for to be his witnesses Mr Baynes speaking of particular Congregations at Geneva which doe not proceed in weighty matters without consent of other Churches meeting together by their Deputies sayth (e) Dioces tryall p. 21. They have power of governing themselves but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of another in that common Presbytery And a little after he sayth Though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in the exercise of it c. Mr Parker also whom Mr Canne so oft alledgeth and seemes to applaud as being of his opinion is very expresse in this poynt as I have noted before in answer to Mr D. He shewes that the government of Classes and Synods as they now are doth not take away the due power of particular Congregations Touching the Churches of the Villages in these Netherlands with whom we are united in the same government he sayth (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c 23. p. 349. The power of excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction illis illibata relinquitur is left pure unto them saving onely that communion which ought to be among Churches every Church useth the counsell and consent of her neighbours as of the Classis or Presbytery in the city which I suppose not to be unmeet even for the most perfect Churches He judged the freest and most perfect Churches to stand in need of this government and that it was no empeachment of their due power But Mr Canne labours to illustrate his assertion with some instances I. CAN. For instance say the Classes and Synods will not permit that a Congregation shall reject some convicted Hereticks then they must if they will beleeve Mr Paget let them alone in their communion against Gods expresse commandement Tit. 3.10 and so obey men rather then God Againe put case some Churches doe want Ministers yet notwithstanding if the Classes and Synods will not give them leave to choose any except unfit and insufficient persons then it seemes by this Synodicall Canon they must take such or remaine destitute still ANSVV. I. If such strange cases and unheared of in our times should fall out that then such oppression and tyranny is not to be imputed unto the Classicall or Synodall order government but to the corruption personall wickednes of such men as should be members of the Classis or Synod Such accidentall evills not springing from the nature of an ordinance are no arguments to prove the unlawfulnes of an ordinance when as the ordinance itself and in its owne nature serves for the preventing or remooving of such evills in particular Churches II. All the force of these objections and all the feare of danger and inconvenience pretended by these instances comes as strongly yea much more heavily upon the heads of those that stand for a single uncompounded policie would have all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction limited unto a particular Congregation for example put case that the greater part of a particular Congregation and of the Eldership therein will choose an offensive and insufficient Minister or will not permit that an obstinate and convicted Heretick among them shall be rejected what shall the other part of the Church doe which is oppressed and hindred from the due exercise of their power by the unrighteous proceeding of the greater part What can follow here according to (g) H. Ains Animadv p. 39. Cōm of Saints c. 23. p. 470. 471. the doctrine and practise of the Brownists but separation dissipation of the Church But by the government of Synods if particular Churches be guilty of errour oppression and tyranny their errour is to be corrected by Classes if Classes erre Synods may correct them and one Synod may be corrected by another greater And so many great evills may be redressed and scandals remooved III. As for the rejection of Hereticks commanded Tit. 3.10 a principall meanes for the accomplishment thereof is the help of Classes and Synods by their discerning convincing and judging of them If that help should faile and those that have authority should neglect or refuse to doe their duety herein the godly after testifying against evill are to tolerate that which they cannot amend even as the Pharisees and Sadduces convicted Hereticks were tolerated by the godly that remained in the Church without separation Lastly suppose that the power of particular Churches had bene in some sort weakned and not strengthned by the government of Classes and Synods as they now are yet is it a grosse falshood when he assumeth or rather lavishly presumeth that their government tends merely or onely to the taking away of the Churches due power as though there were no other fruit or benefit by them This he shall never prove The second proof of his Minor is taken from the practise of the Classis W. Best is (h) Church plea. p. 74. there brought in complaining of the authority which they take over us and our Eldership too yea in truth sayth he so much authority as any Lord can doe over his servant c. But this is a shameles and impudent falshood without trueth for no Lords suffer their servants to sit with them in judgement and to have a voyce for determining matters as well as themselves so as the Elders or Deputies of every Church are allowed in the Classis Beside other manifest differences observe the unbounded and unmeasurable slander in his speaking not onely of that authority which Lords doe take but of that which any Lord can doe over his servant For what is it which the worst Lord cannot doe to his servant That insufficient reason which he brings for the declaration of this authority may as well and more truely in his words be applyed unto the Democracy of the Brownists for so long as any member among them doth what that imperious company will have him doe he is left alone but if he meddle with things against the others liking he is immediately commanded to cease and so must not proceed further Yea that Democraticall judicatory is farre more severe and ready to censure those that resist them then is any Classis in these lands Had any member of them so behaved himself against them as W. Be. hath done to the Classis in this scandalous and reproachfull writing against them as well as against me he had bene long since delivered unto Satan he could not have exspected such lenity and patience from them as the Classis hath used towards this W. Be. My answer unto a writing touching an action joyntly concluded by them as he saith viz. that it did not belong unto them is deceitfully and imperfectly set downe The matter being such as had bene already brought unto the Classis and there judged and decided against them there was no reason that it should be brought back to an inferiour judicatory being such as were parties also
CoÌ„c col 5 46. c. 7. col 522. 542. Authors Particular Churches among us also are governed by their owne Bishops Elders Deacons though not by them alone especially in matters of greater difficulty Whereas they alledge another place on this manner Cent. 6.7 col 591. there is a notable abuse therein for 1. What reason had they to alledge the history of the sixt Centurie to shew what was done in the first Centurie from Christs Ascension to Trajans time 2. As for the (k) Col. 4â—4 c. 7th chapter of that Centurie there are more then an 100 or 200 testimonies shewing the power of Metropolitane Bishops and of Archbishops which they exercised in many Churches Antichrist being almost come to his height at that time 3. As for that place of the sixt Century poynted at by his marginall quotation viz. Col. 591. All that is there specifyed at large in the story concerning Richaredus a King of Spaine converted from Arianisme submitting himself unto the (l) Syn. Tolet. 3. Synod then assembled is against them that include all Ecclesiasticall authority within one Congregation onely If these quotations be misprinted it was great negligence in Mr Canne to look no better to his work Againe it is alledged from the Magdeburgenses Cent. 2. c. 7. p. 134 135. that from Trajans raigne unto Serverus from the yeare of Christ 100 to 195 If any read the approved Authors of this age he shall see that the order of Government was popular for all Churches had equall power c. This testimony is also abused 1. There is one falsification in mistranslating of the words for they doe not say that then the government was popular as Mr Canne sets it downe nor yet that it was like unto a popular government but onely this is sayd that it was almost like unto a popular government propemodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem fuisse And how great is the difference betwixt these assertions even as much as there is betwixt being a Christian and almost a Christian so plainly distinguished Act. 26.29 2. What though the governmeÌ„t of the Church was almost like a Democracie Or what though all Churches had equall power then Could they not therefore stand under the authority of Synods It is a perverted reasoning so to argue Even here all the Reformed Churches among us have equall power and are partly Democraticall and yet are mutually and equally subject to one another in their Synods 3. There is another egregious falsification in the alledging of this testimony by omitting that which principally concernes the Question for when these of Magdeburg say here that all Churches had equall power of teaching the Word administring of Sacraments excommunicating ordination and deposition of Ministers they adde withall in the same Chapter and in the very same sentence period in the words immediately following touching this equall power of Churches that it was for the gathering of Synods and Assemblies and this not for counsell onely but for the judging and deciding of matters doubtfull and controverted And not onely this but after againe in the same page (m) Col. 135. this power of Synods in judging and excommunicating of Hereticks is further declared and repeated it being the very scope of that Section to describe the power of Synods in the consociation of Churches And further in this same (n) Cent. 2. c. 9. de CoÌ„c col 159.160 c. Century as in others according to their order they doe rehearse divers Synods held in those times as that at Rome at Cesarea in Palestine others in France in Pontus in Achaia c. In the next place confounding the order propounded by himself he brings in among his Lutherane witnesses (o) OnRev 12.1 Mr Brightman who as he saith comes downe lower even unto Constantines time and is of opinion that the primitive puritie of Church government was not yet defloured with the dregges of mans invention Neither had SataÌ„ brought in Prelaticall pride into the sheepfold of the Lord but the Pastours looked every one to the health of his owne flock Hence it appeares sayth Mr Canne that for the space of 200 or 300 yeares after Christ every visible Church had power to exercise Ecclesiasticall government c. Now to shew how vainely this is alledged 1. Observe how farre it is from the Question for though the Pastours looked every one to the health of his owne flock this prooves not that the power of Classes and Synods is an undue power Doth he thinke that either I or any Minister of these Reformed Churches will not acknowledge the same Yea doe not Pastours then looke the better to the safety of their flockes when as in needfull cases they seek the help of Synods therein 2. Let him consider his (p) Magdeb. Cent. 3. c. 7. col 161. c. former witnesses what they say concerning this third age of the Church shewing in what manner Pastours did then looke to the health of their flock If any weighty questions dissensions or Herefies arose they did nothing by their private counsell neither durst they c. but calling together other fellow-Bishops of the same Province either all or many by conferring their judgements together they decided the questions compounded the dissensions refuted the Heresies and excommunicated them that were obstinate c. And this is further shewed at large by many instances and examples in the same place And (q) Cent. 3. c. 9. de Syn. col 192 193 c. after againe they describe divers Synods that were held in those times in Asia Europe and Africa for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in deciding of controversies c. 3. That Mr Brightmans words are perverted and wrested to a wrong end against the authority of Synods contrary to his meaning it appeareth by the rare and pregnant testimony he gives unto them in the (r) On Rev. 8.3 4. same book where he teacheth that the vision and type of the Angel standing at the golden Altar before the throne with a golden censer full of incense was accomplished in Constantine the great gathering together so many holy men in the Synod or Councell of Nice for the deciding of the controversy about Arius and shewes that the wholesome conclusion and happy issue of that Synod effected by the care labour diligence and charges of Constantine was acceptable to God in Christ and as a thick cloud of incense ascending out of the hand of the Angel in the presence of God And thus also he (Å¿) OnRev 7.2 3. interprets a former vision of another Angel that came up from the rising of the Sunne having the seale of the living God to seale the servants of God in their foreheads This he expounds of Constantine and of the Nicene Synod he being the principall instrument to call that Synod While the Godhead of Christ coequall and consubstantiall with the Father was maintained in that Synod and the trueth
releasing one prisoner at the feast whom they would that upon their request Mark 15.6 8. was an evidence of the peoples want of power in judgement for had they had authority to have judged determined such matters what needed they to have petitioned to Pilate or what favour had it bene in the Romane Governour to have granted that unto them for one person at one speciall time which they might have done of their owne authority at any time 4. Though it be sayd that they prevayled with their voyces this is to be understood of their importunate request and voyces of petition as is noted in the same place and not of their suffrages or giving of voyces with authority in the sentence of judgement as the importunate widow prevayled with the unrighteous Iudge Luk. 18.5 so did the Iewes prevayle with Pilate by their importunate requests cryes clamours in begging Barabbas of Pilate desiring him to crucify Christ Act. 3.14 5. This condemnation of Christ was done by the Romane authority the Iewes confesse that it was not lawfull for them to put any man to death Ioh. 18.31 the scepter was now departed from Iuda Luk. 2.1 c. they acknowledged no King but Caesar Ioh. 19.15 and Pontius Pilate a Romane Governour under Caesar gave sentence of death upon Christ the people of the Iewes were now vassals to the Romanes and had not the power pretended when you therefore send to this example you send us to Rome to the Romish government and not unto that order and policie which God had commanded and planted among his owne people II. Whereas you say (v) Animadv p. 20. it is not manifested that the Magistrates in Israel had in themselves full absolute power to cut off a man or to put him to death c. the contrary may be shewed First by the example of David who as he resolved professed for himself that he would cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord Psal 101.8 so when occasion was given he presently condemned the Amalekite to death for slaying Saul 2. Sam. 1.15 he by his owne authority appointed Baanah Rechab to be slaine for killing Isnbosheth without gathering any assembly to aske the peoples consent 2. Sam. 4 8-12 When David heard from Nathans parable of a rich man oppressing the poore he forthwith pronounced the sentence of death against that oppressour not waiting for the counsell or consent of the people though in a rare unusuall case 2. Sam. 12.5 6. When the woman of Tekoah makes request for her sonne that he might be absolved in judgement and delivered from the sentence of death David presently by his owne authority decrees that he shall be pardoned and confirmes it with an oath he stayes not for approbation from the people 2. Sam. 14 4-11 Againe if we looke upon the way of his sonne after him we see the same thing even in Salomon and that both in his doctrine where he teacheth that the power of life death is in the hand of the King Prov. 16.14 15. 20.2 26. and in his practise he confirmed the same in the judgement sentence of death which he forthwith decreed pronounced upon Adoniah swore to have the same accomplished presently without asking consent of the people 1. King 2.23 24 25. III. If the Magistrates in Israel had not in themselves authority to put a malefactour to death without consent of the people then doe you unjustly blame that proportion that might be made betwixt the Elders in the gate and Elders in the Church betwixt Magistrates and Ministers then doe you unjustly impugne the same (x) Animadv p. 14. 15. 16. 19 c. as a disproportion streyned too farre for if the Magistrates in Israel did but guide governe the action in Civill judgements as (y) Ibid. p. 113. Mr Robinson in his answer recorded by you doth note of the Iudges of Assises in England even of the Lord Cheef-Iustice himself with his Bench wishing also that the Ecclesiasticall Elders whom he you oppose would allow the body of the Church the like liberty at their spirituall Sessions that those Iudges allow unto the country or Iury in the judgment of malefactours if the Magistrates in the Common-wealth might not decree the sentence of judgement without consent of the people no more then the Ministers in the Church without consent of the Congregation if the Ministers in the Church might governe the action and the people in their judgements as well as the Elders in the gate is there not then here an even manifest proportion both of government power betwixt the one the other IV. If the power of judgements giving sentence of life death were not in the Magistrates in Israel then doe you contradict the testimony of the Iew-doctours out of their Thalmud alledged not onely by (z) Annot. on Matt. 5.22 Beza many others but by your (a) Animadv p. 17. self also in the description of their severall Courts the authority which they exercised in the same Yea you doe more plainly yet contradict yourself when afterward from the testimonies of Scripture alledged by Mr Iohnson you doe againe (b) Ibid. p. 18 19. confesse that the Magistrates in Israel had power of life death The third Errour A Third errour in the proofe of the Churches power is in that you derive the same from other unsound proportions of the ceremoniall observation in Israel Though you yourself doe acknowledge against Mr Johnson that the drawing of proportions from the government in Israel is one of the (c) Animadv pref 1. p. 15. maine pillars of Popery to underprop the tower of Antichrist yet the trueth is that neither Mr Iohns nor Cardinall Bellarmine himself doe gather more unequall proportions for their supremacies which they plead for then you doe I. Whereas you would prove (d) Confes art 24. Ap. p. 62. Animadv p. 20. the power of excommunication to be in the whole body of every Christian Congregation and not in any one member apart or in more members sequestred from the whole c. and seek to prove this by a proportion drawne from the government in Israel because as you argue from Numb 5.2 3. not the Priest onely but the children of Israel were charged to put the Leper out of the host This proportion faileth unlesse you could shew that the Priests wanted authority to pronounce this judgement of excluding a leper out of the host untill they had the consent of the people We see the contrary namely that the Priests discerning and judging the lepers and others executing their decree might lawfully remoove the leper for 1. The Priest did not onely declare by way of teaching informing who was uncleane as you (e) Ibid. p. 19 20. seeme to insinuate but also by their sentence of judgement by their power to censure therefore is the
one Minister or Elder greater authority then another but their questions are determined by most voyces and they are all mutually equally subject unto one another in the Lord. IV. This government of Churches by Classes doth not deprive particular Churches Congregations of their liberty power but serves to direct strengthen them in the right use exercise of their power for example when a particular Church with their Elders or the greater part of them agree together to choose a Minister that is offensive or unfit for them if the Classis upon due consideration of the matter doe disanull their election hinder their proceeding yet doe they not hereby deprive them of their liberty nor take from them their priviledge of election forasmuch as they doe still leave unto them a freedome to choose another fit Minister they doe not in this case goe about to choose for them or to obtrude upon them another Minister against their will but onely exhort them to use their power and liberty aright and to shew more care and godly wisedome in seeking out such an one as may be more inoffensive fit for the edification of their Church Against this authority of Classes and Synods divers opposites have risen up and have pleaded for a new kinde of Discipline contrary to the order of all Reformed Churches and contrary to that Reformation which the ancient Non-conformists in England have so much desired laboured for And yet many of these Opposites doe in the meane time in generall termes seeme to (d) Mr Iacob in his Auestation of Church-gov p. 118. 178. Churches plea. p. 94. embrace Synods and greatly to approve of the benefit that comes by them But herein is the poynt of difference that they doe limit confine all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Congregation Though they acknowledge Synods to be lawfull expedient and necessary yet this they hold to be onely in regard of counsell advise for provocation direction countenance but doe not acknowledge them to have any authority to give sentence for the decision of causes they doe not allow Classes or Synods to use any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction or censure in judging the controversies that arise in particular Congregations They maintaine that (e) Churches plea. pref Mr Dav. Reply p. 229 c. every particular Congregation is independent not standing under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves This opposition of Classes Synods is made specially by the (f) H. Barrow Discov p. 190. 191. Apol. of Brown pos 9. Brownists and by them have the Ministers of England bene reproached for the respect which they had unto Synods After them Mr Iacob in his writings often allowing them for counsell (g) Necess of Reform p. 31 32 33 yet denyes the power authority which we asscribe unto them And in that booke which is intitled English Puritanisme (h) Chap. 2. art 3.6 c. this their opinion is most plainly peremptorily propounded And now also Mr Davenp though he (i) Apolog. Repl. p. 226 allow a combination of particular Churches in Classes and Synods and such a consociation of them as is betweene equalls and is by way of counsaile or brotherly direction yet he saith (k) Ibid. p. 229. that their authority is not a prerogative of jurisdiction but of aestimation reverence rather because Gods ordinance hath limited the former viz. jurisdiction to particular Churches as his delegates in their owne matters it is not in their power to alienate it from themselves But the latter viz. estimation reverence is due to Classes consisting of grave learned prudent and faithfull men for their excelent personall gifts in which respect their judgment is to be much valued receyved with due regard But if any doe asscribe unto Classes a power of jurisdiction over particular Churches and that in things which he calls proper unto themselves this he saith (l) Ibid. p. 230. is to subject particular Churches under an undue power this he calles an usurped power Now then behold what this estimation reverence is which Mr Dav. allowes to Classicall assemblies or Synods viz. not so much power as is allowed to any one man though it were the most ignorant and offensive that is a member of a particular Church for when a controversy ariseth about the election of a Minister the one half of the Congregation giving voyces for him another half excepting against him as unsound in doctrine unfit for thē if a whole Classicall assembly of Ministers Elders deputed from all the Churches round about doe also except against him as unsound and unfit and with one consent judge that he ought not to be called yet for one voyce of that one ignorant person whereby the one part of the Congregation comes to exceed the other in number is that unworthy one to be received called This is that due regard that estimation value which Mr Dav. affords unto this Classis consisting of so many grave learned prudent faithfull men of excellent personall gifts while he maintaines that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to the particular Church and all the counsell brotherly direction of the Classis must be of no authority against the resolution of such a wilfull company to censure their unjust proceedings to stay the same So againe (m) Apol. repl p. 47. he pretendeth Mr Cartwr his authority to prove that other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good The speciall or onely remedy which the Opposites flye unto in such cases is the help of the Magistrate But hereby the importance of this Question and the danger of despising Synods may appeare Though they hold that Christ hath not subjected any Church or Congregation of his to any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then unto that which is within it self c. yet they hold (n) Engl. Purit cap. 2. § 6. 3. that if in the choyse of Ministers any particular Church shall erre that none upon the earth but the Civill Magistrate hath power to controule or correct the same for it c. that in such cases others are to leave their soules to the immediate judgement of Christ and their bodies to the sword of the Civill Magistrate c. But this help remedy is weak insufficient that many wayes for I. The Churches of Christ doe sometimes remaine under heathenish Magistrates that either regard not the cause of the Church refuse to judge their controversies as Paul Gallio Iohn 18.31 Act. 18.14 15. or els seek wholly to root out the same II. The Churches are sometimes dispersed sojourne in the countries of Popish Princes and Magistrates as the Churches which at this day live under the Crosse in Brabant Flanders sundry other places where they keep themselves as secret
as may be and what help can they expect from the Magistrates which seek to expell them out of their territories III. Other Churches of Christ doe abide in such Popish countries where though they be tolerated to have their meetings as in many parts of France yet it would be in vaine for them to seek help of the Popish Governours that have dominion in some of the places where they have their abode IV. In these Vnited Provinces of the Netherlands where the Reformed Churches are maintained yet forasmuch as here is a toleration of many Sects and Religions and among the rest of the Brownists the Magistrates doe not use to judge their Ecclesiasticall controversies so afford no help unto those Sects in that kinde When did the Brownists ever seek any help from them to represse their contentions and schismes V. That or those Churches wich are secretly gathered in England according to the direction example of Mr Iacob doe they not altogether want the help of the Civill Magistrate in their controversies He prescribes this remedy (o) Necess of Reform p. 28. that if people in their Church-elections c. will presume to be unruly violent then the Princes next dwelling Officers of Justice may ought to make them keep peace quietnes But durst he or his in any of their contentions ever seek that remedy Lastly suppose that in every country the Magistrates did seek the wealth of Sion and did use their authority to correct and punish the disorders committed in true Churches yet would not this remedy be sufficient to humble obstinate offenders God having appointed other meanes of Spirituall censure as well as Civill punishmēt to work upon the consciences of sinners of which more is to be spoken hereafter The importance of this Question may further appeare unto us if we consider the manifold great offences scandals which many have the rather fallen into through their neglect contempt of Classes Synods and through want of that help which they might have obtained by them And this is most evident in the practise course of the Brownists In that infamous contentiō whē Francis Iohns the Pastour with his company did excommunicate not onely his brother George Iohnson a Preacher also but his owne father likewise Iohn Iohnson comming out of England for this purpose to make peace betwixt his two sonnes had they used the help of neighbour Churches permitted them to judge betwixt them it might have bene a meanes through Gods blessing to have preserved them from such extreme courses Hereof George Iohnson oft complaineth in his booke (p) Discourse of troubles c. p. 74. p. 38.39 41. they will not consent hereunto they will not be perswaded nor intreated to let the Reformed Churches heare try judge end the controversy between them and us And this is not the complaint of G. Iohnson alone but the Ministers both of the Dutch and French Churches in Amsterdam doe likewise give testimony thereof being deputed by the Elderships of both those Churches that upon the request of the father to see if they could procure Franc. Ioh. and the Elders of his Church to submit the controversy to their tryall judgement This appeares in the Testimony hereof given unto the father Iohn Iohns by the (q) Iohannes a Vinea Petrus Plancius Iacobus Arminius Simon Goulattius Ministers of these Churches in writing under their hands Yea further the Church of the Separation did so much abhorre to have their causes and affaires submitted unto any censure or judgement out of their owne Church that in the excommunication of the father an old man of 70. yeares that had undertaken so hard a journey as he confessed for the reconcilement of his sonnes sought such meanes from other Churches to end their strife this was set downe as one distinct speciall cause of his excommunication viz. for labouring to draw the Church into Antichristian bondage in the the judging the causes thereof This appeares in the Copy of his Excommunication delivered unto him subscribed by (r) Daniel Studley Stanshall Mercer two of their Elders in the name of their Church And since that time when the Brownists have so often schismed rent in the midst as in Mr Iohnson Mr Ainsworths division whē they separated one from the other when after the death of Mr Ainsworth that company rending againe in the midst one half followed Iohn de Cluse the other Mr Canne when after the death of Mr Robinson his company also rending in peeces they forsooke their old fellowship together when Mr Canne was first rashly elected a Minister by the Brownists when shortly after that election he was censured and deposed from his office by that half that rejected him renounced communion with him In all these the like controversies they wanted help durst not seek the benefit of Classicall Government nor submit their cause unto such an order of tryall and censure lest they should enthrall themselves in Antichristian bondage as they call it They that allow not Synods with authority to decide causes doe yet professe that they are to be approved embraced for counsell advise but it appeares by these other not unlike passages among those that are of the same opinion that they which deny the power of censure in Classes doe seldome enquire after their counsell And although the importance of this controversy doeth hereby appeare plainly enough yet doe we not hold the same to be so great as some of our opposites doe make it as if the essence of the Church our owne salvation depended hereupon Mr Canne calls it (ſ) Churches plea. p. 77. a matter of faith appertaining to life salvation Mr Iacob speaking of this particular Church wherein this single uncompounded policie is maintained saith (t) Necess of Reform p. 5. This onely ought to be allowed beleeved to be a true Church by all Christians and againe (v) Ibid. p. 6. This is the onely true visible Church of Christ having from him the spirituall power of order government in it self ordinarily The proper Ministers thereof are the onely true ordinary Ministers of Christ He saith further (x) The divine begin instit of Christs true visible Church pref The true forme indeed of Christs visible ministeriall Church is an Inward thing It is the Power of a single uncompounded spirituall politie He denyes the Profession of saving faith to be the essentiall forme and often inculcates that the forme essence nature constitution of the Church consists in that power of spirituall politie before rehearsed He complaines of them that doe not practise according to his rule saying (y) Ibid. pref These truly seeme to destroy the conscience faith of the people c. And he gives this exhortation that (z) Ibid. A. 4. All Christians every where ought to frame the visible Church where they
make nothing to the purpose The first is Deut 17. c. Hereunto I answer I. Though the Papists argue from the Jewish politie and from the same places of Scripture alledged by us yet it is false which Mr Canne here saith viz. that they use the same argument They argue thence aâ—â—er another manner make other consequences draw other conclusions from those places then we doe Their abuse of those Scriptures doth not hinder us from the right use of them for then we might be quickly deprived of the whole Scriptures wrested by many unto their destruction 2. Pet. 3.16 The (l) Bellarm. contr de verbo Dei l. 3. c 5. Papists alledge Mat. 18.17 as well as Deut. 17. to stablish their Romish authority yet my opposites think it to be no prejudice to themselves that argue in another manner from the same place II. More particularly the Papists argue from Deut. 17. to prove that there should be one person supreme judge of Ecclesiasticall causes as there was one High Priest among the Iewes This is justly refuted both by (m) Conf. with Hart c. 6. div 2. p. 204. D. Rainolds by (n) DePont Rom. cont 4. qu. 7. p. 818.819 D. Whitakers shewing that the judgement given there was not by the High Priest alone but by a Colledge or Senate of Priests noted in that Text. The Papists argue from Deut. 17. to prove an infallibility of judgement in this one Judge to shew that the Pope cannot erre These such like false collections from the Policy of the Jewes are justly reproved by Orthodox Divines Had I used any such reasonings then had there bene cause to have complained III. Whereas Mr Iohnson used to plead for the power and authority of Elders in the Church and to maintaine the same from the Civill Policy of the Jewes from the authority of the Magistrates in Israel Mr Ainsworth had just cause to dislike the same and doth (o) Animadv p. 16. justly alledge against him the Testimonies of D. Whitakers Iunius Cartwright others It is true which they affirme The argument is not good from Civill Government to Ecclesiasticall and againe The example is altogether unlike of temporall empire and spirituall ministery between these there is not neither ought neither can a proportion or comparison be rightly made viz. in such a confused manner as Mr Iohnson hath done it But as for me I never pleaded on that manner I argue not from the Civill but from the Ecclesiasticall Policie in Israel to shew the lawfull government of the Church by Synods Mr Canne therefore doeth not rightly imitate Mr Ainsw in the allegation of these Writers IV. If Mr Canne would see who they be that doe in speciall manner offend by reasoning from the Iewish Policie and government let him looke yet better upon the writings of the Brownists There he shall finde not onely Mr Iohns worthily complained of for (p) Animadv pref wresting a proportion from the Princes of Israel to the Ministers of the Gospell for (q) Ibid. p. 14. streyning too farre in proportioning the authority and power of Elders in the Church with the authority of the Elders the Magistrates for (r) Ibid p. 19. matching the power of the Ministers in Spirituall things with the power of the Magistrate in Civill things c. But there shall he also finde the rest of the Separation so many as doe allow their Confession Apology pleading from the Jewish Policie government to establish confirme the authority power of particular Churches in their administration of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall censures he shall finde Mr Ainsw proceeding yet further not onely to reason from the Jewish politie but from an imagined power of the people in Civill judgements such a power as was not due unto them by the Law These errours have I noted refuted at large in the (Å¿) Pag. 7-13 former part of this Treatise V. Whereas these Opposers doe often alledge that (t) Animadv pref p. 14 15. c. Moses politie is done away abrogated I answer Though the Ceremonies that were shadowes and figures of things to come be abrogated yet the Judiciall Lawes are not wholly boargated but onely so much as served to establish the Ceremonies or had a peculiar respect to the condition of the Jewes to that land of promise given unto them Otherwise that part of Moses Politie which was of common equity grounded upon principles of reason and nature serving for the maintenance of the Morall Law is perpetuall not changed This is shewed at large by Orthodox Divines Iunius (v) De Poliâ—ia Mosis cap. 3. thes 13 14 15 c. in speciall doth manifest this both in generall rules and in particular instances as in the law of making battlements upon the flat roofes of their houses Deu. 22.8 in the law of not putting to death the childreÌ„ for the offence of the fathers Deut. 24.16 in the law of not admitting one witnesse Deut. 19.15 These and the like Judiciall lawes in the Politie of Moses are not abrogated This is likewise shewed by that learned (x) Gersom Bucerus Discept de Gubern Eccl. p. 51 52. Writer who defending the Government Discipline of the Reformed Churches against D. Downam declares such Judiciall lawes to be ad perpetuam Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the perpetuall good order of the Church Now our present controversy is neither about Ceremoniall ordinances nor other Judiciall lawes peculiar to the Jewes but onely about the liberty of Appeales from one Ecclesiasticall judicatory to another from the judgement of a particular Church unto a Synod Classicall Provinciall or Nationall This liberty of appeales being granted then a dependency of Churches is granted and then the single uncompounded Policie is not to be urged upon us That this liberty of appeales dependeth upon common equity the light of nature the practise of all ages nations generally witnesseth unto us It was the light of nature that taught this law of common equity unto Jethro Moses his father in law approved of God himself Exod. 18 22-26 for there as Iunius interprets the same there was a law appointed touching Appeales from subalterne or subordinate Judges (y) Analy Explic. in Deut. c. 17. That if any matter did either seeme obscure unto them the Judges that they could not determine it or did appeare hard unto the parties contending that they could not rest therein then they were to betake themselves unto superiour Iudges And againe in the same place comparing Deut. 17. with Exod. 18. he writes that according to the summe substance of that counsell which Jethro gave and ex illo fundamento c. from that ground Moses here viz. Deut. 17. defineth the manner of the appealing of parties of consultation to be made by inferiour Iudges when any weighty busines should be c. Thus doth he expound this law of appealing to a
Rome so both do grant liberty of Appeales unto Synods Yea and all the Arguments generally both of Greekes and Latines directed against the appeales made unto the Pope doe yet reserve a liberty of appeale unto Synods This may be observed from D. Whit. in his (g) De Pont. Rom. Qu. 4. p. 4 6. 48â— c. large ample defence of the Arguments of Nilus the learned Bishop of Thessalonica as he calls him and in his maintaining of the Arguments of the Latines also And now if these appeales be granted then is the question clearly granted and fully yeelded unto me then is not all spirituall jurisdiction limited to a particular Church then are not Churches independent then is there a superiour Ecclesiasticall power to judge the controversies of particular Congregations out of themselves Lastly though Mr Canne cannot endure that we should seek to strengthen the authority of Synods from the Policie of the Jewes yet if he would open his eyes he might see beside those above noted others also arguing in like manner The ancient Fathers have often argued from the Judiciall ordinances delivered by Moses unto Israel yea they have often alledged this very place in speciall Deut. 17. to shew thereby the practise of Christians in the New Testament Cyprian (h) Lib. 1. Epist 8. ad plebem p. 94 Epist ad Pompon de virginibus p. 170. Epist ad Rogat p. 192. citeth it often and the like might be observed in other writings of the Fathers Among later Writers the lights of this age Vrsinus (i) Tom. 1. in Expl. Catech p. 295 Tom. 3. Iudic. de Disc Eccl. p. 806.807 pleadeth from Deut. 17. to shew the authority of the Church for the excommunication of obstinate sinners Mr Cartwright (k) First Reply to D. Whitg p. 192. to shew what authority Ministers and Ecclesiasticall Governours have now in the New Testament for the governing of the Church argues from the Jewish Policie and from that Ecclesiasticall Synedrion described 2. Chron. 19.8 11. which had power to judge the causes of particular Synagogues Dudley Fenner speaking of the Presbytery in generall as it containes under it both Classes and Synods as well as the Elderships of particular Churches to shew the authority and use thereof among other places taken from the Jewish Policie (l) 8. Theol. lib. 7. c. 7. p. 276.277 alledgeth this also Deut. 17.9 with 2. Chron. 19.8 11. Zepperus to shew a divine warrant for the government of Churches by Synods (m) Polit. Eccles l. 3. c. 8. p. 707. 709. alledgeth these same places of Scripture Deut. 17.8 2. Chron. 19.8 Ruardus Acronius in like manner in his treatise (n) Cap. 7. with c. 13. of the Church of God the government thereof to teach how the more weighty controversies were to be brought from Synagogues and from particular Congregations unto greater Assemblies he alledgeth out of the Judiciall lawes of Moses this speciall place Deut. 17.8 c. To omit many other how is it that Mr Canne doth so much forget the practise of his owne Sect Is it not their manner frequently to alledge the ordinances of the Jewish Policie to strengthen and confirme that power of the Church and that order of government that is maintained and practised by them of the Separation Their Confession and Apology is full of such reasonings But instead of the rest consider we at this time the writings of H. Barrow who to prove the duety of the Church (o) H. Barr. Disc p. 1. alledgeth this place Deut. 17.8 c. To prove the power of the Church in driving away and keeping out the profane open unworthy from the table of the Lord alledgeth at once (p) Ibid. p. 17. the whole book of Deuteronomy and if the whole book then this 17. chap. also that is contained therein What unreasonable men are these to eat up and devoure at one mouthfull a whole book of Judiciall lawes and not to permit another to have a crumme thereof or to alledge one of those ordinances To prove that Princes for their transgressions are subject unto censure and judgement (q) Ibid. p. 14. 245. to be disfranchised out of the Church and to be delivered over unto Satan as well as any other offendour he alledgeth sundry examples and all out of the Old Testament all of such Kings as stood under the Jewish Policie Can they from the Jewish Policie prove them to be subject to the greatest censure and can they not from the same Law procure them liberry of appeale when they judge they are oppressed Is the Policie of Moses in force to binde them and is it then abrogate when they seek releef by appeale unto a superiour judicatory This is indeed an injury a misery to Princes people to high and low to be brought into greater bondage under Christ in the New Testament then others were under Moses in the Old THese things being duely considered it may hereby also appeare how vaine that is which Mr Dav. excepteth concerning appeales or the bringing of causes unto Classes Touching that which I had sayd upon another occasion from Deut. 17.8 with 1.12 2. Chron. 19.8.9 10. he excepts as followeth I. DAV (r) Apol. Repl. p. 215 The pretended reason c. will not help him in the cases questioned unlesse he can prove I. That the Classes are of the same use by Divine institution for the help of Pastour which have the assistance of their Eldership whereof that judicatory was for the help of Moses c. ANSVV. I. Observe how Mr Dav. being an Accuser and an Advocate of accusers instead of bringing any proof to justify the accusations calls upon me for proof of that established order of government so long enjoyed in these countries II. Seing it appeareth that the order of Ecclesiasticall government prescribed Deut. 17. 2. Chron. 19. was for the substance of it no part of the Ceremoniall law but of common and perpetuall equity and that the power of Classes for the receiving of appeales judging the causes of particular Churches was included therein it is thence also manifest that the power authority exercised by Classes Synods is therefore of Divine institution for the same use from the same grounds of holy Scripture III. What reason had he in describing the use of Classes to mention this onely that they were for the help of Pastours seing both they those judicatories Deut. 17.2 Chron. 19. were for the help benefit of every member of the Synagogues then and the Churches now as well as for the help of Pastours IV. What reason had he also in speaking of Pastours now to adde these words which have the assistance of their Eldership seing in the Synagogues anciently their Pastours Teachers had the assistance of an Eldership and Rulers of the Synagogue as well as now I. DAV It is to be proved II. That the causes in question which
same is to be referred unto such judges who as is before noted may either (r) S. Theol l. 7. p. 243 244. confirme or make voyd the Election A plaine acknowledgmēt of a lawfull power out of a particular Church to judge the cause thereof IV. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in the description (ſ) Ibid. p. 245 246. both of the Elders office in generall and of the Ruling Elders in particular where the warrant and authority of their office is derived from the Elders in Israel and from the government of the Jewish Church as appeares in those testimonies of Scripture which he alledgeth for proof thereof as namely these beside other Lev. 4.13 14 15.2 Kin. 6.32 Ier. 19.1 Ezek. 8.1 Neh. 8.5.8.10 Act. 4.5 6.12 5.21 Now seeing he derives their offices from that forme of government which is confessed not to have bene a single uncompounded policie this is an evidence that he also did not hold jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Church V. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in distinguishing the Presbytery or Eldership of many Churches (t) Ibid. p. 281. into a Synod or a Generall Councill And not to speak of other things he omitteth that description of a Generall or Vniversall Councill viz. that it is a Presbyterie consisting of the deputies of many Synods to determine and compound those things that may be profitable for the whole Church or for the greatest part thereof The word which he useth to expresse the authority exercised therein when he saith ad ea statuenda t.i. to determine to make a statute or decree imports more then a bare admonition or counsell and therefore it is manifest from hence that Mr F. did not allow of this new Discipline which denyes the authority of Synods II. His unfaithfull translation of Mr Fenner is also to be observed in divers points I. When speaking of the Eldership of one particular Church (v) Apol. reply p. 238. he tells how Mr F. saith it is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of Mr F. are that it is (x) S. Theol l. 7. p. 279. proprio nomine sie dictum so called with the proper name His meaning is that in common use of speech it had the proper name given unto it even as it comes to passe oft times that a part is called by the proper name of the whole and one species or one sort receives the proper name of the whole kinde as when in speaking commonly of the Ministers and Elders of a Church the ruling Elders are so called with a proper name that belongs to the whole kinde seeing Ministers of the word are Elders as well as they 1. Tim. 5.17 so when the ruling Elders are called with the proper name of Governours 1. Cor. 12.28 though Ministers of the word are governours also as well as they And unlesse we thus understand Mr Fen. there should be no trueth in his words for as he himself saith (y) Ibid. p. 245. there is a Synecdoche in the name of Elders when it is given to Ecclesiasticall Governours and therefore there must be a double improper or figurative speech a double Synecdoche when the assembly of some Officers in a particular Church is called with the proper name of the Eldership whereas but some of them are elderly or aged men and whereas the assembly of such men in a Synod is an Eldership as well as the other II. It is a notable falsification of Mr Fenners testimony when as he distinguishing the Ecclesiasticall Eldership into the Eldership of a particular Church and into the Eldership of many Churches and giving before-hand in the first place a generall definition of the Eldership common to both those kindes Mr Dav. comes and restraines that generall definition to one kinde and brings in Mr F. speaking on this manner The Eldership of the first sort he sayth is a compound office wherein all the Elders doe in the name of the whole Church administer all the businesses c. But this Mr F. hath not sayd I desire the Reader to look on the (z) S. Theol l. 7. p. 276. place as also on that which followes in his * Pag. 279. transition from the generall unto the species and severall sorts of the Eldership and there to behold how grosly Mr D. corrupteth the words of Mr F. and abuseth the reader and that in a point of maine consequence touching our question for while Mr F. gives the same generall definition to the Eldership of many Churches viz. to Classes and Synods which he gives unto the Eldership of a particular Church thereby the same authority and jurisdiction which he gives herein unto a particular Church is also given by him unto a Synod the Eldership of many Churches and then are not Synods for counsell onely or admonition but they are to exercise a jurisdiction and power as well as particular Churches III. Another instance of his unfaithfull translation is to be observed from those words of Mr F. (a) Ibid. p. 278. postea autem auditis assentientibus decernenda pro decretis Ecclesiis proponenda sunt which he translates thus (b) Apol. reply p. 239. and afterwards the opinions and assent of all being declared matters are to be concluded Those last words should have bene translated thus matters are to be decreed and to be propounded unto the Churches for decrees and being thus translated they import an act of authority and a power of jurisdiction in making decrees which are more then counsell or admonition especially when those matters so decreed are propounded unto the Churches for decrees But the word of concluding which Mr D. useth is ambiguous and is applyed sometimes to the reasonings of men either in private or publick where there is no authority to give definitive sentence or to make decrees for the Churches Mr Canne himself though he condemne the Classes and Synods of the Reformed Churches yet doth he allow Ministers and brethren of divers Churches to come together (c) Churches plea p. 95. to conferre of things yea and to conclude if they can what they judge meet c. This use of the word conclude serves to elude and frustrate this pregnant testimony of their power IV. Another mis-translation is when in the same page those words of Mr F. leges maximi momenti constituendae are thus translated by him orders also of the greatest moment to be made This I doe therefore note the rather because Mr D. keeps so great a quoile about the strict difference betwixt orders and lawes and saith (d) Apol. rep p. 257. 258. that orders lawes are ill confounded by me and is large in declaring his minde therein His friend also that made the Alphabeticall Table for him and prefixed it before his book notes this as a remarkable matter therein * Letter L. Lawes and orders differ Now if these things be so then hath he done very ill
in confounding lawes and orders by translating the word leges orders when he should have translated it lawes according to the right and proper signification thereof If he had disliked Mr F. for using the word leges or lawes and would correct it by putting in the word orders this was more then an exact and faithfull Translatour might doe He should rather have translated the word truely according to the right signification and then have given warning to the Reader touching the fault of Mr Fenner in the ill confounding of lawes and orders and putting one for the other After these unfaithfull omissions and mistranslations Mr Dav. hath not bene afraid to say confidently of himself Thus have I faithfully translated the words of this eminent light in his time Mr Dudley Fenner who was joyned with Mr Cartwright c. To his commendation of him I doe willingly assent he was indeed an eminent light and why then hath Mr Dav. gone about to obscure his light by depraving his testimony and labouring to put this bright-burning candle under a bushell that men should not see his light Whether he make strongly for him or against me let others judge III. Moreover after these omissions and mistranslations come we to consider his miscollections from him which without any just deduction or inference upon the lame and imperfect recitall of his words he thus propoundeth (e) Ibidē The Reader may see how he leaveth the wholl power of jurisdiction in the particular Church c. How untrue this is it may appeare I. By Mr F. his alledging those (f) S. Theo. l. 7. p. 276. Scriptures Deut. 17.9 with 2. Chron. 19.8 11. Matt. 18.18 1. Tim. 4.14 to shew what authority there is in a Classis or Synod comprehended by him under that generall definition of a Presbyterie as well as the Eldership of a particular Church thereby he confesseth that there is a power of judgement censure and jurisdiction in Synods because those testimonies of Scripture speak of such jurisdiction and judgement of binding and loosing of imposition of hands or ordination c. II. Though Mr F. speaking of excommunication and absolution from it sayth that they are to be done in the assembly by the authority of the whole Church which last words Mr D. for speciall observation causeth to be printed in great capitall letters yet this doth not prove that he left the whole power of jurisdiction in the particular Church seeing in the same (g) Pa. 277 place speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements administred by the Synod or Presbytery in deciding of doubts he saith also etsi authoritas communis sit ministris tamen sententiam dicendi eam exponendi maxima facienda potestas that is though the authority be common yet the greatest power of giving sentence and declaring it is to be yeelded unto the Ministers Therefore did he not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church III. Mr F. a little after againe speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements and censures and still of administring them by the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Presbytery which contained the Synod as well as a particular Eldership he sayth of them (h) Ibidē In quibus per omnes Ecclesias summa Ecclesiastica potestas Presbyterio demandata est that is In which throughout all Churches the highest or chiefest Ecclesiasticall authority is committed to the Presbytery And hereby also it appeares that he did not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church But these passages Mr D. omitted when he translated other parts of the same periods He thought it not to be for his advantage to have his Reader take knowledge of them IV. Whereas Mr F. requireth that in matters of greatest moment after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fore-consultation of the Presbytery comprehending both Classis and particular Eldership their counsels be told unto the Church that thing ordinarily is thus performed in these Reformed Churches viz. after that in the Classicall assembly of Ministers and Elders it hath bene found just and requisite that any persons should be excommunicated or any Ministers called these censures and elections are then first solemnely propounded unto the particular Church whom these things specially concerne and so accomplished with their consent and not otherwise if the greater part of the Church dissent and allow not the excommunication or election then for the avoyding of strife the matter is againe referred ad majorem Senatum unto a greater Ecclesiastical Senate Classis or Synod to judge thereof and to compose the dissention V. Mr F. in the same chapter (i) Pag. 278 279. shewes from the Scriptures that in these Presbyteriall assemblies there ought to be a mutuall office performed in the same in speciall manner towards one another not onely for counsels but also for the censures of such as are members of those assemblies And this is also agreeable to the order prescribed both in the (k) Kercken-Ordeninge Art 43. Nationall Synod at Dort and in divers others for the censure of such faults as are committed in those meetings or by contempt of the admonitions of inferiour assemblies Hereby also it appeares that he allowed an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in Synods and Classes and did not limit all jurisdiction unto a particular Church VI. After Mr F. had spoken in generall both of the Presbytery of one and of many Churches joyntly together then he comes to speak of each of them severally and there againe speaking of the Presbytery of many Churches that is of Classes and Synods he saith (l) S. Theol. l. 7. p. 280. Hic autem leges Ecclesiasticae condendae sunt Here are Ecclesiasticall lawes to be made This was a power of jurisdiction more then of admonition or counsell This Mr D. passeth over also it was no pollicy for him to draw collections from such testimonies VII That one testimony of Scripture which Mr F. oft (m) Ibid. p. 280 281. alledgeth 2. Cor. 8.19 23. not to speak of others alledged with it is an evidence of the authority of Synods It is there specifyed that the brother who was chosen to be a messenger of the Churches was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elected by saffrages now this election was an act of authority exercised by sundry Churches in one businesse touching one person and hence it appeareth that a combination of Churches may exercise jurisdiction together touching such as are no peculiar members of one particular Church And if such election may be made by many Churches then may censures be decreed by many Churches together as occasion requires Lastly Mr F. having spoken of the first part of Ecclesiasticall politie touching such as administer the same both by a simple and compound office in the Presbytery both of one or more Churches in Synods or Generall Councils he comes at last to speak of the duety of the Saints other members of the Church which are not promoted unto any Ecclesiasticall office and (n)
Ibid. p. 242 with p. 282. sets this downe for a common law unto them all that they be subject in all those things aforesayd and further the same according to their power with their gifts labour and whatsoever way they are able Hebr. 13.17 This peculiar bond of speciall obedience and submission unto such Officers even in Synods as well as in other ordinances is an argument that he thought them to have speciall authority more then of admonition counsell The judgement of Mr Fenner this worthy Writer being thus cleared and vindicated from those unfaithfull omissions mistranslations and miscollections of Mr D. his demand is hereby answered and hereby he may see why I referred him to this book As for those matters of fact which he addes the untrueth thereof is elswhere to be declared We will now proceed to Mr Dav. his third allegation SECT III. His Allegation of Mr Parker examined IO. DAV (o) Apol. reply p. 240 241. For Mr Parker He largely and strongly proveth this position (p) De Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 1 Potestas Ecclesiastica essentialiter primariò in ipsâ Ecclesiâ tanquam in subjecto proprio residet The power Ecclesiasticall doth essentially and primarily reside in the Church itself as in its proper subject The sense wherein he thus spake to prevent all suspicion of his pleading for popular confusion he declareth out of Zanchy who saith toti Ecclesiae dedisse Christum claves Zanch. in praecept 4. qu. 3. sed ita ut in Ecclesiâ certi essent qui clavibus utantur ad salutem Ecclesiae honoremque Dei That Christ gave the keyes to the wholl Church but so that there should be certaine men that should use the keyes to the good of the Church and glory of God For the proof of the former that the right of power is in every particular Church he useth five Arguments in the 6. 7. chapters and then in the 8. chapter he commeth to speak of the exercise and ordinary execution of this power which is he sayth in the Church-officers or rulers yet with this moderation that this dispensation of the Churches power in the Officers be according to a well tempered forme partly Aristocraticall partly Democraticall the Church committing those things to the Presbytery which it cannot commodiously performe by it selfe and retaining that exercise of power which belongs to the dignity authority and liberty which it hath received from Christ Thus he wholy destroyeth that Democraty or popular Anarchy which Beza justly condemneth in Morellius and is by some unjustly imputed to those that plead for a due reformation of Churches according to the rules of the word and the primitive patternes Of the first sort of things which the Church committeth to the Rulers because it cannot commodiously performe them by it selfe he speaketh in cap. 9.10.11 ANSVV. Mr Dav. professed and promised touching Mr Parker and these other Writers that he would shew them to be strongly against me but though he make a long discourse of his writing and doe alledge in grosse eleven chapters at once out of Mr Parker yet doe I not finde that he applyes any thing to the question against me for I. Suppose it be granted which yet some godly and learned men deny that all power Ecclesiasticall is essentially and primarily in the Church as the proper subject thereof and from thence derived and communicated to other either particular persons or assemblies of Classes and Synods what is this to our question doth it follow from hence that Synods have no power to judge Ecclesiasticall causes or that they are onely for counsell or admonition This is the poynt of our question but this neither Mr Parker affirmes neither doth Mr D. offer to conclude it by any just consequence from his words and so all that he alledgeth is not to the purpose II. This very derivation of power from particular Churches unto Classes and Synods is an argument of the power of judgement that is in them for what great need was there of a derivative power to consult or to admonish onely Mr D. confesseth that (q) Apol. reply p. 47. every Christian hath power of admonition in another for his good And shall Synods have no more power then particular and private persons III. Whereas Mr Parker distinguisheth betwixt the power of the Church and the exercise of that power and acknowledgeth that the execution of this power in the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in the whole Church but in some speciall persons appoynted thereunto it followeth hence that in some things the Ministers and Governours of a Church have a power which the Church cannot exercise without them and therefore in some respect a greater authority then the whole Church beside them This is confessed in the practise of the Brownists themselves who keep their children sometimes unbaptised for many yeares together while they want Ministers that have authority to baptise IV. The Authors alledged by Mr Parker to shew that Ecclesiasticall power is originally in the Church did never draw any such consequence from thence that therefore there is no power of jurisdiction in Synods but made the contrary conclusion that therefore there was a power of jurisdiction in them And this conclusion was made not onely by the Councell of Constance and Basill Ioh. Gerson Schola Parisiensis but by D. Whitaker also whom Mr Dav. (r) Ibid. p. 237. 238. alledgeth as if he made for him who yet reasons strongly against him saying (ſ) De Cōc qu. 5. p. 170. If a particular Church have greater authority in judgements then Peter or any particular man then much more the universall Church which is represented in a generall Councell or Synod V. For Mr Parker himself though he be very large touching the originall power of particular Churches and the derivation thereof unto Ministers Synods yet he never concludeth from hence a want of jurisdiction in Synods but declares the contrary in many (t) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. 23 24. c. places as is to be shewed hereafter In the meane time let us consider how Mr Dav. proceeds in alledging Mr Parker I. DAV Of the second sort of things which the Church retaineth in it self because it can commodiously exercise them by it selfe he speaketh in cap. 12. Wherein by 22 Arguments he proveth the Churches superiority over her Pastors and rulers in 3 respects 1. of the end the power which they have being given them for her aedification 2. in respect of the application of it to the persons 3. in respect of regulating the use of it if it be abused ANSVV. I. If those 22 Arguments of Mr Park be good and effectuall to prove the Churches superiority over her Rulers then have we so many sound Arguments to prove the authority of Classes and Synods This is evident because Mr P. applyes those 22 Arguments to prove the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches
controversies that arise in the same and according to Mr Parker doe exercise a lawfull jurisdiction herein From this Communication of Churches he commeth to speak (k) Ibid. c. 23. p. 345. 340. of their Combination from whence ariseth a combined Church derived from other Churches This combination he notes to consist either of two or more Churches An instance of this combination of two he gives in the Synod at Ierusalem Act. 15. and sayth It was a Councell and Synod and that properly and that of two Churches to wit of Antioch and Ierusalem for the Messengers sent from Antioch were present which represented the Church of Antioch as is usuall in Councels And notwithstanding an objection made against the Church of Antioch yet he sayth that Church was also judge in that Councell because their Messengers brought the judgement of the same with them Hereupon he reproveth two Spirits of errour the one of Grotius who 〈◊〉 sayd to reject the use of Synods altogether for who would write this saith Mr Parâ—… 〈◊〉 be that is bewitched with errour seeing the Church of God hath alwayes held that Sâ—… are here instituted of God to endure for ever c. The second spirit of errour wiâ—â—â—he reproves is that of the Hierarchy (l) P. 347. because they condemne the Reformed Synods as if they were degenerate quae tamen ad hunc typum accuratissime efformantur which are notwithstanding most exactly framed according to this patterne Hence it appeareth that Mr Parker held the Synods of divine institution to be not onely for counsell and admonition but for jurisdiction also for otherwise he could not have sayd with truth that the Reformed Synods all which exercise jurisdiction doe answer exactly thereunto otherwise he might rather have sayd that the Synods of the Reformed Churches swarving from the primitive patterne were indeed adulterare and degenerate usurping authority and jurisdiction which did not belong unto them The combination of more Churches Mr Par. describes in divers kindes or degrees also (m) IbideÌ„ and first that which is of many Churches into one Eldership The reason of this is because some little Churches knowing their owne weaknes doe joyne themselves unto the neighbour Churches and so make but one Eldership onely among themselves He gives an instance of this in those small Churches about Geneva which not being sufficient for themselves doe joyne themselves unto the Church in the next City so that they come together weekly into the neighbour-Consistory of the City This combination of lesser Churches into one Eldership or Consistory Mr Parker approves and justifyes and declares his judgement touching this kinde of consociation 1. He sayth It is grounded upon the communion of Churches and derived from the wisedome of the Spirit and complaines of the Hierarchy that doe so virulently impugne the same 2. (n) P. 348. Whereas nothing is more objected against the Reformation in England then that many Churches or Parishes are unable for it wanting fit men to governe and to exercise discipline in Elderships Mr Parker answereth hereunto If it be so let them joyne themselves unto the next Eldership or erect a common Eldership among themselves and so from common counsell and help let them seek remedy for their weaknes Now it is recorded (o) Calvin Epist 167. that in the Discipline at Geneva the right of Excommunication is in the power of this Consistory or common Eldership and hereby then it appeares that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church onely and that Mr Parker allowing of this government at Geneva is not against the jurisdiction of many Churches over one Againe whereas D. Bancroft and D. Field object that the Churches at Geneva and the villages of the Netherlands have not the power of Excommunication and whereas my opposites complaine that Churches are brought into bondage and loose their liberty when they may not excommunicate without the consent of others Mr Parkers answer is (p) P. 349. that the power of Excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction remaines pure in them saving that communion which ought to be among Churches every Church in greater matters useth the consent and counsell of her neighbours as of the Classis or Eldership in the City quod ego Ecclesiis vel perfectissimis non indigâ—um reor which I judge saith he not to be unmeet even for the most perfect Churches Thus he requires not onely counsell but consent of other Churches in weightier matters which is that we stand for This doth not as he saith (q) P. 390. import any Hierarchicall subjection in the parishes at Geneva unlesse happily any can be subjected unto himself for these parishes each for their part and that equally are this very Eldership What subjection is it where all as well City-churches as the Country-churches are equall for the country-churches are no more subject unto this Eldership then are the city-churches The next combination of many Churches which Mr Parker speaks of (r) Ibid. c. 24. p. 353. c. is when they are united into one Classis And of these he giveth instance in the Churches of the Netherlands and in Scotland where the 52 Presbyteries so called by them were nothing els but so many Classes For the warrant of these he bringeth both divers grounds of holy Scripture and the example of antiquity He there answereth 10 Objections made by the Hierarchy against these Classes And it is to be observed that he doth not simply speak of Classes in generall but of these Classes of the Reformed Churches in these Countries of our Classes as he useth to call them not onely for that he approved them but because together with us he was a member of this communion and lived under the jurisdiction of the Classis with us If he had not allowed their jurisdiction which he knew and saw to be exercised by them how could he with good conscience have praised them as he doth Speaking of the ancient Discipline used in the Primitive Churches he saith (f) P. 357. Omnia his in politeia nostra in Classibus nostris similia O quantum peccat Hierarchia quae hanc suavissimam Ecclesiarum combinationem eliminavit that is All things in our government and in our Classes are like unto these O how much doth the Hierarchy offend which hath banished this most sweet combination of Churches And as well might we cry out O how much doe the authours of the single uncompounded policie offend who likewise seek to banish and overthrow this combination of Churches in Classes while they allow them onely for counsell and regard not their consent but allow the Churches in combination to proceed in the weightiest affaires without or against the consent of Classes Whereas it is objected not onely by my opposites but by some of the Hierarchy themselves that these Classes doe take unto themselves that jurisdiction which they seeme to condemne in the Hierarchy Mr Parker in his answer
then those that doe so many wayes pervert his meaning he being not onely a member of the same Church but a member of the same family living under the same roofe with me where we had continuall and daily occasion to talk of these things and at that time when Mr Iacob published his unsound writings touching this question He being afterwards also a member of the same Eldership and by office sitting with us dayly to heate and judge the causes of our Church and so becomming a member of our Classicall combination yet did he never testify against the unduepower of the Classis or complaine that we were not a free people though the Classis exercised the same authority then as now it doth Yea he being also for that time the Scribe of our Consistory the Acts of our Eldership and Church being recorded with his owne hand are extant to shew his agreement with us in the government of this Church And it appeares hereby that he was of another spirit and judgement then Mr Davenp who hath published so many vaine cavills against the government and discipline of these Reformed Churches and this under the cloake pretence of his agreement with Mr Parker Yea and further it is apparent that the knowledge and experience which Mr Parker got by this his living here in communion with these Churches hath bene a speciall help unto him in the writing of those learned treatises of Ecclesiasticall policie which for the substance and maine are as a lively Table wherein the government of these Reformed Churches is plainely pourtrayed before our eyes his discourse being as it were a narration and defence of their practise which discourse might yet have bene more perfect had he lived to finish the same SECT IV. His Allegation of D. Ames examined IO. DAV To these I might adde D. Ames in that which he wrote in his latter time wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set downe his judgement more warily in this matter Casus cōsc l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. c. 25. qu. 5. then formerly See his Cases of Conscience the 4. Booke where he speaketh clearly of this power as essentially belonging to particular Churches ANSVV. Thus instead of Arguments from the Scripture for the confirmation of his cause Mr D. still leads us from one mans testimony to another thither I am forced to follow him And for D. Ames 1. I may justly testify that I have found him wavering in his opinion touching the authority of Synods For through the inward familiarity which I had with him a long time for more then 20 yeares together while he lived in these countries having oftentimes had earnest conference with him touching this question and much complayning of the wrong done to many Ministers by that booke entitled English Puritanisme which he had translated into Latine wherein there is such a peremptory restraint of all Ecclesiasticall authority unto particular Congregations though he did never plainely retract that which he published yet he shewed himselfe divers times enclining to a change of his judgement yea sometimes acknowledged that Synods had power to judge of causes and by their sentence to decree the excommunication of such as had deserved the same II. For his writings D. Ames when he (t) Preface to Mr Par. book de Pol. Eccl. anno 1616. gave so great approbation of Mr Parkers work which he wrote of Ecclesiasticall policie wherein he doth so largely maintaine the power of Classes and Synods might cause the Readers to think that he was of the same judgement with him seeing he gives such generall allowance and commendation thereof without any exception about this question III. It is to be observed that in none of his latter writings he doth use that peremptory phrase in limiting Synods or Churches combined in Classes or Synods onely to counsell or advise in such manner as was done in that (v) Engl. Purit c. 2. first writing IV. And more particularly in his Treatise of Divinity he writes thus of particular Churches (x) Medull SS Theol. l. 1. c. 39. th 27. that as their cōmunion requires the light of nature equity of rules and examples of Scripture doe teach they may and also ought frequently to enter into a mutuall confederation and consociation among themselves in Classes and Synods that they may use common consent and mutuall help as much as commodiously may be done in those things especially which are of greater moment Now as in particular Congregations the greatest acts of power and jurisdiction which are exercised therein receive their strength from common consent and doe consist therein so if in matters of greater weight the common consent of Synods is to be used then is a power and authority asscribed unto them then ought not particular Churches to proceed without and against the authority of common consent in Synods And that mutuall help of other Churches is then most effectuall whē there is not onely advise but authority also to cōfirme the same Though D.A. adde in the same place that this combination doth neither constitute a new forme of the Church neither ought by any meanes to destroy or empaire that liberty power which Christ hath left unto his Church for the directing furthering whereof it onely serveth this we also willingly grant When a particular Congregation is hindred stayed frō the exercise of their authority in an unlawfull businesse in an unjust excōmunication or electiō their liberty power is not hereby destroyed or taken away but rectifyed and preserved Here is to be remembred that which Mr Par. as was noted before sayth upon like occasion when some objected that the Churches of the villages in the Netherlands wanted the power of excommunication he replyes (y) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 349. Imo potestas excommunicandi ordinandi jurisdictionis caeterae illis illibata relinquitur c. The power of excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction remaines unto them uncorrupted c. though they doe not proceed thereunto but with common consent of the Classis V. After this D. Ames in his Disputation against Bellarmine touching Synods or Councels doth sundry times acknowledge that they have more authority then onely to counsell and advise This is to be observed in divers povnts as first in the Question whether the greater Prelates onely have jus suffragii decisivi the right or authority of a determining or definitive suffrage or whether the same belong unto the Elders also or inferiour Officers to whom Bellarmine allowes a consulting voyce but not a definitive Here D. Ames according to the receyved opinion of the Protestants (z) Bellarm. enerv Tom. 2. l. 1. de Conc. c. 2. allowes unto them also the right and authority of suffrages when they are deputed and sent as the Delegates of their Churches unto Synods This he oft repeateth And although he say (a) Ibid. th 8. that in matters of faith there is no
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
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
certaine as it is certaine that he which by force repelleth force is armed with publick authority He distinguisheth their jurisdiction in respect of the causes judged by them and repeats this their authority againe in the (e) N. 28. next animadversion And though these two kindes of government Civill and Ecclesiasticall doe use a different manner of compulsion he sayth (f) N. 29. Nihil refert nos de rei substantia agimus coactionem uterque habet sed hic spiritualem ille temporalem c. It skilleth not we intreat of the substance of the matter both of them have a coactive power or a compulsion but the one spirituall the other temporall c. A most evident assertion of Synodall jurisdiction and that they are not to direct onely by way of counsell but to correct also by way of censure To these I might adde many other testimonies of Iunius but these evidences already cited may be sufficient to shew that he was not of this strange opinion touching the independency of Churches and that Mr Daven therefore hath abused his Readers and sought to blinde their eyes when for the credit of his cause he would have it thought that Iunius was of his minde while he professeth that he doth fully agree with him SECT X. His pretence of agreement with Dr Whitaker examined M R Dav. to colour his opinion as if it were no singular conceit of Mr Iacob and some few others makes mention of the Centuriatours as if they were of the same minde yet he alledgeth not their words to prove the same But instead of others he chooseth out Dr Whitaker as if he had bene a favourer of this opinion which it is likely that he never heard of and sayth (g) Apol. reply p. 237. 238. Whit. de Cōci quest 5. Argum. To these I may adde those who have handled the controversies concerning the necessity and authority of Councills amongst whom I will instance in Dr Whitaker who speaking of the fullnes of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church not to the Pope which he applyeth to the Keyes in binding and loosing shutting and opening retaining and remitting finnes sayth that this power belongeth primarily principally and essentially to the Church but to the severall Bishops onely accidentally secundarily and lesse principally and explaineth himself by a rule in Philosophy which is that when any power is in two in one necessarily essentially in another contingently and accidentally it is more principally in him in whom it is necessarily and essentially then in him whose it is onely contingently and accidentally As the heat is more principally in the fire then in the water because it is in the water by reason of the fire So sayth he seeing this jurisdiction and fullnes of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily but to the Pope onely secundarily and by the Church it is manifest that it is more in the Church then in the Pope What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope holds in all other parallell instances ANSVV. First had Mr Dav. repeated this Argument of D. Whitaker fully and justly as it is set downe by himself then might the Reader have seen therein a plaine evident testimony for the authority of Synods but divers things being omitted in the beginning middle and end of it thereby the trueth is obscured and hidden from his Readers In the beginning of it D. Whitaker propounds it thus If the fullnes of power be in the Church not in the Pope then it is evident that it hath more authority then the Pope but the first is true therefore the second also Now by the Church in this place he meaneth the Generall Synod or Councell as appeares by the title of this Question noted in the beginning of it viz. (h) DeConcil Qu. 5. c. 1. with c. 3. Arg. 5. Whether the Synod be above the Pope and if he had not so meant it this his Argument had bene beside the Question And therefore while D. Whitaker here directly concludeth a fullnes of power in Synods and as he further calles it in this same place that highest authority and jurisdiction which Christ hath left unto his Church it is manifest hereby that he did not hold them to be onely for counsell admonition and so was farre from limiting all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation In the middle in the confirmation of this Argument D. Whit. saith For if all this power were in the Pope or in any one man principally and essentially then he dying it should perish and so the Church should altogether loose it But it is not lost though the Pope dye a thousand times but it remaineth with the Church without which the Pope though living could have no part of this authority Now to argue on this manner against the authority we asscribe unto Synods by comparing them with particular Churches as he doth against the Pope compared with Synods would be inconsequent unequall and no parallel instance because the title of the Church is no where given unto the Pope or unto any one person as it is unto an assembly of Ministers Governours or Deputies of Churches met together in the name of Christ in Synods because though we asscribe unto Synods some jurisdiction yet we doe not say that all power is in them originally and so to be derived unto others as is sayd of the Pope and consequently because there is no such danger that the power of the Church should be lost and perish by the death of such as are members of the Synod as might be by the death of the Pope if all power were primarily and essentially in him alone And therefore it is a vaine assertion of Mr Dav. touching this argument of D. Whit. viz What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope holds in all other parallell instances In the end of this Argument prosequuted by D. Whitak he concludeth thus Wherefore seeing it is certaine that this power is given unto the Church primarily and not unto the Pope but secondarily and by accident and seeing the Church is represented in the Synod it is of necessity that the Synod must be above the Pope And thus most evidently he grants unto the Synod as being a representative Church a power jurisdiction above the Pope a power which consists in binding and loosing shutting opening retaining and remitting of sinnes as himself here explaines it and so is directly contrary to them which allow no more unto Synods but counsell and admonition Why did Mr Davenp omit and refuse to name the Synod which D. Whit. so expressely mentioneth applying yeelding unto the Synod that power which he there pleades for Secondly as for that similitude of fire and water though it be granted that heat is more principally in the fire then in the water because it is in the water by reason of the
lawfully not onely when it condemneth and excommunicateth those which are to be condemned pronounced Anathema but also when it ordaines and maintaines those decrees which agree with the Scripture c. Had he bene of my opposites opinion he should have sayd the contraty viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemne those that deserve to be condemned but onely admonish them and so leave them to others Yea he proceeds further sayth concerning Generall Synods that (b) Ibid. p. 270. In them is a soveraigne power and they have the highest authority in the Church He doth not onely grant unto them jurisdiction but greater then is in any particular Church or in any other Ecclesiasticall judicatory Moreover whereas Bellarmine maintaines that Synods cannot erre when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope and that all their authority depends upon him hereupon D. Whita argueth thus against him (c) Ibid. c. 1. p. 214. If there be such weight in the Pope that without him neither Provinciall nor Generall Synod have in them any force it may worthily be demanded what part the Bishops have in a Synod whether they be onely admonishers or counsellours or whether they be judges for if they be counsellours onely why are none but Bishops admitted unto Synods why not others rather who are more learned then Bishops c. He notes it as a poynt of great absurdity and as a great strait whereunto the Papists are brought against their will against their profession that Bishops should have no other place in Synods but of admonishers and counsellours For indeed what use is their of suffrages of definitive and determining voyces if in the end all be determined by the Pope why might not advises and counsels have sufficed in such case This observation D. Whitaker holds to be of speciall use and worthy to be remembred and therefore repeats it oft (d) Ibi. c. 2. p. 221 222. What place I pray you doe Bishops obtaine in Synods what doe they to whâ—â— end doe they meet Is it that they may judge or is it that they may onely counsell and admonish Are they therefore judges or are they onely admonishers counsellours This indeed some of them thinke that they may onely admonish in Synods that they may move questions and dispute but may not judge Naclantus Bishop of Clug as we taught before in his treatise de potestate Papae Concilii sayth The power of the Pope is royall the power of the Synod is consiliaria by way of counsell the power of the Pope is altogether definitive the power of the Synod is of ambulatory definition that is as I interpret it wandring uncertaine Bellarmine indeed and the Iesuites that now are hold that the Bishops are judges but doubtles they meane an ambulatory judgement that is none at all For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone Now this absurd opinion which he notes to have bene the conceit of Naclantus expressed in plaine words and of Bellarmine and other Papists by consequence is even the same that is professed by Mr Jacob Mr Dav. Mr Cann for though they differ in respect of the power of the Pope yet in respect of the power belonging to Synods they make the persons whereof the Synods consist to be no other then admonishers or counsellours not having any jurisdiction at all D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus but speaking againe of the Popes over-ruling of Synods he doth againe record this observation saying (e) Ibid. c. 3. p. 267. Certainly this is that which we sayd before that Bishops assembled in a Synod are not judges but onely admonishers that the Pope alone is judge of all controversies that the rest have no authority For if Bishops were judges judgement should be done according to the greatest number and the sentence of the most judges should prevaile We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a speciall providence of God and directed by his Spirit thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to poynt out and commend to our consideration this evill consequent of making Synods to be onely admonishers or counsellours that so we might have his writing for a Testimony against this errour which within a while after was to be broached made common by Mr Jacob and some others that which the Brownists had done before being neither so commonly knowne nor regarded VNto this his writing De Conciliis we may adde his treatise De Pontifice Romano in which controversy he discusseth 8 questions and in the most of them he gives testimony for the authority of Synods against my opposites The Questions be these 1. Whether the government of the Church be Monarchicall 2. Whether any Monarchy of the Church was setled in Peter 3. Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome and dyed there 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in a Monarchy Ecclesiasticall 5. Whether the Pope be Antichrist 6. Whether the Pope can erre in the faith 7. Whether the Pope can make lawes to binde the conscience 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be given by Christ to the Pope immediately In handling the first Question whereas the Papists require a Monarch to keep inferiour Officers in order and unity D. Whitaker sayth (f) De Pont. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 19. If any will not doe their duety and discharge their office they are to be admonished and rebuked and except they obey they are at length to be remooved by the judgement of the Church or the Synod or the Christian Magistrate and there are knowne meanes enough of keeping Ministers in their duety and the Church in unity without a Pope He acknowledgeth that Synods have not onely power to admonish which every Christian may doe but after admonition to censure remove or depose the obstinate When Bellarmine to prove the superiority of Bishops objects 1. Tim. 5. Those that sinne rebuke before all D. Whit. answers (g) Ibid p. 43. This equalls also may doe So of old if any Elder or Bishop was accused the Bishops brought the matter unto an Ecclesiasticall Senate or Synod and if he did seeme worthy of it they condemned him by a publick judgement that is they eyther suspended or excommunicated or deposed him He declares (h) P. 48. 49. that the Church hath bene preserved in greatest tempests and troubles by Synods and commends them for their use of jurisdiction in judging of causes and shewes how those that would not yeeld unto such authority were removed from their places and others amended by their examples He sayth (i) P 92. Though one alone could not judge of another yet a Synod and as it were a Senate or Session of Bishops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their causes He observeth againe out of Cyprian (k) P. 93. No Bishop could be judge of another of another I say not of others because a Synod of Bishops could alwayes judge
a Bishop therefore the Monarchicall primacy of the Romane Bishop is of no divine right As he doth fully condemne the usurpation of one Bishop above another so by way of opposition he doth fully and plentifully avouch the authority of many meeting together in Synods not onely for counsell admonition but for jurisdiction in judging censuring of offendours After this in the prosequution of the second Question Bellarmine pleading for the Monarchy and jurisdiction of Peter because he in speciall was charged to feed the sheep of Christ and among other Pastorall acts noting this for one to judge controversies D. Whit. answers (l) De Pont. Rom. q. 2. c. 7. p. 229. What controversies Of religion But the other Apostles did that also as well as he and the Synods of Bishops and learned men can doe this even as we read that it hath often bene practised in the Churches for many ages before this principality of the Pope was brought into the Church Furthermore D. Whitaker useth this argument to prove a superiority of power in a company or assembly of the Apostles above one or two of them (m) Ibid. p. 260. The Apostles send Peter to Samaria therefore Peter was not the head of the Apostles but rather was in subjection unto their authority Act. 8.14 He sayth A sending doth alwayes and necessarily imply a subjection in him that is sent if he be sayd properly to be sent This manner of reasoning makes for the authority of Synods consisting of a company of Ministers or other Deputies of Churches orderly assembled whiles he argueth that a Colledge or company of the Apostles had superiority of power over some singular persons among them though considered apart they were all equall in power He sayth concerning Peter Iohn (n) P. 261. We read that both of them were sent by the Colledge of the Apostles from whence we doe justly conclude both that these two Apostles were equall that the authority of sending was in the Apostles He shewes also (o) P. 297 297. that the decree made in the Synod Act. 15. was not confirmed by the authority of Peter alone but by common consent of the Apostles the Church for the repressing of false Apostles c. In the examination of the fourth Question whereas Bellarmine would have a double errour to be observed one of those who teach that the Pope may be judged punished and deposed by the Emperour if he discharge not his office aright another of them that maintaine he may be judged and censured by a Synod of Bishops though not by a secular Prince D. Whitaker answereth (p) Ibid. qu. 4. p. 513 514. We acknowledge both of these but we say there is no errour here For the Bishop of Rome may be deposed both by the Emperour when there is cause and by a Synod of Bishops and that not onely Generall but Particular of that Province whereunto Calvine most truely affirmeth him to be subject and that he may be judged of it and those that perswade the Pope otherwise we affirme them to be flatterers parasites rebels to God the Emperour And many the like assertions he hath in the handling of that question wherein the jurisdiction of Synods is witnessed by him In the fift Question concerning Antichrist (q) Ibid. q. 5. p. 674 675. he notes it to be an evidence of Antichristian pride in the Pope that he is by the Jesuites affirmed to be above the Synod Proceeding to the sixt Question touching the errours of Popes (r) Qu. 6. p. 797.805.812 813. he avoucheth the jurisdiction of Synods by alledging many examples and instances wherein they exercised this power as in the condemning of Pope Honorius Gregory the 7th or Hildebrandus John the 23th Eugenius c. Touching the seventh Question about the Popes making of lawes to binde the conscience though D. Whitaker teach that it belongs to God alone to give lawes unto the conscience yet he sayth (ſ) Qu. 7. p. 853. The Church hath authority of making lawes concerning decency it is our duety to obey yet concerning the things themselves the conscience is alwayes free c. He addes Whereas the adversary saith that all true lawes have a coactive or constraining force if he so understand it that they constraine burden the conscience with respect unto the things themselves it is false for certainely even these also doe constraine after a sort to wit if we have respect unto the generall rule so that if there come contempt or offence or schisme the violation of them cannot be excused Againe he saith to like purpose (t) P. 867. Whereas Bellarm. sayth we can abide no lawes therein he doth egregiously slander for we allow much esteeme of lawes even Ecclesiasticall lawes do teach that they are to be obeyed do subject ourselves unto them but we will not that our consciences be bound or ensnared nor the liberty which Christ hath givē to be taken from us How the Church exerciseth this power of making lawes he explaineth (v) De Cōc q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. elswhere namely in Synods And seeing here he teacheth obedience and subjection unto them it is plaine that he allowes unto Synods a greater authority then onely of admonishing or counselling This he expresseth more plainly even in this Question also when he sayth (x) De Pont. Rom. q. 7. p. 849. It is lawfull for Synods both Generall Provinciall to make lawes and to ordaine certaine rites which belong unto good order and the outward policie of the Church and they are to be deposed which doe not keep the same but our consciences are not bound with those lawes except contempt scandall be added as was sayd before SECT XI His Allegation of Chamierus examined BEsides these Allegations set downe in his Apologeticall Reply there remaineth yet to be considered of us the testimony of Daniel Chamierus another learned man whom Mr Dav. had cited before any of these to wit in his letter which he sent to the Classis printed by W. B. saving (y) Book of compl p. 2. The power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters or in things which are proper to it self as a Synod hath the chief power in things that are common to many Churches witnesse Chamiercont Bell. lib. 2. ANSVV. The quotation of this Testimony is imperfectly described so that men cannot finde the same by the direction he gives there being many second bookes in those 4 Tomes of that great work each of them contayning many chapters and none of them specifyed by him It seemes he took this testimony from Mr Parker who hath also imperfectly cited the same for though he mention not onely the second book but also pag. 193. yet is not that testimony there to be found But wheresoever it is he might have * See before pag. 92 93. found in Mr Parker sufficient answer and satisfaction
Elders and Shepherds of the Church in Ierusalem did undertake the care and exercise with others authority in judging the cause of the Church of Antioch It is against sense against nature against Scripture but that the members of the body should have care one for another 1. Cor. 12.25 c. IV. The use of Classes and Synods for counsell and admonition is allowed by my opposites and yet the care and labour therein for travelling to meet in such assemblies for deliberation for disputing for convincing such as they admonish and their counsell given unto Churches for the rejecting of Hereticks and other obstinate offendours more or lesse is as great in effect as if they should give definitive sentence therein As little distraction ariseth from one work as from the other To counsell a Church to excommunicate a sinner is as great a burden and labour for a Synod as if they should pronounce the sentence themselves V. It doth least of all become Mr Canne to plead and reason on this manner If nature have ordained one to one as he argueth out of Aristotle though in his quotation he forgat to tell where then must Mr Canne be a man against nature above many other in transgressing the law and ordinance of nature How durst he take the Pastorall charge of a Church upon him and this alone without assistance of an Eldership and yet in the meane time undertake the care and charge of divers other trades as of a Printers work-house in one place of a Brandery or Aquavitae shop in another place and specially of an Alchymists laboratory in another place Is this paragon of the Separation a fit man to be an Advocate or Patron of the Churches to write a booke and intitle it the Churches plea whereas if his example were followed it would bring confusion upon all Churches and on all the Ministers thereof What Pluralist or Non-resident is there that will not thinke he hath some colour to justify himself from this practise of Mr Canne REAS. III. Is it a like thing that the Classicall power should be of Gods approving and yet he never mention it in his word This argument the Hierarchy use against Popish Offices and the Reformists against theirs Now let the discreet Reader judge if it proove not the point in hand as well Here I may not omit Zwinglius his speech speaking of Synods (p) Zwingl Art 8. expl Wee willingly beleeve sayth hee that you are a representative Church for a true Church you are not But I pray you shew us whence you fetch this name Who hath given you this name who hath given you power to make Canons impose things on mens shoulders grieve their consciences c. ANSVV. I. This Reason is in substance the same with his fift Argument before and therefore idly repeated The grounds of Classicall power are shewed (q) Chap. 2. 3. 4. before from the Scriptures and the cavills of Mr Canne against the same refuted II. Note his errour of speech in distinguishing the Hierarchy from Popish Offices by opposing them one against the other whereas according to the common acception of the word the Hierarchy doth consist in the Popish offices and the corruption of offices which he intends is but a fragment thereof and therefore ought not to carry the name rather then the whole when both are spoken of together Otherwise in proper speech the true Hierarchy imports the lawfull offices and government prescribed in the Scriptures III. That which he alledgeth out of Zwinglius touching a representative Church is to be understood of the Romish Church and of the Popish government for against them did Zwinglius then write and against them there was just cause to complaine so as he did IV. If any thinke that by representative Churches he meant all Synods whatsoever that exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in the judging of causes then against the testimony of Zwinglius we oppose the testimony of all ages and of the learned Writers therein old and new Papists and Protestants that generally are against him Mr Parker (r) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 26. p. 368 369. sayth well All ages have called the Synod a representative Church beside many other witnesses he alledgeth D. Whitaker arguing thus against the Papists (f) De Cōc qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169. The Church is represented in the Synod therefore if the Church be above Peter then is the Synod also Mr Parker argues further Except the Synod did consist of the Deputies of Churches Synods could not represent the Churches and having there brought many testimonies of Scripture to shew the power of Churches in sending their Deputies or Delegates he concludes in the words of D. Whitaker (t) Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 103. Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the person of the Church But touching the judgment of Zwinglius more hereafter when he is againe alledged by Mr Canne REAS. IV. (v) Church plea p. 76. Whosoever shall deny our aforesayd assertion must of necessity hold two distinct formes of Church-government one wherein particular Congregations doe in and of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances the other where they stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Now to hold this is directly all one as to hold two wayes to heaven distinct and opposite in themselves which is very scandalous in Religion and that which cannot stand with truth ANSVV. I. Whatsoever Mr Canne here affirmeth is but his bare assertion without Scripture or other proof to confirme his reason But Mr Can. is not yet come to such credit with us that his ipse dixit his bare word may goe for currant II. It is false which he sayth of holding two distinct formes of Church-government c. The particular Congregations here in these Reformed Churches doe in and of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances and yet withall stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Synodall authority being one of Gods ordinances Though in regard of the locall and personall presence of all the members of the Church this authority is exercised out of themselves yet in regard of their confederation and combination with neighbour Churches and in regard of their Deputies Ministers and Elders or others that have place and suffrage in these Synods this authority is exercised in and of themselves And though here be another act of authority yet is there but one distinct forme of government III. It is as false which he sayth of holding two wayes to heaven and this not onely in respect of these Reformed Churches among themselves having the same government both by Elderships at home and by Synods abroad but also in respect of divers Churches having different formes of government The Church of England and of these Countries though they have a different order of Church-government yet holding together the same fundamentall trueths of the Gospell◠they both doe hold but one way to heaven and so doe both mutually
By this time I suppose saith he the indifferent Reader perceiveth that the Scriptures are every way for us and against Mr Paget in this controversy betwixt us Now hee should doe well seeing we dispute about a matter of faith appertaining to life and salvation to rest in them as the onely touch stone for triall of all truth But then further to make way for his new troupes legions of Humane Testimonies against me and because this doth not well suit with his profession that pretends so much warrant of Scripture and to rely onely upon it therefore he seeks to take occasion from my words thereby to excuse his vaine oftentation in alledging so many Writers and saith Notwithstanding considering he makes so much a doe about the multitude of learned and godly Ministers being of the same judgement and practise with him according as Festus knowing Paul to have appealed unto Caesar did reasonably resolve saying Unto Caesar shalt thou goe so I am well contented to heare what reverend and judicious Authors doe say herein And if Mr Paget will stand unto their Testimonies I doubt not but to make it manifest that as the Scriptures so they are also with us c. Hereunto I answer 1. In all my former Answer I have not alledged against them the testimony of any one Author neither have I framed any argument drawne from their words The words of my writing which he alledgeth are onely a part of an answer unto a slanderous accusation both of me and the Classis in a matter of fact wherein I shew how unconscionably and without proof they wrong both me and a multitude of learned and godly Ministers being of the same judgement and practise I desire the Reader to looke upon the (b) Answ to W.B. p. 73. place and to judge thereof II. Whereas he thereupon brings forth an Army of Papists and Lutheranes Ancient fathers and later Writers Conformists Non-conformists c. though it be with lesse reason then Festus sent Paul to Caesar seeing I made no such appeale as Paul did unto Caesar yet I am content to follow him and to heare what his Authors doe say and to shew both how idly and needlesly he alledgeth many of them to prove that which is not denyed and also how he perverts and falsifyes their meanings alledging them for that which is contrary both to their words and practise The severall Bands of that Army which Mr Canne mustereth against us are these as he reckoneth them (c) Churc plea p. 78. The Allegations of the Learned which I purpose here to set downe shall be taken 1. From Papists 2. Lutherians 3. Calvinists 4. English Conformists 5. The Non-Conformists 6. Ancient Writers And lastly the Confession of Reformed Churches SECTION I. Touching the Testimonies of Papists HAving promised to produce the Testimonies of Reverend and judicious Authors as he calles them he brings in the Papists and drawes out the Popish band in the first place against me When Mr Spr. once heretofore had propounded divers Confiderations unto them of the Separation and among other things the testimony and approbation given to the Church of England by sundry learned men as Bucer Martyr Fagius Alasco Knox Calvine Beza c. Mr Ainsworth answers (d) Counterp p. 19. Though you come against us with horsmen and charets yet we will remember the name of the Lord our God c. That which David speakes of his refuge against the forces of the Heathenish Princes Psal 20.7 he applyes against these Worthies which were indeed the horsemen and charets of Israel 2. King 2.12 13.14 But that might I much more justly apply unto Mr Canne that alledgeth against me and so unjustly such a company of Romanists the horsmen and charets of Antichrist the Locusts like horses prepared unto the battell Rev. 9.7 And here first of all let it be considered what open wrong he doth unto the Papists Bellarmine the Rhemists c. in faining that they will not allow that government now which they acknowledge to have bene used of old while he saith Howsoever Romes-Champions will have none now to meddle with Church-government but Priests Bishops Prelates c. yet they doe acknowledge that in the primitive Church according to the precept of Christ in Mat. 18. offenders after the first and second admonition were brought to the whole Congregation c. This which he faineth to be granted by them touching a diversity of Government in respect of times cannot be justly affirmed For Bellarmine in the place (e) DeVerbo Dei l. 3. c. 5. alledged by him pleads for the same Government to be used now which he shewes to have bene ordained and confirmed by Christ and his Apostles and to that end he alledgeth 8 or 9 places of Scripture out of the new Testament as grounds of the same Government And in the (f) Ibid. c. 5 Chapter following he laboureth to prove that the same Government hath bene still retained and practised ever since from the first age of the primitive Church unto this present The Rhemists also (g) Rhem. on Mat. 18.17 1. Cor. 5. derive the government which they now stand for from the institution of Christ and practise of the primitive Church And therefore it is untrue which he sayth viz. that the Papists acknowledge a difference betwixt the government instituted at the first and that which is now maintained by them To prove this generall assertion he alledgeth a particular testimony of Scultingius But that which is sayd of one cannot be asscribed unto all in such generall termes as he hath done saying of Romes-Champions they doe acknowledge that which Scultingius sayth whereas we see that the chief of them avouch the contrary This testimony of Scultingius as it is absurdly fathered upon the Papists in generall so it is unjustly applyed against us Though in the primitive Church offenders being impenitent were excommunicated with consent and approbation of all by the Minister and though this testify the power of the Church for which cause it is alledged by Mr Parker from whom it seemes Mr Canne hath taken this testimony at second hand together with his observation upon it touching the force of trueth in a Papist yet this proves not that the Church was not subject to the censure of a superiour judicatory if they did abuse their power Mr Parker drawes no such consequence from this testimony to exclude the authority of Synods There is nothing sayd by Scultingius here but it hath alwayes bene observed in our Church Offenders are not excommunicated as being impenitent before they have bene denounced as this Authors phrase is or complained of by giving notice of their estate unto the whole Church before whom also the sentence of excommunication is pronounced and this our manner was allowed by Mr Park being sometime one of us as I shewed (h) P. 105. before As for Saravia and Schola Parisiensis whom he alledgeth together in the next place
observe 1. How little Mr Canne understands what the Authors be whom he alledgeth not knowing whether they were Papists or Protestants placing Saravia in the number of Papists so well is he acquainted with the Authors he alledgeth at second hand such injury he doth to his witnesses So afterward (i) P. 93 98. againe in this same book he wrongeth Saravia by setting him among the Popish Writers and making him of their profession and religion by accusing me to make the same objection and to use the same reason that Papists doe and then giving instance in Saravia for one of them What a blindenes and inconsideratenes is this in Mr Canne 11. He perverts the meaning both of Saravia and Schola Parisiensis for what though they grant that all Ecclesiasticall authority belongeth to the Church primarily c. doth it follow hence that the power of Classicall and Provinciall Synods is an undâ—â— power as W.B. and Mr C. accuse them doth it not rather follow that there is a due power secondarily and by delegation in Synods where the Deputies of the Churches meet together in their name Mr Parker (k) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 29.30 42. from whom he hath both these testimonies doth not so alledge them against the authority of Synods He might have seen these words in the same place cited by Mr Parker out of Saravia whereby authority is asscribed not onely unto the Church but also unto Synods when he is (l) Ibid. p. 42. brought in saying Bishops Arch-bishops have no authority but what is conferred and bestowed upon them by the Church and Synods III. He perverts the meaning of Schola Parisiensis which speakes not of particular Congregations but of the Universall Church and specially as it is represented in a Generall Councell This is plaine and evident throughout that whole writing IV. He doth deale deceitfully in his translation of that testimony of Schol. Paris for the Doctours of Sorbon doe there say that all Ecclesiasticall authority doth belong to the Church primarily properly essentially but unto the Romane Pope and other Bishops instrumentally ministerially and for execution onely c. instead of the Romane Pope and other Bishops he puts in the word Officers onely to blinde the eyes of the Readers who if those words had not bene left out might easily have seene that they spake of such transcendent and usurped authority as is exercised by the Pope and his Bishops c. Hence it may appeare what is to be judged of that which he inferres from this testimony to make it serve his purpose in oppugning of Synods As for Alphonsus de Castro and Franciscus Victoria 1. It is an errour to approve their testimony there (m) Ch. pl. p. 78.79 alledged viz. that all Bishops doe receive jurisdiction and power immediately from God for then should they all have an extraordinary calling such as the Apostles had Gal. 1.1 15 16. whereas all ordinary Ministers have their jurisdiction not immediately from God but mediately by men and from the Church How erroneously doe W.B. and Mr C. put light for darknes and darknes for light when they avouch that thus God ordered these mens tongues to give witnesse unto his trueth 11. All the shew of help which they pretend to have from this testimony is grounded upon that groundlesse consequence whereby they inferre that Classes Synods have no authority over particular Congregations because all Churches Elderships and Officers are equall This their assertion remaines yet to be proved which we doe expressely deny as I have (n) P. 159. shewed in my answer unto his first Reason The testimonies of the three next Popish Authors viz. Cusanus de concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11 c. Sanders de visib Mon. l. 1. c. 6. Scultingius Hierarch Anarch l. 4. pag. 103. are all of them before alledged by (o) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 1. p. 2. c. 3. p. 11. Mr Parker from whence it seemes Mr Canne hath taken them but without judgement not applying them aright for 1. When they affirme that Christs promise of giving the keyes unto Peter must be referred unto the whole Church as also that Peter in person presented the body of the Church though these speeches shew the power of binding and loosing to be in the Church yet can it not hence be inferred that a particular Congregation ought not to be subject unto the censure of Classes and Synods or to stand under the authority of any Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of itself when that Congregation is complained of for errour or wrong doing It is a perverting of these speeches and a false consequence which is drawne from hence that because a Congregation hath power to judge the members thereof therefore no other have power to judge of it 11. When Mr Canne inferreth hence that the power of electing Ministers is not in Classes or Synods he beates the ayre erres from the Question When did I ever affirme any such matter or when did the Classis ever offer to obtrude a Minister upon us III. These testimonies touching the Keyes given unto the Church shew what power is in the Church originally and primarily but yet they doe not import that the execution and exercise of this power is in the whole Church Preaching and administration of the Sacraments are a part of that Ecclesiasticall authority comprehended in the power of the Keyes and yet the exercise thereof is not permitted to the whole Church by the confession of the Brownists themselves For his next witnesse having alledged the words of Ferus upon Act. 11. that the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also depose them and reject them altogether if they be not fit c. he insulteth hereupon and gloryeth saying What can be more for us then this I answer This might have bene more for you if he had sayd that when a Congregation hath deposed their Minister there is no other Ecclesiasticall judicatory that may judge whether they have done well or ill This had bene to the purpose then had he absolutely granted you the thing which the Brownists stand for but this he doth not When Mr Canne was deposed from his ministery by them of the Separation and when they rejected him altogether and left both his ministery and the fellowship of all that took part with him was it not his their misery that there was none to judge betwixt theÌ„ When he alledgeth the names of Gratian Gregorie P. Aeneas Sylvius Pope Anacletus Sixtus Senensis Thomas of Aquine Alexander of Ales Iohn Scot c. some of them affirming that the greatest authority is in the Church that the keyes were given to all the Apostles others that all Bishops are equall in power and the like these and the like speeches being alledged to prove the undue power of Classes and Synods they are all perverted neither can the question in controversy be ever concluded from hence against us
spread abroad by the authority of Constantine and of that Synod and many confirmed in the profession thereof thereby they were sealed in their foreheads the name both of the Lamb and of the Father was imprinted on their foreheads according to that in Rev. 14.1 In the exposition of that mysticall Song of Solomon where there is mention made of a fountaine of gardens a well of living waters and streames from Lebanon this Mr Brightman doth also (t) Cōment in Cantic c. 4. V. 15. p. 75.76 interpret and particularly apply unto the Synod of Nice The decrees of that Synod are by him avouched to be the living waters to refresh and make fruitfull the gardens of God which are the Churches of Christ And while he alledgeth such divine warrant to prove the fruit and benefit of Synods how injurious is Mr Canne unto him in perverting his testimony yea how injurious to the Church of God in drying up these fountaines of comfort by his impugning the authority of Synods Besides this to omit other the like testimonies of Mr Brightman touching Synods even in that (v) OnRev 12.1 very place mentioned by Mr Canne touching the purity of the primitive Church Mr Brightm maketh mention of Paulus Samosatenus the Synodicall Epistle concerning him and so leadeth us to that story which shewes the power of Synods in that primitive age For there we read that about the yeare of Christ 280 there was a (x) Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 26 27.28 29. edit Basil 1611. Synod held at Antioch where many Bishops and others met together from many Churches and out of divers Provinces who did not onely give counsell about the controversy but gave sentence against Paulus Samosatenus and by common consent rejected and excommunicated him Aurelianus the Emperour using his authority to represse the insolency of that person when he would have resisted the Synod The same story is recorded also by the (y) Cent. 3. c. 9. col 206.207 Magdeburgenses in their Centuries shewing that divers Synods were held at Antioch about that busines before it could be finished Whereas they doe here in their marginall note send me to see what Mr Iacob saith Necess of Reform p. 57. c. I have long since seene what he writes both in that place and in other of his treatises published of later time and though he went too farre in this businesse yet I finde that he disallowes the practise judgment of the Brownists and wonders at their blindenes and bewailes it For speaking of Morellius and the popular government which he strove for he sayth (z) Attestat c. 8. p. 249. Some of the Separation I grant are too offensive this way which I am heartily sory for They take the wordes in Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church more popularly then there is need or then reason or good order would Howbeit in this yet they hold the substance of the true Church-government They erre but in the circumstance of order though it be too (a) Beza Annot. in Mat. 18.17 foule That is they will examine all scandalls c. whatsoever in the presence and under the judgement of the whole multitude perpetually and necessarily I say perpetually and necessarily Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents which will and must ensue many times And afterwards againe in the same (b) P. 280 281. chapter he saith But to hold those popular circumstances in every Church perpetuall and necessary absolutely as the Separation doth it was neither Cyprians meaning nor Christs nor any well advised Christians Yea upon this his testimony touching the disorder of the Brownists he sets this note and mark of his vehement dislike in the margine of that page Separation itself is no such error as this is And this ought seriously to be considered of Mr Canne and his client In the next place (c) Ch. pl. p. 81. he brings divers allegations of Scriptures and other Authors to prove that we may not change the Apostolick Government nor leave their institutions c. In all which he beates the ayre and trifles leaving the question that is betwixt us as I have noted (d) P. 145. c. before seeing they prove not that the authority of Synods is against the Apostolick institution Come we therefore unto his testimonies of Lutheranes of such as he confusedly mingles with them viz. of Zuinglius Luther Chemnitius Melancthon Sarcerius Brentius D. Rungius Hunnius Osiander Salneccer Pelargus D. Mylius Hegendorphin c. These all are notably perverted by him for to answer first in generall What though these teach that the power of excommunication of calling Ministers c. is in the whole Church doth it therefore follow that Synods may not judge the actions of a whole Congregation if they abuse their power If Congregations call a Minister though never so vile or so unworthy or if they would excommunicate an innocent person shall there be no liberty of appeale unto a superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory for the redresse of such wrongs Or doe any of his Lutherane witnesses condemne such an appeale This he ought to have concluded from their Testimonies by some just consequence if he would have spoken to the purpose The insultation of Mr C. and W. B. upon these testimonies is most vaine containeth many falshoods It is false that my opinion is a new opinion as they call it It is false that these Lutheranes are contrary unto me It is false that upon my grounds Officers how vile soever must be left alone if Ministers of other Churches judge them fit to continue It is grossely false that the power which I leave unto particular Churches is just nothing It is an open and foule falshood that these many Authors alledged doe consent fully with them viz. with Mr Canne and W. Best But this will more plainly appeare if we take a particular survey of the chief of those witnesses here produced whose testimonies he vouchsafeth to set downe The first of these is Zuinglius who though he was no Lutherane as Mr Canne notes in his margine who had promised to set downe his allegations taken from Lutheranes next after the Papists yet here he is brought in with Luther And as he is misplaced in respect of the order which Mr C. propounded to himself so his testimonies both touching excommunication and calling of Ministers are unjustly alledged against us In the first sort of testimonies touching excommunication not to speake of Mr Cannes altering and transposing his Authors words to make them serve his owne purpose Zuinglius reprooves the abuses and enormities of the Pope and his Bishops undertaking by their sole authority to excommunicate those that were none of their Church His words are these (e) Art 31. No private man may excommunicate but the Church wherein he that is to be excommunicated doth dwell together with the Bishop And in the explication of that Article having spoken of other
abuses about excoÌ„munication he saith Can the Bishop alone excoÌ„municate ExcoÌ„munication doth not belong unto any one man whosoever he be but unto the Church By these the like speeches of Zuinglius it appeares that his testimonies are not prejudiciall unto our practise nor unto that authority of Synods which we maintaine seeing we grant that no one person alone can by right excommunicate any man by his owne authority neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate those that are not in communion with them The other place cited out of Zuinglius touching the calling of Ministers is so farre from prooving any thing against us that being duely considered it may fitly serve to blame those popular courses which Mr Can. pleades for and to justify our practise in not performing this weighty businesse without the advise and approbation of neighbour Ministers assembled in the Classis Zuinglius in that treatise called Ecclesiastes having spoken of the Popish tyranny bereaving most Churches of the liberty of election he reprooves another extreme saving (f) Eccles Tom. 2. f. 54. If there were any Church unto which election was yet left free the common people rashly without all deliberation and without all counsell of learned prudent and faithfull men did choose those whom they did most favour not such as were indued with true vertues beseeming a Bishop Therefore there is nothing so agreeable unto the Divine ordinance and ancient institution as that the whole Congregation of a faithfull people together with some learned and godly Bishops or other faithfull and experienced men doe make choyse of a Pastour Thus he plainly disavowes the independency of Churches in such cases not allowing a Congregation to proceed unto the election of a Minister without the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches and to this effect he explaines himself further in the same place saying It is meet that the power of election should be in the Church being furnished with the counsels of faithfull and learned men For as that matter may not lye in the power of any one man so neither may the rude and unlearned multitude take upon them so great a weight of election c. And in the same leafe speaking of Anabaptists intruding themselves into the Churches of their owne accord he proves that they are no lawfull Ministers because they have not a due calling thus Bishops they are not for they are not chosen of any Church by lawfull and unanimous consent the authority of other Bishops excelling in faith and prudence also concurring Observe how that with the free consent of the people he joynes not onely the counsell or advise as he had called it before but the authority of the Officers of other Congregations Moreover that Zuinglius did not absolutely deny the authority of Synods though he speake much against Popish Synods may appeare if we consider the reasons which he useth against them viz. because they were not assembled in the holy Ghost because they did not judge of matters according to the Scriptures but according to the ordinances and customes of men c. Now this is not to dispute against the thing itself but against the abuse of it And therefore having spoken against such Councels of the Pope Cardinals and Bishops in such sort as Mr Canne had alledged him (g) Ch. pl. p. 75. before he addes withall (h) Art 8. expl I speake onely of these that are such my writings shall not hurt others who set themselves under the Scriptures not above the Scriptures And that these conditions for the want whereof he opposed those Popish Synods may yet be found in other Synods which have made decrees for the deciding of controversies raysed in the Church he acknowledgeth in these words (i) Paraenes ad coÌ„mun Helvet civ Tom. 1. f. 116. If the Councill of Gangra were assembled in the holy Ghost which no good man will deny while he sees that the decrees thereof doe agree with the lawes of the Gospell and with the doctrine of the Apostles it was unworthily done of those that came after that have disanulled the decrees thereof without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures Againe in another place speaking of the foure Generall Councels though he justly blame those that accounted them to be of equall authority with the foure Evangelists yet he saith (k) Archeteles T. 1. f. 137. Truely I would not have any thing to be detracted from them He was not therefore of Mr Cannes minde who will have all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be detracted or removed from Synods Besides Zuinglius doth not onely approve of these Synods held in former times but he also shewes himself ready to joyne in the like practise even in the exercise of the same Ecclesiasticall authority that was used in those Synods For when the Magistrates of Zurich had assembled together all the Ministers of the Churches both in their city and countrie and had procured the presence of divers others for the solemne vindicating of the doctrine taught in their Churches there Faber Vicar of the Bishop of Constance having spoken of a Generall Councell that it onely had authority to determine these things Zuinglius replyes (l) Act. Disp 1. Tom. 2. f. â—10 Whereas in this our assembly there be so many right faithfull men both of our owne countrey and strangers and furthermore seeing here be so many godly learned Bishops present who doubtles have a desire not onely to heare and understand but also to advance divine trueth verily I see nothing to hinder even in this place whereby it should not be lawfull for us according to the Vicars meaning to dispute of these things and to decree what trueth teacheth But other nations he sayth will never consent unto these our decrees c. By these and the like (m) Ibid. f. 621. c. passages it is evident that Zuinglius did allow the Ministers of severall Congregations assembled in a Synod not onely to consult and dispute but also to determine yea and to make decrees for the removing of controversies settling peace in the Church while they did it according to the Scriptures which is the same that we maintaine The words of Mr Luther whom he cites in the next place as they are to no purpose alledged against us seeing they touch not the question as I shewed before so being compared with other his writings they make it appeare that these two propositions may well stand together viz. that the Church hath power to judge to call to depose c. and yet that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation but that Synods Councells have authority to judge of Church affaires and to censure offendours forasmuch as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other In the yeare 1518 having understood that they proceeded against him in the Popes Court at Rome and that an unjust sentence was likely to
ministery of the Word and Sacraments unto the whole Church but not so that everie one rashly and of his owne accord should take unto himself and exercise that ministery without a lawfull calling but that after immediate calling hath ceased God sends the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments by the calling and election of the Church if it be performed according to the direction of his word so that the chiefe power of the Word and Sacraments is in God secondly that the ministery is in the Church as by which God doth mediately call choose and send Ministers thirdly in those who are lawfully chosen and called of God by the Church as in the Ministers to whom is commanded the exercise or administration of the ministery of the Word and Sacraments Not to speake of some difference which the Reader may easily perceive betwixt Mr Cannes allegation and his Authors words there is nothing here sayd that doth any way prejudice the jurisdiction of Synods neither can he from hence inferre any thing against us Moreover if that distinctiō be considered according to the meaning of the Authors from whence it is taken it doth flatly contradict the opinion and practise of Mr Canne and others of the Separation who will have not onely the power but also the execution or administration of it to be in the people promiscuously when all causes must be brought to the body of the Congregation there to be heard and determined Thus Mr Parker (d) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 26. opposeth this distinction unto the Democratie or popular government of Morellius whom Mr Iacob in this respect parallels with them of the Separation as was noted (e) P. 176. before These maintaine that the people are to exercise their power in judging of causes which the sayd Authors both Chemnitius and Mr Parker conceive to be derived into the Aristocraticall part or Officers of the Church for the ordinary exercise of it she still retaining her interest therein so farre that in matters of speciall moment nothing be concluded without her knowledge and consent That moderating and guiding of the action which Mr Canne and those of his minde reserve onely unto the Officers of the Church in which respect he doth here call them Guides cannot make that difference betwixt the judiciall exercising of power as it is in the Officers and the first receyving of that power which is sayd to be in the whole Church by those that maintaine that distinction In a word they say that the exercise of this power doth not ordinarily belong unto the people he saith that it doth Such is the agreemēt betwixt Mr Canne and his witnesses Melanchthon whom he alledgeth for the same purpose with Chemnitius as Mr Parker had done (f) Ubi supra p. 26. before hath not any thing in the place mentioned that sounds that way He speakes there Loc. Theol. de Regno Christi onely of the spirituall kingdome of Christ against the Jewes and some sorts of Anabaptists Neverthelesse seeing he was one of speciall eminency among those with whom he is here joyned it may be usefull to observe how Mr Canne is condemned by this witnesse also whom he hath sought to produce against us in this controversy touching the authority of Synods Among other Articles propounded unto the Protestants to ensnare them this being also questioned Whether the holy Oecumenicall and receyved Synods have erred Melanchthon answers (g) Respōs ad Artic. Bavar Art 7. By this generall demand they seek to kindle hatred against us as if we seemed to reprehend all Synods all things that have been acted in Synods But we professe openly that there ought to be judgements in the Church and we affirme that there have been many godly Synods and profitable unto the Church and we doe greatly wish now in these dissentions that the judgement of the Church might be rightly settled If he had bene of Mr Cann minde he should have answered farre otherwise viz. that all those Synods erred that exercised any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction that they were to be blamed for the making of all those Actes wherein such authority and power was implyed such as were generally all the Actes of the Synods of Antioch Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon Gangra c. which as he saith in the same place their Churches doe imbrace he should have sayd also according to Mr Cannes principles that though there may and ought to be judgements that is Ecclesiasticall sentences and censures in particular Congregations that yet they ought not to be in Synods or Assemblies of Ministers of severall Congregations that these have no such power to judge that no such determinations are to be desired But Melanchthon we see declares himself to be an opposite unto such conceits and lest we should thinke that by the judgements of the Church he meant not such as are exercised in Synods or that by judgements he understood rather acts of consultation inquisition deliberatiō then of determination and pronouncing of sentences heare how he explaines himself elswhere saying (h) Enarr Symb. Nic. Tom. 1. f. 391. There are in the Church judgements concerning doctrine which are called Synods And againe Synods are ordinary judgements which are pronounced against the unwilling as they use to say And the Church is commanded to make a lawfull inquiry which being done if sentence be rightly pronounced obedience is to be yeelded And if any doe not obey he is justly punished He hath also upon other occasions given plaine and pregnant testimonies of his judgement in this particular among the rest that especially is worthy our observation which he writes in a certaine Disputation concerning Synods it being one of those Disputations which Luther by a preface thereunto prefixed hath commended unto the Readers for which cause it seemes they are also inserted among Luthers workes as being in speciall manner approoved by him (i) Luth. Tom. 1. f. 444 445. There Melanthon intending to speak of Synods reasoneth thus It is most true and most agreeable unto the nature of men that which Plato sayth that the best state of a Common-wealth is that which is the meane betwixt Tyrannie and Democratie or popular government This is to be framed and maintained as in all government so especially in the Church Both these Tyrannie and Democratie are to be avoyded and detested in the Church as most noysome plagues It is Tyrannie to constraine men to approve of manifest impietie to obey contrary to the cleare word of God c. Againe Democratie also must be removed from the Church that is the common people without difference are not to have licence or power granted unto them to alter doctrines or to give sentence concerning doctrines for the Multitude also as Herodotus sayth is a most cruell Tyrant But a middle state is to be sought that is Aristocratie ought to be established wherein by proportion the authority of the learnedest and best men may be the greatest This Aristocratie Paul
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
Virell neither of them can be justly alledged for his witnesses in this cause For Viret he is (k) Beza in vita Calv. Calv. Epist 25 39.54 .c recorded to have bene a speciall assistant unto Calvine in the work of the Lord for the settling of that forme of Discipline by which the power of an Ecclesiasticall Judicatorie over divers particular Congregations was established at Geneva That weed of Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods as Mr Canne here (l) Ch. pl. p. 94. calles it was planted by the hand of Viret as well as of Calvine And then what reason is there to judge but that Viret did esteeme it a plant of the heavenly Father not to be rooted out of the gardē of his Church seeing he joyned with him in that work For Virell he writes touching the outward calling of Ministers in the (m) Groūds of Relig. b. 3. c. 1. p. 2. 7 708 edit 12. place alledged that it is the lawfull choyse of a visible Church met together in the name of Christ that there be three things required thereunto first that there be a search and tryall both of the conversation and learning of him that is to be chosen c. Another is this that men come not to it by any corruptiō of gifts but that it be free so as they that have the power to chose should have onely the glory of God and the edification of his Church before their eyes Thirdly that he which is chosen have a Church appointed unto him for the execution of his office whose duety it is to looke unto it diligently carefully And more then this he saith not that can with any colour be thought to looke towards this cōtroversy And in all this what one word hath he against the authority of Synods Nay it is the work of Classes and Synods to see that all things here required be accordingly performed in particular Churches and if any of these be omitted to correct and reforme the same Bullinger next alledged though he say that the Church hath power to elect ordaine fit Ministers yet he was not of Mr Cannes minde to thinke that the Church looseth her right and is bereaved of her due power when it is not exercised by herself alone or in that popular way which he requireth for even in the place (n) Decad. 5. Ser. 4. which Mr Canne hath cited he saith It skilleth not much whether fit Ministers be ordained by grave men chosen by the Church or by the whole Church itself and that either by votes or by lots or in any other convenient and holy manner For godlinesse doth not contend about these things so that all be done holily and according to order And afterwards againe he speakes to the same purpose It is well knowne that true Churches have the right of ordaining Pastours whether it be done by the votes of the whole Church or by the lawfull judgement of them that be chosen by the Church It appeares by these the following words that he alludes unto the practise of the Helvetian Churches concerning which we are to make further mention (o) Sect. 7. hereafter when we come to speak of their Confession Touching the Ecclesiasticall power of Synods Bullinger declares his judgement also in this same booke when (p) Decad. 5. Ser. 1. speaking of the power of the Church in judging of doctrines he gives instance in the gathering of a Synod which saith he the Church of God doth according to the power receyved from the Lord even as we read in the Actes of the Apostles that the Apostles of the Lord have done c. Againe he (q) Decad. 5. Serm. 10. cites and approves the decree of Justinian the Emperour for the yearely celebrating of Synods where matters arising might be examined and by due correction healed He urgeth this decree against the Bishops and warnes the Magistrates to take heed they doe not connive at the others negligence to the destruction of the whole Church and of all the Ministers of Christ. Behold here the difference betwixt Bullinger and Mr Canne that which the one holds to be the soveraigne remedy to preserve the safety of Churches of the ministery the other rejects as an unprofitable weed and that which tends to the undoing and (r) Ch. pl. p. 74. spoyling of Churches Danaeus his testimony is likewise unjustly alledged against us seeing he speakes not in the palce mentioned of the point in controversy betwixt us viz. the authority of Classes Synods or the totall excluding of the same in those things which belong unto elections Onely he doth there (ſ) In. 1. Tim. 5.22 reproove the grosse errour of those that in regard of such popular circumstances as Mr Canne seemes most to plead for doe bring as he saith a very great confusion into the Church by asscribing unto the people more then is due unto them while he shewes that the electing and presenting of the person that is to be called unto any Ecclesiasticall office whereby he understands the first taking notice of him the examining of his life doctrine and the publishing or propounding of him unto the whole Church that this belongs unto the Presbytery and that the approving and accepting of the person so examined and propounded doth belong unto the people they also having a convenient time allowed unto them that if there be just cause they may testify their dislike and bring in their exceptions against him This is the course there described and maintained by Danaeus and the same with that which is practised in our Church And thus the Witnesses produced against us doe still declare their consent with us As for the authority of Synods and the divine right by which it is due unto them Danaeus gives his verdict when in the exposition of the fourth commandement having spoken of the jurisdiction and power of the Church he saith (r) Ethic. Christ Lib. 2. cap. 10. Here comes in the Question concerning Synods which if they be right and keep themselves within their owne bounds their authority is ordained by this Commandement Gualter in the (v) Homil. in Act. 13.2 first place alledged having spoken of the due suffrages or voices of the Church in elections to prevent such a construction as Mr Canne seemes to make of his words addes presently This place doth clearly teach that some parts are committed to the Church in this businesse And againe he saith there that the election of Ministers doth in some part belong to the Church c. He doth not therefore exclude that part which herein we asscribe unto the Classis by proceeding with their advise and consent In the other (x) Ibid. in cap. 14.23 place for Mr Cannes marginall quotation 13.22 seemes to be misprinted he saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood not onely the gathering of voices but also imposition of hands and in his opinion the latter acception
superiour power above one particular Church and that they may judge of the affaires thereof and of the persons therein either Ministers or people This he declares at large in a peculiar treatise touching yearely Synods (f) DeSyno Annuis Opusc Theol. p. 768-870 Bas 1570. wherein after he had shewed the necessity and use of Synods by many divine and humane testimonies he then describes their power not for counsell onely as the Brownists and my opposites doe but for the exercise of all kinde of Ecclesiasticall censures as Rebukes of offenders Suspension Excommunication and Deposition or deportment of Officers from their ministery Of all the men of the Iurie before mentioned there is none that gives a more full and cleare verdict against Mr Canne then this Hyperius doth Oecolompadius another of his Authors hath declared his judgement touching Synods and the authority exercised in them to be such as argues his thstimony alledged by Mr Canne to be perverted while it is produced against the same For in his answer to Luther inserted among the workes of Zuinglius (t) Tom. 2. fol. 491. he doth highly commend the Councell of Nice and specially for decreeing that none should afterwards attempt to adde any new articles unto that Confessiō of faith which they had set downe Which Nestorius being found guilty of Oecolompadius approves of that Act of the Councell of Ephesus whereby he was excommunicated saying For which cause being condemned of the crime of heresie he was by common consent shut out of the Church which was sensible of peace restored unto her by this meanes Hereby it appeareth that the acknowledged Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō censure to be a power due unto Synods and that which may lawfully be exercised by them Beza next alledged upon 2. Thes 3.14 though he there call Excommunication an Ecclesiasticall judgement yet doth he not thereby infringe the authority of Classes and Synods neither can any such thing by any just consequence be gathered from his Annotations on that place But on the other side he shewes (v) Epist 83. De Ministr gradib c. 23 p. 155. c. 24. p. 176. 177. elswhere that Synods have their Ecclesiasticall judgements grounded upon the word of God and a profitable use in the Church of God and that the fanaticall opinion of Morellius much like unto the Brownists hath bene worthily condemned in many Synods And according to his writing so was his practise both at Geneva where he was one of them that had their voyce in the government of that Church by a joynt Presbytery or Classis and in France where he himself was President of that famous (x) Harmo Confes p. 112. edit 1612. Synod at Rochell where the Confession of their faith was subscribed by divers Princes and many Ministers and Elders assembled together And therefore if Mr Canne and W. Best their accusation of me were sound and just they might as well complaine of Beza for bringing the Churches of God into miserable slavery and bondage by his tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine Bucer last alledged accordes with the foregoing Authors and his words in commendation of Synods may serve to close up this kinde of Testimonies being an advise unto King Edward the Sixt for the constant celebrating of them In his Admonition given to the King for the restitution of the Kingdome of Christ in his dominions amidst other wholesome counsels out of the word of God he saith (y) De Regno Christi Lib. 2. c. 12. It shall be the duety of the Bishops of each Province to celebrate two Synods every yeare as it is ordained by so many Canons and Lawes of godly Emperours At which Synods must be assembled and heard not onely the Bishops of the Cities but also inferiour Bishops and other Presbyters and Deacons that are endued with a larger measure of knowledge and zeale for the kingdome of Christ that so the more effectually both the faults crept into the Church may becorrected and the pietie of all repaired He had also spoken before of other inferiour and more frequent assemblies like unto our Classes requiring that all the Ministers within the compasse of about 20 Parishes should often meet together for their mutuall assistance in removing offences advancing the kingdome of Christ Touching Synods he speakes also in (z) De vi usu S. Min. tit de Disci Cler. Opuse f. 582. another place to the same purpose approving the ancient constitution whereby it was ordained that the Bishops of every Province should assemble together with the Presbyters and Deacons as often as the need of the Churches should require but without faile twise in the yeare that they might inquire concerning the doctrine and discipline of Christ how it were administred and did flourish in severall Churches that where any default was discovered they might correct it and where they found things in good state they might confirme and promote the same By that correction spoken of here and in the former testimonie he understands not onely counsell and admonition but the judiciall exercise of authority in Ecclesiasticall censures For he doth plainly distinguish betwixt admonition and correction when in the following words concerning Metropolitanes he saith If any thing were done amisse by the Ministers of the Churches or by the common people which by their admonitions they could not amend that then for the correcting of it they should call a Synod of Bishops for there was no power of judgement allowed unto them which by their owne authority they might exercise in the Churches c. Thus Bucerus also as well as the former hath condemned Mr Cannes position viz. that particular Congregations must not stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves And these are all the Authors here alledged by Mr Canne except onely Morell Praedirius and Munster either not seen at all nor to be procured for the present as the two former or not seen to touch this controversie in the writings at hand as the latter Having now heard what these chosen men of the Iurie all nominated by W. B. his Advocate have testifyed concerning Classes or Synods let the Reader judge whether they have given verdict for or against Synods whether every one of these Authors alledged had not just cause if they were living to complaine of great abuse done to them in perverting their testimonies and making false consequences from their words contrary to their meaning And forasmuch as all these witnesses here examined are so farre from testifying ought against us that they have on the other side witnessed the trueth of that which we maintained against Mr Canne hence it is evident that I had just cause to say that which he would seeme to disprove by alledging these Authors against me viz. that there were a multitude of learned and godly Ministers of the same judgement and practise with me For further proofe whereof it were easy if need were to produce another Iurie of approved
Congregations let us see what his owne witnesse saith D. Whitaker that is next alledged by him doth by many arguments shew the profit and necessity of Synods and to this end he citeth many (l) DeConc qu. 1. c. 3. p. 15.16 q. 2. c. 3. p. 55 56. places of Scripture both from the old new Testament he alledgeth at large (m) P. 17. c. 7 or 8 causes for which they are profitable and of great use and fruit He speaketh also of such Synods as are not onely for discussing and concluding of matters by way of counsell and advise but of those that have power to (n) P. 21. judge and condemne obstinate offenders by a publick judgement and as occasion requires to anathematise or exclude from the fellowship of the Church he maintaines that those which are lawfully called unto Synods have authority of deciding and determining controversies by (o) Ibid. q. 3. c. 3. p. 95.96 c. definitive sentence or suffrage he saith that (p) DePōtif Rom. qu. 4. p. 470. appeales are of divine and naturall right and cannot be denyed in controversies about Ecclesiasticall causes and persons And thus by the testimony of their owne witnesse my adversaries doe offend both against the law of God and the law of nature in denying appeales and in not allowing the actions and judgements of a particular Congregation to be judicially examined by a Synod or Classis The severall testimonies of D. Whitaker to this purpose are alledged (q) P. 39. 133-141 before and applyed at large to declare his judgement in this controversy Though D. Whit. doe (r) DeCōc q. 5. p. 178. grant as is here alledged against me that Ecclesiasticall authority is in the Church principally primarily and essentially c. he doth not hereby contradict himself or deny the power of Synods where Ministers doe judge by vertue of their calling and deputation from many Churches The authority of Churches is manifested in them and by their service therein The like testimony alledged from Saravia and Schola Parisienfis is (ſ) P. 170. before answered Yea the Schoole of Paris doth sufficiently (t) Schol. Paris p. 1 2. explaine this matter by a fit similitude shewing that Ecclesiasticall authority is in the Church primarily and instrumentally in the Ministers as the power of seeing is in man principally but instrumentally in the eye As man sees by his eye so the Church exerciseth Ecclesiasticall authority by the Ministers and rulers thereof and so judgeth of all crimes and offences The testimony of Bell next alledged is in like manner to be understood Whereas from (v) Regim of Chur. ch 2. sect 4. him they object that Excommunication precisely and chiefly pertaineth to the Church and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof to some speciall persons for that purpose and chosen for that end this doth no way condemne but rather illustrate our practise agreeable thereunto And that the meaning of this Authour was not repugnant unto us it appeareth more plainely by another of his writings (x) Bells motiv l. 2. c. 4. concl 3. c. where he evidently declares his minde that Synods have power to exercise Ecclesiasticall authority and to proceed judicially with delinquents even to depose excommunicate though it were the Pope himself upon due conviction And to this end he alledges the confession of many Popish writers and farre more truely and uprightly then Mr Canne hath done in this controversie As for D. Willet if he speak but to the same effect with Bell as they say then the same answer may serve But for the place alledged Synops cont 4. qu. 4. p. 2. I finde no such matter there They alledge p. 2. when as there is no second part of that question But in the same booke he gives plaine evidence against them he acknowledgeth Synods to be (y) Synops Papi Cōt 3. qu. 1 p. 105. an wholesome meanes for the repressing and reforming both of errours in religion and corruption in manners he alledgeth the consent of antiquity to prove that our opinion is grounded upon trueth and Scripture namely that those which are lawfully called unto Synods (z) Qu. 3. p. 109.110 have determining voyces and power to give sentence and giveth instance in the Councell of Antioch where Paulus Samosatenus was condemned and cut off as an enemie to the trueth c. he avoucheth that (a) Qu. 7. p. 123. they have authority to judge examine suspend punish and depose c. And thus D. Willet fully accordeth with us in this poynt that there is a superiour power to judge the causes of particular Congregations D. Taylor next alledged affords them no help Whereas he saith that (b) Com. on Tit. 3.10 p. 712. Excommunication is the common action of the Church and not of any private person or persons we also affirme the same thing Our profession and practise alwayes hath bene never to excommunicate any without common consent of our Church but had we done unjustly at any time therein we might justly have bene subject to the censure of a Synod or Classis and yet then also the Ministers and Deputies assembled in the name of many Churches could with no reason be accounted private persons And though we think ourselves bound to ask counsell of the Classis according to the order of these Churches before we proceed to cut off any member of the Church by excommunication this proves no deprivation but a direction of our power Now whether I have just cause to blush for denying to the Churches of God that due power which the Learned of all professions doe grant unto her as Mr Canne and Will Bdoe without blushing (c) Ch. pl. p. 86. charge me let the judicious impartiall Readers judge SECT V. Touching the Testimonies of English Non-conformists VNder the title of this kinde of witnesses they alledge against me the Replyer to D. Downame Mr Parker the Authour of the English Puritanisme D. Ames Mr Baines Mr Bates Mr Fenner Mr Udall the English Church at Franck ford and Mr Hooker These are (d) Ch. pl. p. 86 c. here produced and in another (e) P. 23. place unto which he referres us for the same purpose he cites also the Protestation of the Kings Supremacic D. Fulke and our Country-men in New-England For answer hereunto First concerning some of these that seeme to be of Mr Cannes minde in denying the authority of Synods in the government of the Church observe how idlie and superfluously he alledgeth them against me when as he knowes that I my self did acknowledge and note so much before as namely the judgement of (f) Answ to W. B. p. 74. Mr Hooker (g) Ib. p. 27 D. Ames and the Author of the booke entitled English Puritanisme by whom also the Protestation of K. Supremacie is sayd to be written These I have confessed to be opposite unto me in this
that (i) Ibid. p. 109 110 c. book and approved by these Ministers are most of them and generally the very same that are observed in the Classes and Synods of the Reformed Churches in these United Provinces of the Netherlands where we live and where our English Church is combined with them in the same Ecclesiasticall government The agreement and consent of these men in their desire of Classes and Synods according to the order and practise observed also in Scotland at Geneva is therefore by the Recorder thereof noted stiled over the head of many pages in that book English Genevating for Reformation And againe English Scottizing for Discipline by practise Even these reproaches doe justly serve for the reproofe of Mr Canne who denyes that which other opposites doe willingly acknowledge Thirdly the very Brownists themselves were wont of old to acknowledge that the not-conforming Ministers in England did stand for Classes and Synods Though with great skorne reproach they speak of Synods yet that very skorne and reproach is a witnesse against Mr Can. and W. B. to shew the consent of former times with me Hen. Barow speaking of the censures of evill and condemning both Conformists and Non-conformists together he saith (k) H. Bar. Discov of False Chur. p. 165. Yea all the Priests of the land both Pontificall and Reformists agree in this poynt conclude that the lay people as they terme them ought not to intermeddle either with the deposing their Minister or reproof of his doctrine The one sort saith he sendeth them to their Lords these Bishops the other referreth them over for these and many other cases under hand to a Provinciall or Classicall Synod or permanent Councell of Priests c. Amongst whom all these affaires must be debated and after they are agreed upon the poynt then their decrees to be brought forth solemnly published and pronounced to the people who must attend upon wait and receave these Oracles as most holy and Canonicall They have no remedy if they also be contrary to the trueth but to appeale to a Councell c. And this he calleth a devilish forgerie c. After that to like purpose he saith (l) Ibid. p. 169. These Priests they will not onely not submit their persons and doctrine to the censure of the Church where they administer for they must have a Jurie of Clarkes a Classis of Priests to goe upon them but they binde their poore Church to their lippes build it upon themselves and with their blazing light strike all the rest of their hearers followers stark blinde Againe (m) P. 169 170. By their Propheticall Conventicles and Classicall Synods they assume into their owne hands the key of all knowledge and shutting up the Scriptures yea all Gods graces even the Holy Ghost itself among themselves in these their Schooles of Prophets as also into their Classes of select Priests the scepter of Christ and absolute government of all Churches to whom it is left but to receive and execute the reverent decrees of this famous Classis of Priests In another place having told how the Pontificals have opened their mouthes unto accursed blasphemy then he returnes unto the Reformists and speakes on this wise (n) P. 189 190. The Pharisees of these times I meane these your great learned Preachers your Good men that sigh and grone for Reformation but their hands with the sluggard denie to worke These counterfaites would raise up a second error even as a second Beast by so much more dangerous by how much it hath more shew of the truth These men instead of this grosse Antichristian government which is now manifest and odious unto all men would bring in a new adulterate forged government in shew or rather in despite of Christs blessed government which they in the pride rashnes ignorance and sensualitie of their fleshly hearts most miserably innovate corrupt and pervert c. The thing itselfe they innovate and corrupt in that they adde new devises of their owne as their Pastorall suspension from their Sacraments their set continued Synods their select Classes of Ministers their setled supreme Councell c. That which Mr Iohnson and others with him doe require is more generall and ambiguous viz. (o) Apol. of Brown Pet. 3 pos 9. p. 64. that the Church be not governed by Popish Canons Courts Classes Customes or any humane inventions but by the lawes and rules which Christ hath appoynted in his Testament But that which H. Barow writes is more plaine and more particularly applyed to the Ministers of England whom he calleth the Reformists Of them he saith (p) Discov p. 191. Their permanent Synods Councels also which they would erect not here to speak of their new Dutch Classes for therein is a secret should onely consist of Priests or Ministers as they terme them people of the Churches be shut out neither be made acquainted with the matters debated there neither have free voyce in those Synods and Councels but must receave and obey without contradiction whatsoever those learned Priests shall decree These Synods and Councels shall have absolute power over all Churches doctrines Ministers to erect ratifie or abrogate to excommunicate or depose at their pleasures Their decrees are most holy without controulement unlesse it be by the Prince or the high Court of Parliament Not here to speake of their solemne orders observed in these Councils and Synodes as their choice by suffrage amongst themselves of their Archisynagogon or Rector Chori their President as they call him propounder or moderator of their Councell about which their predecessours have had no small stir untill their holy Father the Pope put an end to the strife by getting the chaire This stuffe they would bring in againe under colour of Reformation these and many more their leavened corrupt writings of Discipline and their supplications unto the Parliament declare c. Againe he saith (q) Ib. P. 193 These Reformists howsoever for fashion sake they give the people a little libertie to sweeten their mouthes and make them beleeve that they should choose their owne Ministers for further right in the censuring their Ministers or in the ordering the affaires of their Churches they allow not as hath bene sayd yet even in this pretended choice doe they coozen beguile them also leaving them nothing but the smoky windy title of election onely injoyning them to choose some Universitie Clarke one of these Colledge birds of their owne brood or els comes a Synode in the necke of them annihilates the election whatsoever it be They have also a trick to stop it before it come so farre namely in the ordinatiō which must forsooth needs be done by other Priests for the Church that chooseth him hath no power to ordaine him And this makes the mother Church of Geneva and the Dutch Classes I dare not say the secret Classes in England to make Ministers for us in
on the contrary for proof thereof D. Whitaker to vindicate the authority of Synods against the Papists and to prove their power above the Pope argueth (o) De CoÌ„c qu. 5. p. 183. from the greater assistance of the Holy Ghost and of Christ governing his Church to wit in Synods and for declaration hereof brings the testimony of Origen noting upon Rom. 15. that it is sayd to none of the Apostles singularly and to none of the faithfull I will be with thee but unto a multitude of Churches plurally I will be wish you And Mr Parker (p) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 12. p. 89 90. from him repeateth againe the same Argument taken from the testimony of Origen And besides this it is noted by the (q) Cent. 3. c. 9. Magdeburgenses how Origen himself was employed in divers Synods in Arabia for the conviction of sundry heresies Cyprian is in like manner perverted for when as he r Lib. 3. Epist 14. 10. reprooving those Elders that without consent either of the people or of their Pastour had rashly receaved unto the Communion againe such as were fallen and become Apostates before their due confession of fault doth shew that such things ought not to be concluded without common consent of the Church and confesseth also that Å¿ L. 1. ep 4 the people chiefly have power to choose worthy Ministers and to refuse unworthy ones this we also assent unto while that power is used aright But in the same place he gives a cleare testimony for the warrant of Synods in deciding of weightier causes when in that Synodall Epistle written by Cyprian Caecilius Primus Polycarpus and many others in the name of the Synod then assembled together it is sayd that t Art 6 7. it is to be observed and held by divine Ordinance and Apostolicall observation which is also kept among us and almost through all the Provinces that for the right performing of ordination all the next Bishops of that Province are to assemble together unto that people to which an Overseer is ordained c. And of this practise he there gives an instance in the ordination of Sabriâ—â— and in the deposition of Basilides and shewes the reason thereof that by the suffrages of the whole bâ—â—therhood and by the judgement of those Bishops which were presently assembled together the office of a Bishop might be conferred upon him and that hands might belayd upon him instead of Basilides And besides this we finde there many v Cypt. L. 1. ep 2. 5 Firmil ad Cyp. Ep. 75. p. 236. other pregnant evidences of the use necessity and authority of Synods in those times From thence S. Goâ—â—â—â—tius in his answers to Paâ—dius his annotations on Cyprian doth x P. 243. ad annot 14 confirme the liberty of Churches in maintayning yearely their Provinciall Synods c. From thence also Mr Parker confirmes the use of Classicall government in these Reformed Churches and concludes y Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. de Classib p. 356 357. Why doe I spend time There is nothing more evident to him that is acquainted with the ancient monuments of history then that neighbours even besides the Synod did eftsoone meet together for deciding of strifes for ordinations for dissolving of doubts and in summe for every meighty businesse Of which assemblies the Epistles of Cyprian are full And these assemblies what are they els but Classicall assemblies And againe in the same place Hereof we have examples every where in the Epistles of Cyprian A little after Who sees not here the lively portraiture of our Classes And Oh how doth the Hierarchy offend which hath banished this most pleasant combination of Classes Hereby the Reader may judge whether it be not an absurd and senseles boasting of Mr Canne who oppugning this Classicall government is not ashamed to say of Cyprians testimony in these Epistles What can be more full and absolute to our purpose then this With what judgment doth this man read the writings of the Fathers It is sayd in the a Ch. pl. p. 90. next place Eusebius testifyeth that the Churches of the most famous Cities were in their constitution first but one ordinary constant Congregation as Jerusalem b Eus l. 3.11 Ephesus c L. 3.28 Alexandria d 3.13 Hierapolis e 4.1 Corinth f 3.32 Sardis g 4.22 c. This being so then it followes that primitively they were independent and stood not under any other Ecclestasticall authority out of themselves In the allegation of these testimonies out of Eusebius there be divers mistakings and faylings of memory or attention Hierapolis with reference to L. 4.1 where it is not mentioned but in L. 3.32 Corinth with reference to L. 3.32 where it is not found but after in L. 4.22 Sardis alledged with reference to L. 4.22 where there is no mention at all thereof but there is such a mention of Athens as is intended for Sardis These slips of memory are to be noted for help of the Reader that would examine the places but may well be excused in such a number of quotations To leave them and to come unto the great abuses here to be observed I. In all the places here alledged Eusebius doth not testify that the Churches of these Cities were in their constitution first but one ordinary constant Congregation he hath no such words He gives unto them the name and title of a Parish but it is not proved that in every Parish there was but one ordinary constant Congregation Whether they were so or not this title of Parish proves is not II. The consequence made from hence is more evidently false for to admit these Churches were at the first but one ordinary constant Congregation yet doth it not at all follow that therefore primitively they were independent and stood not under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Both our English Church here and generally other Reformed Churches in these countries were in their first constitution and for the most part still are but one ordinary Congregation and yet from the first stood under the Ecclesiasticall authority of Classes and Synods in which they were combined III. Suppose some of the Churches either in Eusebius time or in later times did not at their first constitution stand under the authority of Synods when Churches being so few and so farre distant they wanted opportunity of combining themselves together for their mutuall assistance this hinders not but that upon the encrease of neighbour Churches they might afterwards submit themselves unto this order IV. That the Primitive Churches whereof Eusebius writes in his history did stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves and were subject unto their censures he makes it evident by sundry instances He h Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 14. records how the errour of Montanus was judged and condemned by many Synods in Asia how i L. 6. c. 42. Novatus and the
Christ from having a keye of power in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes Had he proved that the title of the Church belongs onely to a particular Congregation in the full assembly thereof and not at all unto a Synod then had it bene something to the purpose in the meane time nothing And that the minde of Augustine was otherwise it appeares by the great approbation which he (v) Epist ad Ianuar. Ep. 118. De Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 3. gives unto the use and authority of Synods as being most wholesome in the Churches of God D. Whitaker (x) DePont Rom. q. 4. p. 484. 497 alledgeth often the presence of Augustine at divers Synods And it is recorded in the Acts of the third Councell of Carthage where Augustine was both present and subscribed with the rest unto the decrees which were then agreed upon (y) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. co 866 867. that there should be kept a yearely Synod unto which they were to repaire out of divers Provinces that those which having controversies with others being called unto the yearely Synod did refuse to come should be held guilty and be excluded from the communion or excommunicated And it is (z) Ib. Col. 870 c. noted further that the like decrees were made at another Synod held at Hippo the place where Augustine lived and that the same decrees were againe confirmed by another Synod at Carthage Hence it appeares that Augustine as well as others in his time did hold that the causes of particular Congregations were to be judged decided by another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves After Augustine he alledgeth Chrysostome whose name is also abused for confirmation of this opinion For I. Chrysostome in the place alledged viz. De Sacerd l. 3. c. 4. speakes of no such matter as he pretends In that whole third book I finde no one word against the authority of Synods And for the fourth chapter which Mr C. alledgeth there is in the best editions of Chrysostome no such chapter they are not at all distinguished into any Chapters and where there is a division of Chapters found yet there is no such matter to be found in that fourth Chapter Mr Canne it seemes never read the Authours he alledgeth for would he then have so falsely cited them II. Chrysostome is plaine for the authority of Synods For speaking of the honour due unto the Deputies or messengers of the Churches in Synods he saith the Apostle (a) In 2. Cor. 8.24 maketh his speech more terrible saying in the sight of the Churches He saith it for the glory of the Churches for their honour For if ye honour them ye shall honour the Churches which sent them c. And then he concludeth This shall be no small matter for great is the power of a Synod that is of the Churches III. When as a wrongfull sentence had bene given against Chrysostome being unjustly procured by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria he then (b) Tom. 5. Epist ad Innocent appealed unto a Synod of many Bishops both before and after the sentence was pronounced The summe of his defence afterward was this that he was willing to be judged by a Synod And he complaines that his adversaries dealt with him contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons In those Canons it had bene oft decreed that there should be liberty of appeale unto Synods IV. When Bellarmine pleading for the Popes authority alledged the request of Chrysostome unto Innocentius Bishop of Rome desiring him to write for him that those things which were unjustly done against him might not prevayle c. Chamierus expounding the words of Chrysostome (c) Panstra Cath. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 23 distinguisheth betwixt admonition and giving of sentence and shewes that Chrysostome desired an admonition should be given by Innocentius but that he exspected sentence from a Synod Chamier sayth this is confirmed to be his meaning because he appealed to the Synod c. And hereby he expressly and distinctly confesseth that Synods have jurisdiction to give sentence and not onely a liberty of admonishing V. When after this Chrysostome (d) Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. having bene both deposed from his place and banished out of the city was yet called back by the Emperour from his banishment and was by the people desired to enter upon his ministery againe he professed he might not doe it untill his cause was further examined he proved innocent by greater judges or in a greater judicatory (e) Edit gr R. Steph. l. 6. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he acknowledged a power of Synods not onely above a particular Congregation but also of one Synod above another as of a Generall Synod above a Nationall or Provinciall c. VI. The minde of Chrysostome touching Church-government may further be knowne to us by this that he (f) In Matt. 18. will have those words Tell the Church to be understood of the Presidents or Governours of the Church And againe speaking of Priests or Bishops the Ministers of the Gospell he thus describeth their speciall power (g) De Sacerd l. 3. Col. 508. Edit Basil It is granted unto them to dispense the things that are in heaven power is given unto them which God would not have to be given either unto Angels or Arch-angels For it was not sayd unto them Whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Earthly Princes have also the power of binding but of the bodies onely But that binding by the Priests whereof I speake remaineth unto the soule commeth up to the heavens so that whatsoever the Priests doe below that God ratifyeth above the Lord confirmeth the sentence of his servants What els can you say this to be but that all power of heavenly things is granted unto them of God For the sayth Whose sinnes ye retaine they are retayned What power I pray you can be greater then this one The next perverted witnesse is Basil touching whom observe I. Their threefold false allegation in citing three severall bookes of his viz. Constit Monach. l. 4. 14. 6.2 7. c. 35. whereas Basil wrote onely one booke with such a title and as for the 4th 6 t 7th here mentioned by Mr C. there be none such What grosse dealing is this II. Suppose it was the Printers fault that these bookes were thus misalledged and that it was but Mr Cannes oversight to let them passe without correction yet even for that one book of Monasticall constitutions which Basil did write therein also is nothing to be found against the authority of Synods nor any such matter as Mr C. pretends It is a great forgery and abuse of the ancient Fathers thus to pretend the vaile of their authority for covering of errour when as the places pretended have not a word sounding to such purpose III. That Basil allowed
subject unto one another and unto that which is concluded by all Yea this equality is confirmed by the Synodicall decree in this very Article Whereas there be many evidences of the Reformed Churches in France which shew what their judgement and practise is touching the subjection of particular Congregations unto a superiour Ecclesiasticall power yet instead of many one for the rest may suffice which is from the (y) Oordeel en uyrsprake met den Eed vā Approbatie vā het Synode Nation der Gereform Kerckē van Vrancrijck gehoudē tot Ales in de Cevennes besloten en̄ gearresteert den 6. Oct. 1620. Nationall Synod of Ales translated and published in divers languages containing a most pregnant testimony touching this poynt of our controversie Mr C. and W. B. doe falsely tell me of a Iurie of more then 24 men which condemne my position for an errour and untrueth but as we have seene before in the Ministers of the Palatinate so loe here againe a Jurie indeed of more then twise 24 men and of the most choyse Ministers and Elders of all the French Churches and all sworne to submit unto the resolution and sentence concluded by authority of that Synod After a proposition (z) P. 3. ◠made in this Synod by Monsr Turretin touching some meanes to hinder the Arminian Errours c. the Assembly liking wel of that motion and much commending the Synod of Dort as an effectuall remedie to purge the Church and to root out the heresies touching the poynt of praedestination c. after invocation of the name of God they agreed that the Canons of the forenamed Synod of Dort should be read in their full assembly which being done and every Article seriously weighed they were then by universall consent approved as agreeable to Gods word c. Hereupon all the Ministers and Elders deputed unto this Assembly did each of them severally sweare and protest that they consented and accorded with this doctrine and that they should maintaine and defend it with all their might unto the last breath And to (a) P. 4.5 make this concordant agreement the more authentick and to binde all the Provinces thereunto the Assembly ordained that this present Article should be printed and joyned with the Canons of the mentioned Synod and that the same should be read in the Provinciall Synods and in the Universities that there it might be approved sworne and subscribed unto by the Ministers Elders and Professours of the Universities as also by those that desired to be admitted unto the holy Ministery or unto any Academicall profession And if (b) P. 5. any man should reject either in whole or in part the doctrine contayned in the foresaid Synod and defined by the Canons thereof or should refuse to take the Oath of consent and approbation the Assembly ordained that the same should not be receaved unto any ministery in the Church or unto any office of Schoolemaister The forme of oath taken first in the Nationall Synod afterward to be taken in the Provinciall Synods was (c) P. 6. this I N. sweare and protest before God and this holy Assembly that I receave approve and embrace the whole doctrine taught and decided in the Synod of Dort as being wholy conformed unto the word of God and the Confession of our Churches I sweare and promise during my life to continue in the profession of this doctrine and to defend the same according to my utmost power that I neither in preaching nor teaching in the schooles nor in writing will ever depart from this Rule I declare also and protest that I reject and condemne the doctrine of the Arminians seeing it doth hang the election of God upon the will of man diminisheth and disannulleth the grace of God exalts man and the strength of his free will to cast him downe from above brings in againe Pelagianisme excuseth Popery and overthrowes the certainty of salvation So truely let God help me and be mercifull unto me as I doe before him sweare that which is aforesayd without any equivocation or evasion or inward mentall reservation After this followes the (d) P. 7 8 9 10 11. subscription of the names of the principall lights starres of the French Churches the Ministers and Elders deputed and sent unto that Nationall Synod from the Churches in the severall Provinces of France as of Picardie Champagne the French Iland Normandie Bretagne Dauphine Burgundie Languedoc Guienne Poictou Aniou and many others Hereby the Reader may perceave what power and authority is exercised in the Reformed Churches of France that they doe not observe their Synods for to conclude matters by way of advise and counsell onely but by their decrees and ordinances doe binde men to submit unto their sentence and judgement excluding those from the ministery professions in Universities or Schooles that refuse to consent and yeeld unto their resolutions Hereby it appeares how vainely Mr Canne alledgeth their Confessions perverteth them quite contrary to their meanings That which is alledged out of the Confession of Ausburgh comes not neere the question betwixt us For what though it be there affirmed (e) Confes August Art 14. that no man ought to teach publickly in the Church or to administer the Sacraments unlesse he be lawfully called This proves not that calling to be unlawfull which is directed by an Ecclesiasticall authority out of a particular Congregation or that Classes and Synods have no right to hinder the disordred callings of unfit persons when particular Churches doe offend therein And that the Authors of that Confession did approve of the authority of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes it appeareth both by (f) Syntag. Confes par 2. p. 7. their Appeale unto a generall free Christian Councell which they humbly request and seek in their preface unto the Emperour Charles the fift and afterwards againe speaking of the meanes to purge the Church from abuses they say that (g) Ib. p. 28.29 Confes August Art 21. now long agoe all good men in all nations doe desire a Synod And further This is the usuall and lawfull way to end dissensions namely to referre Ecclesiasticall controversies unto Synods This manner the Church hath observed even from the Apostles And the most excellent Emperours Constantine and Theodosius even in matters not very obscure and in absurd opinions would yet ordaine nothing without a Synod that they might preserve the liberty of the Church in the judgements of doctrines And it is most honourable for the Emperour to imitate the example of those the best Princes c. And therefore as in the times of Constantine and Theodosius particular Churches were subject unto another superiour Ecclesiasticall power that judged their causes and censured offendours so they of the Ausburg Confession desired the like of Charles the fift The publick order set forth in these Low countries is in the next place alledged against me But the (h) Art
31. Article of the Belgick Confession which is poynted at hath nothing that serves their turne against me neither doe they shew what clause therein they intend for their purpose And what seemes most to accord with their former allegations I haue answered before But for the Synods of these Countries whereas Mr C. saith (i) Ch. pl. p. 91.92 What those Synods were of whom Mr Paget speaketh in pag. 66. who decreed that particular Congregations should not practise among themselves all Gods ordinances I doe not yet know but this I know that no Reformed Church hath made this an Article of their faith And therefore it is certaine if such a thing be it was onely the invention of some particular men It is here to be observed 1. That Mr Canne falsifyeth my words that which I sayd was this (k) Answ to W.B. p. 66. When the busines is so weighty that by former generall consent of Churches testifyed by their Deputies meeting together in their Synods it hath bene agreed that the same shall not be proceeded in without advise of the Classis such as is the election of Ministers the excommunication of offenders and the like that in such cases ordinarily matters are brought unto the Classis c. Now this voluntary agreement not to proceed without advise of the Classis before matters of so great weight were determined was not to hinder particular Congregations from the practise of all Gods ordinances among them but onely to prevent and restraine abuses in the manner of doing and to direct them for the better performance thereof among themselves 11. What those Synods were wherein such agreements were made it had bene easy for Mr C. to have knowne if he had used diligence in enquiry and search for them To help him herein let him consider these (l) Kerckē-Ordeningē der Gerefo Nederlātsc Kerckē Nation Syno tot Embdē An. 1571. Art 13 14. 33 34. Nat. Syn. tot Dordr An. 1578. Art 4.8 99.100 Nat. Syn. tot Middelb An. 1581. Art 3.4 62.63 Nat. Syn. in 's Graven-Hag An. 1586. Art 3.4.5.36 47.69.70.72 Nat. Syn. tot Dordr An. 1618 1619. Art 3 4 11 12 76 77 79. plaine evidences recorded in divers Synods viz. that men shall not proceed to election or deposition of Ministers or excommunication of offenders without the advise and judgement of a Classicall assembly And besides the decrees of these Nationall Synods the like agreements and resolutions have bene made in sundry (m) Provinc Syn. tot Dordr An. 1574. Art 12. Prov. Syn. tot Middelb An. 1591. Art 3 4 9 58 68 69. Provinciall Synods so that from time to time after ripe deliberation long experience these Acts of their Synods have still bene renewed and confirmed from the beginning of their Reformation even unto this day III. Besides these generall acts and agreements of severall Synods we have their practise also for confirmation hereof to declare that the causes of particular Churches were judged by another Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves Thus it is witnessed (n) Triglād van de Moder p. 56.57 that Caspar Coolhaes was excommunicated by the Provinciall Synod of Holland holden at Haerlem Anno 1582. that the cause of Hermannus Herberts was judged and he suspended from his Ministery by a particular Synod of South-Holland holden in the Haghe Anno 1591. Novemb. 6. that Cornelius Wiggertsz was also judged and excommunicated by a particular Synod of North-Holland by reason of the errours holden by him that (o) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr An. 1618. Ses 22. Nicolaus Grevinchovius Minister at Rotterdam was removed from his ministery by the sentence of the South-Holland Synod holden at Delph that (p) Ib. pref Adolphus Venator Minister at Alcmaer that Ioannes Valesius Ioannes Rodingenus and Isaacus Welsingius Pastours of the Church at Horne were suspended from their ministery by the North-Holland Synod and that divers others in Gelderland were in like manner censured by the Synods holden in that Province at Arnhem is also recorded in that historicall preface prefixed before the Acts of the last Nationall Synod at Dort And in the (q) Ses 22 23. booke itself it is likewise testifyed that Simon Goulartius Minister of the Gallo-Belgick or Walloens Church at Amsterdam was removed from his place by the Gallo-Belgick Synod By these and sundry other like acts and sentences that might be noted it is evident that the Synods held in these Reformed Churches are not onely for counsell and admonition but for the exercise of jurisdiction in censuring offenders judging of controversies that their meaning is perverted when their Confession of faith is objected against me That which Mr Canne (r) Ch. pl. p. 91. alledgeth from the Synod of Middelburgh An. 1581. is also mistaken by him there being no such thing found in that Synod as he mentioneth touching election done by voyces publickly in the Temple And if it had bene there yet should not that prejudice the authority of Synods or Classes in allowing or censuring such elections either before or after they were made Againe it is objected The Synod of Tilleburgh in Nasovia determined the like as Zepperus (ſ) Pol. Ecc. p. 831. writeth ANSVV. The determinations of this Synod being like unto those before mentioned are therefore directly against my opposites as the former were Zepperus in his preface to the Articles agreed upon in this Synod telles us how the Earle of Nassau having seene the Articles of the Synod held in Middelburgh Anno 1581. he took such liking thereof that in the yeare following he called the speciall Ministers of his country together unto a Synod in Tilleburgh requiring that the agreements of the aforesayd Synod might be applyed unto the use of the Churches under his dominion so farre as they well could Hereupon the principall conclusions thereof were receaved and confirmed among them and so farre as doth shew their full consent in the poynt of our controversy viz. that particular Congregations are to be subject unto an Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods and Classes Therefore it was agreed (t) Ib. p. 833 Art 4. that the calling of Ministers should be made by the judgement of the Classis c. That (v) P. 834. where divers examined of the Church or of it the Classicall assembly together were judged to be fit then the election was to be in the power of the Church and to be done by suffrages publickly in the temple and if they were equall then to use lots c. This seemeth to be the Article which Mr C. stumbled at before as if it had bene so written in the Synod of Middelb 1581. which yet doth not exclude the precedent allowance of the Classis in such elections Moreover it was there agreed (x) P. 837. Art 23. that if any complaine of wrong done in a lesser assembly or Synod he may referre the matter by appeale unto a superiour Synod (y) P. 843. Art 61.
that no man be excommunicated without the consent of a Classicall assembly (z) Art 63. that the deposition of Ministers be done by the judgement of a Classicall assembly and consent of the Magistrate These and the like Articles there concluded doe shew how farre the Nassovian Churches were from that opinion of the Brownists and some other in denying the subjection of particular Congregations unto any Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Where could Mr C. finde more pregnant testimony against himself then in such resolutions of Reformed Churches as these be With the former Reformed Churches alledged by Mr Canne doe agree all the other so farre as I can learne by any enquiry For the Church of England B. Jewell testifveth (a) Def. of Apol. of Ch. of Engl. par 6. c. 17. div 1. 2. that we have had ere now in England Provinciall Synods and have governed our Churches by home made lawes and he maintaineth that without wayting for a Generall Councell it was rather thought good to doe that which both rightly might be done and hath many a time bene done as well of other good men as also of many Catholick Bishops that is to remedie our Churches by a Provinciall Synod And besides other examples there is a (b) Syntag. Confes p. 125 136 speciall monument recording the Acts and Articles agreed upon in the Synod holden at London Anno D. 1562. and againe of another Synod Anno 1571. confirming the Articles of the former Synod ratifyed by the approbation of Qu. Elizabeth to be observed through the whole Kingdome c Now howsoever there be great difference in divers Churches touching the manner of celebrating these Synods yet herein which is the poynt of our present controversy they doe all agree viz. that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods to judge and determine the affaires of particular Congregations The testimony of the Church of Scotland for the authority of Presbyteries and Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations is most cleare In the admission of Ministers to their offices there was (c) First book of Discipline p. 29. ed. 1621 required not onely the consent of the people and Church whereunto they should be appoynted but also approbation of the learned Ministers appointed for their examination Touching all sorts of Synods among them it was concluded that (d) Sec. b. of Discip ch 7. p. 80. they have power to execute Ecclesiasticall discipline and punishment upon all transgressours and proud contemners of the good order and policie of the Kirke and so the whole Discipline is in their hands Touching Provinciall Synods which they call the lawfull conventions of the Pastors Doctors and other Elders of a Province gathered for the common affaires of the Kirkes thereof c. they (e) Ib. p. 81. say Thir assemblies are institute for weightie matters to be intreated by mutuall consent and assistance of the brethren within that Province as need requires This Assembly hath power to handle order and redresse all things committed or done amisse in the particular assemblies It hath power to depose the office-bearers of that Province for good and just causes deserving deprivation And generally thir Assemblies have the whole power of the particular Elderships whereof they are collected Besides these Canons and rules of their Discipline there be also divers Actes of their Generall Assemblies prefixed before the foresayd First and Second bookes of their Discipline which by many instances doe shew how that power of Synods was exercised and put in practise in the Church of Scotland For example we read (f) P. 14. Edinb Iul. 5. 1570. that there was an Excommunication directed against Patrik called B of Murray to be executed by M. Robert Pont Commissioner their with the assistance of the Ministers of Edinburgh We finde there in another Assembly (g) P. 15. Edinb Aug. 6. 1573. that Alexander Gordoun B. of Galloway being accused of divers offences it was concluded that he should make publick repentance in Sackcloth three severall Sundaies first in the Kirk of Edinburgh secondly in Halyrudhous thirdly in the Queenes Colledge under the paine of Excommunication We finde in another Assembly (h) P. 16. Edinb Mar. 6. 1573. that the B. of Dunkell was ordained to confesse his fault publickly in the Kirk of Dunkell for not exequuting the sentence of the Kirk against the Earle of Athol For the confirmation of this Synodall authority there is added in the same place an Act of Parliament (i) P. 19. 20 c. The 12 Parl. at Edinb Iun. 5. 1592. prefixed also before the sayd bookes of their Discipline having this Title Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk of generall and Synodall Assemblies of Presbyteries of Discipline c. The Confession of fayth made by the Church of Scotland both for the Doctrine and for the Discipline thereof is yet further confirmed unto us both by generall Subscription and by a most Solemne Oath The formall words of that Subscription and Oath are thus recorded unto us (k) Syntag. Confes p. 158 160. We beleeve with our hearts confesse with our mouth subscribe with our hands c. promising and swearing by that great name of the Lord our God that we will continue in the Doctrine Discipline of this Church and that we will defend the same according to our calling and power all the dayes of our life under paine of all the curses contained in the law danger of body and soule in the day of that dreadfull judgement of God Hereunto is annexed in the same place the Mandate of the Kings Majestie whereby he enjoyneth all Commissioners and Ministers of the Word throughout his kingdome that they require this confession of all their Parishioners c. And so farre as I can learne even unto this day there is still observed this substantiall and maine poynt of Discipline namely a power in Synodall assemblies to judge the controversies that doe arise in particular Congregations Here Mr Canne instead of a Iurie of 24 men to condemne my position for an errour and untrueth as he (l) Ch. pl. p. 83. speakes may see a Iurie of more then thrice 24 Congregations in Scotland maintayning my position and condemning his errour by their example The Reformed Churches in Savoy as that of Geneva (m) Kerckel Ordon der gemeēte van Geneven p. 9 10 c. and the Churches in the villages thereabout standing under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in Geneva were combined together for their mutuall guidance and the Ministers of those Churches meeting weekly together were subject to the censure of such Ecclesiasticall assemblies and the affaires of those Churches judged therein The knowledge of this is so common a thing that in appearance hereupon grew the reproach reported by Mr Canne himself that (n) Ch. pl. p. 94. at Geneva subjecting of Churches to this order first began The Evangelicall Churches in the greater
from their Ministers but concerning particular Congregations and their subjection to Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Though Mr C. and some others that now strive for the Independencie Churches doe also affect a popular way of government in the Church opposing not onely the power of Classicall Presbyteries but also of particular Elderships yet Popularity doth not necessarily follow upon Independency neither have they alwayes both the same Patrons Mr Iacob though he pleaded for a single uncompounded policie in opposition to Synodall authority yet he utterly disliked those popular circumstances held by the Separation as hath been noted (y) Pag. 176. before Againe the Anabaptists though they maintaine and practise those popular wayes of judging causes among them and (z) Protoc Embd. Act. 101. n. 1. q. 7. Cl. Cl. Bekent p. 218. Cloppenb Cancker der Weder-doop p. 535. oppose the Elderships of the Reformed Churches as exercising an undue power in deciding matters apart from the Congregation yet they allow and practise divers things contrary to the nature of Independencie so as Mr C. pleades for it seeing 1. They have (a) Faukel Babel der Weder-doop pag. 166 167 190. their Bishops as they call them distinct from their other Preachers by them termed Vermaenders that is Admonishers and by some of them (b) Protoc Embd. Act. 78. n. 4. Act. 80. n. 2. held to be Deacons these acknowledge themselves (c) Gesprec toâ— Zierickz p. 21. to be inferiour to their Bishops in the ministery The Bishops belong to some more eminent Congregations of that Sect doe at certaine times visit the other lesser Congregations and administer the Sacraments among them 2. The Anabaptists (d) Protoc Embd. Act. 99. n. 1. Fauk Babel der Wederd D a. p. 215. use to excommunicate whole Congregations at once when having been of the same profession with them they witnesse their dissent from them in such matters as for which particular persons are excommunicated by them 3. The causes that cannot be determined in their particular Congregations are by them sometimes (e) Babel der Wederd C4 a. C6 b. referred to the judgement of Arbiters men of severall Congregations chosen by both parties with promise to stand to their sentence sometimes also to the meetings of the Officers of sundry Churches This shewes that though they plead for Popularitie yet they doe not simply allow of Independencie 11. Suppose that consideration had been alledged by the Authour against Popular government also as justly it might in regard of the manifold disorders confusion and dissipation of Churches which it is knowne to bring with it yet this answer cannot proove it to be insufficient because it runnes upon a twofold false supposition 1. That this appertaines to the due liberty of the people to have their judgement sought unto for the determining of all controversies that arise in the Church 2. That this liberty is acknowledged to have been taken from them as if they had been once in full possession of it or that this is the maine reason for denying that pretended liberty to the people because of their infirmities or miscarriages in the use of it These things as they are untrue in themselves so they are unjustly obtruded upon the Defendant who had given no occasion to such pretences We maintaine on the other side that this is no part of the peoples priviledge because it is not due unto them by any divine warrant and herein we are further confirmed seeing such an order is in outward appearance and according to undenyable experience in the Anabaptists Brownists others attended with manifold disorders confusion dissipation of Churches 111. Though it were granted that the people have beene oftentimes wiser in their choyce sounder in the faith then their Ministers which yet three of those places (f) Act. 3.26 Zozo l. 7. c. 7. Theod. l. 2. c. 7. here alledged doe not proove there being nothing in them to that purpose for which they are cited yet that is not enough to disprove the foresaid assertion unlesse he could shew that ordinarily they are so qualifyed indued with such abilities as are requisite for the orderly exercise of judiciary power in the Congregation This is not onely contrary to experience but also to the revealed will wisedome of God in dispensing his gifts severally unto the members of the mysticall body of his Church appovnting some to be of meaner use and in subjection to others 1. Cor. 12 14-31 Heb. 13.17 We must either straiten the limits of the Church further then Christ himself hath allowed us by shutting the weak feeble out of his fold or else acknowledge that all the members are not fit to be used in the judiciall trying determining of causes THe next thing that Mr C. (g) Chur. pl. p. 94. pretends to answer is touching the Antiquity of Classicall and Synodall government from those words of the Authour that the power which the Classis exerciseth is ancient c. that he names it the old beaten path c. The Authour indeed had used these words upon just occasion not as any reason or argument to justify the lawfulnes of this power as Mr C. seemes to insinuate but to declare the trueth in the matter of fact rather then in the controversie of right and this may easily appeare to those that looke upon the places (h) Pag. 72. 105. alledged out of the Authours book When an unjust complaint was made that he had subjected the Church under an undue power of the Classis that he brought it under c. he answereth That power which the Classis exerciseth is ancient the same power which they had long before I either knew them or they me c. Againe when there was mention made of those of his side he answered For my part I abhorre this siding I desire to walk in the old beaten path of that discipline and government practised by these Reformed Churches and established in their Classes and Synods c. Was not here just cause to use these words to this purpose for which they are applyed He speakes chiefly of the antiquity of this government in regard of the state of that particular Church of those with which it is combined concerning which Mr C. himself cannot deny but that he hath spoken the trueth But suppose it were uttered in generall with reference unto the joynt consent of the Churches in all ages giving testimony unto the exercise of this power might not this be a weighty profitable consideration to be commended unto the serious thoughts of those that offer to oppose it Let us heare what Mr C. saith to this I. C. ANSVV. I. Sundry errours are as ancient as the Apostles time c. REPL. 1. This doth not prejudice the constant practise of this or any other trueth nor the regard that is to be given unto the custome of the Churches of God according to the direction
A DEFENCE OF CHVRCH-GOVERNMENT Exercised in PRESBYTERIALL CLASSICALL SYNODALL ASSEMBLIES According to the practise of the Reformed Churches Touching I. The power of a particular Eldership against those that plead for a meere Popular Government specially Mr AINSVVORTH in his Animadversion to Mr Clyft c. II. The authority of Classes and Synods against the Patrons of Independencie answering in this poynt Mr DAVENPORT his Apologeticall Reply c. and Mr CANNE his Churches Plea c sent forth first by W. Best and afterwards for this part of it under the title of Syons Prerogative Royall By IOHN PAGET late able and faithfull Pastour of the Reformed English Church in Amsterdam Hereunto is prefixed an Advertisement to the Parliament wherein are inserted some Animadversions on the Cheshire Remonstrance against Presbytery by T. P. MDCXLI Printed by H. A. for Thomas Vnderhill dwelling at the signe of the Bible in Woodstreet LONDON AN Humble Advertisment to the high Court OF PARLIAMENT Right Honorable and most prudent Patriots IT is the divine observation of Ecclesiastes the Sonne of David King in Ierusalem (a) Eccles 3.1 7. To every thing there is a season A time to keepe silence and a time to speake Truly it hath seemed to be a time to keepe silence in some by-gone yeeres in England when the (b) Amos 5.13 prudent Ministers of God were necessitated to keepe silence through the evill of the times having beene (c) Isa 29.21 made offenders for a word as if their doctrine had beene (d) Amos 7.10 conspiracy against the State and the land not able to beare all their words Howbeit for the English (e) Isa 62.1.6 Zion and Ierusalems sake the Lords remembrancers could not hold their peace nor keepe silence in secret but (f) Isa 26.20 entring into their chambers and shutting the doores about them to hide themselves as it were for a litle moment have powred out their complaints and supplications before the Lord who is (g) Psal 65.2 a God that heareth prayers and (h) Math. 6.6 seeth in secret waiting on him till the indignatiō should be overpast But now it seemeth there is a time to speake in England And (i) Prov. 15.23 a word spokē in due season how good is it sith (k) 1. Cor. 16.9 a great doore effectuall is opened by a longed-for hopefull Parliament Oh how admirable it is even to amazement that the hearts and tongues of the people of God throughout the English nation have beene so graciously enlarged (l) Hos 14.2 in taking words with them not only (m) Zach. 12.12 13 14. in their humiliations apart in families but also on the dayes (n) 2. Chron. 20.3.4 appointed by authority for solemne prayer fasting to (o) Ezr. 8.21 seeke a right way for themselves and for their litle ones and for all their substance speaking and crying unto the Lord (p) Amos 7.5 Cease we beseech thee by whom shall English Iacob arise for he is small Yea and is it not exceedingly marvellous also how after supplicating God in such sort their (q) Act. 17.16 Spirits were stirred in them to speake to your Honors of the cure-all-court of Parliament in their manifold Petitions for Reformatiō contributing votes by thousands of severall Counties And what though (r) 1. Cor. 16.9 there be many adversaries that doe murmur and repine at those (f) Luk. 19.39 40. wel-approved zelots May it not be thought that if they had held their peace the stones would immediately have cryed out The blessed tidings of this reviving state of English affaires spreading abroad in sundry countreys is come also into the Vnited Netherlands to refresh as (t) Prov. 25.25 good news is wont from a farre countrey such of us of the English nation who have been enforced by home-oppressions to seeke for liberty imployment and livelihood as the (v) 2. Chro. 11.13 14. Priests Levites in Israel did on somwhat the like occasion who yet in our measure (x) Ier. 51.50 Psal 137.5 6. remember the Lord afarre of not daring through forgetfulnes to let goe out of minde our most endeared native countrey (y) Psal 122.6.9 Let them prosper that love and seeke the welfare of England Hence your Honors most humble advertiser convinced of not (z) 2. King 7.9 doing well to remaine altogether silēt readily tooke hold on the opportunity of the ensuing treatise as (a) Luk. 19.3 4. Zacheus climbed up into a Sycomore tree to see his Saviour because of the presse and litlenes of his stature to insert a word to be as (b) Mark 12.42 the widows farthing some addition to the great stock of more able qualified seekers of Reformation Most noble and right worthy Sirs It were much to have beene wished t 'had never beene (c) 2. Sam. 1.20 told in Gath that the (d) Psal 12.1 Mic. 7.1 2. godly men have ceased and the faithfull failed in England Woe is us t is too notoriously knowne how that divers worthies of the Lord of b. m. (e) 2. King 2.12 the chariots and horsmen of the English Israel who by (f) Psal 46.4 the christalline streames of pure doctrine made glad the citty of God had their (g) Reve. 11.7 untimely deaths hastened by sharpe tempests of persecution raised against them by the Hierarchie through their Summoning Traducing Reproching Suspending Excommunicating Depriving Fining Imprisoning trampling on them as unsavory salt or as broken and despised vessels cast to the wals Others have beene constrained to provide for their breathing as they could by removing into forraine parts after much suffering at home and thereby exposed to the bitter miseries (h) Psal 56.8 Isa 16.3 4. of wanderers being debarred of the pleasant land of their nativity ancient habitations naturall kinred familiar acquaintance meanes of subsistance accustomed aire and wonted manners of people and instead thereof (i) Ezek. 3.5 6. cast into a land of strangers and of a strange language as a greater aggravation of their most disconsolate condition Yea (k) Psal 44.17 all this come upon them onely for their (l) Act. 24.16 endeavoring to keepe consciences void of offence towards God towards men in refusall of conformity to some superstitious ceremonies subscription to the Canon albeit they never refused to subscribe according to * Stat. Q. Eliz. 13.12 the law of the land whereas otherwise they were orthodoxe and painfull in their ministery and unblamable in their conversation approving themselves to the (m) 2. Cor. 4.2 consciences of their adversaries Moreover they were such as highly prized the Church-assemblies of England and diligently frequented and joyned in the solemne administration of the word Sacraments and prayers so farre as they could free themselves from their owne personall pollutions and defilements as (n) Mat. 23.1 2 3. our Lord Christ directeth in such case A true report of some Prelaticall
(l) Isa 56.10.11 unlearned unable to preach in the ministery 2. Is it not by the negligence of Prelates that there are soe many negligent Ministers suffering their gifts to decay by seldome preaching 3. Is it not from their qualifications and dispensations there are soe many Nonresidents Pluralists as that other Schollers of better desert do want encouragmēt 4. Doeth not the Parliament well enough know understand who are the Seekers of the subversion of the lawes and of introducing an arbitrary government XIV REMONS is subscribed by a numerous sort of the Nobles Baronets Knights Esquires Divines Gentlemen Freeholders others inhabitants of Cheshire ANIMADV This is indeed the sad consequent of Prelacy in Cheshire Ah alas that * Cheshire the cheife shire Cheshire not long agone reputed deservedly esteemed for the (m) Prov. 12.26 profession power of religion more excellent then their neighbors should (n) Ier. 2.21 now turne to a degenerate plant of a strange vine to the Lord Especially the Ministery that had their spiritually glorious * Exercises at Northwich Namptwich Knutesford Macclesseild Bowden Frodsham Budworth Torperley Tarvin Ince Motterum c. monethly Exercises solemne assemblies besides their blessed Sabbaths frequented by sundry of the renowned Gentry very many wel-disposed people wherby (o) 1. Tim. 3.13 they purchased to themselves a good degree in Christianity great boldnes in the faith which is in Christ Iesus But yet it may be thought in a charitable construction some excuse of the greatnes of their error that either the most of thē subscribed the Remonstrance (p) 2. Sam. 15.11 in their simplicity not knowing wherto it tended or els in an inconsiderate hast being * The letters sent to the severall Hundreds required a hasty dispatch urged to doe quickly what they did sith dispatch was the life of the busines noe copies permitted to be taken However it s not to be doubted but that (q) Reve. 2.1 He that walketh amidst the golden candlesticks (r) Reve. 3.4 doeth graciously take knowledge of many names in Cheshire (ſ) 1. King 19.18 it may be 7000 that as (t) Hos 11.12 Iuda doe yet rule with God and are faithfull with the Saints Right honorable there is no feare of your abundant wisdomes in discerning of these greivous Prelaticall maladies nor of your compassionate faithfulnes in applying seasōable remedies sith all mē must needs acknowledge that its (v) 1. King 10.6.7 a true report they have heard of your acts wisdome exceeding the fame thereof (x) Luk. 1.68 Blessed be the Lord God of England that hath visited and redeemed his people (y) Psal 118.2 Let the Churches of the Saints in England Scotland Ireland now say his mercy endureth for ever Let the Non-conformists (z) Psal 83.3 Gods hidden ones in those lands now say his mercy endureth for ever Yee (a) Iudg. 6.12.14 mighty men of valour the Lord hath beene with you hitherto (b) 1. Sam. 17.36 subduing the Lyon the Beare even the High Commission court Starre chamber that did prey upon the flock Goe on in this your might to save from that uncircumcised Philistin the oppressing Hierarchie And let it be (c) 1. Sam. 25.31 noe offence of heart to your Honors to (d) 2. Pet. 1.12 be stirred up to goe forward making the word of God the (e) Psal 119.24 man of your counsell And for your better helpe and (f) Act. 8.31 guidance may it please your Honors to make use of the labors of godly-learned Interpreters that have beene the excellent lights of the Reformed Churches both * Calvin Beza G. Bucer Didoclavius c. abroad also in * Cartwright Traverse Vdal Parker Bayne c. England observing withall the Apostolicall advertisment touching (g) 1. Cor. 11.16 the Custome of the Churches of Christ and their (h) Colos 2.5 comly order even of the purest * Scots French Dutch c. reformed Churches from all Antichristianisme both in doctrine discipline These Reformed Churches have in their citties townes and villages (i) 1. Tim. 4.14 Presbyteries (k) 1. Tim. 5.17 consisting of teaching ruling Elders chosen by the plurality of their voices consented unto by the Congregation approved by the Magistrates and Classis These (l) Act. 20.17.28 Elders doe take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them Overseers They ordaine Officers admit to the Sacraments admonish and censure offenders according to (m) Math. 18.17 Christs rule of discipline and they signify to the Congregation what belongeth to thē to take knowledge of either to consent unto the same or except against it as just cause shall require And in case some difficulty doe appeare in the affaires of the Church that cannot be decided well by the Presbytery thē they have a liberty are wont to appeale (n) Act. 15.2 seeke helpe assistance from the Classis consisting of neighbour Presbyteries called by some also Presbyteries with which they are combined in an equall power authority noe One exercising any prelaticall preeminence And if the matter controverted cannot satisfactorily be determined by the Classis thē there is a referēce to the Provinciall Synod consisting of the Deputies chosē by the severall Classes of equall power authority And if yet agreement be not made then the matter is to be brought to a Nationall Synod cōsisting of Deputies sent frō the Provinciall Synods In their severall Presbyteries Classes Synods Provinciall Nationall they have Presidents and Scribes chosen from amongst themselves for the more orderly menaging of their Sessions And in Synods some cheife Magistrats are present to see order observed This way of Christ walked in by the Reformed Churches is the way of peace liberty edificatiō though carped at by some (o) Iude vers 8.16 that speake evill of what they neither know nor understand And for the more cleere pregnant demonstratiō hereof the following treatise touching the power of Elderships Classes Synods may be of singular use written by an (p) Math. 13.52 able judicious pious Divine instructed to the Kingdome of heaven having beene well studied and diligently exercised in the doctrine practise of discipline above 30 yeeres together whilst he was Pastor of the English reformed Church in Amsterdam where was speciall occasion (q) Matth. 25.20 to put forth his talent by reason of the cheifest of the Separatists that sojourned there at the same time And albeit the Author lived not to finish review his paines yet through divine providence a Timothy (r) 1. Cor. 4.17 who knew his waies trained up in the Scriptures other good learning in Schooles and Vniversity and for present (ſ) 2. Tim. 2.15 a workman that needeth not to be ashamed hath brought the (t) 2. Tim. 4.13
H. Ia. against whom he disputed by writing about the subject you speake of The author resteth fully perswaded of that he hath written yet referreth againe as he did before his doings to censure and that by you Mr Ames and Mr Parker or either of you to alter c. soe be that the adversarie he answered Afterwards he explained himself more fully on this manner Had my beloved altered what he deemed untrue or insufficient he had done but what I desired and would have bene well pleased with soe he that it had not weakned the answer But to come to the particulars 1. Concerning the Synods both their institution and power what it is belongeth to another question neither conceive I how ought from that assertion in the Reply which you except against can be drawne to prejudice the judgment or practise of the Churches governed by Synods for I conceive not so of their Synods that they robbe the particular Churches whereof Elders there sit to determine of causes of the power of government by their Presbyteries Nay rather seeing their Synods have their power by and from the deputation which the Elders there assembled have from the particular Churches if I be not deceyved it will follow that the power of government originally resteth in them and not in the Synods c. Observe in these passages of Mr Sh. 's letters besides what I intended and mentioned before 1. His judgment set downe here more plainly then in any place of his book touching the power of Synods in the determining of causes agreeable unto that which the Authour maintaineth in this Treatise considering what he saith in his (a) Pag. 89. 90. 203. answer to the objections alledged out of Mr Parker 2. The difference then acknowledged betwixt Mr Iacob and other Non-conformists concerning the authority of Synods which Mr D. would seeme to excuse (b) Apol. repl p. 236. by some words of Mr I. wherein he speakes not directly touching this poynt in controversy 3. The Authours care to maintaine the due power of Classes and Synods even in those times when there could be no suspicion of his owne advantage or private ingagement therein wherewith his Opposites doe unjustly (c) Apol. repl p. 61 63 232 235. Chur. pl. p. 11. 41. 100. upbraid him faining it to be the cause of his late pleading for them Moreover whereas the Authour hath taken the liberty upon occasion to witnesse his dissent from D. Ames touching certaine particulars in this controversy he hath done no more then D. A. was wont to allow unto all ingenuous Readers of his writings and in speciall unto the Authour When he put forth his first Dispute against Grevinchovius which he inscribed unto our Authour in his (d) De Armin sentēt Discept scholast An. 1613. Praef. ad I. P. Ex memet ipso judicium faciens tibi vir amicissime sicut affirmāti facile credo sic ut postulanti nunc tandē cedam non aegre quidē adducor c. Ibid. p. 57. Vito doctissimo D.P. Hoc quidem recte judicas judiciosissime vir c. Epistles printed with it where he calles him a most loving most learned and most judicious man he wrote unto him withall in his private letter As I leave it to you to print mine or not to print so also to blotte out or alter what you see amisse To like purpose he wrote unto him concerning his Reply to D. Morton When his booke called the Marrow of Divinity first came forth he sent him a Copie with this expresse condition that he should write unto him his animadversions upon it And in like manner on the other side when the Author was to publish his Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists he sent the severall parcels first to D. Ames to be perused by him who answered sometime on this wise For this part of your writing unto Mr Ainsw I finde nothing in it but good Of another part he saith In it I finde much good paines and as usefull as the subject would permit no defect of any moment c. And againe I have perused all the rest of the sheets and finde nothing which I can mend c. Your paines have been very great in this businesse I pray God the fruit may answer thereunto Such was the judgement of these godly learned and famous men touching the Authour and his sufficiencie for businesses of this kinde I have set downe nothing here but what I have to shew in black and white as the Author of the Preface to D. Ames his last booke (e) Fresh suit praef p. G. 1. b. saith upon somewhat the like occasion To come neerer unto the work in hand the occasion of this writing touching Classes and Synods cannot but be accounted grievous unto such as have hearts to be affected with the dissensions of brethren But bitter roots doe many times yeeld sweet and wholesome fruits God hath here also many wayes ordered for good that which in itself was and tended to evill I need not inlarge about that whereof they that are desirous may easily be informed from what hath been heretofore published In a word Complaints were made by those whom it least beseemed These being divulged first in written copies and afterwards in print gave just occasion unto as publick an Answer Unto this Answer hath been returned a twofold Reply the one called Apologeticall by him that had holpen to complaine the other entitled The Churches plea for her right by a knowne Schismatick standing in opposition to all the Reformed Churches and in his behalfe who refused to joyne as a member unto his Church when he schismed from that whereof he was a member when the complaints were framed These Replyes undertake to handle besides matters of fact these two poynts that were at the same time opposed to wit the due power of Classes and Synods and the lawfulnes of baptising infants whose parents are no members of a particular Congregation The former of these is sufficiently maintained in the ensuing Treatise For the other though the Author have not gone so farre in it as in this yet he hath layd such a foundation as upon which it will not be difficult to build what may satisfy for the clearing of that controversie Whereof more hereafter as conveniency and publick benefit shall require Touching personall concernment though I acknowledge my self doubly and trebly bound to vindicate the Authors reputation at whose feet I have been brought up and from whom I have received farre more then by such or better meanes I am ever able to requite and though it were easy to shew how his opposites have offended in many untrueths touching matters of fact and vaine pretences of meeknes in the midst of great bitternes c. yet I am resolved to passe by and to bury these things in silence unlesse further cause be given for the publishing of them And hereunto as I have been advised by others so I have the rather
times speak And for the delay occasioned partly by the difficulty of the work and partly by other distractions want of necessary helps for dispatch the book itself unto those that are not unacquainted with businesses of this nature will give reasonable satisfaction That which thou here seest touching Classes and Synods was written by the Authour in the latter dayes of his pilgrimage amidst sundry bodily weaknesses other necessary imployments There are now three yeares expired since he rested from this other his labours having served the will of God in his owne age entred into the joy of his Lord. Being warned some time before by a messenger of death to desist from the pursuit of this work he gave way that in convenient time as I was able I should husband these his notes for publick use It were to have been wished that his owne eye hand might have prevented the charge of an executour herein So shouldest thou have had this work farre more compleat and refined then now can be expected But the Almighty infinite in understanding to whom belong the issues of life and death hath ordered otherwise who will say unto him What doest thou According to the trust therefore committed unto me I doe now at length set foorth this monument of his godly painfull labours touching this weighty point of Church-government I have forborne as much as might be to interpose my rude pencill in this master-piece The liberty allowed unto me for the persiting of what was wanting I have used no further then was requisite for the coupling of the parts together out of severall papers written at severall times for the filling up of a few gaps specially in Ch. 7. having had the opportunity to meet with some bookes which the Authour wanted I have withall added a small Supplement for answer unto what remained in Mr Cannes book touching this poynt according to the first edition the same which the Authour onely saw followed in this his Defence And thus I have also cast my mite into this Treasury before I opened it for publick benefit If my coine be not currant let not that prejudice the rich supply that may be had out of the Authours store the value whereof will sufficiently discover itself unto them that with understanding unpartiall mindes receive it Howbeit thou art allowed desired according to the Authours meaning to bring it to the touchstone of trueth to the Law to the Testimony According this word try the reasons on both sides and hold fast that which is good Farewell from DORT Where a most pregnant effectuall testimonie hath been given for the needfull authority of Synods with which testimony the Authour hath closed his writing touching this subject Where this his Treatise now comes to light which we hope may prove usefull to direct unto the like remedy where the like case may require it He that hath the Starres in his right hand so guide the beames of this Candle now set upon the Candlestick that it may give light unto all that are in the house that the darke corners of errour may be further disclosed the lustre of his owne Ordinances becomes more apparent With this suit I againe take leave requesting thee to joyne therein with him that desires to be Thine in trueth R. PAGET THE FIRST PART OF THIS TREATISE Touching The Povver of a particular Eldership CHAP. 1. The occasion of this vvriting and the State of the Question WHereas Mr Ainsworth was desired by the Authour (a) Arrow ag Separ f. 2. v. to set down his reasons concerning whatsoever he thought might be a just cause of refusing communion with that partâ—â—ular Congregation whereof he was a Minister Mr Ainsw in his answer among the rest hath (b) Ibid. pag. 5. these words Other things there are wherein you know we differ from you c. Your Eldership sitteth judgeth matters apart from the Congregation c. Concerning which particular the Authour thus (c) Ibid. p. 33. replyed Though our Eldership for the examination of parties witnesses and for their consultations thereabout do sit apart as is meet yet do we not exclude or debarre any from hearing seeing the conviction of any sinne that is either publique of it self or persisted in when they desire the same yea we our selves have oft desired their presence to behold the convictions admonitions rebukes of offenders And further before any sentence be given for the cutting off of any offender we do first propound the matter unto the whole Church requiring their prayers advise and consent without which never yet any judgment of excommunication hath bene executed against any amongst us and this also is propounded unto them by divers degrees long oft before any pronouncing of sentence that so our brethren may have sufficient time both to informe themselves of the matter and to deliberate ripely thereof c. Mr Ainsworth in his next having (d) Ibid p. 317. sayd I put you in minde that you have not as yet alledged any one word of God for your Consistory c. the Authour puts him in minde of his owne allowing the same by communicating therewith in some measure whereof he had bene told (e) Ibid. p. 32. before whereunto he answered not a word and addes (f) Ibid p. 330. further Seeing you have not yet answered neither the (g) Exp. of Matt. 18. first nor the (h) Christian plea. last booke of Mr Iohnson wherein he hath written against your popular government what meane you to call for more if more be requisite you may see that I promised you in my former (i) Arrow ag Sep p. 33. writing that when I should receive any arguments from you to prove your refusall of communion upon these grounds that I would then give further answer unto you The errours which you have published in your Animadversion for the maintenance of your popular order and the enormities which in that order are committed by you in your unlawfull excommunications censures are so many that they require a distinct treatise for the refutation thereof of which I purpose to say more hereafter as occasion is given c. Hereupon and about the same time was written that which followes though not happily all that was intended By that which is sayd it may appeare that the Question is not whether the power of the keyes be given to the Church or whether the power of excommunication be in the body of the Church or whether Church-government ought to be with the peoples free consent c. All this may be granted and yet the point in controversy remaine undecided But the difference is about the execution judiciall exercising of this power Whether every offence to be judged or cause to be determined ought to be brought to the multitude or body of the Congregation and they to give their voyces therein together with the Officers of
the Church or whether the Officers being chosen with the publick knowledge and free consent of the Church have not by vertue of their calling power to heare judge matters to rebuke and censure offenders without the advise of the multitude yet so that in matters of greater importance more publick concernmēt as admissions excommunications absolutions of members elections depositions of Officers c. the case be made knowne unto determined with the free consent of the people according to the practise above-written The former of these is denyed the latter affirmed maintained in the ensuing discourse CHAP. II. Arguments to prove the power of the Eldership injudging ending some cause vvithout the knovvledge of the Congregation 1. THe titles given by the holy Ghost to Ecclesiasticall Offices Officers are such as import a power of judging causes being such titles as doe expresse declare the power of judgement which was in the Rulers of Israel both Civill Ecclesiasticall as for example 1. A Guide or Leader 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the title given to Ecclesiasticall Officers Heb. 13.7 17 24. is the same that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament agreeable to the Originall is given to Civill Rulers Iosh 13.21 Deut. 1.13 Mica 3.9 11.2 Chro. 5.1 Ezek. 44.3 45.7 Dan. 3.2 as also in the New Testament Act. 7.10 Besides it is the same with another word so often given unto Civill Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 2.6 27.2 Act. 23.24 26 33. 1. Pet. 2.14 c. And so is this word also used by other humane writers abundantly 2. A Bishop or Overseer the title given by the H. Ghost unto Ecclesiasticall Officers to describe their authority power Act. 20.28 Phil. 1.1 1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.7 is the same word that is given to expresse the power of Civill Magistrates in the Greek translation of the Old Testament Num. 31.14 Iudg. 9.28 2. Kin. 11.15 and very often in other Writers 3. An Elder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nafi the title which the Scripture useth to denote shew the office of Ecclesiasticall Elders Act. 14.23 15.2 4. 20.17 1. Tim. 5.17 Tit. 1.5 1. Pet. 5.1 is the same word which is likewise given to Civill Rulers Elders in the gate Iudg. 8.14 Ruth 4.2 3. c. 2. Sam. 5.3 1. Chron. 11.3 4. A Prince or Ruler being the title of Civill Governours in the Common-wealth to signify their authority Num. 7.2 Gen. 25.16 34.2 Levit. 4.22 Rom. 13.3 1. Cor. 2.6 is also given to Ecclesiasticall Rulers to note their office and authority as Act. 23.5 with Exod. 22.28 Mat. 9.18 Luk. 8.41 Ioh. 3.1 Num. 3.24 30 32 35. And hereby it may appeare how untrue it is which Mr Robinson writes concerning the difference betwixt Civill Officers Church-governours when having mentioned some of the titles given to Magistrates he saith (a) Justifie of Sep. p. 135. Ecclesiasticall Officers are not capable of these the like titles which can neither be given without flattery unto them nor received by them without arrogancy And yet the very first of the titles wherein he gives instance is that title which here I shew to be given to Ecclesiasticall Rulers as well as to Civill 5. The title of Heads Rosch wherein Mr Robinson (b) Justific ibid. instanceth in the second place that it may not be given to Ecclesiasticall Officers is yet if we will regard what the Scripture affirmeth given to them as well as to Civill Rulers As it is given to Magistrates in Deut. 1.15 the place alledged by Mr Robinson so is it also given to Ministers in 1. Chron. 15.12 23.24 24.4 26.10 12. 2. Chron. 19.11 Ezra 8.1 17. Nehem. 12.12 22 23 24. 6. The title of Governours or Governments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greekes are (c) Steph. Thes ling. Gr. noted to use to expresse the power of Civill Magistrates thereby by a Metaphor from pilots out of Xenophon Aristotle Plato Cicero c. is the same that the holy Ghost also useth to signify unto us thereby the authority of Church-governours in guiding the ship of Christs Church 1. Cor. 12.28 7. The title of Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which H. Stephanus (d) The saur l. Gr. shewes to be used by Thucydides Demosthenes Herodotus Plato Plutarch others for the Rulers of Cities of Armies Kingdomes is that same which the Scripture useth to describe unto us those Officers that beare rule in the Church which is the City of the living God and his spirituall Kingdome Rom. 12.8 1. Thes 5.12 1. Tim. 5.17 8 The title of (e) Elohim Gods which is so often used to expresse the dignity and authority of Civill Governours Psal 82.1 Exo. 21.6 22.8 1. Sam. 2.25 c. is also given to Ecclesiasticall Officers to declare signify the authority that they have Though Mr Robinson (f) Justif of Sep. p. 135. denyes this title also unto them yet if we diligently weigh what the Scripture saith we may well discerne that this title is also given to Church-governours Ministers for 1. The description of those persons to whom this title is given is that they are such to vvhom the vvord of God comes such as the Father hath sanctifyed sent Joh. 10.35 36. and therefore according to the exposition of our Saviour seeing the word of God is come unto Ecclesiasticall Ministers Rulers giving them thereby a commission to administer in his name seeing such are sanctifyed sent of God we may hereby see how this title belongs unto them 2. By the exposition application of the Apostle those who in Moses are called Gods Rulers Exod. 22.28 are shewed to be Ecclesiasticall Rulers Act. 23.5 And howsoever some differ about this title yet are there of the learnedest that doe (g) Iun. Trem. Annot on Ex. 22.28 Iun. anal expl Ex. 22 28. Ioan. Rainol Cens lib. Apocr tom 1. prael 6. so interpret these places viz. of such as have either Civill or Ecclesiasticall administration committed unto them And if we come unto those Authors that are so much honoured by you they will also confirme the same The (h) Onkelos Targum on Exo. 4.16 7.1 Chaldee Paraphrast upon those places where this title of God is given to Moses translateth it Rab a Master or Doctour which is such a word as is given unto Ecclesiasticall Ministers Others (i) Aben Ezra com on Exo. 22.28 of the learnedest Iew-doctours doe expound that title of the Priests Levites so apply it to Church-governours Another (k) Baal hatturim on Exo. 22.28 Cabalist often alledged in your Annotations doth shew these Gods mentioned in Exo. 22. to be all kinde of Rulers over the people by his Gematria because the numerall letters of the words Elohim venasi yeeld the same number with these hu dajan vecol shehu signifying Iudges of
all sorts the sayd words as they are written in their owne letters being compared together eyther joyntly or severally II. If the Deacons may distribute some almes ūto the poore without the knowledge of the whole Congregation then may the Elders also judge some causes without the knowledge of the whole Church But the first is true Therefore c. The consequence of the Propositiō is proved by this Because the whole Church hath as much right authority to dispose of the Church-treasure almes as they have to judge of the offences that are committed therein This the Scripture sheweth by the examples of sundry Churches of Antiochia Macedonia Achaia c. Act. 11.29 30. Rom. 15 25-28 1. Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8.1.4.19 Phil. 2.25 with c. 4.18 The Assumption is manifest and your owne practise confirmeth it III. If Arbiters chosen by consent of some particular persons may judge the causes of wrong injury whether publick or private wherein they strive against one another then may the Elders chosen by consent of the whole Church judge the causes offences that arise when they willingly submit unto the same But Arbiters so chosen may judge the causes referred unto them Therefore the Elders may doe it also The truth of the Proposition appeares because the free solemne consent of the Church in any election gives authority unto such persons either in generall or speciall workes as well as the choyse of any particular men in their causes Act. 14.23 2. Cor. 8.19 The truth of the Assumption appeares by the doctrine of the Apostle giving such power of judgement unto Arbiters 1. Cor. 6.4 5. If you answer hereunto as you (l) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyfton p. 43. elswhere expound this place that these controversies to be referred unto Arbiters are for civill things of this life that such are not Church-matters nor there to be heard c. this is insufficient and will not help you seeing it appeares by the text that these Controversies in Corinth might as well have bene sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as Civill and belonging to the judgement of the Church as of the Magistrates or Arbiters Had their controversies bene touching a wound or stroke given touching any slander or theft which may be sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as belonging to the judgement of the Church yet might the Apostle have sayd unto them thereupon all that he doth 1. Cor. 6 1-9 for 1. These are businesses which Infidell Magistrates in those times used to judge and the generall speech of the Apostle imports as much v. 1. 6. 2. The reason which the Apostle useth taken from the honour dignity of Saints in their judgement of Angels the world serves to perswado them to submit the judgment of such causes to one another mutually as well as any other causes v. 2 3. 3. The reason taken from their shame as if there were no wise men among them to judge these causes serves to reprove them for a want of wisedome in Ecclesiasticall things as well as Civill 4. The matters of controversy among them were of wrong injury done to brethren v. 7 8 9. And these being sinnes scandals belong to the judgment of the Church as doth the judgment of * 2. Cor. 10.4 5 6. 1. Cor. 5.7 all knowne sinnes This Argument is in effect yeelded unto by your self when you (m) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyf ton p. 9. allow the Articles of the Discipline agreed upon in the Reformed English Church which was at Franckford in Q. Maries dayes for whereas in the 62. art thereof in case of difference betwixt the Governours of the Church others it is there concluded that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare determine the sayd matter or matters as it shall seeme good unto the Congregation hereupon in approbation of this Discipline you observe that hereby the reader may see what the learned most conscionable of the Church of England held heretofore which if they had continued in would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacy the bane of so many Churches And hereupon I observe further against you how the reader may hereby see that if the body of the Church may appoint so many Arbiters as they will to heare determine matters then may the Elders of the Church receive this authority as well as any others then is it no unlawfull usurpation for them to heare determine some matters among the brethren by themselves IV. If particular persons may lawfully passe by some lesser offences leave them unto the consciences of the offenders without prosequuting thē or bringing them to the Church for any judgment at all then may the Church also leave some lesser offences unto the judgment of the Elders But the first is true Therefore the second also The consequence of the Proposition is proved because God doth no more require the Church to judge of sinnes made knowne unto the same then he doth require particular persons to prosequute and to deale against the offences made knowne unto them the Scripture speaking as fully giving unto particular persons as ample commission charge to * Mat. 18.15 16 17. Lev. 19.17 admonish and complaine of sinne as it doth unto the Church to judge censure the same The Assumption is proved 1. By expresse testimonyes of Scripture that teach us to passe by some sins offences and not to prosequute them Prov. 19.11 Eccl. 7.21 2. Particular persons being taught to love their neighbour as themselves to doe good unto all Levit. 19.18 Matt. 22.39 Rom. 13.9 Gal. 5.14 Iam. 2.8 are thereby bound to admonish them that are without those that are not mēbers of the same Church with them but of any other eyther true or false or of none Now if this be to be done it followes necessarily that the reproofes of many lesser faults are to be omitted because otherwise men could never discharge this duety neither would their time suffice to performe these dueties of admonition to all such as they should finde subject thereunto both within the Church without Yea suppose they had no other calling to attend upon yet could not the whole age of man be sufficient to testify effectually in order against all such transgressions which an intelligent person might discerne to be committed dayly before his eyes both in private publick 3. Even yourself seem to acknowledge this also when touching the difference of offences you say (i) Com. of Saints cap. 22. § 2. 3. when offences arise it shal be our glory if we can passe them by as Solomon hath sayd But if the trespasse be such as we may not but insist upon both for the honour of God who is offended soule of the sinner which is endangered our owne or neighbours good who are endammaged thereby then are we bound to admonish the trespasser hereof
c. Doth not this distinction of offences different manner of dealing allowed by yourself shew that for some trespasses we are not bound to admonish the trespasser nor to insist upon them V. If Magistrates may lawfully passe by the judgment of some lesser sinnes then may the Church also passe by the publick censure of some lesser offences But the Magistrates may doe it Therefore the Church also The consequence of the Proposition appeareth because the Church is not more strictly bound to judge any sinne then the Magistrate is his commission for the judgement of all kinde of sinne great or small being as large as the Churches he being ordained of God to keep all the words of his Law to be a keeper of both Tables and to judge all evill according to the nature of it as well as farre as the Church is Deut. 17.18 19. Iosh 1.7 8. 1. Kin. 2.3 1. Chron. 28.7 8. 29.19 Prov. 20 8. Rom. 13.3 4. The Assumption appeareth likewise to be true from the first proofe of the Assumption in the former Argument as also from this that men are sometimes reproved for bringing their brethren before the Magistrates even in cases of injury sinne committed against them 1. Cor. 6 1-8 whereas if they were absolutely bound to let no small offence passe without judgement then should it also be the fault of others not to bring the same unto them this whether they were Christians or Infidels the like law charge being given unto them both VI. The ending of some controversies judging of some publick offences without the knowledge of the whole Congregation is by yourself acknowledged to be lawfull in the approbation of that Discipline in the English Church at Franckford which was there confirmed by the Church Magistrate for whereas it was there agreed that (k) Disc of troub at Franckf pag 115. c. art 53. if admonition with witnesses prevayled not the offence was then to be declared to the Ministers Elders to whom the Congregation hath given authority to take order in such cases according to the Discipline of the Church that (l) Art 54. there be three degrees of Ecclesiasticall Discipline first that the offendour acknowledge his fault and shew himselfe penitent before the Ministers Seniors secondly that if he will not so doe as well his originall crime as also his contempt of the Ministers Elders who have the authority of the Church be openly declared by one of the Ministers before the whole Congregation c. that (m) Art 67. if any controversy be upon the doubtfull meaning af any word or words in the Discipline that first it be referred to the Ministers Seniors if they cannot agree thereupon then the thing to be brought and referred to the whole Congregation Hereupon after recitall of these Articles held by the learned and most conscionable of the Church of England heretofore you adde as I noted before in another particular that (t) Animad vers p. 8.9 if they had continued herein it would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacie c. And further as you would there have it to be observed by the reader against Mr Clyfton Mr Iohnson in your third note upon the allegation of these Articles so may we as fitly observe against yourself in your owne words that if you had looked upon the examples which yourselves alledge you might have seen your errours resisted by others against which the Lord hath now called me also to witnesse CHAP. III. A Refutation of sundry errours vvhereupon Mr Ainsvvorth grounds their Popular Government The first Errour YOu seek to build the government of the Church upon unsure foundations these of sundry sorts First in that you argue from the examples of Civill Government in the Common-wealth to demonstrate the power of the people in the one by the authority exercised in the other This errour is to be observed in you divers wayes 1. In your (a) Art 24. Confession of faith and (b) Pos 8. p. 60. Apology you describe labour to prove the power given unto each Christian Congregation for the cutting off of any member to be in the whole body together from the Law of God mentioning a Civill judgment to be executed by the people of the Land in killing the man that should give his children unto Molech Lev. 20.4 5. and from the commandement that bound the Israelites to bring the Blasphemer without the campe to stone him to death Lev. 24.14 But 1. These judgements were Civill corporall punishments not spirituall censures 2. These were to be executed on strangers and such as were no members of the Church as well as upon them that were members thereof Lev. 20.2 24.16 3. These were to be executed on the offendours without exception whether they repented or not By what manner of reasoning then can the power of Ecclesiasticall censures be deduced or demonstrate from such examples as these II. In your (c) Animad vers p. 28. answer to Mr Iohnson you confesse that you alledged Numb 15.33 27.2 35.12 to give light unto the Question touching the power of Excommunication by shewing what was the peoples right then under the Law and under the Magistrate which may be more but cannot be lesse now under the Gospel c. Now those Scriptures the examples contained therein even as those before mentioned doe concerne Civill judgements pleas controversies as the stoning to death of the Sabbath-breaker the dividing of inheritances and possessions unto the daughters of Zelopehad the preserving of him that had staine a man unawares from the avenger of blood unlesse therefore you can shew that the power of excommunication is in all those that have power to execute the sentence of death and of the like Civill punishments you doe in vaine alledge all these examples wrest the word of God unjustly for the maintenance of your owne opinions III. This errour is so much the more inexcusable in you in that you condemne it in others and yet will not acknowledge and see it in yourself When Mr Iohnson would shew the power of the Elders in Ecclesiasticall judgements by the power which the Magistrates had in Israel you tell him that he (d) Anim. adv p. 14. streynes too farre you alledge the testimonies of sundry learned men that disclayme such manner of arguing say that to reason (e) Ibid. p. 16. from the Magistrate to the Minister from the sword to the word from the Law to the Gospell c. the leap is so great that cart-ropes will not tye the conclusion to the premisses that the argument is not good from Civill government to Ecclesiasticall and againe that the example is altogether unlike of temporall empire spirituall ministery betweene these there is not neither ought neither can a proportion or comparison be rightly made And how then comes it now to passe that the reasoning
from the peoples power in Civill judgements unto their power in Ecclesiasticall judgements should not be as unlawfull as the reasoning from the power of Civill Elders unto Ecclesiasticall Elders or why might not Mr Iohnson derive the power of the Elders in Ecclesiasticall matters from Civill as well as you may derive the power of the people from Civill judgements unto the spirituall judgements of the Church IV. The excuse which you bring to colour this unsound manner of reasoning in yourself is that (f) Animadv p. 28. the Apostle applyeth many things from Aarons priesthood (g) Heb. 5.4 9.6.7 13.11 12. to Christ yet he maketh Christs priesthood not to be after Aarons order (h) Heb. 7.11 12 15. but Melchizedeks should men now thus carp at his allegations But I answer 1. When the H. Ghost in the New Testament reasoneth from types figures in the Old such reasoning is authenticall infallible but when men doe reason by proportion similitude from types other temporary ordinances in the Old Testament their reasonings serve onely to illustrate things proved in other places of Scripture but els prove nothing of themselves and therefore though the first kinde of reasoning may not be carped at as being divine yet the latter may ofteÌ„ justly be reproved 2. Though some things may be applyed from the Civill government to the Ecclesiasticall yet that shewes not that they are like in this poynt of the persons by whom the power is to be exercised even as Aarons priesthood Melchizedeks though they be like in some things yet not in all 3. If there be any weight or worth in this evasion it may as well serve to excuse Mr Iohnsons reasoning from the Civill authority of the Magistrates as yours from the Civill authority of the people both of you arguing alike from a Civill power of judgement unto an Ecclesiasticall power The Second Errour YOur second errour in the doctrine of Ecclesiasticall government is that you doe not onely derive the power of the Church from the Civill authority exercised in the Common-wealth but also from such a supposed power of Civill judgement in the people as the Scripture no where gives unto them I. All the places before alledged by you to this purpose doe not prove the same As for that allegation Levit. 20.2 4. where the people of the land are commanded to kill an offendour we are thereby to understand both Princes Rulers as wel as the subjects and so that the power of judging giving sentence is to be asscribed unto the Rulers as the liberty duety of complayning before sentence and of execution after sentence belonged unto the subjects This word people is taken diversly in the Scriptures sometimes for subjects alone by way of opposition to Princes as Exod. 18.21 22. Num. 11.16 17. sometimes for the whole body of a nation comprehending Rulers of all sorts together with the subjects as Gen. 25.23 Deut. 4.6 33. and when any thing is in generall commanded unto the people taken in this sense as here such commandements are to be practised according to the severall callings of men but doe not prove the like power of performing those commandements to be in all the people That place Levit. 24.14 shewes that the people did execute the blasphemer but shewes not that they had power to decree that sentence or to pronounce the judgement in the first place which they executed in the last Those Scriptures Num. 15.33 27.2 35.12 doe shew that divers Civill causes were brought before the people as witnesses to heare the same decided but not as Iudges to give sentence upon the same Yourself speake but faintly of the matter when you (i) Animadv p. 29. plead from Ruth 4.2 7 9 11. that the people were also interested with the Elders in these affaires they might have interest to heare those controversies debated but what is this to prove the power of judgement to be in the whole body of the Congregation Besides if such a presence of the people to heare controversies do prove a power of judgement in the people you might as well plead that almost all Civill governments at this day are Democraticall as in England France Germany where malefactours are brought before the Iudges before the multitudes of people assembling together at such places Other pretences also you doe bring to obscure diminish the authority of the Magistrates in Israel as if they had not power to put a man to death to cut off a man from Israel without the consent of the people c. but they are as the former frivolous insufficient H. AINSVV. (k) Animadv p. 20. I know when Gods Law â—â—ndemned a man if it were shewed by all or any one of the Iudges or Priests or Prophets yea or Israelites the people should in order have executed him ANSVV. But what order was that for the people being subjects to take upon them the execution of judgement upon the testimony of any one of the Iudges or Priests when all the rest both of the Iudges Priests Prophets did not assent What warrant did the law of God in any place give unto the people to exercise such power of judgements upon the declaration of any one of the Israelites when all the Rulers both Civill Ecclesiasticall did make a contrary declaration and could not so understand the law of God as one of the Israelites had shewed it What is this order but the plaine way to sedition tumult H. AINSVV. (l) Ibid. Oft times the Heads of the people judged for rewards Mich. 3.11 the Princes as Lions the Iudges as Wolves devoured them the Priests polluted the Sanctuary wrested the Law Zeph. 3.3 4. Isa 1.23 And then the people of the land whose duâ—ty also it was to looke to open wickednes Levit. 20.24 were neither to follows the many nor mighty in evill Exod. 23.2 7. ANSVV. 1. Oft times the people also were wicked rebellious Idolatrous Apostates and presumptuous abettours maintainers of evill sometimes as bad sometimes worse then their Governours Exod. 32.1 c. Numb 14 1-10 16.41 42. Iudg. 2.11 19. c. But what is this to determine the right of authority doth that vary change according to the goodnes wickednes of the persons we are taught the contrary of God Though the Romane Emperour in Pauls time was a Lyon devouring many 2. Tim. 4.17 yet he teacheth submission unto the authority even of such Rom. 13.1 2. c. Though Annas Caiaphas other wicked Priests Scribes Pharisees were wolves devouring widowes houses polluting the Sanctuary wresting the Law Iohn 18. Matt. 23. yet we are taught to acknowledge the authority of such Matt. 8.4 Act. 23.5 2. Though wicked Rulers are not to be obeyed in their unlawfull commandements and therefore the servants of Saul did well not to execute his bloody commandement 1. Sam. 22.17 wherein
Priest sayd to make him polluted or to make him cleane Lev. 13.3.6 c. in such (f) timme tibar phrases as in their full signification doe expresse unto us the judiciall sentence of their remoovall out of the host as well as a bare declaration of their opinion in the matter even as the like use of other phrases in the Scripture Deut. 25.1 Prov. 17.15 signifying to (g) hitsdik hirshiagn make just to make wicked doe also import the judiciall sentence of absolution condemnation not onely a declaration of the Iudges opinion thereabouts 2. It is noted of the Prieft that in doubtfull cases in the tryall of the leprosy he should shut up him that had the plague seven daves Levit. 13.4 5. now as he had the power of suspension in a doubtfull case to shut up for a time so by your owne doctrine it will follow that in a manifest case of leprosy he had the power of shutting out the leper untill the time that he was cleane 3. The Lord requires the like submission subjection unto the judgement sentence of the Priests in matters of controversy betweene plague plague as he doth unto the Iudge in his judgements Deut. 17 8-13 and therefore as the Iudges had the power of judgement giving sentence Civilly so had the Priefts power of judgement Ecclesiastically 4. Whereas you (h) Confes art 25. shew every member of the Church to be subject unto the censure of excommunication by alledging 2. Chron. 26.20 you may thereby discerne the weaknes of your proportion for the power of the people for in that storye you see how the King Vzziah so soone as his leprosy appeared was hastily remooved caused to depart out of the Temple and this by the authority of the Priests without waiting to ask the consent of the people And therefore if Ministers Elders have now as much power to excommunicate as the Priests had then to remoove that Leper then your proportion for the people vanisheth as a smoak 5. Though the children of Israel be commanded to put the Leper out of the campe Num. 5.2 yet is the practise thereof to be understood according to the diversity of mens callings namely so that the Priests did put out the Leper by giving sentence pronoucing him uncleane the people by complaining bringing the matter unto the Priest in the first place helping to execute it in the last place 6. Whereas you grant a proportion herein thus farre (i) Animadv p. 19.20 that as every Priest then might according to the Law declare what was leprosy so every Minister now may ought by the law to declare what is sinne heresy this though it be without or against the consent of the Church of all the world your grant herein is nothing worth while you grant as much both to the Prophets people under the Law as well as to the Priests and to the Prophets people now as well as to the Ministers Elders The declaration of sinne the triall conviction of sinne you doe now allow to one as well as to the other Lastly as the Lord commands the children of Israel to remoove the leper our of the campe so he gives them the like charge for those that were defiled by the dead or by uncleane issues Numb 5.2 And yet who will say that the judgement dayly administration of these actions did belong unto the multitude of the Congregation or that they were bound to come together in a solemne assembly upon such occasions of remooving these persons receyving them againe at their cleansing The law of their purification requires no such thingâ— â—um 19.18 19. Levit. 15.13 14 c. And therefore howsoever the act of remooving these uncleane persons in the time of the Law may be held as a generall type to shew the exclusion of wicked persons froÌ„ the holy things of God under the Gospel yet the persons by whom these Legall Ceremoniall separations were ordinarily administred performed cannot serve for a sufficient proofe that obstinate sinners are to be cenfured and remooved by the whole Congregation assembled for that purpose II. Another of your wrested proportions from the practise of Israel you may see in your Apology where you labour to prove that the power of Excommunication is in the body of the Church by this reason because (k) Apol. p. 62. the duety of putting away leaven out of their houses at the feast of Passeover unleavened bread was by the Lord himself layd upon all Israel and not committed or injoyned onely to the Officers 1. Cor. 5.7 12 13. compared with Exod. 12.3 15. Lev. 23.2 5 6. Deut. 16 1-4 Here unto I answer 1. If the power of Excommunication be in the members of the Church now as the power of putting away leaven was in the Israelites of old then as every particular Israelite under the Law had power of himself to remoove leaven out of his house yea was bound to doe the same whether the rest of the Congregation consented or not as appeares in the places of Scripture here alledged by yourself so now in like manner every particular member of the Church should have power in his hand to excommunicate remoove a wicked man out of the Congregation whether the rest of his brethren consented or not 2. If you further intend that as each Israelite for himself was to put away leaven so also he was to looke to others that they did the same this I grant so farre as the meanes of admonition exhortation and complaint might reach but that the Israelites had all of them judiciall authority and power to judge those that offended herein about which authority the question is the Scriptures by you alledged doe not prove the same 3. As for that place 1. Cor. 5.7 where the Apostle shewes that the incestuous person ought to be excommunicate by an allusion unto the ceremony of purging out the leaven he therein onely teacheth the duety that is to be done but as for the authority of the persons by whoÌ„ the censure was to be executed though he teach them that also in other verses of that chapter yet doth he not derive the ground thereof from the ceremony of the leaven put away therein is your errour to stretch rack the proportion too farre The fourth Errour IN the fourth place your warrant ground for the peoples power is insufficient when as you derive the same from that separation which you say was appointed of God before the Law This you teach wheÌ„ as you would confirme the same unto us from (l) Apol p. 62. pos 8. with p. 44. pos 3. the trueth proofes of the third Position in your Apology where among other testimonves of Scripture you would prove your Separation by these allegations Gen. 4.16 26. with 6.2 9.27 12.1 13.6 7 8. Exod. 5.3 But these Scriptures doe
neither justify your kinde of Separation though they be often perverted by you to that purpose much lesse doe they shew unto us that the power of Excommunication is in the body of the Church As for Gen. 4.16 where it is sayd that Cain went out from the presence of the Lord 1. It is uncertaine whether it was by an excommunication from the place of Gods word publick worship Many are sayd to be caft out of Gods presence as we read sometimes of Israel Iudah though we cannot say that they were then excommunicate 2. Kin. 17 18 20 23. Ier. 52.3 c. Though the face of God doe sometimes signify his all-seeing providence government from which none can flee Psal 139.7.12 Ier. 23.24 as you doe (m) Annot. on Gen. 4.16 write yet your reasoning there is imperfect because the face of God doth signify divers other things besides his all-seeing providence the place of his worship as namely his more comfortable presence providence c. Psal 30.7 with Iob 29.2 3 4. whereof men may be deprived though not by excommunication 2. Suppose Cain was excommunicate yet this proves not the Separation you plead for you cannot deny but that excommunication of murderers and such like is sometimes practised in divers Churches whom yet you will not allow for a separate people according to your profession 3. With what colour of a just consequence will you collect that the power of excommunication is in the body of the Church from this proof of your third position how doth Cains separation demonstrate unto us the peoples power in Ecclesiasticall censures As for Gen. 4.26 when Sheth begate his sonne named him Enosh and when according to your translation men began profanely to call on the name of the Lord 1. Your reasoning upon this verse is unwarrantable when as you say that (n) Annot. on Gen. 4.26 the sorowes of this age were great as the very name of Enos testifyeth and the historie following in Gen. 6. confirmeth for neither is the name of Enos a witnesse of great sorowes in that age any more then the name of Henoch given both to the posterity of Cain Sheth Gen. 4.17 5.18 is a witnesse of the great holines or catechising in their age or the name of Isaac a witnesse of the great joy and gladnes of that age or any more then the name of Enos given to every man is a witnesse of the sorowes of every age Psal 8.4 144.3 neither doth the story following in Gen. 6. confirme unto us the sorowes of Enos his age birth going a thousand yeares before the same any more then the story following in Zedekias his time confirmeth unto us that there were great sorowes in the dayes of David 2. As for your Separation the power of the people in excommunicating as you note in your Apology who can devise or comprehend how they should be derived hence How can you account those things proved unto us for which there is not so much as a shew of any consequence in the places alledged As for Gen. 6.2 where it is recorded how the sonnes of God tooke unto them wives of the daughters of men according to their lust I would faine see how by any lawfull argument you can hence conclude either your Separation or the peoples power in excommunicating when your argument appeares in the forme of it it will then be time enough to shape an answer unto it In the meane time whereas you (o) Annot. on Ge. 6.2 note that by the daughters of men are meant they of Kains posteritie that out were of Gods Church c. you might as well have sayd that they had bene of Sheths posteritie which was also degenerate so that for their wickednes they were swept away with the flood destroyed as well as Cains posteritie Noahs family onely excepted Who can say that the posterity of Cain for more then a thousand yeares together were strangers from the Church of God during the time of so many Patriarkes or that some of Sheths posterity also did not cease to be the Church of God And if the testimony of your Hebrew doctours were to be admitted I might easily shew you many of them that tell us of Cains repentance consequently of the receiving of him his posterity into the Church of God Yea if Naamah was the wife of Noah as they (p) R. Solomon com on Gen. 4.22 presume you might then observe the posterity of Cain living still after the flood in her that was the daughter of Lamech on Cains side Touching Gen. 9.27 though Iaphet was to be perswaded to dwell in the tents of Shem c. yet how are we to be perswaded thence touching the forme of government among them and that the power of excommunication was in the people rather then in any Rulers among them These bare allegations of Scripture help you nothing untill you draw some argument from them to shew the matter in controversy which yet is not done by you Touching Gen. 12.1 where Abram is called out of his native country 1. That place is strangely abused by you for your Separation seeing Abram there is called to travell he knowes not whither unto a land which God would afterwards shew and give unto him Hebr. 11.8 Genes 12.1 without any mention of separating or joyning unto any Church And the land of Canaan unto which he came appeares to have bene as Idolatrous at that time more manifestly accursed then that of the Chaldaeains from whence he came Gen. 9.25 26 27. 2. With what kinde of arguing can you shew us the peoples power in judgements censures of sinne from this ground This we desire to know wait for Yet to make you more circumspect against that time consider in the meane while the errour of your Annotations touching this calling of Abram Gen. 12.1 1. When as concerning the time you write that it was (q) Annot. on Gen. 12. after that Abrams father was dead Act. 7.4 this your assertion is unwarrantable and without proofe Though it be manifest from Act. 7.4 that God brought Abram from Charran after his father was dead yet this shewes not that the calling mentioned in Gen. 12.1 was after his fathers death 2. Whereas you note further upon the same verse touching the place from which Abram was called Gen. 12.1 that it was that country wherein he now dwelt in Charran this is also unsound and appeares to be contrary to the expresse word of God mentioned by Stephen who sayth Act. 7.2 3. that The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Charran and sayd unto him Come out of thy country from thy kindred and come into the land which I shall shew thee The words used of God in that calling Gen. 12.1 are plainly noted to have bene sayd unto Abram before he dwelt in Charran and who can
of H. C. it is testifyed that in the examination of an uncleane fact imputed unto him there were certaine men deputed to heare and examine the cause apart from the Congregation that the eares of women and children and of the whole multitude should not be offended therewith And why may you not now still by the like reason yeeld that the hearing and examining of offendours may be done apart by the Elders which are the Churches deputies thereunto as well as heretofore by some other deputies new chosen Touching the Scriptures alledged by you although that which is sayd already might serve for answer thereunto yet this in particular may be further considered As for 1. Cor. 5.4 there is not a word of the Churches meeting together to examine the fact of the incestuous person but onely of giving sentence after it was sufficiently knowne In Act. 14.27 we read that the Church was gathered together and so with us both on the Lords day and on one of the week dayes there is a gathering of the Church together What an idle thing is it to prove that there should be publick assemblies of the Church which none denyes But this place shewes not that the Church was gathered together to the publick examination of scandals to heare the proceedings against offendours according to the question in hand As for Act. 15.4 the receiving by the Church there mentioned doth not so much as shew that the Church was then gathered together The Church might be sayd to receive Paul Barnabas some others with them and to heare what things God had done by them though not in a publick assembly met together for that end even as the Church of Rome might be sayd to receive Phoebe Rom. 16.2 though not in a publick assembly Gaius might be sayd to be the host of the whole Church Rom. 16.23 consequently to receive the same though not gathered together at one time In Act. 15.30 Luke shewes that the Epistle of the Apostles was delivered to the multitude assembled at Antiochia So we read that the Epistle written to the Colossians was to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Colos 4.16 So the letters and decrees of Princes States at this day are often times upon sundry occasions delivered and openly read to the multitude people in severall cities assembled and called together to heare the same even as these decrees of the Apostles and Elders were delivered in sundry places Act. 16.4 But doe these manner of assemblies prove that no cases of controversy scandall or sinne may be examined heard by the Rulers Governours without the presence of the people gathered together in such an assembly according to the question betwixt us How can such kinde of collections be ever justifyed by you That place Act. 21 18-22 is oft alledged by you to shew the peoples power while it is there sayd that the multitude must needes come together touching which words though neither the Syriack nor the Arabick versions of the New Testament have them though the want of these words from the text in this place is by (p) Inn. Annot in Arab transl in Act. 21.22 some learned men judged not to be unmeet yet will I not insist thereon But 1. to take the words as they are in the Greek the word (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated must needes doth not alwayes signify a duety to be done but sometimes onely a necessity of a thing comming to passe done by men though they ought not to doe it and so this very word is elswhere used by the Apostle when he saith there must be herefies 1. Cor. 11.19 shewing thereby the necessity of an event but not the duety of any person to doe that thing Neither doth any thing hinder but that the word here also in Act. 21. may be taken in like sense viz. that the multitude would needs come together though not bound by duety thereunto 2. Suppose that this comming together of the multitude was according to duety yet seing that both the occasion was extraordinary that also the forme of their comming together is not specifyed whether they were to come as hearers onely of Pauls doctrine or as judges in judiciall manner to examine him how can you now conclude from hence that all cases of controversy among brethren are ordinarily to be examined by the multitude of the Congregation in a publick assembly THE SECOND PART Touching The power of Classicall and Synodall Assemblies CHAP. I. The State of the Question and the importance thereof THe summe substance of the Discipline or Church-government appointed of God practised in the Reformed Churches consists chiefly in this that when as for the remooving of private offences private admonition in the first and second degree prevayles not or when as the offence is publick at first the matter be then brought unto the judgement of the Eldership and so that in weightier cases as receiving of members excommunication election deposition of Ministers c. nothing be concluded executed without the knowledge approbation of the Church likewise that in more weighty difficult cases as the aforenamed or the like the advise help and allowance of the Classis under which they stand and if need be of the Synod unto which the Classis is subordinate be sought rested in this in such manner that if any person eyther Minister Elder or any other even the least member of the Church doe finde any evill to be maintained either against faith or manners either by the Eldership or by the Congregation it is then lawfull for them for the redresse of such evill to repaire unto the Classis or Synod that by their authority sentence the offence may be censured the abuse reformed As the Eldership of a particular Church consists of Ministers Elders chosen out of the same so the Classis consists of many Ministers Elders sent from many Churches assembling together to heare determine the cases above written That the State of the Question may yet more clearly be understood it is to be remembred that in this combination of Classes and Synods I. The authority which they exercise is not absolute nor their decrees held to be infallible but to be examined by the word of God and not to be received further then they doe agree therewith And therefore also (a) Kerckē Ordeninge Synod Nat. Dordr art 31.36 there is liberty of appeale from them from the Classis to the Synod and from a Provinciall Synod to a Nationall II. The authority of Classes Synods is not Civill neither have they power to inflict Civill punishments they (b) Ibid. art 30. judge onely of Ecclesiasticall causes that in Ecclesiasticall manner using no other then spirituall censures III. In the Classicall union consociation of neighbour Churches (c) Ibid. art 84. no one Church hath any prerogative or power above another nor any
superiour judicatory either Civill or Ecclesiasticall to be among these Iudiciall lawes that are perpetuall arising from the ground of common equity In like manner G. Bucerus speaking of these same judicatories inferiour superiour applying that which he had spoken before in generall unto this particular ordinance shewes that (z) Dissert de Gubern Eccl. p. 65. the judicatories of the Church at this day are lawfully framed according to the same forme and that the reasonis because it clearly appeares that this order being anciently instituted of God most religiously observed of the Fathers did belong onely unto the good order of the Church and not unto the paedagogie of the Law c. and therefore was not to be abolished Againe it was prophecyed of Christ and his kingdome that he should deliver the needy when he cryeth the poore also and him that hath no helper that he should redeeme their soule from deceit violence c. Psal 72.12 14. But if liberty of Appeales be now taken away by the comming of Christ then in respect of Ecclesiasticall government confessed to be a part of Christs kingdome the yoke of the Law should be more tollerable sweet and easy in this poynt of appeales then the yoke of Christ for under the Law the poore being oppressed in judgement by unrighteous Iudges in one place they cryed for help by appealing unto a superiour Synedrion and there found release and so were redeemed from deceit violence but now under the Gospell if it were as our Opposites hold that all spirituall jurisdiction should be limited to a particular Congregation then might the afflicted wronged soules cry in vaine finde no helper there being no Ecclesiasticall judicatory to releeve them and to redeeme their soule from the deceit and violence of their oppressours We read of Cranmer the holy Martyr how that when he was cruelly handled by unrighteous Iudges he sought to comfort himself by his Appeale from them unto a free Generall Councell The forme of his Appeale is exactly set downe by him and he doeth as it were cry out for it with great vehemency of words saying (a) Ioh. Fox Acts Mon. pag. 1709. col 1 edit 1â—10 I desire the first the second the third time instantly more instantly most instantly that I may have messengers if there be any man that will can give me them And I make open promise of prosecuting this mine appellation by the way of disanulling abuse c. But according to the Tenent of our Opposites it should thus have bene answered unto him by them Seek no comfort in such Appeales under Moses Policy they were lawfull but now under the New Testament they are unlawfull There is no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction out of a particular Church that may give sentence in your cause c. What an unworthy conceit is this thus to dishonour the New Testament as if God had shewed more grace and provided more help for afflicted soules under the Law then under the Gospell This erroneous conceit is so much the more blame-worthy in some of the Brownists in that when they plead against the usurpation and injustice of Elders they theÌ„ confesse this same thing in effect saying (b) H. Ains Animadv p. 22. Is it meet that they should be Iudges in their owne cases In Israel when any complayned of wrong in the Synagogues or Cities there was an higher Court to controll unruly Elders to help the oppressed But now 2 or 3 Elders in a Church bearing themselves upon their forged â—â—thority from Mat. 18.17.20 may be lawlesse and who shall let them in their proceedings And for proof of this liberty in Israel they alledge Deut. 17.8 9. 2. Chron. 19.8 10. And why then cannot Mr Canne endure that I should alledge the very same Scriptures to a like end for is it meet that particular Churches should be Iudges in their owne cases In Israel if any complayned of wrong against a whole Synagogue there was an higher Court to controll unruly disordred Congregations and to help those that were oppressed by them And shall now 6 or 7 persons in a Church for sometimes there be no more specially in the new erected Churches of Separatists shall those be lawlesse bearing themselves upon their forged authority falsely collected from Mat. 18 shall there be no meanes by any Synod or by any superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory to let them in their proceedings Againe they confesse that the (c) Ibid. p. 24. Saints have as much more power and libertie in the Gospel now then the Iewes had as the heyr when he is of yeares hath more then in his childhood Gal. 4.1 2 3. And likewise speaking of the peoples right then under the Law and under the Magistrate they say it (d) Ibid. p. 28. may he more but cannot be lesse now under the Gospel where the Church ministery hath not the power of Magistracie over Gods heritage What is then this liberty that the people have In the offensive controversies arising and continuing in a Church the people are either doers of wrong or sufferers of wrong either oppressours or oppressed is it now the right liberty of oppressours that they in their wrong-doing shall be exempted from the judgement of any superiour Church-government to controll them and for the oppressed is this their sory inheritance now under the New Testament that they are deprived of this liberty of appealing to any other judicatory out of themselves so as to seek any help thereby What is this els but to diminish and obscure the grace of the Gospell and to shorten the hand of the Lord as if he did not now stretch it out as farre either in mercy for help of the oppressed by allowing them the liberty and comfort of appeales or in judgement for rebuke of oppressours by permitting them to be lawlesse and secure without danger of further censure after they had once prevayled by an unrighteous proceeding in a particular Congregation D. Whitaker whom Mr Canne often alledgeth and often perverteth contrary to his meaning is very pregnant and full in witnessing this same trueth with me touching the lawfulnes necessity of appeales He sayth (e) Contr. 4 de Pont. Rom. Qu. 4. c. 2. p. 470. Truely appeales are of Divine and naturall right and certainly very necessary in every society because of the iniquity or ignorance of many Iudges Otherwise the innocent person should be undone if it were not lawfull to appeale from an unrighteous sentence and seing many controversies doe arise in causes persons Ecclesiasticall who can deny that the right of Appeales is of necessity to be granted Thus he avoucheth that the denyall of appeales is against common equity against the law of God and the law of nature D. Rainolds also (f) Conf. with Hart c. 9. div 2. p. 572.575 agreeth with D. Whit. in allowing of appeales in Ecclesiasticall causes As both of them condemne the Appeales unto
saying If thy brother sinne against thee c. so had Moses done before Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart c. As Christ requires not onely a simple telling of the fault but a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convincing of the offendour so had Moses taught Israel before * hocheach tochiach thoroughly to reprove or convince and not to suffer sinne upon a brother Mat. 18.15 with Lev. 19.17 As Christ in the same place to encourage unto this duety propounds the winning of a brother so the Lord in the old Testament shewes how the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life and how the wise doe winne soules Prov. 11.30 Thus farre it was no new rule The second degree of admonition was with witnesses If he heare thee not take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established Mat. 18.16 This is expressely taken from grounded upon the Policie of Moses who prescribed the same order for Israel Deut. 19.15 Hitherto therefore it is the same rule The third degree of admonition was by the Church being complained unto and told of the offence Mat. 18.17 This admonition was also observed in Israel wheÌ„ as the Church or those Ecclesiasticall Governours which represented the Church either in Synagogues or as occasion required in superiour Judicatories did teach informe and admonish offenders before they gave sentence of their obstinacy and presumption Deut. 17.9 10 11. 2. Chron. 19.10 Herein likewise the same rule was prescribed And the word thus duely spoken in his place or * gnal ophnan on the wheeles of order in divers degrees of admonition that it might runne and prevayle was like apples of gold in pictures of silver Prov. 25.11 The censure which followed upon the contempt of these admonitions was Excommunication or rejection of the obstinate offender Mat. 18.17 This was no new kinde of censure seeing Excommunication was also an ancient ordinance a part of that Ecclesiasticall Policie under the old Testament yea described by the same phrase of â—â—tting off Exod. 12.19 Num. 15.30 31. which is also used in the Gospell of Christ Gal. 5.12 As in Israel they had a censure of separating from the Congregation Ezra 10.8 so in the new Testament in an equivalent phrase the like judgement was signifyed by denouncing some to be accursed anathema or separate from the Church of God Gal. 1.9 And even in this text Mat. 18.17 the censure of excommunication being described by declaring men to be as Heathens Publicanes there is not onely a manifest allusion and respect unto the estate of the Jewes but a coÌ„mandement of the same order for avoyding the obstinate by denying civill communion of eating drinking with excommunicates as they did unto the Publicanes Mat. 9.11 Luk. 15.2 and both religious civill communion both in publick private as they did unto the Heathen Act. 11.2 3. 21.28 29. neither could this rule be well understood without knowledge of the present practise of the Jewes in this behalf The confirmation of this censure is described in the rule of Christ by a threefold testimony and promise 1. That this judgement of the Church given on earth should be ratifyed in heaven either for binding or loosing Mat. 18.18 And so Moses setting life and death blessing and cursing the judgements of God before Israel calles heaven earth to record for confirmation to binde them to reverence those ordinances of God Deut. 30.19 4.26 2. As Solomon under the Law at the building of the Temple did by his prayer confirme Israel in hope of having their prayers to ascend from earth to heaven 1. King 8.30 31 32. so Christ here promiseth that the prayers of those which agreed touching any thing on earth should be granted in heaven vers 19. 3. As Iosaphat for the establishment of the Iudaicall Policie encouraged the Iudges with the promise of Gods presence assistance that the Lord would be with them in the matter of judgement that the Lord would be with the good 2. Chron. 19.6 11. so here Christ to encourage his servants in the observation of this order promiseth his presence to be in the midst of two or three gathered together in his name vers 20. Thus it appeareth from the enumeration of all the severall parts of this rule compared with the ordinance of God in the old Testament that this is no new rule Though there were many other Ceremoniall and temporary ordinances in the Law for the purging of sinne and uncleannes yet so farre as concernes this Rule Mat. 18. there is no new order prescribed herein here is nothing specifyed which was not taught before EVen those witnesses before alledged by Mr Canne and before him by Mr Ainsw doe testify the same they and others the most excellent servants of God the starres of the Churches subscribing unto this trueth and bearing witnesse with us unto this interpretation of Scripture and arguing divers wayes for the authority of Classes Synods from this place Mat. 18. and specially in this respect that it was no new rule Calvine speaking of this rule and of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction prescribed therein sayth plainly (e) Instit l. 4. c. 11. § 2. 4. Christus nihil hîc novum instituit c. Christ here instituted no new thing but followed the custome alwayes observed in the ancient Church of his owne nation whereby he signifyed that the Church could not want the spirituall jurisdiction vvhich had bene from the beginning c. And this he also applyes unto the jurisdiction exercised in Synods when he writes (f) Ibid. c. 9. § 2. If it be demanded what the authority of Synods is from the Scriptures there is no clearer promise extant then in this sentence of Christ Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them Mat. 18.20 Againe in his exposition of those words Tell the Church he saith (g) Harm Evang. in Mat. 18.17 The quaestion is what he meanes by the name of the Church for Paul commands that the incestuous Corinthian should be excommunicated not by any choyse number but by the whole company of the godly 1. Cor. 5.5 6. and therefore it might seeme probable that the judgement is here referred unto all the people But because there was then no Church which had given the name unto Christ nor such a manner appointed but that the Lord speakes as of an usuall and received custome there is no doubt but that he alludes unto the order of the old Church even as in other places also he applyes his speech unto the knowne custome c. So therefore he now had respect unto the forme of discipline which was received among the Jewes because it would have bene absurd to propound the judgment of a Church which yet was not Moreover seing the power of excommunication among the Jewes was now in the
Elders which represented the person of the Church Christ fitly sayth that those which had offended should then at length be brought publickly to the Church if either proudly they contemned or scurrilously rejected private admonitions We know that from the time that the Jewes returned out of the captivity of Babylon the censure of manners and of doctrine was committed to that chosen Councell which they called Sanhedrin and in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This government was lawfull approved of God and this was the bridle to keep in order the froward untractable Thus hath he fully expressed himself that this commandement of Christ Mat. 18. is no new rule but taken from the Ecclesiasticall Policie of the Jewes Beza in like manner confirmeth this interpretation saying (h) Annot maj in N. Test in Mat. 18.17 This power jurisdiction was in those which are therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers of the Synagogue Mark 5.22 an example of this custome is found Ioh. 9.22 12.42 c. And speaking of this word Church mentioned Mat. 18. he sayth It is to be observed that they doe foulely erre which would prove from this place that all things are to be referred unto the assembly of the whole multitude They say the name of Church is never otherwise taken which from this very place is convinced to be false for certainly it appeares that these things are spoken as of the Jewes at least from this which he addeth Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publicane But all writers of these things doe testify that the judgements of these matters among the Jewes were in the Elders and that the whole multitude of the people was not alwayes wont to be assembled And certainly unlesse Christ had applyed his whole speech unto the custome of his times who could have understood what he spoke Afterwards againe in the same place he addeth this Sed doceo Aristocratiam Christianam non esse novum aliquod institutum c. I teach that the Christian government of the Church by an Eldership is no new institution c. no new rule D. Whitaker to prove the authority of Synods brings warrant evidence not onely from the new Testament but also (i) Cont. 3. de Conc. qu. 1. de necess Concil c. 3. p. 15. from the Church of Israel and from the Ecclesiasticall Policie of the Jewes before Christ in the times of David Ezekias Iosias other godly Princes by which it appeares that he held this part of Church-government not to be a new ordinance but a practise common both to Jewish to Christian Churches And besides from this very place Mat. 18. he drawes a double warrant for Synods first from the commandement given to Peter as well as to others to tell the Church vers 17. from thence he argueth against the Papists that the Pope may be judged of a Councell (k) Ibid. de Concil qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169. 170. If saith he every particular Church hath greater authority in judgement then Peter or any particular man then much more the universall Church which is represented in a generall Councell or Synod Herein he is directly opposite to our opposers who grant a power of jurisdiction to a particular Church but none to any Synod whatsoever further then to counsell and direct Againe he (l) Ibid. qu. 1. c. 3. argueth from the promise of Christ Mat. 18. Where two or three are met together in my name there am I in the midst of them applyes that sentence to the maintenance allowance of Synods particular or generall Iunius in like manner as he is plentifull in giving allowance unto the authority of Synods so he derives this authority from this place Mat. 18. both from the (m) Animadv in Bellarm de Concil l. 2. c. 19. art 8. commandement of telling the Church vers 17. and from the (n) Ibid. in lib. 1. c. 3. promise made unto Ecclesiasticall assemblies to be in the midst of them vers 20. while he allowes that promise alledged by others to be a just ground thereof though he adde other warrant also And further speaking of the Councell or Ecclesiasticall Senate he shewes what reference it had unto the Politie or government of the Jewish Synagogues he saith That which (o) Ecclesiast l. 2. c. 3. the Church of the Iewes called the Synagogue that Christ in like manner called the Church in that place Mat. 18. for as the Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall Counsell was a certaine Epitome of the Church so also is the Presbytery Mr Cartwright above many other is very pregnant in giving plaine testimony that this rule of discipline is no new ordinance and this for that part of the rule in speciall which is most controversall He disputing about the interpretatiō of Mat. 18. saith (p) First Reply to D. Whitg p. 176. edit 2. It is commanded of our Saviour Christ that in such a case when a brother doth not profit by these two warnings it should be told the Church Now I would aske who be meant by the Church here if he say by the Church are meant all the people then I will aske how a mā can conveniently complaine to all the whole congregation or how can the whole congregatiō conveniently meet to decide of this matter I doe not deny but the people have an interest in the excommunication as shall be noted hereafter but the matter is not so farre come he must first refuse to obey the admonitiō of the Church or ever they can proceed so farre Well if it be not the people that be meant by the Church who is it Thē shewing that by the Church one person alone cannot be meant he concludes Seeing then that the Church here is neither the whole congregatiō nor the Pastour alone it followeth that by the Church here he meaneth the Pastour with the Ancients or Elders Or else whom can he meane And as for this manner of speech wherein by the Church is understanded the cheef governours Elders of the Church it is oftentimes used in the old Testamēt from the which our Saviour borowed this manner of speaking For instances he alledgeth Exo. 4.29 30. Ios 20.4 6. 1. Chr. 13.2 4. c. After this he is yet more plaine in respect of the censure saying (q) Ibid. p. 183. Now that this charge of excommunicatiō belongeth not unto one or to the Minister but cheefly to the Eldership Pastour it appeareth by that which the authors of the Admonitiō alledge out of S. Matth. c. 18.17 which place I have proved before to be necessarily understanded of the Elders of the Church And further in the same place It may be the clearlyer understanded that the Presbytery or Eldership had the cheef stroke in this excommunication if it be observed that this was the Polity or discipline of the Jewes and of the Synagogue from whence our Saviour Christ took this and translated it unto
no new rule in the new Testament when the like order was established for going first unto the Eldership and seeking redresse of evill by them Mr Ainsw acknowledgeth that (v) Ibid. p. 451. the keyes of the kingdome of heaven are in more speciall manner given unto them and therefore in speciall manner ought they to be told and spoken unto for the reformation of evils seeing they were to guide and goe before the people as in other affaires so in administring the censures of the Church therefore ordinarily matters were to be brought unto them before they were brought unto the whole Congregatiō 11. As it is the ordinance of God in the new Testament 1. Cor. 5. accordingly the practise of the Reformed Churches in these countries that the more weighty affaires censures of the Church should not be administred without knowledge and consent of the body of the Church so that none is either received for a member of the Church or cast out by excommunication but they doe first tell the Church even the whole Congregatiō is solemnely publickly acquainted therewith liberty granted unto them to shew their assent or dissent therein so Mr Ainsw himself acknowledgeth that there was a like order in the old Testament The Scriptures which he alledgeth and his manner of arguing from them doth import so much Of Israel he saith (x) Cōmun of S. c. 18. § 8. Vnto all every of the Israelites was commended the care observation of all Gods statutes that neither all nor any of them man nor woman nor familie nor tribe should forsake the Lord nor suffer among them any root to bring forth gall and wormwood c. Deut. 29.18 So of the multitude of beleevers and people in the new Testament he writes in like manner that (y) Ibid. § 9. they were willed to exhort and admonish each other even the Officers of the Churches c. and to look that no root of bitternes sprung up and troubled them c. Heb. 12.15 c. Againe he saith (z) Ibid. c. 18. § 8. Even the leprous unclean though the tryall of them apperteyned to the Priests Lev. 13. yet all the children of Israel were to look that such were removed out of the host yea the care of the Priests purity in their administration apperteyned to all the people Levit. 21.1 8 24. And long after both in counsels in the redressing of publick evils and trespasses all Israel indifferently had their hand and presence as the Scripture sheweth 2. Chron. 30.21 23. Ezra 10.1 9 12 c. Then presently he parallels the course of the Churches in the New Testament with this supposed practise in the Old saving The Churches in the Apostles dayes had also the like right and liberty for the multitudes of beleevers were both beholders and actors in the common affaires c. Afterwards againe speaking of the rules of admonition of the censures of the Church he saith (a) Ibid. c. 22. § 12 p. 449. The keeping of which rules belongeth to all the Saints as the commandement directed of old to the children of Israel Num. 5.2 Levit. 19.17 and in the new Testament to all the brethren Church doth shew Matt. 18.15 1. Cor. 5. And thus by his owne confession yea even according to his owne opinion in respect of the Churches power and the peoples right there was no new rule given by Christ in Mat. 18. Whereas it is objected that the Jewish Synedrion (b) H. Barr. Resut of Giff. p. 76. by the institution of God was merely Civill c. that (c) D. Bilsō perpet gov ch 4. p. 21. Moses appointed neither Iudges nor Elders in Citie or Synedrion but they were Magistrates to execute the judgements of the law had the sword to chastise the body and punish with death c. The errour of this assertion hath bene shewed (d) Pag. 34 35.41 before from the Scriptures Deut. 17. 2. Chron. 19. From these places is the distinction of Civill and Ecclesiasticall judgements maintained by many learned Writers as (e) Conf. with Hart c. 6. div 2. p. 203 204. D. Rainolds (f) First reply to D. Whitg p. 192. Secōd reply latter part p. 152.153 Mr Cartwright (g) Counterp in part of Regist p. 490.491 Mr Fenner and the (h) Ibid. p. 522. Defender of him and most largely by (i) Diss de Gub. Eccl. p. 59. c. G. Bucerus As for H. Barrow he sufficiently resutes himself when he acknowledgeth that the Priests did beare the charge and had the deciding of all Ecclesiasticall causes Numb 18. Deut. 17. This they could not doe without judging of them therefore it appeareth hence that they had a double Synedrion one Ecclesiasticall the other Civill CHAP. VI. The third Argument taken from the practise of the primitive Churches in the Apostles times OUr third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitive Christian Churches after the Ascension of Christ from which we reason on this manner That government of the Church which is commended unto us approved by the example of the Apostles and Apostolick Churches is worthily to be embraced of us But the government of the Church by Synods which besides their counsell and admonition doe also with authority judge and determine the weightiest causes and affaires of particular Churches is commended unto us as is above sayd Therefore c. The Assumption of this Argument is proved I. By that holy assembly or Synod which is recorded Act. 1 15-26 wherein there was not onely counsell given but also an exercise of Ecclesiasticall power authoritie and that in such a busines as was of great and rare importance in the choyse of a new Apostle This Assembly was not an ordinary Congregation or particular Church but it was a Synodicall assembly and performed such a work as did not belong unto any one particular Church This appeares divers wayes I. In respect of the persons of whom this Assembly did consist and these againe of two sorts First of Apostles who being such persons as were not tyed unto any particular Church but had an universall charge Matt. 28.19 Rom. 10.15 18. This commission was unto them as much as if they had had a speciall delegation from many or all Churches so that their presence and concurrence was sufficient to make this Assembly in some measure as a generall or universall Synod These eleven Apostles having also a peculiar charge to be at this time at Ierusalem the place of this Assembly and to tarry there for a while Luk. 24.49 Act. 1.4 were by divine direction brought unto this Synod Secondly for other persons the Disciples that were present at this Assembly it appeares they were from divers places some of them from Galilee as the brethren of Christ there mentioned Act. 1.14 with Mat. 13.55 56. how many of them were inhabitants of Ierusalem or Iudaea it is not specifyed
so that the 120 persons met together at this time Act. 1.15 cānot be sayd to have bene a distinct particular Church of persons dwelling in Ierusalem but an occasionall assembly or Synod upon such ground as the story of the Scripture doth manifest II. In respect of the busines it self here performed viz. the election of an Apostle it was such a work as did not appertaine unto any one particular Church but all Churches had interest therein seeing the care of all the Churches was cōmitted unto the Apostles 2. Cor. 11.28 All Churches were alike bound to beware of false Apostles that could transforme themselves into the Apostles of Christ 2. Cor. 11.13 It had bene a presumption in any one Church and a wrong unto all the rest if without their consent one alone should have chosen an Apostle especially considering there were even at this time a multitude of the faithfull in other places whom this work concerned Many had bene lately converted by the ministery of Iohn Baptist Matt. 11.12 and now immediately before the Ascension of Christ we read of more then 500 brethren at once which were witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ 1. Cor. 15.6 These 120 had done injury unto them save that these generall persons the Apostles called of God for the service of all Churches did for them by divine appointment appeare in this Synod III. In respect of the manner of this election which was made with a threefold limitation 1. Unto one of those men which had companyed with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Iesus went in and out among them beginning from the baptisme of Iohn even untill that same day that he was taken up from them Act. 1.21 22. Now these Disciples that thus waited on Christ such as Barsabas and Matthias were being no inhabitants of Ierusalem what power had a particular Church to determine and dispose of them that were no members of their particular society 2. There was a restraint from absolute electing of any one of these they were onely allowed to present two and to offer them unto the choyse of the Lord. vers 23.24 3. The way and meanes of inquiring the will of God herein was determined and restrained unto a Lot whereby the judgment and definitive sentence of God was declared unto the Synod that rested therein And by these extraordinary directions it pleased God to honour this first Synod of the new Testament It is here also to be observed that although some Writers have spoken of this election as made by a particular Church yet we have sundry learned men consenting with us in the exposition of this story who labouring to shew the profit and necessity of Synods (a) Whitak de Concil qu. 1. c. 3. doe argue from this place Act. 1. and affirme that in the New Testament the Apostles and whole Church did celebrate a Synod for the choosing of Matthias into the place of Iudas The Professours of Leyden to the same purpose (b) Synops pur Theol. Disp 49. alledge this example Act. 1. and call it the first Synod at Ierusalem II. The example of that renowned Synod which is recorded Act. 15. is a sufficiēt warrant wherein the use and authority of Classes and Synods is commended unto us and this not onely for counsell and admonition but also for the judgement of causes and for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction As that which went before the Synod namely the great dissention about a dangerous errour with seeking of redresse by a solemne deputation of messengers from the Church of Antioch Act. 15.1 2. did call for help in the most effectuall manner so the things done in the Synod are an evidence of the authority which they used therein both by a definitive sentence which they pronounced concerning that controversy which was brought unto them vers 28 29. and by an authentick ambassage of chosen men sent from that Assembly of Apostles Elders and brethren both to carry the Epistle that was written and by word of mouth to declare the same things vers 22 23 25 27. That also which is noted to have bene done after the Synod in the publication of the acts thereof doth also beare witnesse touching the authority of those acts in that they are called the decrees ordained of the Apostles and Elders c. Act. 16.4 The fruit also which by the blessing of God followed hereupon in being a meanes of great consolation and establishment of the Churches in the faith Act. 15.31 16.5 is to be considered as an argument whereby the H. Ghost doth further commend unto us the authority of such Synods in the right government of the Church Upon this example doe generally all judicious Writers build the authority of Synods as upon a sure foundation groundwork Calvine saith that (c) Cōment in Act. 15.6 here is prescribed of God the forme and order of gathering Synods c. Beza upon this place (d) Annot. maj in Act. 15.12 V. 23. having shewed that here was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or foregoing consultation of the Apostles and Elders which was related unto the whole Church and ratifyed in the common assembly thereof he affirmeth that this was the right forme of a lawfull and true Apostolick Synod c. And both these are to be understood of such Synods as exercised authority of Ecclesiasticall censure according to the practise of those Churches wherein they lived of which more hereafter Bullinger observeth here as is noted by (e) Expos Eccles in Act. 15.6 Marlorate that this custome was in old time diligently kept of the holy Bishops in imitation of the Apostles and complaineth of the neglect thereof D. Rainolds when as the Papist objected unto him that there must be a chief Iudge to end controversies to keep the trueth of faith peace of the Church that it be not pestered with heresies and schismes he answers thereunto (f) Conf. with Hart. c. 6. div 2. p. 206. that The wisedome of God hath committed that chieftie of judgement so to call it not to the soveraigne power of one but to the common care of many For when there was a controversy in the Church of Antioch about the observation of the law of Moses some Iewes teaching contrarie to that which Paul and Barnabas taught they ordained that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should goe up to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question Act. 15.2 And so by their common agreement decree the controversy was ended the trueth of faith kept and peace maintained in the Church After which example the (g) Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. 21. 22. lib. 7. c. 26. 28. Cypr. epist 6. 14 31. 53. 72. 75. Concil Ancyr Gangr Antioch Laodic c. Bishops that succeeded them made the like assemblies on the like occasions and by common conference took order for such matters both of doctrine and discipline
as concerned in common the state of their Church So did the Apostles and Apostolike men provide against schismes and heresies Their wisedome reached not unto the policie of one chiefe judge Thus D. Rainolds doth many wayes acknowledge the authority of Synods he calleth that power which they have the chieftie of judgement he avoucheth that they have it by divine right that the wisedome of God hath committed it unto them he pleadeth from the forenamed warrant Act. 15. he extendeth this power unto matters both of Doctrine and Discipline the testimonies which in his margine he alledgeth out of the Ecclesiasticall history to shew that the like assemblies were kept in succeeding times are such as speak of their excommunicating wicked Hereticks viz. Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. c. l. 7. c. 26 28. c. whereby it appeares that he allowed unto Synods not onely counsell or admonition but a power of exercising Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction censure Those Councels mentioned and poynted at by him for instances of this chieftie of judgement were such as did not onely admonish but also determine and judge of causes The Synod of (h) Barthol Carranza Summa Concil p. â—3 c. Ancyra in Galatia made most severe Ecclesiasticall lawes for the excluding of such as did fall in time of persecution The Synod of (i) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 3. col 111. c. 6. col 463 Gangris in Paphlagonia exercised Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in deposing Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia for his errours and the like might be noted for the rest Whatsoever particular errours were in any of these yet the authority and jurisdiction it self is approved of him as proceeding from the wisedome of God declared in this place Act. 15. D. Whitaker in his disputation against Bellarmine touching Councels layes downe this Text Act. 15.6 for a ground of that which he takes occasion to intreat of and (k) De Concil Qu. 1. c. 1. p 1 3 4 c. often repeats that text applying it to each of the questions which he discusseth And whereas our Opposites doe grant a lawfull use of Synods for counsell but not to judge nor to give judiciall sentence for the deciding of causes D. Whitak describing the State of the Question betwixt us and the Papists touching the persons that are to be called to a Synod shewes that (l) Ibid. qu. 3. c. 1. p. 79. the Papists will have onely the Bishops or greater Prelates to be allowed for judges and the Presbyters or inferiour Clergie to be onely inquisitors disputers or consulters to give counsell but not to have suffrages in giving definitive sentences This is the opinion of the (m) Bellar. Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 15. Romish Church Now D. Whit. in the refutation of the Papists doth as wel refute the Brownists and other opposites while he proves (n) De Concil qu. 3. c. 3. that all who have a lawfull deputation and calling are to be allowed for judges and not for counsellers onely and that their suffrage is not onely for consultation but for decision as is hereafter shewed more at large Observe onely at this time that the first argument in that dispute is taken from this very place Act. 15. G. Bucerus pleads from this same ground of Scripture and writes (o) Dissert de Gub. Ecc. p. 65. that not onely severall particular Churches had their proper distinct Presbyteries but that the history of the Apostles witnesseth that when greater controversies did arise which could not be ended in lesser Colleges then more Churches under the new Testament did runne unto a Generall Synod Act. 15. And what power they were wont to exercise therein he shewes by a distinction of persons comming to the Synod As D. Whit. refuting the popish distinction of greater and lesser Clergie shewes that there was a right and power of suffrages judgement in the Synod so Bucerus (p) Ibid. p. 107. 108. c. confirming the distinction of Iunius viz. that some persons came to the Synods as Delegates sent from the Churches which therefore did give definitive sentence of matters propounded that others comming without such deputation and commission might give their advise and counsell but without suffrages doth hereby acknowledge a power of jurisdiction in the Synod by those that were peculiarly called to be judges therein Zepperus (q) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 8. de Syn. p. 713. 714. 715. c. alledging Act. 15. for a patterne of Synods declares that after the Apostles the primitive Church in the new Testament being most studious of this consociation or combination in Synods did not onely communicate by letters but meeting together in Nationall or Generall Councels did heare the causes of Hereticks others that appeared before them so convinced condemned and excommunicated them sent their decrees unto all Churches with the names heresies of those that were excommunicate c. Thus did he acknowledge the right of Synods not onely for counsell admonition but also for jurisdiction in censuring Piscator (r) Thes Theolog. vol. 1. Loc. 23. p. 361-364 writing of Councels and Synods and of the seven questions concerning them doth seven times alledge this place Act. 15. for a ground of direction in each of them And for the authority of Synods he plainly expresseth his meaning when speaking of the government of the Church in generall he sayth * Thes 62 63. it consisteth chiefly in Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and againe distinguishing this jurisdiction into two parts he sayth that the one part consisteth in the power of making lawes potissimum spectatur in Conciliis that is it is chiefly seen in Synods Bucanus (f) Loc. CoÌ„ Loc. 43. qu. 21 22 25 27. writes much to the same purpose and asscribeth unto Synods authority of making lawes of deciding controversies and this from the example of that Synod Act. 15. often mentioned by him Mr Fenner (t) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 278-281 briefly and methodically describing the nature of Synods the kindes the use authority of them doth derive their authority from this ground Act. 15. which even in that short description is more then tenne times alledged by him Many other such Testimonies might be produced to shew the consent of judicious and learned Divines in this poynt of which somewhat more is to be sayd when I come to give answer touching that multitude of Authors which Mr Canne alledgeth against me Let us now heare what my Opposites say concerning this Example Mr Dav. his Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered I. DAV * Apol reply p. 254. 255. This Text Act. 15. is alledged by Bellarmine to prove the binding force of the decrees of Councills and by the Answerer to shew the authority of the Classis whereunto Iunius giveth 2 answers also 1. Non sequitur ex particulari si custodienda fuerint decreta Concilii Apostolici ergo omnium servari oportere It
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
time they came more then twise so farre unto Synods Had this combination of Churches and their authority in judging brought the Churches into Antichristian bondage as the Brownists call it See before Pag. 32. then might it have bene sayd unto all these travellers as once unto the Idolatrous Jewes O ye swift dromedaries c. keep your feet from barenes and your thoat from thirst Ier. 2.23.25 IV. It is to be observed how he omitteth the things that were specially intended by me for the conviction of those I had to deale with by the testimony and reasoning of one of their owne fellowes Whereas I grounded my reproof of them upon his confession and the conclusion I made did arise from the premisses of his assertion this is passed by so that the Reader cannot understand the force of my reasoning in that place and yet he cryes out to me teaching his client to say But before you make such hasty conclusions have a little patience to heare us to speak for ourselves W.B. should rather have sayd to heare what a Brownist can say for us and how Mr Canne can defend the matter I desire the Reader to look on my (t) Answ to W.B. p 87. 88. first Answer and then to judge whether that was a hasty conclusion wherein the ancientest of themselves went before me But let us heare how he proceeds I. CAN. (v) Churches plea. p. 34. I pray how can you prove that the Officers of these two Churches being 200 miles asunder were combined and met ordinarily together as the Classes doe to determine the cases of many Churches ANSVV. I. Their combination is manifest in this act of communion and comming together for the judgement and decision of the controversy raised among them II. That they met ordinarily together I never sayd neither doe I affirme it this being not a Classicall but a Synodall Assembly according to the common distinction thereof and according to the practise among us III. That they determined the cases of many Churches I shewed * Pag. 69. before from Act. 15.23 16.4 I. CAN. Orhow doe you prove that there was any officer at all of Antioch in Ierusalem at this time ANSVV. I prove it I. Because Paul and Barnabas were both speciall Deputies of the Church of Antioch and likewise had such a generall calling as made them Officers of every Church II. Because the Apostles which then remained at Ierusalem as Peter and Iames were as well Officers of Antioch as of Ierusalem Apostles being Governours of all Churches III. For the other messengers sent from Antioch seeing Elders are approved by the Church as sittest to mannage the affaires thereof therefore it was reasonable that at least some of them should be sent about this busines thereupon Iunius as is * Pag. 68. before noted takes it for granted that the Elders of the Church of Antioch were among those that judged in this Synod I. CAN. Briefly or how doe you proove that the brethren sent from Antioch exercised authority in the Church at Ierusalem ANSVV. That the Deputies sent from Antioch had authority and power of suffrages in the Synod at Ierusalem appeareth by the generall and speciall commissions given unto them as is mentioned in the answer to his former demand As Paul once answered for himself and for Barnabas upon another occasion when he was carped at by some in the Church of Corinth Or I onely and Barnabas have we not power c. 1. Cor. 9.6 so might he have answered for both in this case for let Mr C. shew if he can what publick Ecclesiasticall meeting could have bene in those times in any Church touching any controversy that concerned any generall doctrine of the Gospell yea or the censure of manners in any other person wherein Paul and Barnabas might not exercise authority with others I. CAN. Yet all this you must make good otherwise you are guilty of abusing and perverting the Scripture in affirming that the power which the Classis exerciseth was practised at Antioch and Ierusalem and by Apostolicall direction This you have spoken but it is untrue c. ANSVV. I. Suppose I had not made good all that he required me to proove suppose the Church of Ierusalem alone had judged the controversy and that no Officer of the Church of Antioch had bene among them with any authority yet this example of one Church judging the controversy risen in another doth shew that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church within itself but that the causes of one Church may be submitted unto the judgement of another This is the substance of the Question betwixt us and this being granted it followes that Churches have liberty to appoint Classes and Synods for the mutuall judging of their causes as occasion shall require II. By charging me with untrueth in such manner as here he doeth he makes himself guilty of double untrueth for 1. This affirmation here mentioned was not mine at that time but his in whose name I repeated it and that with condition if it were so If the Churches here doe practise c. as may be plainly seen in the forementioned place of my Answer 2. Though at that time I intended not to dispute the cause but first waited for the proofes of such as accused me yet had I then used such an affirmation yet it had bene true as I shew throughout this Chapter and therefore it was an untrueth in Mr Canne to avouch the contrary And as for that place Ier. 23.31 which he misapplyeth against me the threatning contained therein is to be feared of him who hereafter abuseth perverteth so many Scriptures for the subverting of Synods I. CAN. IIII. It is certaine that at Ierusalem not onely the Apostles and Elders met together but as Luke expresseth it vers 12 22. the Church also being interested in the thing And therefore gave sentence with the rest to the decree then made Observe what D. Whitaker replyes unto Bellarmine denying the multitude to be called It was alwayes sayth hee (x) De Cōc Qu. 8. c. 3. Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 96. 97. the practise of the Apostles in common cases to call the whole Church together and no doubt but they did so here Now there was no need to have it mentioned seeing it had bene their constant custome formerly so to doe Mr Parker (y) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 108. 126. 334. affirmes the same So the Authours of the Cent. (z) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. p. 547. 548. And it seemes in Cyprians (a) Lib. 4. Epist 16. time the Church was not deprived of her right herein howsoever the Papists (b) Bellarm. de Conc. Eccl. l. 1. c. 16. p. 39. in those dayes teach otherwise and Mr Paget and others doe otherwise practise ANSVV. I. In that not onely the Apostles and Elders but other brethren also gave sentence with therest to the decree then made
it followeth hence from the consideration of that which is here confessed to be done by each kinde of person here mentioned that the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition but also to give sentence and to make decrees which are acts of authority and power The errour of Bellarmine and the Papists is (c) De Con. cil l. 1. c. 15. 16. that onely Majores Praelati the greater sort of Prelates such as are their Bishops and Archbishops and by priviledge or custome Cardinals Abbots and Generals of Orders have jus suffragii decisivi that is authority to give definitive sentence that Presbyters Elders and other Doctours or learned men in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum a voyce in consultation liberty to give counsell to deliberate and dispute but not to give definitive sentence in the deciding of any matter Thus they take away the right and power of judging from one half or more of those persons that are to appeare in Synods The errour of the Brownists and other our Opposites is that all the persons in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum onely power to deliberate to advise and give counsell that all jurisdiction is limited unto a particular Church and so they destroy wholly the authority of Synods which the Papists doe in part The Papists deprive one half of the persons of their power and these deprive all the persons of their power But now in this case Mr Canne by his confession refutes both these errours granting jurisdiction a power of giving sentence and making decrees unto the people as well as others Thus is he condemned out of his owne mouth Thus is he condemned by those whom he alledgeth when D. Whitaker sayth of Act. 15. (d) De Cōc qu. 3. c. 3. p. 97. In hoc ergo Concilio quivis laicus Presbyter definitivum suffragium habuit non minus quam Petrus that is In this Synod every lay-man and Elder had a definitive voyce as well as Peter Thence it followes that there was an authority and jurisdiction in the Synod it was not onely for advise and counsell He saith againe (e) Ibid. c. 2. p. 85. The end of Synods is to decide controversies to prescribe Canons to correct abuses to set Churches in order c. What plainer evidence of their power can we seek for This same authority of Synods is in like manner proved by that which (f) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 108 126. 334. Mr Parker to like purpose witnesseth together with D. Whitak and others II. Mr Canne here doth yet blame our practise in depriving the Church of her right and the people of their interest and is so eager in seeking to blame the manner of our keeping Synods that unawares he hath yeelded us the matter itself about which we dispute viz. an authority of giving sentence and not onely a giving of counsell by Synods His reprehension is that Mr Paget and others doe otherwise practise But who be those others beside me Why did he not name them as well as me Are they any other then all the knowne Reformed and Orthodox Churches in Europe He might well think that if he had mentioned these the very naming of them and my following of their practise would have bene not so great a blame unto me as an occasion of making himself suspected and condemned for his unjust opposing of them That it may the better appeare how unjustly he blameth our practise let us examine more particularly what he hath sayd and withall set downe some observations whereby the peoples right in Synods may the better be discerned I. To shew the peoples interest he alledgeth Act. 15.12 22. where there is mention made of the multitude that was present and of the whole Church sending messengers c. But by the multitude we may understand not the whole number of the Church at Ierusalem which consisted of many thousands but rather the multitude of such speciall persons as were met in the Synod So Beza interpreteth it (g) Annot. maj in N.T. in Act. 15.12 Multitudinis autem nomine intellige non totam Ecclesiam c. By the name of the multitude understand not the whole Church which was not yet wholy adjoyned but the whole company of the Apostles and Elders as appeareth before from the 6 verse c. Piscator likewise (h) Schol. in Act. 15.12 approves this interpretation and addes some further light unto it from the reference of the Greek article though he also give liberty for another interpretation So for that phrase the whole Church mentioned vers 22. Iunius (i) Animad in Contr. 4. de Conc. l. 1. c. 15. n. 19. c. 16. n. 1. expounds the same of the Elders and Deacons or the whole Clerus or Clergy serving that Church these saith he are designed by the common name of the Church Calvine also (k) Cōmen in Act. 15.6 writes to the same purpose Luke saith not that the whole Church was gathered together but those that were men of learning and judgement and which by vertue of their office were lawfull judges of this cause It may be indeed that the disputation was before the people but lest any man should think that the common people were promiscuously admitted to handle the cause Luke expressely nameth the Apostles and Elders as more sit to take cognition thereof II. We grant that besides Ministers and Elders other members of the Church may have suffrages or voyces and give sentence in Synods as well as those that are Officers alwayes provided that they be lawfully deputed and sent thereunto Thus D. Whitaker explaines himself touching his allowance of lay-men to have voyces in Synods and sayth (l) De Conc. qu. 3. c. 2. p. 92. Every man ought not to be admitted into the Synod nor to speak therein but he that shall be chosen of the Church and designed thereunto Againe he saith (m) Ibid. c. 3. p. 103. Not onely Bishops are to be chosen of the Church to be sent unto Synods but other godly prudent learned men which happily can dispute more skilfully and inquire into controversies better then the Bishops Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the Church And so (n) p. 97. 98. 104. oft in other places Iunius in like manner (o) Animadv de Cōc l. 1. c. 15. n. 4. c. 16. n 1. n. 10. requires of such as have voyce in Synods that they be furnished with gifts and calling whether Officers or any others And this also is the practise of the Reformed Churches in these parts where upon occasion divers times some such are deputed and sent unto Synods which have no Ecclesiasticall office and even in the Nationall Synod at Dort divers other members of the Church which were neither Ministers nor Elders were sent thither allowed to be Delegates were to have not onely deliberative but also definitive voyces as well as any other
as appeares (p) Act. Synod Nat. Dordr Sess 4. Art 3. in the lawes orders prescribed by the Illustrious LL. the States Generall c. III. Even of those which by a lawfull election deputation are sent unto Synods whether they be Ministers and Elders or other members of the Church there ought to be a limited and certaine number for if every Church in a whole nation might send as many as they would or could there might be thousands and ten thousands gathered together into some Synods whereby great confusion and disorder in the discussing and judging of many causes would apparently follow D. Whitaker saith (q) De Cōc q. 3. p. 81. Certainly confusion cannot be avoyded when too many meet together And as for that Synod at Ierusalem he saith * Ibid. q. 1. c. 6. That assembly could not be great because they were compassed about with the Priests and Pharisees And therefore also in the practise of these Churches there is a certaine number determined of such as are to be sent unto Synods as appeareth likewise in (r) Act. Synod Nat. Dordr Sess 4. Art 3. those lawes before mentioned If Mr Canne will allow any limitation of number and can therein satisfy himself that he doth not deprive the people Churches of their right he may thereby also satisfy himself for any thing that he objecteth unto us in this behalf IV. We doe further grant this liberty even unto such as are no Delegates or Deputies of the Church that though they be not allowed for judges yet many of them (ſ) Inn. Animadv in Bell. de Concil l. 1. c. 15. n. 2.3 9. as hearers may for their edification be present at the cōmunication conference in the Synod that they may profit in godlines This also is the practise of these Churches both in Provinciall and Nationall Synods so farre as the place will conveniently receive a competent number and so also it was observed in the Nationall Synod at Dort V. This liberty of hearing in Synods is so moderated restrained that though they which have no calling unto the Synod may heare questions touching doctrine and religion discussed yet such are not allowed to be present and to heare when personall matters of scandall and offence come to be examined because as Iunius saith (t) Ibid. c. 15. n. 9. contra charitatem fuisset Nam veritatis cognitio ad omnes pertinet infirmitatum minime that is It had bene against charity for the knowledge of the trueth belongs unto all the knowledge of infirmities not so VI. Touching the right and liberty of Synods there are many other things to be further observed When Mr Cartwright had spoken very much for the liberty of the people in Synods yet for prevention of mistaking and by way of correcting himself after a sort he saith (v) Confut. of the Rhemists Ann. on Act. 15. V. 6. n. 5. Yet write we not this as though the peoples presence either in all Councels where the doctrine is not in controversy were * The negative particle added there seemes to be the Printers fault being concrary to that which went before and followes after making no good sense in his words is therefore to be omitted needfull or that in those Councels where they were present they have like right with those Bishops and Elders For they we mean Bishops and Elders may first by a severall and foreset deliberation take counsell whether it be expedient to propound any such matter as is in cōtroversie in that Councell where the people shall be present Whereby if they perceive any generall and obstinate opposition of them against the truth they may hold that poynt of doctrine back This we see to have been done by Iosias who or ever he assembled the people first of all assembled the Elders of Iuda and Ierusalem 2. King 23.1 Also by Iames who at Pauls arrivall to Ierusalem first assembled the Elders to debate of the matter or ever he was presented before the Church Act. 21.18 19. Secondly if the people should bewray a wilfull stubbornesse against the truth not suspected by them yet the Governours being sound without whom there can nothing be concluded there should not follow any prejudice of the Councels authority against the trueth albeit the number of the people assembled were greater then of those Bishops and Elders Hereupon it commeth that the Decrees of the Councell are after called the Decrees of the Apostles Elders leaving out the brethren which Luke had first set downe And upon the same ground in the decision of doubtfull matters Moses Deut. 17. commandeth that they should have recourse unto the Priests of the Leviticall stocke for that they bare the principall sway in those deliberations Lastly the case of Councels being as it hath bene declared it is no marvell although Augustine call a Generall Councell in some respect the consent of the whole Church considering that not onely those Bishops and Elders but some of the people were in all likelyhood there assembled That which Mr Cartw. sayth of the severall and foreset deliberation agreeth with that which Beza (x) Ann. in Act. 15.12 writes of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or foregoing consultation The same is acknowledged by (y) S. Theo. l. 7. p. 277. Mr Fenner also And hereunto accordeth that which Gersom Bucerus fitly noteth concerning the meaning of Cyprian who writing unto the Elders Deacons that he had determined from the beginning of his government to doe nothing by his owne judgement privately (z) Cyprian l. 3. ep 10. without their counsell and without consent of the people Bucerus explaineth his speech distinctly on this manner (a) Dissent de Gub. Eccles p. 145. Behold first he mentions the counsell which was to be borrowed from the Presbytery and then the consent whereby the judgement of the Presbytery was publickly approved of the people And this he applyes also to the order of that judgement described 1. Cor. 5. But concerning the judgement of Cyprian we have occasion to speak more hereafter I. CAN. V. Howsoever the Church at Antioch sent some Brethren with Paul and Barnabas unto the Church at Ierusalem notwithstanding and let it be well observed they did not this as being a dependent body and standing under another Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves For as Mr Parker (b) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 20. p. 301. 314. excellently proves it the Church at Antioch at this time had absolute power in and for her self to have ended the controversy and might have done it I say in respect of authority without acquainting therewith any other Congregation at all To the same purpose another saith (c) D. Whit. Conc. qu. 1. c. 1. The Church of Antioch sent not to Ierusalem as being bound in duety thereto But in regard it was the chief place of Religion therefore they made choyse freely of that Congregation as knowing them to be best
able to resolve the controversie True it is the Hierarchie (d) D. Whit. g. T. C. 3. deny this of whose opinion Mr Paget must either be or els the Classes as they now rule must fall to the ground for any relief that this Scripture Act. 15. will yeeld unto them ANSVV. 1. Had Mr Canne well understood the state of the question or what he saith and whereof he affirmes he might easily have knowne that we are of the same minde with Mr Parker in this that as Antioch so every other particular Church hath like authority to end their owne controversies if they finde themselves able This condition concealed by Mr Canne is foure or five times repeated by Mr Parker in the (e) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301 302. place alledged speaking of Antioch and other particular Churches with these expresse words si modo possit si modo vires suppetivissent c. if they could if they had ability if they found not themselves too weak in case of impotency c. Mr Canne hiding these conditions from the eyes of his Readers doth hereby hood-wink them and keeps them in darknes from seeing the right meaning of Mr Parker 11. Besides the case of impotency alledged by Mr Parker there was another reason why this controversy at Antioch was to be brought unto a Synod viz. because it was causa communis a common cause that concerned both many other Churches in regard of the matter and in speciall the Church of Ierusalem because the authours of this controversy were not members of the Church of Antioch but came from Iudaea and from them of Ierusalem Act. 15.1 24. and therefore that Church of Ierusalem had more right and authority to judge of them then they of Antioch had 111. Whereas he would have it to be well observed that the Church of Antioch sent to them of Ierusalem not as being a dependent body standing under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves the right and well observing hereof stands in this that we acknowledge particular Churches to be dependent bodies not by way of subjection unto any one supposed to have more authority then the rest but so dependent that every one is equally and mutually subject to one another as occasion requireth The Churches of Ierusalem of Antioch of Samaria and others were all of equall authority and yet each standing under the authority of a Synod compounded of them all and this appeareth by the instance of this controversy referred here to the decision of the Synod at Ierusalem IV. For the testimony of D. Whitaker (f) Conc. qu. 1. c. 1. that the Church of Antioch sent not to Ierusalem as being bound in duety thereto 1. It is misalledged by him for in the Chapter mentioned by him there are no such words to be found the words are indeed Mr Parkers and not of another as he sayth poynting at D. Whit. in his margine He jumbles testimonies together that which one sayth he sets downe in anothers name and followes the mistake that is in Mr Parkers (g) Pa. 314. book through the Printers or Writers fault And though in the (h) De Cōc Qu. 1. c. 2. p. 6. Chapter following D. Whit. sayth of Ierusalem that there was as it were a certaine castle of Religion and the head of the Church yet the other words are none of his So licentious and negligent is Mr C. in his quotations 2. For the thing it self though in the combination of Churches into Synods they are not limited and simply bound in duety ex obligato as Mr Parker sayth to any one Church more then another yet this freeth them not from their duety of uniting themselves to some Classes or Synods even as particular persons though they be not simply bound to one Congregation more then another but may use a Christian liberty therein yet are they bound in duety to joyne themselves as members to some Chuch and further where no absolute necessity is imposed yet godly wisedome teacheth men a duety in respect of circumstances and accidentall occasions to make choyse of one Church rather then another V. He alledgeth D. Whitg so defectively that no man by his quotation can tell how to finde his words But whereas he sayth of the Hierarchy that I must either be of their opinion or els the Classes as they now rule must fall to the ground for any relief c. this consequence remaines to be declared and proved by him I. CAN. VI. When the Hierarchie alledge Act. 15. to proove their Diocesan and Provinciall Synods lawfull marke how they are answered by the Reformists (i) Park Polit Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 315 316. The particular acts of the Apostles in cases alike must alike be observed If this reason be effectuall as indeed it is against them then it is no lesse effectuall against the Classes Now I have in part already shewed how quite contrary their doings are unto the Example in Act. 15. unto which this further may be added that the matter carried from Antioch to Ierusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church Pag. 338. and sent thither by their mutuall desire and consent And hence our Divines teach that the power of bringing things from one Congregation to another belongeth not to any one Officer but to the whole Church If this be true by what word of God then doth Mr Paget by his * Thus he is accused by our Elders in the records of our Church Oct. 6. 1631. owne authoritie and without the consent of the Consistory or any one of them carry matters to the Classis and there he and they together undoe all that which the Elders with the Churches consent had before joyntly concluded ANSVV. 1. That the particular acts of the Apostles in cases alike must alike be observed I doe willingly grant and thereupon ground our Argument for the authority of Synods To this end it is alledged of Mr Parker in this very place which Mr C. doth cite viz. to shew how controversies are to be brought from particular Churches not to one person to a Bishop or Arch-Bishop as the Hierachy would have it but unto a Synod according to the example in Act. 15. How Mr Canne doth imagine that this should be effectuall against Classes he neither declareth neither can I conjecture II. Whereas he addeth that the matter carried from Antioch to Ierusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church c. I argue thence if a whole Church sometime be so offended and troubled by false teachers that they hold it needfull to seek help of a Synod it is lesse marvell that sometimes one or two should be driven to seek such help Had there bene but one person in Antioch troubled and unsatisfyed in conscience about that poynt of justification and salvation by the works of the Law who could have forbidden him to seek help of the Synod either by way of counsell or judgement when he could not finde it
at home And in matters of judgement seeing justice is to be done to one person as well as to a multitude Ier. 21.12 22.3 Esa 58.6 Amos 5.12.24 therefore if one person think himself oppressed by a particular Church the liberty of appeale is not to be denyed him III. Whereas they say Hence our Divines teach c. whom do they meane by this phrase our Divines Doth W. B. mean the Arminian Divines unto whom he hath declined and is become one of their disciples Doth Mr C. mean the Divines of the Separation The communion of other Divines is renounced by them And these also are such that if a whole Church together should agree to referre their controversies unto the judgement of a Synod they hold it to be an Antichristian bondage Doe they mean Mr Parker whom they alledged immediately before and unto whom they seem to have reference by that ambiguous quotation so set downe in the margine as if it belonged unto that which went before Yet he is but one and none of theirs Mr Parker saith indeed * Pol. Eccl. p. 338. there that this delegation and power of delegating is not in one Bishop but in the Churches themselves He speakes of that communication of Churches when some deale with others concerning any Ecclesiasticall busines by sending their delegates or messengers unto them which power of sending delegates in Ecclesiasticall affaires he proves to be in the Church it self and not in any one Bishop in opposition unto the Hierarchy who will have such businesses to be done by themselves and in their owne name That which Mr Parker sayth is no way contrary unto the practise of the Classes and Synods where the Deputies and Delegates of the Churches appeare in the name of those severall Churches from which they are sent acknowledging the power of their delegation to be derived unto them from the same Mr C. and W. B. confound these two things which are to be distinguished viz. the dealing in Church affaires in the name of the Church which they onely are allowed to doe who are chosen of the Church and designed thereunto and the propounding of personall grievances in case of appeale or complaint touching any thing that is amisse which as we sayd before is free unto every Officer and member of the Church when he cannot otherwise be satisfyed he doing it still in his owne name Now both these may be understood by that their phrase of bringing things from one Congregation to another whereas Mr Parker meant onely the former as is plaine by his whole discourse in the place mentioned though Mr C. and W. B. would faine apply it unto the latter as appeares by the inference which thence they make against me But for this their opinion they cannot shew any one word of God nor any one Divine whereas I have the * Pag. 37.41 witnesse of both IV. Touching the accusation of me in particular that I have brought matters to the Classis without consent of the Consistory or any one of them c. how earnest soever they be both in the line and in the margine to load me with double rebuke yet their owne words fall upon them and while they seek to accuse they excuse me rather for if it be as they say then it appeares that the matter I took in hand was such as might stand firme upon tryall and examination by the Deputies Ministers and Elders of many Churches when as the contrary proceedings were all undone and came to nothing And yet it is also false which they say of the Churches consent the matter being never propounded unto the Church nor their consent required or asked notwithstanding all that was done by some particular persons The complaints and reproaches with which they make up their 6 Exception are not worth the answering The testimony of the English Church at Franekford is afterward to be considered I. CAN. VII The thing then and there concluded was divine Scripture imposed upon all other Churches of the Gentiles although they had no delegates there v. 22 28. ch 16.4 ANSVV. I. The Argument is not taken from the infallibility of trueth that was in the decrees of this Synod but from the order according to which they were made and the persons determining the things that were then and there concluded being such as did not all belong unto that particular Congregation where the controversy was raysed II. Though the decrees in that Synod were grounded upon the Scriptures as I granted * Pag. 66. before yet they could not be sayd to be divine Scripture untill they were by Luke recorded among the Acts of the Apostles neither was it manifest unto all that they were according to the Scriptures untill it was concluded in the Synod for els it had bene in vaine to have repaired thither for this resolution III. He that would seem to say * Pag. 69. before out of D. Whit. that this assembly did binde onely but in a speciall or particular meeting doth now acknowledge that the thing then and there concluded did binde all other Churches of the Gentiles being imposed upon them all to be observed by them It is true indeed that the decrees of this Synod were directed and delivered unto severall Churches of the Gentiles where the observation of them was judged to be necessary not onely because they were by infallible direction from the holy Ghost which reason is implyed by Mr Robinson from whence this and the substance of most of the former exceptions is borrowed when he addes (k) Iustif of Sep. p. 199. and so imposed upon all other Churches c. but besides because the Apostles were chief judges in this Synod who as I have shewed often * Pag. 62 72. before were as Delegates from all the Churches in which respect as was also noted * Pag. 69. out of Mr Cartwright this Synod may be accounted a Generall Councell I. CAN. VIII It is observable how Mr Paget stumbleth at the same stone and misapplyeth the very same place of Scripture as the Papists (l) Rhem. on the place c. have done before For thus they write Paul and Barnabas condescended to referre the whole controversie the determination thereof to the Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem that is to say to commit the matter to be tryed by the Heads and Bishops and their determination in Councill And indeed such application of it better serves the turne of Iesuits and Priests that seek to set up the Popes Supremacie and a Tyrannicall Hierarchie then those that desire to stand for the Rights and Priviledges which Christ hath given unto his Church ANSVV. There is nothing sayd here but either it is refuted by that which I have sayd already or els it is a mere begging of the question by avouching that which remaines by him to be prooved and which I am to disprove when I come to the examination of his Arguments Though the Papists abuse and
pervert this place yet that is no prejudice to our and others right use of it as I shewed before * Pag. 35.36 touching the like exception about Deut. 17. How can I be sayd to misapply this place as the Papists have done seeing I doe not apply it in such sort as they have done either to derogate from the certainty of the doctrine preached by Paul and Barnabas which their opinion noted in those very words of the Rhemists which he cites I have * Pag. 70 before rejected or to prove that Councels have absolute authority and that their decrees are infallible which errour of theirs I have in like manner disclaimed both in my (m) Ans to W. B. p. 89. former writing and at the very * Pag. 29. p. 6 67. See before p. 63 64 65. first entrance into this Dispute In a word seeing I have applyed this place no otherwise then other Orthodox Divines have done before me it is needles to insist further upon this matter CHAP. V. An Answer to the Allegations of Mr Davenport touching the Authority of Synods HAving searched through Mr Day his book for some speciall Arguments from the Scripture to shew the undue power of Classes and Synods whereof he with others doth accuse them I doe therein finde my self deceived and frustrate of my expectation He speaks oft of the warrant of the word but he brings it not where and when it most concerned him I finde onely in one piece of a leafe (a) Apol. reply p. 236. a few testimonies of Scripture but so loosely and ambiguously noted without framing any Argument from them or without applying them directly to the Question that men hardly can guesse at his meaning I finde also the most of the very same testimonies first alledged by Mr Canne before Mr D. his book came forth and by him framed into Arguments and therefore in answer to Mr Can. I shall speak something of them in the next Chapter That which he doth most largely insist upon is the writing and testimonies of men and of these he sayth (b) Ibid. p. 238. I will not stand to give a Catalogue of their names though I might be plentifull therein but will content my self with the three Writers of this kinde whom the Answerer pretended in conference with me to make for him and I shall shew them to be strongly against him Mr Cartwright and Mr Fenner and Mr Parker men of our owne nation SECT I. His Allegation of Mr Cartwright answered FOr Mr Cartwright His owne words undivided are these (c) T. C. ◠Reply p. 49 2 edit And if it should happē which may come to passe that any Church should desire or choose or consent upon by the most part some that is unmeet either for doctrine or manners then the Ministers and Elders of the other Churches round about should advertise first and afterward as occasion should serve sharply severely charge that they forbeare such election or if it be made that they confirme it not by suffering him to exercise any ministerie And if either the Churches round about doe faile of this duety or the Church which is admonished rest not in their Admonition then to bring it to the next Synode and if it rest not therein then the Prince or Magistrate which must see that nothing in the Churches be disorderly and wickedly done ought to drive that Church from that election to another which is convenient Now upon these words Mr Dav. without any just explication or further declaration thereof makes this bold and unreasonable conclusion (d) Apol. reply p. 47. Thus Mr Cartwright So that in his judgement other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good But that Mr Cartw. giveth more power unto the Churches and Synod then that which every Christian hath more then the power of admonition onely it appeareth thus I. He doth in this place manifestly distinguish betwixt admonition a charge or commandement which implyes a greater power and authority when as he sayth of the Classis or of the Ministers and Elders of the Churches round about that they should advertise first which notes their admonition and afterward sharply severely charge which implyes a commandement and authority therein Therefore in Scripture one and the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word is usually and indifferently translated either to charge or command Matt. 10.5 Luk. 8.29 Act. 1.4 4.18 5.28 1. Tim. 4.11 with Luk. 5.14 8.56 1. Tim. 1.18 5.7 6.13 17. thereby to expresse a speciall authoritie of such as use the same And the propriety of this word is thus declared by Mr Cartwr himself when expounding those words of Paul 1. Tim. 6.13 he saith (e) T. C. 1 Rep. p. 177. It is to be noted that he saith I denounce or I charge he doth not say I exhort or give counsell leaving it to the liberty of Timothie And thus here we are in like manner to understand him when he tells how a Classis of Ministers and Elders were sharply and severely to charge a Church that they used an authority more then of exhorting or admonishing and counselling so that the matter was not left in the liberty of them that were so charged II. He proceeds further and after both admonition and a severe charge or prohibition he shewes that the Classis hath yet more to doe in this busines if their charge be not regarded in respect of the unlawfull election viz. that they confirme it not by suffering him to exercise any ministery Whereas ordinarily Ministers newly elected are confirmed and ordained by imposition of hands by some Ministers of the Churches neere unto them this Mr Cartwr would have to be denyed unto him And this denyall of his ordination after his election is to be esteemed a kinde of censure in some sort proportionable to the deposition of a Minister already confirmed seeing keeping out or casting out from the Ministery are actions of like nature And this is that which Mr Fenner who was well acquainted with the meaning of Mr Cartwr in these things poynteth at when speaking of a controversy rising in a Church about the calling of a Minister he saith (f) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 2. p. 244. that the cause is to be referred unto the judges whom it concerneth and who are after mentioned that they may eyther ratify the election or make it frustrate Now in the Ecclesiasticall politie these judges are no other then Classes or Synods whereof he afterward speakes and this their abrogating and making voyd an unlawfull election is a power more then simple admonition III. Whereas Mr Cartwr here saith that if either the Churches round about doe faile of this duety or the Church which is admonished rest not therein then to bring it to the next Synod c. hereupon (g) Def. of Answ to Admon p.
173. D. Whitgift calles for proof of Scripture commandement or example to justify this order Mr Cartw. in his second Reply having first shewed other warrant for admonition by Churches proceeds further and saith (h) T.C. 2 Reply p. 231 232. That from the admonition of the Churches it is meet to come to Synods if the judgement of the Churches be contemned may be shewed by proportion from the place of our Saviour Christ in S. Matthew ch 18. for as when one brother is not mooved with the admonition of two or three the matter must be referred unto the Church to see whether the majestie of it will moove him whom the authority of two or three would not even so it is meet that the Church that maketh light of the judgement of two or three Churches should be pressed with the judgements of the Diocesse or Province as shall be in that behalf advised From this proportion seeing the rule Matt. 18. was not onely a rule of admonition but also a rule for the exercise of authority in censuring it followes hence in like manner that many Churches combined in a Synod have power to censure as well as to admonish IV. Mr Cartwr doth further declare his meaning in the same place when he alledgeth the example of the Reformed Churches in this matter If I were in this poynt saith (i) Ibid. p. 232. he destitute of the word of God yet the naked examples of the Reformed Churches ought to weigh downe a Popish custome Now it is undenyable that the Reformed Churches doe allow the use of Classes and Synods not onely for counsell or admonition but also for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall authority and jurisdiction in judging of causes censuring of offendours V. Mr Cartwr speaking of the utmost that can be done by a Classis or by Ministers and Elders of neighbour Churches in time of persecution wanting a Christian Magistrate against an obstinate Church that refuseth to be admonished saith (k) T.C. 1 Repl. p. 52. If they excommunicate the whole Church it is a hard matter and yet if they may doe that there is all they can doe To excommunicate a whole Church together is indeed a hard thing and such a thing as I never heard of in the practise of the Reformed Churches yet this intimates that he thought they had a power of excommunicating at least some if not all upon a just occasion And when D. Whitg (l) Def. of Answ to Adm. p. 675 answering to a testimony of Cyprian alledged by Mr Cartwr saith Who ever denyed but that the Synods might excommunicate Mr C. (m) Rest of 2 Rep. p. 89 replying againe unto him yet shewes no dislike at all or difference from his Opposite herein which yet he ought to have done if he had thought it an undue power to have reproved him for giving this power of the greatest censure even of excommunication unto Synods Hence it appeares that he was farre from limiting all jurisdictiō unto a particular Church that he allowed Synods more power then of counselling or admonishing VI. Mr Parker speaking of this very place in Mr Cartw. and vindicating it from the opposition of D. Whitg shewes that he agrees with me in the interpretation thereof and not with Mr Dav. He sayth (n) Pol. Ecc. lib. 3. c. 24. p. 353. Cum pressisset Thomas Cartwrightus Ecclesiarum Reformatarum morem c. When T. C. had urged the manner of the Reformed Churches in correcting the faulty election of Ministers first by a Classis if that prevayled not by a Synod if that fayled also by the Magistrate c. For if the example custome and practise of the Reformed Churches be urged herein then doth he not speak of hindring an unlawfull election by admonition or counsell onely then doth he acknowledge a further authority of judgement censure in the Classes VII The judgement of Mr Cartwr touching the authority of Synods is manifest by that right which he asscribeth unto them for the decision of causes and not for counsell onely as was shewed * Pag. 47. 48. before and this may further be seen by that blame which is imputed unto him for Scottizing and Genevating declared * Chap. 7. sect 5. hereafter Had he bene of this new opinion he could not have defended the cause of Reformation so as he did but should have opened the mouth of his adversaries against him otherwise then he hath done SECT II. His Allegation of Mr Fenner examined FOr Mr Fenner in the allegation of his Testimony Mr Dav. hath made himself guilty of a threefold unfaithfulnes 1. in the omission of such things as snew his minde fully touching Synods 2. in the mistranslation of his words 3. in the misinterpretation and false collections that he maketh from them I. For his omissions I. He omitteth that definition of Ecclesiasticall politie set downe in the (o) S. Theol l. 7. c. 1. p. 241. beginning of that tractate viz. that it is a divine politie so farre as it is instituted of Christ for the government of particular Churches joyntly and severally This definition being admitted overthrowes that single uncompounded policie maintained by Mr Iacob as also the assertion of Mr Dav. for jurisdiction limited to particular Churches because herein he allowes a compounded policie not onely for counsell but for the government of Churches as well joyntly as severally Herein Ecclesiasticall policie and jurisdiction is extended further then the limits of one particular Church even unto a Synod or Classis because there is no joynt government of Churches perfectly found but in such assemblies The Scriptures also which Mr Fenner alledgeth for confirmation of this definition being many of them taken from the old Testament doe undenyably lead us unto such a joynt compound government of the Church II. He omitteth the definition of a (p) Ibidē particular Church which Mr Fen. applyes as well to the Churches and Synagogues under the old Testament as unto any since This appeares in divers of the Scriptures and instances which he bringeth to confirme his definition as namely 1. Sam. 10.5 Psa 107.32 111.1 Luk. 5.17 Mat. 4.23 Hereby it may appeare how farre different and contrary he is to Mr Iacob and those of his opinion (q) Divine beg instit of Chr. vis Church A 1. A 2. A 4. C 8. c. teaching that the Churches of the old and new Testament and their government doe differ one from the other in the very kinde nature and forme by a specificall and essentiall difference c. Then could not both have had one and the same definition in such sort as Mr F. gives it unto them comprehending also under it such assemblies as stood under a compound policie and were subject to an Ecclesiasticall judicatorie out of themselves III. He omitteth that which Mr Fenner writes touching the election of a Minister where the controversy of the Church upon the peoples objecting against the
His affirmation is (v) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 12. p. 77. that the superiorit of jurisdiction is retained in every Church so that neither the Pastour in the Prime Church nor the Praesident in the Combined Church nor yet any Bishop is above the Church but under the power of every Church This distinction of the Church is more plainly declared by him afterward where he saith (x) Ibid. c. 13. p. 117. Est itaque visibilis Ecclesia duplex Prima et Orta Prima est collectio singulorum fidelium in unam Congregationem et generali nomine Ecclesia dicitur Orta est collectio combinatio Ecclesiarum primarum plurium in unum coetum appellatur Synodus that is The visible Church is of two sorts The Prime and the Combined Church The Prime Church is a collection of severall faithfull persons into one Congregation and is called by a generall name the Church The Combined Church is a collection of more prime Churches into one company is called a Synod Now the jurisdiction which he speakes of he makes common to both and expressely applyes it to both to the combined Church or Synod as well as to the particular or prime Church And further that in the 12. chapter he spake generally of both these kindes of Churches he manifests in the first words of the 13. chapter where he begins thus (y) Ibidē Hitherto we have spoken of the Church in generall so farre as it is the subject of Ecclesiasticall politie now let us come to the divers kindes thereof II. Notwithstanding the superiority of the Church yet Mr Par. (z) Ibid. p. 77. acknowledgeth the authority of the Pastour to be very great as having it immediately from Christ and not onely the authority but also the exercise of the same authority and jurisdiction in which respect he saith he is superiour not to men onely but to the Angels themselves Gal. 1.8 as being in Christs stead 2. Cor. 5.19 20. so long as he useth this authority lawfully And repeating the same againe he proceeds further when he saith that if he doe not lawfully exercise his authority in the administration of the Word and Sacraments then he ceaseth to be a Pastour (a) Ibid. p. 88. quo casu solo eum suae Ecclesiae subjectum esse dicimus in which case alone we say that he is subject unto his Church If in this case alone which I durst not have sayd then in other cases the authority of many Pastours Elders especially meeting together in a Synod may exercise an authority superiour unto one particular Church I. DAV And in cap. 18.13 making a comparison between a particular Church and Churches combined in Synods and Classes he affirmeth that the difference between them is not in the intensive consideration of their power which the Congregation hath in reference to the Keyes within it selfe but in the extensive power onely wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects viz. to many Churches in things common whereas the power of a particular Church is confined and limited within its owne compasse ANSVV. In this 13. chap. for that number of 18. seemes to be mistaken Mr Parker doth againe give divers pregnant testimonies for the authority and jurisdiction of Synods I. In the place alledged his words are these (b) Pol. Eccl l. 2. c. 13. p. 121. I distinguish touching the power of the keyes which is intensive or extensive No prime Church no not the least of them doth want the intensive power but it wants that extensive which a Synod hath seeing the power thereof is extended to many Churches whereas the power of the prime or particular Church is not extended beyond her owne bounds The power of the keyes is a power of jurisdiction an Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing whether intensive or extensive this power he confesseth to be in a Synod and therefore the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition but for jurisdiction also in the judgement of causes Whereas according to Mr D. his allegation the difference betwixt the power of a particular Church and of a Synod is in the extensive power onely therefore the Synod is also of greater power and jurisdiction in extension unto many Churches II. In comparing the power of a particular Church with a Synod he sayth expressely (c) Ibid. p. 129. Major quidem potestas est Synodi quam unius alicujus Ecclesiae primae parochialis Greater is the power of a Synod then of any one prime or parishionall Church But if Synods could onely counsell and admonish a particular Church besides that could censure and use Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then should a particular Church have greater power then a Synod and not onely greater intensive power but as great extensive seeing a particular Church yea or a particular person may give counsell or admonition either to a Synod or to many Churches as occasion shall require It is true indeed which Mr P. saith that all the parishionall Churches are greater then their Synods seeing by a new Synod they may abrogate that which was ordained amisse by their Deputies without their consent sentence and will This he proves by many arguments and this we willingly consent unto this is the practise of all the Reformed Churches But this is sufficient for the question in hand that a Synod hath the power of the keyes and jurisdiction and greater authority then any one Church III. This is another conclusion of Mr Parkers (d) Ibid. p. 120. We say there is one forme of government instituted of Christ in all Churches both prime and combined so that we may not dreame there is in the prime Church a different forme from that which is in the combined Church neither may we imagine that in the combined Church there is another different from that by which the prime Church is governed If this assertion be true then Mr Dav. and those of his minde do dreame when they imagine so different a forme of government to be instituted in the particular Churches and Synods which he calles the combined Churches that one sort of them should onely give counsell admonition the other exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction censure I. DAV (e) Apol. reply p. 241.242 The same authour in the 20 chapter speaking of the summity or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations propoundeth the due limits of it wherein he conceiveth it is to be understood and bounded as that the power of particular Churches is chief 1. in its owne matters not in things common to many Churches 2. in case it be able to transact its owne matters within it selfe as if a doubt or controversy arise the Church hath power to terminate it if it can as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves and laboured to compose the difference within themselves but finding not a want of right to end it among themselves but need of more
helpe they sent to Ierusalem freely for the help of their counsell in this matter 3. In case of right and lawfull administration 4. In case of no evill administration presumed by those who finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence appeale to the judgement of the Synod In which 3 last limitations other Churches to whose judgement or advice persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeale doe concurr in way of counsail declaratiō of their judgement to helpe particular Churches to exercise their power aright P. 47. P. 239. in their owne matters as was before noated out of Mr Cartwr Mr Fen. out of the Authour himselfe in the foregoing passages which being so understood doeth not justifie any undue power of jurisdiction if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases manner complained of by the Subscribers how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section will appeare to the indifferent Reader whē he shall have compared both together ANSVV. The judgment of Mr P. is very partially corruptly described by Mr D. in this place for whereas Mr P. here describes 4 bridles of restraint or 4 limitations by which the supremacie of power in particular Congregations is to be moderated and kept within bounds lest it should seem to be absolute by every one of these it is manifest that he acknowledged this authority power and jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely for counsell and admonition He sayth (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301 302. The first limitation is ad rem propriam unto their proper businesse for in a common matter the Synod is chief that is the authority of Churches joyntly gathered together is the chiefest Hence it is confessed that Synods have power of jurisdiction over Churches for 1. In judging these common causes particular Churches though differing one from an other are overswayed by the most voyces and each Congregation is subject to the sentence of the Synod 2. Let any Scripture be alledged by Mr Dav. to shew the summity or soveraignty of Synods in these common causes and he shall finde thereby the use of Synods proved to be for jurisdiction in one Ecclesiasticall cause as well as in another being lawfully brought unto them for what reason is there why the counsell and admonition of a Synod may not suffice for the help of particular Churches in a common controversy as well as in other speciall businesses leaving the sentence and decision unto the prime Churches The second limitation is also in a proper businesse to wit ad casum sufficient is potestatis in the case of sufficient ability for if any Church be found unable to end their owne businesse vvho doubts but that it is bound to require the help of fellow-Churches In this case Mr P. acknowledgeth the superiority or soveraignty of power and authority in Synods but if Synods were onely for counsell admonition what needed a supremacy of power seeing inferiours may give counsell unto their superiours admonish them also of their duety Mr P. shewes well that in case of impotencie or weaknes the Church of Antioch sent to Ierusalem c. Act. 15. But this Mr D. seeks to pervert by his glosse when he saith they sent to Ierusalem for the help of their counsell as though they did not as well desire help by their authority and sentence in determining the controversy If counsell onely had bene sought why did not the Synod at Ierusalem content themselves to give counsell and advise why did they also make a decree and this not onely by authority of the Apostles but also by common authority of Elders and others that were in the Synod Act. 15.23 16.4 The third limitation is in a proper busines and ability also to wit in the case of right and lawfull administration for vve are to think the same of the Church as of every Pastour of the Church now vve have shewed before out of Gerson touching the rectour that he in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration is subject so the Church which in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration doth now beginne to be subject Even as therefore the Pastour erring and offending is subject to no one of his fellowes as to a Bishop but onely to many of his Church so also the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod Hence it is evident that Mr P. asscribed unto Synods more authority then a bare counsell or admonition onely for 1. He often useth the word of subjection which implyes an authority and jurisdiction in those to whom in regard of their calling men be subject This is passed by as unseen or unregarded in Mr D. his allegation 2. He speakes of being subject so as the Pastour erring and offending is subject to many of the Church that is to their jurisdiction and censure 3. He speakes of such subjection as is distinguished from receyving of counsell and admonition otherwise it should not be true which he sayth of the Pastours and Churches subjection seeing every Pastour erring and offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one of his fellowes and the Church erring offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one particular Church though it be not subject to the jurisdiction of any one in speciall but onely to many in a lawfull Synod The fourth limitation is in case of right administration when no evill administration is presumed or imagined for although the Church administer aright yet if any man thinking himself wronged do appeale from it the same is now become obnoxious or subject unto the censure of her fellowes and sisters so that judgement may be given in a Synod touching her administration That Mr P. here also speakes of subjection unto the jurisdiction of Synods it is evident while for the allowance of appeales he alledges in the same place the testimonies of the Synod of Sardica of the University of Paris and of D. Whitaker who doe all speak of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction for the correction and redresse of unrighteous sentences and proceedings by inferiour judges Againe in the same chapter he sayth (g) Pa. 31◠Christ would have every man to be judged of his owne Church Matt. 18. or if the judgement of his owne Church displease him yet alwayes of the Church that is of a Synod of many Churches Againe in the same page We certainly finde Mat. 18. that causes are to be ended by the Synods of the Churches and not by one man if any doe appeale from the judgement of his Church Thus we see 1. that he makes Mat. 18. a common ground for the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches 2. The very phrase of terminating or ending controversies shewes that
he spake of jurisdiction because counsell alone is not sufficient to end controversies unlesse there be authority and jurisdiction exercised withall And further whereas D. Bilson had sayd that Synods have had more power then Elderships Mr Parker assenteth saying (h) Pa. 303 So truely it ought to have bene done that they should onely have more but this more serveth not your purpose but contradicteth it for if they have had onely more it followeth that the Elderships alwayes ought to have had some power though lesse Thus expressely he acknowledgeth a power of jurisdiction in Synods as well as in Elderships and many the like assertions if need were might further be noted out of the same chapter Hereby it appeares how vaine it is which Mr D. saith that in the 3 last limitations other Churches doe concurr in way of counsell and declaration of their judgment as if that were all they did as if the Synod consisting of those Churches did not give definitive sentence of causes brought unto them And hereby it may withall appeare how the judgement of Mr Parker doth agree with the practise of the Reformed Churches which doe exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in their Synods according to those 4 limitations specifyed by him There is no matter determined by them and judged in their Synods but it may be reduced to one of these 4 heads it is either a common cause or a case of impotency where there is need of help or an unlawfull administration in some or at least a presumption of evill dealing I. DAV (i) Apol. reply p. 242. Thus have we examined his owne witnesses and finde them to be wholly for us in this cause ANSVV. Whether the forenamed witnesses Mr Cartwr Mr Fenner and Mr Parker be wholly for Mr Dav. and those of his opinion let the Reader judge His examination of Mr Par. inspeciall is done by the halves but before we come to speak of other pregnant testimonies which Mr P. hath given touching the authority and power of Synods omitted by Mr D. we will first examine another allegation which he had set downe before (k) Ibid. p. 226.227 where he labours to prove that the lawfull combination of particular Churches in Classes Synods is by way of counsell or brotherly direction and not otherwise I. DAV The reasons whereby it may be proved are weighty Mr Parker hath saved me the labour of this taske by laying downe six Arguments for the proofe of this in those his learned and elaborate treatises concerning Ecclesiasticall policy as 1. From the ground of this combination of Churches De Eccl. pol. l. 3. c. 2â— p. 329. which is love not obedience 2. From the forme of it which is communion and consociation c. 3. From the matter of it which are Churches who are aequall among themselves as members in the body which have a vicissitude of offices mutually to be performed among themselves 4. From the object of it which is res communis that which concerneth all the Churches in common 5. From the outward manner of proceeding which is collatione consiliorum by conference and communication of counsells 6. From the end of this combination which is not to receive the mandates of other Churches but their consent counsell and approbation ANSVV. In generall it is to be observed 1. That the scope of Mr Parker in this chapter is to shew in what manner many Churches are combined together in Synods namely as equals in a mutuall fellowship and not with subjection to any one Church above the rest This he propounds in the beginning as the state of the question when he savth (l) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 22. p. 327. The Hierarchy will have this combination to be subordinate and joyned with subjection unto their Hierarchy against the common opinion of all Protestants which affirme no consociation to be lawfull but that which is mutuall such as is wont to be among equalls He thought not therefore of this new found out combination by such as maintaine the single uncompounded policie but of such as is commonly received by all Protestants His arguments are all directed against the Popish and Hierarchicall combination which we also disallow with him This he repeats againe for conclusion after his six arguments saying (m) Ibid. p. 336. By all which it is plenteously demonstrated that the combination of Churches is not Hierarchicall with subjection unto any one among the rest but rather Aristocraticall wherein equalls are joyned together Neither could he call the government of Churches by Synods Aristocraticall if they did onely direct by way of counsell seeing an Aristocracy is such a government as exerciseth jurisdiction in the judgement of causes II. If Mr Parkers meaning had bene otherwise viz. that Classicall and Synodall combinations had no authority nor jurisdiction or that no Churches ought to be subject unto the same then had all his 6 arguments bene of no force neither could they proove any such matter We may see it plainly in the example of the prime or particular Churches where in the combination of many members together though the ground of it be love though the forme of it be communion though the matter of it be brethren which are equall among themselves though the object of it be res communis that which concerneth all in common though the end of it be not to receive the mandates of any one member but the consent of many yet doth it not follow hence but that such a Church and society hath power of censure and jurisdiction and that the members thereof are to be subject unto such a combination And thus also may particular Churches submit themselves to many combined together in a Synod III. If Mr Parker did not meane thus but simply denyed all jurisdiction of Synods subjection of Churches unto them then should he be contradictory to himself in that which he had so expressely and so often acknowledged in other places before as that Greater is the power of a Synod then of any one prime or particular Church and that the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod Moreover to come more particularly to each of his 6 Arguments there is something to be observed in his reasoning in every one of them that may shew unto us how he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods I. The first Argument (n) P. 329. taken from the ground of love and mutuall help is that which he saith is proved by Zepperus l. 3. c. 7. mistaken for c. 8. who in the same chapter pag. 715. describes the authority of Synods in the exercise of Discipline and the greatest censures thereof even unto excommunication therefore not for counsell onely Againe all those places of Scripture Num. 32.6 17. Eccl. 4.9 Rom. 12.13 Phil. 2.4 1. Thes 5.11 14. Heb. 10.24 13.3 1. Cor. 10.33 which he together with Zepperus doth
alledge for the warrant of this combination of Churches in Synods for their mutuall help they are all of them such as doe equally yea and primarily concerne the communion and society of severall persons and members in a particular Church where it is confessed by our opposites that there is jurisdiction as well as counsell If these places would have removed jurisdiction from Synods and condemned the subjection of Churches unto a Synod then would they also have done the like for particular Churches and have condemned the subjection of members thereunto Seeing they doe not the one therefore not the other also II. In prosequuting his 2d Argument (o) P. 330.331 taken from the forme of combination which is consociation consisting in a mutuall obligation he confirmeth it by the testimony of D. Whitaker alledging that Calvine sayd well that by brotherly charity Cont. 4. qu. 4. p. 448. not by naked authority but by letters and admonitions and other such meanes Hereticks were deposed in the time of Cyprian Deposition of Hereticks was an act of jurisdiction in Synods And againe alledging Mat. 18. as the fountaine of this combination he sayth Many Churches are combined after the same manner that the prime Churches grow together into one body in their members and therefore it must be confessed that as Mat. 18. is a ground of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in particular Churches so is it also for Synods III. Mr Parker for confirmation of his 3d Argument (p) P. 331.332 taken from the matter of this combination which are the severall Churches equall members of one body alledgeth the example of the Reubenites who when they would expresse their combination with the Tribes on this side Iordan do call it their part in the Lord which was not unequall because of the distance of place Ios 22.24 25 28. And from hence then it may appeare that as the Tribes of Israel equally combined together were not subject to any one Tribe apart and yet were each of them subject to the whole society and body of Israel so the particular Churches having each of them equall part in the Ecclesiasticall consociation of Classes and Synods though they be not subject to any one Church apart that is exalted above the rest yet may be subject to the whole society of many Churches concurring together in Synods IV. In the explication of his 4th Argument (q) P. 332 333. taken from the object which is a common matter concerning all or many Churches he alledgeth a distinction (r) Conf. with Hart. c. 8. d. 5. maintained by D. Rainolds betwixt questions of the Church requiring knowledge onely and causes of the Church requiring jurisdiction also for the judging of them Questions of the Church were sent unto them that had no jurisdiction over those that propounded them but the causes of the Church not so They in Africa were (ſ) Concil Carthag Graec. c. 2◠Milevita c. 22. forbidden to appeale unto them beyond sea viz for the decision of their personall causes which yet were to be judged by the Synods in Africa whereby it is acknowledged that Synods have a power of jurisdiction which is more then counsell Whereas Mr P. addeth The first combination of Churches is in matters of faith c. The second combination of Churches is in personall causes yet by accident onely for these properly belong unto each severall Church as they are proper yet when they become publick by accident then Churches are combined indeed but without subjection as it fell out in Cyprians time in causa lapsorum in the cause of them that fell in time of persecution which thereupon became publick because the offence was common in many Churches Lest any should stumble at these his words it is to be considered that as personall causes and offences are by accident the object of Classicall and Synodall judgements so by like kinde of accident they are the object of that judgement and jurisdiction which is exercised by particular Churches In that maine ground of Ecclesiasticall discipline Mat. 18.15 16 17. all the degrees of admonition and censure are ordained to be used according to those 4 accidentall ifs If thy brother sinne If he will not heare thee If he will not heare the witnesses If he will not heare the Church And so in like manner those 4 limitations before noted by Mr Parker are 4 accidentall cases wherein the power of Synods is to be exercised and wherein it is greater then the authority of particular Churches viz. if it be a common cause if the Church be unable if the Church administer unlawfully if it be so presumed Such kindes of accidents are properly the lawfull and just object of Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction by proportion from the same rule Matt. 18. If one member sinne or suffer it becomes a common cause so farre as it is knowne all the members suffer with it and take care for the redresse of it in a particular Church 1. Cor. 12.25 26. And if one Church sinne be in danger it becomes a common cause all the Churches that are members of the same body especially those that are united by covenant in a Classical and Synodall government are to take care for it and to seek help according to the quality of the danger Thus the community of cause inferreth combination And further for that which he repeats againe that this combination of Churches by accident is without subjection it is still to be remembred that his meaning is without subjection to any one above the rest for so he againe largely explaines himself in the same place giving instance in the Church of Carthage and in Cyprian the Bishop thereof maintayning against D. Downam that Cyprian was no Metropolitane that the province was others as well as his that in the Synod there held there was a parity that the Churches were equally combined without subjection to any one that Bishops Elders had equall power in giving their suffrages V. In setting downe the 5 t Argument (t) P. 334. taken from the outward manner of proceeding which was by conference and communication of counsels he shewes withall that therein there was an exercise of jurisdiction when as in the words of Cyprian he shewes the end of those counsels ut communi consens◠figerentur sententiae that by common consent firme decrees might be made And the authority of these judiciall sentences and decrees touching those that were fallen is further declared by Cyprian when he shewes that they were (v) Cypriā L. 1. Ep. 8. tempered with discipline and mercy whereby it is evident that there was an exercise of discipline or Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction therein and that Epistle of Cyprian containes in it sundry other sentences which shew that he spake of the administration of censure and not of counsell onely VI. In his last Argument (x) P. 335. taken from the end of this combination which was not to receive mandates but for consent counsell
and approbation he sayth it followeth hence that no one Church was superiour unto others but all were equall among themselves This he declares by instance in the Church of Rome which though in ancient time it was of great estimation and dignity yet had it no speciall authority and jurisdiction above other Churches as he shewes by the testimonies of D. Rain Whitak and Iunius But he doth not collect thence that many Churches concurring together in Synods doe want authority to judge and to give definitive sentences in the causes brought unto them Yea the contrary is manifest for whereas Bellarmine perverting the testimony of the Magdeburgenses who had sayd that the unity of faith might be preserved by the consociation of Churches which mutually were to help one another objecteth (y) DeRom Pon. l. 1. c. 9 Non sat est confilium imperium requiritur Counsell is not sufficient but authority is required Mr Parker in this (z) P. 327. same chapter alledgeth alloweth and commendeth the answer which D. Whitaker (a) DeRom Pont. Cont. 4. qu 1. p. 49 giveth unto Bellarmine viz. Consensum multorum non minus habere imperii quam unius voluntatem Sicolim Haeretici per Synodos refutati et alii in eorum locum suffecti Quid amplius postulas aut quae melior ratio excogitari potest conservandae pacis c. that is The consent of many hath no lesse authority then the will of one Thus have Hereticks bene refuted of old time and others put into their places What doe you require more or what better way of preserving peace can be thought upon c. Or what plainer testimony can Mr Dav. require for the jurisdiction of Synods They doe not answer Bellarmine that counsell alone is sufficient but plead for authority and power arising from the consent of many Iunius also answereth this objection of Bellarmine in like manner and sayth concerning the power of Synods (b) Anim. adv in Bellarm Contr 3. l. 1. c. 9. u. 74. Et est revera imperium Christi qui primum jubet per Apostolum ut spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subjiciantur deinde vero remedium adhibet 1. Cor. 11.16 quod si cui contentiosum esse videtur nos ejusmodi consuetudinem non habemus neque Ecclesiae Dei There is indeed the power of Christ who first commands by the Apostle that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets and then addeth the remedy 1. Cor. 11.16 that if any list to be contentious we have no such custome nor the Churches of God And Mr Parker in the same place reasoning in like manner confirmeth his answer and enforceth it saying What I pray you can be answered to this last reason for the Apostle Paul referreth us from the contentions of any one Church unto many whose example if it prevaile much how much more their sentence when they are assembled together in a Synod HAving answered these Allegations of Mr Dav. we may now see what wrong he hath done to Mr Parker in perverting his words and meaning and making him a Patrone of this erroneous opinion that is so prejudiciall to the Church of God in the government thereof by Synods and yet for the further clearing of the trueth and vindicating of Mr Parker and for the help of the Reader that he may better understand his meaning touching Classes and Synods for many have not his booke and many understand it not being written in Latine I will set downe his judgement more particularly touching the divers kindes and degrees of consociation of Churches with the speciall questions touching Synods and shew withall how he applyes the same to the practise of the Reformed Churches for the defence thereof in all which the jurisdiction of Synods is maintained And First comming to speak of the kindes of conjunction or consociation and shewing (c) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 22. p. 336. that some are more imperfect by way of Communication some more perfect by way of Combination The Combinations he sayth are of two sorts for some communicate among themselves by Letters onely and some both by letters messengers or Delegates These communicatory letters were called in old time Pacificall Synodall letters and Formatae And he (d) P. 337. alledgeth divers examples both from the Scripture and from the primitive Church touching this kinde of communication by letters And howsoever he notes from the Magdeburgenses that this communication by letters did not proceed from dominion and subjection c. yet this is to be understood touching the subjection of any one Church to another and not of subjection to many Churches for so he expounds himself touching this particular of communication by letters as he had often done before in generall For whereas it is objected If all Congregations be equall what shall be done in case of Schisme and Heresy when there is no Synod nor Christian Magistrate He answers (e) Ibid. c. 21. p. 324. The time scarsely falles out when no Synods can be had or if Synods be wanting yet Churches may communicate together by letters and although there be no authority in one Church above another yet many Churches joyned together either in a Synod or by letters have authority over one Church offending And in the next page (f) P. 325. againe alwayes every one Church is subject to many Churches And thus he expressely avoucheth a jurisdiction of many Churches over one even in their communication by letters And yet more particularly he applyes this to the present practise of the Reformed Churches highly commendeth the same saying (g) Ibid. c. â—2 p. 337. And now in the Reformed Churches the necessary use of Elderships is acknowledged ubi communicatio per literas primaeva purissime floret where the primitive communication by letters doth flourish in greatest purity Againe Mr Parker proceedeth in describing the consociation of Churches and sayth (h) Ibid. p. 338. The second communication of Churches followeth when some deale with others concerning any Ecclesiasticall busines not by letters onely but by messengers also This consideration is of great moment for unto whomsoever this handling of Ecclesiasticall businesses doth belong to them also of necessity doth belong the rest of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction This he often repeateth but most fully when speaking of the authority of sending messengers or Delegates he saith (i) P. 342. The power of sending Delegates in Ecclesiasticall affaires was not in any one Bishop but in the Church it self and therefore all the other jurisdiction Now it is evident that the Synod at Ierusalem did send Delegates in an Ecclesiasticall businesse Act. 15.25 26 27. and therefore according to Mr Parker did not onely consult admonish but also exercised jurisdiction therein and had the power of all other jurisdiction Thus the Reformed Churches doe dayly practise their Classes and Synods doe upon occasion send their Deputies unto particular Churches to judge compound and decide the
shewes the contrary He saith (t) P. 358. 359. The superiour power that is in Classes ariseth from the Churches that are combined in Classes c. No Church hath dominion or preheminence over another He sayth that in the Metropoliticall or Episcopall jurisdiction Churches have not their owne government but are spoyled of their Elderships and subjected to the power of one and to an externall Church namely the Cathedrall All which things are contrary in our Classes Every Church injoyeth her owne government by her owne Eldership the Classis is no externall Church much lesse an externall Court for it consisteth of these Churches that are combined so that here is no authority over many the parishes doe joyne their authority together and that equally After the combination of many Churches into one Eldership and one Classis Mr Parker proceeds (v) Pol. Eco lib. 3. c. 25. p. 362. to speak of that combination of many Churches in many Classes which is into one Synod and that either Provinciall Nationall or Generall the Nationall containing under it the Churches of sundry Provinces and the Generall comprehending the Churches of many Nations Touching Synods he speaketh of the 7 controversies about them and first of the Necessity of Synods He sayth he never knew any in the Reformed Churches to deny the necessity of Synods before Hugo Grotius that was the great friend of Arminius He sheweth from Bogerman that the Reformed doe stand for the necessity of Synods more then any other Whereas D. Sutlive condemneth such as would have status Synodos Synods kept at certaine set times and not onely extraordinary as he saith that Synod of the Apostles was Act. 15. (x) P. 364. 365. Mr Parker refureth him and argueth thus from that place This example of the Apostles sheweth that Synods are to be called as the necessity and edification of the Church requireth but there fall out so many abuses errours controversies scandals and other such things that set and frequent Synods are necessary for the neglect whereof the English Hierarchy doth sinne grievously which contenting it self with an extraordinary Synod onely doth not call a Synod after the example of the Apostles so often as abuses errours controversies and scandals doe arise but contrary to the example of the Apostles committeth all these things to the care of one Bishop alone And whereas he addeth further in the same place that the Hierarchy is crept in in place of the Synod taking violently unto it self those things which by divine right doe belong unto Synods he doth herein acknowledge the authority of Synods to be of divine right for what els or what more doth the Hierarchy snatch unto themselves then authority of censure and jurisdiction in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes Touching the second controversy about Synods viz. the authority and power of them (y) Ibid. c. 26. p 367. he notes that as there is an Aristocraticall government in Elderships so there is an Aristocraticall government by Synods and from this his assertion it followes that as the Consistories or Elderships have a jurisdiction and power of government in them and are not onely for counsell so the Synods in like manner When as he saith further (z) P. 368. that the Synods borrow that authority which they have from the prime Churches this argues that he confesseth they have some authority els how could they be said to borrow it To like purpose he argues there againe (a) P. 370. It appeares by the very obligation that Synods have their authority from the prime Churches for otherwise Synods should not binde the prime Churches unlesse by sending their Delegates they did avow their consent unlesse they have just cause afterwards of dissenting Thus he acknowledgeth a bond of authority and an obligatory power in Synods as for the exception which he addeth it is as well to be added unto any judicatory either Civill or Ecclesiasticall whatsoever for there is no jurisdiction nor authority of the highest Governours on earth that ought to binde us unto the obedience of their decrees if we have just cause of dissenting For the Convocation of Synods which is the third controversy (b) Ibid. c. 27. p. 371. Mr Parker doth maintaine and much commend the practise and order observed in these Reformed Churches and declares at large what their manner is from divers acts of their Synods He sayth it is cum sapientissime tum saluberrime instituta a most wise most wholesome institution He shewes that the Church hath power of calling Synods but where there is a Christian Magistrate (c) P. 372. this power is regulated of the Magistrate He brings (d) P. 373. c. 10 Arguments to prove that this power of calling Synods is not in a Metropolitane Bishop He sayth touching Ecclesiasticall persons (e) P. 375. The power of convocating is in no one but in many therefore Synods are not to be called by one nor by the authority of one but by the Synods themselves by the precedent assembly itself as is usuall in the Reformed Churches And speaking of Act. 15.6 he sayth Doth not this example binde all ages that the meeting in Synods be by common consent even as the Acts in the Synod are by common consent decreed This decree of calling together is an act of jurisdiction more then counsell or admonition onely The fourth controversy about Synods is concerning the Persons (f) Ibid. c. 28. p. 379. c. whereof the Synods consist Whereas Bellarmine distinguisheth betwixt the greater lesser Clerkes and alloweth unto Hierarchicall Bishops to have a deciding voyce and to the inferiour sort to have onely a consulting voyce Mr Parker shewes at large that whosoever is lawfully deputed and sent whether Ministers Elders Deacons or any of the people have a deciding voyce and may give definitive sentence in Synods and thereby he acknowledgeth the jurisdiction exercised in them He saith (g) P. 387. As the materiall foundation of Synodall right is the excellency of inward gifts not the dignity of any office so the formall foundation thereof is delegation from the Church from which whosoever they be that have receyved authority and therefore Elders also they have power of decreeing and judging in Synods And many other testimonies thereof he gives in that chapter A fift controversy is about the Praesident or Moderatour in Synods (h) Ibid. c. 29. Mr Parker labours to prove that this presidency doth not belong to an Hierarchicall Bishop or Arch-bishop but maintaines the practise and order of the Reformed Churches where the President of the Synods is elected or chosen by the Synods themselves (i) P. 402. We argue first sayth he from the authority of the Church for in Matt. 18. Ecclesiasticall authority is given primarily and originally unto the prime Church so that no rectour without the election and designation thereof may challenge any authority unto himself The Synod is a combined or
secondary Church which receiveth authority from the prime Churches that under the like condition to wit that no rectour or Praesident be made without election of the Churches which are combined in that Assembly This he declares at large and refutes the contrary arguments Now this Election of a Praesident is an act of Ecclesiasticall authority a part of the Churches power and seeing this is confessed to be in Synods it appeareth hence also that Synods are not onely for counsell admonition but also for the exercise of jurisdiction A sixt controversy about Synods concernes the Execution of the Synodall Canons (k) Ibid. l. 3 c. 30. Mr Park holds that this belongs not unto any one Bishop or Arch-bishop but unto particular Churches and their Elderships He argues on this manner (l) P. 428. The execution of Canons of what kinde soever whether they be those which are published of Christ in the Scriptures or whether they be ordained in Synods according to the Scriptures is a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction a part of the exercise of the Keyes as the Parisians call it But the Keyes and Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction are not given to one Bishop but are promised to the Church and Eldership Mat. 16. and given unto them Matt. 18. Therefore the execution of Canons belongeth not unto one Bishop but unto the Church which importeth many Now if the execution of Synodall Canons by an Eldership or particular Church be a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and of the Keyes then much more is the making of these Canons in the Synod and then Synods have not onely liberty of giving counsell and admonition but power of jurisdiction also which Mr Daven denyeth This conclusion and inference is afterward noted by Mr Parker himself also when as he addeth (m) P. 432. Why should not he be judge in the execution of Canons who hath power of judging in the sanction or decreeing of the Canons c. And againe If it be not lawfull for them to execute the Canons neither will it be lawfull to ordaine them on the other side if they have authority of making Canons then have they authority to execute them and that much more The seventh controversy about Synods is concerning the Conditions (n) Ibid. c. 31. thereof And among other conditions Mr Parker (o) P. 452. requires this for one that there be a common consent or a community of suffrages and he complaines of it as a great corruption when there is in Synods a negative voyce allowed unto Bishops or Archbishops He notes (p) P. 454. that to be not without reason called an Oligarchicall Synod when things are not done by common consent but one maketh frustrate the consent of the rest Now if it be a violation of the Synods right and authority when the generall consent of the greatest part is made frustrate by the dissenting of one or of a few then much more is the authority thereof violated when as notwithstanding the universall and entire consent of the whole Synod both of the Praesident of all the Deputies of all the Churches there assembled yet by receiving this erroneous opinion of my opposites the definitive sentence of them all is made frustrate and disannulled as if they had no jurisdiction nor power of censure but were onely to counsell or admonish AS that which Mr Parker hath written particularly touching the combination of Churches in Classes and Synods doth sufficiently shew his minde touching this controversy and that Mr Dav doth in vaine seek to shrowd himself under his shadow so that which he writes more generally in defence of the Discipline practised in the Reformed Churches where the authority and jurisdiction of Synods is maintained doth serve for a more full declaration thereof He laboureth to prove q by 10 Arguments (q) Pol. Ecc. lib. 1. c. 29. p. 84. that the Church of England is bound to imitate the Reformed Churches in their Discipline which yet if Mr Dav. his opinion were true they ought not to doe but rather to avoyd it flee from it as being an usurpation of unlawfull power whereby their people are kept in bondage under the undue power of Classes and Synods In speciall Mr Parker following Mr Brightman in his exposition of the Revelation (r) Ibid. p. 84.85 86. saith that in Philadelphia which is the type of the Reformed Churches nothing is reprehended but all things are commended and among the rest the discipline which is noted by the key of David Rev. 3.7 He saith that the Angel of the Reformed Churches stands in the Sunne Rev. 19.17 as being the naturall sonne of the woman clothed with the Sunne Rev. 12.1 that the Reformed Churches are as the beautifull mountaine the mountaine of Christs delights Rev. 16.16 the hill of precious fruits He saith againe that the Philadelphian Church is the type of the Reformed Churches that it is commanded to hold fast her crowne Rev. 3.11 Now if Mr Parker did judge this rare and high commendation to be due unto the Reformed Churches and that by divine warrant by the testimony of the holy Ghost foretelling their estate and the purity of the Discipline observed by them then was he not of Mr D. his minde for then he should have judged them not to be a free people while the causes of particular Congregations are judged and determined by another superiour authority in Synods Then should he rather have judged that their Churches wanted the key of David and were deprived of their lawfull and proper priviledges and prerogatives being subject to an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the assembly of the combined Churches And in summe then should he according to Mr D. his opinion have judged them to carry a yoke of servitude and subjection to be cast off with all speed rather then a crowne of lawfull liberty to be held fast by them then should he with Mr Canne (f) Churches plea. p. 74. have taught them to complaine in the misapplyed words of the Prophet Ier. 4.13 Woe unto us we are spoyled viz. by the authority of Classes Synods TO conclude for the judgement of Mr Parker in this controversy there are few that did better know or at least had more meanes to know his minde then I. The trueth is when he came from Leyden where he and Mr Iacob had sojourned some while together he professed at his first comming to Amsterdam that the use of Synods was for counsell and advise onely but had not authority to give definitive sentence in the judging of causes But after much conference with him when he had more seriously and ripely considered of this question he plainly changed his opinion and professed so much not onely unto me but unto sundry others upon occasion so that some of Mr Iacobs minde were offended with him and expostulated not onely with him but with me also as being an occasion of altering his judgment I had meanes to understand his minde aright and better
judgement belongs unto men but of inquisition discretion consultation and that therefore that whole distinction betwixt persons defining and consulting is vaine yet it is manifest and undenyable that in the censuring of Hereticks that erre in matters of faith there is an Ecclesiasticall judgement belonging unto men and a definitive sentence to be pronounced against such The matters of faith are as little to be subjected or submitted unto the judgement of a particular Congregation as unto the judgement of Synods and yet Hereticks are not to be exempted from the judgement and censure of either of them D. Am. himself in the same place doth plainly acknowledge this distinction betwixt consultation and definitive suffrage when he saith (b) Ibidē Bene consulere majoris est virtutis quam ex aliorum consilio bene definire quamvis hoc sit majoris potestatis To consult well is a matter of greater vertue then from other mens counsell to define well although this be a matter of greater authority Seeing therefore he confesseth that to have a definitive voyce is a matter of greater authority then to counsell and advise and seeing withall that this power of suffrages and definitive voyces belongs unto the Deputies of Churches in Synods and that by his confession it is evident that herein he asscribes more power unto Synods then he did in that book of English Puritanisme Againe in the question whether a Generall Councell be above the Pope or the Pope above the Councell although D. Am. in handling the same doth not so fully and directly speak against Bellarmine as D. Whitaker D. Rainolds Iunius Sibrandus Lubbertus Chamierus and other of our Divines which maintaine that the Pope may be justly condemned deposed and Excommunicated by a Generall Synod yet doth he (c) Ibid. de Conc. c. 7. acknowledge the Councell or Synod to be above the Pope in the very proposition of the question and after takes upon him the defence of the Arguments commonly used by Protestant Divines for the proofe thereof Would he have spoken plainly according to the positions set downe in that booke of Engl. Puritan according to Mr Dav. his opinion that limiteth all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely he should then have sayd that as the Pope hath no power over a Generall Councell so neither hath the Synod any authority over the Pope either to depose excommunicate or any way to censure him but might onely counsell and advise him c. he should as well have refuted the Protestants for giving too much power to the Synod as the Papists for giving too much power to the Pope Now this he hath not done but hath set down his minde in such manner that neither the Papists against whom he disputed nor the Protestants whose receyved opinion he seemed to maintaine could easily observe any difference in him from our common tenent VI. In another booke after this he acknowledgeth (d) Cas Consc l. 4. c. 29. q 9. th 23. that it belongeth unto Classes and Synods when any difficulty is to declare by common counsell and to decree who ought to be excommunicated Now to decree an excommunication is an act of power whereby judiciall sentences are determined and in all propriety of speech doth containe more in it then a bare counsell or admonition and therefore herein he doth apparantly give unto Synods more authority then onely to counsell and advise And thus D. Burges had reason to understand this speech of D. Am. which he alledgeth and approveth and agreeably thereunto professeth that God hath established the use of Ecclesiasticall Synods for Church affaires as well as the gathering of Churches (e) Rejoyn p. 206. D. A. did either acknowledge the authority of Synods in this sentence or els was too blame for deceyving his Reader with ambiguity of speech VII In his (f) Fresh suit ag Cerem p. 90.91 last booke which he wrote immediately before his death when he speakes of representative Churches though he dissalow that kinde of Synod or Convocation which is sometimes kept in England in respect of Hierarchicall Officers and in respect of their imposing humane ceremonies yet doth he not condemne the Synodall assemblies of Scotland before Perth nor the Reformed Churches of France which have their association and combination without any Hierarchy And yet it is undenyable most certaine that those Synods of Scotland and France have used Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in censuring of notorious offendours and were not onely for counsell and advise as is further manifested hereafter Had he dealt plainly and answered his opposite fully he should have condemned the Assemblies of Scotland for that jurisdiction which according to Mr Dav. his opinion and that booke of Engl. Purit they unjustly usurped Yea further he doth justify those Synods for when as D. Burges (g) Rejoyn p. 206. had spoken of such Ecclesiasticall Synods as have jurisdiction and authority of censure as appeares by his opposing of them unto other Synods which the Separatists and Mr Iacob doe allow which have no power to controle but by way of brotherly admonition D. Am. in his reply unto that place confesseth that D. Burges did speak of (h) Fresh suit p. 183. right Ecclesiasticall Synods and for the other Synods of Mr Iacob the Separatists the same that Mr Dav. allowes he passeth away from them and sayth not a word in their defence which yet had bene most pertinent unto the question VIII As for those places in particular which Mr Dav. alledgeth out of D. Ames his Cases of Conscience for the (i) Cas cōsc l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. first of them though it be sayd there that the power of remooving scandals and excluding the wicked for the right thereof and in respect of the first act cannot be separated from a true Church because it flowes immediately necessarily from the essence thereof c. this is not against us for 1. When Synods judge the causes of particular Churches they doe not take away their power but onely restraine and correct the abuse of their power the authority of particular Churches is not separated from them but the corruption or fault that appeareth in the exercise of their authority They are still permitted to use their authority and judgement in censures elections c. when the Synod perceives that they doe not goe astray therein 2. Though there be a streame of authority flowing immediately from the prime Churches this hinders not but helps and furthers the authority of Synods unto which that power by delegation is immediately derived And therefore as there is a fountaine of authority springing out of a particular Congregation so there is a Sea of authority in the Synod where the waters of so many fountaines and the authority of so many Churches doth concurre and meet together As for that other place Cas Consc l. 4. c. 25. it is answered hereafter in the Allegation that is taken from D.
Voetius Lastly for that (k) Cas consc l. 4. c. 29. place which Mr Canne objecteth out of D. Ames I acknowledge that there is something more found against the authority of Synods then in any thing that Mr Dav. hath alledged out of him But all that D. Ames there writes is not easily to be admitted For in that chap. the Question being made (l) Ibid. qu. 11. Whether whole Churches or members of another Church may be excommunicated He answereth They cannot properly be excommunicated He bringeth 3 Reasons 1. Because every Church hath communion in it self out of which it can no more be cast then out of it self But this reason is insufficient 1. Because though every Church hath communion in it self yet not onely in it self and with it self but with other Churches also Eph. 4.4 5 6. 1. Cor. 12.13 and by excommunication it may be deprived and cut off from that comfortable fellowship to the great grief terrour and shame thereof for their humiliation thereby and for the warning of others 2. Because an obstinate and rebellious Church by a sentence of excommunication may be cast out of it self and deprived of communion in it self either in the dissolution of that unlawfull society while the Magistrate helpes to execute the sentence or otherwise in making their communion abhominable even unto their owne consciences by the hand of God working with his owne ordinance in delivering them to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and depriving them of inward rest notwithstanding any pretended security of the obstinate His 2d reason is Because the power of excommunicating flowes from some superiority but all Churches are constituted of Christ with an authority altogether equall This is also a weak reason for 1. Though all Churches be equall and no one above another yet many meeting together in a Synod are superiour to one as was shewed before by Mr Parker (m) Pol. Eccles 3. p. 129. Greater is the power of a Synod then of any one prime and parishionall Church 2. When two Churches onely are by speciall covenant united together as it may fall out necessarily upon occasion though this combination be more imperfect yet is this (n) Ibid. p. 345. 346. reputed for a Synod and though these Churches be in themselves equall yet when one of them falles into errour offence then it becomes subject to the other and the other hath authority over it to rebuke censure the same This is to be observed by proportion of two brethren members of one Church though both of them be in their estate equall yet he that offendeth becomes subject to the other who thereupon hath power over him in a degree of binding and loosing a power of loosing and forgiving him if he repent a power of retaining his sinne and binding him over to further proceeding if he doe not repent Luk. 17.3 4. with Matt. 18. On this manner that generall commandement of mutuall subjection to one another 1. Pet. 5.5 ought to take place in two Churches as well as in two persons His 3d reason is Because the members of one Church are neither subject to the government of another neither doe they belong immediately unto the communion of other Churches but by the communion of their owne Church comming betwixt The first part of this reason touching subjection is answered before and for the second part of it there is no weight therein for those that belong unto the communion of other Churches but mediately are not therefore exempted from the jurisdiction and authority of them And againe the covenant of communion made at the first confederation of Churches for their mutuall government by a Synod remaineth firme for the continuance and exercise of authority either for or against some particular members of any one Church in that combination although that Church unjustly violating their covenant should refuse to consent or communicate with the Synod in their acts of Ecclesiasticall judgement and censure of some scandalous persons among them Moreover that which D. Ames writes in the same chapter may justly lead us to acknowledge the necessity of Synods and their authority in the censure of offendours 1. He addes in his answer to the same question touching whole Churches members of another Church that though they may not properly be excommunicated (o) Cas cōs l 4. c 29. q. 11. th 26. yet for manifest heresies or great faults they may be condemned forsaken rejected which is proportionable to excommunication If he grant this authority unto Synods thus to condemne whole Churches then he confesseth that they have more power then onely to counsell or admonish If he grant this authority unto any other Ecclesiasticall persons and not to Classes or Synods the warrant from Scripture ought to be shewed A censure proportionable to excommunication requires an authority proportionable to theirs that may excommunicate for the exequution thereof II. In the same chapter propounding this case of conscience (p) Ibid. q. 10. What is to be done of the Pastour where a fit Eldership is wanting or where the people doe not consent unto ajust excommunication His resolution is The solemne proceeding may be omitted yet a good Pastour ought to give all diligence hereunto with the rest of the faythfull members that the substance of the matter be so farre preserved that holy things be not given unto dogs swine Mat. 7.6 and that all publick scandals be publickly reprooved But by this direction neither is the peace of the Ministers conscience provided for nor yet the safety of the Church For by what warrant may a Pastour by his sole authority determine and reject some members as dogs and exclude them from the holy things from the Sacraments and this not onely without allowance of the Eldership but against the consent of the people and body of the Congregation or the greatest part of it This is in effect an excommunication or as he calles it the essence or substance of the matter for excommunication greater or lesse is the onely Ecclesiasticall judgement appointed of God to keep holy things from being given unto dogs To permit this authority unto the Pastour alone is to open a dore for tyranny and oppression of the Church and is condemned by those 4 reasons which he gives for confirmation of his answer unto the 9th question immediately going before It is the denyall of Synods that drives unto such extremities III. That which he here saith of publick reproving all publick scandals is againe empeached by that which was sayd before (q) Ibid. q. 4. th 12 13. that in those Churches which through want of discipline are troubled with confusion it is not alway necessary for the person offended to admonish the offendour because he should oftentimes in vaine beginne that which he had no power to finish that the commandement of solemne admonishing of a brother offending doth then onely binde when there is some hope that the same will
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
Regall authority to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by Divine or Apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents It is here to be observed how he notes onely what they thinke without approbation thereof he declares their opinion but doth not acknowledge it to be his owne judgement Neither had he reason so to judge for in the primitive Church when there were no Christian Magistrates there was then a lawfull use of Synods and that by Divine and Apostolicall ordinance as hath bene shewed before And as for particular consents if any Church walked disorderly and offensively there is no reason to think that the censures and decrees of Synods against such Churches should be differed untill they did consent unto the censuring of themselves It was sufficient that at their first combination there was a generall and free consent to submit themselves in the Lord mutually unto other Churches Synodically assembled And yet more plainely in the same place he professeth that he differeth in judgement from them when he concludes Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defence of those later Disciplinarians from whom although in somethings I confesse I dissent yet I cannot consent to the D. taking away of their innocency Though in some things Dr D. did unjustly charge them yet Mr S. the Refuter of D. D. did also judge that in some things there was just cause to dissent from them IV. Besides the foresayd Refuter of D. Down there is also another learned man who besides his great learning having also as great experience in the discipline and government of the Church according to the practise of the Reformed Churches hath of later time written a compleat and large refutation of D. Downam And in this refutation he hath dealt more plainly and circumspectly in this poynt then Mr S. hath done For whereas D. D. relating the opinion of these later Disciplinarians as new and false sets downe their assertion in these words (p) Sermon at Lambeth p. 4. That every parish by right hath sufficient authority within it selfe immediately derived from Christ for the government of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall this assertion is not admitted but with sundry cautions To omit the rest these are the two last wherein the authority of Synods is evidently acknowledge viz. (q) Gersom Bucer Dissert de Gub. Eccl p. 14. The fourth caution is that the authority given to a particular Church is not sufficient for the handling of all Ecclesiasticall causes by their owne judgement but for those onely which are so particular that they may be deemed altogether proper unto it For whatsoever case falles out belonging unto the common order of neighbour Churches we judge that the same is to be brought unto a more generall assembly wherein these Churches doe joyntly meet together The last caution is that both the institution and observation of all things especially if they seeme to procure any discommodity or not to make for aedification be subjected unto the judgement of the next Churches meeting together in one For we doe not permit that the Governours of parishes should dispatch all things as they list but will have them to submit themselves to the inspection of the Churches For we think that of Augustine ought by all meanes to be observed (r) Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. in Donat. ca. 9. Semper universum partibus jure optimo praeponi that by good right the whole is alwayes to be preferred above the parts c. Thus expressely hath this Authour given warning that the whole combination of many Churches united in Synods is of greater authority then any part that particular Churches owe a subjection unto the same Lastly as for those many other Authours the Centurists Illyricus D. Andrewes B. of Winch. D. Fulk Willet Thom Bell Cyprian Augustine Gerson Ferus whose names are here alledged by Mr Dav. without specifying their words they are all of them except one or two alledged by Mr Canne and in answer unto him (f) Chap. 7. sect 1.2.4.6 hereafter it is shewed that all every one of them are against Mr Davenp his opinion all giving a cleare and plaine testimony for the jurisdiction of Synods SECT VII His Allegation of D. Voetius examined IO. DAV (t) Apol. reply p. 242 243. Desp caus Pap. lib. 2. sect 2. cap. 11. p. 186. To the same purpose hath a worthy and learned wrighter of these countries Voetius Professour of Divinity in Vtrecht whose words I thus translate The Church is the spouse of Christ which is the proper and adaequate subject of that power to whom Christ hath committed that delegate right reserving the chiefe to himself Which ought to be and to remaine so proper to the Church that it neither may be snatched away by the authority of others nor lost by their voluntary concession nor committed to the trust of any other although divers acts belonging to the calling of a Minister may ought to be performed by certaine members of the Church ANSVV. All that is here affirmed by this worthy Writer being granted of us yet is not Mr Dav. his opinion justifyed nor the authority and jurisdiction of Synods overthrowne hereby for I. Christ was the Bridegroome of his Church and the Church was the Spouse of Christ and honoured with this title under the old Testament as well as under the new Sol. song ch 1. 2. c. Esa 50.1 Ezek. 16.8 Hos 1. 2. 3. 1. c. And yet it is confessed by my opposites that under the old Testament before Christs comming in the flesh particular Congregations and Synagogues were subject unto the Synedrion and that all jurisdiction was not limited unto the severall villages or cities in Israel or to the Synagogues therein And therefore this title of Spouse and Bridegroome doth not inferre any restraint of jurisdiction in the new Testament more then in the old II. As when the Church of Antioch sent their Delegates or Deputies unto Ierusalem and the controversy raised in their Church was decided and determined by the definitive sentence and decree of the Synod Act. 15. they did not thereby loose their power but it still remained with them for the judgement of their causes so those Churches that now submit their causes to the judgement of Classes and Synods are not thereby spoyled of their power yea it is their owne authority and power which by their Delegates is â—â—â—rcised in those Assemblies Moreover the Churches are herein so farre froâ—â—oosing their power that on the contrary they might be sayd to loose their liberty right and power if they had not authority for their owne help and others thus to send their messengers unto such assemblies III. It is to be observed how Mr Dav. doth mistranslate the words of D. Voetius by omitting a word of speciall importance which both he and D. Ames also (v) Cas coÌ„s
l. 4 c. 25. q. 5. th 26. using the like speech have expressely mentioned for whereas their words touching the power of the Church and the propriety thereof are these ut alienae fidei planè committi non possit that it may not altogether be committed to the trust of others he omitting this word planè which signifyes altogether utterly or quite and cleane doth hereby corrupt the testimony which he alledgeth For though the Church may not utterly or quite and cleane commit her power to the trust of others yet in some kinde and in some measure it may and ought to be done For the kindes D. Voetius gives instance in divers acts belonging to the calling of a Minister which may and ought to be performed by some certaine members thereof and the same is to be considered for divers other acts of like nature And for the measure so as he also notes that Christ the Bridegroome reserve the supreme authority unto himself which is then acknowledged by his people when they doe not receive nor follow the authority or sentence of any man or Officer of any particular Congregation or of any Synod further then they in their consciences finde it to agree with the sentence of Christ revealed in his word As the Lord himself by an immediate call committed power and authority unto the trust of his servants whose faithfulnes is thereupon commended 1. Tim. 1.11 12. 1. Cor. 9.17 Gal. 2.7 so doth the Church also both in the ordinary calling of men unto office and in the occasionall sending of them about particular workes and affaires of the Church Phil. 2.25 2. Cor. 8.19 23. 1. Cor. 16.3 especially in communicating their power unto them to give sentence in Synods IV. That D. Voetius doth allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods we have many testimonies our of this very book of his which Mr D. alledgeth I. Though he shew that Ecclesiasticall power of judgement is first and immediately in particular Churches yet he notes withall (x) Desp caus Pa. l. 2. s 1. c. 5. p. 96. that this power arising thence is by a certaine fit proportion applyed unto many Churches united in some kingdome or kingdomes or in the whole world This is done in Nationall Generall Synods II. Speaking of a publick Reformation which he calles authoritative he shewes (y) Ibid. p. 62. how it being universall may be done either in an universall Synod or without a Synod Speaking of Reformation made by instruction exhortation or invitation he sayth it may be done of any one Preacher yea and in some sort of any one Christian but for the Reformation wherein there is an actuall change of publick worship he saith it is necessary that the help and consent of many and those not of one order doe concurre and that one or a few are not sufficient unlesse it fall out that the authority and parts of those many who are interested therein be devolved unto them Thus he alloweth the jurisdiction of Synods while he acknowledgeth that the authority of many may be derived and communicated unto a few which is the very thing wherein the jurisdiction of Synods doth consist III. He defends (z) P. 79. Luther appealing from the sentence of excommunication given out by Pope Leo the tenth unto a lawfull Generall Synod he allowes the like appeale made by the Arch-bishop of Colen and the appeale of the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde the forme whereof was affixed or set up at Rome in all which the authority of Synods is acknowledged IV. He allowes (a) P. 85. the example of those Churches which determined matters by a publick and Nationall or Provinciall judgement Speaking of the Reformers of Religion he sayth (b) P. 169. Luther had the right of suffrage and used the same in the University of Wittebergh as one of the Professours in the Church as one of the Pastours in the neighbour-churches of Saxony as a member of them in the name and by commission from the Church of Witteberg and not further So did Zuinglius Farell Viret Calvin and all the rest A just patterne of the Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction exercised in the Reformed Churches in these countries at this day V. He avoucheth and maintaineth (c) P. 201. that a lawfull Synod or Church by their sentence and authority may and ought to depose Ministers that are Idolatrous Hereticall and the like An expresse testimony that Synods have not onely right of counsell and admonition but also of exercising Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the censuring of offenders He addeth there that the Westerne Churches ought to remove such Clerkes or keep them out from entring either by a common or each of them by their particular judgement either in a Synod or without a Synod VI. Even in this very page place that Mr D. alledgeth (d) P. 186. D. Voetius alledging the example of the Synod at Ierusalem Act. 15.3.4 22 23. to shew that Ecclesiasticall power is given to many in the Church doth thereby acknowledge the authority of Synods If he had thought they might onely counsell and admonish then had this place alledged bene insufficient to prove the thing propounded by him nor suitable to the other places alledged together in the same place viz. Matt. 18.17 2. Cor. 2.6 with 1. Cor. 5.4 which are to be understood of the jurisdiction and authority of the Church in censuring This power is also againe (e) P. 187. 189. poynted at by him in the same chapter Lastly to come from his words unto his practise Whereas this learned Minister of Christ was deputed and sent (f) Act. Sy. nod Nat. Dordr sess 2. with others unto the last famous Nationall Synod at Dort was reckoned among those Worthies whose praise is so great in the Gospell being the messengers of the Churches and the glory of Christ when as he there among the rest did exercise the authority of suffrage for the decision of divers controversies and gave sentence with others in the (g) Ibid. ses 138. censure and deposition of divers both Ministers and Elders it appeareth hereby that he did not thinke all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Congregation If Synods might goe no further then to counsell and admonish then had D. Voetius with the rest bene an usurper of unlawfull power Besides this order of Classicall and Synodall assemblies together with their jurisdiction and authority in such sort as it was before and is still practised in these Reformed Churches was confirmed and established (h) Rerckēorden Nat. Syn. Dordr Art 22.52 in that same Nationall Synod where D. Voetius appeared as a member thereof and according to which he was bound to practise both while he was Minister at Heusden and since also at Vtrecht being not onely Professour in the University but also Pastour of the Church in the sayd city So that there is no cause to doubt but that his
judgement touching this controversy is the same with that which I have here noted out of his writings and for the substance of the matter no other then that which I maintaine throughout this discourse SECT VIII Touching the English Church at Franckford in Q. Maries time IO. DAV (i) Apol. reply p. 243. A discourse of the troubles in the Engl. Chur. at Franckf Art 62. Art 67. And to conclude thus it was ordered in the English Church at Franckford among the exiles in those Marian dayes that if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected or found parties if any appeale be made from them that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation c. and that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare and determine the said matter or matters as it shall seeme good to the Congregation Againe If any controversy be about the doubtfull meaning of any word or words in the Discipline that first it be referred to the Ministers or Seniors and if they cannot agree thereupon then the thing be referred to the whole Congregation ANSVV. I. It is to be observed that these two Articles of Discipline being alledged against me by (k) Churches plea p. 36. Mr Canne as well as by Mr Dav. there is this difference betwixt them that Mr Canne addes more words then he should and Mr Daven omits some words that should have been added That which Mr Canne addes is against himselfe and serves to condemne the practise of the Brownists when he faith of the Ministers and Seniors that they have authority to heare determine c. That which Mr Dav. omits and refuseth to expresse serveth to reproove such as complaine unjustly of excepting against the Elders judgement For when that 62d Article speakes of appeale to be made unto the body of the Congregation the Ministers Seniors parties excepted this latter clause shewes there is just cause of excepting against the Elders judgement sometimes and that they are to be refused as incompetent judges being parties This brief clause being of speciall use in our controversy ought not to have bene omitted by Mr Dav. II. That which they alledge for appeale unto the body of the Congregation doth not overthrow the authority of Synods This granting one kinde of appeale doth not exclude or deny another Seeing particular Congregations are subject to errour and many of them dayly doe erre why should not appeale be granted from them unto Classes and Synods especially where there is no Magistrate that can or will judge of such errours III. This appeale made unto the body of the Congregation was not usually permitted but extraordinarily in cases of speciall necessity when the Ministers and Seniors were not able to end the controversies brought unto them the expresse words of the Article are (l) â—isc of troubl in Engl Ch. at Franckf art 57. in case they cannot end them then afterwards to be referred to the whole Congregation Their ordinary practise was otherwise as appeares in other Articles of their Discipline where it is plainly ordained (m) Ibid. art 59. that the Ministers and Seniors shall have authority to heare and determine on the behalf of the whole Church all offences determinable by the Congregation committed by any person in the Congregation unlesse the partie called before them have just occasion to take exception to the sayd Ministers and Seniors or to appeale from them as not competent judges And afterwards againe there is another strict and severe decree (n) Art 63. If any person doe unjustly take exceptions to any of the Ministers or appeale from the whole ministery that then such persons beside the punishment for the principall cause shall also be punished as a contemner of the Ministery and a disturber of the Church This order as it serves to condemne the practise of the Brownists as tending to the disturbance of the Church while they give no power of judging and deciding causes unto the Eldership so it serves for the reproofe both of them and Mr Davenp in denying the authority of Synods for if the Church may in ordinary cases commit their authority unto an Eldership not deprive themselves of their right then why may they not doe so likewise unto Classes and Synods IIII. This English Church at Franckford did commit and delegate the power of judging controversies not onely to their Elders but upon occasion even unto other particular and private members of the Church which had no Ecclesiasticall office and this in divers degrees as 1. In case some of the Eldership though the lesser part were excepted against as parties 2. When the greater part were excepted against 3. When all the Ministers and Seniors were suspected c. Thus they did erect as it were three severall sorts of Classes or Synods within themselves for the judicature of such causes as could not be ended by the Eldership Thus they ordained in these three severall Articles of their Discipline which follow Of the first sort (o) Art 60. Item if any have just occasion to take exception to some of the Ministers and Seniors and not to the more part that then those of the Ministers and Seniors to whom the exception is made in this case shall not be judges but in this case for the time removed from the ministery and that the rest of the Ministers and Seniors to whom no exception shall be made with as many of the Congregation joyned to them as they be in number which shall be excepted shall be arbiters and judges in the sayd causes and that the sayd persons so to be joyned to the Ministers and Seniors shall be appoynted by the Congregation the Ministers and Seniors not excepted giving their voyces as others of the Congregation Of the second sort (p) Art 61. Item if exception be taken to the more part of the Ministers and Seniors that then the Church shall appoynt six moe to be judges with the rest of the Ministers against whom exception is not made the same rest of the Ministers having their voyces in the election of the six as other members of the Church Of the third sort (q) Art 62. Item if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected or found parties or if any appeale be made from them that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation the Ministers Seniors and parties excepted And that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare and determine the sayd matter or matters as it shall seeme good to the Congregation Now as in all these CoÌ„missions the Church did not loose her authority but did rather exercise the same herein this very act of delegation being a testimony of her power so in like manner if the example of this Church alledged against me may be followed of us other Churches may also send their Deputies and Delegates unto Classes Synods for the judgement
of the single uncompounded policie Though there were some differences among them concerning the government of the Church yet no one of them or of those other exiles who had sojourned at Strasbrough Basel Zurick Arrow Geneva and other places in Q. Maries dayes that left behinde them any monument of their agreement with Mr Dav. Mr Cann in limiting Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Church But of this story we have occasion to speak further hereafter (y) Chap. 7. Sect. 5. where Mr Can. againe brings more objections from thence SECT IX Mr Dav. his pretence of agreement with Iunius examined BEsides the former Allegations Mr Dav. pretendeth his agreement with Iunius in this question And after his vaine excuse of H. Grotius for slighting the authority of Classes and Synods as he did in that treatise which he published against Sibr. Lubbertus he sayth (z) Apol. reply p. 225. thereupon Bogermannus published his Annotations learnedly and succinctly penned in defence of D. Sibrandus wherein for answer of that part which concerned the necessity and authority of Synods he referred Grotius to what Iunius had written against Bellarmine de nceessitate potestate Conciliorum wherein I fully agree with Iunius ANSVV. Had Mr Dav. fully agreed with Junius then had it bene meet that the should have brought at least some one pregnant testimony out of Junius to have manifested their agreement which he hath not done If he will constantly and fully abide by this confession of his full agreement with Junius in that which he wrote against Bellarmine concerning the necessity and authority of Synods then must he acknowledge that they have jurisdiction over particular Churches for the judging of their causes and that they are not onely for counsell and admonition c. because (a) Animadv ad Bellarm Contr. 4. de Concil Junius is plentifull in witnessing thus much of them as appeareth First Bellarmine complayning how the Protestants by the instigation of Satan did destroy Ecclesiasticall judgements Junius answereth (b) In proefat nota 1. We also complaine of the deceytfull arts of Satan but they are not to be deemed to take away Ecclesiasticall judgements which with Paul 1. Gor. 14. doe urge that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets but that do we urge c. Junius applying this to Synods doth thereby confesse that they are for censure and judgement of causes and persons not for counsell onely He acknowledgeth the Protestants justly desired such a Councell (c) Not. 11. in quo cognosci decerni confici omnia posse confiderent that is wherein they hoped that all things might be examined decreed and dispatched This was more then counselling and implyed jurisdiction and power of judgement More plainely he saith we desire a Councell c. (d) N. 13. after such a manner as we see to have bene done of old in the examples of Synods especially of the first Nicene of the Chalcedon c. Now it is manifest in the Histories that in these Synods there was not onely a giving of counsell but an exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the censure and condemnation of Hereticks as is hereafter shewed at large Againe when Bellarmine accuseth the Protestants that they desire a Generall Councell but such a one as never was Junius answereth (e) N. 38. It is false But if we should desire such a Councell as Mr Dav. describes such a one as should be for counsell and admonition without jurisdiction then should the Answer of Junius be false we should desire such a Synod as never was It cannot be shewed that ever such a Generall Councell was held When Bellarmine accuseth Melancthon for requiring such conditions of a Synod that neither the persons nor causes of men should be condemned and that so nothing at all should be decreed in the Synod Junius answereth that this is fayned or forged of him and shewes further that though it doe not become the Church to use a bloody cure and corporall punishments yet there is a more wholesome order and tells what that is saying (f) N. 40. What Arius being overcome and convinced how was he punished of the Synod How was Macedonius Nestorius Eutyches in those renowned Synods Silence was injoyned them and their office taken away nothing more A most expresse testimony of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in the deposing of evill Ministers This was more then counsell onely After the Preface when in the book it self Bellarmine complaines of Hereticks that they devise a new forme of Synods and then give almost no authority unto them Junius answereth (g) Animadv in Cōtr. 4. de Cōcil l. 1. c. 1. n. 1. As for us we deny both and will God willing confute the first affirmation in the first book and the latter in the second But Mr Dav. cannot justly deny eyther of those assertions for first the single uncompounded policie doth necessarily inferre a new forme of Synods if it be not so let him shew when and where such a forme was ever used of old And for the second it is granted by Mr D. his owne confession when he alledgeth (h) Apol. reply p. 47. that other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good Is not this to give almost no power to Synods Bellarmine to shew the divine originall of Synods alledgeth Matt. 18. there am I in the midst of them Iunius assenting to him sayth (i) In cap. 3. l. 1. de Conc n. 1. It is also demonstrated in these words of the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 14.32 The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets Both places import an authority whereunto subjection is required When Bellarmine sayth of Bishops in Synods that they are not Counsellours but Judges Junius noteth (k) N. 2. that they are neither Counsellours nor Iudges but declarers ministers of the judgement of God in the holy Scripture in which words he asscribeth as much power and jurisdiction unto Synods as he doth unto particular Churches His meaning for both according to his use of speech is that they are not absolute but ministeriall judges Whereas Bellarmine reckoneth up sundry sorts of persons that may be present at Synods some as judges which have a deciding or determining voyce some for disputation which have a consulting voyce some as servitours or attendants some for the defence of the Synod to maintaine peace c. Junius denyeth not this but shewes that his enumeration is insufficient saying (l) Ibid. in c. 15. n. 2. It is to be added others as parties or persons accused whose cause is to be handled for certainly it is inhumane that any should be condemned not cited or not heard Others againe to be Auditours seeking their edification by enjoying that communication of holy things Hereby it is plaine that he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely
for counsell both because he allowes a distinction of them in the Synod which had the authority of a determining voyce from them that did onely dispute or consult and because he intimates a judiciall proceeding in the Synods by mentioning parties accused their citing or calling of them the condemning of them which imports a further matter then onely of admonition or counsell Whereas Bellarmine accuseth us that we allow any learned men though Laicks to have a determining voyce let their office be what it will Junius answereth (m) N. 4. These things have none of us sayd or thought as they are here layd downe This is that which we say such are to be taken into the Synod which are furnished with gifts and calling which for gifts are godly honest learned for their calling which are either ordinarily appointed to teach or extraordinarily sent for and brought by just authority Now this necessity of a calling which he so (n) See c. 16. n. 10. 18. 20. c. 17. n. 1. often urgeth and requireth to be in the members of a Synod doth argue a speciall power and authority belonging unto them by vertue whereof they may give sentence in the judgement of causes whereas to admonish or counsell requires no more power then that which every Christian hath in another for his good as Mr D. himself confesseth To the same purpose Junius shewes against Bellarmine that the meaning of Theodosius and Valentinian was not to admit Bishops onely but that (o) Ibid. c 15. n. 13. those onely might heare examine and give sentence in a Synod which being sent from the Churches unto the Synod were reckoned up of the Bishops according to their letters of publick authority which they were wont to exhibit Againe he sayth (p) N. 15. They which are present without the authority of the Church of them some may onely heare as the laicks or common people some may be used in consultations as the learned men especially Ecclesiasticall persons but they may not give definitive sentence And thus still by distinguishing those that gave counsell from those that gave sentence in the Synod it appeares he acknowledged a power of jurisdiction in Synods and that they were not onely for counsell So when Bellarmine sayth it was a fault in the Councell of Basill that Presbyters or other learned men besides Bishops were allowed to have not onely a consulting voyce but a deciding suffrage affirmeth that this was against the custome of all antiquity c. Junius answereth (q) N. 19. This we denye for it was the first institution Act. 15. and not onely the manner and custome Seeing therefore there was such an institution of the Apostles in their assembly what need was there to alledge custome c. When Bellarmine chargeth the Protestants as holding that a Synod is nothing but an inquisition and that Christ alone and his written word hath a determining voyce Junius sayth (r) Ibid. in c. 18. n. ◠It is false for Synods have both an inquisition of that which is true just holy by religious communication and also a ministeriall giving of sentence Though he shew there and in many annotations following that it is not lawfull for Christians to obey them further then they agree with the Scriptures that their sentence of it self is but a persuasion and not a constraint a ministeriall judgement not of absolute authority of itself c. yet he (ſ) N. 3. grants the Lord hath commanded that we should obey the sentence of a lawfull Synod assembled together in his name c. He sayth (t) N. 14. Synods have true judgements so farre as they are of God according to the tables of his trueth and commandement of themselves they are not judgements but declarations publications and ministeriall pronouncings of the trueth and judgements of God And more then this cannot be yeelded to any Ecclesiasticall judicatory whatsoever Herein he fully grants as much jurisdiction to Synods as belongs to any particular Congregation or Eldership either apart or joyntly together When Bellarmine blames the Protestants for their exception against the Councell of Trent Junius answereth (v) Ibid. in c. 21. n. 1. It is the ordinary way of right in every appeale that the judgement of Synods and the exequution of their sentence be suspended and stayed so long untill the matter be againe examined in another more free or greater Assembly c. This answer had bene needles and impertinent unlesse Synods had more power then of counsell and admonition onely He sayth (x) N. 7. Certainly in every just Synod Hereticks being cited heard present or willfully hiding themselves have bene condemned c. When Bellarm. objects that Protestants will have nothing to be determined in Synods and so strifes to be never ended Junius answers (y) N. 23. that he perverts their meaning and referres us to his preface nota 40. where the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods is plainely avouched IUnius proceeding to the examination of his second book touching Synods where Bellarmine repeats that Synods of Bishops may judge all controversies both of faith and manners Junius answereth (z) Animadv in Bell. l. 2. deCōcl c. 1. n. 1. We have granted it of those that are lawfull Synods When Bellarmine had sayd that nothing is greater then a lawfull and approved Generall Councell Junius answereth (a) Ibid. c. 4. n. 2. It is false for Christ is greater and the Scripture is greater seeing Christ and the Scripture are great of themselves the Church is great by them c. But this answer had bene insufficient not direct enough if my opposites opinion were true For then according to their opinion he might more fitly have answered that the authority of a particular Congregation is greater then the authority of a Generall Synod because though the counsell and advise of the Synod was more to be reverenced in respect of many excellently learned and godly men from many Churches that were in it yet seeing Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation therefore the same is greater in the power of censuring and in the use of the keyes for binding and loosing of impenitent sinners seeing Synods have no jurisdiction at all over any other Churches Againe when Bellarmine sets downe this insolent proposition that the Pope cannot commit neither unto a Synod nor to any man the coactive judgement over himself but onely the discretive Iunius answereth (b) Ibid. in c. 18. n. 1. The proposition is most true he cannot commit because God hath committed it to the Synod and lawfull Councell Wherefore we say on the contrary neither can he commit it for if he be the servant of God God hath committed the judgement concerning him unto his Church neither can he reject it but though he be unwilling yet both the Church is bound to judge concerning him and he to undergoe the judgement thereof discretive and coactive howsoever it
please men to call it If Mr Dav. doe fully agree with Junius as he professeth then must he acknowledge that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Church that lawfull Synods have authority not onely to counsell and admonish the Pope himself and so other obstinate offendours but also to censure thē to give sentence both of directive coactive judgement against them as occasion requires Junius to make this more plaine repeats it againe and speaking of the Synods judging the Pope saith (c) N. 2. Truely we grant that he cannot appoynt judges in his owne cause because God hath already appoynted them by the Apostle saying The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14.32 and that he may appoynt Arbiters but we adde this withall that the judges which God hath ordained may by no right be rejected or refused of him When Bellarmine pretends that divers Popes as Sixtus the 3d Leo the 3d Symmachus and Leo the 4th being accused were willing to have their causes discussed in a Synod of Bishops c. Junius sayth (d) N. 6. And this ought so to be done of them for they are subjected of God to a Synod of Prophets by authority of the word When Bellar. addes that yet the Bishops durst not judge them affirming also that they left the whole judgement unto God Junius answers (e) N. 7. This is a fallacy from that which is not the cause as they call it For they did not therefore abstaine from judging because they wanted authority to judge but partly because they had rather that the Popes being guilty should be first judged of themselves and their owne conscience partly because they thought it better to have their cause examined in another more full Synod partly also because when they would examine it the matter was not evident enough c. Whereas the Popes that thus farre submitted their cause to tryall pretend that by this fact they doe not prescribe a law to their successours whereby they should be constrained to doe the same Junius sayth (f) Ibidē The impudency of these men is so much the greater who after they are delivered from judgement doe after this manner mock their judges and such as examined their cause and will have their ambitious licentiousnes to be esteemed for a lawfull order asscribing the lawfull order of judgements in their cause unto an extraordinary and voluntary dispensation as they call it But had Junius bene of my opposites minde he should have answered after another manner should have sayd The Bishops in the Synods which durst not judge the cause of the Popes but left the whole judgement unto God did well therein if they had knowne what they did and the right ground thereof for they did indeed want authority to judge Synods might advise and counsell but have no jurisdiction to give sentence in censuring either the Pope or any other Synods may onely direct particular Churches to use their power aright but have no power themselves to judge other Congregations or any member thereof c. How farre was Junius from giving such an answer Other examples and instances alledged to shew the power of Synods in the judgement of causes are avouched cleared and maintained by Junius against Bellarmines exceptions as appeares in the cause of (g) Ibid. in c. 19. n. 1. Marcellinus of the (h) N. 3. Donatists and of (i) N. 5. Leo. Had he thought that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction had bene shut up within the bounds of a particular Congregation he ought to have reprehended those Synods rather then to have spent time in vindicating their practise from the cavills of adversaries AS in these books de Conciliis alledged by Mr Dav. Junius hath plainely shewed his agreement with us so in his disputations against Bellarmine de Verbo Dei he hath likewise declared his consent with us touching the authority of Synods He writes there that (k) Animadv in Bell. contr 1. 〈◊〉 Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3. n. 9. there be two kindes of judgements in the Church one Private which belongs to all the faithfull universally and severally the other Publick depending upon a publick calling and authority the law and rule of both these judgements is the holy Scripture the authour and guide is the holy Ghost The publick judgement is either of a particular Church or of many Churches meeting together into one body or of all which body they call a Synod a Councell or an Assembly c. Seeing the Praesident and judge of the private judgement whereof the publick is compact is the Spirit of God and the Scripture the law there can be no other judge or law appoynted in the publick judgement of Synods without most hainous blasphemy against God and reproach to his Church And the Praesidents which are given to Synods have not the dominion and arbritement of the busines but the procuring of order committed unto them to determine matters by that one judge according to his law It is here to be observed that under the publick judgement of the Church he doth in like manner comprehend the authority of particular Churches and of Synods consisting of many Churches he speakes no otherwise of one then of the other as touching the kinde of power that they have he doth not attribute jurisdiction to one counsell to the other he notes both to depend upon a publick calling and authority for a ground of their proceeding And though in both the Spirit of God be the principall judge yet as he (l) Ibid. in c. 5. n. 3.5.28 afterwards notes more plainly he acknowledgeth a ministeriall judgment committed to them for the denouncing of his judgement against such as are guilty according to his word Afterward Junius (m) Ibid. in c. 6. n. 3. shewing how unlike the Councell of Trent was to the Nicene Councell where the Arian Bishops being present were heard convicted by the authority of Gods word and being convicted were condemned though he avoucheth the Bishops of Trent to have bene the enemies of the Gospel yet he sayth (n) N. 4. Otherwise as for lawfull Bishops or Elders and Deacons lawfully called into a Synod holding the same lawfully we acknowledge all these things When Bellarmine alledgeth Basilius Emperour who speaking of the judgment of Ecclesiasticall causes in a Synod sayd To try and search out these things it belongeth unto Patriarkes Bishops and Priests who have an office of government alotted unto them who have the power of sanctifying of loosing and binding who have obtained the keyes of the Church and not unto us which are to be fed which stand in need to be sanctifyed to be bound or loosed from binding Junius answereth (o) Ibid. in c. 7. n. 9. We allow this testimony of Basilius touching the lawfull order of Synods as before Herein we have the expresse confession of Junius touching the authority and jurisdiction of Synods in the use of the
keyes binding and loosing When Bellarmine sends us unto Damascene who sayth touching the controversies in the Church To determine and decree of these things it belongeth not to Kings but to Synods For where two or three saith the Lord are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them Christ hath not given unto Kings the power of binding and loosing but unto the Apostles and their successours to Pastours and Teachers Junius answereth (p) Ibid. in c. 8. n. 6. These things certainly are true and nothing for that famous principality of the Romane Bishop c. We also affirme the same thing as before cap. 3. nota 9. c. 10. Another evident affirmation touching the jurisdiction and power of Synods When Bellarmine saith that Prosper doth no otherwise proove the Pelagians to be Hereticks but because they were condemned of the Romane Bishops Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius Celestine Junius answereth (q) N. 14. No otherwise It is false for Pelagius was first condemned by the Synod of Carthage and of Milevis but when he went beyond sea to Rome where he so craftily infinuated himself that there was great feare lest he should inflict a soarer wound upon the Church at Rome the Africane Bishops did prudently and religiously certify Innocentius by two letters both concerning the sentence of their Synods and concerning the imminent perill of the Romane Church unlesse according to the example of them in Africa they did provide for the publick safety c. Another example of Synodicall jurisdiction allowed by Junius AGaine in his disputations against Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano Junius doth often allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods and shewes his judgement that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Congregation When Bellarmine speaking of a certaine decree made in a Synod of Africa mentioned by Cyprian sayth it was ordained thereby that a cause should first be judged where the crime was committed that it did not forbid but that it might be judged againe in another place Junius answereth (r) Animadv in Bell. contr 3. de Pont. Rom. l. ◠c. 23. n. 3. Certainly this is not forbidden For it is of common right But that which is of common equity in case of appeale to have a cause judged againe by another judicatory is denyed by my opposites in allowing no such Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Whereas Bellarmine condemneth the Magdeburgenses as being altogether absurd and ridiculous for their denyall of appeales Junius denyes the fact and saith (ſ) N. 5. his reasoning is inconsequent that all appeales should be altogether forbidden because the appeales to them beyond the sea were forbidden When Calvine alledgeth a certaine Canon of the Synod held at Milevis in Africa to refute the ambitious usurpation of the Pope and manifests thereby the jurisdiction of Synods in the judgement of causes because it was decreed that appeales should be made to the Africane Synods and not to the Bishop of Rome Junius (t) Ibid. in c. 24. n 2. c. maintaines this allegation and vindicates it against the exceptions of Bellarmine And he (v) N. 11. alledgeth further to this purpose the epistle which the Councell of Africa wrote unto Pope Celestine in these words After due salutation officiously premised we earnestly desire that hereafter you would not admit unto your audience those that come from hence and that you would not receive into your communion those that are excommunicated of us c. This request Junius calles a modest and brotherly prohibition to wit that the Pope should not receive appeales from them But if there were no superiour Ecclesiasticall power to judge the controversies of a particular Congregation then might these Africane Synods have bene accused of usurpation over particular Churches as transgressing the bounds of modesty and of their calling for exercising the power of the keyes in excommunicating some as well as the Pope for his usurped authority of the keyes in receiving appeales from the Synods Then had both the allegation of Calvine and the defence of Junius bene partiall and unjust condemning that in the Pope which they allowed in Synods When Bellarmine acknowledgeth that the Pope is bound to keep the Ecclesiasticall lawes made by Synods but quoad directionem non quoad coactionem according to the distinction of Lawyers touching the Prince meaning that the Pope may use their direction but is not under their correction or constraint which is indeed the same thing in effect which my opposites affirme of particular Churches that they are bound to use the counsell and direction of Synods but are not subject to their censure nor under their jurisdiction Junius (x) Ibid. in c. 27. n. 6. denyes this distinction for though saith he we should grant that it take place in foro soli in civill courts to wit for the judging of Princes yet is it of no force in foro coeli et conscientiae in Ecclesiasticall judicatories because the reason of them is not alike c. And in the next animadversion (y) N. 7. speaking still of those lawes canons made by Synods he affirmeth that as every other Bishop so the Pope also is subject unto them according to the order of the Church When Bellarmine sayth the Councell or Synod of the Greekes could not make a law for the Latines c. Junius (z) N. 16. See also n. 33. denyes the same and gives a reason because that Synod was Oecumenicall or universall Therein he acknowledgeth that they had a greater authority then onely to admonish or counsell Againe when Bellarmine answering the argument of Nilus saith that the Pope is not subject to Canōs viz. of Synods c. that he is subject to Christ not to the Fathers that he doth not contemne the Fathers nor their Canons but useth them for direction though he cannot be compelled by them c. Junius (a) N. 40. opposeth him further saith (b) N. 42. that he ought to be subject both to Christ and to the fathers by Christ who hath so prescribed 1. Cor. 14.29 32. and addeth further (c) N. 46. If he cannot be compelled by the Canons that he is therefore rightly called by the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wicked one or lawlesse person 2. Thes 2. Whereas some now adayes beginne to speak evill of the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods as of an Antichristian authority Junius is so farre opposite unto them that he accounts the Pope even in this regard to be Antichrist and the Man of Sinne because he refuseth to be subject unto the authority of Synods in their canons and decrees Moreover in comparing of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall estate Junius sayth (d) Ibid. in c. 29. n. 27. Kings have their authority in Civill matters Rom. 13. and the Synod in Ecclesiasticall matters above the Pope as it was defined in the Councell of Constance and Basel And their authority is so
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
for it while he addeth three other causes wherein the authority of Synods is superiour unto particular Churches wherein is expressed contained as much power as we asscribe unto Synods But that it may further appeare how Mr Dav. is condemned by his owne witnesse it is to be considered touching this famous light of Gods Church that as he (z) Epist Dedicat. undertook that great work at the appoyntment and command of a Synod as his sonne Adr. Chamierus after his fathers death dedicated that work unto the excellent and faythfull servants of God the Pastours and Elders of the French Churches assembled in a Nationall Synod comparing them to the threescore valiant men of the valiantest in Israel compassing the bed of Salomon all holding swords expert in warre every man with his sword upon his thigh because of feare in the night Sol. song c. 3.7 8. and as againe speaking of the Synod he applyes unto them that which is sayd of the Tower of David where the shields of the mighty men are hanged up c. Sol. song 4.4 so in the book itself there are many ample and pregnant testimonies touching the authority jurisdiction of Synods And first of all where he proves that the government of the Church is Aristocraticall by many and not Monarchicall by one he makes this distinction (a) Chamie Panstrat Cath. Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 5. The government of Churches is either of severall Churches or of many together viz. by Synods In both he maintaines an Aristocracie or jurisdiction of many He doth not restraine jurisdiction to particular Congregations and allow onely counsell or advise to Synods but he useth the same words and phrases to describe the power and government of one sort as well as of the other to note a like kinde of authority in both For the government of many Churches together in a Province he savth (b) Ibid. c. 7. For the disposing and directing of publick affaires Provinciall Synods were appointed that is companies of Bishops in the same Province which were assembled so often as need commodity required For evidence thereof he alledgeth divers Canons commendeth Cyprian for observing that order Touching the administration of all Churches in the world he sayth (c) Ibid. c. 8. He that denyeth these to have bene governed by Vniversall Synods must be either notoriously impudent or ignorant of all antiquity For in the very beginnings when a great question was raysed about the rites of Moses and some would have those that were converted from heathenish Idolatry to be subjected unto them Luke testifyeth that a Synod was assembled Act. 15. The Apostles and Elders came together to looke unto this matter And by the authority of this Synod that question was compounded which authority that they might signify to be the greatest the decree is conceived in these words It seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us And that this was an Oecumenicall or Universall Synod he there maintaineth by divers reasōs against Ioverius who in regard of the small number that met together affirmed it to be a particular Synod It seemes also that this was the place from whence Mr Parker took that which he alledged out of Chamierus because in these two chapters 7. 8. are contained those testimonies which he citeth And here it is that he speakes of causa communis or the common cause which Cyprian would have to be judged by a Synod And here it is that he speakes of some proper causes belonging peculiarly to some Bishops in their speciall charges viz. c. 7. But these things are not onely misquoted by Mr Dav. by putting the 2d book for the 10th but the sense is altered while Chamierus comparing Bishops with Metropolitanes restraines some things from Metropolitanes to such Bishops as had divers countries under them And though he shew how Cyprian brought a common cause unto the Synod yet he doth not affirme that onely such common causes were to be brought unto Synods Chamierus doth not witnesse that the power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters as Mr D. alledgeth him for witnesse thereof And in c. 8. he brings many evidences to witnesse the power of Generall Synods in judging the causes of all Churches Againe in the Question whether the Bishop of Rome may be judged of any Chamierus shewes the opinion of the Protestants whom he calleth Catholicks in opposition to the Papists that (d) Ibid. l. 13. c. 17. No Bishop at all may by divine right be judged of another but of many to wit in a Synod so as it hath most often bene done And when Bellarmine objected the examples of some Synods that refused to judge the Bishop of Rome Chamierus answereth that some of them were particular Synods consisting onely of such as were under the Romane Therefore they could make no generall decree but could onely ordaine that the Bishop of Rome should not be judged of them assembled in a particular Synod which certainely they either did not speak concerning a Generall Synod or els they spoke falsely A plaine confession of the jurisdiction of Synods for had he spoken of counsell or admonition onely why might not any one particular Bishop or Synod have admonished the Pope upon occasion and given their advise touching him In his dispute touching Appeales he sayth (e) Ibid. l. 14. c. 2. We doe not take away all appeales For they are of common equity and truely without them the Discipline of the Church could hardly or not at all subsist And he speakes there of such appeales as were made unto Synods Afterward speaking of the imposture or coosenage of the Bishop of Rome in the sixt Councell of Carthage where appeales denyed to Rome are yet expressely allowed to be made unto the Synods of their owne Province or to a Generall Councell hereupon Chamierus cryes out (f) Ibid. c. 3. Immane quantam crucem c. O how unspeakable a crosse is procured unto our Papists by the sincere constancy of those good fathers among whom were those great men Aurelius of Carthage and Augustine of Hippo c. Now look what weight and strength the testimony of those African fathers hath against the Papists even so much authority hath it against such as stand for the single uncompounded policie which deny the jurisdiction and power of Synods to determine such causes as by appeales are brought unto them For the jurisdiction of Synods in receiving appeales is in the same place as plainly confessed as the jurisdiction of the Pope is denyed by their prohibition of appeales to be made unto him Againe when he proves that the Pope is subject to Ecclesiasticall judgement he doth in the same question with one conclude that there is a superiority of power and jurisdiction in Synods to judge of him He instanceth (g) Ibid. c. 10. in Honorius a Bishop of Rome who by the sixt Synod was not onely judged but condemned as a
Monothelite This was more then counsell or admonition He shewes in the same place that many lawes were made concerning Bishops both of the Apostles and of Synods which doe certainly binde all Bishops When Bellarmine answereth that the Pope is bound by Ecclesiasticall lawes in respect of direction not of coaction which distinction is in effect the same which our opposites use now viz. that Synods may binde or be respected for their counsell not for their jurisdiction Chamierus replyeth againe and pleades that the Bishop of Rome is subject unto those lawes not onely for their direction but for their coaction or constraint viz. in regard of Ecclesiasticall censures He sayth further Even as particular Synods doe binde all the Bishops within their owne jurisdiction so Vniversal Synods have power over all the Bishops of the whole world Againe because particular Synods doe binde all the Bishops of their owne Province therefore the Bishop of Rome is subject unto the lawes not onely of an universall but also of his owne particular Synod Moreover he instanceth in divers particular lawes which the sixt Synod prescribed unto the Church of Rome by name touching the permission of marriage fasting c. Moreover when Bellarmine and P. Auratus doe plead for the Popes supremacy as being necessary to the unity of faith and the unity of the Church c. Chamierus answereth (h) Lib. 9. c. 13. Of old when many heresies sprung up they never ran unto any one man by whose authority questions might be decided When disputation was raysed against Paul and Barnabas touching Mosaicall ordinances the Apostles called a Synod Act. 15. which remedy the Church thence-forth used most diligently as often as either heresies or schismes did break the unity thereof He alledgeth divers examples thereof in speciall of Constantine and Innocentius in the question about Chrysostome And speaking of such Synods as used not onely counsell but jurisdiction in censuring the guilty such as was the Councell of Nice he sheweth thence they found no other remedy fit enough to preserve Ecclesiasticall unity in faith love except a Generall Synod He sayth againe We understand that the best and most certaine meanes of nourishing unity is a Synod not one Monarch And among others he alledgeth Aegidius Viterbiensis who disputed on this manner Paul the glory of the Apostles when he would shew the chief poynt of our salvation sayth Without faith we can by no meanes please God but without Synods faith cannot stand therefore without a Synod we cannot be safe And afterwards Whatsoever hath bene done in the Church worthy of praise worthy of honour from the age of Melchiades either to resist the enimy or to settle the Commonwealth that all sprung from Synods and is againe to be referred unto Synods And many other things he there bringeth to maintaine the authority of Synods without any shew that he ever light upon this dreame that they were onely for counsell To conclude whereas Chamierus was translated out of this life before he had fully finished that great work of his Panstratia Catholica and therefore for the finishing of it there is added unto his 4th Tome a Supplement by Alstedius in that Supplement there is also a plaine confession touching the authority of Synods Therein Alstedius treading in the steps of Junius and D. Whitaker (i) De Cōc c. 1. sect 6. doth acknowledge that the originall of Synods is from divine right alledging Deut. 17. Act. 1. ch 15. Mat. 18. Repeating the causes wherefore Synods are to be called he doth not limit them to be for counsell onely but that (k) Cap. 4. sect 2. as malefactours in Civill judgements are tryed accused condemned so in the Church obstinate Hereticks are by publick judgement to be condemned and excommunicated He allowes unto those that are lawfully called unto Synods (l) C. 5. s 2. to have right of giving definitive sentence and of determining matters according to the Scriptures He maintaines that Synods have authority over the Pope and that (m) C. 10. s 21. he is bound to subject himself unto their judgement discretive and coactive not onely to their counsell but to their censure And if these did not suffice there are yet many other cleare testimonies which Alstedius there gives touching the jurisdiction of Synods CHAP. VI. An answer to Mr Cannes Arguments FRom the Allegations of Mr Dav. we come now to the Argumentations of Mr Canne and his client against the authority of Classes and Synods and here first we will examine and consider their Syllogismes and Logicall formes of reasoning ARGVM I. (a) Churches plea p. 68. If those Churches planted by the Apostolique institution had power fully in themselves immediately from Christ to practise all his ordinances Then have all Churches the like power now But the first is true Therefore the second The Proposition is cleare certaine by these Scriptures 1. Cor. 5.2 3. Act. 14.23 1. Cor. 16.2 Col. 2.5 2. Thes 3.14 The Assumption is acknowledged by sundry of our best Divines c. ANSVV. I. The first maine fault in this Argument common to many that follow is that herein is committed a foule fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi that is to say the Conclusion is beside the Question This whole argument being granted yet the authority of Synods remaines still firme and unshaken thereby When or where did I ever affirme that the Churches now have not the like power to practise all the ordinances of Christ as fully as those Churches planted by Apostolick institution The testimonies of learned men here alledged by him to prove that the ancient and first institutions are to be preferred before later inventions I doe willingly assent unto But what can he conclude hence Though Christ have committed power unto a particular Church doth it therefore follow that if such abuse their power and goe astray either wholy or the greater part of it there is then no Ecclesiasticall authority above them to censure them or to restraine them from proceeding in evill This consequence which had bene to the purpose he offers not to prove It was confessed (b) Chap. 5. sect 1. p. 81. before b◠Mr Cartwright one of his owne witnesses here alledged by him that if any Church should desire or choose or consent upon by the most part some that is unmeet either for doctrine or manners then the Ministers and Elders of other Churches round about should advertise first and afterwards as occasion should serve sharply severely charge that they forbeare such election or if it be made that they confirme it not by suffering him to exercise any ministery II. A second extraordinary and grosse errour is to be observed in his Logick while in the prosequution of his Argument he not knowing which is the Major or which is the Minor proposition in his owne Syllogisme that which should be for the proofe of his Minor proposition that he applyes for proofe of the Major that which
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
for the judging of lesser causes without bringing them to the whole Congregation the other for the deciding of weightier matters which neither Eldership nor Congregation can so well end And this is acknowledged by sundry of his Witnesses whose names he abuseth in this controversy Mr Parker touching Mat. 18. sayth (f) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 15. p. 160. The Church of the faythfull is intended of Christ not as it is simply considered as we sayd before but as it exerciseth Discipline according to an Aristocraticall temperament in the Eldership For we doe think that the Church mentioned in the first place in those words Tell the Church doth precisely signify the Aristocraticall part that is the Eldership but that which is mentioned in the latter place in these words If he heare not the Church if as Downame teacheth it include the Church excommunicating for contempt and not onely decreeing or examining then it doth also comprehend the Democraticall part of the Church forasmuch as the consent of the people is necessary unto excommunication And a little before he sayth (g) Ibid. p. 159. Almost all interpreters doe agree that those words in vers 19. If two or three doe containe an amplification from the lesse to the greater from a lesse company to a greater so that it is most plaine that under the name of the Church he included as well the greater company as that which consists of two or three How Mr Parker proved the Synod also from Mat. 18. is shewed (h) See Ch. 3. p. 45. 49. before where D. Whitaker Mr Cartwright and others also teach the same thing ARGVM III. (i) Church plea. p. 70. Whatsoever was commanded to the 7 Churches to be practised by each of them apart in and for themselves that no Church of God must now omit But Ecclesiasticall government was commanded to the 7 Churches to be practised by each of them apart in and for themselves Therefore no Churches of God must omit the practise of Ecclesiasticall government apart in and for themselves The Proposition cannot be doubted of For as Chytraeus c. The Assumption is proved clearly in chap. 2. vers 2 14 20. c. Moreover Mr Perkins c. ANSVV. I. This Argument for the forme of it is a misshapen Syllogisme and that in a double respect both because the Minor terminus is superfluously put into the Major Proposition and because the same terminus is confusedly joyned with the Praedicate in the Minor proposition when it should have bene placed with the Subject therein But this is one of the least faults in Mr Cannes reasonings II. For the matter of it this Argument doth also come short of the mark reacheth not home to the question And that which he concludes being well understood may be safely granted of us That which Mr Canne alledgeth from Chytraeus Bullinger Brightman Perkins for the proof of his Proposition Assumption I doe willingly assent unto and it was but an idle labour to bring them for proof of that which is not denyed There be no Churches here among us which refuse to practise Ecclesiasticall government apart in for themselves This they practise after a double manner 1. There be many rebukes and censures against sinne administred in them without the knowledge of Classis or Synod apart in and for themselves 2. When as more hard weighty causes are brought unto the Deputies of other Churches assembled in Classes for their advise and judgement even then also when upon their consideration matters are cleared and there remaineth no scruple they are then remitted againe and referred unto the particular Churches so that the Eldership with consent of the Congregation proceedeth therein as they finde cause according to the repentance or obstinacy of the persons with whom they have to deale And so the sentence is both determined and executed apart in for themselves without the Classis But if by government to be practised apart in and for themselves he meane such a solitary and separate government as refuseth combination with other neighbour Churches such as admitteth no liberty of appeale in case of greatest wrong such as excepteth a particular Congregation from the censure of all other Churches though it should erre never so perniciously and in summe such a government apart as denyeth all authority and jurisdiction of Classes and Synods then is his Assumption most false and all that he alledgeth for proofe thereof helpes him nothing for 1. Though the Angel of the Church of Ephesus be commended for not bearing with the wicked c. and the Angel of the Church of Pergamus and Thyatira be reprehended for suffering divers enormities Rev. 2.2.14.20 by what good consequence can these examples overthrow the authority of Synods There might be occasion at this day to write unto some Ministers standing under the Classes and Synods in these Reformed Churches and some of them might justly be commended for their zeale in not bearing with the wicked others might justly be reprehended for their negligence in tolerating of such as offend now Mr Canne according to this reasoning might as well conclude against experience against the knowne trueth that these Ministers doe not stand under any Classicall government 2. The praise or dispraise which is given to the Angels of severall Churches apart doth not so much serve to argue an independency or disunion in government in these Churches but the very * Rev. 1.16.20 2.1 3.1 forme of the vision in the union of these Starres of the Churches in Christs right hand doth rather argue a consociation of them for their mutuall help in the government of his Church They appeare not scattered in the Firmament but gathered and drawne together What is a Classis or Synod but as a Constellation of so many Starres of the Churches combined together which by their conjunction together doe yeeld both a greater light of direction and a stronger influence of authority for the confirmation of the trueth and conviction of errour And as for the testimony of Mr Perkins though he acknowledge (k) Vpō Rev. 2.20 3.7 God hath given to every Church power and authority to preach the Word administer the Sacraments represse evill men c. yet doth he not thereby exempt those Churches from the censure of others if they be found to pervert the word corrupt the Sacraments and judge unrighteously It is not probable that such a conceit did ever enter into Mr Perkins head neither can it be collected from his words ARCVM IV. If the Church of Corinth had power and authority within herself to exercise Ecclesiasticall government yea and did it I meane the Ministery and the rest of the Church there Then ought not particular Congregations now to stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves But the first is true Therefore the second The first part is unquestionably certain and of this judgement was D. Willet c. ANSVV. That which
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
alledged or so much as pretended for it Is this to goe unto the Law and to the Testimony V. The testimonies of men which he alledgeth are falsifyed and perverted by him D. Fulk shewes the sufficiency of those offices mentioned by him viz. of Doctours Pastours Governours c. but he (a) Disc of Eccl. Gov. p. 111. c. shewes withall expressely how these exercise authority in Synods as well as in the Elderships and particular Congregations Though D. Whitaker and Mr Parker say that the Church of God may subsist without Synods yet he corrupts and falsifyes their testimony when he makes them to say the Church may well subsist without them The Church of God may subsist and be a true Church though it want some divine ordinances Though they be not absolutely necessary to the being and subsistence of a Church yet how needfull they are to the well-being of a Church both those Authors doe shew and prove from divers grounds of Scripture noted before If the want of every ordinance of God should destroy the subsistence of a Church thē that Company of Brownists under Mr Canne wanting the ordinance of an Eldership so long a time must have perished long agoe ARGVM VIII Whatsoever Government cannot be found commanded in the written word of God ought not to have any place in the Church of God But the Government of Classes and Synods over many particular Congregations cannot be found commanded in the written word of God Therefore it ought not to have any place in the house of God The first part is grounded upon these Scriptures Esa 8.20 Mat. 28. ult c. Likewise this is the judgement of many learned men c. The second part is also as manifest for if we onee grant as all learned men have granted that the Churches of the Apostolick constitution were independent bodies and exercised Ecclesiasticall government in and of themselves then it must follow that Classicall Assemblies c. have their rise wholy from the pleasure and will of man ANSVV. The first part of this Argument being of it self plaine enough needed not such store of proof as Mr Canne brings for it The Reader may observe his notable trifling in alledging so many testimonies of Scripture and testimonies of men though some of them be carelesly misalledged for proof of that which he had no reason to imagine that it would be denyed by me The second part of this Argument is most false and he knowes it is denyed by me and yet for proof of it he brings here neither word of God nor word of man no testimony neither Divine nor humane He sayth indeed most untruely that all learned men have granted that the Churches of Apostolick constitution were independent bodies but he names not one learned man that so writes The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament which shew a dependency of Churches in Ecclesiasticall judgements have bene noted already in those Arguments brought for the authority of Synods together with the consent of learned men such late opposites excepted as I my self first named as parties in this cause All other learned Writers doe generally reject that independency which he dreames of ARGVM IX (b) Churches plea. p. 73. That Government which meerly tendeth unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power is unlawfull But the Government of Classes Synods as they now are doth meerly tend unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power Therefore that Government is unlawfull The Major of this Argument may easily be proved by sundry places of Scripture viz. 1. Thes 4.6 c. the definition of justice c. the Etymologie or precise signification of the word both in Greek and Latin c. ANSVV. Here againe he playes the trifler in alledging so many Scriptures testimonies of men to prove that which of itself is cleare enough more plaine then the proofes that he brings for it In speciall that definition of justice which he brings is not sufficiently confirmed by the Etymologies which he speakes of The Greek Etymon noted out of Aristotle is not so currant but that some learned men refuse the same and (c) Avenar in praef Lex Ebr. derive the word from the Hebrew from whence the principall Etymologies of that tongue are to be taken And yet that Etymology which Aristotle brings of justice is not with Mr Canne to demonstrate an entire definition of justice but to shew in part one effect thereof and Mr Canne overspeakes himself when he sayth of the definition so much is imported in the Greek word The Latine Etymologie which Mr Canne brings viz. jus a jure as he sets it downe in his margine is more strange It is likely his Authour whom he alledgeth hath no such thing If Mr Canne should owne it or approove of it in such sort as it stands in his booke it would thereby appeare that his skill in Grammar is like unto his skill in Logick Who ever heard such an Etymology that the Nominative should be derived of the Ablative But admit there should be such a ridiculous Etymology how doth he or how can he apply this to confirme his definition of justice How doth this prove the trueth of his Major proposition What is that which he saith is imported in this Etymology And what is that precise signification which he vainely talkes of but doth not expresse But let us now heare now he seekes to prove his Minor which is most false I. CAN. The Minor is as manifest 1. By Mr Pagets owne testimony in pag. 66. where he confesseth that they have concluded among themselves in their Synods that no particular Congregation without the leave and consent of the Classis shall proceed to the election of Ministers excommunication of offendours and the like c. ANSVV. I. He doth manifestly change and alter my words for when as I had sayd that it had bene agreed in Synods touching election of Ministers excommunication and the like that the same shall not be proceeded in (d) Answ to W.B. p. 66. without advise of the Classis instead of this Mr Canne repeats it without leave and consent of the Classis Now according to the State of the Question betwixt us there is difference betwixt doing a thing without advise and without leave men aske advise of many of whom they aske no leave for doing a thing II. Had I spoken more largely of the allowance and consent of the Classes and Synods yet would not my testimony have proved his Minor viz. that their government tends to the taking away from particular Churches their due power seeing the authority and help of Classes tends to the establishment of their due power by directing and regulating the same and so preventing the undue execution of their power This order takes not away due power but hinders and corrects onely the undue exercise of their power Thus much is confessed by such as Mr Canne himself hereafter calles
being such parties also as had bene already censured about that controversy And see the dawbing between Mr Canne and W.B. The conclusion spoken of was not the conclusion of the Congregation and Mr Canne himself allowes not a Consistory to make any such conclusions without the Congregation and by his profession it doth not belong unto a Consistory and yet he helps W.B. to exclaime for that wherein he himself is of another minde Touching the words of the Prophet abused and misapplyed by them to frame their complaint Woe unto us we are spoyled Ier. 4.13 I answer 1. The liberty of appeales unto Classes and Synods is that which preserveth a Church and the members thereof from being spoyled by any faction And by their help we enjoy our liberty and peace and are established and furnished with such Ministers as agree with us in the trueth and are endued with such gifts as are meet for our edification 2. On the contrary for want of combination with Classes Mr Can. may justly take up the complaint Woe unto us we are spoyled Since his comming unto them beside former dissipations their Church is rent in the midst by incurable contentions their people scattered he himself deposed and rejected by the Elders people they mutually one half abandoning another avoyding one anothers companies as excommunicates Loe here a Spoyle ARGVM X. It is a sinne against God to adde any thing to that forme and manner of ordering Churches which Christ our heavenly Prophet hath set forth unto us in the New Testament To subject particular Congregations under any other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves is to adde unto that forme and manner of ordering Churches which c. Therefore it is a sinne to doe it The Proposition cannot be excepted against for the Scriptures herein are evident Deut. 4.2 c. Many learned men c. The Assumption cannot for shame be denyed onely because the weight of the controversy leaneth upon it I will speak further of it in the next Section ANSVV. For the Proposition I. If it be well understood I doe willingly grant it And Mr Canne doth againe trifle in alledging so many Scriptures Ancient fathers and other later Writers for the proof thereof II. Both the Scriptures and other Writers alledged by him doe as well condemne such as take from the word of God as those that adde unto it And therefore they serve to reprove Mr Can. that detracts from it by denying the authority of Synods taught in the forementioned Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament The Kings coyne is adulterate as well by clipping and diminishing the same as otherwise This crime are they guilty of that clip the authority of Synods III. The Fathers here mentioned doe give expresse testimony for Synods by speciall particular allowance of them and therefore they are doubly abused being thus alledged against their meaning For the Assumption he incurreth a threefold shame I. It is a bold and shameles assertion for him to say it cannot for shame be denyed when as it is evidently false and generally denyed by the most godly and learned in all ages II. Another shame it is that though he here confesse the weight of the controversy leaneth upō it yet here he brings nothing at all for the confirmation thereof This is his manner where no need of proof is there he idlie abounds with Scriptures Fathers and other Writers where the poynt of difference is on which the weight of the controversy leaneth there he leaves his Assumptions naked and without proof III. It is a further shame to put us off to the next Section and to tell us he will there speak further of it where he onely alledgeth the testimonies of men Is this answerable to the profession of the Brownists that boast so much To the Law and to the Testimony HAving thus examined his Arguments which he hath honoured with the ornaments of his Art by propounding them in Syllogisticall formes we will now proceed to consider another sort of his Reasons to which he doth not vouchsafe so much respect but propounds them more carelesly and nakedly without such complete Logicall attire Of these he sayth There are yet other reasons to proove our Assertion the which I will here lay downe more briefly REAS. I. (i) Church plea p. 75. If every Eldership have a like equall power as Hierome Cyprian Bucer and others affirme then may not the Officers of one Congregation seeke by authority to suppresse the acts and decrees concluded in another ANSVV. I. The consequence of this reason is denyed by us Though every Eldership be of equall power yet the Ministers and Elders of one Congregation being joyned together in a Classis or Synod with the Deputies of many Churches these may lawfully seek by their joynt authority to suppresse any unlawfull acts or decrees of another Congregation The reason is because as D. Whitaker (k) De Cōc qu. 1. c. 3. reasoneth from Matt. 18.20 and Mr Parker (l) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 13. § 4. alledgeth againe from him Vis unita fortior Power combined is the stronger The concurrence of power from many Churches is the ground on Synodall and Classicall authority over particular Churches though otherwise in themselves considered apart they be all equall II. Note here againe the trifling and shifting of Mr Canne To prove the equality of Elderships he alledgeth the testimonies of Hierome Cyprian Bucer and others though I had before granted it and shewed that in the Classis our Eldership had (m) Answ to W. B p. 86. the same liberty and power in giving our voyces equally with others and that our Elders (n) Ibid. p. 90. have exercised as much authority as any member of the Classis by giving their voyces for deciding judging and determining any controversy c. yet needlesly he brings divers Writers for proof of this confessed and practised trueth and for the confirmation of his most false consequence he offers not to bring any proof at all from any word of God or man REAS. II. It is against sence that a Minister should undertake the care of more Churches then one onely who reads in Scripture of a steward over many families a sheep heard over divers flockes c. Nature hath ordained saith (o) Lib. 1. c. 2. Aristotle one unto one ANSVV. I. We read in Scripture of Jaacob that was a shepherd over divers flockes both of his owne and of Labans Gen. 30.36 40. II. We read in Scripture of the Apostles that were stewards and shepherds over divers flockes having the care of all Churches 1. Cor. 4.1 with 2. Cor. 11.28 Ioh. 20.15 16. Mr Canne ought at least to have excepted extraordinary Shepherds III. Though ordinary Pastours or Ministers have the peculiar and proper charge of no more then one flock yet in regard of a common and joynt care of many Churches combined in Classes and Synods we read in Scripture that the
acknowledge one another to be in that way IV. This company of Brownists whereof Mr Canne is the sole Governour was formerly governed by an Eldership and now since their division they have no Eldership to rule them Whether it be because they thinke they have none among them fit to be Elders or whether they doe wilfully refuse such as they cannot deny to be fit or whether there be any other cause I leave it to themselves Alwayes this we know that there be some Churches in remote countries that want the benefit of Classicall government because there be no other neighbour Churches neere unto them with whom they may combine themselves for their mutuall guidance and edification But now if the want of an Eldership among the Brownists such as they once had doe not warrant us to say that they hold two distinct formes of Church-government to be lawfull one with an Eldership another without an Eldership consequently that they hold two wayes unto heaven then much lesse can the want of a Synod in respect of the different consideration of the times places occasions and oportunities of severall Churches be any warrant for Mr Canne to object unto us two formes of government or two wayes to heaven c. REAS. V. Let it be observed that for this reason among others the Learned (x) Whit. Cont. 4. qu. 4. Chamier l. 6. cōject 2. say the Pope is Antichrist viz. because he will have men to appeale from their owne Churches unto him and to stand under his sentence and decree And doe not the Classicall assemblies and Synods take upon them an authority much like to it in subjecting many Congregations to them requiring appeales to be made to them and that the Judicatory as Mr Pagets * In his Letter c. phrase is belongeth to them as if their power above all Churches ANSVV. I. Let it be observed how Mr Canne speaking here against appeales made unto Classes and Synods brings no Scripture no word of God to condemne them but onely the testimonies of men he needed not to have reserved hereafter a peculiar Section onely for humane testimonies when he uses them so oft before II. Let it be observed how notably he abuseth even these testimonies also against the meaning of his Authors D. Whitaker (y) DePont Rom. qu. 4. p. 470. pleads for appeales as being both of divine and naturall right Chamier whom Mr Canne doth misquote without the title of the book alledged sayth that appeales (z) Panstrat Catho tom 2. l. 13. c. 17 are of common equity and truely without them the Church could hardly or not at all subsist speaking of appeales unto Synods That which learned and orthodox Writers blame in appeales made unto the Pope is this that they are made unto one man and not unto a Synod asscribing unto him infallibility of judgement giving him power over Churches that are not combined with the Church of Rome and in speciall for this that the Pope allowes no appeales to be made from him unto a Synod This is the Antichristian pride that they condemne in the Pope And herein the Church of the Brownists doth plainly resemble the Pope seeing their Congregation also their Democraticall judicatory allowes no appeale to be made from them unto Classes or Synods unto any Ecclesiasticall judges besides themselves These are two of the most monstrous propositions of the Papists touching the Popes authority viz. that (a) Bellarm. de Conc. l. 2. c. 17. 18. the Pope is above a Generall Synod and acknowledgeth no judgement on earth above him and againe that the Pope cannot commit the coactive judgement over him neither unto a Synod nor unto any man but onely the discretive this discretive judgement they expound to be such a kinde of arbitrement as doth not binde him further then it pleaseth him Now so farre as concernes Ecclesiasticall judgement the Brownists and the maintainers of the single uncompounded policie doe likewise hold that there is no judgement on earth above their particular Congregation and that they may not commit any controversy of theirs unto the censure and decision of any Synod What stronger reason could Mr C. have alledged against himself to shew their unlawfull government then this their denyall of appeales III. Let it be observed how foolishly Mr Canne cavills at my speech touching Classicall assemblies and Synods when he relates it thus the judicatory as Mr Pagets phrase is belongeth unto them for this relation is false that was not my phrase but I sayd the judicature did belong unto them It was the simplicity of his informer or of some ignorant scribe that put judicatory for judicature as may appeare by the writing I made which is yet to be seene Note Mr C. his rashnes in receyving such things REAS. VI. What more meet and reasonable then that every mans case be there heard and determined where the fault was committed So sayth (b) Cypr. li. 1. Epist 3. Cyprian It is not fit that they over whom the Holy Ghost hath made us overseers should goe too fro He speaketh of carying matters away from their owne Church unto others ANSVV. I. Though it be meet and reasonable that every mans cause be first there heard where the fault was committed yet is it as reasonable that if either an unjust sentence be there given the innocent may in the second place have liberty of appeale from their oppressours or if the case be difficult and weighty that the matter be at first brought unto Classicall assemblies according to the order of Reformed Churches II. For confirmation of this reason he brings no word of God but onely the testimonie of Cyprian which also according to his manner he doth most palpably abuse For Cyprian doth not simply blame those that appealed unto Synods but onely such as did inordinately run too and fro such as were not content with the Synods in Africa but sayled over the sea unto the Church of Rome Of such he there speakes And even in the same Epistle Cyprian shēwes both the use of Synods allowed in the Churches of Africa and the authority of Synods in censuring offendours He there gives (c) Lib. 1. e. 3. § 11.12 instances of Privatus condemned in an assembly of 99 Bishops of Foelix of Iovinus Maximus excluded from the communion of the Church by a Synod of Repostus also censured in like manner Their Synods were not onely for counsell but exercise a jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall And as they exercised the power of the keyes in binding obstinate sinners so also loosing and absolving those that repented as appeares in (d) Lib. 1. Ep. 2. § 1. another Epistle going immediately before this alledged and written by the Synod itself In the inscription of that Epistle are prefixed the names of Cyprian Liberalis Caldonius Nicomedes and Caecilius c. as being speciall members of that Synod and writing joyntly together that Synodicall Epistle (e) Ibid. n. 6.
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.
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
be pronounced by them (n) Sleid. Comment lib. 1. he appealed from the Pope to a Councell or Synod The compleat forme of his Appeale is recorded (o) Tom. 1. f. 231. edit 1545. among his workes wherein he doth plainly acknowledge the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods both by the whole drift and substance thereof and when he saith that a sacred Councell being lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost representing the holy Catholick Church is in causes concerning the faith above the Pope c. This his Appeale was repeated and further urged in the yeare 1520 when the Pope had condemned and excommunicated him Among other reasons which he useth to reenforce his Appeale he alledgeth this (p) Tom. 2. f. 52. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 2. that the Pope most wickedly preferred his owne tyranny above the power of the Councell c. and therefore he beseecheth the Emperour and other Magistrates that for the glory of God and for the maintaining of the liberty of a Councell they would admit of his Appeale and represse the others tyranny c. In the yeare 1539 he wrote a booke in the German tongue de Conciliis concerning Councels or Synods where though he inveigh severely and not without cause against the Pope for his frustrating the desires of those that sought a Generall Councell admitting of none but where he might sway all by his owne authority and command yet he doth fully approve of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had bene formerly exercised in Synods Councells lawfully assembled and rightly ordered A Councell saith (q) Oper. German Tom. 7. f. 260. edit 1562. he is nothing els but a Consistory a Court of justice an Imperiall Chamber or the like where the Iudge having heard the parties pronounceth sentence but with this condition that it be according to Law c. Thus a Councell condemnes an Heretick not according to their owne opinion but according to the Royall law that is according to the holy Scripture as they professe which is the Law of the holy Church Speaking of the right and power of Councells having shewed (r) Ibid. f. 257. c. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 12. that it is not lawfull for them to make new Articles of faith to command any new work to binde mens consciences to new ceremonies nor to intermeddle with Civill government he declareth withall that it is their duety to condemne new doctrines contrary to the Scriptures and to censure the persons to remove and condemne new ceremonies that are superstitious or unprofitable for the Church and to examine and judge of those things that are controverted as it is prescribed in the word of God Moreover demanding what the office or work of a Councell is he answeâ—s (Å¿) Ubi supra f. 260. Anathematisamus we pronounce Anathema so is their office called Anathematisat Ecclesia the holy Church condemnes or excommunicates So farre was Luther from denying the authority of Synods that he allowes them the power of pronouncing this heavie sentence of Anathema or Excommunication To proceed unto his other witnesses there is nothing in the words alledged out of Chemnitius and Polycarpus Lyserus who is the Authour of that part of the Harmony quoted under the name of Chemnitius that by any just consequence can be opposed unto our doctrine and practise touching election excommunication examination of sentences c. Onely observe how Mr Canne here abuseth his Authour and his Readers by his imperfect allegation setting downe this testimony of Chemnitius in such manner as if that which was sayd with an expresse condition had bene uttered simply and absolutely without any such restraint Chemnitius sayth indeed that election or calling doth belong unto the whole Church but how that Mr Canne leaves out as unfit for his purpose which his Authour addes immediately in the same period saying that it belongs unto the whole Church certo quodam modo in such wise that both the Presbytery and the people have each their owne share in the choyse or calling Chemnitius in that (t) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram Ord. Can. 7. learned discourse touching the calling of Ministers intends principally to prove against the Councell of Trent that the consent of the people and of the Christian Magistrate is requisite in elections but withall he gives as full and plaine testimony for the judgement examination and approbation of the Presbytery under which he comprehends the Ministers of other Congregations called Bishops and Clerkes in the places alledged by him And this kinde of election he shewes to be agreeable unto the practise of the Apostolick primitive ancient and their owne moderne Churches Besides Chemnitius doth sufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods which is our maine question in divers pregnant passages of that book which he wrote against the Councell of Trent He (v) Exam. Conc. Trid par 1. praef alledgeth commendeth the words of Augustine saying that most wholesome is the authority of Councels in the Church while they judge according to the rule and square of the holy Scripture c. He saith (x) Ibid. Exam. Decret 1. 2. that many have often wished and long waited for a true lawfull free and Christian Councell as the right medicine for the curing of those manifold errours and abuses that were crept into the Church He doth frequently alledge and approve the acts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in former Synods throughout that whole booke He saith indeed in one of the places cited by Mr Canne (y) Ibid. praef that the decrees of Councells are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture but this doth no more empaire that authority of Synods which we asscribe unto them then it doth the power of all Church-acts and sentences whatsoever concerning which Chemnitius (z) Exam. par 1. de bon op qu. 2. sayth the same thing and Mr Canne cannot deny but that they are to be examined and tryed by the word of God though they be made in such manner as he himself (a) Ch. pl. p. 95. requireth There is another allegation of Chemnitius touching the distinction betwixt power and the administration of it which Mr Canne hath taken at all adventures as it seemes from Mr Parker or rather from the Scribe or Printer that caused that quotation Exam. c. 6. to stand so defectively (b) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 26. in his booke and as he is thus briefe and obscure in the quotation so he is as sparing in the application of this testimony unto his purpose bidding us onely observe what is attributed to the Congregation what to the guides thereof to the first power to the latter the administration of it For the thing it self we grant that there is such a distinction alledged out of Luther and explained by Chemnitius teaching (c) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram in geÌ„ Can. 10. that Christ hath delivered and commended the Keyes that is the
He calles those decrees of the Councell of Basile (k) P. 1218. Catholick or universall trueths whereby it was enacted 1. That the power of a Generall Councell representing the whole Church is above the Pope and everie other person 2. That the Pope cannot dissolve a Generall Councell without their consent c. 3. That he that doth obstinately oppose the foresaid trueths is to be accounted an Heretick He relates coÌ„mends the speeches of (l) P. 1010. c. Marsilius Patavinus (m) P. 1232 c. Petrus de Alliaco and divers others shewing the power of Councels in judging and censuring the Pope the necessity of them both Provinciall and Generall for the correcting of abuses and amending of all sorts of persons and things with greater authority He approves and defends (n) P. 1341. the renowned Italian Martyr Hieronimus Savanorola for seeking that a Generall Councell might be called for reformation of the Clergie and degenerate estate of the Church c. Besides this he being in his time a principall favourer maintainer of the Discipline in the French Churches where the causes of particular Congregations were judged and determined by Synods could therefore be no favourer of the Brownists opinion which count such government to be a miserable bondage and slavery of the Churches Tilenus that is also called to be one of their Jurie against me doth most expressely give his verdict on my side against the Brownists He teacheth (o) Syntag. Disp Theol. par 2. Disp â—0 thes 1. that the fourefold power of the Church is to be exercised not onely in Presbyteries but also in Councels or Synods that (p) Thes 4. Synods according to the power granted of God unto his Church may take knowledge of Ecclesiasticall causes and by their judgements conferred together according to the word of God may define c. (q) Th. 19. give ministeriall sentence c. And further he saith (r) Th. 38. As it is not to be hoped for that the body of the Church militant on earth shall be free from divers diseases so we may not think that it can want this remedy of Synods which we therefore affirme to be not onely lawfull but also necessary Bastingius shewing how Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church saith nothing but that which is practised both in our and other Reformed Churches of these countries especially if it be marked how he explaines himself in the leafe following where he addes that (f) Expos Catech. Qu. 85. Ecclesiasticall discipline and excommunication itself ought to be administred by them who are ordained thereunto of the Church such as are Ministers of the Word and Elders the rest of the Church consenting thereunto yet with this correction that the multitude of the people doe not rule the action but provide as watchmen that nothing be done by a few as they list themselves Besides he being a member Minister of these Churches and Regent of a Colledge in Leyden there is no reason from these his words to conclude against the authority of Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations if they either could not agree among themselves or should agree in evill For then he should have condemned his owne estate and practise which yet cannot be inferred from this his testimony Vrfinus also though he teach that the unrepentant are to be excommunicated by the common consent of the Church c. yet doth he not thereby deny or exclude the power of Synods in judging of that which is done in particular Congregations but doth plainly give testimony with me For (t) Tom. 2. Admo Chr. de lib. Concord c. 12. col 686. having shewed the conditions and necessity of Synods he saith of them This remedie for the healing of the wounds of the Church is not to be neglected which the holy Ghost hath shewed unto us by the counsell and example of the Apostles which all reason of divine and humane right requires which being lawfully used experience hath proved to be most wholesome for the Church in many most grievous confusions of opinions Neither was this his private opinion but (v) Ibid. Tit. Col. 478. written in the name of other Divines Ministers in the jurisdiction of Prince Casimir and approved by them Piscator saith Excommunication is a decree of the Church therefore ought to be done of the Church (x) In 1. Cor. 5. Obs 1. Art 3. or of the Eldership judging in the name of the Church We grant as much or more in the practise of our Church while the Eldership never exerciseth such power alone without the knowledge and consent of the Church by propounding the same divers times unto them But it is a perverting of this testimony to gather from hence that the actions of the Church or Eldership are not subject to the judgement of Synods if they be complained of for wrong And that Piscator alloweth the authority of Synods (y) In Act. 15. Obser in V. 6. to judge the controversies of Religion and to (z) Thes Theol. Vol. 1. Loc. 23. de Eccl. th 68. 72. make decrees by gathering of voyces in order it is evident from other of his writings Calvine requiring the (a) Instit l. 4. c. 1. sec 15. cognition of the whole Church before any be excommunicate requires no more then is held and practised by us And this is no empeachment to his and our opinion with him that in case of doubt or controversy (b) Ibid. c. 9. sec 13. there is no better nor more certaine remedie then that a Synod of true Bishops meet together where the controversy may be discussed For such a definition shall have much more weight where the Pastours of Churches in common doe agree together c. And this he there confirmes both by Scripture and sundry examples of ancient Churches shewing that from the beginning it was the ordinary way of preserving unitie in the Church so often as Satan began to attempt any thing Besides this not to speak of other testimonies afforded by Calvine to this purpose when as Mr Canne (c) Ch. pl. p. 94. afterward notes the assertions of divers pleading for the Hierarchie of Bishops and oppugning Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods as a weed of later growth saying that at Geneva subjecting of Churches first began And before Calvine came there everie Congregation was free in itself If these assertions be true and that none is able to disprove them as Mr Canne there supposeth how comes it that he thus perverteth Mr Calvines testimony against his profession and practise Let the Reader observe that if these assetions were sound Mr Canne might as well have written a booke to prove the miserable bondage and slavery of the Church at Geneva procured by the tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine of Mr Calvine as he wrote the like title of an unjust complaint upon the like ground against me Paraeus
on 1. Cor. 5.5 doth thus interpret the words Let such a one be delivered to Satan to wit by the Church or by the Pastours and Elders of the Church which are the mouth of the Church For by these the Church speaketh and dealeth Without this order there would be confusion if in a publick action every one might speake and deale which undoubtedly the Apostle would not bring in This we grant and it is not against us but against the confused practise of the Brownists But for the poynt in hand that Classes and Synods have power to judge of the actions of particular Congregations Paraeus is a plaine witnesse for us in (d) Colleg. Theol. Decur Coll. 9. Disp 8. Auccar 1. Co. 10. Disp 22. th 1-10 Disp 24. th 9. other of his writings And againe speaking of a lawfull Synod and the authority thereof in deciding of controversies in the Church he saith that therein (e) Eirenic cap. 5. men renowmed in regard of their learning understanding and piety whether they be of the Laity or Clergy have not onely a voice of delibertion and counsell but also of judgement and power of defining And hereunto accordes his (f) Act. Sym. Nar. Dordr Ses 98. Epistle written unto the Nationall Synod holden last at Dort wherein excusing his absence that he could not come in respect of his age as he much desired yet he shewes his approbation of such a meeting as being the ordinary medicine for healing the wounds of the Church and rejoyceth greatly in the spirit for the benefit exspected from that Synod which judged censured the errours of particular men in divers Churches What reason then had Mr Canne thus to abuse the words of Paraeus against his meaning and publick profession Keckerman also agreeth with the former witnesses touching the poynt in controversy For in the book alledged by Mr Canne when as the parts of the government of the Church are there described he shewes that (g) System Theo. l. 3. c. 6. p. 401.402 the convocation of Synods belongeth unto Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and is contained under the same Hemmingius though more sound and moderate then other Lutheranes yet being a disciple and follower of Melancthon there was no reason why he should not have bene joyned with his Master in the foregoing ranke of Testimonies if Mr Canne had either knowne his Authour or regarded the order which he had set downe to himself But for his judgement touching the jurisdiction of Synods he hath witnessed his consent with the Writers mentioned both in this the former Section and testifyed against Mr Canne in this cause For speaking of that part of Ecclesiasticall Discipline unto which he referres the deposition and excommunication of Ministers he commends the order of the ancient Church where he saith (h) Enchir. Theo. Clas 3. c. 11. the execution of this discipline was chiefly committed to the Bishops who therefore sometimes twise sometimes oftner in the yeare called Provinciall Synods where the matter was handled not by the censure of one Bishop but by the sentence of the whole Clergy assembled Tossanus mentioned in the next place hath plainely declared himself to be of the same minde with us in allowing Synodall and Classicall assemblies to judge determine the causes of particular Churches and persons He (i) Pastor Evang. p. 61 edit 1603. maintaines against Thyraeus that which he had formerly written in these words In controversies of religion we appeale from Luther and from the censures and judgements of private men unto the judgement of the Catholick Church and of a Synod He proves this to be sound and orthodoxe from the Apostles referring the decision of the controversie concerning Iustification and the Ceremonies of the Law unto the Councell at Ierusalem Act. 15. Speaking of somewhat that was wanting in most of the German Churches about the ordaining of Ministers he saith that (k) P. 40. godly Pastours and Overseers doe dayly bewaile the scarsitie of faithfull labourers and that the Presbyteries and well ordered Ecclesiasticall Senates doe indeavour that both in Synods and yearely visitations and in Classicall meetings the failings of Ministers may be amended according to their power In which words he hath reference unto the practise of the Churches in the Palatinate concerning which we are to speake (l) Sect. 7. hereafter where he joyned with them in the exercise of the sayd government being (m) D. Toss Vita p. 38. at Neustadt a moderator of the Ecclesiasticall counsels of the Consistory and sometime also President of a Synod and afterwards at Heidelberg (n) Ib. P. 44. a member of the Ecclesiasticall Senate How unjustly therefore untruely hath Mr Canne dealt with Tossanus and his readers in reckoning him among those who as he saith (o) Ch. pl. p. 83. have condemned for an errour untrueth that position touching particular Congregations standing under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves As for Polanus to grant Mr Canne that he was of the same minde with the former Authours touching the Churches power in excommunicating though so much can hardly be manifested out of the (p) Synt. Theol. l. 7. c. 18. place alledged yet what is that to our question The Churches power in excommuncating doth not exclude the authority of Synods in judging of a particular Congregation Polanus speaking of Synods expressely confesseth that (q) Ib. c. 14 the liberty or power of those Ecclesiasticall assemblies is a right given of God unto his Church c. that An Ecclesiasticall Synod is a publick assemblie of godly men lawfully sent and gathered together from divers Churches also of divers Provinces that they may handle and determine according to the power that is granted unto them of God touching holy affaires c. He alledgeth sundry Scriptures and examples of the Ancient Churches for declaration hereof And againe in the same place he notes it for a condition of a lawfull Synod that those which are chosen and deputed of the Churches may have a deliberative or consulting and also a deciding voyce or giving of sentence c. When he requires another condition of a lawfull Synod that every one may have free accesse and recesse yet he addes this withall that whosoever is convicted of heresy or any crime and remaineth obstinate should undergoe Ecclesiasticall censure that is deposition from his Ecclesiasticall office or Suspension or Excommunication And to like purpose he writes in (r) Ib. c. 16. Syllo Thes Theol. par 1 de Concil other places This being the judgement of Polanus touching the authority of Synods how uncircumspect was W. Best his abettour to call for a Iurie of such Divines as have given such pregnant sentence and so peremptory verdict against them Hyperius next alledged though he deny not the power of particular Congregations yet in his writings it is evident that he holdes the power of Synods consisting of the Deputies of many Churches to be a
Authors more in number then those he hath specifyed and not inferiour for learning and piety unto some of those that he hath named all which in their severall writings Common places Commentaries and other Treatises have in like manner as the former described the use the necessity and the authority of Synods not onely for counsell but for judgement and decision of controversies divers of them alledging not onely examples of ancient Churches but the holy Scriptures also for the warrant of that which they teach and therefore shewing that they maintaine them lawfull jure divino and that their tenure of them is from the grant that Christ hath given unto his Church But the trueth of that assertion touching the multitude of those that consent with me will most plainly appeare when we come to speak of the publick and generall testimonies of whole Churches most solemne assemblies of learned godly men touching this controversie In the meane while let us follow Mr Canne according to his owne Method SECT IV. Touching the Testimonies of English Conformists IN the next place they proceed and in an homely phrase they say Touching the English Conformist the formablest of them are for us in this poynt And here they alledge B. Whitgift D. Bilson Whitaker Bell Willet and Taylor Touching these I answer First for B. Whitgift though he confesse that in the Apostles time the state of the Church was popular See Def. ag T. C. p. 180. 182. because the Church had interest almost in every thing yet this proves not that he thought particular Congregations to be independent and uncontrolable by the Deputies of other Churches assembled in Synods The ordinary practise of B. Whitgift in judging the causes of other Congregations shewed that he was farre from the meaning of the Brownists in this poynt His words are wrested by an unjust consequence to prove independency of Churches and the undue power of Synods For D. Bilson there is notable wrong done to him in clipping his words and defacing his testimonie by omitting that which is most materiall in this controversy For when D. Bilson had sayd (a) Perpet Gover. c. 15 p. 360. Though the Presbyters had more skill to judge yet the people had as much right to choose their Pastour if the most part of them did agree they did carrie it from the Clergie Thus farre Mr Canne reciteth his words but here in the midst of the sentence before the period be ended he breakes off and leaves out this exception that is added viz. so the persons chosen were such as the Canons did allow and the ordainers could not justly mislike In this exception D. B. acknowledgeth that there may be just cause to disanull the election of the people if it be found worthy to be misliked And his meaning is yet more evident by the story which in the sentence immediately preceding he alledgeth out of (b) Lib. 7. cap. 35. Socrates touching the election of Proclus who being chosen by the greater number was yet refused because the election was sayd to be against the Canon of translating Bishops and so the people were forced to hold their peace That which is practised in these Reformed Churches is in this poynt the very same thing that D. B. testifies of the Primitive Church for Classes and Synods doe not use to impose or choose Ministers If particular Congregations doe choose a Minister neither Classes nor Synods can disanull the election if there be no just cause of exception against the person elected And if upon just exception the election be hindred yet then also is the new election of another permitted to the free choyse of the particular Church neither doth the Classis deprive them of their just power and liberty therein That it may more plainly appeare how unjustly and unreasonably D. Bilson is alledged as agreeing with my opposites let it be further observed that in his Dispute against Beza such as approve the Discipline of these Reformed Churches he doth not as my adversaries complaine of the undue power of Synods that judge and determine the causes of particular Congregations He acknowledgeth that (c) Perpet Gover. c. 16 p. 370. the necessity and authority of Synods is not so much in question betwixt us as the persons that should assemble and moderate those meetings c. He would have (d) P. 378 c. Metropolitanes to be the Moderatours and rulers of Synods he would have (e) P. 387 c. lay-Elders thrust out from assembling with Ministers in Synods he complaines (f) P. 386 387. of the intolerable charges and expences of having frequent Synods c. Herein he differs from us and we from him But that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authoritie in Synods to decide the causes of particular Churches which is the poynt in question herein he agreeth with us He saith of such Synods and their power to judge as followeth (g) P. 372. Their warrant so to doe is builded on the maine grounds of all divine and humane societies strengthened by the promise of our Saviour and assured unto them by the example of the Apostles and perpetuall practise of the Church of Christ Afterwards he saith of their meetings in Synods (h) P. 374. This hath in all Ages as well before as since the great Councell of Nice bene approved and practised as the lawfullest and fittest meanes to discerne trueth from falshood to decide doubts end strifes and redresse wrongs in causes Ecclesiasticall yea when there were no beleeving Magistrates to assist the Church this was the onely way to cleanse the house of God as much as might be from the lothsome vessels of dishonour and after Christian Princes began to professe protect the trueth they never had nor can have any better or safer direction amongst men then by the Synods of wise and godly Pastours And many other things to like purpose are written by him complayning that the denyall of this order is (i) P. 376. an heathenish if not an hellish confusion c. That which they bring out of Scultingius a Papist before alledged is idle impertinent untill they heare me avouch such things as he doth for change of the order of Christ let them refraine their surmises and conjectures of imaginary arguments which they guesse that I will use Having brought such Authours against me mark how Wil. B. or Io. Ca. for him doth triumph against me before the victory in these words (k) Chu pl. p. 85. To say that this superiour power of Classes and Synods is Jure Divino I thinke he will not any more doe it there being in the Scriptures no proofe yea I may boldly say nor shew of any proofe for it I confesse indeed it is boldly spoken of him for who so bold al 's blinde B. But whether there be at least shew of proofe in the Scriptures for the superiour authority of Synods in judging the causes of particular
controversy have long since professed unto them how much I have disliked their opinions in this poynt Secondly though these witnesses have testifyed their particular judgement yet did they never deny but that they differed herein from many other godly Ministers in England which desired a reformatiō of the Church as well as they When as I expostulated with D. Ames long since touching the publishing of that treatise of English Puritanisme and complayned of wrong done unto many silenced Ministers who did not hold such opinions as are contained in that booke his excuse was that they did not assirme those to be the opinions of all but onely of the Rigidest sort of those that are called Puritanes and that so much was specifyed in the Title of that book And againe in the preface of that book those opinions are sayd to be the worst that the worst of them hold and the persons that doe hold those peculiar opinions are there againe distinguished from others by the title and name of Rigid Presbyterians Now though these expressions be not without some offence yet from hence it may appeare that the Authors and Publishers thereof were farre from that slanderous disposition of Mr Canne in charging those of different opinion to have changed and altered their judgement when as he saith (h) Chu pl. p. 86. Time was when Mr Paget did esteeme them to be a multitude of godly and learned Ministers and was or at least made shew he was of their judgement and practise An unconscionable insinuation against me And afterwards againe he saith (i) Ib. p. 88. Mr Paget hath left the way of Non-conformitie yea and shewes himself to it a great adversary c. A grosse slander Whereas Mr Canne saith further touching the Protestation of K. Supremacic that this booke was (k) P. 23. set out under the name of all the unconformable Ministers in the Realme this is a notable falshood for neither is the word All used in the title of that Protestation made in the name of afflicted Ministers indefinitely neither can it ever be proved that all those Ministers did ever consent unto that opinion there specifyed and alledged by him viz. We confine and binde all Ecclesiasticall power within the limits onely of one particular Congregation c. Thirdly as for Mr Bradshaw that wrote the forenamed Protestation that book of English Puritanisme if he were such an one as Mr Canne reports him to be now after his death then were his testimony and his writing the lesse to be regarded For he saith of him that (l) Necess of Separ p. 217. his proofes are alwayes beggerly I sayes or Ifs and may be soes and doth not in all his writing either directly or by sound consequence from the Scripture confirme any one thing whereof he speaketh He accuseth him there also of great hypocrisy in pleading for many evills of which his judgement was well knowne to be wholy otherwise And in the same place upon an if and a may be so which he had immediately condemned in others upon a report which he judgeth probable enough he compares him to Baalams Asse c. What meant Mr Canne to alledge such witnesses against me whom he himselfe though indeed very unworthily hath so described as if they were not worthy to have any credit given unto them Touching D. Ames his judgement in this controversy somewhat differently expressed in his severall writings I have spoken at large (m) P. 106-111 before in answer to Mr Dav. his Allegations As for Mr Hooker his argument (n) Ch. pl. p. 88. annexed to his Testimony is of no force against us seeing he concludes beside the question which was not of every particular Church but of such as stood already in combination with a Classis Concerning the Churches in New-England Mr Canne saith (o) Ib. P. 23. This may not be forgotten Whereas there are many hundreds of our Country-men in New-England they have not erected there any Classicall Government but every particular Church exerciseth her owne I say within herself wholy which is a sure argument to proove that the foreward professours in England approove not of this kinde of government here pleaded for although he would feigne have his Reader to thinke so Hereunto I answer 1. What the Government of the Churches in New-England is and whether they refuse the help of Classes and Synods for the judgement and determination of their controversies according to the order of Reformed Churches here in Europe I know not neither can I receive the testimony of Mr Canne his bare word for a sufficient evidence herein without some more authentick witnesse Divers bookes have bene published touching the nature of that soyle the fruits of the countrie the manners of the wilde people but touching the Ecclesiasticall government and discipline there practised I have as yet seene no monument thereof It is probable enough that those Separatists which had bene of Mr Robinsons company here at Leyden in their plantation would observe their old order as neere as they could and for some particular persons beside I have heard of their inclination that way but that there should be a generall agreement resolution against Classicall Combinations I heare not and ought therefore to suspend my judgement for the present touching their practise 11. Suppose every particular Congregation in New-England were independent and subject to no other Ecclesiasticall government out of itselfe yet is this no sure argument to prove that the forward professours in England as Mr Canne calles them are generally of the same opinion also seeing these in England may be ignorant of that which is done so farre of Yea so farre as I can heare even such as have bene diligent to enquire cannot yet get any certaine information what order of government is resolved upon in New-England As for Mr Bates I can say nothing touching his assent or dissent in this poynt seeing I have not seene his writing alledged against us For the rest they are all notably abused For the Authour of the Reply unto D. Downame though he affirme that the administration of all Church-matters at first was in every Congregation the right in the Church the execution in the Presbyterie thereof this doth neither exclude the Classis in censuring of the Presbyterie if they abuse their power nor hinder the Presbyterie from seeking the help of the Classis in the exercise of their power in matters of doubt and difficultie The testimonies out of the Centuries D. Whitgift Thomas Bell there (p) Repl. par 2. l. 2. p. 104 alledged by the Replyer are answered already in the severall places which Mr Canne hath assigned unto them in his writing where it hath bene shewed that in this controversie they are impertinent doe not proove any thing against us Besides Mr Canne had the lesse cause to alledge this place in the foresaid Reply seeing the Authour in the very next page doth approve
of that order which for election of Church-officers is practised at Geneva saying (q) Ibid. p. 105. that it is religiously and prudently observed Mr Canne might there have seen himself condemned under the name of Morellius even by this Replyer also as well as by Beza seeing it is as true of him as of the other that which is there sayd that he hath presumed by word and writing to reprehend that order c. our course being in substance the same and opposed by Mr C. in like manner as theirs was by Morellius Againe in the (r) P. 106. next page the sayd Authour doth expressely reject and detest that popular government practised among the Brownists and pleaded for by Mr Canne when having sayd that the peoples consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment according to that which we teach and practise he addes withall Notwithstanding a meere Democracie wherein all matters are handled of all aequato jure by an equall right we doe no lesse detest then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates which other reformed Churches have abolished And afterwards (Å¿) P. 113. when he allowes a preheminence for orders sake unto some one to be the mouth of the rest in executing that which was by the whole Presbytery decreed and then explaines that one to be the President of the Presbyters that is to say in each Congregation the Pastor and in a Synod or assembly of the Pastors and Presbyters of many Churches that one which with the consent and choyse of his brethren moderates the action there is no reason why we should not hence conclude his approbation of Synods such as are and have bene celebrated in well ordered Churches even such as doe not onely advise but also decree what is meet as he had sayd of the Presbyterie in generall As for the other places alledged out of this Authour I referre the Reader unto that which I have sayd (r) P. 116.117 before touching the same in my answer to Mr Davenport Mr Parker next alledged speakes downe right in this thing saith Mr Canne The words cited out of Mr Parker are these All Ecclesiasticall power is alwayes in the whole Congregation from hence it flowes as from the fountaine and to the same it returneth as to the Sea For answer hereunto 1. This Testimony here alledged by Mr C. is not onely cited amisse viz. Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 6. instead of c. 8. p. 28. and some words also unjustly added by him unto the testimony to make it seeme more full for his purpose but being taken as he sets it downe it doth not infringe the authority of Classes and Synods For though all Ecclesiasticall authority be sayd to flow from the Church as from a fountaine this hinders not but rather shewes how power may be and is derived unto Classes when particular Churches as fountaines doe by deputation and delegation send forth a streame of authority and power in Classicall and Synodall Assemblies in such manner as Mr Parker himself doth afterward (v) Pol. Eccl l. 3 c. 13. c. 23 24 25 c. often shew unto his Reader II. For the downe-right speech of Mr Parker wherein Mr Canne glorieth I desire the Readers that understand to review those passages which I have (x) P. 89-105 before noted at large out of Mr Parkers booke them that are able to looke upon those places in the booke itself and then to judge whether Mr Canne be not either very blinde in alledging the testimonies of learned men when he knowes not what they say or els very impudent and dishonest in corrupting and perverting their testimonies contrary to their meaning As for Mr Baines he is confusedly alledged viz. Dioces Tryall Conclus 4. for whereas in that booke there is often mention of Conclus 4. who can tell what place he meanes The trueth is that none of those fourth Conclusions in any part of his booke doe by any word empeach the authority of Classes or Synods But on the contrary in that his writing he gives plaine and evident testimonies of his agreement with us as I have (y) P. 111-116 already sufficiently declared Come we now to the testimony (z) Chu pl. p. 23. alledged in the name of D. Fulke whom Mr Canne praiseth to be a man famous and of rare learning They object unto me that he saith (a) Learned Discours of Eccl. Gov. p. 84. There ought to be in every Church an Eldership which ought to have the hearing examination and determining of all matters pertayning to the Discipline Government of that Congregation Hereunto I answer that such authority is to be exercised by the Eldership yet so as that the judgement and consent of the Congregation in weightier matters be not excluded and so also that the judgement of the Classis or Synod be not refused or denyed This Author will have the Eldership to determine all matters if they be able to doe it so he expounds himself shewing afterward that there be divers matters which the Eldership is not able by themselves to finish without help of a Synod And because Mr Canne in the margine of his booke sets his marke over against this place desiring us to Note this so I desire both him and others to note wel what this Author writes concerning the authoriy necessity and use of Synods I am glad to heare Mr C. to give so great commendation unto this indeed Learned Author who is so pregnant a witnesse for me and for Synods against the Brownists This is that which he (b) Ibid. p. 82.83 saith Seeing our Saviour Christ promised his presence and authoritie to every Church indifferently Matt. 18.19.20 None may challenge any such prerogative afore other but as the Churches are limited out for order and conveniencie so is every one of them of like authority in itself but because they make all but one Church and one body of Christ therefore there is but one authority in them to determine of matters concerning them all By which there appeareth to be a double authority of the Pastor one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour the other with the whole Synod or assembly whereof he is a member and both these authorities we finde sufficiently authorised in the Scripture c. Againe (c) Ibid. p. 111. 112. There is a double authority of the Pastour the one joyned with the Elders of the Church whereof he is Pastour the other with the Synod or holy assembly whereof he is a member There ariseth oftentimes in the Church divers Controversies which cannot otherwise be expressed pertayning to the state of the whole Church then by a generall assemblie of all the Pastours of that Church which is called a Synod or Generall Councell Also there be divers cases wherein the severall Churches are driven to pray the ayde of the Synod where matters cannot be determined among themselves For this cause the Holy Ghost
inferreth from hence this common law that other members of the Church which have no Ecclesiasticall office are to be subject to this government and ought to advance the same according to their power c. it is thereby evident that he could not like the course of W. B. or any such other schisming from the Church for this cause and complayning that they were not a free people if they were subject to Classes and Synods Mr Udall in the Demonstration of Discipline pag. 24 25. in that edition thereof which I have hath no such matter as is alledged before out of that treatise of English Puritanisme against the authority of Classes and Synods neither is it to be found in any part of that Demonstration that Christ hath not subjected any Congregation unto any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then unto that which is within itself c. And therefore it is untruely affirmed of Mr Canne that there is nothing there sayd but Mr Vdall with others above mentioned hath sayd the like On the contrary in that writing asscribed to Mr Vdall there be sundry testimonies shewing the authority of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations As it was (m) P. 204. before noted out of D. Fulke that there is a double authority of the Pastour one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour the other with the whole Synod or Assemblie whereof he is a member and both these authorities sufficiently authorized in the Scriptures so saith Mr Vdall to like purpose (n) Demōst of Discip c. 1. The word of God hath described sufficient ministers ministeries for doctrine exhortation overseeing distributing and ordering of every particular Church or generall Synod And againe he saith of Bishops or Pastours that (o) Ib. c. 10 they are of equall authority in their severall charges and in the generall government of the Church And in the same chapter he alledgeth the decrees of divers * 2. Concil Carth. tom 1. c. 10. 3 Conc. tom 1. cap. ◠Councels shewing how the causes of one Church or Congregation were judged by many Bishops of other Congregations meeting together In speciall when some (p) Demōst of Disc c. 14 objected that there would be so many Elderships so many divers fashions seeing one may not meddle with another Hereunto he answers The Government desired is uniforme for every Church and admitteth no change no not in outward ceremonies without a Synod of the choyce men of severall Elderships Hereby he plainely declares his meaning what he judged concerning the power of Synods for alterations to be made in particular Churches The Agreement of the English Church at Franckford in Queene Maries dayes is also alledged as a proofe of the Non-conformists dissenting from me whereunto I answer I. Those three Articles of their Discipline objected the one that the Ministers and Seniours severally and joyntly shall have no authority to make any manner of Decrees or Ordinances to binde the Congregation or any member thereof But shall execute such ordinances as shall be made by the Congregation and to them delivered Another that none shall be excommunicated untill the matter be first heard by the whole Church And further that Ministers and Seniours and every of them be subject to Ecclesiasticall discipline as other priváe members of the Church be these doe not at all concerne the question betwixt us For these things being granted it doth not follow that then the authority of Synods is overthrowne that they may not judge of any ordinances made in such a Congregation or that such a Church where these Articles are agreed upon hath thereby denyed and condemned such a Classicall government as we submit ourselves unto II. These Articles of their Discipline are not rightly and plainly but darkly and confusedly cited In the quotation of the first the page 115. is put for pag. 125. The two next are alledged without any quotation at all either of page or number of Article specifyed in the booke and both are joined together as if they were but one Article And in the second Article there is omitted that disjunction which affords an exception touching the strict observation thereof For whereas Mr Canne alledgeth it simply thus None shall be excommunicated untill the matter be heard by the whole Church the (q) Disc of troubl at Frankf p. 129. booke itself admitteth the liberty of a different practise by adding this clause or by such as it shall specially appoynt thereunto This falsification is so much the greater in that Mr Horne objecting against this Article and arguing that thereby (r) P. 163 164. the authority of the Pastour and Seniors is all wiped away for every thing is referred to the confused multitude of the Congregation Mr Whithead in the same booke answereth him on this manner Where he saith all things is referred to the confused multitude it is manifestly false For it is alwayes added by such as the Congregation shall appoint thereto as it is also in the 54 Article added in plaine words Let the Reader observe this deceitfull allegation both against the expresse words of the Article against the plaine explicatiō thereof by Mr Whit. in the name of that English Church at Frankford Whereas Mr Canne (ſ) Chu pl. p. 36. objecteth further from Art 26. 67. that in some cases the forenamed English Church agreed that appeales should be made unto the body of the Congregation I answer that in such cases as are there specifyed If the Ministers and Seniours which have authority to heare determine c. as it is elswhere specifyed though not in this Article be suspected or found to be parties that then they had reason to appeale rather to the body of the Congregation then that parties should be suffered to be judges in their owne cause And no marvell considering what I have noted (t) P. 121-125 before touching the state of that Church where the Reader may see a further answer unto these objections But then he askes me what I say to this and hopes I will not say that they were Brownists I answer His hope is right in this poynt I may not say they were Brownists nor their practise the same with the Brownists 1. Because they made this agreement through necessity when they wanted a Classis whereas the Brownists wilfully oppugne and refuse Classicall combinations 2. Because the Brownists deny authority of judgement unto Ministers and Elders in such cases where they are no parties which this (v) Art 59.63 Church at Frankford did not 3. Because the English Church at Frankford did not teach the doctrine of Separation as the Brownists doe but when they could not obtaine the reformation desired did (x) Disc of troub Frākford p. 187-191 still hold one another brethren in the Lord though greeved for the defects among them But it is wonder that Mr Canne is not ashamed to alledge the example of this English Church
England And these Ministers when they are come over are esteemed receaved as Angels in hell and shine as bright starres in these smoky Egyptian fornaces wherein the miserable people of the land are kept in most hard servitude c. These skornfull and reproachfull speeches of H. Barow doe sufficiently testify what the Brownists of old thought of the Dutch Classes and Synods and what they thought of such Ministers in England as desired a Reformation and therein a Classicall government Though H. Barow according to his manner doe overlash and utter much falshood yet he is not guilty of so great fallhood as Mr Canne in denying what the Ministers and forward professours in England as he calles thē did heretofore seek and sue for It is certaine and evident that the Non-conformists have (r) Demōst of Disc c. ◠pr. 3. p. 24 25. Mr Travers of Ecc. Disc p. 19. 20. Admon to Parl. p. 15. edit 1617. held that unto the just calling of a Minister there is required the calling of a particular and certaine Church where he is to administer Yea so much is also confessed touching them by the (ſ) Dang pos l. 3. of Engl. Scoti c. 3. p. 46. c. 14. p. 114. 115. Prelatists when by them it is recorded as a decree of the Synodicall Discipline that none should take upon him an uncertaine and vague ministery though it be offered unto him but such as be called to the ministery by some certaine Church c. And againe that none is to be accounted a full Minister untill some particular Congregation had chosen him c. For though as in these Churches after due examination approbation by a Classis men are allowed to preach and to exercise their gifts occasionally yet are not such esteemed Ministers untill they be called by some Church and confirmed therein But H. Bar. as in divers other things so in this speakes slanderously of the Classes and of the Ministers approoving them when as he saith (t) Discov p 175. Both sides both Bishops and this new Classis take upon them to make Ministers without the people without any charge place or office certaine Though the falshood of H. Bar. be manifest herein yet Mr Canne goes a degree beyond him when he shames not to deny the approbation which the Nonconformists have given to the Dutch Classes and Synods which H. Bar. could not deny for the fact though he impugne them as erring therein Let the Reader now observe here the palpable untrueth of Mr C. of W.B. in their Apish imitation of my words which they so falsely apply against me saying (v) Chu pl. p. 88 89. As Herod to kill one infant spared not to kill a multitude of other infants so he that he might undermine us and blow us up into the ayre he cared not nor spared not with the gunpowder of his fiery contention and reproaches to blow up with us a multitude of Godly and learned Ministers being of the same judgement with us I desire the Readers to looke upon my former (x) Answ to W.B. p. 71 72 73. 18 29.30 c. writing and then to judge whether I had not just cause to complaine of their wounding the Classis through my sides and of their reproaching the Ministers of these Reformed Churches under my name in regard of their consent and practise agreeable to mine I desire that the testimonies confessions and petitions of the ancient Non-conformists above mentioned in allowance of a Classicall Synodall government may be duely pondered then let any indifferent Reader judge whether I undermine them and blow them up into the ayre c. while I confirme their testimonies both by word and practise But these opposites Mr Canne and his client have so little conscience of trueth that they have not cared to utter the grossest falshood so that they might but contradict me Let them remember Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 12.22 SECT VI. Touching the Testimonies of Ancient fathers Councels and Emperours THe Advocate of W.B. not contēt with the testimonies of men in later times leades us back to the testimony of Antiquity and to the Ages long before And though he (a) Ch. pl. p. 89. confesse he had done it already in mentioning some testimonies of the most ancient times yet notwithstanding to shew that he stands not for any Novelty he professeth againe he will shew that the best approved Authors after the Apostles are directly with them in this thing c. Those which he alledgeth are these Ignatius Tertullian Origen Cyprian Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose Cyrill Hilarie Greg. Nazianzen Augustine Chrysostome Basill Socrates Isidorus Bernard And with these he also makes mention of some Councells and Christian Emperours For answer hereunto First in generall it is to be observed that the thing which he here pretends to prove viz. that everie particular visible Church of Christ hath power to exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all other Gods spirituall ordinances in and for itself immediately from Christ this comes short of the question betwixt us For this being granted it doth not follow hereupon that the power of Classes and Synods is an undue power or that particular Churches may not therefore stand under the authority of another superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of themselves This their inference will never be made good from such a ground This beggerly consequence I have oft (b) P. 145 146 149. c. refuted before To come more particularly unto the testimonies of these Authours which he promiseth to set downe according to the times in which they lived And to beginne first with Ignatius from him he alledgeth that it was then the manner of visible Churches (c) Ad Philadelph ad Magnes ad Trall to come together in one place to worship God having Bishops Elders and Deacons unto their Officers whom the people freely chose by voyces or lifting up of hands I answer 1. All that is here sayd being granted it followes not that they were independent and refused to submit their controversies to the judgement of other Churches assembled in Synods Ignatius being Minister of the Church of Antiochia in Syria which had of old submitted their controversy to the Synod held at Ierusalem Act. 15. what reason is there to thinke they forgot their old practise approved by the Apostles themselves 11. Though it be probable and we injudgement of charity are bound to thinke that the Officers Bishops Elders and Deacons of this Church were chosen with the free consent of the people according to the direction of the Apostles yet is not so much specifyed in any of those three Epistles here mentioned in the margine and therefore are they vainely alledged for the proof thereof III. Ignatius labouring for the peace and establishment of the Church of Antiochia after his death desired the Church of Philadelphia (d) Epist ad Philadel p. 76. edit Paris 1562.
to choose a Bishop which being sent thither as an Embassadour in the Embassage of God it might be granted unto them to glorify God in their meeting together He speakes there not of choosing a Bishop to minister in their owne Church but of choosing one to be their Deputy to travell unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for settling of order in that Church And in the same place to moove them the more he sheweth what was the practise of the Primitive Churches in such cases viz. that alwayes the neighbour Churches did send Bishops and some of them Elders and Deacons Againe writing upon the same occasion unto Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna he saith (e) Epist ad Polyc. p. 97 98. It was meet to gather a Synod comely in the Lord and choose some dearly beloved and diligent person which might be called Theodromos or one that should runne for God who might travell into Syria and thereby celebrate their diligent love to the praise of God And using many arguments to commend that businesse unto him as the work of God he intreateth Polycarpus that he would write unto other Churches that they would doe the same thing that they which were able would send men to travell on foot that others would send their letters to be conveyed by such as Polycarpus should send thither From these testimonies of Ignatius Mr Parker (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. p. 356. concludes that in those times according to the practise of the Reformed Churches with us neighbour Churches were combined together as it were Classically for the mutuall communication of offices And whereas D. Bilson (g) Perpet Gov. c. 7. confesseth that it was the manner of that time if any Church was tossed with waves of discord that neighbour Churches round about did send a Bishop Elder or Deacon for appeasing that tempest Mr Parker inferres justly thereupon If neighbour Churches had right or authority in compounding of strifes why not also in moderating of elections His conclusion in the same place is Let this very right in compounding strife be a sufficient authorization for our Classes Thus then it is apparant that Ignatius was not directly with Mr Canne as he boasteth but his meaning hath bene manifestly perverted contrary to his words Tertullian that is next alledged though misalledged c. 29. being put for c. 39. relating the manner of Christian assemblies in his time saith in effect (h) Apol. c. 39. They came together into the Congregation it is not sayd into one Congregation as Mr C. alledgeth it for to pray unto God for to rehearse the Divine Scriptures and with holy words yo nourish faith stirre up hope and fasten confidence And they used exhortations reproofes and divine Censure I answer I. Though particular Churches met together for such end this hinders not but that the Deputies of those same Churches might meet together in Synods for their mutuall assistance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult causes It followes not because severall Congregations have their due power that therefore the power of Classes is an undue power II. that Tertullian himself intended no such thing it appeares evidently by the great approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods in saying (i) De Jejunüs advers Psychi c. 13 The appoynted Synods are kept through the countries of Graecia in certaine places out of all the Churches whereby both the deeper or more difficult matters are handled in common by that representation of the whole Christian flock they are celebrated with great reverence He alledgeth the words of Origen writing much to the same purpose (k) In Jos Hom. 7. Such as were brought in the third place for sinne unto the Congregation if they stood obstinate by the judgement of the whole Church were excommunication from the body the Elders of the Church pronouncing the sentence And then in his owne words he sayth (l) Ch. pl. p. 90. Observe here he saith not that the matter was caried to a Classis and there first determined c. but names onely the Congregation and Elders thereof notwithstanding had there bene any such superiour judicatorie Assembly it is likely he would have omitted it and mentioned a subordinate and inferiour one ANSVV. I. The words which they alledge in another letter in Origens name as if they had bene his speech verbatim described are not his words He neither speakes of men brought unto the Church nor of the judgment of the Church nor of Elders pronouncing the sentence he shewes how all the people might be polluted by the sinne of one man when the Briefts which rule the people being unmindefull of priestly severity doe not rebuke nor take away evill from them nor make him as a Publicane and Heathen which hath despised the admonition of the Church but not in such words and forme of speech as Mr Canne faineth II. All that Origen there speakes is not repugnant to Classicall government all that he there requireth is dayly performed by the Churches among us which stand under the government of Classes and Synods Obstinate offenders having their names and offences divers times published before the whole Congregation are with the consent thereof excommunicated by the judgement of the Eldership going before III. If Origen in his writings had expressely denyed the authority of Synods it had bene of no great weight against the generall judgement of other ancient Fathers the rather seeing his writings are rejected and condemned by so many especially by Epiphanius and Hieronie the Authours hereafter alledged by Mr Canne And see how vaine many of his glosses were even touching this poynt Speaking of the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Mat. 16. he there telles us of many keyes to open severall gates in heaven◠that (m) Orig in Mat. 16. Tempérance is one key to open the Gate of Temperance in heaven that Iustice is another key to open another Gate and so for all other vertues And afterwards expounding the promise made Matt. 18.18 touching binding and loosing in heaven comparing it with the promise made unto Peter Mat. 16.19 because a word of the plurall number is used in the promise to Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelis and to others a word of the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelo Origen from thence (n) Idem in Mat. 18. teacheth us this Doctrine that Peter did binde and loose in all heavens whereas some others did but binde and loose in one heaven And therefore he concludeth Look how much better he is that bindeth by so much is he that is bound bound in more then one heaven and by how much better he is that looseth by so much the more blessed is he that is loosed because he is loosed in all the heavens Such are many of the interpretations of Origen IV. As Mr Canne misalledgeth Origen to impugne the authority of Classes and Synods so other more learned judicious Writers alledge him
Sabbath bestowing it wholly in divine and religious exercises resorting (k) Ib. cap. 3. p. 54. 72 73. foure times a day to the publick assemblies of Gods worship even in the Winter time and in Summer five times a day c. The bond of that perfection which they seek for and have in some measure attained unto seemes to be their combination in Synods and that unity therein whereupon they are denominate Their government and the fruits thereof have bene such that many of the speciall lights of Christendome since the time of Reformation have admited and commended the same and sundry of them have wished for the like Discipline and order in the Churches where they lived as appeares by the testimonies of Luther Melancthon Bucer Pet. Paulus Vergerius Beza Zanchius Olevian Vrsinus Chytraeus Pet. Martyr Calvin Polanus Bucholcerus which testimonies are (l) P. 106-122 affixed unto the end of that book of their Discipline Yea the printing of this book of their Discipline according to their cōmon order in such cases was not done without the (m) Pref. p. 8. 16. authority of a Synod namely of that which was celebrated at Lessna in Poland anno 1632. they being by the present troubles dispersed abroad into those parts Unto that which he had alledged out of the Bohemian Confession Mr Canne saith the Churches under the Palsgrave likewise consented and to this end he citeth their Publick Catechisme in the end of part 2. For answer hereunto 1. If these Churches consent unto that which the Bohemian Churches have professed then they doe not agree with Mr Can. as appeares by what hath bene sayd in the foregoing Answers 11. The place here alledged hath nothing touching the persons to whom the Keyes are given which is the thing for which it is produced it speakes onely of the use of the Keyes and the ordinary exercise of Discipline in the Church without restraining the same unto the sole jurisdiction of a particular Congregation or excluding the authority of Classes and Synods either for advise consent before hand or for the correcting of abuses committed in the administration of it And that the power of a superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatorie exercised in such cases is agreeable unto the doctrine and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate may appeare from the testimonies (n) P. 191.192.193 before noted out of Vrsinus Tossanus Paraeus Divines of speciall eminencie in those Churches III. Whereas it is sayd in this Catechisme (o) Qu. 85. concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline that offenders after other admonitions persisting in their errors and wickednes are to be made knowne unto the Church lest this should be understood of the whole multitude it is added presently or to them that are appoynted for that matter and purpose of the Church and if neither then they obey their admonition are of the same men by forbidding them the Sacraments shut out from the assembly of the Church c. The meaning is as it is explained (p) Explic. Catech. ad Qu. 85. by Vrsinus who also yeelded speciall help for the compiling of that Catechisme that when any is to be excommunicated the matter be first heard tryed and judged by the whole Presbyterie and that their judgement be approved by the Church that it be not undertaken by the private authoritie of one alone or of the Ministers alone This serves to justifie what we teach and practise and to condemne both the tyrannicall and popular courses of others IV. Moreover for the judgement and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate concerning the authority of Classes Synods which is the poynt in controversy it is to be observed that all the Ministers which according to order are there confirmed in the Ministerie are as a Jurie of so many sworne men bearing witnesse against the Independencie of Churches For at their ordination they doe not onely testify and promise by subscription and giving of of the hand but withall they doe binde themselves by a solemne oath among the rest (q) Churf Psaltz Kirchendi bestall punct Art 16. to obey the Politicall and Ecclesiasticall Lawes the Officers and Inspectors there appointed c. to referre or submit Church-affaires unto the Ecclesiasticall Senate set over them c. and also according to the appointment of their Inspector to frequent the Classicall assemblies in whatsoever place or quarter they are held willingly and freely to subject themselves unto the censure of their brethren to deale faithfully uprightly and quietly in their censures votes to doe nothing neither for feare nor favour of any but what they judge to be profitable for the edification of the Churches and Schooles The Confession of the Churches of Switserland or Helvetia is notably falsifyed by Mr C. They confesse in the place (r) Confes Helvet Art 16.17 alledged by him that the power of the Keyes ought to be committed unto select and fit persons either by divine or by certaine and required suffrage of the Church or by the sentence of those to whom the Church hath delegated this office in which latter disjunction omitted by Mr C. they acknowledge another Ecclesiasticall authority besides that of a particular Congregation about the election of Ministers And a little after (ſ) Art 19. this is further declared when they acknowledge that the faulty are to be admonished reprehended restrained and those that goe further astray by a godly agreement of such as be chosen out of the Ministers and Magistrates to be excluded by Discipline or punished by some other convenient meanes so long untill they may repent and be saved Such an Ecclesiasticall Senate it seemes was among them for the government of particular Churches And further the authority of Synods for such purpose is likewise specifyed and justifyed in the larger (t) Cap. 18. p. 63. Helvetian Confession Besides this we have a particular story hereof related by Walaeus out of Beza who recordes that (v) Ampt der Kerckēdien p. 214 out of Bez. Apol. pro Justif ex sola fide p. 263. c. when a controversy arose at Berne betwixt Huberus and Abrah Musculus the sonne of Wolfg. Musculus touching the doctrine of Praedestination the Rulers of Berne following the order of the Apostles did appoynt a Synod out of all the Classes within their jurisdiction who together with the help of other excellent Teachers called from Zurich Basel Schaphuysen and Geneva did take cognition of the differences and after due triall according to the word of God made a conclusion so that thereby the Churches were brought unto their former peace That which is next alledged by Mr C. from the Confession of the French (x) Art 30. Churches viz. the equality of all true Ministers and Churches so that none may arrogate dominion over another is not at all hindred by that authority which is exercised in Synods seeing all the particular Churches united in Synods are in like manner and equally
and lesser Poland in Lithuania Russia and Samogitia have likewise shewed their consent with us in this poynt of subjecting particular Churches under the Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods and have witnessed the same in divers solemne assemblies They professe (o) Syntag. Confes par 2. p. 294. Syn. Posna 1570. Art 19 that when controversies arise which cannot be compounded among themselves the judgement and decree of a generall Synod of all their Churches is then to be required and to be submitted unto They agreed (p) Ib. p. 300 303. Syn. Crac. Xans Wlodisl that divers kindes of Synods were to be held among them some greater some lesse that their Synodicall constitutions were to be put in execution that the violatours thereof were to be subject unto the censures of deposition and excommunication c. They ordained (q) P. 320-326 Syn. Toru 1591 Art 2 3 7.14 17. that every Evangelicall Minister was not onely to have and to read the Canons of their Synods but also to carrie himself and to governe the Church committed unto him according to the prescript thereof and that under paine of Ecclesiasticall censure that the censure of excoÌ„mâ—â—â—â—ation was to be administred publickly either in the Congregation or in the Synod c. Moreover it is worthy to be remembred how the Churches of the Netherlands even at that time when they were scattered abroad in High-dutchland and Eastfriestand in that time of most bloody persecution under the government of Duke d' Alva did then in their banishment and with danger of their lives at home combine themselves in Classes for their mutuall guidance and submitted themselves unto the judgement of such assemblies The distribution of these Churches into severall Classes (r) Synod Embd. An. 1571. Art 10.11 recorded publickly as followeth I. Classis The two Churches at Franckford the Church at Schoenau at Heydelbergh at Franckendael at S. Lambert II. Class The two Churches at Collen the 2 Churches at Aken the Church at Maestricht at Limburgh at Nuys in Gulick-land III. Class The Church of Wesel of Embrick of Rees of Goch of Gennep and other in Cleveland IV. Class The Church of Embden with strangers of Brabant Holland West-Friestland V. Class The 2 Churches at Antwerp the Church at ' sHertoghen-bosch at Breda at Brussel and others in Brabant VI. Class The Church at Gant at Ronsen at Oudenard at Comen and others in East and West-Flanders VII Class The Church of Doornick of Ryssel of Atrecht of Armentiers of Valencienne and other Churches of Walloens VIII Class The Church of Amsterdam of Delph other Churches of Holland of Over-Yssel of West-Friesland The faithfull Ministers and people of these primitive Reformed Churches the Martyrs witnesses of Christ like the woman that fled into the wildernes from the rage of the Dragon have given speciall testimony unto this Classicall government whereunto they submitted themselves even in those hard times when it was difficult dangerous for them to meet together As the Dutch Churches practised among themselves of old so they in the fore-mentioned Synod by common advise agreed (Å¿) Synod Embd. art 12. to exhort the English that they would combine their Churches into a Classis And accordingly this order of government was approved by them as appeares in that booke of their Discipline framed for the use of the English Churches in these countries where it is sayd in the end (t) Forme of Comm. prayer Administr c. printed at Middleb 1602 the 4. edit This may be sufficient for particular Congregations for the visitation whereof and decision of causes which cannot be ended among them and such like Meetings Conferences Synods of Minister and Elders chosen by particular Churches and meetings are to be held as the Ministers for time and place and other circumstances shall think meet With (v) Ibid. p. D 7. b. 8. a b. F 3. a. consent and allowance of these Ministers of such Classes or Conferences together with consent of the Eldership were the Pastours and Teachers of particular Congregations to be elected and then the names of such being signifyed to the Congregation for inquiry after their fitnes warning was given that if within twenty dayes no just exception were taken then their silence should be accounted as the free consent of the Congregation c. To conclude beside the testimony of Reformed Churches severally apart it shall not be amisse to behold the Harmony of their joynt consent in the Deputies of the sayd Churches assembled together in the Nationall Synod of Dort then which it is rightly judged that (x) Molin Anat. Armin praef A 3. there hath not bene for many ages past any Synod more renowmed or more holy or more profitable to the Church When as the Remonstrants upon pretence of partiality schisme in their judges sought to decline the Authority sentence of this Synod the Divines of other nations deputed from severall Churches have given such judgment thereof as shewes a plaine condemnation of my opposites opinion The judgement of the Divines of Great Brittaine who alledged the perpetuall practise of all Churches was this that (y) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr Sess 29. p. 97. the highest power of determining controversies in every Church is in the Nationall Synod lawfully called together framed c. The judgement of Divines out of the Palatinate was like unto the former They (z) Ibid. p. 98. alledge the practise of the Church both in the old new Testament for confirmation thereof and shew their owne practise to have bene such that some authors of novelties being admonished first of their Classis and then of the Ecclesiasticall Senate and being refractory were then dismissed that is deposed from their places The Divines of Hassia agree with the former and upon the like grounds They (a) Ibid. p. 100. shew the practise of their owne Churches that for the repressing of the errour of the Vbiquitarians divers Nationall Synods had bene held by authority of the foure brethren Princes of Hassia and that since againe the Prince Maurice Landgrave af Hassia had called another generall Synod of Hassia wherein the former Synodicall decrees were confirmed sentence pronounced against such as maintained contrary errours The Divines of Switzerland or Helvetia consent hereunto and (b) Ibid. p. 102. alledge the perpetuall practise of ancient later Churches together with the practise of those in Berne in the cause of Huberus in their owne countrey and testify that by such meanes peace was obtained The Divines of Geneva also (c) Ibid. p. 102. 103. avouch that in the Church the supreme power of judgement is in a Synod lawfully called c. That God hath established this order sanctifyed it by the example of the Apostles and all ages of the Church according to the saying of Christ Tell the Church c. The Divines of Breme (d) Ibid. p. 104. maintaine the same thing and hold
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
what was before (i) P. 204. alledged out of D. F. whom he had cited for his witnesse who speaking of the authoritie of Synodes sayth Which authoritie we know to be granted to the Church by our Saviour Christ practised by his Apostles cōtinued by their successours 300 yeares before there were any Christian Emperours Afterwards falling againe to the point of Popular Government he sayth (k) Ch. pl. p. 95. Mr Beza is very streyt to the people hardly granting the liberty which the very Iesuits doe he should have shewed wherein for the Iesuites are knowne to (l) Bellarm. de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 5. Mariana Em. Sa in Mat. 18.17 expound the word Church by Prelates in the place whereunto he sends us in Maldonate To evince the late rising of Presbyteriall authoritie in elections he argueth from the 13th Canon of the Synod of Laodicea mentioned (m) Respōsi ad Tract de Ministr Evang. grad c. 22. p. 154 155. by Beza where it was ordered that the election of Ministers should not be permitted to the multitude or people but 1. He doth not rightly interpret the Canon when he saith that this Synod prohibited the body of the Congregation from using that liberty and power which they before alwayes had in Ecclesiasticall government For as Beza saith in the place by him quoted the manner of election here forbidden was not essentiall but accidentall Chemnitius also (n) Exam. Concil Trident par 2. p. 411 412. ed. 1606. shewes that the people were not thereby excluded from the election but that their consent was still required that this Synodall decree was occasioned by the peoples abusing their right unto tumults seditions and diverse confusions 2. By a like inference he might conclude that other erroneous opinions and disordered practises condemned in the Councils and Synods of those times were before allowed and used in the Church THat which he pretends to answer in the third place is taken from this expression which the Authour used in his Preface saying That which some will have to be the slavery bondage of a Church that I esteeme to be the liberty safety and preservation of Churches That which they count a Tyrannicall government that I beleeve to be a Sanctuary against Tyranny and afterwards in the book itself (o) Pag. 83. If I should in doctrine oppugne and in practise deny unto the members of this Church this liberty of appeale unto the Classis as they doe here condemne it in me then might they justly complaine of tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine then had they cause to bewayle their slavery and bondage Thus he declared his judgement touching the benefit of this kinde of government in opposition to the Title prefixed unto the printed Complaints which Mr C. knew best who framed The matter of Argument couched in these words is sufficiently explained and vindicated (p) P. 36 41. before where the libertie of Appeales suitable to common equity and instituted in the Law is prooved to be agreeable unto the doctrine of the Gospel I. C. ANSVV. I. It is a strange course when there ariseth a controversy touching two contrary opinons which of them is true to be embraced to draw the resolution hereof to the consideration of the usefulnes of the opinions or practises questioned As if because a thing is usefull therefore it is to be concluded it is true c. REPL. 1. It is strange Mr C. did not discerne that there is no other course of reasoning in the Authours holding Classicall government to be a Sanctuary against Tyranny the denyall of Appeales a matter of slavery bondage then in Mr Cannes others accounting Independency to be the libertie freedome of a Church subjection to Classicall government slavery bondage What is here sayd unto the one may as fitly be applyed against the other If his answer be found he doth plainely overthrow his owne (q) Ch. pl. p. 71. 76. Arg. 9. Reas 7. Arguments built upon the same foundation which here he seeks to destroy There was no usefulnes mentioned in the Authours words nor any other to be understood then such as is implyed in the sayd other the like expressions and reasonings of Mr C. 11. Though it be certaine that every trueth of God is usefull to be used without gainsaying when it appeareth to be such yet when this trueth is denyed and the point controverted it is no strange course to proove it to be law by the agreement which it hath with that which is confessed to be law This the Authour hath done in the place above mentioned And besides seeing according to that * Salus populi suprema lex esto law of lawes commonly received the safetie of the people is the highest law and that Appeales are (r) Luth. Tom. 1. f. 231. for the relief of the oppressed and a remedy against wrongs injuries why may we not conclude that such a government where they are in due manner admitted is a Sanctuarie against Tyranny and in this respect rather to be embraced then Independency where the same are denyed I. C. ANSVV. II. The Papists and Hierarchie for their Discipline give the very same reason viz. that there may be no Tyranny and oppression among brethren c. REPL. And so doth Mr C. for Independencie (ſ) Ch. pl. p. 76. that a particular Congregation may not of a Mistres become a servant instead of being a superiour wilfully vassall enslave herself c. I. C. ANSVV. III. I doe deny that this government by Classes Synods serves better for the Churches welfare then that which the Apostles instituted c. REPL. And so wil we when he hath prooved that Independency is the government instituted by the Apostles I. C. ANSVV. IV. If it should be granted that particular Congregations by this kinde of government shall have peace profit credit other worldly respects yet this is no sufficient reason c. REPL. The Defendant never used such a reason this is a skarre-crow of his owne setting up and therefore we must give him leave to please himself in that fivefold shot which he makes as it THe fourth reason which he supposeth he hath found in the Authours book is the mention which he made of the determinations of Nationall Synods concerning the power exercised by the Classis and the consent of all Reformed Churches Hereunto he answers I. Councils may erre c. II. These testimonies are all humaine c. III. This reason is the same which the Papists use c. REPL. I. The Decrees of Synods were not alledged to proove the lawfulnes of this government but to shew the established exercise of it before the Author either knew the Classis or they him that therefore he hath not subjected the Church to this power II. Though Coūcils may erre yet it doth not therfore follow that they do alwayes erre that they may
not make decrees for the deciding of controversies as Vedelius (t) De Arcan Armin. l. 2. c. 6. p. 183.184 sheweth against the Arminians III. Though the decrees of Synods have no absolute authority yet being framed according to the word of God they doe specially binde the Churches that are in combination with them as when a Church-act or sentence is made so as Mr C. would have it he will not deny but that the Congregation is bound to observe it The other exceptions here added are already answered IN the next place he undertakes to answer what was objected touching the long continuance of that which some of later times onely did complaine of Here Mr C. brings in W.B. pretending ignorance of the former state of that Cogregation yet in such termes as might hide the point in question from the inconsiderate Reader But not to speak of what hath been frequently noted before the colour given to this pretēce which W.B. probably never dreamed of till it was suggested by Mr C. is when he makes him say The thing specially which induced me so to thinke was his owne words written to Mr Ainsworth reporting how he was first made our Minister hee saith (v) Arrow ag Separ p. 116. The Dutch Eldership in this City being desired both for their counsell help in his ordination deputed three of their brethren to assist us in this businesse c. this they did not as assuming authoritie * Note to themselves over us but in our name by our request c. If the Classis assumed not then any authority unto themselves over us how comes it to passe that they doe it now Or how will it hang together that their power is ancient and yet 20 or 30 yeares past they used it not This to me seemes grosse contradiction c. REPL. This his conceit of a grosse contradiction which he is so taken with that he spends almost a whole page of his Rhetorick upon it is no better then a grosse mistake of his owne which he hath blindely runne into by not discerning betwixt things that differ 1. He confounds these two things as if they were one the same viz. the Dutch Eldership of that city the Classis which being two distinct assemblies there can be no contradiction in affirming that of the one which is denyed of the other The Dutch Eldership is not the Classis no more then the English Eldership of the same city They are both members of the Classis together with other Congregations of the neighbour townes villages Now the Elderships of particular Churches are not subject one to another neither doth one exercise authority over another as hath been shewed (x) Pag. 29 30 159. before It is the Classis or combination of more Churches or Elderships sending their Deputies thither to whom is asscribed the power of determining the matters of particular Congregations And this is so evident that if Mr C. had but consulted hereabout with W. B. in whose name he pleades on this manner he might have been sufficiently informed of this trueth Yea he might easily have learnt it out of the Authours former book where he saith of the same Dutch Consistory (y) Answ to W. B. p. 70 71. Though they had no power to judge determine the matter by their sentence yet they refused not to give their counsell c. 11. Though it had been spokē of the Classis which was sayd of the Dutch Consistory yet there had been no contradiction in the Authors words saying that they assumed no authority to themselves over them in his Ordination yet avouching that the power which they exercised of later times is the same which they had practised long before for 1. The power which the Classis exerciseth is not by them assumed but given unto them acknowledged to be their due by the Congregations that either at first or afterwards enter into this confederacy for the submitting of themselves unto such an assembly in all requisite cases 2. The orders according to which the Classes doe here exercise their authority (z) Kerckē Orden Nat. Syn. Dordr Art 4. doe not in ordinary cases require the manifestation thereof in the Ordination of Ministers which being onely (a) Ames Medul l. 1. c. 39. th 34. the solemne introduction of the Minister already chosen into the free exercise of his function the Classis doth leave it to the Congregation itself after they have consented to the choyce of the Minister 3. When a Congregation destitute of fit men for the solemnising of an Ordination doth seek unto a neighbour Classis Consistory or Minister for their counsel help herein they that in such cases doe yeeld unto their desire doe not exercise authority over that Congregation where the Minister is ordained seeing they performe that work in the name at the request of the sayd Congregatiō Whatsoever power authoritie is therein exercised by a neighbour Minister is not by him assumed but received from the desire of those that seek his help for the performance of this service unto them in a time of need as the Authour had before explained himself in the (b) Arrow ag Separ p. 111 112.114 same book And therefore he hath herein no way contradicted himself neither can this excuse W.B. from that which was objected unto him But by the conclusion of this plea it seemes Mr C. did not so much intend thereby the defence of his client as the casting of some disgrace upon the Authours book called An Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists which he loves to have a fling at upon all occasions but his beating of the aire is apparent to those that observe his blowes mark where they light From what is now said it is manifest how vainely he hath here applyed against the said book what the Author had sayd touching Mr Robinsons Iustification of Separation viz. that it was sick of King Iehorams incurable disease c. which Mr C. himself hath (c) Stay against straying p. 142. elswhere in his wonted language acknowledged to be true But to hasten to an end to oppose somewhat unto this censorious the forementioned slanderous conclusion of Mr C. that the Reader may partly understand what entertainment that Arrow against the Separation hath had among the godly learned what they have judged of the Authors paines therein I have here set downe the testimony of that worthy servant of Christ Frō Bunb Iul. 8. 1619. Mr Hy. as it was written by himself to the Authour in these words I thanke you for the Arrow of your owne Quiver which now of late I have receaved according to your letter You have fashioned feathered it so well headed poynted it with such diligence care drawne it up to the head with such strength directed discharged it with such so sure ayme skill that it hath pierced
f Amb. Offi. l. 1. c. 1 These with spirituall bridles order men c. I answer I. In the place alledged there is not a word to be found either touching a Senate of Elders or touching spirituall bridles or any thing to like purpose II. If a Senate of Elders be spirituall bridles then the Brownists with Mr C. that now want such a Senate are an unbridled company wanting order c. III. What though an assembly of Elders order men with spirituall bridles Is there therefore no other spirituall bridle in the authority of Synods What consequence is this IV. That Ambrose did allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods it appeares both by his practise he g Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 9. himself being present with Damasus Britto Valerian and other Bishops at the Synod holden at Rome for the censure of Apollinaris and Timotheus his disciple and by his h Amb. Tom. 3. epi. l. 10. ep 78. ad Theoph. exhortation given unto Theophilus and others to judge the cause of Euagrius and Flavianus being deputed thereunto by the Synod of Capua and againe by his i Ib. Epi. 79. ad Theoph Anys exhortation given unto Theophilus Anysius that they being chosen by the same Synod of Capua would give sentence touching Bonosus and his accusers forasmuch as the Synod had givē this authority unto them and they did now supply the place thereof With Ambrose he joynes k In orat fun de patr Nazianzen to testify also that a Senate or assembly of Elders doe with spirituall bridles order men But in the place alledged I finde no such testimony as is mentioned and therefore the three first answers made before unto the testimony from Ambrose may also serve for Nazianzen And further that Gregory Nazianzen did not limit all Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely it may appeare if we observe I. How l Soc. Hist Ecc. l. 4. c. 21. Sozom. Hist Ecc. l. 6. c. 17. he himself was made Bishop of Constantinople by the suffrages of many Bishops met together which is a further degree of Ecclesiasticall authority then that which is exercised in the Classes or Synods of these countries II. How he pleadeth (m) Nazian Epist 1. ad Clidon from a Synodall law touching the receyving of those that were fallen III. How he alloweth the order of convocating and assembling neighbour Bishops about the creating of a new Bishop affirming this to be (n) Epi. 30. ad Caesariē right and according to the Ecclesiasticall law IV. How he in his counsell and exhortation unto the Synod at Constantinope (o) Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 8. asscribes unto them authority and power for his owne dimission and translation for the setting of another unblameable Bishop in his place and thereby withall for the deposition and abdication of Maximus which was accordingly performed That which might with more colour be objected out of Nazianzen against the use of Synods and which is also alledged both by Mr Canne and by Mr Davenp though not directly against the authority of Synods is yet so brought in by the way as might cause a simple Reader to stumble thereat The words of Nazianzen as Mr Canne (p) Ch. pl. p. 93. alledgeth them are these (q) Ep. 42. ad Procop. I am minded saith he to shunne all assemblies of Bishops because I never saw any good event in any Councell that did not rather increase then diminish our evills Their contention and ambition passeth my speech ANSVV. I. Observe how Mr C. mistranslateth those words of Nazianzē 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he rendreth as signifying passeth my speech whereas they signify prevayled more then reason as (r) Apo. tep p. 225. Mr Dav. doth rightly translate them But it is no wonder that Mr Canne should mistake that which some more learned have done before Grosser faults are more common with him II. As for the testimony of Nazianzen the answer of D. Whitaker may give sufficient satisfaction who sayth (ſ) De Cōc qu. 1. c. 3. p. 13.14 15. It may seeme strange that Nazianzen denyes he had seene a good issue of any Synod For in those two Synods viz. of Nice and Constantinople which had beene mentioned before trueth got the victory and heresy was put downe And though it be certaine that Arianisme was encreased and grew strong and troubled the Church after the Synod of Nice more then before yet that is not to be imputed to the Synod but to the contention and ambition of men For as our corrupt nature doth more vehemently resist the knowne law of God and rusheth headlong unto sinne so falshood opposed itself more boldly unto the trueth then explained and openly defended whereupon after that Synod which none excelled greater incōmodities did arise from the wickedness of men c. When Nazianz. saw so wicked dispositions of men he was wholly turned from Councels Although without doubt he disallowed not the thing itself but the wicked indeavours of men Now if any will reason after this manner The issue of Synods is not good or more evils follow thence therefore Synods are to be avoyded that man shall dispute deceitfully from a wrong cause from accident and from the fallacy of consequent But Nazianzen was to be pardoned because he lived in the worst and most turbulent times of the Church when by meanes of Valens the Emperour that degenerated from the Catholick faith Hereticks did more prevayle c. Againe he opposeth Augustine unto Nazianzene and sayth It is most true which Augustine sayth Epist 118. that the authority of Synods in the Church of God is most wholesome which certainly he would not have sayd if he had bene of the same minde with Nazianzen And further he opposeth unto the speech of Nazianz. the testimony of Christ saying Christ himself pronounceth and promiseth Matt. 18.20 Where two or three are assembled together in his name there he will be in the midst of them In which words he signifyeth that the assemblies and Synods of godly and religious men undertaken and appoynted for godly causes are not displeasing unto him III. The testimony of Nazianzen is as much against the opinion of Mr Can and Mr Dav. as against that which we hold touching Classes and Synods For seeing they allow such meetings for counsell and admonition though not for exercise of any jurisdiction and seeing the testimony of Naziā doth extend itself to all kinde of assemblies of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether for counsell or censure without exception of one sort more then another therefore he no more condemneth our Synods then those which my opposites allow Augustine his next witnesse is in like manner perverted as the former Though he in the place (t) DeDoct Chr. l. 1. c. 17. objected doe write that the keyes were given to the Church yet doth he not thereby exclude Synods gathered together in the name of