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
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
live to this onely true forme or els to betake themselves unto some Church so formed as they tender their spirituall safety comfortable assurance in Christ But we on the contrary side though we hold that Classes and Synods are most necessary and profitable for the well being of the Church being also prescribed unto us by divine ordinance See Voet. Desp Caus Pap. p. 65 2. yet doe we not hold that the essence being of the Church doth consist in this much lesse in that forme of government commended by them If a particular Church of God should sojourne among the Indians or among Hereticks where it could not obtaine fellowship with other Churches out of it self or if by violence or other unavoydable inconveniencies any Church should be hindred from enjoying this benefit of combination with other Churches in Classicall government yet doe we acknowledge that notwithstanding this want such a Church might still subsist be reputed a true Church And yet so that we hold every Church bound to seek this dependency union with other Churches as God shall give oportunity meanes and cannot without sinne neglect the same To this place belongs the answer unto two of those Questions which Mr Canne (a) Churches plea. p. 33. propounds upon another occasion I. CAN. Whither it be Jure Divino that Ecclesiasticall Officers of many Churches are necessarily bound to determine by joint authority the cases of many particular Congregations or whither it be a thing arbitrary left unto every mans liberty ANSVV. That the combination of Churches in Classes Synods for judging determining the cases of many particular Churches by joynt authority is a divine ordinance and appointed Jure Divino is that which I maintaine labour to prove in this Dispute in the following Arguments As it is not a thing arbitrary and left unto every mans liberty whether he shall joyne himself as a member unto a particular Church if he have meanes and opportunity to doe it so it is not a thing arbitrary nor left in the liberty of particular Churches whether they shall combine themselves into Classes Synods for their spirituall government if they have opportunity All that neglect to doe it sinne against the communion of Saints walke not as becomes the members of the body of Christ Rom. 12.5 1. Cor. 12.25 Eph. 4.16 I. CAN. Whither all such cases and controversies as are decided by many Ministers combined into Classes Synods must so stand as that particular Congregations may not if they thinke fit reject the same and practise otherwise then hath bene there determined by joint authority ANSVV. Men are bound to stand unto the judgements of Classes Synods so farre as their determinations are found agreeable unto the Word no further Act. 4.19 But if any particular Church reject their sentence determination being consonant unto the Scripture then that Church committeth double sinne once for transgressing against the written word of God and againe for despising the ordinance of God and contemning the joynt authority of such as are met together in his name Particular Churches are so to respect and stand unto the determinations of Classicall or Provinciall Synods even as particular men and members of a Church are bound to stand unto the sentence of that Church where they are members viz. according to the trueth and will of Gods and not otherwise CHAP. II. The first Argument taken from the words of the Lavv Deut. 17 8-12 THe first Argument is taken from the ordinance of God delivered by Moses of old unto Israel where the people of God in particular Congregations were taught to bring their hard difficult controversies as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill unto a superiour Judicatory unto the Priests the Levites or unto the Judge in those dayes according to the quality of the cause for the deciding thereof Deut. 17 8-12 This Order was also reestablished in the dayes of Iehoshaphat who placed and settled in Ierusalem an Ecclesiasticall Synedrion or Senate for the matters of the Lord over which Amariah was President these were to receive the complaints and to judge the causes of their brethren that came up unto them from other cities places of their habitation even as there was also a Civill Synedrion for the affaires of the King over which Zebadiah was President 2. Chron. 19 8-11 This forme of government is commended unto us of David as the praise of Ierusalem when he poynts out distinctly these two kindes of Senates (a) See Iun. Annot. on Psal 122. Ecclesiasticall and Civill thrones of judgement and thrones of the house of David whereunto the Tribes even the Tribes of the Lord did goe up Psa 122.4.5 As Paul once rejoyced in the spirit to see the order of the Colossians Col. 2.5 so David considering the beauty of this order declares the same to be one speciall cause of his spirituall gladnes joy in the Lord witnessed in that Psalme Hereby it is evident that the Assemblies Synagogues of Israel were not independent but stood under an Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves they had no single uncompounded policie all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction was not limited unto particular Congregations Now let us see what our opposites say to this I. CAN. (b) Churches plea. p. 43 44. Hee seekes to strengthen the authority of Classes Synods by the Iewish politie government Now the Papists to establish the Sea of Rome use the same argument And the truth is if Mr Paget intend to dispute this way they will cary it quite away from him But I thinke he will hereafter be more considerate and speake no further of that manner and forme of Church government seeing he knowes the most learned on our side doe condemne the Papists for it viz. (c) Animadv contr 1. l. 3. c. 4. Iunius (d) Inst l. 4. c 6. sect 2. Calvin (e) Ag. Whitg l. 2. p. 614. Cartwright (f) Contr. 4. qu. 1. D. Whitaker others ANSVV. Mr Ainsworth before him speakes much in like manner to this purpose he saith (g) Animadv p. 15.16 It is a mayn pillar of Popery to proportion the Church now in the outward politie to Israel The Rhemists would have (h) Rhem. annot on Mat. 23.2 the see of Rome in the new law to be answerable to the chair of Moses Cardinall Bellarmine (i) De Rom. Pout l. 4. c. 1 maketh his first argument for the Popes judging of controversies from the Priest Judge that was appointed in the Law Deut. 17. c. And there also he alledgeth three of the same witnesses against arguing from the Iewish policie which here Mr Canne citeth againe Mr Davenp pleads to the same effect saying (k) Apol. repl p. 254. The Texts which Bellarmine alledgeth for the power of Councills in making lawes are the same which the Answerer sometimes harpeth upon in this case but Iunius clearly sheweth that they
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
Church which was the title then given unto the Ecclesiasticall Senate and his words of having as a Publicane Heathen doe manifestly prove he meant to speak according to their custome c. And therefore also in his (z) S. Theol l. 7. c. 7. p. 276. generall description of a Presbyterie comprehending under it as well the government of many Churches by Synods as of one particular Church by the Eldership thereof for the proof and warrant of one as well as the other he alledgeth this rule Mat. 18.18 even as he doth other places taken from the Jewish Policy under the Law Mr Brightman when he shewes that Christ in his Church hath appointed a more accurate order for remove all of lesse offences then that which the Pharisees observed who corrupted the Law with their erroneous glosses condemning grosser sinnes as murders and neglecting lesser transgressions yet for the forme of the Judicatorie he declares that it was such an one as the former Writers doe witnesse to have bene taken from the Jewes Policy when as he thus describeth it (a) Comment in Cant. cap. 4. The Synedrion is a Senate of Elders watching for the soules of that Congregation over which they are set in things that belong unto manners Christian honesty which Senate because it represents the state or * quoniam vicem sustineat c. beares the place of the whole Congregation is called of Christ himself the Church saying Tell the Church Mat. 18.17 and of Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eldership 1. Tim. 4.14 And againe in the next leafe shewing the meaning of that text Matth. 18.15 c. Onely remember thence that the Church is not the vvhole Congregation but a Synedrion or Senate of certaine chosen persons And for ought that can be gathered from this his exposition it was no new rule but a renewing and confirming of that which had bene of old prescribed unto Israel Mr Parker for the maintenance of Classes and Synods whereby many particular Churches are combined united together argues also from Mat. 18. and that after a double manner for first to shew withall that the right manner and forme of combination doth consist in a mutuall obligation of Churches without subjection unto the rule or dominion of any one he reasons thus (b) Polit. Eccles l. 3. c. 22. p. 331 Let us goe to the very fountaine of combination which as Chamierus saith well is found in Mat. 18. because many Churches are combined together after the same manner that the prime Churches viz. particular Congregations doe grow together in their members into one frame And he maintaines that the forme of this combination comming together is noted in those words in my name and if they agree together Mat. 18. v. 19 20. Thus he derives the combination of Churches from their mutuall consent agreement And hence it may appeare further that as members of particular Churches are united together by the bond of mutuall consent not onely for counsell advise but also for the censuring judging of their offences and this without superiority of one member above another so by the like bond of mutuall consent many Churches are also united not onely for counsell but for the mutuall censuring deciding of one anothers causes and this without superiority of any one Church above the rest Otherwise also how could he have applyed these things as he doth for the defence of the Reformed Churches wherein such authority of Classes and Synods is exercised Secondly whereas D. Whitgift others dispute against the Classes Presbyteries of Scotland the Low-countries where the faults and causes of particular Churches are judged censured and aske for Scripture to prove and justify such an order of government Mr Parker in defence of them besides other answers proofes alledges this place Matt. 18. for the warrant thereof and sayth (c) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. p. 355. This proceeding from an Eldership to a Classis from a Classis to a Synod is founded in the institution of Christ Matt. 18.17 by proportion on this manner He commands that from the admonition of one being despised men proceed unto the admonition of two or three if that be contemned unto the censure of the Eldership if that be despised unto the censure of the whole Church therefore why not from one whole Church unto many in a Classis againe from many in a Classis unto yet more in a Synod And having layd this just foundation he reprooves the opposites further from the confessiō of some of them contradicting the other (d) Ibidem Both Sutlive Downam doe interpret the Church Mat. 18. to be either a Consistory or a Synod Behold therefore by the judgement even of Hierachicall men themselves a manifest commandement of Christ for Classicall assemblies for what Is not the Classis a certaine kinde of Synod Zepperus having spoken of the Ecclesiasticall Policie or government in the Judaicall Church shewes how the same was continued when he sayth (e) Polit. Eccl. l. 1. c. 16. p. 198.199 This administration of Ecclesiasticall discipline Christ also established and made to be perpetuall Mat. 18.15 c. Gersom Bucerus that excellent and worthy servant of God who hath given so full an answer to D. Downam in defence of the Discipline practised in the Reformed Churches is as full in this poynt that the Rule of Christ Mat. 18. is no new rule He maintaineth that (f) Dissert de Gubern Eccl p. 182. the forme of the sacred Politie in the new Testament ought to be framed according to the manner of the Jewes Politie To this end he (g) Ibid. p. 48. brings the testimony of many learned Writers witnessing with him unto the same trueth Philip Melanchthon as he is there alledged by him shewing what order of Discipline was appoynted by Christ in those words Tell the Church Mat. 18. sayth (h) P. Melā cōment in 1. Cor. 15. This custome was not first instituted of the Messias but was the old manner of the Leviticall Priests who in their place maintained the discipline by such judgements though they had also other Politicall judgements punishments Victorinus Strigelius cited also by him speakes in like manner (i) Hypom in N. T. in Mat. 18. A new forme of judgement is not instituted in this place but the old manner is repeated delivered from the first fathers the steps whereof have alwayes remained in the Church c. Pezelius having expressed the forme of Government in Israel writes thus (k) Argum. Resp Theol. part 7.8.690 According to this example of the old Politie almost the same order of judgements was kept in the new Testament c. Musculus (l) Loc. cō de Eccl. c. 5. Aretius (m) Problē Tom. 2. loc de Excom are likewise brought in by him as deriving describing the Discipline of the Church Matth. 18. from
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
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.
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)
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
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
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
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
Goulartius also in his annotations thereon observeth that these Synods were kept to this end that the purity of doctrine and the discipline of the Church might be preserved entire and that the disturbers thereof might be excluded from their communion And in many other places Cyprian is so pregnant in this poynt that whosoever shall alledge him against the authority of Synods must either be a very ignorant reader of Cyprian or els a wilfull abuser of him REAS. VII Note the effect if it should be otherwise which is that every particular Congregation must hence necessarily loose her owne proper right in government so of a Mistres become a servant instead of being superiour wilfully vassall and enslave herself which thing is contrary to Gods will revealed in his word Gal. 5.1 1. Cor. 7.23 2. Tim. 1.13 Heb. 4.14 Rev. 2.25 ANSVV. I. This reason is the same for substance with his ninth Argument before and therefore it is here idly repeated II. The vassallage and slavery which he argues from Classicall government is upon a false consequence The liberty of innocent persons oppressed by wrong judgment in a particular Church is to appeale unto Classes and Synods The Democraticall government that denyes this liberty of appeale is no gracious mistresse but a Tyrannicall virago resembling the Romish Lady that by denying appeales from the Pope keeps many in bondage III. The Scriptures cited by him are all perverted and misapplyed for what force of consequence is in these reasonings viz. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free c. Gal. 5.1 therefore stand fast against appeales from particular Congregations Be not the servants of men 1. Cor. 7.23 therefore be subject to no Ecclesiasticall government save onely to the Democracie of a particular Church Hold fast the forme of sound words c. 2. Tim. 1.13 therefore hold fast the independencie of Churches Let us hold fast our profession Heb. 4.14 therefore hold fast the single uncompounded policie Hold fast that which ye have already c. Rev. 2.25 therefore hold this fast that Classes and Synods are onely for counsell and not for authority to censure and judge What unsound inferences and applications of Scripture be these Mr Canne in his 9th Argument before (f) Churches plea p. 73. alledged also 1. Thes 4.6 3. Ioh. 9. Prov. 22.28 Deut. 19.14 together with Gal. 5.1 Mr Dav. also to like purpose (g) Apol. reply p. 237. alledgeth some of these places to wit Prov. 22.28 Gal. 5.1 3. Ioh. 9. But they prove the Question as little as the other for how vaine are these consequences Thou shalt not remove the ancient bounds Prov. 22.28 therefore all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation and he removes the ancient bounds that allowes the authority of Synods Or Diotrephes loved the preheminence 3. Ioh. 9. therefore Classes and Synods have no jurisdiction or power to judge and determine the matters of a particular Congregation What weight is there in such reasonings as these REAS. VIII Seeing the Apostles wheresoever they constituted any Church with doctrine immediately established in it (h) Pol. Ecc. l. 1. p. 20. Ecclesiasticall government for without this as D. Ames (i) De Cōsc l. 4. c. 24. p. 214. sayth there could have bene no coupling of the parts and members together It must needs follow that the primitive Churches were independent bodies and stood not under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Now how Mr Paget will be able to prove a change of this government I doe not yet see especially considering that the Learned as I shewed before doe hold that there is but one certaine necessary perpetuall forme manner of ordering Churches c. ANSVV. 1. The consequence propounded in this reason is false Though the Apostles in the constitution of Churches did immediately establish Ecclesiasticall government therein yet must it not needes follow that they were independent bodies c. For proof of this consequence he brings nothing but his bare assertion neither Scripture nor testimony of any learned Writer To prove an establishment of government in the primitive Churches at first he idly and needlesly alledgeth Mr Parker and D. Ames to prove the perpetuity and unchangeablenes of that government which needed no proof he needlesly according to his manner heapes up testimonies of Calvin of P. Martyr of D. Bilson of the Churches of France of the Low-countries of Scotland and of Papists also but to help his weak unsound consequence that needed confirmation and support there is no proof nor shew of proof II. Though particular Churches in their severall assemblies be acknowledged to be distinct bodies yet in regard of the entire and full communion of Saints they are all members of one body there is but one body Eph. 4.4 And those that are members of one body are not independent The Scriptures that shew this unity and the dueties arising from thence are justly alledged and layd downe as the ground of combination and consociation of Churches And this foundation of Classicall communion being as ancient as the first constitution of Churches it appeareth hereby that the right of this confederation of churches was in them from the beginning with liberty to use and exercise the same as occasion and opportunity should permit Mr Cartwright being required to shew Scripture for the warrant of this practise of Churches answereth (k) T.C. 2. Rep. p 231. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12. The Scripture I prove it by is that St Paul when he teacheth that all the faithfull are members of one Mysticall body of Christ which ought to have a mutuall care one of another layd the foundations of this politie For as in the body of one particular Church every faithfull man compared with another in the same is a member one of another so in a more generall body of a whole Realme every particular Church compared with other is likewise a member of them Therefore as nature teacheth my hand to help the disorder which is in another part of my body so the Spirit of God out of his word through a fellow-feeling teacheth one Church to stretch out her hand to put away as it can the evill which it seeth approch unto another Rom. 15.14 Heb. 3.13 And therefore when the Scripture willeth that one should admonish another it is not onely a commandement to every singular man towards his fellow but also to one whole company towards another societie Mr Parker (l) See before p. 95.96 alledgeth the same ground out of Zepperus who from thence deriveth the authority of Classes and Synods in censuring and judging the causes of many Churches and citeth many such places of Scripture for proof thereof III. When the Church of Antioch brought her controversy unto the Synod at Ierusalem there was no change of government They had this right from the first though then especially it were manifested unto all for the actuall exercise thereof upon
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
lawfully proceed among themselves to the excommunicating of offenders whensoever there is necessary and just cause Neither doe they say a word that it is a Divine institution that the Ministers of one Congregation must first aske the leave and consent of other Ministers before they can lawfully administer this ordinance of God Hereunto I answer The more Reverend Godly and learned these Authors were the greater is his offence that shewes so little reverence unto them in perverting and abusing their testimonies If any Advocate should so farre wrong a Iurie of 24 men as to falsify their verdict contrary to their meaning might it not justly be counted a great forgery and worthy of exemplary punishment Now that this is the fault of Mr C. the Advocate and abettour of W. B. it may appeare in the first place by the generall consideration of their testimonies alledged For though it be generally affirmed by these Authors that matters of great weight as excommunication absolution choosing of Ministers and the like are not to be administred without the common consent of the Church yet this proves not that it is unlawfull to seek the counsell and help of a Classis or Synod beforehand for the preventing of wrong or that it is unlawfull to appeale unto them in case of wrong done Though particular Congregations have power to judge it followes not that they themselves are therefore subject to no other Ecclesiasticall judgment out of themselves The errour absurdity of this consequence may better appeare by these examples Though fathers masters of particular families have immediate authority from God power to use it in a domesticall way to performe familie dueties judge of matters in the family yet this hinders not but that their familie exercises works may be judged of by other authority in the city where many families are cōbined together for their mutuall governmēt Though particular cities in and for themselves have power to execute judgement and to punish offences committed among them yet this hinders not but that if they judge unjustly or abuse their authority that they themselves may then be judged of others To come more particularly unto his Authors alledged and first for P. Martyr whom he makes the foreman of the Iurie though he writing against the errour of the Romish Church teaching that Councels cannot erre and preferring them above the Scriptures have just cause to shew the errours of sundry Councells and Synods especially about that time when so many wicked decrees were made by the Councell of Trent vet he addeth that (c) Loc. Cōm Class 4. c. 4. § 11 de Cōncill these things were not spoken that the Authority of Councels should be wholly cast away For saith he if they reprehend excommunicate or absolve according to the word of God praying together by the power of the Spirit these shall not be in vaine nor without fruit And afterwards againe he brings (d) Ibid. c. 6. § 18. divine warrant to shew the institution and order of Synods from the example of the Apostles Act. 15. By which it may appeare how he held that there was a superiour Ecclesiasticall power above particular Congregations and consequently that his testimony hath bene perverted by Mr Canne The second Author alledged against us is Iunius who notwithstanding is a most pregnant witnesse for us to shew the authority of Synods When Bellarmine objecteth against the Protestants that they reject Ecclesiasticall judgements and refuse the authority of Synods this he (e) Animadv in Bell. Controv. 4. de Conc. in Praef. n. 1 2 11 12 13. shewes to be most false And further (f) Ibid. l. 1 c. 1. 3. 10. n. 1 2. 11. n. 1. he avoucheth both the just authority and necessity of Synods and likewise the divine institution of them alledging often to that end besides other Scriptures that sentence of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14.32 The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets Though no sentence whether of a particular Congregation or of any other judge is to be yeelded unto and allowed contrary to the word of God yet according to that word he (g) Ibid. c. 18. n. 1.8 l 2. c. 1. n 1. c. 16. n 1. c. 18. n 1 2 6. maintaineth that Synods are not onely to make inquisition and to consult but that they also have under Christ a ministeriall judgement touching the controversies either about faith or manners Iunius therefore is greatly abused when it is pretended that he hath brought in a contrary verdict against us The third man of the Iurie produced against us is Musculus And here it is to be observed I. That it is untruely affirmed by him in his words noted before touching the Iurie of more then 24 men that they are of mine owne choosing For though I have a multitude of witnesses agreeing with me yet as none in particular were named by me so Musculus in speciall should not have bene alledged considering his different judgement and practise from other Reformed Churches For although he confesse that the power of election and deposition of Ministers excommunication c. was exercised with consent of the people in the primitive Church and in the Apostles time yet he saith and that (h) Loc. Cōm de Minist p. 199 204. de Eccl. p. 311 de Magist p. 631. 632. 633. often that this order was to be kept while there were no Christian Magistrates and that the order which was then profitable to the Churches is not so at this time that it now belongs unto the Magistrate to appoynt Ministers either by choosing them himself or confirming such as were chosen by others at his commandement that the Rule of Telling the Church Matth. 18. was in force while they were destitute of Christian Magistrates II. Though Musculus differ from other Reformed Churches in this question of Church-government yet he also most evidently even more then I doe condemnes the opinion of the Brownists and of my opposites while he (i) Ibid. de elect Ministr p. 200. maintaines that particular Congregations are subject to another superiour power out of themselves in matters of Church-government while he justifieth the practise of the Churches in Berne where Ministers are chosen in the citie and by the Senate sent unto the Churches in the country subject unto their jurisdiction as they thought best If Musculus had bene of Mr Cannes W. Bests minde he should have forsaken those Churches and separated from them as not being a free people while they wanted excommunication power of choosing their owne Ministers Who sees not here how notably they pervert the Authors alledged by them Come we to the rest In the next place he nameth Viret but it seemes he is mistaken in his Allegation there being no such booke of Viret as he hath quoted in his margine he rather seemes to meane Virell in the grounds of Religion But whether he meane Viret or
on 1. Cor. 5.5 doth thus interpret the words Let such a one be delivered to Satan to wit by the Church or by the Pastours and Elders of the Church which are the mouth of the Church For by these the Church speaketh and dealeth Without this order there would be confusion if in a publick action every one might speake and deale which undoubtedly the Apostle would not bring in This we grant and it is not against us but against the confused practise of the Brownists But for the poynt in hand that Classes and Synods have power to judge of the actions of particular Congregations Paraeus is a plaine witnesse for us in (d) Colleg. Theol. Decur Coll. 9. Disp 8. Auccar 1. Co. 10. Disp 22. th 1-10 Disp 24. th 9. other of his writings And againe speaking of a lawfull Synod and the authority thereof in deciding of controversies in the Church he saith that therein (e) Eirenic cap. 5. men renowmed in regard of their learning understanding and piety whether they be of the Laity or Clergy have not onely a voice of delibertion and counsell but also of judgement and power of defining And hereunto accordes his (f) Act. Sym. Nar. Dordr Ses 98. Epistle written unto the Nationall Synod holden last at Dort wherein excusing his absence that he could not come in respect of his age as he much desired yet he shewes his approbation of such a meeting as being the ordinary medicine for healing the wounds of the Church and rejoyceth greatly in the spirit for the benefit exspected from that Synod which judged censured the errours of particular men in divers Churches What reason then had Mr Canne thus to abuse the words of Paraeus against his meaning and publick profession Keckerman also agreeth with the former witnesses touching the poynt in controversy For in the book alledged by Mr Canne when as the parts of the government of the Church are there described he shewes that (g) System Theo. l. 3. c. 6. p. 401.402 the convocation of Synods belongeth unto Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and is contained under the same Hemmingius though more sound and moderate then other Lutheranes yet being a disciple and follower of Melancthon there was no reason why he should not have bene joyned with his Master in the foregoing ranke of Testimonies if Mr Canne had either knowne his Authour or regarded the order which he had set downe to himself But for his judgement touching the jurisdiction of Synods he hath witnessed his consent with the Writers mentioned both in this the former Section and testifyed against Mr Canne in this cause For speaking of that part of Ecclesiasticall Discipline unto which he referres the deposition and excommunication of Ministers he commends the order of the ancient Church where he saith (h) Enchir. Theo. Clas 3. c. 11. the execution of this discipline was chiefly committed to the Bishops who therefore sometimes twise sometimes oftner in the yeare called Provinciall Synods where the matter was handled not by the censure of one Bishop but by the sentence of the whole Clergy assembled Tossanus mentioned in the next place hath plainely declared himself to be of the same minde with us in allowing Synodall and Classicall assemblies to judge determine the causes of particular Churches and persons He (i) Pastor Evang. p. 61 edit 1603. maintaines against Thyraeus that which he had formerly written in these words In controversies of religion we appeale from Luther and from the censures and judgements of private men unto the judgement of the Catholick Church and of a Synod He proves this to be sound and orthodoxe from the Apostles referring the decision of the controversie concerning Iustification and the Ceremonies of the Law unto the Councell at Ierusalem Act. 15. Speaking of somewhat that was wanting in most of the German Churches about the ordaining of Ministers he saith that (k) P. 40. godly Pastours and Overseers doe dayly bewaile the scarsitie of faithfull labourers and that the Presbyteries and well ordered Ecclesiasticall Senates doe indeavour that both in Synods and yearely visitations and in Classicall meetings the failings of Ministers may be amended according to their power In which words he hath reference unto the practise of the Churches in the Palatinate concerning which we are to speake (l) Sect. 7. hereafter where he joyned with them in the exercise of the sayd government being (m) D. Toss Vita p. 38. at Neustadt a moderator of the Ecclesiasticall counsels of the Consistory and sometime also President of a Synod and afterwards at Heidelberg (n) Ib. P. 44. a member of the Ecclesiasticall Senate How unjustly therefore untruely hath Mr Canne dealt with Tossanus and his readers in reckoning him among those who as he saith (o) Ch. pl. p. 83. have condemned for an errour untrueth that position touching particular Congregations standing under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves As for Polanus to grant Mr Canne that he was of the same minde with the former Authours touching the Churches power in excommunicating though so much can hardly be manifested out of the (p) Synt. Theol. l. 7. c. 18. place alledged yet what is that to our question The Churches power in excommuncating doth not exclude the authority of Synods in judging of a particular Congregation Polanus speaking of Synods expressely confesseth that (q) Ib. c. 14 the liberty or power of those Ecclesiasticall assemblies is a right given of God unto his Church c. that An Ecclesiasticall Synod is a publick assemblie of godly men lawfully sent and gathered together from divers Churches also of divers Provinces that they may handle and determine according to the power that is granted unto them of God touching holy affaires c. He alledgeth sundry Scriptures and examples of the Ancient Churches for declaration hereof And againe in the same place he notes it for a condition of a lawfull Synod that those which are chosen and deputed of the Churches may have a deliberative or consulting and also a deciding voyce or giving of sentence c. When he requires another condition of a lawfull Synod that every one may have free accesse and recesse yet he addes this withall that whosoever is convicted of heresy or any crime and remaineth obstinate should undergoe Ecclesiasticall censure that is deposition from his Ecclesiasticall office or Suspension or Excommunication And to like purpose he writes in (r) Ib. c. 16. Syllo Thes Theol. par 1 de Concil other places This being the judgement of Polanus touching the authority of Synods how uncircumspect was W. Best his abettour to call for a Iurie of such Divines as have given such pregnant sentence and so peremptory verdict against them Hyperius next alledged though he deny not the power of particular Congregations yet in his writings it is evident that he holdes the power of Synods consisting of the Deputies of many Churches to be a
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
hath ordained these Holy assemblies with promise that they being gathered together in the name of Christ he himself will be among them With the Synod the Pastour hath authority to determine concerning regiment of the Church Againe (d) P. 115 116. 117. Let us returne to the authority of the Synod which consisteth in deciding and determining such matters as cannot otherwise in particular Churches be concluded either because they concerne the common state of all Churches or because they lack sufficient authority in some one Church First therefore the lawfull Synod hath to consider if any controversy of doctrine doe arise that it be determined by the word of God c. Secondly it hath to determine of the use of the ceremonies not of will without reason or ground of Scripture but upon necessary causes of avoiding offence and similitude of superstition of bearing with the weak of order and comelinesse and edification So did the Synod of the Apostles and Elders command for a time abstinencie from meat offered to Idols otherwise lawfull in it selfe for offences sake c. Also for order and comelines and best edification the Synod hath to determine what shall be observed in particular charges as of the time place and forme of preaching and praying and administring of the Sacraments For who should be able to know what order comelines and edification requireth according to Gods word but they that be teachers and preachers of the same unto all others For it is absurd that they should be taught by such in these small things as ought to learne the trueth of them in all matters c. (e) P. 118. It is out of all controversy that before there were any Christian Magistrates this authority was proper unto the Synod Which authority we know to be granted to the Church by our Saviour Christ practised by his Apostles continued by their successours three hundred yeares before there were any Christian Emperours and long time after there were Christian Emperours even as long as any puritie continued in religion untill both Emperours and Synods were thrust out of all lawfull authoritie which they ought to have in the Church by the tyrannie of Antichrist In the same learned Discourse of Ecclesiasticall Government it is further added (f) P. 122. 123. 124. The Synod hath further authority concerning Discipline to reforme and redresse by Ecclesiasticall Censure all such defaults and controversies as cannot be determined in the particular Churches as for example If the Pastour himselfe have need to be severely punished where there is but one Pastour in a Church or if Elders which should be reformers of others have notoriously misgoverned themselves or if they have beene led by affection to condemne an innocent or to justifye the ungodly in these and such like cases all contention is to be concluded by the authority of the Synod Some example we have thereof Act. 15. where those contentious Schismatiques that withstood Paul and Barnabas at Antiochia were constrained to yeeld by authority of the Councell and Paul and Barnabas restored to their credit For which causes Synodes ought oftentimes to be assembled though not generall of the whole Realme but particular of every Province or Shire as it may be most conveniently that such things as are to be reformed may be redressed with speed These and many other such like assertions in allowance of Synods and their authority hath this learned Authour whom yet they have alledged against me Had Will. Best but had so much wit or conscience as to have duely looked upon these English Authors being but small treatises and perused them diligently he might easily have learned hereby what order God requires in the Government of his Church But taking so much upon trust and presuming blindely upon the fidelity and skill of a Brownist therefore is he runne into Scandall having published many slanders against the Churches of Christ and wrested so many witnesses against their meanings In the next place the Testimony of Mr Fenner doth fitly offer itself to be examined of us for seeing he tooke upon him the Defence of the former Authour against Bridges who impugned that learned Discourse of Eccles Gov. we have reason to exspect that he also will defend the authority of Synods in like manner As for the two pages which Mr Ca. (g) Against Bridges p. 15 16. alledgeth he neither specifyeth his words neither doe I finde in either of those pages any one word against the use of Classes or Synods amōgst us but on the contrary a cleare testimony which he gives unto them For speaking there in pag. 16. of the forme of Discipline appoynted of God and of the severall points thereof particularly set downe in the word of God with other he reckoneth up these the joynt care of Elderships and Synods Afterwards he speaketh more fully in praise of this government and saith (h) Def. of Ecc. Disci ag Bridg. p. 105. The nature of this order itself which admitteth no Minister but learned nor any decision of weight but by advise of many with appointed conferences and Synods of learned men for such purposes besides the assurance of Gods favourable blessing of his owne ordinance and the experience of the Synodes of the Reformed Churches the comparison of their judgements Canons and other constitutions with the like of the other in any part beareth witnesse whether the want of learning and pietie both must needes be greater in it then in the other Whereas D. Fulk had given unto these Churches which have a Classicall and Synodall government the title and praise of (i) Learn Disc of Ecc. Gov. p. 7. rightly reformed Churches when D. Bridges was offended therewith Mr Fenner maintaines that praise to be due unto them and commends k their entire and whole obedience which they yeeld to God in receyving all the holy doctrine of our Saviour Christ both concerning things to be beleeved and also concerning the spirituall policie Discipline and order for guiding of his Church And further in the same place he repeats and undertakes to defend D. Fulkes words perswading to imbrace that most beautifull order of Ecclesiasticall regiment which God doth so manifestly blesse and prosper in our neighbours hands Hereby it may appeare how farre Mr Fenner was from that erroneous and slanderous spirit of Mr C. and W.B. And here by the example of W. Best all simple ignorant men are to be warned of publishing such false things as he hath done upon the credit of other men that are strangers from the Churches of Christ Moreover the judgement of Mr Fenner in approving this use of Synods for the government of Churches and judgement of causes may be clearly seen in sundry other testimonies which he hath given to this purpose and which I have (l) P. 84-88 before noted where among the rest when having maintained the right of Synods to be jure divino alledging many Scriptures for the warrant thereof he
that if his order of Synods may be refused by such as deserve Ecclesiasticall censures that then a doore should be opened to all heresies sects all the judgements of the Church whereunto Christ sendeth us should be subverted c. The Divines of Embden (e) Ibid. p. 1â—7 accord with the rest and besides other reasons for confirmation of Synodall Authority in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes they alledge that very place of Scripture Act. 20.28 which my opposites pervert to a contrary end against me Neither have they onely in generall shewed what the authority of Synods is and also what this Synod may doe but the Synod goes further and proceeds unto the exercise of this power and pronounceth sentence against those that persisted in their errours In the Copie of that Sentence (f) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr Sess 138. p. 280. there be divers acts of their power to be observed in the severall expressions formes of speech used therein as for example This Synod of Dort doth seriously instantly and according to the authority which it hath by the word of God over all the members of their Churches in the name of Christ require exhort admonish enjoyne all every one of the Pastours in the Churches of the United Provinces Doctours Rectours Masters in the Universities Schooles c. The Synod after invocation of the holy name of God being in conscience well assured of their authority from the word of God following the steps of Ancient late Synods c. (g) P. 281. Doth interdict the persons cited unto this Synod from all Ecclesiasticall charge and deposeth them from their offices and also judgeth them unworthy of Academicall functions untill by earnest repentance c. For the rest whose cognition is not come to this Nationall Synod it committeth unto Provinciall Synods Classes Presbyteries according to the order receaved that with all care they procure c. That they diligently take heed unto themselves that they admit not any man to the holy ministery which refuseth to subscribe unto the doctrine declared in these Synodicall constitutions and to teach the same that they also retaine no man by whose manifest dissension c. This judgement Sentence of the Synod was afterward in most full ample manner (h) Ibid. p. 282. approved confirmed by the Illustrious Lords the States Generall of the United Provinces acknowledging also the businesse of this Synod to be agreat holy work such as heretofore the Reformed Churches never saw c. Besides this Sentence pronounced against those twelve or thirteen of the Remonstrants that by authority of the Synod were (i) Ibid. p. 16 17. cited to appeare before them there is also another speciall sentence (k) P. 204 205. of suspension from their function concluded pronounced against Everhardus Vosculius and Iohannes Schotlerius Ministers at Campen because of their contumacy in not appearing before the Synod being lawfully cited thereunto Moreover it is memorable that the members of this Synod the Deputies of severall Churches did all every one of them take a most solemne oath in testimony of the good conscience which they had in the exercise of this authority The forme of the Oath was (l) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr Sess 23. p. 61. as followeth I doe promise before God whom I beleeve and reverence as the present searcher of the reines and hearts that in this whole Synodall action wherein shal be undertaken an examination judgement decision both touching the five knowne Articles and the difficulties thence arising and also touching all other matters of doctrine I will not take any humane writings but onely the word of God for the certaine undoubted rule of faith and that in this whole cause I shall propound nothing to my self but the glory of God the peace of his Church and in speciall the conservation of the purity of doctrine So let my Saviour Jesus Christ be mercifull unto me whom I most earnestly beseech that he would continually assist me in this purpose with the grace of his Spirit This oath being first taken by the President of the Synod all the other Professours Pastours Elders of the Netherlands deputed unto the Synod and then all the Divines of other nations standing up in order did with a loud voyce every one of them declare that they did holily promise and sweare before God the same thing and testifyed that they came with such minde unto the Synod had hitherto sit downe therein and would hereafter by the grace of God continue Having now such a cloud of witnesses consenting with me I have reason in this place againe to put Mr Canne in minde of his vaine boasting (m) Ch. pl. p. 83. touching a Iurie of more then 24. men condemning me of errour Here may he see a Jurie of more then thrice 24 sworne men and of the most excellent servants of God in so many Reformed Churches and Universities the lights of Christendome the flower of the Churches and the select crowne of learned men as they of Geneva doe (n) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr Sess 3. p. 12. stile them all testifying both by word and practise against him and against the opinion of Mr Dav. touching the jurisdiction of Synods A Supplement annexed by the Publisher for answer unto that vvhich follovveth in Mr Cannes booke THus farre good Reader the Authour hath travelled through those tedious wayes which Mr C. though with lesse trouble yet with more prejudice to his owne cause hath first opened unto him The summe of all is that wading through those streames of Arguments and Reasons wich Mr C. had let out upon him he hath found such as were of any depth to runne another way the other too shallow to hinder the passage of trueth in this controversie And marching through those severall rankes files of learned Authours which Mr C. had mustered brought into the field for his defence and assistance in this conflict he hath found them all excepting those that were to be excepted to be friends instead of enemies testifying plainely in their owne words in the words of sundry others with them that against their wills they were forced to appeare under his banners And therefore in the same order that he marshalled them against the Authority of Synods they now stand in aray against the Independency of Churches There remained yet one part of Mr Can. opposition in this cause to be encountred wherein he pretends to disappoint and conquer such forces as might seeme to be used in defence of that Classicall and Synodall government which he hath hitherto oppugned To this end he (a) Chur. plea p. 92. undertakes to answer certaine Reasons or Objections picked out of divers passages in the Authours (b) Answ to W.B. c first booke supposing by this meanes to have fully acquitted himself in this Dispute Now though there be nothing in these his Answers for
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
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
then without great presumptiō faine them to be sayd at another time place having no warrant of Scripture for the same I know indeed that (r) R. Solomon Iarchi on Gen. 12.1 some of your Rabbines who doe so often mislead you doe write that this call was from Charran but their authority is too light to rest upon it They will have Nun the last letter of the word (f) In Gen. 11.32 Charran to be written with the head of it downward and the lowest part of it upward contrary to the order to shew (t) R. Sol. ibid. that the wrath of God burned untill Abram One of your authors according to his Cabalisticall art (v) Baal hatturim on Gen. 12.1 tels us that the numerall letters of the word arecha used in the call of Abram Gen. 12.1 doe yeeld the same number that begnananim doth which signifyeth by the clouds to teach us that the clouds went before him shewed him the way in his journey And the inversion of this Nun haphueah is as well as worthy to be observed for matter of meditation instruction as are the great little letters which you (x) Annot. on Gen. 23.2 34.31 Lev. 1.1 mention for like use You tell us in the same place that the Hebrew doctours expound the name Charran by Charon aph that is wrathfull anger R. Menachem on Gen. 12. as if he were now to depart from the place of wrath c. but if you had alledged the place more plainly fully the vanity of that Rabbine would thereby have appeared while he saith that (y) R. Menachem on Gen. 12.4 whē Abram went to give his influence or abundance unto the higher land Lot went with him for that land was to receive from them both and the word Lot is from Levatin which signifyeth curses and this at his going from Charan the word charon signifyeth anger This is the vaine conceit contained in the allegation which you send us unto compare with so many places of Scripture And suppose Charan be denominate of anger yet this will not prove that the calling Gen. 12.1 was from Charan Againe it appeares to be the opinion of other (z) Chazkuni com on Gen. 12.1 Aben Ezra on Gen. 11. 12.1 Rabbines that this calling of Abram Gen. 12.1 was from Vr of the Chaldees before he came to Charan And besides these the judgement of learned (a) Merc. on Gen. 12. Trem. Iun. annot ibid. Calv. Musc com ibid. Christians is herein against you and more to be respected then the Iewish doctours whom you so much follow 3. Besides other things how grosse is that errour when you write (b) Annot. on Gen. 12.5 that the land of Canaan is a country in Asia the lesse c. It appeareth not by the Scriptures that Abram ever came into Asia the lesse And had he gone thither to seek Canaan he should never have found that land unto which he was called of God This your errour of misplacing Canaan is reproved not onely by the generall testimony of the cheefest (c) Ptol. Geogr. lib. 5. c. 2. Asiae tab 1. Strab. Geogr. l. 12. Plin. Hist nat l. 5. c. 27 Solin Polyh c. 43. Geographers but also by the evidence of the holy Scriptures which doe oftē plainly distinguish these countries make it very manifest that Canaan is not a country in Asia the lesse as you say Act. 2.9 16.6 20.16.1 Pet. 1.1 Touching your allegation of Gen. 13.6 7 8. we read there of the riches of Abram and Lot of the strife betwixt their servants of the Cananites and Perizzites dwelling in the land of Abrams care to avoyd strife but how you will conclude your Separation from hence together with the peoples power in excommunications who can imagine or comprehend it we would faine see what face of an argument you can paynt out unto us from this Allegation And as for Exo. 5.3 where Moses Aaron tell Pharaoh how the God of the Hebrewes met them how they desire to goe three dayes journey into the wildernes to doe sacrifice and of the danger of pestilence or sword to come upon them if they did it not by what consequence will you maintaine your Separation from hence and by what second consequence will you then demonstrate the peoples authority from this Separation here implyed as you write These things doe yet lye hid wrapt up in darknes that men cannot discerne what you meane thereby It is a strange folly in matters of so great controversy so barely to alledge such a number of Scriptures which seeme not so much as to looke towards the poynt of the question in hand and this your fault is so much the greater in that yon can finde time leasure to note and publish so many other idle and unproffitable things as when in the explication of this verse you set downe those dotages of Maimony about the Pestilence Deber which have no weight in them no ground or colour of trueth Why did you not rather manifest your Separation from hence if it be here taught as you say for the clearing of your cause plucking others out of the darknes shadow of death wherein according to your profession they do remaine CHAP. IIII. Whether the people be bound to be present at the proceedings against offendours A Nother errour concerning the government of the Church is this that you hold the people bound to be present at the conviction of sinners triall of causes Though Mr Iohnson (a) Advertis of Mr Clyft p. 41.42 left it free for any of the people to come if they would yet you (b) Animadv p. 42.43 hold not that sufficient unlesse they be bound to come to heare the proceedings Against the liberty of being absent or present you alledge many things and plead as followeth H. AINSVV. Is not this to divide the body when the head must be present the shoulders with the other parts and members may be absent ANSVV. It is no division in the body mysticall when the head labours for the good of the body though some members thereof be absent no more then there is a division or disunion among the friends that consult for the comfort of one another though not present no more then there is betwixt the States of these lands the people thereof when the States meet apart to determine some things without the people no more then there was a division when the Elders at Ierusalem met apart without the people Act. 21 18-25 H. AINSVV. The Apostle writing to the Church of Corinth how to doe when they came together for the Lords supper 1. Cor. 11.18 33. writeth also to them how when they were gathered together they should deliver the wicked unto Satan 1. Cor. 5.4 5. We finde no difference but they were bound to come to the one as to the other And if they answer they are bound
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
the manner of the Jewish Synagogue Bucanus also describing this Discipline sayth (n) Loc. cō loc 44. de Discipl qu. 12. Christ hath expressely appointed this order translated unto us from the Church of Israel And againe (o) Ibid. qu. 22. Christ doth not describe a temporary but a perpetuall order of his Church Mat. 18.17 where following the custome that had bene alwayes observed in the ancient Church of the Iewes he signifyed that the Church cannot want that spirituall jurisdiction which had bene from the beginning And lest any should blame us that we seeme to be drawne with the judgement and consent of late Writers the same (p) Dissert de Gub. Eccles p. 49.50 Gersom Bucerus doth also alledge divers of the ancient Writers as (q) In 1. Tim 5. Ambrose (r) In 1. Tim. 4. Theodoret (f) In Ioan. l. 6. cap. 20. Cyrill (t) In Cant. cap. 6. Gregorius Magnus agreeing with us that the Church of the new Testament succeeding the Church of the Jewes hath borrowed from thence the forme of her Politie and the order of jurisdiction And to these I might adde many other but that I have further occasion to doe it hereafter in answering the objections from the perverted Testimonies both of new old Writers It is not here to be omitted that Mr Iohnson Pastour of the Separatists who had bene a principall instrument in oppugning this interpretation of Matt. 18. by whose writings many had bene confirmed in their opposition against us hath yet before his death after long experience and consideration confessed his errour in this poynt and a in peculiar Treatise publickly revoked the same And though in other poynts touching the order of government prescribed in Matt. 18. he came not to the cleare sight of the trueth yet thus farre he hath shewed his consent with the former Writers saying (v) Expos of Mat. 18.17 C1 Note here that if Christ now had given a new Rule of government that Israel had not the Disciples to whom it was spoken could not have understood it by these words which were according to the Iewes received phrase practise and the Pharisees other adversaries of Christ would have beneglad if they could have had such an exception against Christ that he had taught contrary to Moses and had led the people from the way order of government which the Lord himself had prescribed in his word AFter evidence of Scripture consent of so many Writers agreeing in the interpretation of this place let us now examine the exceptions of such opposites as maintaine that Christ gave a new rule in Mat. 18. Some object with H. Barrow the unjust ungodly dealing of the Rulers in that time and reason thus that it is not likely or possible that our Saviour should fetch his patterne from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the Iewes c. To these I answer I. Though the Governours of the Jewes in Christs time were most of them wicked men and abused their authority yet the forme of government it self and namely so much of it so farre as it is described in that Rule Mat. 18. that there should be a Synedrion or Presbyterie for the judging of offences in such order as is there specifyed cannot be shewed to be unlawfull nor contrary to that which God had appoynted of old by Moses And therefore our Saviour might well commend the very same unto his Disciples Thus Calvine answereth a like objection (x) Harm Evang. in Mat. 18.17 If any man except that all things were corrupt perverted in the time of Christ so as that tyranny could be accounted nothing lesse then the judgement of the Church the answer is easy Though there was then an adulterate perverse manner yet Christ might worthily commend the order so as it was delivered from the Fathers And when a little after he erected his Church the corruption being removed he restored the pure use of excommunication II. How great soever the abuses and corruptions of Governours Government were in Christs time yet were not the godly required then to renounce or forsake the communion of that Church Christ himselfe both by his example his commandement taught otherwise whiles he both communicated therewith himself Matt. 26.17 18. and likewise required others to doe the same Luk. 17.14 Mat. 8.4 23.2 3. Now forasmuch as the publick worship of God and his ministery are holy ordinances as well as the government of his Church seeing Christ taught his people to goe unto the worship ministery of the Jewes either in Synagogue or Temple what reason is there to think that they should be forbidden to repayre unto their government in their Synedriō or Presbyterie Moreover as our Saviour taught ordinarily in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Iewes alwayes resorted Iohn 18.20 Matt. 4.23 so there were some righteous and faythfull men Governours and Rulers of the Jewes in Christs time who though they consented not unto evill and unrighteous judgements but testifyed against them Luk. 1.6 Ioh. 7.50 51. Luk. 23.50 51. yet were they not required to forsake their offices and their government And if they might lawfully retaine their office and government why might not others resort unto them in their government and seek redresse of offences and so by them tell the Church according to the rule Mat. 18.17 III. For the further clearing of this poynt concerning which many are diversly minded and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty minded and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty doubting what is meet to be done when corruptions doe abound in a true Church as the Jewes in Christs time were when as yet some of the Ministers Governours thereof doe become oppressours of the godly persecutours of the trueth we are therefore to observe divers rules of direction according to which both the Jewes then and Christians now in such case are to carry themselves 1. There is a difference to be put betwixt the causes and matters of complaint about which men had occasion to goe to the Jewes Synedrion or Eldership There were some kinde of sinnes as of open theft adultery extortion sacriledge legall impurity Sabath-breaking divers the like scandals against which the Pharisees and Rulers of the Jewes were very zealous Luk. 18.11 12. Rom. 10.2 Phil. 3.5 6. Luk. 18.18 21. Mark 10.21 And what should hinder the godly from going unto their Presbyterie to seek redresse and so to tell the Church of such offences In other quaestions touching their traditions they had not the like encouragement to goe unto them 11. There was a difference to be put betwixt the Rulers of the Jewes to whom they had occasion to complaine As there was a multitude of Synagogues among them so there was great variety of the Rulers of those Synagogues some of them being more modest humble and attentive to the
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
and for the stopping of the mouthes of such deceivers as pretended they were sent by the Apostles vers 24. In a word that no suspicion might remaine in the minds of the people as if Paul in doctrine differed from the rest ANSVV. I. Mr Canne corrupteth and falsifyeth the words of Mr Cartwright by adding unto them this word Onely Though Paul and Barnabas went up to conferre yet the words of Mr Cartw. are not Onely they went up to conferre as here they are alledged Againe those words that follow which Mr Canne sets downe in such a letter as if Mr Cartw. had spoken word for word in such manner viz. for countenance of the trueth in respect of men and for the stopping of the mouthes of such deceivers as pretended they were sent by the Apostles v. 24. these are the words of Mr Robinson (l) Iustif of Sepat p. 199. verbatim taken out of his writing and therefore ought rather to have bene alledged in his name then in Mr Cartwrights II. Though Paul and Barnabas went up for such ends as are here propounded for countenancing of the trueth c. yet those ends doe not argue that therefore the Synod at Ierusalem did not exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in giving definitive sentence touching the controversy brought unto them seeing those ends were more effectually and fully obtained thereby for by such judiciall sentence the truth was countenanced before men and the mouthes of deceyvers more effectually stopped and suspicion of difference betwixt the Apostles more clearly taken away III. Though Paul and Barnabas went not up to submit their judgement to the judgement of the Apostles yet this hinders not their going to procure that the judgement of those deceyvers which had troubled the Church of Antioch and likewise that the judgement of such as had bene made to doubt by them might be submitted unto the judgement of the Apostles or that those deceyvers might be censured by the Synod if after conviction they should persist in their evill IV. That which Mr Cartw. speakes of P. and Barn not submitting their judgement unto the judgement of the Apostles as if it would have diminished the authority of their doctrine c. is to be understood as I conceive as spoken by way of opposition to the Rhemists and other Papists against whom he dealt who say as well concerning Paul and Barnabas as concerning the other deceivers (m) Rhem. on Act. 15.2 that they did not stand stifly to their owne opinion on either side but condescended to referre the whole controversy and the determination thereof to the Apostles Priests or Ancients c. who hold from Jerome that (n) Rainol Conf. with Hart. c. 4. div 3. p. 133 Paul had not had security of preaching the Gospel unles it had bene approved by the sentence of Peter and of the rest that were with him Such a submission might have diminished the authority of their doctrine and therefore is not to be acknowledged Otherwise there was even in the Apostles themselves a lawfull submissiō unto the judgement of the Church 1. Peter himself as Iunius well (o) Animadv in Bell. de Concil l. 2. c. 16. § 5. observes judicio Ecclesiae subjicitur atque ad cam remittitur voce Christi jubentis Dic Ecclesiae Mat. 18. alibi that is he was subjected unto the judgement of the Church sent unto it by the voyce of Christ commanding Tell the Church Mat. 18. elswhere D. Whitaker also (p) Contro de Concil Qu. 5. c. 3. p. 172. affirmes and confirmes the same thing concerning Peter and why may it not be sayd of Paul and Barnabas as well as of him 2. Seeing Paul and Barnabas were certaine that the Apostles did agree with them in judgement and could not erre in their sentence they knew that the same should not diminish the authority of their doctrine but rather magnify and illustrate the same I. CAN. III. If Ierusalem lay northward 200 miles from Antioch as I read (q) Itiner N. Test fol. 96. it did Surely then he hath small reason to bring this Scripture as the ground and foundation of the Classicall Assembly yea and to tell us * Pag. 88. that it is a remarkable place of Scripture to warrant the exercise of that power which we deny And a little after This one allegation is sufficient to evince the falshood of their assertion ANSVV. I. He mistakes and so perverts the testimony of the Author whom he alledgeth directly contrary to his expresse words who (r) Itiner N.T. p. 66. 82. edit 1624. p. 82. 101. edit 1635. in divers places of this book as is to be seen in the severall editions sayth not as it is alledged that Ierusalem lay Northward from Antioch but on the contrary that Antioch lay Northward from Ierusalem So uncircumspect is he in his quotations II. Suppose it had bene written in his Author so as he alledgeth it yet then it was a great simplicity and want of judgement in him that could not of himself have corrected such a manifest and palpable errour Had he had a very small measure of knowledge in the Geographicall descriptions of the holy Land and the countries bordering thereupon without the knowledge whereof men cannot well understand the story of the Bible there being so many references which the H. Ghost hath unto the different situation of severall places then might he have knowne that Ierusalem lay Southward and Antioch Northward from Ierusalem for 1. The common Geographers (ſ) Cl. Ptol. Asiae tab 4. Atlas Merc. c. old and new of all sorts doe beare witnesse hereof in their Mappes and ordinary descriptions of the world and those parts thereof 2. Had he gone no further but looked well on this story Act. 15. where the messengers travelling from Antioch to Ierusalem are sayd in their way to passe through Phaenice and Samaria he might have observed that as those countries in the way lay Northward from Ierusalem so must Antioch also from whence in the right way they came to those countries Let others be admonished hereby that they rashly follow not such a guide that will be a great master and teacher of the Churches and yet as the wise man noteth knowes not the way to the City Eccles 10.15 III. I doe willingly grant that Antioch was 200 miles from Ierusalem those 70 Dutch miles which this Authour mentions according to common account make 280 English miles 80 more then Mr Canne reckons Now the further that Antioch was from Ierusalem the stronger is this our Argument from Act. 15. The greater paines they tooke in travell to come unto another superiour judicatory out of themselves doth argue the greater necessity of Synods and shewes that the fruit expected thereby was the more precious in their eyes The Deputies of the Churches that came to the late Synod at Dort from Geneva Zurich and Berne travelled further then these Antiochians did And of old
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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