It is a most false consequence to inferre that because all Bishops are equall in power therefore Synods have no power to judge and as false it is to inferre that because the Keyes were given to all the Apostles therefore there is no Ecclesiasticall power to judge the actions of a particular Congregation In summe Mr Canne doth most ignorantly and grosly abuse all these Papists against their words their writings and their continuall profession and practise For though there be this maine difference betwixt the Papists that some of them doe asscribe the greatest authority unto the Church that is unto a Generall Synod or Councell maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope power to depose the Pope others of thē asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope rather then unto the Church or a Generall Councell representing the same yet doe they all agree in this that there is a superiour power above particular Congregations to judge the same The University of Paris and the Doctours of Sorbon have in speciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the Pope they (p) De Eccl. Polit. Pot. pag. 1. c. edit 1612. Paris bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same They alledge the sentence of Pope (q) Ibid. p. 16. Zozimus confessing himself to be inferiour unto the Councell They avouch that (r) Ibid. p. 19. the frequent edebrating of Synods is simply and absolutely necessary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church Whereas a certaine Frier Ioannes Sarrazin had by word and writing under his hand preferred the authority of the Pope above the Synods they (ſ) Ibid. p. 46-56 record at large and publish in print a most solemne decree made by the Theologicall faculty of that University whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion and a forme of recantation was prescribed according to which he confessed his fault acknowledged the power of Synods above the Pope The (t) Acts Monum p. 546 547. An. D. 1414. c. Councell of Constance did not onely exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in condemning of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage but also decreeing the authority of Synods and Councells to be above the Pope did actually depose divers Popes as Iohn the 23th and Benedict who was likewise excommunicate by them even as the Councell held at (v) An. D. 1083. Act. Mon. p. 164. Brixia had in former time by their sentence condemned Pope Hildebrand and judged him to be deposed So in like manner did the Clouncell held at (x) Ibid. p. 632.634 Bafile depose Pope Eugenius put another in his place By all which it is evident what the Papists then judged of the authority and power of Synods As all these so the other faction of Papists and the Iesuites in speciall that maintaine the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods Councells whatsoever that their decrees are not of force unlesse they be approved by the Pope these doe evidently teach that the affaires and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superiour judicatories out of themselves This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings where he shewes (y) Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 9 10 11. l. 2. c. 2. c. the causes the necessity and the authority of Generall and Provinciall Synods the (z) Tom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7 8 9 10. 14. c. power of elections and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter The same is maintayned by him in his (a) Tom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14 l. 2. c. 1 c. treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies plenary or for a certaine number of dayes for the living or for the dead And the like is to be found in (b) Tom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 c. Tom 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1 2 3 c. sundry other of his writings And to these might be added more then an hundred of other witnesses of the Romish Church acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes controversies of particular Churches Instead of many other the Councell of Trent called by (c) Concil Trid. Bul. Indict p. 8. Pope Paulus the third continued by (d) Bul. Resumpr p. 66.67 Pope Iulius the third and confirmed by (e) Bul. Confirm p. 243 c. Pope Pius the fourth together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in severall Sessions of that Councell doe give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts. Onely to conclude this Section let it be remembred how of old in our owne countrie the like testimony hath bene given to shew the authority of Synods We read (f) Act. Mon. p. 112. col 2. art 7. of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provinciall Synods should be kept within the Realme at least once a yeare Another Synod (g) Ibid. p. 155. was held at Winchester Anno D. 1070. where Stigandus Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed for receyving his pall from Benedict the fift And another (h) P. 157. was after held at London where many decrees were made in the time of Lanfranck the Archbishop c. This being the continuall and universall practise of the Papists what sense was there in Mr Canne to alledge their testimonies in such a poynt wherein they are so full and pregnant against him It is the fault of Papists that they give too much authority unto Synods and it is as grosse a fault of these my opposites to pervert their testimonies contrary to their meaning practise further then their words will beare SECT II. Touching the Testimonies of Lutheranes IN their first allegation taken from Lutheranes they say It is affirmed by the Centuries of Meydenburg that from Christs ascension unto Trajans time which is about a 100 yeares every particular Church was governed by the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the same Cent. 1. c. 4. To this I answer This allegation comes short of the question in hand and is therefore insufficient and perverted to prove that the Churches then did not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority for it is not affirmed by them of Meydenburgh in their Centuries that the Churches were governed by them alone or that there were no Synods in those times to judge of the actions of Bishops Elders and Deacons in cases of controversy which could not be well ended in particular Churches but the contrary is expressely taught by the same (i) Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. de
doeth not follow from a particular that because the decrees of an Apostolicall Councill are to be observed therefore the decrees of all Councills must be so kept Contr. 3. li. 4. cap. 16. And whereas Bellarmine affirmeth that the question there was not defined by Scripture but by the voyces of the Apostles Iunius denyeth that any thing was ordained in that Councill but from the Scriptures as he had before demonstrated and thereunto referreth the Reader ANSVV. I. It may be observed here how untrue it is which Mr Dav. pretends in excuse of his large writing saying (v) Pref. to the Reader For the help of the Reader in comparing the Reply with the Answer I have inserted his owne words every where This hath he not done here nor in many other places I shewed (x) Answ to unj cōpl p. 88. how this place Act. 15. had bene alledged by another against the Brownists and that this his allegation served to condemne both himself and his fellowes Mr D. hath neither inserted mine owne words nor yet the words of him that had alledged this place II. In alledging the two answers of Iunius unto Bellarmine he wanders wide from the question in hand I am of the same minde with Iunius in both those answers Though the decrees of that Apostolicall Synod were infallibly true and just yet is it not so with other Synods many whereof are to be rejected for their erroneous and unjust decrees All the decrees in that Synod Act. 15. were grounded upon the Scriptures and rested not merely upon the suffrages of men Iunius had just cause so to answer Bellarmine that maintained an unlawfull and absolute authority of Synods and exacted obedience of necessity to all their decrees Is not this to abuse both me and his Readers and to bleare their eyes that they should not rightly discerne the state of the question III. That the Reader may better conceive in what manner an authority and power is asscribed to Classes and Synods let the authority of particular Churches be considered as an example and modell of that authority which is in Synods My opposites themselves confesse that there is in particular Congregations an authority and power to judge and censure offendours and yet they will not deny but that they may erre in their judgements that they want such infallible direction as the Apostles had and that their decrees and Ecclesiasticall censures are to be regarded no further then they are grounded upon the Scriptures So is it with the authority of Classes Synods I. DAV (y) Apol. reply p. 255. And whereas Bellarmine sayth that the decree of the Apostles was not left to the examination of the Disciples but that they were simply commanded to obey Iunius chargeth him with falsely supposing two things 1. That the Apostles alone made this order For the Elders concurred with the Apostles in this sentence and the whole Church all of them being taught by the spirit of trueth to think the same thing And this he saith is the manner of proceeding in those Councills where Christ is praesident 2. That the same respect is to be had to the determination of others as of the Apostles Which is an errour he sayth For it was the singular priviledge of the Apostles that they had immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and infallibility in their Apostolicall determinations so that what they delivered was to be received without examination whereas the dictates and sentences of all other are to be examined by their writings whereby it appeareth that the Scripture acknowledgeth no such power of making lawes to be due to the Classes unlesse they can produce some other texts which when they shall be alledged shall be further examined if God permit ANSVV. I. All that Mr Davenp hath here set downe is wholy impertinent and all being granted our assertion touching the lawfull authority of Synods Classes remaineth firme We grant with Iunius (z) Animadv in Bellarm Contro 4. l. 1. c. 18. § 11. that the Apostles alone did not judge but the Elder and others also concurred with them not onely in counsell but in giving judiciall sentence with them We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of others as of the Apostles we grant that no such power of making lawes is due to Classes that is no such power of infallible determinations c. and yet we hold they have a lawfull authority of judging and deciding controversies c. The like we hold concerning particular Churches with their Elderships we grant they have no such power of infallible determinations and yet a lawfull power to determine and judge of causes We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of particular Churches as of the Apostles and yet a due respect not onely for admonition and counsell but also for power to censure and to give sentence We grant that the censures sentences and judgements as well of Elderships and Churches as of Synods and Classes are in like manner to be tryed and examined by the Scriptures and yet this grant impeacheth not the lawfull authority of either of them in exercising a power of judgement II. For the better direction how to discerne judge of the actions of the Apostles and how farre their example is a rule of practise and imitation to the Church of God it shall not be amisse to set downe a profitable and usefull distinction observed by Iunius (a) Ibid. lib. 2. c. 16. n. 6. which is that the Apostles had a twofold manner of Power Common and Proper The Common is that ordinary power which they had together with the Elders as they were Bishops The Proper or peculiar is that extraordinary povver which was for a while given unto the Evangelicall Church at the springing up thereof in respect of which the Apostles were above the whole Church According to that common power Peter was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fellow Elder 1. Pet. 5.1 according to this peculiar power he destroyed Ananias and Sapphira Act. 5. By that common power Paul sayth 1. Cor. 5.4 You and my spirit being gathered together in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ but by that peculiar power he sayth what will you shall I come unto you with a rod c. 1. Cor. 4.20 This he sets downe elswhere more fully and applyes it to the power exercised Act. 15. saying (b) Ibid. l. 1 c. 16. n. 1. Here the Aposles are sayd to have used communication therefore this power was common to the Church and not a peculiar action of the Apostles in this Synod at Ierusalem We doe therefore thus determine distinctly concerning this thing All that were furnished with gifts and calling judged in this Synod first the Apostles and Apostolick men then the Elders that laboured in the ministery of the Word as well they of the place in Ierusalem as those of Antioch if any moreover
prevaile to take away the offence either immediately or mediately for a meanes is so farre good as it makes to the obtaining of his end As though God did not blesse his owne ordinance above our hope and reason above all that we can thinke or as though we were not to use his meanes and leave the successe unto him He that begins a good work and proceeds so farre till he be stopped by others is accepted of God as if he had finished it SECT V. His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined IO. DAV (r) Apol. reply p. 242. Dioc. tryal p. 13. â—â— To him I may adde Mr Paul Baynes a man of singular noate for learning and piety in Cambridge where he succeeded Mr Perkins who freely expresseth his judgment for the right of particular Churches and their independence in this sense in his Diocesans tryall ANSVV. As Mr Baynes was a man of singular note for learning and piety so is his testimony of singular note to shew the right use power of Synods not onely for counsell but for authority to censure and judge Ecclesiasticall causes so that particular Churches may not doe within themselves what they would without their consent 1. After he had set downe 4 conclusions wherein we agree with the opposites he comes to speak of the poynt of difference and sayth (f) Dioces tryall p. 13. That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish-Churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues that Nationall Church of the Iewes and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches This doe I willingly assent unto And this is no other thing then that which is practised in these Reformed Churches with whom we are united Here is no one head-Church that hath more authority then another all Congregations are equall independent each of other here is no subjection to any one Diocesan all are equally and mutually subject to the Synod consisting of many their dependency is not upon one more then another but it is onely in regard of many combined notwithstanding which combination they have their government within themselves being subject to the Synod onely in some more weighty and difficult cases II. As for that other place when some had pleaded from the example of the Reformed Churches as if they had not bene distinct Churches c. Mr Bayes so explaineth their estate and practise as Mr Parker (t) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 348 349. c. more largely had done before that therein he doth not at all prejudice their subjection to Synods for speaking of the 24 Churches at Geneva and of their combination and subjection unto one Presbytery he sayth (v) Dioc. tryal p. 21. They have power of governing themselves but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbyterie Secondly it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein they shall have no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherein themselves are members and judges with others After that againe he addeth Geneva made this consociation not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect and to make one Church by this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion Thus he notes not onely the counsell but the consent of others required And as at Geneva a particular Church proceeded not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in a common Presbytery so in these Low-countries in weightier affaires they proceed not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring in their Classis III. Mr Baynes having shewed how every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body and having Governours every way equall there is yet no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracie especially when God ordaines it is a forme of government sufficient to preserve order hereupon he propounds this objection (x) Dioc. tr p. 68. But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it self And hereunto he answers thus Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled and to the Civill Magistrate who in case of delinquencie hath directive and corrective power over it And thus we have his expresse testimony and confession that Synods have authority not onely to counsell and advise but to censure that particular Churches are subject to the censure of other Churches that consequently there is a double Ecclesiasticall Aristocracie one in particular Churches severally another in many Churches Synodically assembled that if a particular Church erre in matters of faith and religion that it is subject not to the power of the Magistrate alone but both to him and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall jusridiction arising from the combination of many Churches contrary to that assertion in the English Puritanisme chap. 2. IV. Speaking of Presbyters that is of Ministers and Elders and of their government he saith (y) Ibid. p. 67. There is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo but the Scripture doth asscribe it to them power of suffrage in Councell Act. 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to have bene in the Church of Corinth c. While he alledgeth Act. 15. for an evidence of the Presbyters power in Synods or Councels he doth hereby acknowledge that in Synods there is a lawfull exercise of jurisdiction and of the power of the keyes and that therefore they are not onely for counsell and advise To like purpose he saith afterwards againe (z) P. 82. The Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbyterie with them Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had receyved power of the keyes doing it ex officio and others from discretion and duety of confessing the trueth And a little after he there addeth It is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters had right of suffrage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therefore in Oecumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instruction of Bishops receyved from their Churches V. Whereas one errour useth to accompany another and commonly those that deny the authority of Synods doe also in
for counsell both because he allowes a distinction of them in the Synod which had the authority of a determining voyce from them that did onely dispute or consult and because he intimates a judiciall proceeding in the Synods by mentioning parties accused their citing or calling of them the condemning of them which imports a further matter then onely of admonition or counsell Whereas Bellarmine accuseth us that we allow any learned men though Laicks to have a determining voyce let their office be what it will Junius answereth (m) N. 4. These things have none of us sayd or thought as they are here layd downe This is that which we say such are to be taken into the Synod which are furnished with gifts and calling which for gifts are godly honest learned for their calling which are either ordinarily appointed to teach or extraordinarily sent for and brought by just authority Now this necessity of a calling which he so (n) See c. 16. n. 10. 18. 20. c. 17. n. 1. often urgeth and requireth to be in the members of a Synod doth argue a speciall power and authority belonging unto them by vertue whereof they may give sentence in the judgement of causes whereas to admonish or counsell requires no more power then that which every Christian hath in another for his good as Mr D. himself confesseth To the same purpose Junius shewes against Bellarmine that the meaning of Theodosius and Valentinian was not to admit Bishops onely but that (o) Ibid. c 15. n. 13. those onely might heare examine and give sentence in a Synod which being sent from the Churches unto the Synod were reckoned up of the Bishops according to their letters of publick authority which they were wont to exhibit Againe he sayth (p) N. 15. They which are present without the authority of the Church of them some may onely heare as the laicks or common people some may be used in consultations as the learned men especially Ecclesiasticall persons but they may not give definitive sentence And thus still by distinguishing those that gave counsell from those that gave sentence in the Synod it appeares he acknowledged a power of jurisdiction in Synods and that they were not onely for counsell So when Bellarmine sayth it was a fault in the Councell of Basill that Presbyters or other learned men besides Bishops were allowed to have not onely a consulting voyce but a deciding suffrage affirmeth that this was against the custome of all antiquity c. Junius answereth (q) N. 19. This we denye for it was the first institution Act. 15. and not onely the manner and custome Seeing therefore there was such an institution of the Apostles in their assembly what need was there to alledge custome c. When Bellarmine chargeth the Protestants as holding that a Synod is nothing but an inquisition and that Christ alone and his written word hath a determining voyce Junius sayth (r) Ibid. in c. 18. n. ◠It is false for Synods have both an inquisition of that which is true just holy by religious communication and also a ministeriall giving of sentence Though he shew there and in many annotations following that it is not lawfull for Christians to obey them further then they agree with the Scriptures that their sentence of it self is but a persuasion and not a constraint a ministeriall judgement not of absolute authority of itself c. yet he (ſ) N. 3. grants the Lord hath commanded that we should obey the sentence of a lawfull Synod assembled together in his name c. He sayth (t) N. 14. Synods have true judgements so farre as they are of God according to the tables of his trueth and commandement of themselves they are not judgements but declarations publications and ministeriall pronouncings of the trueth and judgements of God And more then this cannot be yeelded to any Ecclesiasticall judicatory whatsoever Herein he fully grants as much jurisdiction to Synods as belongs to any particular Congregation or Eldership either apart or joyntly together When Bellarmine blames the Protestants for their exception against the Councell of Trent Junius answereth (v) Ibid. in c. 21. n. 1. It is the ordinary way of right in every appeale that the judgement of Synods and the exequution of their sentence be suspended and stayed so long untill the matter be againe examined in another more free or greater Assembly c. This answer had bene needles and impertinent unlesse Synods had more power then of counsell and admonition onely He sayth (x) N. 7. Certainly in every just Synod Hereticks being cited heard present or willfully hiding themselves have bene condemned c. When Bellarm. objects that Protestants will have nothing to be determined in Synods and so strifes to be never ended Junius answers (y) N. 23. that he perverts their meaning and referres us to his preface nota 40. where the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods is plainely avouched IUnius proceeding to the examination of his second book touching Synods where Bellarmine repeats that Synods of Bishops may judge all controversies both of faith and manners Junius answereth (z) Animadv in Bell. l. 2. deCōcl c. 1. n. 1. We have granted it of those that are lawfull Synods When Bellarmine had sayd that nothing is greater then a lawfull and approved Generall Councell Junius answereth (a) Ibid. c. 4. n. 2. It is false for Christ is greater and the Scripture is greater seeing Christ and the Scripture are great of themselves the Church is great by them c. But this answer had bene insufficient not direct enough if my opposites opinion were true For then according to their opinion he might more fitly have answered that the authority of a particular Congregation is greater then the authority of a Generall Synod because though the counsell and advise of the Synod was more to be reverenced in respect of many excellently learned and godly men from many Churches that were in it yet seeing Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation therefore the same is greater in the power of censuring and in the use of the keyes for binding and loosing of impenitent sinners seeing Synods have no jurisdiction at all over any other Churches Againe when Bellarmine sets downe this insolent proposition that the Pope cannot commit neither unto a Synod nor to any man the coactive judgement over himself but onely the discretive Iunius answereth (b) Ibid. in c. 18. n. 1. The proposition is most true he cannot commit because God hath committed it to the Synod and lawfull Councell Wherefore we say on the contrary neither can he commit it for if he be the servant of God God hath committed the judgement concerning him unto his Church neither can he reject it but though he be unwilling yet both the Church is bound to judge concerning him and he to undergoe the judgement thereof discretive and coactive howsoever it
keyes binding and loosing When Bellarmine sends us unto Damascene who sayth touching the controversies in the Church To determine and decree of these things it belongeth not to Kings but to Synods For where two or three saith the Lord are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them Christ hath not given unto Kings the power of binding and loosing but unto the Apostles and their successours to Pastours and Teachers Junius answereth (p) Ibid. in c. 8. n. 6. These things certainly are true and nothing for that famous principality of the Romane Bishop c. We also affirme the same thing as before cap. 3. nota 9. c. 10. Another evident affirmation touching the jurisdiction and power of Synods When Bellarmine saith that Prosper doth no otherwise proove the Pelagians to be Hereticks but because they were condemned of the Romane Bishops Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius Celestine Junius answereth (q) N. 14. No otherwise It is false for Pelagius was first condemned by the Synod of Carthage and of Milevis but when he went beyond sea to Rome where he so craftily infinuated himself that there was great feare lest he should inflict a soarer wound upon the Church at Rome the Africane Bishops did prudently and religiously certify Innocentius by two letters both concerning the sentence of their Synods and concerning the imminent perill of the Romane Church unlesse according to the example of them in Africa they did provide for the publick safety c. Another example of Synodicall jurisdiction allowed by Junius AGaine in his disputations against Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano Junius doth often allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods and shewes his judgement that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Congregation When Bellarmine speaking of a certaine decree made in a Synod of Africa mentioned by Cyprian sayth it was ordained thereby that a cause should first be judged where the crime was committed that it did not forbid but that it might be judged againe in another place Junius answereth (r) Animadv in Bell. contr 3. de Pont. Rom. l. ◠c. 23. n. 3. Certainly this is not forbidden For it is of common right But that which is of common equity in case of appeale to have a cause judged againe by another judicatory is denyed by my opposites in allowing no such Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Whereas Bellarmine condemneth the Magdeburgenses as being altogether absurd and ridiculous for their denyall of appeales Junius denyes the fact and saith (ſ) N. 5. his reasoning is inconsequent that all appeales should be altogether forbidden because the appeales to them beyond the sea were forbidden When Calvine alledgeth a certaine Canon of the Synod held at Milevis in Africa to refute the ambitious usurpation of the Pope and manifests thereby the jurisdiction of Synods in the judgement of causes because it was decreed that appeales should be made to the Africane Synods and not to the Bishop of Rome Junius (t) Ibid. in c. 24. n 2. c. maintaines this allegation and vindicates it against the exceptions of Bellarmine And he (v) N. 11. alledgeth further to this purpose the epistle which the Councell of Africa wrote unto Pope Celestine in these words After due salutation officiously premised we earnestly desire that hereafter you would not admit unto your audience those that come from hence and that you would not receive into your communion those that are excommunicated of us c. This request Junius calles a modest and brotherly prohibition to wit that the Pope should not receive appeales from them But if there were no superiour Ecclesiasticall power to judge the controversies of a particular Congregation then might these Africane Synods have bene accused of usurpation over particular Churches as transgressing the bounds of modesty and of their calling for exercising the power of the keyes in excommunicating some as well as the Pope for his usurped authority of the keyes in receiving appeales from the Synods Then had both the allegation of Calvine and the defence of Junius bene partiall and unjust condemning that in the Pope which they allowed in Synods When Bellarmine acknowledgeth that the Pope is bound to keep the Ecclesiasticall lawes made by Synods but quoad directionem non quoad coactionem according to the distinction of Lawyers touching the Prince meaning that the Pope may use their direction but is not under their correction or constraint which is indeed the same thing in effect which my opposites affirme of particular Churches that they are bound to use the counsell and direction of Synods but are not subject to their censure nor under their jurisdiction Junius (x) Ibid. in c. 27. n. 6. denyes this distinction for though saith he we should grant that it take place in foro soli in civill courts to wit for the judging of Princes yet is it of no force in foro coeli et conscientiae in Ecclesiasticall judicatories because the reason of them is not alike c. And in the next animadversion (y) N. 7. speaking still of those lawes canons made by Synods he affirmeth that as every other Bishop so the Pope also is subject unto them according to the order of the Church When Bellarmine sayth the Councell or Synod of the Greekes could not make a law for the Latines c. Junius (z) N. 16. See also n. 33. denyes the same and gives a reason because that Synod was Oecumenicall or universall Therein he acknowledgeth that they had a greater authority then onely to admonish or counsell Againe when Bellarmine answering the argument of Nilus saith that the Pope is not subject to Canōs viz. of Synods c. that he is subject to Christ not to the Fathers that he doth not contemne the Fathers nor their Canons but useth them for direction though he cannot be compelled by them c. Junius (a) N. 40. opposeth him further saith (b) N. 42. that he ought to be subject both to Christ and to the fathers by Christ who hath so prescribed 1. Cor. 14.29 32. and addeth further (c) N. 46. If he cannot be compelled by the Canons that he is therefore rightly called by the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wicked one or lawlesse person 2. Thes 2. Whereas some now adayes beginne to speak evill of the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods as of an Antichristian authority Junius is so farre opposite unto them that he accounts the Pope even in this regard to be Antichrist and the Man of Sinne because he refuseth to be subject unto the authority of Synods in their canons and decrees Moreover in comparing of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall estate Junius sayth (d) Ibid. in c. 29. n. 27. Kings have their authority in Civill matters Rom. 13. and the Synod in Ecclesiasticall matters above the Pope as it was defined in the Councell of Constance and Basel And their authority is so
observe 1. How little Mr Canne understands what the Authors be whom he alledgeth not knowing whether they were Papists or Protestants placing Saravia in the number of Papists so well is he acquainted with the Authors he alledgeth at second hand such injury he doth to his witnesses So afterward (i) P. 93 98. againe in this same book he wrongeth Saravia by setting him among the Popish Writers and making him of their profession and religion by accusing me to make the same objection and to use the same reason that Papists doe and then giving instance in Saravia for one of them What a blindenes and inconsideratenes is this in Mr Canne 11. He perverts the meaning both of Saravia and Schola Parisiensis for what though they grant that all Ecclesiasticall authority belongeth to the Church primarily c. doth it follow hence that the power of Classicall and Provinciall Synods is an undâ—â— power as W.B. and Mr C. accuse them doth it not rather follow that there is a due power secondarily and by delegation in Synods where the Deputies of the Churches meet together in their name Mr Parker (k) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 29.30 42. from whom he hath both these testimonies doth not so alledge them against the authority of Synods He might have seen these words in the same place cited by Mr Parker out of Saravia whereby authority is asscribed not onely unto the Church but also unto Synods when he is (l) Ibid. p. 42. brought in saying Bishops Arch-bishops have no authority but what is conferred and bestowed upon them by the Church and Synods III. He perverts the meaning of Schola Parisiensis which speakes not of particular Congregations but of the Universall Church and specially as it is represented in a Generall Councell This is plaine and evident throughout that whole writing IV. He doth deale deceitfully in his translation of that testimony of Schol. Paris for the Doctours of Sorbon doe there say that all Ecclesiasticall authority doth belong to the Church primarily properly essentially but unto the Romane Pope and other Bishops instrumentally ministerially and for execution onely c. instead of the Romane Pope and other Bishops he puts in the word Officers onely to blinde the eyes of the Readers who if those words had not bene left out might easily have seene that they spake of such transcendent and usurped authority as is exercised by the Pope and his Bishops c. Hence it may appeare what is to be judged of that which he inferres from this testimony to make it serve his purpose in oppugning of Synods As for Alphonsus de Castro and Franciscus Victoria 1. It is an errour to approve their testimony there (m) Ch. pl. p. 78.79 alledged viz. that all Bishops doe receive jurisdiction and power immediately from God for then should they all have an extraordinary calling such as the Apostles had Gal. 1.1 15 16. whereas all ordinary Ministers have their jurisdiction not immediately from God but mediately by men and from the Church How erroneously doe W.B. and Mr C. put light for darknes and darknes for light when they avouch that thus God ordered these mens tongues to give witnesse unto his trueth 11. All the shew of help which they pretend to have from this testimony is grounded upon that groundlesse consequence whereby they inferre that Classes Synods have no authority over particular Congregations because all Churches Elderships and Officers are equall This their assertion remaines yet to be proved which we doe expressely deny as I have (n) P. 159. shewed in my answer unto his first Reason The testimonies of the three next Popish Authors viz. Cusanus de concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11 c. Sanders de visib Mon. l. 1. c. 6. Scultingius Hierarch Anarch l. 4. pag. 103. are all of them before alledged by (o) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 1. p. 2. c. 3. p. 11. Mr Parker from whence it seemes Mr Canne hath taken them but without judgement not applying them aright for 1. When they affirme that Christs promise of giving the keyes unto Peter must be referred unto the whole Church as also that Peter in person presented the body of the Church though these speeches shew the power of binding and loosing to be in the Church yet can it not hence be inferred that a particular Congregation ought not to be subject unto the censure of Classes and Synods or to stand under the authority of any Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of itself when that Congregation is complained of for errour or wrong doing It is a perverting of these speeches and a false consequence which is drawne from hence that because a Congregation hath power to judge the members thereof therefore no other have power to judge of it 11. When Mr Canne inferreth hence that the power of electing Ministers is not in Classes or Synods he beates the ayre erres from the Question When did I ever affirme any such matter or when did the Classis ever offer to obtrude a Minister upon us III. These testimonies touching the Keyes given unto the Church shew what power is in the Church originally and primarily but yet they doe not import that the execution and exercise of this power is in the whole Church Preaching and administration of the Sacraments are a part of that Ecclesiasticall authority comprehended in the power of the Keyes and yet the exercise thereof is not permitted to the whole Church by the confession of the Brownists themselves For his next witnesse having alledged the words of Ferus upon Act. 11. that the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also depose them and reject them altogether if they be not fit c. he insulteth hereupon and gloryeth saying What can be more for us then this I answer This might have bene more for you if he had sayd that when a Congregation hath deposed their Minister there is no other Ecclesiasticall judicatory that may judge whether they have done well or ill This had bene to the purpose then had he absolutely granted you the thing which the Brownists stand for but this he doth not When Mr Canne was deposed from his ministery by them of the Separation and when they rejected him altogether and left both his ministery and the fellowship of all that took part with him was it not his their misery that there was none to judge betwixt theÌ„ When he alledgeth the names of Gratian Gregorie P. Aeneas Sylvius Pope Anacletus Sixtus Senensis Thomas of Aquine Alexander of Ales Iohn Scot c. some of them affirming that the greatest authority is in the Church that the keyes were given to all the Apostles others that all Bishops are equall in power and the like these and the like speeches being alledged to prove the undue power of Classes and Synods they are all perverted neither can the question in controversy be ever concluded from hence against us
the authority of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes it appeareth both by the praise which he (h) Basil Magn. Epi. 60. 78. gives unto the Nicene Synod that for the censuring of Hereticks which was an act of jurisdiction and not of admonition or counsell onely and againe in that he complaineth unto his great friend Nazianzen touching the intermission of Synodall assemblies and saith (i) Ep. 33. If we had yearely met oftner together both according to the ancient Canons and according to that care and solicitude which we owe unto the Churches certainely we had never opened a doore unto slanderers And againe writing unto Athanasius touching such meetings he calleth them (k) Eâ— 48. the way of help for troubled Churches Thus also doe the Centurists (l) Cent. 4. c. 7. col 522 understand him and alledge his testimony to shew the consociation of many Churches in Synods in that age The Author next objected is also misalledged The letter of reference in the line leades us unto a book in the margine which was not written by Socrates and what place he therefore intends in Socrates he must tell us another time In the meane time let it be remembred that this Ecclesiasticall Historiographer doth plainely and plentifully record against my opposites that the causes and controversies arising in particular Churches were judged by another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves to wit by the authority of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in Synods This he shewes in the (m) Hist Ecc. l. 1. c. 5 condemnation of Arius by the Councell of Nice in the (n) L. 2. c. 24. deprivation of Photinus by the Synod of Siâ—mium in the (o) L. 7. c. 33. deposition of Nestorius by the Councell held at Ephesus and in many other the like instances If happily he intended those places misapplyed unto Basil in the former quotation he is not thereby excused seeing in the first place viz. l. 4. c. 14. there is nothing at all spoken of this matter and in the two latter viz. l. 6. 2. 7. 35. Socrates againe declares the authority of Synods in those times Isidorus it seemes must owne the quotation Lib. de Offic. which by the marginall note is assigned to Socrates he having written two bookes concerning Ecclesiasticall Offices These Mr Canne cites at large without specifying either book or chapter But in those bookes of Isidorus as there be many things which Mr C. would not be bound to approve so there is nothing that with any shew of reason can be applyed against the authority of Classes and Synods On the contrary we may justly inferre that he did not there restraine all Ecclesiasticall power unto a particular Congregation as from many other so especially from these his words (p) De Offi. Ecc. l. 2. c. 6 Moreover that a Bishop is not ordained of one but of all the Bishops of the Provinces this is acknowledged to be appointed because of heresies lest by the tyrannicall authority of some one ordaining they should attempt any thing against the faith of the Church Therefore they all concurring he is confirmed and no lesse then three being present the rest consenting by the testimony of their letters Againe for other of his writings to shew his judgement in this poynt this Isidorus is (q) Cus de Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 3. c. sayd to have made a collection of all the Synods that were before his time which booke is (r) Concil Tom. 2. p. 146 147. alledged in a Synodall Epistle of the Councell of Basil to prove the authority of Councels above the Pope For his practise he is (Å¿) Magdeb. Cent. â— col 261-287 513. recorded to have bene President of a Synod at Sevill in Spaine were he was Bishop and as some relate of two other at Toledo wherein appeare divers actes of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the exercise whereof he joyned with others after the manner of Synodall proceedings Bernard is in like manner misalledged through want of attentioÌ„ diligence not onely by a wrong note of reference but by a defective mention of his writing Ad Eugen. For Bernard having written 5 bookes of Consideration Ad Eugen. and besides them more then 30 Epistles Ad Eugen. he doth not specify which of these bookes or which of these Epistles he meanes But whether we consider those bookes or Epistles we finde Bernard in extremity opposite to Mr Canne giving power not onely unto Synods as the Ancient Fathers before mentioned but even to the Pope himself to judge the causes of all Churches For living in a time of great blindenes and height of Poperie when the smoke of the bottomlesse pit had darkned the Sunne and the ayre he was led aside through ignorance to exalt Antichrist and writing unto Pope Eugenius that had bene his disciple he gives him these most ambitious titles and (t) De CoÌ„si ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 8. calles him the great Priest the supreme High Priest the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles Abel in primacy Noah in government Abraham in Patriarkship Melchisedek in order Aaron in dignity Moses in authority Samuel in judgement Peter in power Christ in unction c. the onely Pastour of all flockes and of all Pastours themselves c. the Vicar of Christ c. And though otherwise he gave many lively testimonies of a godly minde that was in him yet not without cause is he (v) Whit. de Pont. Rom. q. 4. p. 425.426 taxed for blasphemy in these unrighteous titles given to the man of sinne More particularly in his first Epistle which he wrote unto Eugenius after he was created Pope upon occasion of the controversy that was betwixt the Archbishop of York the Archbishop of Canterbury he puts this Pope in minde that he (x) Bernar. ad Eugen. Epist 237. hath authority to judge the controversies that arise in other Churches and wisheth him to use the same and to give unto them according to their works that they might know there is a Prophet in Israel And writing againe (y) Ep. 238 of the same matter he calles the Archbishop of York that Idol of York in regard of his intrusion he might better have entitled Eugenius the Idoll of Rome provokes the Pope as having the fullnes of power to cast his dart to give peremptory sentence of deposition against the Arch B. and as the phrase of Bernard is to lighten or strike with the thunderbolt of his power The like exercise of power over those in other Congregations is often elswhere (z) Ad Innoc Epist 189 190. allowed by him And hereby it may appeare how grossely Mr Canne hath alledged these ancient Writers quite contrary to their meaning and Bernard in speciall that subjects Congregations not onely to Councels and Synods as the Fathers before alledged have justly done but doth unjustly subject them to one person even to the
all sorts the sayd words as they are written in their owne letters being compared together eyther joyntly or severally II. If the Deacons may distribute some almes ūto the poore without the knowledge of the whole Congregation then may the Elders also judge some causes without the knowledge of the whole Church But the first is true Therefore c. The consequence of the Propositiō is proved by this Because the whole Church hath as much right authority to dispose of the Church-treasure almes as they have to judge of the offences that are committed therein This the Scripture sheweth by the examples of sundry Churches of Antiochia Macedonia Achaia c. Act. 11.29 30. Rom. 15 25-28 1. Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8.1.4.19 Phil. 2.25 with c. 4.18 The Assumption is manifest and your owne practise confirmeth it III. If Arbiters chosen by consent of some particular persons may judge the causes of wrong injury whether publick or private wherein they strive against one another then may the Elders chosen by consent of the whole Church judge the causes offences that arise when they willingly submit unto the same But Arbiters so chosen may judge the causes referred unto them Therefore the Elders may doe it also The truth of the Proposition appeares because the free solemne consent of the Church in any election gives authority unto such persons either in generall or speciall workes as well as the choyse of any particular men in their causes Act. 14.23 2. Cor. 8.19 The truth of the Assumption appeares by the doctrine of the Apostle giving such power of judgement unto Arbiters 1. Cor. 6.4 5. If you answer hereunto as you (l) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyfton p. 43. elswhere expound this place that these controversies to be referred unto Arbiters are for civill things of this life that such are not Church-matters nor there to be heard c. this is insufficient and will not help you seeing it appeares by the text that these Controversies in Corinth might as well have bene sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as Civill and belonging to the judgement of the Church as of the Magistrates or Arbiters Had their controversies bene touching a wound or stroke given touching any slander or theft which may be sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as belonging to the judgement of the Church yet might the Apostle have sayd unto them thereupon all that he doth 1. Cor. 6 1-9 for 1. These are businesses which Infidell Magistrates in those times used to judge and the generall speech of the Apostle imports as much v. 1. 6. 2. The reason which the Apostle useth taken from the honour dignity of Saints in their judgement of Angels the world serves to perswado them to submit the judgment of such causes to one another mutually as well as any other causes v. 2 3. 3. The reason taken from their shame as if there were no wise men among them to judge these causes serves to reprove them for a want of wisedome in Ecclesiasticall things as well as Civill 4. The matters of controversy among them were of wrong injury done to brethren v. 7 8 9. And these being sinnes scandals belong to the judgment of the Church as doth the judgment of * 2. Cor. 10.4 5 6. 1. Cor. 5.7 all knowne sinnes This Argument is in effect yeelded unto by your self when you (m) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyf ton p. 9. allow the Articles of the Discipline agreed upon in the Reformed English Church which was at Franckford in Q. Maries dayes for whereas in the 62. art thereof in case of difference betwixt the Governours of the Church others it is there concluded that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare determine the sayd matter or matters as it shall seeme good unto the Congregation hereupon in approbation of this Discipline you observe that hereby the reader may see what the learned most conscionable of the Church of England held heretofore which if they had continued in would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacy the bane of so many Churches And hereupon I observe further against you how the reader may hereby see that if the body of the Church may appoint so many Arbiters as they will to heare determine matters then may the Elders of the Church receive this authority as well as any others then is it no unlawfull usurpation for them to heare determine some matters among the brethren by themselves IV. If particular persons may lawfully passe by some lesser offences leave them unto the consciences of the offenders without prosequuting thē or bringing them to the Church for any judgment at all then may the Church also leave some lesser offences unto the judgment of the Elders But the first is true Therefore the second also The consequence of the Proposition is proved because God doth no more require the Church to judge of sinnes made knowne unto the same then he doth require particular persons to prosequute and to deale against the offences made knowne unto them the Scripture speaking as fully giving unto particular persons as ample commission charge to * Mat. 18.15 16 17. Lev. 19.17 admonish and complaine of sinne as it doth unto the Church to judge censure the same The Assumption is proved 1. By expresse testimonyes of Scripture that teach us to passe by some sins offences and not to prosequute them Prov. 19.11 Eccl. 7.21 2. Particular persons being taught to love their neighbour as themselves to doe good unto all Levit. 19.18 Matt. 22.39 Rom. 13.9 Gal. 5.14 Iam. 2.8 are thereby bound to admonish them that are without those that are not mēbers of the same Church with them but of any other eyther true or false or of none Now if this be to be done it followes necessarily that the reproofes of many lesser faults are to be omitted because otherwise men could never discharge this duety neither would their time suffice to performe these dueties of admonition to all such as they should finde subject thereunto both within the Church without Yea suppose they had no other calling to attend upon yet could not the whole age of man be sufficient to testify effectually in order against all such transgressions which an intelligent person might discerne to be committed dayly before his eyes both in private publick 3. Even yourself seem to acknowledge this also when touching the difference of offences you say (i) Com. of Saints cap. 22. § 2. 3. when offences arise it shal be our glory if we can passe them by as Solomon hath sayd But if the trespasse be such as we may not but insist upon both for the honour of God who is offended soule of the sinner which is endangered our owne or neighbours good who are endammaged thereby then are we bound to admonish the trespasser hereof
as concerned in common the state of their Church So did the Apostles and Apostolike men provide against schismes and heresies Their wisedome reached not unto the policie of one chiefe judge Thus D. Rainolds doth many wayes acknowledge the authority of Synods he calleth that power which they have the chieftie of judgement he avoucheth that they have it by divine right that the wisedome of God hath committed it unto them he pleadeth from the forenamed warrant Act. 15. he extendeth this power unto matters both of Doctrine and Discipline the testimonies which in his margine he alledgeth out of the Ecclesiasticall history to shew that the like assemblies were kept in succeeding times are such as speak of their excommunicating wicked Hereticks viz. Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. c. l. 7. c. 26 28. c. whereby it appeares that he allowed unto Synods not onely counsell or admonition but a power of exercising Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction censure Those Councels mentioned and poynted at by him for instances of this chieftie of judgement were such as did not onely admonish but also determine and judge of causes The Synod of (h) Barthol Carranza Summa Concil p. â—3 c. Ancyra in Galatia made most severe Ecclesiasticall lawes for the excluding of such as did fall in time of persecution The Synod of (i) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 3. col 111. c. 6. col 463 Gangris in Paphlagonia exercised Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in deposing Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia for his errours and the like might be noted for the rest Whatsoever particular errours were in any of these yet the authority and jurisdiction it self is approved of him as proceeding from the wisedome of God declared in this place Act. 15. D. Whitaker in his disputation against Bellarmine touching Councels layes downe this Text Act. 15.6 for a ground of that which he takes occasion to intreat of and (k) De Concil Qu. 1. c. 1. p 1 3 4 c. often repeats that text applying it to each of the questions which he discusseth And whereas our Opposites doe grant a lawfull use of Synods for counsell but not to judge nor to give judiciall sentence for the deciding of causes D. Whitak describing the State of the Question betwixt us and the Papists touching the persons that are to be called to a Synod shewes that (l) Ibid. qu. 3. c. 1. p. 79. the Papists will have onely the Bishops or greater Prelates to be allowed for judges and the Presbyters or inferiour Clergie to be onely inquisitors disputers or consulters to give counsell but not to have suffrages in giving definitive sentences This is the opinion of the (m) Bellar. Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 15. Romish Church Now D. Whit. in the refutation of the Papists doth as wel refute the Brownists and other opposites while he proves (n) De Concil qu. 3. c. 3. that all who have a lawfull deputation and calling are to be allowed for judges and not for counsellers onely and that their suffrage is not onely for consultation but for decision as is hereafter shewed more at large Observe onely at this time that the first argument in that dispute is taken from this very place Act. 15. G. Bucerus pleads from this same ground of Scripture and writes (o) Dissert de Gub. Ecc. p. 65. that not onely severall particular Churches had their proper distinct Presbyteries but that the history of the Apostles witnesseth that when greater controversies did arise which could not be ended in lesser Colleges then more Churches under the new Testament did runne unto a Generall Synod Act. 15. And what power they were wont to exercise therein he shewes by a distinction of persons comming to the Synod As D. Whit. refuting the popish distinction of greater and lesser Clergie shewes that there was a right and power of suffrages judgement in the Synod so Bucerus (p) Ibid. p. 107. 108. c. confirming the distinction of Iunius viz. that some persons came to the Synods as Delegates sent from the Churches which therefore did give definitive sentence of matters propounded that others comming without such deputation and commission might give their advise and counsell but without suffrages doth hereby acknowledge a power of jurisdiction in the Synod by those that were peculiarly called to be judges therein Zepperus (q) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 8. de Syn. p. 713. 714. 715. c. alledging Act. 15. for a patterne of Synods declares that after the Apostles the primitive Church in the new Testament being most studious of this consociation or combination in Synods did not onely communicate by letters but meeting together in Nationall or Generall Councels did heare the causes of Hereticks others that appeared before them so convinced condemned and excommunicated them sent their decrees unto all Churches with the names heresies of those that were excommunicate c. Thus did he acknowledge the right of Synods not onely for counsell admonition but also for jurisdiction in censuring Piscator (r) Thes Theolog. vol. 1. Loc. 23. p. 361-364 writing of Councels and Synods and of the seven questions concerning them doth seven times alledge this place Act. 15. for a ground of direction in each of them And for the authority of Synods he plainly expresseth his meaning when speaking of the government of the Church in generall he sayth * Thes 62 63. it consisteth chiefly in Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and againe distinguishing this jurisdiction into two parts he sayth that the one part consisteth in the power of making lawes potissimum spectatur in Conciliis that is it is chiefly seen in Synods Bucanus (f) Loc. CoÌ„ Loc. 43. qu. 21 22 25 27. writes much to the same purpose and asscribeth unto Synods authority of making lawes of deciding controversies and this from the example of that Synod Act. 15. often mentioned by him Mr Fenner (t) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 278-281 briefly and methodically describing the nature of Synods the kindes the use authority of them doth derive their authority from this ground Act. 15. which even in that short description is more then tenne times alledged by him Many other such Testimonies might be produced to shew the consent of judicious and learned Divines in this poynt of which somewhat more is to be sayd when I come to give answer touching that multitude of Authors which Mr Canne alledgeth against me Let us now heare what my Opposites say concerning this Example Mr Dav. his Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered I. DAV * Apol reply p. 254. 255. This Text Act. 15. is alledged by Bellarmine to prove the binding force of the decrees of Councills and by the Answerer to shew the authority of the Classis whereunto Iunius giveth 2 answers also 1. Non sequitur ex particulari si custodienda fuerint decreta Concilii Apostolici ergo omnium servari oportere It
were come from other places c. Therefore when we alledge this example Act. 15. to shew the authority and power of Synods in judging of controversies those that to frustrate elude this example doe plead and except that the Apostles had extraordinary power they are here reproved by Iunius who shewes that though the Apostles had extraordinary gifts in judging which might procure the more respect in that regard yet the power it self by which they did judge Act. 15. was not extraordinary and peculiar to the Apostles but ordinary and common to Ministers Elders other Deputies of the Churches therefore commonly perpetually to be observed used as occasion requireth Mr Can's Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered BEfore he comes to the point he intreats me to resolve five Questions the two latter whereof I have answered (c) Pag. 34. before the other with their answers are as followeth I. CAN. I. (d) Churches plea p. 32 33. Whither the Assembly mentioned in Act. 15. there a Synod or Classis ANSVV. The Assembly mentioned Act. 15. was a Synod and not properly a Classis according to the usuall acception of the word in these places Classes are Assemblies of Ministers comming often together out of neighbour Churches within a lesser circuit Synods have a larger extent comprehend many Classes under them come more seldome together I. CAN. II. How it can be manifested from that place that both are divine institutions as here is affirmed ANSVV. This place Act. 15. or any other that yeelds warrant for one of these Assemblies yeelds it for both because both are of like nature and differ not essentially but in circumstantiall matters of time place number of persons In both these is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority over particular Churches in respect of both there appeareth a mutuall dependence of Churches that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church which is the Question betwixt us I. CAN. III. How he can naturally from thence rayse this doctrine viz. Excommunications and elections of Ministers are actions belonging unto Classes and Synods ANSVV. When I rayse such a doctrine from Act. 15. as he mentions which I have not done any where then is it time for me to manifest how the same ariseth naturally from the Text. Election of Ministers is an action belonging to severall Congregations and not to Classes and Synods but if any particular Churches doe offend in choosing unlawfull and unfit persons then are Classes and Synods to judge thereof and to hinder such elections Had the Church of Antioch gone about to elect for a Minister among them one of that Sect which taught the brethren there Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Act. 15.1.5 then had the Synod at Ierusalem authority to have hindred that election which appeareth because they had power to make a decree against such false doctrine Act. 15.28 And thence also it followeth that if any of the Christian Pharisees had stood obstinately in such errours tending to the subversion of soules to the bringing in of another Gospel and making Christ become of no effect unto men Act. 15.24 Gal. 1.6 7. 5.2 3 4. then after due conviction that Synod at Ierusalem had authority as well to censure the person as to condemne his errour having in readines a revenge against all disobedience 2. Cor. 10.6 with Gal. 1.8 9. especially if the particular Church whereof such a person was a member should refuse to doe the same according to their direction I. CAN. To the point now I doe deny that this place Act. 15. proveth any such thing for which it is alledged For I. Here was no combination of many Ministers of divers Churches but onely a few messengers sent from Antiochia unto the Congregation at Ierusalem about a controversy there specifyed Hence it is affirmed by many learned men (e) D. Brid pag. 1224. that as this was an assembly of one onely particular Church so it binds (f) D. Whit. de Conc. qu. 2. p. 6. 67 onely but in a speciall or particular meeting ANSVV. I. It is untrue which he sayth that here was no combination of many Ministers of divers Churches because here were the Ministers of all Churches even the Apostles that had the care of all the Churches of whom all Churches might say these are our Ministers Act. 15.6.2 Cor. 11.28.1 Cor. 3.21 22. Mat. 28.19 This was the noblest combination of Ministers that ever was II. It is without warrant that he saith onely a few messengers were sent from Antiochia for besides Paul and Barnabas the deputies and messengers of that Church which might stand for many other it is sayd that certaine other of them were sent Act. 15.2 but how many or how few it is not specifyed III. That which he alledgeth from D. Bridges is unsound viz. that this was an Assembly of one onely particular Church As it is expressely against the text so I may oppose against in the testimony of Iunius * Pag. 68. before noted who speaking of them that judged in this Synod reckons up first the Apostles and Apostolick men then the Elders that laboured in the ministery of the Word as well them of the place in Ierusalem as those of Antioch and if any moreover were come from other places c. IV. Whereas he citeth D. Whitaker as if he affirmed of this Synod at Ierusalem that it bindes onely but in a speciall or particular meeting he doth herein falsify the testimony of D. Whitak for though he distinguishing Synods into Particular Provinciall or Nationall Universall doth in (g) De Concil Qu. 1. c. 2. p. 6. that place call this a Particular Synod yet hath he no such assertion as though it should binde onely in a speciall or particular meeting and it had bene against the text Act. 15.23 16.4 where it is noted that the Synodicall Epistle was sent unto the Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch Syria Cilicia that they might observe the decrees thereof As for that (h) Ibid. p. 67. other place out of D. Whit. it is misalledged there being no such matter at all there mentioned Instead of that mistaken place let him consider what Mr Cartwright saith hereof (i) Confut. of Rhem. Annot. on Act. 15.6 We will not strive whether the Councell were Generall or Provinciall but it may be counted a Generall Councell in respect of the presence of the Apostles which were Governours of all the Churches of the world I. CAN. II. As Mr Cartwright saith (k) Refut of Rhem. on the place Paul and Barnabas went not up to Ierusalem to submit their judgement to the judgement of the Apostles for that had diminished the authoritie of their doctrine then which there was no greater in the world they being both infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost Onely they went up to conferre with them and for countenance of the truth in respect of men
part deny the authority of particular Elderships as we see in the Brownists and therefore after private admonitions doe in a popular order referre the judgement even of lesser matters unto the publick examination and decision of the whole Church assembled together not permitting the same to the judgement of the Eldership Mr Baynes doth also impugne this practise For he speaking of the rule of Discipline Matt. 18. where Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many yet after some other observations touching the meaning of the word Church he further explaineth himself when he addeth these notes and sayth (a) Dioces tryall p. 80. Thirdly as Christ doth speak it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the Congregation For then Christ should give not some but all the members of the Church to be governours of it Fourthly Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderlie complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie as all but Morellius and such Democraticall spirits doe affirme And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church doth shew that often the number of it is but small For where two or three are gathered together in my name c. whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Againe shewing on the other side that Christ by the Church doth not meane the chief Pastour who is virtually as the whole Church and that the word Church doth ever signify a company and never is found to note out one person after other reasons he pleades from the example and practise in the old Testament saying (b) Ibid. p. 81. The Church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtuallie but an assembly of Priests sitting together as judges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie and joynt execution of a representative Church a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours And thus he concludes from Mat. 18. that there is a representative Church of one particular Congregation as before from Act. 15. he acknowledged a representative Church in the Synod for many Churches VI. Whereas Mr Dav. alledgeth out of Mr Parker that the power Ecclesiasticall do the essentially and primarily reside in the Church it self as in its proper subject although this be no ground for the refutation of that power and jurisdiction belonging to Synods as I have shewed (c) P. 89.90 before yet even this ground also is denyed by Mr Baynes who goes not so farre as Mr Parker (d) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 8. p. 28. c. touching the derivation of all Ecclesiasticall authority from a particular Church as from the fountaine but doth in some part oppose that opinion especially in respect of that influence of authority per intuitum viz. that which is in Ministers called immediately of Christ as the Apostles were yet in respect of the end and the whole is sayd to be from the Church mediately c. And therefore though Mr Parker was farre from the opinion of Mr Dav. yet was Mr Baynes farre further from it His judgement herein as being worthy the consideration of the Readers I have thought meet to set downe the more fully And first speaking by occasion of the power of jurisdiction in the Church he sayth (e) Dioc. tryal p. 69. Christ hath committed it originaliter exercitative to the representative Church that they might Aristocratically administer it And afterwards coming to intreat of the third maine question in his booke (f) Ibid. p. 98. Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any one singular person or to a united multitude of Presbyters he there sets downe his judgment more largely in divers conclusions (g) P. 83.84 on this manner Conclus 3. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof was not given to the communitie of the Church or to the whole multitude of the faithfull so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ and virtually deriving it to others This I set downe against the Divines of Constance our prime Divines as Luther and Melancthon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians errour for in his booke depudicitia he maketh Christ to haue left all Christians with like power but the Church for her honour did dispose it as we see The proportion of a politick body and naturall deceived them while they will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omni simile for then should it be the same with the analogatum True it is all civill power is in the body politick the collections of subjects then in a King from them And all the power of hearing seeing they are in the whole man which doth produce them effectually though formally and instrumentally they are in the eare and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the communitie or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the communitie in the King from them but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our King before any in the Church from him But to whom should he first commit this power but to his Queene Answ Considering this power is not any Lordly power but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole communitie which are the Queen of Christ For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herself properly but to have persons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in naturall bodies the power of seeing is first immediately in the man from the man in the eye and particular members In the mysticall body the faith of a beleever is not first immediately in all then in the beleever but first of all and immediately in the personall beleever for whose good it serveth more properly then for the whole every man being to live by his owne faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel so derived to the Priest but immediately from Christ seated in Aaron and his sonnes Object Yea they were given the Church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis totius Answ I but this is not enough that power may be sayd to be immediately received by the Church as the first
receptacle of it and from it derived to others as the power of seeing is not onely given intuitu hominis as the end of it and the totum to whom it agreeth but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the Church For as all are sayd not to have been Apostles so not to have been Doctors But if the power of ordinarie teaching had been given to every beleever all should have been made Doctors though not to continue so in exercising the power Secondly were the power in the Church the Church should not onely call them but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe then should the Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers Besides there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly as women and children This conclusion in my judgement Victoria Soto and others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained Conclus 4. Fourthly ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it to the Senat or Presbyterie of the Church If any faile in any office the Church hath not power of supplying that but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant Conclus 5. Lastly though the community have not power given her yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her that all power is to be executed in such manner as standeth with respect to her excellencie Hence it is that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them Not that they have joynt power of the keyes with them but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with without open dishonour in such things which belong in common to the whole congregation Afterwards againe (h) P. 88. speaking of some derivation of power from the Church in taking in Officers he shewes that the Church doth this onely as an instrument in taking that person whom Christ describeth and would have to be placed in this or that office but hath not this power in herself either formally or virtually And from this Stewardlike power of the Church he declares that Officers in the Church are not to administer in the name of the Church but in the name of Christ As a Butler taken in by a servant doth execute his office not in master Stewards name but in his masters who onely out of power did conferre it on him By these sundry other assertions it is apparant that Mr Baynes was of a farre different opinion from Mr Dav. touching the state of particular Churches the authority of Synods Let us heare his next Author SECT VI. His Allegation of the Replyer upon D. Downam examined IO. DAV r Apol. reply p. 242. Part. 2. l. 2. p. 104 105. c. i With whom I might joyne the Replyer upon Dr Downams defence who not onely declareth his owne judgement herein concurring with the above mentioned but also joyneth with them the suffrages of divers others at the Centurists Illyricus D. Andrewes Bishop of Winchester Dr Fulke Willet Thom Bell Cyprian Augustine Gerson Ferus ANSVV. I. If this Authour did in his judgement concurre with the above mentioned and in speciall with Mr Baynes next above mentioned as Mr Dav. affirmes then did he allow the jurisdiction and authority of Synods for the censure of things done in particular Churches then did he judge each Congregation to be subject unto the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled II. This testimony of the Refuter of D. Downa is alledged also and more plainly by Mr Canne who expresseth his words and sayth (k) Churches plea p. 86. he often affirmeth (l) Lib 2. par 2. p. 104 that the administration of all Church-matters at first was in every Congregation the right in the Church the execution in the Presbytery thereof And besides this he alledgeth another place where he sayth For this purpose he instanceth Cenchrea (m) Lib. 1. part 2. p. 22 23. howsoever it was the Port of Corinth and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lime-house to London yet is was a distinct Church from that of Corinth and alike indued with full power of Ecclesiasticall government But in all this the jurisdiction of Synods is not denyed as is manifest by a like instance here in these Reformed Churches The villages of Diemen and Sloten this on the one side and that on the other side of Amsterdam and not farre from it and in all apperance farre lesse in comparison of Amsterdam then Cenchrea was in respect of Corinth yet are these small Congregations distinct Churches from that of Amsterdam alike endued with full power of all Ecclesiasticall government That which Mr Canne by a Note in the margine would have specially to be marked may as well be observed touching these and many other little Churches hereabout that they have in themselves the administration of all Church-matters and the execution thereof by their Presbyteries as fully and as amply as the Church of Amsterdam or any other of the greatest Churches in these countries being alike combined together in the Classis and equally subject to one another in the Lord for their mutuall guidance III. Even this Replyer upon D. Downam Mr S. who now resteth in the Lord hath bene very carefull not to prejudice the authority of Synods as may appeare further if we consider what he answereth concerning those whom D. D. calleth the late Disciplinarians such as were of Mr Iacobs opinion First he saith (n) Reply par 1. l. 2. p. 106. As for Synods if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctour can give neither more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their Protestation sheweth Art 8.12 13 14. Now as for the present Synods such as are in these Reformed Churches they are such as he mentioneth here called and assembled by authority of the Magistrates and their Acts approved confirmed and ratifyed by them This may be seen in the Records of that Nationall Synod holden at Dort Anno 1618. and 1619. where (o) Act. Synod Dordr Ses 138. the Decree of the States Generall which are the soveraigne and supreme Magistrates in these countries is inserted among the Acts of the Synod for the ratification thereof And this is not onely observed in Nationall Synods but in the Provinciall Synods also held every yeare where the States have also their Deputies Civill Magistrates which ordinarily are present in those Assemblies to see that all things be well ordered therein Thus farre therefore according to his relation there is an obedience and subjection due unto Synods Againe whereas he proceedeth to describe their opinion on this manner If they want
others But had D. Whit. bene of my opposites minde he should have condemned each of these opinions both of Papists and Protestants and should have sayd that neither one nor other sorts of persons were to be admitted for judges in Synods but onely for counsellours and admonishers that none of them were to have determining voyces or to give definitive sentence but onely to shew their advise to have a consultative voyce When Bellarmine alledgeth that the Prelates onely as being Pastours of the Church are to have definitive voyces D. Whit. answering his arguments sayth (p) Ibid. c. ◠p. 85. The end of Synods is not to feed viz. by teaching as proper pastours but to decide controversies to prescribe Canons to correct abuses to order Churches and to doe other things which belong unto the peaceable and quiet state of the Church Herein he yeelds unto Synods not onely advise for direction but jurisdiction and power of correction c. To prove this authority of Presbyters or Elders he alledgeth Act. 16.4 where there is mention of the decrees ordained by the Apostles and Elders and sayth thereupon (q) Ibid. c. 3. p. 96. 97. Who dare now denye the Elders to have had a determining suffrage They did not onely dispute or consult but did also judge and decree together with the Apostles For the word * determined ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equally applyed unto both These things are so manifest that no man can gainsay it To this end also he argueth (r) P. 102. 103. that a Generall Synod represents the Vniversall Church that whosoever is sent of a Church represents the person of that Church And finally (ſ) P. 103 104 c. from ancient histories he alledgeth the examples of divers Synods as of Chalcedon Nice and Constantinople wherein this power jurisdiction was exercised A fourth Question is about the Praesident of Synods In this dispute Bellarmine alledging that Constantine professed himself to be subject unto the Bishops and that he ought to be judged of them D. Whitaker allowing and commending that profession answereth and sayth (t) De Cōc q. 4. c. 3. p. 132. What then This hindereth not but that he might be Praesident For if a Bishop had bene Praesident ought be not to have bene judged of other Bishops What godly Prince would not have sayd so Hereby he acknowledgeth that jurisdiction authority of judgement is no undue power of Synods and that even the worthiest persons ought to be subject thereunto A fift Question is whether Synods be above the Pope Here D. Whitaker having first shewed what the Popish opinion is he then declares the opinion of the Protestants and sayth (v) De Cōc q. 5. c. 1. p. 146. Seeing the Pope is the Bishop onely of one Church he is not onely not superiour unto all Bishops assembled together but not so much as superiour unto any of them apart Therefore we say that a Synod may also decree against the will of the Pope may take cognition of the Popes cause may judge the Pope compell him unto order may prescribe lawes unto the Pope which are to have force against his will and finally may condemne the Pope and deprive him of his office if he be worthy of such a punishment Now if a Synod have this power to judge censure and depose the Popes then hath it as much power to judge and censure other Ministers and members of other Churches unlesse it can be shewed that they have more authority then the Pope or some strange priviledge to exempt them from that jurisdiction of Synods whereunto others are in subjection Afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 3 he brings 10 Arguments to prove the superiority of Synods above the Pope And in them there be plenteous evidences touching the authority of Synods Those arguments which prove that the Synods have jurisdiction over the Pope and power to censure him doe alwayes prove that Synods have jurisdiction and power of censure Otherwise though the Pope deserved censure yet it should be an usurpation in the Synod to doe that for which they had no calling nor warrant even as in the execution of Civill judgments it should be a presumptuous and unlawfull usurpation if private men being no Magistrates should take upon them to punish malefactours though they had justly deserved the same Not to insist upon many other things which out of those 10 Arguments might be alledged for our purpose I will onely instance in one example that is there (y) Ibid. p. 195. 196. urged by D. Whitaker and taken out of Sozomen lib. 4. c. 15 or as in some editions c. 14. who recordes that the Synod of Syrmium made an Act whereby Foelix the Bishop of Rome was appoynted to admit Liberius to be his fellow in the administration of the Romane Church Hence D. Whitak inferres So it seemed good unto the Synod therefore the Synod was above the Pope and above that Church Bellarmine answers The Synod did not command but onely exhort Foelix by letters that he would suffer Liberius to sit with him D. Whit. replyes againe Touching letters of exhortation Sozomen makes no mention of them He sayth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They write unto Foelix c. And that these letters were mandatory it appeares because otherwise Foelix would never have yeelded Thus we see from hence that Synods have power at least in the judgement of D. Whit. not onely to exhort admonish which every Christian may doe but also to prescribe injoyne that which is equall just and so that others are to be subject thereunto The sixt and last Question is whether Synods can erre Now lest any should take occasion hereby to deny the authority of Synods it is to be observed that D. Whitaker doth in like manner affirme that any lawfull assembly even of those that are met together in the name of Christ z De Cōc q. 6. c. 2. p. 216. may erre also He sayth a Though Christ be in the midst of them which are assembled in his name it followes not that they doe not erre For all are not free from errour with whom Christ is present And truely two or three which meet in the name of Christ may be deceived may erre in many things and may aske those things which are not to be asked and so be disappointed of their hope and yet Christ be among them For Christ doth not alwayes exempt them from errour with whom he is Wherefore seeing every Ecclesiasticall assembly every Eldership and every particular Church being subject to errour and erring often are not yet deprived of their jurisdiction and power in the judgement of causes so though Synods want infallible judgement and erre sometimes yet are they not therefore without jurisdiction and authority But further he avoucheth plainly that Synods have judiciall authority when he sayth (a) Ibid. c. 3. p. 322. A Synod is sayd to doe
a Bishop therefore the Monarchicall primacy of the Romane Bishop is of no divine right As he doth fully condemne the usurpation of one Bishop above another so by way of opposition he doth fully and plentifully avouch the authority of many meeting together in Synods not onely for counsell admonition but for jurisdiction in judging censuring of offendours After this in the prosequution of the second Question Bellarmine pleading for the Monarchy and jurisdiction of Peter because he in speciall was charged to feed the sheep of Christ and among other Pastorall acts noting this for one to judge controversies D. Whit. answers (l) De Pont. Rom. q. 2. c. 7. p. 229. What controversies Of religion But the other Apostles did that also as well as he and the Synods of Bishops and learned men can doe this even as we read that it hath often bene practised in the Churches for many ages before this principality of the Pope was brought into the Church Furthermore D. Whitaker useth this argument to prove a superiority of power in a company or assembly of the Apostles above one or two of them (m) Ibid. p. 260. The Apostles send Peter to Samaria therefore Peter was not the head of the Apostles but rather was in subjection unto their authority Act. 8.14 He sayth A sending doth alwayes and necessarily imply a subjection in him that is sent if he be sayd properly to be sent This manner of reasoning makes for the authority of Synods consisting of a company of Ministers or other Deputies of Churches orderly assembled whiles he argueth that a Colledge or company of the Apostles had superiority of power over some singular persons among them though considered apart they were all equall in power He sayth concerning Peter Iohn (n) P. 261. We read that both of them were sent by the Colledge of the Apostles from whence we doe justly conclude both that these two Apostles were equall that the authority of sending was in the Apostles He shewes also (o) P. 297 297. that the decree made in the Synod Act. 15. was not confirmed by the authority of Peter alone but by common consent of the Apostles the Church for the repressing of false Apostles c. In the examination of the fourth Question whereas Bellarmine would have a double errour to be observed one of those who teach that the Pope may be judged punished and deposed by the Emperour if he discharge not his office aright another of them that maintaine he may be judged and censured by a Synod of Bishops though not by a secular Prince D. Whitaker answereth (p) Ibid. qu. 4. p. 513 514. We acknowledge both of these but we say there is no errour here For the Bishop of Rome may be deposed both by the Emperour when there is cause and by a Synod of Bishops and that not onely Generall but Particular of that Province whereunto Calvine most truely affirmeth him to be subject and that he may be judged of it and those that perswade the Pope otherwise we affirme them to be flatterers parasites rebels to God the Emperour And many the like assertions he hath in the handling of that question wherein the jurisdiction of Synods is witnessed by him In the fift Question concerning Antichrist (q) Ibid. q. 5. p. 674 675. he notes it to be an evidence of Antichristian pride in the Pope that he is by the Jesuites affirmed to be above the Synod Proceeding to the sixt Question touching the errours of Popes (r) Qu. 6. p. 797.805.812 813. he avoucheth the jurisdiction of Synods by alledging many examples and instances wherein they exercised this power as in the condemning of Pope Honorius Gregory the 7th or Hildebrandus John the 23th Eugenius c. Touching the seventh Question about the Popes making of lawes to binde the conscience though D. Whitaker teach that it belongs to God alone to give lawes unto the conscience yet he sayth (ſ) Qu. 7. p. 853. The Church hath authority of making lawes concerning decency it is our duety to obey yet concerning the things themselves the conscience is alwayes free c. He addes Whereas the adversary saith that all true lawes have a coactive or constraining force if he so understand it that they constraine burden the conscience with respect unto the things themselves it is false for certainely even these also doe constraine after a sort to wit if we have respect unto the generall rule so that if there come contempt or offence or schisme the violation of them cannot be excused Againe he saith to like purpose (t) P. 867. Whereas Bellarm. sayth we can abide no lawes therein he doth egregiously slander for we allow much esteeme of lawes even Ecclesiasticall lawes do teach that they are to be obeyed do subject ourselves unto them but we will not that our consciences be bound or ensnared nor the liberty which Christ hath givē to be taken from us How the Church exerciseth this power of making lawes he explaineth (v) De Cōc q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. elswhere namely in Synods And seeing here he teacheth obedience and subjection unto them it is plaine that he allowes unto Synods a greater authority then onely of admonishing or counselling This he expresseth more plainly even in this Question also when he sayth (x) De Pont. Rom. q. 7. p. 849. It is lawfull for Synods both Generall Provinciall to make lawes and to ordaine certaine rites which belong unto good order and the outward policie of the Church and they are to be deposed which doe not keep the same but our consciences are not bound with those lawes except contempt scandall be added as was sayd before SECT XI His Allegation of Chamierus examined BEsides these Allegations set downe in his Apologeticall Reply there remaineth yet to be considered of us the testimony of Daniel Chamierus another learned man whom Mr Dav. had cited before any of these to wit in his letter which he sent to the Classis printed by W. B. saving (y) Book of compl p. 2. The power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters or in things which are proper to it self as a Synod hath the chief power in things that are common to many Churches witnesse Chamiercont Bell. lib. 2. ANSVV. The quotation of this Testimony is imperfectly described so that men cannot finde the same by the direction he gives there being many second bookes in those 4 Tomes of that great work each of them contayning many chapters and none of them specifyed by him It seemes he took this testimony from Mr Parker who hath also imperfectly cited the same for though he mention not onely the second book but also pag. 193. yet is not that testimony there to be found But wheresoever it is he might have * See before pag. 92 93. found in Mr Parker sufficient answer and satisfaction
should serve for proofe of his Major that he brings for confirmation of his Minor The Scriptures which he alledgeth he referres to the proofe of his mis-named Proposition the Testimonies of Authors here alledged he referres to the proofe of his mis-called Assumption This errour I doe the rather note 1. Because it is no slip or oversight in him through want of attention in this place but an ordinary and frequent errour as appeares in that which followeth 2. Because of his insolent and arrogant boasting against others (c) Churc plea p. 2. 3. 15. Necess of Sep. p. 188 189. for want of art and want of wit of Logick c. Who can relate unto us such an example of a man professing himself a Logicall Disputant with such abundance of printed Syllogismes with such contempt of others and yet to be so rude as not to know the plainest things and the A. B. C. in Logick the difference betwixt the Major and Minor in a Syllogisme 3. Because of his spirituall pride not onely in separating himself from the Churches of Christ as other Brownists doe but taking upon him to be their Pastour their guide their champion for defence of their Separatiō against all men O miserable men that follow so blinde a guide III. A third errour in the prosequution of this Argument is this that although the premisses of this argument being rightly understood are granted to be true yet the Scriptures alledged doe not prove the same Though the Churches planted of the Apostles had power fully in themselves immediately from Christ to practise all his ordinances yet these places 1. Cor. 5.2 3. Act. 14.23 1. Cor. 16.2 Col. 2.5 2. Thes 3.14 doe onely prove their right for the practise of some of his ordinances that are mentioned and poynted at in them but not of all other As for example the administration of the Sacraments though a right belonging to the Church and ordained in other places of Scripture yet is not specifyed in any of these allegations The liberty of appeales in case of oppression the power of sending Deputies unto a Synod for the decision of difficult weighty causes are ordinances of Christ and rights of the Church as hath bene shewed before yet not specifyed in any of these Scriptures alledged by him and therefore his proof for all ordinances is defective IV. For the right understanding of this sentence viz. that every Parish or every particular Church hath full or sufficient authority within it self derived immediately from Christ for the government of it self in all Ecclesiasticall causes I desire the Reader to look back unto the explication thereof by (d) Disse de Gub. Eccl. p. 14. Gersom Bucerus who labouring to make the best interpretation thereof yet shewes that it is not to be admitted without divers cautions some whereof I have expressed * P. 117. 118. before He undertakes the defence hereof against D. Downam but no further then it may be so understood and so expounded as not containing in it any denyall or impeachment of the authority and jurisdiction of Classes and Synods judging the causes of many Churches And indeed how can any Church be sayd to practise all the ordinances of Christ so long as they refuse and deny the combination of Churches or the jurisdiction of them being combined which is shewed to be one of his ordinances ARGVM II. (e) Churc plea p. 69. If Christ in Mat. 18.17 where he sayth Tell the Church doth meane a particular Congregation Then hath every particular Congregation an intire power in of it self to exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all other Gods spirituall ordinances But the first is true Therefore the second The Proposition is cleare and certaine maintained by the most Iudicious Divines c. The Assumption is proved thus That Church which Christ intendeth in Matt. 18. hath absolute power in of itself to performe all Gods ordinances But Christ intendeth in Mat. 18. a particular Congregation Therefore every particular Congregation hath absolute power in and of it self to performe all Gods ordinances c. ANSVV. I. Here is the same fault that was in the former Argument viz. of concluding beside the question This argument being granted there ariseth hence no prejudice to the authority of Classes or Synods The authority of particular Churches and the authority of Synods may well subsist together The arrowes which are shot by Mr Canne are beside the marke of the maine question II. His argument is not onely beside the mark but as an arrow shot up into the ayre and falling downe on his head againe so doth his argument returne upon himself for if a particular Church hath intire power in and of itself to performe all Gods ordinances then hath it power to unite itself with other Churches combined in Synods and to submit unto the judgement thereof according to the divine warrant ordinance Act. 15.2 c. Deut. 17.8 c. III. As before so he blindely stumbles here againe at the same stone in not discerning betwixt the Proposition and Assumption of his owne Syllogisme The Authors which he alledgeth for the maintenance of his Major proposition ought to have bene applyed to the proofe of his Assumption viz. to shew that Christ in Mat. 18.17 where he saith Tell the Church doth meane a particular Congregation for this is that which he assumes when he sayth But the first is true And all the shew of help which he hath from his Authors tends to confirme this Assumption but their testimonies are no direct proofe of his Proposition IV. Another new grosse errour in his Logicall dispute is this that whereas he goes about to prove the Assumption of his first Syllogisme by framing a second Syllogisme he doth not therein according to order conclude that which was his former Assumption whether it be understood as it is indeed or as he miscalles it but instead thereof he ridiculously repeates the Conclusion of his first Syllogisme which Conclusion is neither the Proposition nor the Assumption which he offers to prove but the Question made by him in his maine Argument And thus entangling himselfe with his owne Syllogismes Propositions and Assumptions he hath brought himself into such a maze that he knowes not where he is what he sayth nor whereof he affirmeth Let Logicians tell how oft they have seene the like in print V. Whether all his Authors doe affirme that by the Church in Mat. 18. Christ meant a particular Congregation I will not here examine I shall have further occasion in the next chapter to speak of many of them But in the meane time let it be granted not onely that they have all so affirmed but that it is the trueth Yet doe they not all affirme that onely a particular Congregation was intended by Christ Mat. 18. For both the Eldership of a particular Church and the Synod arising from the combination of many Churches are shewed unto us in Matt. 18. the one
he so boldly affirmeth to be unquestionably certain viz. that which is indeed the first part of this Argument is on the contrary most certainly false This consequence of his Major proposition remaines to be proved Scripture he alledgeth none at all and for those eleven Authors mentioned by him there is not one of them that confirmes his consequence Why did he not expresse their words apply them to his purpose enforce thē against us if he thought they would have served his turne It is sayd to have bene a stratageme of theeves that to affright men they have taken many hats and set them upon stakes afarre of that passengers imagining them to be men partakers with those theeves that came unto them might the sooner yeeld Thus doth Mr Canne who sets downe the names of many Authors and their writings in his marginall quotations as if they were of his minde or partakers of his cause when as there is no such matter to be found in them Let us heare how he proceeds I. CAN. Againe whereas the Papists and Hierarchy do say much after Mr Pagets new doctrine that the Church of Corinth had not sole and alone authority in itself to exercise Ecclesiasticall government our writers viz. (l) Ref. Rhem. 1. Cor. 5.4 Mr Cartwright (m) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 4. p. 17. 18. c. Mr Parker others refute them and prove the contrary by many reasons ANSVV. That which he saith here of sole and alone authority c. is more then he propounded in his Syllogisme I acknowledge that the Church of Corinth did exercise Ecclesiasticall government within herself and I affirme as much for our owne and other particular Congregations here and Mr Canne with as good reason might argue that we doe not stand under Classes and Synods if there were any soundnes in his Syllogisme My opinion touching the Church of Corinth may be discerned sufficiently by that which I noted touching the 7 Churches in answer to his former argument And as for Mr Cartwright and Mr Parker whom he specially alledgeth they help him not at all I acknowledge Mr Parker doth justly oppose them that held the Church of Corinth did not excommunicate the incestuous person but Apostle alone But I doe more fully assent unto Mr Cartwright who differing something from Mr Parker and refuting the Rhemists most effectually by many reasons doth yet withall shew that the authority and power both of the Apostle and of the Church did concurre in this excommunication Whereas the Rhemists would have the Corinthians to be onely witnesses Mr Cartwright in his third reason against them sayth (n) Conf. of Rhem. upon 1. Cor. 5.4 If the Church were assembled onely to beare witnesse and not to have authority in this case it followeth that Paules spirit was there also onely to look on and beare witnesse considering that the personall presence of the Church and the Apostles spirituall presence are associated in this affaire of the Church Thus he joyneth both together and so afterwards againe reasoning from those words Do not you judge of those that are within 1. Cor. 5.12 he sayth thereupon that the Apostle giveth more unto the Church in excommunication then to be witnesses and lookers on For he useth the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 5.3.12 word to declare the Churches interest that he used before to note his owne If then you will say that the Churches judgement in excommunication is but to beare witnesse it followeth that the Apostles then and consequently their successours now are onely to beare witnesse of the excommunication Hereunto commeth also that the release of this censure is asscribed in the same word of forgivenes or absolutiō unto the Church as unto Paul 2. Cor. 2.10 Now to have the same word in the same verse and the same cause to be understood diversly and referred to Paul to have the proper signification of remitting but referred to the Church to signify a witnessing of remission needeth more learning for the defence of it then falleth unto the Iesuites capacity Thus he shewes that neither the sole authority of the Church on the one side nor the sole authority of Paul on the other side did determine this busines Againe had there a dangerous contention risen in Corinth which by their sole authority they could not end what should have hindred them from following the example of the Church at Antioch in seeking help both by counsell and authority of other Churches for the judgement thereof I. CAN. The latter part is proved before in the Minors of the 1. and 3. arguments ANSVV. It it manifest that he did not know the Minor from the Major in some of his former Syllogismes and so in this place it appeares he doth not discerne the first from the latter part of his argument But what he objected before is already answered it is vaine helples for him to rely upon his former poofes ARGVM V. (o) Churc plea. p. 71. Such actions the Church may lawfully doe wherein no Law of God is broken But there is no Law of God broken when particular Congregations doe in among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances Therefore they may lawfully doe it The proof of the Proposition doth arise from the definition of sinne which as (p) Cōt Fan. l. 22. c. 27. Augustine and (q) Lib. de Paradis c. 8. Ambrose truely define it is either a deed or word or thought against some Divine Law (r) Lib. 2. dist 35. Lombard (ſ) Th. 12. q. 71. Aquinas and other Schoolemen as they are called agree hereto The Assumption is manifest in our first Argument the first part of it ANSVV. This Argument toucheth not the question we grant his Conclusion that particular Congregations may in among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances and among the rest this ordinance of combining themselves in Synods for the decision of their controversies This may be sayd as well to be in among themselves as the use of Synods for counsell which my opposites allow for an ordinance of God And as particular Churches may refuse the counsell of Synods if it be unlawfull so ought they to disobey the sentences and decrees of Synods if they determine any thing contrary to the word of God His Proposition being so manifest it was needles to bring proof for it But the definition of sinne which he brings needlesly is insufficient because it comprehends not all sinne under it There is an originall corruption and depravation of nature which is Sinne considered distinctly apart beside thoughts words or deeds The Law requireth integrity of nature and all disconformity with that Law is sinne though not yet come so farre as thoughts Deut. 6. with 1. Iohn 3.4 The saying of Augustine is to be taken rather for a distribution then for a definition and for a distribution not simply of Sinne but onely of Actuall sinnes as they are either thoughts words or
occasion of the dissention IV. It appeares that the primitive Churches at their first constitution by the Apostles were not independent bodies in a speciall respect more then any in our times because they were then subject to the extraordinary government by Apostles and Evangelists who besides that which they did in ordinary course of judgement with the Churches concurrence as 1. Cor. 5. had also of themselves extraordinary authority and power granted unto them over all Churches for the correcting of the wicked therein as appeareth 1. Cor. 4.21 2. Cor. 10.2 3 6 8 10. Act. 5.9 10. 3. Ioh. 10. REAS. IX (m) Churc plea p. 77. By the titles given to all particular Congregations it appeares evidently that Ecclesiasticall authority is or at least ought to be in every one of them distinctly wholy intirely viz. a Kingdome Matt. 3.2 a Family Eph. 2.19 a Body 1. Cor. 12.20 a Queene Psal 45. c. For what more senceles then to say a Kingdome or family standing under another Politicall or Oeconomicall government out of themselves a body having all parts members yet may neither receive in nor put out without anothers leave and consent many such absurdities followeth Mr Pagets lately-devised Tenets ANSVV. I. That which seemes senseles and absurd unto the transcendent understanding of Mr Can. and W. Be. is not withstanding found reasonable in the judgement of sober men As for Kings and their kingdomes we see in the story of the new Testament that the three King-Herods and the fourth King Agrippa both they and their kingdomes did stand under another Politicall government under the Romane Empire under the authority of Caesar to whom they payd tribute Mat. 2. 14. Act. 12. 25. 26. with Luk. 2.1 Matt. 22.21 Iohn 19.12 15. And in the old Testament we read that Zedekias King of Judah stood under the Politicall government of the King of Babel Ierem. 27.12 2. Chron. 36.13 And other stories shew that this was no strange thing The Kings and Kingdomes of Bohemia and Hungary at this day stand under the command of the Emperour As for families and their Oeconomicall government in regard of that obedience which children owe to their parents by vertue of the fift Commandement Honour thy father and thy mother Exo. 20.12 inferiour families owe subjection unto superiour Those families that descended from Adam for six or seven generations together and those families that descended of Noah Shem Arpacshad Shelah and Eber though in their habitations they were divided after the Flood did yet owe subjection unto these fathers and grand-fathers and in matters of greatest moment and controversy concerning their families as about family-worship mariages and the like they were bound to submit unto their censure and determinations in the Lord those five Patriarkes being then all alive in those corrupt times after the confusion of languages Gen. 11. As for the bodies of men it is not unreasonable or absurd to thinke that the members of any mans body should not be cut off at his owne will without the consent and approbation of sundry experienced and skillfull Chirurgeons according to the order appoynted by the Governours of this City and practised therein II. Those Scriptures alledged to shew the titles given to particular Congregations doe not prove the matter intended By the kingdome of heaven Matth. 3.2 is not understood simply a particular Congregation but the abundance of grace revealed and exhibited either unto particular persons Congregations or the whole Church of God throughout the world c. Thus the kingdome of heaven or the kingdome of God is in every severall beleever and they are all Kings Rom. 14.17 Rev. 1.6 now according to Mr Cannes reasoning not any one of them should stand under any other spirituall government under any Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves because they are kings themselves and have a spirituall kingdome within them By the houshold of God Ephes 2.19 may be understood the whole universall Church of God as well as a particular Congregation and so by the one body 1. Cor. 12.20 and so by the Queene Psal 45.9 And therefore these places prove nothing for the restraint and limitation of all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely which is the late-devised tenent of the Brownists REAS. X. The acts of the Apostolique Churches proove directly our assertion For it is without all contradiction that they elected their owne Ministers excommunicated offenders sent messengers and performed all other Church matters among themselves ANSVV. This reason taken from the acts of the Apostolick Churches is for substance the same with the first third fourth and sixt Syllogisticall arguments before and there answered and here by him idly repeated to increase the number of his Reasons REAS. XI Lastly let it be observed that Mr Paget in this accordeth with the (n) Bellar de Eccl. l. 5. c. 5. Papists for they say as hee doth that particular Churches are not independent bodies but stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves The which thing our Writers deny and proove the contrary ANSVV. I. The accord of Papists is no sufficient reason for refutation seeing they accord with us in many poynts of religion against Arrians Anabaptists Brownists and others II. See the partiality of Mr Canne in his eight Reason before he alledgeth for himself how the Papists doe accord with him to this the Papists assent sayth he here in this place he alledgeth against me their accord assent with me presently after againe in the same and following pages he doubts not but to make it manifest that the Papists are with him c. Thus when they accord with him it must serve for the confirmation of his reason when they accord with me it must still serve for confirmation of his reason and for the condemning of me Whether it be their assent or dissent it is all one to him he can ground his arguments upon one as well as the other Such are his reasonings III. Mark his false allegation of Bellarmine de Eccl. l. 5. c. 5. when as there is no such fift booke extant written by Bellarmine IV. How farre we differ from the Papists and Popish Hierarchy in this controversy about Synods hath bene noted (o) Pag. 29.30 at first in the State of the Question and may be seene at large in manifold passages set downe before out of (p) P. 125-132 Iunius and (q) P. 133-141 D. Whitaker their disputes against Bellarmine and out of (r) P. 101-104 Mr Parker his refuration of the Hierarchy in this particular which to repeat in a case so cleare were to imitate Mr Canne in his needles and superfluous quotations CHAP. VII The Allegations of Mr Canne examined AFter the former 21 Arguments against the authority of Synods Mr Canne falles to flatter himself rejoyces in himself to thinke what the Reader will imagine when he sees his manifold Reasons (a) Churc plea p. 77.
lawfully proceed among themselves to the excommunicating of offenders whensoever there is necessary and just cause Neither doe they say a word that it is a Divine institution that the Ministers of one Congregation must first aske the leave and consent of other Ministers before they can lawfully administer this ordinance of God Hereunto I answer The more Reverend Godly and learned these Authors were the greater is his offence that shewes so little reverence unto them in perverting and abusing their testimonies If any Advocate should so farre wrong a Iurie of 24 men as to falsify their verdict contrary to their meaning might it not justly be counted a great forgery and worthy of exemplary punishment Now that this is the fault of Mr C. the Advocate and abettour of W. B. it may appeare in the first place by the generall consideration of their testimonies alledged For though it be generally affirmed by these Authors that matters of great weight as excommunication absolution choosing of Ministers and the like are not to be administred without the common consent of the Church yet this proves not that it is unlawfull to seek the counsell and help of a Classis or Synod beforehand for the preventing of wrong or that it is unlawfull to appeale unto them in case of wrong done Though particular Congregations have power to judge it followes not that they themselves are therefore subject to no other Ecclesiasticall judgment out of themselves The errour absurdity of this consequence may better appeare by these examples Though fathers masters of particular families have immediate authority from God power to use it in a domesticall way to performe familie dueties judge of matters in the family yet this hinders not but that their familie exercises works may be judged of by other authority in the city where many families are cōbined together for their mutuall governmēt Though particular cities in and for themselves have power to execute judgement and to punish offences committed among them yet this hinders not but that if they judge unjustly or abuse their authority that they themselves may then be judged of others To come more particularly unto his Authors alledged and first for P. Martyr whom he makes the foreman of the Iurie though he writing against the errour of the Romish Church teaching that Councels cannot erre and preferring them above the Scriptures have just cause to shew the errours of sundry Councells and Synods especially about that time when so many wicked decrees were made by the Councell of Trent vet he addeth that (c) Loc. Cōm Class 4. c. 4. § 11 de Cōncill these things were not spoken that the Authority of Councels should be wholly cast away For saith he if they reprehend excommunicate or absolve according to the word of God praying together by the power of the Spirit these shall not be in vaine nor without fruit And afterwards againe he brings (d) Ibid. c. 6. § 18. divine warrant to shew the institution and order of Synods from the example of the Apostles Act. 15. By which it may appeare how he held that there was a superiour Ecclesiasticall power above particular Congregations and consequently that his testimony hath bene perverted by Mr Canne The second Author alledged against us is Iunius who notwithstanding is a most pregnant witnesse for us to shew the authority of Synods When Bellarmine objecteth against the Protestants that they reject Ecclesiasticall judgements and refuse the authority of Synods this he (e) Animadv in Bell. Controv. 4. de Conc. in Praef. n. 1 2 11 12 13. shewes to be most false And further (f) Ibid. l. 1 c. 1. 3. 10. n. 1 2. 11. n. 1. he avoucheth both the just authority and necessity of Synods and likewise the divine institution of them alledging often to that end besides other Scriptures that sentence of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14.32 The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets Though no sentence whether of a particular Congregation or of any other judge is to be yeelded unto and allowed contrary to the word of God yet according to that word he (g) Ibid. c. 18. n. 1.8 l 2. c. 1. n 1. c. 16. n 1. c. 18. n 1 2 6. maintaineth that Synods are not onely to make inquisition and to consult but that they also have under Christ a ministeriall judgement touching the controversies either about faith or manners Iunius therefore is greatly abused when it is pretended that he hath brought in a contrary verdict against us The third man of the Iurie produced against us is Musculus And here it is to be observed I. That it is untruely affirmed by him in his words noted before touching the Iurie of more then 24 men that they are of mine owne choosing For though I have a multitude of witnesses agreeing with me yet as none in particular were named by me so Musculus in speciall should not have bene alledged considering his different judgement and practise from other Reformed Churches For although he confesse that the power of election and deposition of Ministers excommunication c. was exercised with consent of the people in the primitive Church and in the Apostles time yet he saith and that (h) Loc. Cōm de Minist p. 199 204. de Eccl. p. 311 de Magist p. 631. 632. 633. often that this order was to be kept while there were no Christian Magistrates and that the order which was then profitable to the Churches is not so at this time that it now belongs unto the Magistrate to appoynt Ministers either by choosing them himself or confirming such as were chosen by others at his commandement that the Rule of Telling the Church Matth. 18. was in force while they were destitute of Christian Magistrates II. Though Musculus differ from other Reformed Churches in this question of Church-government yet he also most evidently even more then I doe condemnes the opinion of the Brownists and of my opposites while he (i) Ibid. de elect Ministr p. 200. maintaines that particular Congregations are subject to another superiour power out of themselves in matters of Church-government while he justifieth the practise of the Churches in Berne where Ministers are chosen in the citie and by the Senate sent unto the Churches in the country subject unto their jurisdiction as they thought best If Musculus had bene of Mr Cannes W. Bests minde he should have forsaken those Churches and separated from them as not being a free people while they wanted excommunication power of choosing their owne Ministers Who sees not here how notably they pervert the Authors alledged by them Come we to the rest In the next place he nameth Viret but it seemes he is mistaken in his Allegation there being no such booke of Viret as he hath quoted in his margine he rather seemes to meane Virell in the grounds of Religion But whether he meane Viret or
on 1. Cor. 5.5 doth thus interpret the words Let such a one be delivered to Satan to wit by the Church or by the Pastours and Elders of the Church which are the mouth of the Church For by these the Church speaketh and dealeth Without this order there would be confusion if in a publick action every one might speake and deale which undoubtedly the Apostle would not bring in This we grant and it is not against us but against the confused practise of the Brownists But for the poynt in hand that Classes and Synods have power to judge of the actions of particular Congregations Paraeus is a plaine witnesse for us in (d) Colleg. Theol. Decur Coll. 9. Disp 8. Auccar 1. Co. 10. Disp 22. th 1-10 Disp 24. th 9. other of his writings And againe speaking of a lawfull Synod and the authority thereof in deciding of controversies in the Church he saith that therein (e) Eirenic cap. 5. men renowmed in regard of their learning understanding and piety whether they be of the Laity or Clergy have not onely a voice of delibertion and counsell but also of judgement and power of defining And hereunto accordes his (f) Act. Sym. Nar. Dordr Ses 98. Epistle written unto the Nationall Synod holden last at Dort wherein excusing his absence that he could not come in respect of his age as he much desired yet he shewes his approbation of such a meeting as being the ordinary medicine for healing the wounds of the Church and rejoyceth greatly in the spirit for the benefit exspected from that Synod which judged censured the errours of particular men in divers Churches What reason then had Mr Canne thus to abuse the words of Paraeus against his meaning and publick profession Keckerman also agreeth with the former witnesses touching the poynt in controversy For in the book alledged by Mr Canne when as the parts of the government of the Church are there described he shewes that (g) System Theo. l. 3. c. 6. p. 401.402 the convocation of Synods belongeth unto Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and is contained under the same Hemmingius though more sound and moderate then other Lutheranes yet being a disciple and follower of Melancthon there was no reason why he should not have bene joyned with his Master in the foregoing ranke of Testimonies if Mr Canne had either knowne his Authour or regarded the order which he had set downe to himself But for his judgement touching the jurisdiction of Synods he hath witnessed his consent with the Writers mentioned both in this the former Section and testifyed against Mr Canne in this cause For speaking of that part of Ecclesiasticall Discipline unto which he referres the deposition and excommunication of Ministers he commends the order of the ancient Church where he saith (h) Enchir. Theo. Clas 3. c. 11. the execution of this discipline was chiefly committed to the Bishops who therefore sometimes twise sometimes oftner in the yeare called Provinciall Synods where the matter was handled not by the censure of one Bishop but by the sentence of the whole Clergy assembled Tossanus mentioned in the next place hath plainely declared himself to be of the same minde with us in allowing Synodall and Classicall assemblies to judge determine the causes of particular Churches and persons He (i) Pastor Evang. p. 61 edit 1603. maintaines against Thyraeus that which he had formerly written in these words In controversies of religion we appeale from Luther and from the censures and judgements of private men unto the judgement of the Catholick Church and of a Synod He proves this to be sound and orthodoxe from the Apostles referring the decision of the controversie concerning Iustification and the Ceremonies of the Law unto the Councell at Ierusalem Act. 15. Speaking of somewhat that was wanting in most of the German Churches about the ordaining of Ministers he saith that (k) P. 40. godly Pastours and Overseers doe dayly bewaile the scarsitie of faithfull labourers and that the Presbyteries and well ordered Ecclesiasticall Senates doe indeavour that both in Synods and yearely visitations and in Classicall meetings the failings of Ministers may be amended according to their power In which words he hath reference unto the practise of the Churches in the Palatinate concerning which we are to speake (l) Sect. 7. hereafter where he joyned with them in the exercise of the sayd government being (m) D. Toss Vita p. 38. at Neustadt a moderator of the Ecclesiasticall counsels of the Consistory and sometime also President of a Synod and afterwards at Heidelberg (n) Ib. P. 44. a member of the Ecclesiasticall Senate How unjustly therefore untruely hath Mr Canne dealt with Tossanus and his readers in reckoning him among those who as he saith (o) Ch. pl. p. 83. have condemned for an errour untrueth that position touching particular Congregations standing under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves As for Polanus to grant Mr Canne that he was of the same minde with the former Authours touching the Churches power in excommunicating though so much can hardly be manifested out of the (p) Synt. Theol. l. 7. c. 18. place alledged yet what is that to our question The Churches power in excommuncating doth not exclude the authority of Synods in judging of a particular Congregation Polanus speaking of Synods expressely confesseth that (q) Ib. c. 14 the liberty or power of those Ecclesiasticall assemblies is a right given of God unto his Church c. that An Ecclesiasticall Synod is a publick assemblie of godly men lawfully sent and gathered together from divers Churches also of divers Provinces that they may handle and determine according to the power that is granted unto them of God touching holy affaires c. He alledgeth sundry Scriptures and examples of the Ancient Churches for declaration hereof And againe in the same place he notes it for a condition of a lawfull Synod that those which are chosen and deputed of the Churches may have a deliberative or consulting and also a deciding voyce or giving of sentence c. When he requires another condition of a lawfull Synod that every one may have free accesse and recesse yet he addes this withall that whosoever is convicted of heresy or any crime and remaineth obstinate should undergoe Ecclesiasticall censure that is deposition from his Ecclesiasticall office or Suspension or Excommunication And to like purpose he writes in (r) Ib. c. 16. Syllo Thes Theol. par 1 de Concil other places This being the judgement of Polanus touching the authority of Synods how uncircumspect was W. Best his abettour to call for a Iurie of such Divines as have given such pregnant sentence and so peremptory verdict against them Hyperius next alledged though he deny not the power of particular Congregations yet in his writings it is evident that he holdes the power of Synods consisting of the Deputies of many Churches to be a
that it is not capable of them Yet that they of Geneva doe allow the use of Classes and Synods Mr Parker hath there manifested from their writings and the confessions of their adversaries and it doth also appeare by their practise while their joynt Presbyterie doth not greatly differ from a Classis But to speake properly it is not a Classis and to speak truely they are not the first that have approved and practised such kinde of combined government But lest Mr C. should seeme to urge us with the testimonies of these Authours behold what proofes he addes to this purpose I. C. Touching these Assertions I cannot see how Mr Paget or any other is able to disproove them It is acknowledged on all sides that in the first hundred yeares after the Apostles Ministers and Brethren of sundry Congregations met sometimes to conferre mutually together of common Church-affaires yet so as every particular Congregation had alwayes as the Centuries (v) Cent. l. 2. c. 4. p. 391. write power and authority in themselves to chuse their Officers reject Heretickes excommunicate offenders and the like ANSVV. 1. There is nothing here sayd to proove the foresaid assertions but what is grounded upon a false supposition which the Authour-hath before (x) Pag. 30.156 157 164 c. often discovered viz. that particular Congregations have not still their power authority in elections and censures when they are combined with others subject to the power belonging to such combinations for their direction correction in case they offend Mr C. leaving this without proofe the assertions which he offers to maintaine are in like manner left without defence for ought he hath here sayd II. The Magdeburgenses never understood that the consociation of Churches in such sort as it is maintained by the Defendant is inconsistent with that power which they have in themselves as hath been shewed (y) P. 173.174 175. before out of other places of the same Authours according to which the place here quoted must be explained where they speak onely of the Apostles times and of particular Congregations considered in themselves without excluding their confederacy with others for their mutuall help in iudging and deciding of causes I. C. So againe for a hundred yeares next after we read in Eusebius (z) L. 3. c. 22. L. 5. c. 16. L. 3. c. 19. Iraeneus (a) L. 3. c. 1.2.3 Nicephorus (b) L. 4. c. 23. and others that neighbour Ministers came often together when there was any dangerous errour broched or weighty points to be determined serving for generall good but this they did of liberty not of duety partly to preserve mutuall society as Zipperus (c) L. 3. c. 7. sayth partly that they might hereby be the more able to resist adversaries as Mr Parker (d) Eccl. Pol. p. 329 330. sayth ANSVV. His quotations here as they use to be are either misprinted or impertinent howbeit the things themselves for which they are alledged may easily be granted But the question is whether the Synods or meetings of Ministers held in that age did not exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in determining of weighty points and deciding of controversies If so be they did which cannot be denyed seeing as hath been (e) Prof. Leyd Censur Confes Remonstr Pref. § 14. Vedel de Arcan Armin l. 2. c. 6. p. 186. noted against the Arminians such a deciding of Ecclesiasticall controversies was used in all the Synods of the ancient Orthodox Church then it must needs follow that those times have given testimony unto such Synods as are here maintained But to avoyd this Conclusion Mr C. puts in this shift which we must take upon his owne credit saying this they did of liberty not of duety But to what purpose is this evasion 1. The opposing of dangerous errours the preserving of mutuall society and seeking help for the resisting of adversaries the things here spoken of are necessary dueties and therefore to be done of duety and not of liberty See before p. 78. Men are bound to the performance itself though there may be liberty used in the choyce of the circumstances 11. Mr Parker saith expressely in the very place here cited by Mr C. that (f) De Pol. Eccl. l. 3. p. 329. the ground of the combination of Churches is the duety of maintaining mutuall society c. and that bond of mutuall help which Moses mentioneth Num. 32.6 where the Reubenites and Gadites are urged to their duety not left to their liberty In the next place he telles us his opinion touching the limits of Synodall actions to wit that (g) Ch. pl. p. 95. Ecclesiasticall Officers may conclude what they judge meet good but not make a Church-act or sentence unlesse the Church first know it give their free consent unto it As if to any effectuall purpose weighty points could be determined mutuall society preserved and adversaries resisted when dangerous errours are broched which are the reasons he himself hath allowed for assembling in Synods while every Church is left free to itself to approve or reject what is so concluded His reason is because the power authoritie to make Church-acts is in the body of the Congregation The proofe hereof as it is understood applyed by him is yet to be expected _____ Comming downe to the next hundred yeares he seemes to acknowledge the practise of those times to be against him but to excuse the matter he alledgeth Casaubon D. Whitaker Mornaeus Brightman yea and Cyprian Eusebius and Ambrose testifying that in those times men began to devise a new order and manner of governing Churches c. Observe here a notable fallacy in his insinuating that to be the cause of such speeches which indeed was not It is true that these and other Authours have complained of changes and corruptions crept into the Church in those times but not because of Synodall authority then exercised nay this hath ever been accounted the happines of those times that the Churches had more liberty to assemble in Synods then they could have before in the times of persecution under Heathen Emperours Constantine is every where commended for his religious respect unto the welfare of the Church in assembling the Synod of Nice On the other side the wickednes of Licinius is noted by his forbidding the use of such Assemblies Though Episcopall dignity grew to a greater height in those times then before yet Synodall jurisdiction was the same that had been used formerly save onely that the favour of the Emperours publick liberty and the increase of offences together with the inlargement of the Churches are (h) Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 10. c. 3. Iun. Animadv in Bellarm. de Concil l. 1. c. 10. n. 2. Camerar Hist Syn. Nic. p. 212. edit Niceph observed to have made the Assemblies more generall and frequent then in former ages And therefore whatsoever Mr C. affirme there is no reason why we should dissent from