole society of many Churches concurring together in Synods IV. In the explication of his 4th Argument (q) P. 332 333. taken from the object which is a common matter concerning all or many Churches he alledgeth a distinction (r) Conf. with Hart. c. 8. d. 5. maintained by D. Rainolds betwixt questions of the Church requiring knowledge onely and causes of the Church requiring jurisdiction also for the judging of them Questions of the Church were sent unto them that had no jurisdiction over those that propounded them but the causes of the Church not so They in Africa were (ſ) Concil Carthag Graec. c. 2◠Milevita c. 22. forbidden to appeale unto them beyond sea viz for the decision of their personall causes which yet were to be judged by the Synods in Africa whereby it is acknowledged that Synods have a power of jurisdiction which is more then counsell Whereas Mr P. addeth The first combination of Churches is in matters of faith c. The second combination of Churches is in personall causes yet by accident onely for these properly belong unto each severall Church as they are proper yet when they become publick by accident then Churches are combined indeed but without subjection as it fell out in Cyprians time in causa lapsorum in the cause of them that fell in time of persecution which thereupon became publick because the offence was common in many Churches Lest any should stumble at these his words it is to be considered that as personall causes and offences are by accident the object of Classicall and Synodall judgements so by like kinde of accident they are the object of that judgement and jurisdiction which is exercised by particular Churches In that maine ground of Ecclesiasticall discipline Mat. 18.15 16 17. all the degrees of admonition and censure are ordained to be used according to those 4 accidentall ifs If thy brother sinne If he will not heare thee If he will not heare the witnesses If he will not heare the Church And so in like manner those 4 limitations before noted by Mr Parker are 4 accidentall cases wherein the power of Synods is to be exercised and wherein it is greater then the authority of particular Churches viz. if it be a common cause if the Church be unable if the Church administer unlawfully if it be so presumed Such kindes of accidents are properly the lawfull and just object of Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction by proportion from the same rule Matt. 18. If one member sinne or suffer it becomes a common cause so farre as it is knowne all the members suffer with it and take care for the redresse of it in a particular Church 1. Cor. 12.25 26. And if one Church sinne be in danger it becomes a common cause all the Churches that are members of the same body especially those that are united by covenant in a Classical and Synodall government are to take care for it and to seek help according to the quality of the danger Thus the community of cause inferreth combination And further for that which he repeats againe that this combination of Churches by accident is without subjection it is still to be remembred that his meaning is without subjection to any one above the rest for so he againe largely explaines himself in the same place giving instance in the Church of Carthage and in Cyprian the Bishop thereof maintayning against D. Downam that Cyprian was no Metropolitane that the province was others as well as his that in the Synod there held there was a parity that the Churches were equally combined without subjection to any one that Bishops Elders had equall power in giving their suffrages V. In setting downe the 5 t Argument (t) P. 334. taken from the outward manner of proceeding which was by conference and communication of counsels he shewes withall that therein there was an exercise of jurisdiction when as in the words of Cyprian he shewes the end of those counsels ut communi consens◠figerentur sententiae that by common consent firme decrees might be made And the authority of these judiciall sentences and decrees touching those that were fallen is further declared by Cyprian when he shewes that they were (v) Cypriā L. 1. Ep. 8. tempered with discipline and mercy whereby it is evident that there was an exercise of discipline or Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction therein and that Epistle of Cyprian containes in it sundry other sentences which shew that he spake of the administration of censure and not of counsell onely VI. In his last Argument (x) P. 335. taken from the end of this combination which was not to receive mandates but for consent counsell
and approbation he sayth it followeth hence that no one Church was superiour unto others but all were equall among themselves This he declares by instance in the Church of Rome which though in ancient time it was of great estimation and dignity yet had it no speciall authority and jurisdiction above other Churches as he shewes by the testimonies of D. Rain Whitak and Iunius But he doth not collect thence that many Churches concurring together in Synods doe want authority to judge and to give definitive sentences in the causes brought unto them Yea the contrary is manifest for whereas Bellarmine perverting the testimony of the Magdeburgenses who had sayd that the unity of faith might be preserved by the consociation of Churches which mutually were to help one another objecteth (y) DeRom Pon. l. 1. c. 9 Non sat est confilium imperium requiritur Counsell is not sufficient but authority is required Mr Parker in this (z) P. 327. same chapter alledgeth alloweth and commendeth the answer which D. Whitaker (a) DeRom Pont. Cont. 4. qu 1. p. 49 giveth unto Bellarmine viz. Consensum multorum non minus habere imperii quam unius voluntatem Sicolim Haeretici per Synodos refutati et alii in eorum locum suffecti Quid amplius postulas aut quae melior ratio excogitari potest conservandae pacis c. that is The consent of many hath no lesse authority then the will of one Thus have Hereticks bene refuted of old time and others put into their places What doe you require more or what better way of preserving peace can be thought upon c. Or what plainer testimony can Mr Dav. require for the jurisdiction of Synods They doe not answer Bellarmine that counsell alone is sufficient but plead for authority and power arising from the consent of many Iunius also answereth this objection of Bellarmine in like manner and sayth concerning the power of Synods (b) Anim. adv in Bellarm Contr 3. l. 1. c. 9. u. 74. Et est revera imperium Christi qui primum jubet per Apostolum ut spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subjiciantur deinde vero remedium adhibet 1. Cor. 11.16 quod si cui contentiosum esse videtur nos ejusmodi consuetudinem non habemus neque Ecclesiae Dei There is indeed the power of Christ who first commands by the Apostle that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets and then addeth the remedy 1. Cor. 11.16 that if any list to be contentious we have no such custome nor the Churches of God And Mr Parker in the same place reasoning in like manner confirmeth his answer and enforceth it saying What I pray you can be answered to this last reason for the Apostle Paul referreth us from the contentions of any one Church unto many whose example if it prevaile much how much more their sentence when they are assembled together in a Synod HAving answered these Allegations of Mr Dav. we may now see what wrong he hath done to Mr Parker in perverting his words and meaning and making him a Patrone of this erroneous opinion that is so prejudiciall to the Church of God in the government thereof by Synods and yet for the further clearing of the trueth and vindicating of Mr Parker and for the help of the Reader that he may better understand his meaning touching Classes and Synods for many have not his booke and many understand it not being written in Latine I will set downe his judgement more particularly touching the divers kindes and degrees of consociation of Churches with the speciall questions touching Synods and shew withall how he applyes the same to the practise of the Reformed Churches for the defence thereof in all which the jurisdiction of Synods is maintained And First comming to speak of the kindes of conjunction or consociation and shewing (c) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 22. p. 336. that some are more imperfect by way of Communication some more perfect by way of Combination The Combinations he sayth are of two sorts for some communicate among themselves by Letters onely and some both by letters messengers or Delegates These communicatory letters were called in old time Pacificall Synodall letters and Formatae And he (d) P. 337. alledgeth divers examples both from the Scripture and from the primitive Church touching this kinde of communication by letters And howsoever he notes from the Magdeburgenses that this communication by letters did not proceed from dominion and subjection c. yet this is to be understood touching the subjection of any one Church to another and not of subjection to many Churches for so he expounds himself touching this particular of communication by letters as he had often done before in generall For whereas it is objected If all Congregations be equall what shall be done in case of Schisme and Heresy when there is no Synod nor Christian Magistrate He answers (e) Ibid. c. 21. p. 324. The time scarsely falles out when no Synods can be had or if Synods be wanting yet Churches may communicate together by letters and although there be no authority in one Church above another yet many Churches joyned together either in a Synod or by letters have authority over one Church offending And in the next page (f) P. 325. againe alwayes every one Church is subject to many Churches And thus he expressely avoucheth a jurisdiction of many Churches over one even in their communication by letters And yet more particularly he applyes this to the present practise of the Reformed Churches highly commendeth the same saying (g) Ibid. c. â—2 p. 337. And now in the Reformed Churches the necessary use of Elderships is acknowledged ubi communicatio per literas primaeva purissime floret where the primitive communication by letters doth flourish in greatest purity Againe Mr Parker proceedeth in describing the consociation of Churches and sayth (h) Ibid. p. 338. The second communication of Churches followeth when some deale with others concerning any Ecclesiasticall busines not by letters onely but by messengers also This consideration is of great moment for unto whomsoever this handling of Ecclesiasticall businesses doth belong to them also of necessity doth belong the rest of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction This he often repeateth but most fully when speaking of the authority of sending messengers or Delegates he saith (i) P. 342. The power of sending Delegates in Ecclesiasticall affaires was not in any one Bishop but in the Church it self and therefore all the other jurisdiction Now it is evident that the Synod at Ierusalem did send Delegates in an Ecclesiasticall businesse Act. 15.25 26 27. and therefore according to Mr Parker did not onely consult admonish but also exercised jurisdiction therein and had the power of all other jurisdiction Thus the Reformed Churches doe dayly practise their Classes and Synods doe upon occasion send their Deputies unto particular Churches to judge compound and decide the
then those that doe so many wayes pervert his meaning he being not onely a member of the same Church but a member of the same family living under the same roofe with me where we had continuall and daily occasion to talk of these things and at that time when Mr Iacob published his unsound writings touching this question He being afterwards also a member of the same Eldership and by office sitting with us dayly to heate and judge the causes of our Church and so becomming a member of our Classicall combination yet did he never testify against the unduepower of the Classis or complaine that we were not a free people though the Classis exercised the same authority then as now it doth Yea he being also for that time the Scribe of our Consistory the Acts of our Eldership and Church being recorded with his owne hand are extant to shew his agreement with us in the government of this Church And it appeares hereby that he was of another spirit and judgement then Mr Davenp who hath published so many vaine cavills against the government and discipline of these Reformed Churches and this under the cloake pretence of his agreement with Mr Parker Yea and further it is apparent that the knowledge and experience which Mr Parker got by this his living here in communion with these Churches hath bene a speciall help unto him in the writing of those learned treatises of Ecclesiasticall policie which for the substance and maine are as a lively Table wherein the government of these Reformed Churches is plainely pourtrayed before our eyes his discourse being as it were a narration and defence of their practise which discourse might yet have bene more perfect had he lived to finish the same SECT IV. His Allegation of D. Ames examined IO. DAV To these I might adde D. Ames in that which he wrote in his latter time wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set downe his judgement more warily in this matter Casus cōsc l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. c. 25. qu. 5. then formerly See his Cases of Conscience the 4. Booke where he speaketh clearly of this power as essentially belonging to particular Churches ANSVV. Thus instead of Arguments from the Scripture for the confirmation of his cause Mr D. still leads us from one mans testimony to another thither I am forced to follow him And for D. Ames 1. I may justly testify that I have found him wavering in his opinion touching the authority of Synods For through the inward familiarity which I had with him a long time for more then 20 yeares together while he lived in these countries having oftentimes had earnest conference with him touching this question and much complayning of the wrong done to many Ministers by that booke entitled English Puritanisme which he had translated into Latine wherein there is such a peremptory restraint of all Ecclesiasticall authority unto particular Congregations though he did never plainely retract that which he published yet he shewed himselfe divers times enclining to a change of his judgement yea sometimes acknowledged that Synods had power to judge of causes and by their sentence to decree the excommunication of such as had deserved the same II. For his writings D. Ames when he (t) Preface to Mr Par. book de Pol. Eccl. anno 1616. gave so great approbation of Mr Parkers work which he wrote of Ecclesiasticall policie wherein he doth so largely maintaine the power of Classes and Synods might cause the Readers to think that he was of the same judgement with him seeing he gives such generall allowance and commendation thereof without any exception about this question III. It is to be observed that in none of his latter writings he doth use that peremptory phrase in limiting Synods or Churches combined in Classes or Synods onely to counsell or advise in such manner as was done in that (v) Engl. Purit c. 2. first writing IV. And more particularly in his Treatise of Divinity he writes thus of particular Churches (x) Medull SS Theol. l. 1. c. 39. th 27. that as their cōmunion requires the light of nature equity of rules and examples of Scripture doe teach they may and also ought frequently to enter into a mutuall confederation and consociation among themselves in Classes and Synods that they may use common consent and mutuall help as much as commodiously may be done in those things especially which are of greater moment Now as in particular Congregations the greatest acts of power and jurisdiction which are exercised therein receive their strength from common consent and doe consist therein so if in matters of greater weight the common consent of Synods is to be used then is a power and authority asscribed unto them then ought not particular Churches to proceed without and against the authority of common consent in Synods And that mutuall help of other Churches is then most effectuall whē there is not onely advise but authority also to cōfirme the same Though D.A. adde in the same place that this combination doth neither constitute a new forme of the Church neither ought by any meanes to destroy or empaire that liberty power which Christ hath left unto his Church for the directing furthering whereof it onely serveth this we also willingly grant When a particular Congregation is hindred stayed frō the exercise of their authority in an unlawfull businesse in an unjust excōmunication or electiō their liberty power is not hereby destroyed or taken away but rectifyed and preserved Here is to be remembred that which Mr Par. as was noted before sayth upon like occasion when some objected that the Churches of the villages in the Netherlands wanted the power of excommunication he replyes (y) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 349. Imo potestas excommunicandi ordinandi jurisdictionis caeterae illis illibata relinquitur c. The power of excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction remaines unto them uncorrupted c. though they doe not proceed thereunto but with common consent of the Classis V. After this D. Ames in his Disputation against Bellarmine touching Synods or Councels doth sundry times acknowledge that they have more authority then onely to counsell and advise This is to be observed in divers povnts as first in the Question whether the greater Prelates onely have jus suffragii decisivi the right or authority of a determining or definitive suffrage or whether the same belong unto the Elders also or inferiour Officers to whom Bellarmine allowes a consulting voyce but not a definitive Here D. Ames according to the receyved opinion of the Protestants (z) Bellarm. enerv Tom. 2. l. 1. de Conc. c. 2. allowes unto them also the right and authority of suffrages when they are deputed and sent as the Delegates of their Churches unto Synods This he oft repeateth And although he say (a) Ibid. th 8. that in matters of faith there is no
prevaile to take away the offence either immediately or mediately for a meanes is so farre good as it makes to the obtaining of his end As though God did not blesse his owne ordinance above our hope and reason above all that we can thinke or as though we were not to use his meanes and leave the successe unto him He that begins a good work and proceeds so farre till he be stopped by others is accepted of God as if he had finished it SECT V. His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined IO. DAV (r) Apol. reply p. 242. Dioc. tryal p. 13. â—â— To him I may adde Mr Paul Baynes a man of singular noate for learning and piety in Cambridge where he succeeded Mr Perkins who freely expresseth his judgment for the right of particular Churches and their independence in this sense in his Diocesans tryall ANSVV. As Mr Baynes was a man of singular note for learning and piety so is his testimony of singular note to shew the right use power of Synods not onely for counsell but for authority to censure and judge Ecclesiasticall causes so that particular Churches may not doe within themselves what they would without their consent 1. After he had set downe 4 conclusions wherein we agree with the opposites he comes to speak of the poynt of difference and sayth (f) Dioces tryall p. 13. That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish-Churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues that Nationall Church of the Iewes and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches This doe I willingly assent unto And this is no other thing then that which is practised in these Reformed Churches with whom we are united Here is no one head-Church that hath more authority then another all Congregations are equall independent each of other here is no subjection to any one Diocesan all are equally and mutually subject to the Synod consisting of many their dependency is not upon one more then another but it is onely in regard of many combined notwithstanding which combination they have their government within themselves being subject to the Synod onely in some more weighty and difficult cases II. As for that other place when some had pleaded from the example of the Reformed Churches as if they had not bene distinct Churches c. Mr Bayes so explaineth their estate and practise as Mr Parker (t) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 348 349. c. more largely had done before that therein he doth not at all prejudice their subjection to Synods for speaking of the 24 Churches at Geneva and of their combination and subjection unto one Presbytery he sayth (v) Dioc. tryal p. 21. They have power of governing themselves but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbyterie Secondly it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein they shall have no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherein themselves are members and judges with others After that againe he addeth Geneva made this consociation not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect and to make one Church by this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion Thus he notes not onely the counsell but the consent of others required And as at Geneva a particular Church proceeded not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in a common Presbytery so in these Low-countries in weightier affaires they proceed not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring in their Classis III. Mr Baynes having shewed how every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body and having Governours every way equall there is yet no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracie especially when God ordaines it is a forme of government sufficient to preserve order hereupon he propounds this objection (x) Dioc. tr p. 68. But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it self And hereunto he answers thus Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled and to the Civill Magistrate who in case of delinquencie hath directive and corrective power over it And thus we have his expresse testimony and confession that Synods have authority not onely to counsell and advise but to censure that particular Churches are subject to the censure of other Churches that consequently there is a double Ecclesiasticall Aristocracie one in particular Churches severally another in many Churches Synodically assembled that if a particular Church erre in matters of faith and religion that it is subject not to the power of the Magistrate alone but both to him and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall jusridiction arising from the combination of many Churches contrary to that assertion in the English Puritanisme chap. 2. IV. Speaking of Presbyters that is of Ministers and Elders and of their government he saith (y) Ibid. p. 67. There is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo but the Scripture doth asscribe it to them power of suffrage in Councell Act. 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to have bene in the Church of Corinth c. While he alledgeth Act. 15. for an evidence of the Presbyters power in Synods or Councels he doth hereby acknowledge that in Synods there is a lawfull exercise of jurisdiction and of the power of the keyes and that therefore they are not onely for counsell and advise To like purpose he saith afterwards againe (z) P. 82. The Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbyterie with them Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had receyved power of the keyes doing it ex officio and others from discretion and duety of confessing the trueth And a little after he there addeth It is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters had right of suffrage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therefore in Oecumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instruction of Bishops receyved from their Churches V. Whereas one errour useth to accompany another and commonly those that deny the authority of Synods doe also in
fire yet hereby heat is not denyed to be in the water but on the contrary acknowledged to be derived into the water and experience shewes that by the heat so communicated unto the water many excellent effects are produced for the service of man And so when Ecclesiasticall authority is by the Church committed and communicated to Ecclesiasticall Officers in calling of them then doth it belong unto them though secondarily and lesse principally as both D. Whita confesseth Mr Dav. himself repeateth THat it may yet further appeare how unjustly the name of D. Whitaker is pretended and alledged both by Mr Dav. here by Mr Canne hereafter against the authority of Synods I will here set downe divers pregnant assertions and expresse testimonies of his gathered out of sundry of his writings for help of the Readers In them all may see how fully opposite he was to my opposites To beginne with this treatise de Conciliis of Councells or Synods out of which Mr D. took this allegation above-mentioned This book comprehends 6 Questions touching Synods in handling every one of these Questions he speakes plainly for the authority jurisdiction of Synods These 6 Questions are 1. Touching the necessity and profit of Synods 2. By what authority they are to be assembled 3. Of what persons they consist 4. Who is to be Praesident in them 5. Whether they be above the Pope 6. Whether they can erre For the first Question touching the necessity of Synods There he brings 8 reasons to prove the necessity and profit of them I will not insist upon each of them as I might but mention onely one or two of them The third cause is sayth he (i) Whitak de Conc. q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order and right and lawfull discipline may both be appoynted and maintained and that Canons may be made and confirmed For the Church hath alwayes had authority of making and enacting Ecclesiasticall lawes and of prescribing them to others and of punishing those which did not observe them And this authority hath alwayes bene accounted necessary This was more then counselling or admonishing (k) P. 21. The eight and last and that the chiefest cause of Synods is that even as in Politick and Civill judgements malefactours upon examination are accused and condemned so in the Church Hereticks might be condemned and pronounced anathema by publick judgement and that the trueth might be vindicated from their calumnies But as there judgement is not to be given according to the will of the judge but according to law so here Hereticks enemies of faith and religion are not to be condemned but according to the publick and Imperiall law that is the Scripture For a Synod is as it were a publick Court or Imperiall Chamber or Parliament wherein the Judges hearing both sides do give sentence and decree matters of greatest weight For although Hereticks may be condemned of severall Churches apart yet when they are condemned as it were of the whole Church the sentence is more solemne and of greater weight So Arius was condemned first of Alexander and the Councell at Alexandria but afterward with greater authority by the Synod of Nice c. By these words of D. Whitaker we may see what wrong they doe unto him which pretend that he should deny the jurisdiction of Synods The second Question is by whose authority Synods are to be assembled Here D. Whitaker relating how Bellarmine pleads for the Popes authority (l) De Cōc q. 2 c. 2. p. 42 c. repeats his 4th Argument taken from an ancient Canon wherein it was concluded that without the minde of the Romane Bishop it was not lawfull to celebrate or hold Synods D. Whit. answers that this Canon mentioned by (m) Lib. 2. cap. 8. Socrates is not rightly translated he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify celebrare Concilia to hold Synods as Cassiodorus hath ill translated it whose translation they abuse nor yet Ecclesias consecrare to consecrate Churches as Illyricus doth amisse translate it but leges Ecclesiasticas sancire et canones Ecclesiis praescribere to ordaine Ecclesiasticall lawes to prescribes Canons unto Churches And being thus translated he sayth We acknowledge approve this Canon as most just For reason itself teacheth telleth that that which concerneth all ought to be approved of all Therefore it was meet that those Canons which should be generall should be approved also of the Bishop of Rome who was one of the chief Bishops Now if D. Whita allow that Canon to be most just which grants unto Synods an authority of making Ecclesiasticall lawes and enjoyning the Churches to keep them then it is manifest hereby that he confessed the jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely for counsell admonition And in the same place D. Whitak (n) P. 45 46 relates how the Bishops of the Orientall Churches meeting together in a Synod at Antioch did by common sentence write unto Iulius the Bishop of Rome and by way of rebuke sayd unto him that they were not to be overruled by him that if they would cast any out of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that such ought not to be restored of him even as those whom he cast out could not be restored of them Although D. Whit. acknowledge the errours and faults of some that were in that Synod yet he approveth this their writing in reproof of Julius and sayth they all did gravely rebuke his arrogance insolence Though that Synod abused their power in censuring Athanasius unjustly yet that they had a power of censure casting out of their Churches is not denyed but maintained against the Bishop of Rome The third Question is touching the persons whereof Synods doe consist Here D. Whit. (o) De Cōci Qu. 3. c. 1. first describes the Popish opinion and reckons up the foure sorts of persons whom they allow to come unto Synods namely that Some are present as judges who have a determining voyce Others to dispute and examine difficulties and these have a consultative voyce Others to defend the Synod and to see that peace be kept within without Others to serve as notaries watchmen servants Then he shewes that they allow onely the greater Prelates that is all Bishops and Archbishops to have the right of a determining voyce in universall and particular Synods ordinarily but that Cardinals Abbots Generalls of Orders though they be not Bishops yet by extraordinary priviledge may also have a determining suffrage as for all others whatsoever they be they may be profitable but not have a determining voyce or suffrage After this he shewes the opinion of the Protestants that not onely the greater Prelates but whatsoever learned and godly men are sent being chosen by the Churches of severall Provinces and judged fit for that busines ought to have equall authority in giving suffrages and so to be judges as well as any
lawfully not onely when it condemneth and excommunicateth those which are to be condemned pronounced Anathema but also when it ordaines and maintaines those decrees which agree with the Scripture c. Had he bene of my opposites opinion he should have sayd the contraty viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemne those that deserve to be condemned but onely admonish them and so leave them to others Yea he proceeds further sayth concerning Generall Synods that (b) Ibid. p. 270. In them is a soveraigne power and they have the highest authority in the Church He doth not onely grant unto them jurisdiction but greater then is in any particular Church or in any other Ecclesiasticall judicatory Moreover whereas Bellarmine maintaines that Synods cannot erre when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope and that all their authority depends upon him hereupon D. Whita argueth thus against him (c) Ibid. c. 1. p. 214. If there be such weight in the Pope that without him neither Provinciall nor Generall Synod have in them any force it may worthily be demanded what part the Bishops have in a Synod whether they be onely admonishers or counsellours or whether they be judges for if they be counsellours onely why are none but Bishops admitted unto Synods why not others rather who are more learned then Bishops c. He notes it as a poynt of great absurdity and as a great strait whereunto the Papists are brought against their will against their profession that Bishops should have no other place in Synods but of admonishers and counsellours For indeed what use is their of suffrages of definitive and determining voyces if in the end all be determined by the Pope why might not advises and counsels have sufficed in such case This observation D. Whitaker holds to be of speciall use and worthy to be remembred and therefore repeats it oft (d) Ibi. c. 2. p. 221 222. What place I pray you doe Bishops obtaine in Synods what doe they to whâ—â— end doe they meet Is it that they may judge or is it that they may onely counsell and admonish Are they therefore judges or are they onely admonishers counsellours This indeed some of them thinke that they may onely admonish in Synods that they may move questions and dispute but may not judge Naclantus Bishop of Clug as we taught before in his treatise de potestate Papae Concilii sayth The power of the Pope is royall the power of the Synod is consiliaria by way of counsell the power of the Pope is altogether definitive the power of the Synod is of ambulatory definition that is as I interpret it wandring uncertaine Bellarmine indeed and the Iesuites that now are hold that the Bishops are judges but doubtles they meane an ambulatory judgement that is none at all For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone Now this absurd opinion which he notes to have bene the conceit of Naclantus expressed in plaine words and of Bellarmine and other Papists by consequence is even the same that is professed by Mr Jacob Mr Dav. Mr Cann for though they differ in respect of the power of the Pope yet in respect of the power belonging to Synods they make the persons whereof the Synods consist to be no other then admonishers or counsellours not having any jurisdiction at all D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus but speaking againe of the Popes over-ruling of Synods he doth againe record this observation saying (e) Ibid. c. 3. p. 267. Certainly this is that which we sayd before that Bishops assembled in a Synod are not judges but onely admonishers that the Pope alone is judge of all controversies that the rest have no authority For if Bishops were judges judgement should be done according to the greatest number and the sentence of the most judges should prevaile We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a speciall providence of God and directed by his Spirit thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to poynt out and commend to our consideration this evill consequent of making Synods to be onely admonishers or counsellours that so we might have his writing for a Testimony against this errour which within a while after was to be broached made common by Mr Jacob and some others that which the Brownists had done before being neither so commonly knowne nor regarded VNto this his writing De Conciliis we may adde his treatise De Pontifice Romano in which controversy he discusseth 8 questions and in the most of them he gives testimony for the authority of Synods against my opposites The Questions be these 1. Whether the government of the Church be Monarchicall 2. Whether any Monarchy of the Church was setled in Peter 3. Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome and dyed there 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in a Monarchy Ecclesiasticall 5. Whether the Pope be Antichrist 6. Whether the Pope can erre in the faith 7. Whether the Pope can make lawes to binde the conscience 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be given by Christ to the Pope immediately In handling the first Question whereas the Papists require a Monarch to keep inferiour Officers in order and unity D. Whitaker sayth (f) De Pont. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 19. If any will not doe their duety and discharge their office they are to be admonished and rebuked and except they obey they are at length to be remooved by the judgement of the Church or the Synod or the Christian Magistrate and there are knowne meanes enough of keeping Ministers in their duety and the Church in unity without a Pope He acknowledgeth that Synods have not onely power to admonish which every Christian may doe but after admonition to censure remove or depose the obstinate When Bellarmine to prove the superiority of Bishops objects 1. Tim. 5. Those that sinne rebuke before all D. Whit. answers (g) Ibid p. 43. This equalls also may doe So of old if any Elder or Bishop was accused the Bishops brought the matter unto an Ecclesiasticall Senate or Synod and if he did seeme worthy of it they condemned him by a publick judgement that is they eyther suspended or excommunicated or deposed him He declares (h) P. 48. 49. that the Church hath bene preserved in greatest tempests and troubles by Synods and commends them for their use of jurisdiction in judging of causes and shewes how those that would not yeeld unto such authority were removed from their places and others amended by their examples He sayth (i) P 92. Though one alone could not judge of another yet a Synod and as it were a Senate or Session of Bishops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their causes He observeth againe out of Cyprian (k) P. 93. No Bishop could be judge of another of another I say not of others because a Synod of Bishops could alwayes judge
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
abuses about excoÌ„munication he saith Can the Bishop alone excoÌ„municate ExcoÌ„munication doth not belong unto any one man whosoever he be but unto the Church By these the like speeches of Zuinglius it appeares that his testimonies are not prejudiciall unto our practise nor unto that authority of Synods which we maintaine seeing we grant that no one person alone can by right excommunicate any man by his owne authority neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate those that are not in communion with them The other place cited out of Zuinglius touching the calling of Ministers is so farre from prooving any thing against us that being duely considered it may fitly serve to blame those popular courses which Mr Can. pleades for and to justify our practise in not performing this weighty businesse without the advise and approbation of neighbour Ministers assembled in the Classis Zuinglius in that treatise called Ecclesiastes having spoken of the Popish tyranny bereaving most Churches of the liberty of election he reprooves another extreme saving (f) Eccles Tom. 2. f. 54. If there were any Church unto which election was yet left free the common people rashly without all deliberation and without all counsell of learned prudent and faithfull men did choose those whom they did most favour not such as were indued with true vertues beseeming a Bishop Therefore there is nothing so agreeable unto the Divine ordinance and ancient institution as that the whole Congregation of a faithfull people together with some learned and godly Bishops or other faithfull and experienced men doe make choyse of a Pastour Thus he plainly disavowes the independency of Churches in such cases not allowing a Congregation to proceed unto the election of a Minister without the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches and to this effect he explaines himself further in the same place saying It is meet that the power of election should be in the Church being furnished with the counsels of faithfull and learned men For as that matter may not lye in the power of any one man so neither may the rude and unlearned multitude take upon them so great a weight of election c. And in the same leafe speaking of Anabaptists intruding themselves into the Churches of their owne accord he proves that they are no lawfull Ministers because they have not a due calling thus Bishops they are not for they are not chosen of any Church by lawfull and unanimous consent the authority of other Bishops excelling in faith and prudence also concurring Observe how that with the free consent of the people he joynes not onely the counsell or advise as he had called it before but the authority of the Officers of other Congregations Moreover that Zuinglius did not absolutely deny the authority of Synods though he speake much against Popish Synods may appeare if we consider the reasons which he useth against them viz. because they were not assembled in the holy Ghost because they did not judge of matters according to the Scriptures but according to the ordinances and customes of men c. Now this is not to dispute against the thing itself but against the abuse of it And therefore having spoken against such Councels of the Pope Cardinals and Bishops in such sort as Mr Canne had alledged him (g) Ch. pl. p. 75. before he addes withall (h) Art 8. expl I speake onely of these that are such my writings shall not hurt others who set themselves under the Scriptures not above the Scriptures And that these conditions for the want whereof he opposed those Popish Synods may yet be found in other Synods which have made decrees for the deciding of controversies raysed in the Church he acknowledgeth in these words (i) Paraenes ad coÌ„mun Helvet civ Tom. 1. f. 116. If the Councill of Gangra were assembled in the holy Ghost which no good man will deny while he sees that the decrees thereof doe agree with the lawes of the Gospell and with the doctrine of the Apostles it was unworthily done of those that came after that have disanulled the decrees thereof without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures Againe in another place speaking of the foure Generall Councels though he justly blame those that accounted them to be of equall authority with the foure Evangelists yet he saith (k) Archeteles T. 1. f. 137. Truely I would not have any thing to be detracted from them He was not therefore of Mr Cannes minde who will have all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be detracted or removed from Synods Besides Zuinglius doth not onely approve of these Synods held in former times but he also shewes himself ready to joyne in the like practise even in the exercise of the same Ecclesiasticall authority that was used in those Synods For when the Magistrates of Zurich had assembled together all the Ministers of the Churches both in their city and countrie and had procured the presence of divers others for the solemne vindicating of the doctrine taught in their Churches there Faber Vicar of the Bishop of Constance having spoken of a Generall Councell that it onely had authority to determine these things Zuinglius replyes (l) Act. Disp 1. Tom. 2. f. â—10 Whereas in this our assembly there be so many right faithfull men both of our owne countrey and strangers and furthermore seeing here be so many godly learned Bishops present who doubtles have a desire not onely to heare and understand but also to advance divine trueth verily I see nothing to hinder even in this place whereby it should not be lawfull for us according to the Vicars meaning to dispute of these things and to decree what trueth teacheth But other nations he sayth will never consent unto these our decrees c. By these and the like (m) Ibid. f. 621. c. passages it is evident that Zuinglius did allow the Ministers of severall Congregations assembled in a Synod not onely to consult and dispute but also to determine yea and to make decrees for the removing of controversies settling peace in the Church while they did it according to the Scriptures which is the same that we maintaine The words of Mr Luther whom he cites in the next place as they are to no purpose alledged against us seeing they touch not the question as I shewed before so being compared with other his writings they make it appeare that these two propositions may well stand together viz. that the Church hath power to judge to call to depose c. and yet that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation but that Synods Councells have authority to judge of Church affaires and to censure offendours forasmuch as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other In the yeare 1518 having understood that they proceeded against him in the Popes Court at Rome and that an unjust sentence was likely to
be pronounced by them (n) Sleid. Comment lib. 1. he appealed from the Pope to a Councell or Synod The compleat forme of his Appeale is recorded (o) Tom. 1. f. 231. edit 1545. among his workes wherein he doth plainly acknowledge the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods both by the whole drift and substance thereof and when he saith that a sacred Councell being lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost representing the holy Catholick Church is in causes concerning the faith above the Pope c. This his Appeale was repeated and further urged in the yeare 1520 when the Pope had condemned and excommunicated him Among other reasons which he useth to reenforce his Appeale he alledgeth this (p) Tom. 2. f. 52. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 2. that the Pope most wickedly preferred his owne tyranny above the power of the Councell c. and therefore he beseecheth the Emperour and other Magistrates that for the glory of God and for the maintaining of the liberty of a Councell they would admit of his Appeale and represse the others tyranny c. In the yeare 1539 he wrote a booke in the German tongue de Conciliis concerning Councels or Synods where though he inveigh severely and not without cause against the Pope for his frustrating the desires of those that sought a Generall Councell admitting of none but where he might sway all by his owne authority and command yet he doth fully approve of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had bene formerly exercised in Synods Councells lawfully assembled and rightly ordered A Councell saith (q) Oper. German Tom. 7. f. 260. edit 1562. he is nothing els but a Consistory a Court of justice an Imperiall Chamber or the like where the Iudge having heard the parties pronounceth sentence but with this condition that it be according to Law c. Thus a Councell condemnes an Heretick not according to their owne opinion but according to the Royall law that is according to the holy Scripture as they professe which is the Law of the holy Church Speaking of the right and power of Councells having shewed (r) Ibid. f. 257. c. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 12. that it is not lawfull for them to make new Articles of faith to command any new work to binde mens consciences to new ceremonies nor to intermeddle with Civill government he declareth withall that it is their duety to condemne new doctrines contrary to the Scriptures and to censure the persons to remove and condemne new ceremonies that are superstitious or unprofitable for the Church and to examine and judge of those things that are controverted as it is prescribed in the word of God Moreover demanding what the office or work of a Councell is he answeâ—s (Å¿) Ubi supra f. 260. Anathematisamus we pronounce Anathema so is their office called Anathematisat Ecclesia the holy Church condemnes or excommunicates So farre was Luther from denying the authority of Synods that he allowes them the power of pronouncing this heavie sentence of Anathema or Excommunication To proceed unto his other witnesses there is nothing in the words alledged out of Chemnitius and Polycarpus Lyserus who is the Authour of that part of the Harmony quoted under the name of Chemnitius that by any just consequence can be opposed unto our doctrine and practise touching election excommunication examination of sentences c. Onely observe how Mr Canne here abuseth his Authour and his Readers by his imperfect allegation setting downe this testimony of Chemnitius in such manner as if that which was sayd with an expresse condition had bene uttered simply and absolutely without any such restraint Chemnitius sayth indeed that election or calling doth belong unto the whole Church but how that Mr Canne leaves out as unfit for his purpose which his Authour addes immediately in the same period saying that it belongs unto the whole Church certo quodam modo in such wise that both the Presbytery and the people have each their owne share in the choyse or calling Chemnitius in that (t) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram Ord. Can. 7. learned discourse touching the calling of Ministers intends principally to prove against the Councell of Trent that the consent of the people and of the Christian Magistrate is requisite in elections but withall he gives as full and plaine testimony for the judgement examination and approbation of the Presbytery under which he comprehends the Ministers of other Congregations called Bishops and Clerkes in the places alledged by him And this kinde of election he shewes to be agreeable unto the practise of the Apostolick primitive ancient and their owne moderne Churches Besides Chemnitius doth sufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods which is our maine question in divers pregnant passages of that book which he wrote against the Councell of Trent He (v) Exam. Conc. Trid par 1. praef alledgeth commendeth the words of Augustine saying that most wholesome is the authority of Councels in the Church while they judge according to the rule and square of the holy Scripture c. He saith (x) Ibid. Exam. Decret 1. 2. that many have often wished and long waited for a true lawfull free and Christian Councell as the right medicine for the curing of those manifold errours and abuses that were crept into the Church He doth frequently alledge and approve the acts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in former Synods throughout that whole booke He saith indeed in one of the places cited by Mr Canne (y) Ibid. praef that the decrees of Councells are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture but this doth no more empaire that authority of Synods which we asscribe unto them then it doth the power of all Church-acts and sentences whatsoever concerning which Chemnitius (z) Exam. par 1. de bon op qu. 2. sayth the same thing and Mr Canne cannot deny but that they are to be examined and tryed by the word of God though they be made in such manner as he himself (a) Ch. pl. p. 95. requireth There is another allegation of Chemnitius touching the distinction betwixt power and the administration of it which Mr Canne hath taken at all adventures as it seemes from Mr Parker or rather from the Scribe or Printer that caused that quotation Exam. c. 6. to stand so defectively (b) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 26. in his booke and as he is thus briefe and obscure in the quotation so he is as sparing in the application of this testimony unto his purpose bidding us onely observe what is attributed to the Congregation what to the guides thereof to the first power to the latter the administration of it For the thing it self we grant that there is such a distinction alledged out of Luther and explained by Chemnitius teaching (c) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram in geÌ„ Can. 10. that Christ hath delivered and commended the Keyes that is the
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
f Amb. Offi. l. 1. c. 1 These with spirituall bridles order men c. I answer I. In the place alledged there is not a word to be found either touching a Senate of Elders or touching spirituall bridles or any thing to like purpose II. If a Senate of Elders be spirituall bridles then the Brownists with Mr C. that now want such a Senate are an unbridled company wanting order c. III. What though an assembly of Elders order men with spirituall bridles Is there therefore no other spirituall bridle in the authority of Synods What consequence is this IV. That Ambrose did allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods it appeares both by his practise he g Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 9. himself being present with Damasus Britto Valerian and other Bishops at the Synod holden at Rome for the censure of Apollinaris and Timotheus his disciple and by his h Amb. Tom. 3. epi. l. 10. ep 78. ad Theoph. exhortation given unto Theophilus and others to judge the cause of Euagrius and Flavianus being deputed thereunto by the Synod of Capua and againe by his i Ib. Epi. 79. ad Theoph Anys exhortation given unto Theophilus Anysius that they being chosen by the same Synod of Capua would give sentence touching Bonosus and his accusers forasmuch as the Synod had givē this authority unto them and they did now supply the place thereof With Ambrose he joynes k In orat fun de patr Nazianzen to testify also that a Senate or assembly of Elders doe with spirituall bridles order men But in the place alledged I finde no such testimony as is mentioned and therefore the three first answers made before unto the testimony from Ambrose may also serve for Nazianzen And further that Gregory Nazianzen did not limit all Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely it may appeare if we observe I. How l Soc. Hist Ecc. l. 4. c. 21. Sozom. Hist Ecc. l. 6. c. 17. he himself was made Bishop of Constantinople by the suffrages of many Bishops met together which is a further degree of Ecclesiasticall authority then that which is exercised in the Classes or Synods of these countries II. How he pleadeth (m) Nazian Epist 1. ad Clidon from a Synodall law touching the receyving of those that were fallen III. How he alloweth the order of convocating and assembling neighbour Bishops about the creating of a new Bishop affirming this to be (n) Epi. 30. ad Caesariē right and according to the Ecclesiasticall law IV. How he in his counsell and exhortation unto the Synod at Constantinope (o) Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 8. asscribes unto them authority and power for his owne dimission and translation for the setting of another unblameable Bishop in his place and thereby withall for the deposition and abdication of Maximus which was accordingly performed That which might with more colour be objected out of Nazianzen against the use of Synods and which is also alledged both by Mr Canne and by Mr Davenp though not directly against the authority of Synods is yet so brought in by the way as might cause a simple Reader to stumble thereat The words of Nazianzen as Mr Canne (p) Ch. pl. p. 93. alledgeth them are these (q) Ep. 42. ad Procop. I am minded saith he to shunne all assemblies of Bishops because I never saw any good event in any Councell that did not rather increase then diminish our evills Their contention and ambition passeth my speech ANSVV. I. Observe how Mr C. mistranslateth those words of Nazianzē 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he rendreth as signifying passeth my speech whereas they signify prevayled more then reason as (r) Apo. tep p. 225. Mr Dav. doth rightly translate them But it is no wonder that Mr Canne should mistake that which some more learned have done before Grosser faults are more common with him II. As for the testimony of Nazianzen the answer of D. Whitaker may give sufficient satisfaction who sayth (ſ) De Cōc qu. 1. c. 3. p. 13.14 15. It may seeme strange that Nazianzen denyes he had seene a good issue of any Synod For in those two Synods viz. of Nice and Constantinople which had beene mentioned before trueth got the victory and heresy was put downe And though it be certaine that Arianisme was encreased and grew strong and troubled the Church after the Synod of Nice more then before yet that is not to be imputed to the Synod but to the contention and ambition of men For as our corrupt nature doth more vehemently resist the knowne law of God and rusheth headlong unto sinne so falshood opposed itself more boldly unto the trueth then explained and openly defended whereupon after that Synod which none excelled greater incōmodities did arise from the wickedness of men c. When Nazianz. saw so wicked dispositions of men he was wholly turned from Councels Although without doubt he disallowed not the thing itself but the wicked indeavours of men Now if any will reason after this manner The issue of Synods is not good or more evils follow thence therefore Synods are to be avoyded that man shall dispute deceitfully from a wrong cause from accident and from the fallacy of consequent But Nazianzen was to be pardoned because he lived in the worst and most turbulent times of the Church when by meanes of Valens the Emperour that degenerated from the Catholick faith Hereticks did more prevayle c. Againe he opposeth Augustine unto Nazianzene and sayth It is most true which Augustine sayth Epist 118. that the authority of Synods in the Church of God is most wholesome which certainly he would not have sayd if he had bene of the same minde with Nazianzen And further he opposeth unto the speech of Nazianz. the testimony of Christ saying Christ himself pronounceth and promiseth Matt. 18.20 Where two or three are assembled together in his name there he will be in the midst of them In which words he signifyeth that the assemblies and Synods of godly and religious men undertaken and appoynted for godly causes are not displeasing unto him III. The testimony of Nazianzen is as much against the opinion of Mr Can and Mr Dav. as against that which we hold touching Classes and Synods For seeing they allow such meetings for counsell and admonition though not for exercise of any jurisdiction and seeing the testimony of Naziā doth extend itself to all kinde of assemblies of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether for counsell or censure without exception of one sort more then another therefore he no more condemneth our Synods then those which my opposites allow Augustine his next witnesse is in like manner perverted as the former Though he in the place (t) DeDoct Chr. l. 1. c. 17. objected doe write that the keyes were given to the Church yet doth he not thereby exclude Synods gathered together in the name of
man of sinne With these testimonies of ancient Fathers Mr Canne alledgeth for his opinion that some Councels have granted so much and Christian Emperours by their Lawes confirmed it Two of these viz. the Councell of Nice Constantinople he alledgeth at large and specifyes no Canon which he intendeth for this purpose And as for the 3d Councell of Carthage whereat Augustine was present I have shewed * Pa. 223. before that it makes directly for us That 22th Canon which he alledgeth viz. (a) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. col 868. that no Clerk be or dained without examination by Bishops and testimony of the people empeacheth not the authority of Classes and Synods but confirmeth the order established by them And that Christian Emperours have by their lawes confirmed the authority of Synods it is plaine and undenyable The (b) Sulp. Se. v S. Hist l. 2 Councell of Nice that condemned Arius was authorised by Constantine the Great The (c) Sulp. S. Hist conâ—in ex Sleyd p. 162. Councell of Constantinople that condemned Macedonius was authorised by the Emperour Theodosius the Elder The (d) P. 164. Councell of Ephesus that condemned Nestorius was authorised by Theodosius the younger The (e) P. 170. Councell of Chalcedon that condemned Eutyches was authorised by the Emperour Martianus And as it was in these first Generall Councels so may it be observed in many other Instead of the rest let the (f) Codex Canon Ecc. Univ. edit Christ Just book of Canons suffice confirmed by Iustinian the Emperour there being contained in that book many Canons which ordaine that the causes of particular Churches should be (g) Can. 5 80 83 85. judged by Synods and so decided by another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves At the end of these Canons there is added the sanction or decree of Iustinian (h) Novella consti Just Imper. 131. by which he doth not onely allow them and give force of lawes unto them but with an excessive farre greater honour then is due unto them would have the foure Oecumenicall Councels to be receaved even as the holy Scriptures Now though he offended greatly in this his esteeme of them yet this may serve to shew what little reason Mr Canne had to alledge the decrees of Councels for his opinion SECT VII Touching the Testimonies of Reformed Churches FRom ancient times they come back to the later times of Reformation and say (a) Ch. pl. p. 91. Touching Reformed Churches if we may take the Confession of their faith for testimony then surely we have their consent also with us The Churches consenting with them as they vainely imagine are these according to their order in alledging of them The Bohemian Churches Churches under the Palsgrave the Helvetian Churches the French Churches Churches of the Auspurge Confession of the Low-countries of Nasovia But the trueth is both these and other Reformed Churches doe condemne my oppisites in allowing of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations The Confession of the Bohemian Churches say they hath these words (b) Harm Conf. c. 14. The keyes that is Ecclesiasticall Government are given in trust and granted to the Pastours and to each severall Ecclesiasticall society that is ordinary Congregation whether they be small or great I answer I. This testimony is clipped by Mr Canne who leaves out the words of order which shew their opinion touching the originall and derivation of this power The words of this Bohemian Confession are that the keyes of the Lord or this administration and power of the keyes is granted and delivered first unto the Governours and Ministers of the Church and then unto every Christian Congregation c. Therein they doe not consent with Mr Canne but with the opinion of Mr Baines noted (c) P. 114 115. before And they doe there also apply these words unto absolution given by the Priest of the Church as they call him To this end they alledge those places Ioh. 20.23 Luk. 10.16 Their meaning is declared more fully before where they (d) Harmo Confes Art 5. de Poenit. p. 241. edit 1612. teach that the poenitent are to come unto the Priest and to confesse their sinnes unto God before him c. and to desire absolution of him by the keyes of the Church that they may obtaine remission of sinnes by such a ministery so instituted of Christ. This order seemes to agree with that forme of absolution described and appointed in the English booke of Common prayer at the visitation of the sick 11. It is acknowledged by the Ministers of the Church of the Picards so called in Bohemia and Moravia in the (e) P. 219. preface to the forementioned Confession of their fayth that their fathers had appealed unto a Synod c. where if any thing should be found dissonant from the Scriptures they were willing from the heart and lovingly to be subject and obedient to the censure and appointment of the Synod in all things This shewes their dissent from Mr Canne and his people III. The Combination of the Christian and Orthodox Churches in Bohemia and Moravia called by themselves The Vnitie of the brethren in Bohemie doth give a cleare testimony unto the trueth touching the authority of Synods for the government of particular Churches and judgement of their causes by a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves as appeareth in the booke of their Discipline where they (f) Ratio Discip ordinisq Ecc. in Unitate frat Bohem. c. 2. p. 33.34 38. professe that for weighty causes in providing for the necessities of the whole Vnitie or some Diocesse therein they use to hold Synods either Generall or Particular c. They alledge these 5 ends To confirme brotherly love and concord To strengthen them in the work of the Lord To preserve the vigour of Discipline To exclude scandalous persons out of the number of their Ministers c. To ordaine Ministers c. and for the (g) Ib. p. 41. examination of Ministers before they be confirmed The exercise of this authority is also declared in their (h) Ib. cap. 6. p. 87 88. c. Visitations of the Churches which are in their Vnitie or consociation This example of these brethren of the Vnitie is so much the more to be regarded of us in respect of the singular providence blessing of God in preserving them to this day in the midst of so many persecutions as they have endured being more ancient then other Reformed Churches having continued from the dayes of Iohn Husse and being holpen by the Waldenses that were scattered into those parts so that they (i) Ib. pref p. 2 3. were increased to almost 200 little Congregations in Bohemia Moravia about the yeare 1500 before the time of Luther Their piety love concord and zeale of religion notwithstanding some imperfections appeares by their orders to be very great in speciall their care of sanctifying the
31. Article of the Belgick Confession which is poynted at hath nothing that serves their turne against me neither doe they shew what clause therein they intend for their purpose And what seemes most to accord with their former allegations I haue answered before But for the Synods of these Countries whereas Mr C. saith (i) Ch. pl. p. 91.92 What those Synods were of whom Mr Paget speaketh in pag. 66. who decreed that particular Congregations should not practise among themselves all Gods ordinances I doe not yet know but this I know that no Reformed Church hath made this an Article of their faith And therefore it is certaine if such a thing be it was onely the invention of some particular men It is here to be observed 1. That Mr Canne falsifyeth my words that which I sayd was this (k) Answ to W.B. p. 66. When the busines is so weighty that by former generall consent of Churches testifyed by their Deputies meeting together in their Synods it hath bene agreed that the same shall not be proceeded in without advise of the Classis such as is the election of Ministers the excommunication of offenders and the like that in such cases ordinarily matters are brought unto the Classis c. Now this voluntary agreement not to proceed without advise of the Classis before matters of so great weight were determined was not to hinder particular Congregations from the practise of all Gods ordinances among them but onely to prevent and restraine abuses in the manner of doing and to direct them for the better performance thereof among themselves 11. What those Synods were wherein such agreements were made it had bene easy for Mr C. to have knowne if he had used diligence in enquiry and search for them To help him herein let him consider these (l) Kerckē-Ordeningē der Gerefo Nederlātsc Kerckē Nation Syno tot Embdē An. 1571. Art 13 14. 33 34. Nat. Syn. tot Dordr An. 1578. Art 4.8 99.100 Nat. Syn. tot Middelb An. 1581. Art 3.4 62.63 Nat. Syn. in 's Graven-Hag An. 1586. Art 3.4.5.36 47.69.70.72 Nat. Syn. tot Dordr An. 1618 1619. Art 3 4 11 12 76 77 79. plaine evidences recorded in divers Synods viz. that men shall not proceed to election or deposition of Ministers or excommunication of offenders without the advise and judgement of a Classicall assembly And besides the decrees of these Nationall Synods the like agreements and resolutions have bene made in sundry (m) Provinc Syn. tot Dordr An. 1574. Art 12. Prov. Syn. tot Middelb An. 1591. Art 3 4 9 58 68 69. Provinciall Synods so that from time to time after ripe deliberation long experience these Acts of their Synods have still bene renewed and confirmed from the beginning of their Reformation even unto this day III. Besides these generall acts and agreements of severall Synods we have their practise also for confirmation hereof to declare that the causes of particular Churches were judged by another Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves Thus it is witnessed (n) Triglād van de Moder p. 56.57 that Caspar Coolhaes was excommunicated by the Provinciall Synod of Holland holden at Haerlem Anno 1582. that the cause of Hermannus Herberts was judged and he suspended from his Ministery by a particular Synod of South-Holland holden in the Haghe Anno 1591. Novemb. 6. that Cornelius Wiggertsz was also judged and excommunicated by a particular Synod of North-Holland by reason of the errours holden by him that (o) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr An. 1618. Ses 22. Nicolaus Grevinchovius Minister at Rotterdam was removed from his ministery by the sentence of the South-Holland Synod holden at Delph that (p) Ib. pref Adolphus Venator Minister at Alcmaer that Ioannes Valesius Ioannes Rodingenus and Isaacus Welsingius Pastours of the Church at Horne were suspended from their ministery by the North-Holland Synod and that divers others in Gelderland were in like manner censured by the Synods holden in that Province at Arnhem is also recorded in that historicall preface prefixed before the Acts of the last Nationall Synod at Dort And in the (q) Ses 22 23. booke itself it is likewise testifyed that Simon Goulartius Minister of the Gallo-Belgick or Walloens Church at Amsterdam was removed from his place by the Gallo-Belgick Synod By these and sundry other like acts and sentences that might be noted it is evident that the Synods held in these Reformed Churches are not onely for counsell and admonition but for the exercise of jurisdiction in censuring offenders judging of controversies that their meaning is perverted when their Confession of faith is objected against me That which Mr Canne (r) Ch. pl. p. 91. alledgeth from the Synod of Middelburgh An. 1581. is also mistaken by him there being no such thing found in that Synod as he mentioneth touching election done by voyces publickly in the Temple And if it had bene there yet should not that prejudice the authority of Synods or Classes in allowing or censuring such elections either before or after they were made Againe it is objected The Synod of Tilleburgh in Nasovia determined the like as Zepperus (ſ) Pol. Ecc. p. 831. writeth ANSVV. The determinations of this Synod being like unto those before mentioned are therefore directly against my opposites as the former were Zepperus in his preface to the Articles agreed upon in this Synod telles us how the Earle of Nassau having seene the Articles of the Synod held in Middelburgh Anno 1581. he took such liking thereof that in the yeare following he called the speciall Ministers of his country together unto a Synod in Tilleburgh requiring that the agreements of the aforesayd Synod might be applyed unto the use of the Churches under his dominion so farre as they well could Hereupon the principall conclusions thereof were receaved and confirmed among them and so farre as doth shew their full consent in the poynt of our controversy viz. that particular Congregations are to be subject unto an Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods and Classes Therefore it was agreed (t) Ib. p. 833 Art 4. that the calling of Ministers should be made by the judgement of the Classis c. That (v) P. 834. where divers examined of the Church or of it the Classicall assembly together were judged to be fit then the election was to be in the power of the Church and to be done by suffrages publickly in the temple and if they were equall then to use lots c. This seemeth to be the Article which Mr C. stumbled at before as if it had bene so written in the Synod of Middelb 1581. which yet doth not exclude the precedent allowance of the Classis in such elections Moreover it was there agreed (x) P. 837. Art 23. that if any complaine of wrong done in a lesser assembly or Synod he may referre the matter by appeale unto a superiour Synod (y) P. 843. Art 61.
from their Ministers but concerning particular Congregations and their subjection to Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Though Mr C. and some others that now strive for the Independencie Churches doe also affect a popular way of government in the Church opposing not onely the power of Classicall Presbyteries but also of particular Elderships yet Popularity doth not necessarily follow upon Independency neither have they alwayes both the same Patrons Mr Iacob though he pleaded for a single uncompounded policie in opposition to Synodall authority yet he utterly disliked those popular circumstances held by the Separation as hath been noted (y) Pag. 176. before Againe the Anabaptists though they maintaine and practise those popular wayes of judging causes among them and (z) Protoc Embd. Act. 101. n. 1. q. 7. Cl. Cl. Bekent p. 218. Cloppenb Cancker der Weder-doop p. 535. oppose the Elderships of the Reformed Churches as exercising an undue power in deciding matters apart from the Congregation yet they allow and practise divers things contrary to the nature of Independencie so as Mr C. pleades for it seeing 1. They have (a) Faukel Babel der Weder-doop pag. 166 167 190. their Bishops as they call them distinct from their other Preachers by them termed Vermaenders that is Admonishers and by some of them (b) Protoc Embd. Act. 78. n. 4. Act. 80. n. 2. held to be Deacons these acknowledge themselves (c) Gesprec toâ— Zierickz p. 21. to be inferiour to their Bishops in the ministery The Bishops belong to some more eminent Congregations of that Sect doe at certaine times visit the other lesser Congregations and administer the Sacraments among them 2. The Anabaptists (d) Protoc Embd. Act. 99. n. 1. Fauk Babel der Wederd D a. p. 215. use to excommunicate whole Congregations at once when having been of the same profession with them they witnesse their dissent from them in such matters as for which particular persons are excommunicated by them 3. The causes that cannot be determined in their particular Congregations are by them sometimes (e) Babel der Wederd C4 a. C6 b. referred to the judgement of Arbiters men of severall Congregations chosen by both parties with promise to stand to their sentence sometimes also to the meetings of the Officers of sundry Churches This shewes that though they plead for Popularitie yet they doe not simply allow of Independencie 11. Suppose that consideration had been alledged by the Authour against Popular government also as justly it might in regard of the manifold disorders confusion and dissipation of Churches which it is knowne to bring with it yet this answer cannot proove it to be insufficient because it runnes upon a twofold false supposition 1. That this appertaines to the due liberty of the people to have their judgement sought unto for the determining of all controversies that arise in the Church 2. That this liberty is acknowledged to have been taken from them as if they had been once in full possession of it or that this is the maine reason for denying that pretended liberty to the people because of their infirmities or miscarriages in the use of it These things as they are untrue in themselves so they are unjustly obtruded upon the Defendant who had given no occasion to such pretences We maintaine on the other side that this is no part of the peoples priviledge because it is not due unto them by any divine warrant and herein we are further confirmed seeing such an order is in outward appearance and according to undenyable experience in the Anabaptists Brownists others attended with manifold disorders confusion dissipation of Churches 111. Though it were granted that the people have beene oftentimes wiser in their choyce sounder in the faith then their Ministers which yet three of those places (f) Act. 3.26 Zozo l. 7. c. 7. Theod. l. 2. c. 7. here alledged doe not proove there being nothing in them to that purpose for which they are cited yet that is not enough to disprove the foresaid assertion unlesse he could shew that ordinarily they are so qualifyed indued with such abilities as are requisite for the orderly exercise of judiciary power in the Congregation This is not onely contrary to experience but also to the revealed will wisedome of God in dispensing his gifts severally unto the members of the mysticall body of his Church appovnting some to be of meaner use and in subjection to others 1. Cor. 12 14-31 Heb. 13.17 We must either straiten the limits of the Church further then Christ himself hath allowed us by shutting the weak feeble out of his fold or else acknowledge that all the members are not fit to be used in the judiciall trying determining of causes THe next thing that Mr C. (g) Chur. pl. p. 94. pretends to answer is touching the Antiquity of Classicall and Synodall government from those words of the Authour that the power which the Classis exerciseth is ancient c. that he names it the old beaten path c. The Authour indeed had used these words upon just occasion not as any reason or argument to justify the lawfulnes of this power as Mr C. seemes to insinuate but to declare the trueth in the matter of fact rather then in the controversie of right and this may easily appeare to those that looke upon the places (h) Pag. 72. 105. alledged out of the Authours book When an unjust complaint was made that he had subjected the Church under an undue power of the Classis that he brought it under c. he answereth That power which the Classis exerciseth is ancient the same power which they had long before I either knew them or they me c. Againe when there was mention made of those of his side he answered For my part I abhorre this siding I desire to walk in the old beaten path of that discipline and government practised by these Reformed Churches and established in their Classes and Synods c. Was not here just cause to use these words to this purpose for which they are applyed He speakes chiefly of the antiquity of this government in regard of the state of that particular Church of those with which it is combined concerning which Mr C. himself cannot deny but that he hath spoken the trueth But suppose it were uttered in generall with reference unto the joynt consent of the Churches in all ages giving testimony unto the exercise of this power might not this be a weighty profitable consideration to be commended unto the serious thoughts of those that offer to oppose it Let us heare what Mr C. saith to this I. C. ANSVV. I. Sundry errours are as ancient as the Apostles time c. REPL. 1. This doth not prejudice the constant practise of this or any other trueth nor the regard that is to be given unto the custome of the Churches of God according to the direction