due unto them unlesse some other study and work together with the labour of hearing examining and judging of causes did require the same II. As for Mal. 2.7 the knowledge in the Priests lips there spoken of was that which he principally manifested in his office of publick preaching the law of God Deut. 33.10 Lev. 10.11 in which office the Elders doe not succeed them and so have no speciall maintenance due in that regard Againe the knowledge in the Priests lips appeared secondarily in judiciall causes which they heard examined judged Deut. 17.8 9-12 2 Chron. 19.8 Zech. 3.7 This power you give unto the people now as well as unto the Elders who therefore by your doctrine deserve no more maintenance for the same then doe the people in this regard III. Though we grant that Elders are to have their ordinary meetings apart for the Church-affaires yet doth not your allegation from Act. 21.18 prove the same for that meeting being upon extraordinary occasion to entertaine the Apostle Paul and those that were with him who being new come to Ierusalem they came together to salute embrace one another to heare tidings of the successe of the Gospel to rejoyce together in the Lord vers 19. and then consulted further of such things as tended to the edification of the Church vers 20. c. You might as well conclude that strangers of other Congregations should be present in the ordinary assembly of the Elders because we doe here read of some such who being in Pauls company were now also present at this speciall meeting of the Elders in Ierusalem Act. 21.15 16 17 18. H. AINSVV. Fourthly when apparant sinners so convicted by witnesses are to be judged by the Church there is no time more fit then the Sabbath day wherein all men are board to leave their owne works Exo. 20.10 tend to the Lords of which sort this is REPL. I. Though I doe not hold it simply unlawfull to judge causes on the Sabbath day yet that this day is the fittest your allegation from Exod. 20. shewes it not Men may then leave their owne works tend to the Lords though they heare no controversies pleaded yea much more fitly comfortably and fruitfully may they attend upon the publick administration of the Word Prayer Sacraments and sanctify themselves thereunto in private both by dueties of preparatiō before and by dueties of meditation repetition conference c. afterward if the mindes of Minister people be not distracted or hindred by other controversies and contentions Psal 26.6 Matt. 5.8 Exo. 19.10 30 18-21 Act. 17.11 Psal 119.11 c. That there hath bene such a disturbance and hindrance among you it is testifyed not onely by strangers which sometimes hearing you doe complaine hereof but also by your owne Ministers as Mr Iohnson Mr Clyfton and your owne people both such as have left you and even such as still remaine with you II. As Ecclesiasticall judgements are the Lords works so are Civill judgements also which the Magistrates sitting on the Lords throne in stead of the Lord their God doe administer execute in his name 2. Chron. 19.6 9.8 And by this reasoning you might make the Sabbath to be the fittest day for them also H. AINSVV. Or if that day suffice not they may take any other for them convenient for c. REPL. You doe hereby yeeld unto us that you have walked in an uncleane way and that you have according to your owne doctrine an uncleane and polluted people for seeing as Mr Iohnson confesseth witnesseth (m) Treat on Matt. 18. p. 17. your wonted manner hath bene to heare matters on the week day at which time there was seldome half the Church together if now according to (n) Anim. adv p. 42. your former arguing from 1. Tim. 5.22 men cannot keep themselves pure from partaking with other mens sinnes unlesse they see heare the conviction of those whom they doe reject then hath half your Church together bene defiled many times while they have consented to the excommunication of such at the hearing and examination of whose cause they have not bene present H. AINSVV. For unto publick affaires the Church is to be assembled 1. Cor. 5.4 Act. 14.27 15.4 30. 21 18-22 REPL. This your generall and indefinite speech doth admit many exceptions for I. Even the Elders when they have their meetings apart as you grant unto them doe consider together of the publick affaires and there you see then that the Church is not alwayes to be assembled unto publick busines II. If the whole Church and all the members thereof men women children and servants must assemble to heare the proceedings against them whom they are to avoyd reject according to your plea and this also on the week dayes though it should be day after day as may come to passe in great Congregations and when many cases are to be heard c. as was (o) R Clyfr Advert p. 42. before objected unto you what reason is there that the Elders should have speciall maintenance in respect of this work where all the members of the Church are bound to attend upon the work as well as they To this you say nothing III. Even unto the publick administration of the word and prayer you doe not binde your people on the week day but leave it free for them to come or not to come unto the same And shall the hearing of examinations proceedings against particular men have more honour then the word preached Yea which is much more by this your opinion and reasoning you doe more binde your people to be present at controversies even on the week day then to heare the word and prayer even on the Lords day for to be absent from judiciall proceedings on the week day doth not onely require acknowledgment of a fault as doth the absence from publick worship on the Lords day but by your doctrin it doth also require a reversing repeating of the proceedings or else a refusall to allow the same in not rebuking or rejecting them who are publickly censured rebuked or excommunicated by the Church IV. As in respect of the ease commodity of the Church the hearing of some publick affaires is to be committed to the Eldership as hath bene shewed before so also for the avoyding of scandall offence for example the examination of each particular act and circumstance serving for the conviction of offendours in some uncleane filthy sinnes and the open repetition naming hereof before the whole Congregation men women young old your owne people strangers that come to heare cannot but be very offensive so is found to be for it is a shame even to speak of the things which are done of many in secret Eph. 5.12 And even shame it self as it seemes hath forced you sometimes to leave this your practise which you so earnestly plead for As heretofore in the case
the affirmative commandements in omitting things to be done were expiated by Burnt-offerings which vvere offered dayly for the whole Church or by particular persons as they would bring them as is shewed on Lev. 1. Also by the sacrifices offered on Atonement day whereof see Lev. 16. c. But how vaine is this distinction what just warrant is there that the expiation of sinnes of omission against the affirmative commandements should be restrained and applyed with such distinction unto the Burnt-offerings or unto that one day of Atonement It is a generall rule and received of Divines that in expounding the commandements the affirmative part should be comprehended under the negative and the negative under the affirmative And there is ground for this from the word of God who in his speech sometimes comprehendeth all our obedience of the Law under an affirmative commandement as Deut. 5.33 sometimes under a negative as Deut. 8.11 with Deut. 5.32 c. III. By a third restriction they doe yet further limit appropriate this Sinne-offering to the ignorant or negligent breach of such negative commandements for the presumptuous transgression whereof men deserved cutting off by the Law as is noted (o) Ibidem in generall by Mr Ainsworth for the interpretation and illustration of this ordinance But that the Reader may the better discerne and judge thereof I will set down the particular errours p Maimony in Shegagoth c. 1. The first when a man did ly with his mother 2. with his wives mother 3. with his mothers mother 4. with his fathers mother 5. with his daughter 6. with his daughters daughter 7. with his sons daughter 8. with his wives daughter 9. with her daughters daughter 10. with her sons daughter 11. with his sister 12. with his sister of his fathers wife 13. with his fathers sister 14. with his mothers sister 15. with his wives sister 16. with his fathers wife 17. with his fathers brothers wife 18. with his sonnes wife 19. with his brothers wife 20. with a mans wife 21. with a menstruous woman 22. with a male 23. with his father 24. with his fathers brother 25. with a beast 26. a woman lying with a beast And besides these 26 monstrous and unnaturall pollutions they reckon 17 other transgressions 1. Idolatry 2. giving of their seed to Molech 3. having a familiar spirit 4. to be a wizard 5. profaning of the Sabath 6. to work upon Atonement day 7. to eat or drink on Atonement day 8. to eat the remainder viz. of the sacrifice on the third day Lev. 7.17 18. 9. to eat leaven at the Passeover 10. to eat fat 11. to eat blood 12. to eat the abominable thing 13. to kill holy things without the court 14. to offer sacrifice without the court 15. to make the anoynting oyle 16. to make the sweet incense 17. to anoynt with that anoynting oyle Unto these 43 particular and enormous errours they restraine the Sinne-offering As by the former restriction they excluded all the 248 affirmative commandements so by this of 365 negative precepts they exclude 322. By these and sundry other groundles restrictions they doe many wayes make both this and other commandements and ordinances of God of no effect by their traditions and as for private persons so also for the Priest the Congregation and Rulers which being so vaine I will not insist upon further refutation of them they being also many wayes contradictory unto themselves about the same And as the Jewes doe thus offend in unjust restrictions so doe they also in a contrary extremity of extending the words of this ordinance in some other respects too farre as when it is sayd according to the translation of Mr Ainsw and shall doe of any one of them Levit. 4.2 hence they gather that this Sinne-offering is to be brought by such as break any piece or part of those negative commandements (q) R. Solomon Iarchi on Lev. 4.2 R. Moses Mikkotsi in Sepher mitsvoth gadol praecept affir 213. as for example if upon the Sabbath one should write Shim of Shimeon Nah of Nahor Dan of Daniel against such they doe apply the words of this commandement Now if for so small a transgression as writing with a pen upon the Sabath but half a word a syllable or two letters of a mans name they were bound to bring this sinne-offering and so accordingly for other sinnes of like nature and weight what man though the holyest on earth could have endured the labour and charge of so many sacrifices as such kinde of sinnes might have occasioned Though Bellarmine erred in labouring to (r) Bellar. de Paenit l. 3. c. 3. prove auricular confession of sinnes unto the Priest from the legall sacrifices as Mr Ainsworth mentions though the place be cited amisse which I suppose to be the Printers fault lib. 2. for lib. 3. yet Mr Ainsw himself doth erre likewise in describing an impossible unreasonable order in the Old Testament as Bellar. doth for the New Lastly suppose there had bene such a bond of necessity layd upon the Jewes of old to bring a sacrifice for each sinne when it was made knowne unto them yet this proves not that any new duety was prescribed in Matt. 18. which was not taught in the Law before We know that the legall sacrifices and ceremonies are wholly abrogate yet this hinders not but that the morall dueties observed in the midst of those ceremonies may still remaine when the ceremonies are abolished When the Ministers of the Lord in old time entred into their offices with knowledge and consent of the people and together at the same time were consecrated with divers sacrifices and other ceremonies Numb 8.9 10 c. Levit. 8.2 3 4 5. though the ceremonies of consecration be abolished yet the peoples right of knowledge and consent is not therefore abolished The Brownists themselves alledge (f) Confes art 23. Apolog pos 5. p. 46 47 48. the same places for the continuance thereof and why can they not observe the same for the rule in Matt. 18. notwithstanding any ceremonyes that had formerly bene annexed unto the practise observation of some dueties contained in that rule Moreover it may be observed from Mr Ainsworths owne words that the Rule in Matt. 18. and in speciall that which concernes the third degree of admonition was for the substance of it no new rule but that which was required and practised under the Law In Israel they told the Church two wayes 1. By telling the Governours that represented the Church because it then also chiefly appertained to the Ministers watchmen of the Church to give the people warning to admonish them of their wicked wayes to teach the people the difference between the holy and profane c. Divers Scriptures are (t) Cōmun of Sts. c. 22. p. 450. alledged by Mr Ainsw himself for proof hereof as Ezek. 3.17 18 c. Ezek. 44.23 Ier. 1.10 Hos 6.5 c. It was therefore
man of sinne With these testimonies of ancient Fathers Mr Canne alledgeth for his opinion that some Councels have granted so much and Christian Emperours by their Lawes confirmed it Two of these viz. the Councell of Nice Constantinople he alledgeth at large and specifyes no Canon which he intendeth for this purpose And as for the 3d Councell of Carthage whereat Augustine was present I have shewed * Pa. 223. before that it makes directly for us That 22th Canon which he alledgeth viz. (a) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. col 868. that no Clerk be or dained without examination by Bishops and testimony of the people empeacheth not the authority of Classes and Synods but confirmeth the order established by them And that Christian Emperours have by their lawes confirmed the authority of Synods it is plaine and undenyable The (b) Sulp. Se. v S. Hist l. 2 Councell of Nice that condemned Arius was authorised by Constantine the Great The (c) Sulp. S. Hist conâ—in ex Sleyd p. 162. Councell of Constantinople that condemned Macedonius was authorised by the Emperour Theodosius the Elder The (d) P. 164. Councell of Ephesus that condemned Nestorius was authorised by Theodosius the younger The (e) P. 170. Councell of Chalcedon that condemned Eutyches was authorised by the Emperour Martianus And as it was in these first Generall Councels so may it be observed in many other Instead of the rest let the (f) Codex Canon Ecc. Univ. edit Christ Just book of Canons suffice confirmed by Iustinian the Emperour there being contained in that book many Canons which ordaine that the causes of particular Churches should be (g) Can. 5 80 83 85. judged by Synods and so decided by another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves At the end of these Canons there is added the sanction or decree of Iustinian (h) Novella consti Just Imper. 131. by which he doth not onely allow them and give force of lawes unto them but with an excessive farre greater honour then is due unto them would have the foure Oecumenicall Councels to be receaved even as the holy Scriptures Now though he offended greatly in this his esteeme of them yet this may serve to shew what little reason Mr Canne had to alledge the decrees of Councels for his opinion SECT VII Touching the Testimonies of Reformed Churches FRom ancient times they come back to the later times of Reformation and say (a) Ch. pl. p. 91. Touching Reformed Churches if we may take the Confession of their faith for testimony then surely we have their consent also with us The Churches consenting with them as they vainely imagine are these according to their order in alledging of them The Bohemian Churches Churches under the Palsgrave the Helvetian Churches the French Churches Churches of the Auspurge Confession of the Low-countries of Nasovia But the trueth is both these and other Reformed Churches doe condemne my oppisites in allowing of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations The Confession of the Bohemian Churches say they hath these words (b) Harm Conf. c. 14. The keyes that is Ecclesiasticall Government are given in trust and granted to the Pastours and to each severall Ecclesiasticall society that is ordinary Congregation whether they be small or great I answer I. This testimony is clipped by Mr Canne who leaves out the words of order which shew their opinion touching the originall and derivation of this power The words of this Bohemian Confession are that the keyes of the Lord or this administration and power of the keyes is granted and delivered first unto the Governours and Ministers of the Church and then unto every Christian Congregation c. Therein they doe not consent with Mr Canne but with the opinion of Mr Baines noted (c) P. 114 115. before And they doe there also apply these words unto absolution given by the Priest of the Church as they call him To this end they alledge those places Ioh. 20.23 Luk. 10.16 Their meaning is declared more fully before where they (d) Harmo Confes Art 5. de Poenit. p. 241. edit 1612. teach that the poenitent are to come unto the Priest and to confesse their sinnes unto God before him c. and to desire absolution of him by the keyes of the Church that they may obtaine remission of sinnes by such a ministery so instituted of Christ. This order seemes to agree with that forme of absolution described and appointed in the English booke of Common prayer at the visitation of the sick 11. It is acknowledged by the Ministers of the Church of the Picards so called in Bohemia and Moravia in the (e) P. 219. preface to the forementioned Confession of their fayth that their fathers had appealed unto a Synod c. where if any thing should be found dissonant from the Scriptures they were willing from the heart and lovingly to be subject and obedient to the censure and appointment of the Synod in all things This shewes their dissent from Mr Canne and his people III. The Combination of the Christian and Orthodox Churches in Bohemia and Moravia called by themselves The Vnitie of the brethren in Bohemie doth give a cleare testimony unto the trueth touching the authority of Synods for the government of particular Churches and judgement of their causes by a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves as appeareth in the booke of their Discipline where they (f) Ratio Discip ordinisq Ecc. in Unitate frat Bohem. c. 2. p. 33.34 38. professe that for weighty causes in providing for the necessities of the whole Vnitie or some Diocesse therein they use to hold Synods either Generall or Particular c. They alledge these 5 ends To confirme brotherly love and concord To strengthen them in the work of the Lord To preserve the vigour of Discipline To exclude scandalous persons out of the number of their Ministers c. To ordaine Ministers c. and for the (g) Ib. p. 41. examination of Ministers before they be confirmed The exercise of this authority is also declared in their (h) Ib. cap. 6. p. 87 88. c. Visitations of the Churches which are in their Vnitie or consociation This example of these brethren of the Vnitie is so much the more to be regarded of us in respect of the singular providence blessing of God in preserving them to this day in the midst of so many persecutions as they have endured being more ancient then other Reformed Churches having continued from the dayes of Iohn Husse and being holpen by the Waldenses that were scattered into those parts so that they (i) Ib. pref p. 2 3. were increased to almost 200 little Congregations in Bohemia Moravia about the yeare 1500 before the time of Luther Their piety love concord and zeale of religion notwithstanding some imperfections appeares by their orders to be very great in speciall their care of sanctifying the
all sorts the sayd words as they are written in their owne letters being compared together eyther joyntly or severally II. If the Deacons may distribute some almes ūto the poore without the knowledge of the whole Congregation then may the Elders also judge some causes without the knowledge of the whole Church But the first is true Therefore c. The consequence of the Propositiō is proved by this Because the whole Church hath as much right authority to dispose of the Church-treasure almes as they have to judge of the offences that are committed therein This the Scripture sheweth by the examples of sundry Churches of Antiochia Macedonia Achaia c. Act. 11.29 30. Rom. 15 25-28 1. Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8.1.4.19 Phil. 2.25 with c. 4.18 The Assumption is manifest and your owne practise confirmeth it III. If Arbiters chosen by consent of some particular persons may judge the causes of wrong injury whether publick or private wherein they strive against one another then may the Elders chosen by consent of the whole Church judge the causes offences that arise when they willingly submit unto the same But Arbiters so chosen may judge the causes referred unto them Therefore the Elders may doe it also The truth of the Proposition appeares because the free solemne consent of the Church in any election gives authority unto such persons either in generall or speciall workes as well as the choyse of any particular men in their causes Act. 14.23 2. Cor. 8.19 The truth of the Assumption appeares by the doctrine of the Apostle giving such power of judgement unto Arbiters 1. Cor. 6.4 5. If you answer hereunto as you (l) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyfton p. 43. elswhere expound this place that these controversies to be referred unto Arbiters are for civill things of this life that such are not Church-matters nor there to be heard c. this is insufficient and will not help you seeing it appeares by the text that these Controversies in Corinth might as well have bene sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as Civill and belonging to the judgement of the Church as of the Magistrates or Arbiters Had their controversies bene touching a wound or stroke given touching any slander or theft which may be sayd to be Ecclesiasticall causes as belonging to the judgement of the Church yet might the Apostle have sayd unto them thereupon all that he doth 1. Cor. 6 1-9 for 1. These are businesses which Infidell Magistrates in those times used to judge and the generall speech of the Apostle imports as much v. 1. 6. 2. The reason which the Apostle useth taken from the honour dignity of Saints in their judgement of Angels the world serves to perswado them to submit the judgment of such causes to one another mutually as well as any other causes v. 2 3. 3. The reason taken from their shame as if there were no wise men among them to judge these causes serves to reprove them for a want of wisedome in Ecclesiasticall things as well as Civill 4. The matters of controversy among them were of wrong injury done to brethren v. 7 8 9. And these being sinnes scandals belong to the judgment of the Church as doth the judgment of * 2. Cor. 10.4 5 6. 1. Cor. 5.7 all knowne sinnes This Argument is in effect yeelded unto by your self when you (m) H. Ains Animadv to Mr Clyf ton p. 9. allow the Articles of the Discipline agreed upon in the Reformed English Church which was at Franckford in Q. Maries dayes for whereas in the 62. art thereof in case of difference betwixt the Governours of the Church others it is there concluded that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare determine the sayd matter or matters as it shall seeme good unto the Congregation hereupon in approbation of this Discipline you observe that hereby the reader may see what the learned most conscionable of the Church of England held heretofore which if they had continued in would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacy the bane of so many Churches And hereupon I observe further against you how the reader may hereby see that if the body of the Church may appoint so many Arbiters as they will to heare determine matters then may the Elders of the Church receive this authority as well as any others then is it no unlawfull usurpation for them to heare determine some matters among the brethren by themselves IV. If particular persons may lawfully passe by some lesser offences leave them unto the consciences of the offenders without prosequuting thē or bringing them to the Church for any judgment at all then may the Church also leave some lesser offences unto the judgment of the Elders But the first is true Therefore the second also The consequence of the Proposition is proved because God doth no more require the Church to judge of sinnes made knowne unto the same then he doth require particular persons to prosequute and to deale against the offences made knowne unto them the Scripture speaking as fully giving unto particular persons as ample commission charge to * Mat. 18.15 16 17. Lev. 19.17 admonish and complaine of sinne as it doth unto the Church to judge censure the same The Assumption is proved 1. By expresse testimonyes of Scripture that teach us to passe by some sins offences and not to prosequute them Prov. 19.11 Eccl. 7.21 2. Particular persons being taught to love their neighbour as themselves to doe good unto all Levit. 19.18 Matt. 22.39 Rom. 13.9 Gal. 5.14 Iam. 2.8 are thereby bound to admonish them that are without those that are not mēbers of the same Church with them but of any other eyther true or false or of none Now if this be to be done it followes necessarily that the reproofes of many lesser faults are to be omitted because otherwise men could never discharge this duety neither would their time suffice to performe these dueties of admonition to all such as they should finde subject thereunto both within the Church without Yea suppose they had no other calling to attend upon yet could not the whole age of man be sufficient to testify effectually in order against all such transgressions which an intelligent person might discerne to be committed dayly before his eyes both in private publick 3. Even yourself seem to acknowledge this also when touching the difference of offences you say (i) Com. of Saints cap. 22. § 2. 3. when offences arise it shal be our glory if we can passe them by as Solomon hath sayd But if the trespasse be such as we may not but insist upon both for the honour of God who is offended soule of the sinner which is endangered our owne or neighbours good who are endammaged thereby then are we bound to admonish the trespasser hereof
c. Doth not this distinction of offences different manner of dealing allowed by yourself shew that for some trespasses we are not bound to admonish the trespasser nor to insist upon them V. If Magistrates may lawfully passe by the judgment of some lesser sinnes then may the Church also passe by the publick censure of some lesser offences But the Magistrates may doe it Therefore the Church also The consequence of the Proposition appeareth because the Church is not more strictly bound to judge any sinne then the Magistrate is his commission for the judgement of all kinde of sinne great or small being as large as the Churches he being ordained of God to keep all the words of his Law to be a keeper of both Tables and to judge all evill according to the nature of it as well as farre as the Church is Deut. 17.18 19. Iosh 1.7 8. 1. Kin. 2.3 1. Chron. 28.7 8. 29.19 Prov. 20 8. Rom. 13.3 4. The Assumption appeareth likewise to be true from the first proofe of the Assumption in the former Argument as also from this that men are sometimes reproved for bringing their brethren before the Magistrates even in cases of injury sinne committed against them 1. Cor. 6 1-8 whereas if they were absolutely bound to let no small offence passe without judgement then should it also be the fault of others not to bring the same unto them this whether they were Christians or Infidels the like law charge being given unto them both VI. The ending of some controversies judging of some publick offences without the knowledge of the whole Congregation is by yourself acknowledged to be lawfull in the approbation of that Discipline in the English Church at Franckford which was there confirmed by the Church Magistrate for whereas it was there agreed that (k) Disc of troub at Franckf pag 115. c. art 53. if admonition with witnesses prevayled not the offence was then to be declared to the Ministers Elders to whom the Congregation hath given authority to take order in such cases according to the Discipline of the Church that (l) Art 54. there be three degrees of Ecclesiasticall Discipline first that the offendour acknowledge his fault and shew himselfe penitent before the Ministers Seniors secondly that if he will not so doe as well his originall crime as also his contempt of the Ministers Elders who have the authority of the Church be openly declared by one of the Ministers before the whole Congregation c. that (m) Art 67. if any controversy be upon the doubtfull meaning af any word or words in the Discipline that first it be referred to the Ministers Seniors if they cannot agree thereupon then the thing to be brought and referred to the whole Congregation Hereupon after recitall of these Articles held by the learned and most conscionable of the Church of England heretofore you adde as I noted before in another particular that (t) Animad vers p. 8.9 if they had continued herein it would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacie c. And further as you would there have it to be observed by the reader against Mr Clyfton Mr Iohnson in your third note upon the allegation of these Articles so may we as fitly observe against yourself in your owne words that if you had looked upon the examples which yourselves alledge you might have seen your errours resisted by others against which the Lord hath now called me also to witnesse CHAP. III. A Refutation of sundry errours vvhereupon Mr Ainsvvorth grounds their Popular Government The first Errour YOu seek to build the government of the Church upon unsure foundations these of sundry sorts First in that you argue from the examples of Civill Government in the Common-wealth to demonstrate the power of the people in the one by the authority exercised in the other This errour is to be observed in you divers wayes 1. In your (a) Art 24. Confession of faith and (b) Pos 8. p. 60. Apology you describe labour to prove the power given unto each Christian Congregation for the cutting off of any member to be in the whole body together from the Law of God mentioning a Civill judgment to be executed by the people of the Land in killing the man that should give his children unto Molech Lev. 20.4 5. and from the commandement that bound the Israelites to bring the Blasphemer without the campe to stone him to death Lev. 24.14 But 1. These judgements were Civill corporall punishments not spirituall censures 2. These were to be executed on strangers and such as were no members of the Church as well as upon them that were members thereof Lev. 20.2 24.16 3. These were to be executed on the offendours without exception whether they repented or not By what manner of reasoning then can the power of Ecclesiasticall censures be deduced or demonstrate from such examples as these II. In your (c) Animad vers p. 28. answer to Mr Iohnson you confesse that you alledged Numb 15.33 27.2 35.12 to give light unto the Question touching the power of Excommunication by shewing what was the peoples right then under the Law and under the Magistrate which may be more but cannot be lesse now under the Gospel c. Now those Scriptures the examples contained therein even as those before mentioned doe concerne Civill judgements pleas controversies as the stoning to death of the Sabbath-breaker the dividing of inheritances and possessions unto the daughters of Zelopehad the preserving of him that had staine a man unawares from the avenger of blood unlesse therefore you can shew that the power of excommunication is in all those that have power to execute the sentence of death and of the like Civill punishments you doe in vaine alledge all these examples wrest the word of God unjustly for the maintenance of your owne opinions III. This errour is so much the more inexcusable in you in that you condemne it in others and yet will not acknowledge and see it in yourself When Mr Iohnson would shew the power of the Elders in Ecclesiasticall judgements by the power which the Magistrates had in Israel you tell him that he (d) Anim. adv p. 14. streynes too farre you alledge the testimonies of sundry learned men that disclayme such manner of arguing say that to reason (e) Ibid. p. 16. from the Magistrate to the Minister from the sword to the word from the Law to the Gospell c. the leap is so great that cart-ropes will not tye the conclusion to the premisses that the argument is not good from Civill government to Ecclesiasticall and againe that the example is altogether unlike of temporall empire spirituall ministery betweene these there is not neither ought neither can a proportion or comparison be rightly made And how then comes it now to passe that the reasoning
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
to assemble for to excommunicate him but not to heare him by the word convinced in the triall of his cause they may as well teach the people they are bound to come to eat the bread and wine in the Lords supper but not bound to heare the word teaching preparing them hereunto ANSVV. 1. In coming to the Lords supper every man is bound unto a speciall particular examination preparation of himself by his owne knowledge to convince judge himself 1. Cor. 11.28 31. but in coming to the excommunication of offendours a man may lawfully content himself with the testimony of others touching their conviction and so rest in the judgment of the Church Deut. 19.15 16 17. ch 17 8-13 neither doth the Scripture in any place require more of us 2. A man may be fitted prepared unto the Lords supper though he doe not heare the word of God taught and preached at the same time when he comes thereunto True faith repentance make men worthy lawfull communicants able to discerne the body of the Lord though by some meanes they be hindred from hearing the Word immediately before 1. Cor. 3.21 22. Ioh. 6.40 And therefore to follow you in your owne comparison as a man may lawfully come to the Lords supper though he have not heard the word before so may he lawfully come to the excommunication of a sinner and consent thereunto though he have not bene present at his conviction before but onely heare it testifyed by others 3. If you finde no difference but that men are alike bound to come to heare the examination conviction of offendours to come to the Lords supper why doe you not then censure those among you that after your Sermon ended doe depart when you enter upon these convictions disputations continuing sometimes untill eight nine or tenne a clock in the night as well as those that after Sermō should depart refuse to eat the Lords supper with you Doth not your owne conscience and practise reprove you in this poynt H. AINSVV. We doe so understand Gods law that when it commandeth us any thing it doth also command us to use all meanes for the right holy performance of it and all will be little enough ANSVV. Thus doe we also understand the Law but the Question is whether all the meanes for the right and holy performance of this judgement of excommunication cannot be used unlesse all the members of the Church be present at the conviction of the excommunicate The reader is to consider whether this be justly proved by you H. AINSVV. The people therefore that were bound to stone an Idolater in Israel were bound by that Law Thou shalt not slay the innocent Exod. 23.7 to looke that he were duely convicted of the crime ANSVV. But could not the people know that an Idolater were duely convicted unlesse they themselves were all present at his examination conviction By this kinde of reasoning 1. You condemne the just lawfull warre undertaken against the enimies of Church Common-wealth you might as well say that because no souldier may slay the innocent therefore every particular souldier is bound to be present in the assembly of the Rulers where the cause of the warre is tryed and there to heare the examinations convictions of the wrong-doers But how was this possible in Israel where so many hundred thousands were sometimes assembled together unto the warre 2. Chron. 13.2 3. c. or how should it now possibly be observed in our times how should private souldiers with good conscience goe into the field unlesse they may rest in the testimony of their Governours touching the cause of the warre 2. By that commandement Thou shalt not slay the innocent Exod. 23.7 those also are condemned that suffer the innocent to be slaine having authority power in their hands to hinder the same thus according to your reasoning the King or other supreme Magistrates of any country that should suffer any person to be slaine or punished within their dominions should be bound to be present at their examination conviction in like manner contrary to the liberty that God hath given unto Princes in appointing sending Governours for the punishment of evill doers 1. Pet. 2.13 14. And divers other the like unreasonable consequences would follow upon this manner of arguing H. AINSVV. And now by this law Be not partaker of other mens sinnes Keep thy selfe pure 1. Tim. 5.22 every soule that is bound to cast out a man condemned for heresy or other sinne is also bound to see him convicted lest Diotrephes cause to cast out faithfull brethren 3. Ioh. 9 10. ANSVV. 1. The errour of this collection applyed to the Question in hand appeareth by your owne practise when those members of your Church who having bene sick or absent while any person is condemned for heresy or other sinne doe yet upon the testimony of the Church reject him as an excommunicate and cast him out of their society Here you allow a rejection of offendours by such as have not bene present to see their conviction 11. Your errour in this allegation may likewise appeare in this that those who are excommunicate by one true Church are also to be rejected by other true Churches that have not bene present to see the conviction of such persons Luk. 10.16 Matt. 18.18 Ioh. 20.23 1. Cor. 5.3 2. Cor. 2.10 This shewes that a man may keep himselfe pure resting in the testimony of others and that the place 1. Tim. 5.22 is not to be applyed against them that doe upon the witnesse of a Church reject offendours 111. As for Diotrephes causing to cast out faithfull brethrē 1. There is no appearance in the text alledged 3. Ioh. 9 10. that this was done for want of the peoples presence his love of preheminence his tyranny might be exercised in their presence as well as in their absence 2. The reader is here to mark the contradiction of H. Barrow unto you and his further errour who will not have this casting out of the faithful by Diotrephes to be understood of excommunication (c) H. Barr. Refut of Giff. p. 165. nor to be meant of the abuse of any censure of the Church c. 3. For rash excommunications actuall casting out of brethren name any true Church where ever this sinne hath prevayled so notoriously as among yourselves and the Anabaptists where the popular order hath bene most in use If you looke upon all the Reformed Churches their practise where the people are not bound to be present at the conviction and examination of offendours I thinke your owne heart will tell you your mouth will acknowledge that the like rash unjust excommunications have not bene executed among them as among yourselves other Sects of Separatists that use the same manner of proceeding which you doe H. AINSVV. He that stands out to excommunication will commonly plead his cause
bound to study all the week to take paines to prepare himself for the ministery of the word and Sacraments but did onely speak the same without labour going before then could not the double honour maintenance mentioned 1. Tim. 5 be due unto him Where there is no speciall work there is no speciall maintenance And therefore while you doe not require double labour of the Elders in trying cases but doe binde the people even to the same labour of enquiring examining trying matters how can you require double honour such speciall maintenance for them But after this generall evasion you proceed unto some more particular answers say there in your Animadversion H. AINSVV. First they restrain things too much when they say between brother brother for what if it be a publick case of heresy oridolatry as that mentioned Deut. 13.12 13 14. c. will they say women children servants were then or are now bound to leave their callings come together to try out the matter Hereunto I reply I. They restrain things no otherwise then Christ himself doth when speaking generally of the sundry sorts of sinne he also notes them to be between brother brother saying If thy brother finne against thee Matt. 18.15 Even to publick sinnes of heresy and idolatry as that in Deut. 13. though immediately they are committed against God yet as they are scandals and occasions of falling unto others so are they cases between man man brother brother to be censured judged by them Deut. 7.4 13.5 6 13. II. If they restrain things too much then doe they no wrong unto you but unto themselves then is there more force in the matter then their words doe make shew of For if it be unmeet to binde all the members of the Church to heare cases dayly between brother brother even in a stricter sense as you would have their words to sound how much more inconvenient shall it be when by a larger bond they shal be required to heare all cases of sinne both betweē brother brother between the Lord and our brethren III. What sense or reason have you to make this question Will they say c. whereas it is not they but you which say plead by all this your arguing that women children servants are bound to leave their callings come together to try out these controversies H. AINSVV. Secondly many controversies between neighbours are for civill things of this life such are (g) Luk. 12.14 not Church matters nor there to be heard but by (h) Rom. 13. Magistrates or arbiters chosen 1. Cor. 6.4 5. REPL. I. Even the controversies about Civill things of this life are Church-matters there to be judged seing all sinnes are there to be judged Matt. 18 15-17 1. Cor. 5.11 2. Cor. 10.4 5 6. If you could prove that men did never make false deceitfull bargaines nor use false weights nor any kinde of extortion oppression coosenage c. then might you exclude controversies for Civill things from the judgement of the Church And the controversies about these things being prosequuted before the Church cannot but require a greater time for the examination of them then the callings workes of men women children servants can well afford so that the force of the argument by this exception is not diminished but further manifested hereby II. For one the same sinne God hath appointed two judgements one Civill another Ecclesiasticall as for example if a man should refuse to divide the inheritance with his brother this man by the Magistrates might be forced thereunto and this judgement is a Civill administration And this is that which our Saviour remooves from himself Luk. 12.13 14. Againe the same man for his deceit covetousnes sinfull oppression of his brother used in this controversy for Civill things of this life might justly be censured by the Church excluded from the same which is an Ecclesiasticall judgement and administration You cannot shew any place of Scripture that denyes this judgement unto the Church Moreover our Saviour at that time was none of the ordinary Iudges no not in Ecclesiasticall causes He did not in his life time erect another judicatory besides that which was already thē established among the Iewes and therefore did not use to excommunicate any or cast them out of the Synagogue And if Christ did not now ordinarily give sentence neither in Civill nor Ecclesiasticall judgements how farre is this his example from proving that controversies for Civill things are to be remooved from the Church III. As for Rom. 13. shewing that controversies for Civill things are to be judged by Magistrates this is not contrary to any thing in the argument neither doth it weaken the same The causes of Murder Adultery Theft Coosenage Slander as they are to be judged by the Magistrate so by the Church also And if all the members thereof men women children servants be bound unto the labour of trying and examining such causes why have they not maintenance for the same as well as either Magistrates or Ecclesiasticall Elders IV. As for matters referred unto Arbiters seeing they are oftentimes matters of sinne of wrong injury 1. Cor. 6.7 8. subject in that respect unto Ecclesiasticall censures this course of deciding controversies doth as wel serve for the ease help of the Elders saves them a labour as well as the people And therefore the consideration hereof doth help to shew that there is still no reason why Elders should have speciall maintenance when their ease excuse from labouring is as much as any others H. AINSVV. Thirdly for doubtfull cases Ecclesiasticall people are to inquire the law (i) Mal. 2.7 at the Priests mouth and to ask counsell of their Elders severally or joyntly who are to have their meetings apart for such other like ends Act. 21.18 so many things may be composed without trouble of the Church REPL. 1. The people are to ask counsell of one another also as well as of their Elders for in the multitude of counsellers is health Prov. 11.14 and all the brethren are to instruct guide and support one another Rom. 2 17-20 15.14 Heb. 3.13 and by your owne confession they are to be used not onely in private but in (k) Animadv p. 40. publick consultations also Yea beside this you acknowledge further that (l) Ibid. p. 39 41. the greatest Errours Heresies Schismes evils have both arisen bene continued by the Elders that sometimes they are blinde guides and without understanding and oftentimes they differ in counsell among themselves and thus in doubtfull cases men become more doubtfull by their counsell and so have the more need to consult among themselves If therefore this duety of giving counsell doe lye upon the people and they be bound unto it this work alone being common to others with the Elders could not shew the double honour maintenance
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
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
that the Law is changed and old things passed away doe thereupon plead that the Civill power of the Magistrate and the use of the sword is not to be exercised by Christians in the Church of God under the new Testament II. As for those places Dan. 9.24 26. Luk. 19.41 44. where the destruction of the Citie and Sanctuary is foretold they doe not prove the abolition of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods which we maintaine because this part of Moses politie and this liberty of appeales from one judicatory to another might have continued even among the Jewes themselves though both City and Sanctuary were destroyed and much more may still be retained among Christians that are not tyed unto the Leviticall priesthood nor unto any other legall ceremonies So the inquisition for murder was an ordinance of Moses politie Deut. 21 1-9 though divers ceremonies were in Moses time annexed there unto this hinders not but that those ceremonies being abolished the Iudiciall law it self for inquisition after murders being of common equity ought still to continue among us Againe it is further to be observed how some of our opposites labouring to finde a difference between Moses politie and Christs rule have described unto us such a rule of proceeding in Moses time as is not to be acknowledged Mr Smith as is noted (b) Pag. 42. before makes this to be the order of proceeding in the time of the Law 1. reproof of sinne Levit. 19.17 2. a sacrifice for the cleansing of the party reproved Lev. 4.23 3. death inflicted by the Magistrate upon the partie reproved if he wilfully refused to hearken c. Numb 15.30 31. Deut. 17.12 Mr Ainsworth agreeth with him in this poynt sayth (c) H. Ains Commun of S. c. 22. p. 440. God commanded this duety in his law playnly to rebuke our neighbour Lev. 19.17 that so upon warning and sight of his sinne he might bring his sacrifice reconcile himself unto the Lord whom he had offended Levit. 4 23-28 vvhich if he regarded not but should doe ought with a high hand he then was sayd to blaspheme the Lord and must be cut off from among his people Numb 15.30 31. because he despised the word of the Lord c. Againe he writes (d) Animadv p. 120. 121. That private men forgave not sinnes in Israel so absolutely touching the Church order or politie as Christians doe now is evident by the Law which bound the offender not onely unto repentance and faith in Christ Act. 15.9 11. as also to confesse his sinne Levit. 5.5 and satisfy his neighbour offended Lev. 6.5 but withall to bring a trespasse offering to the Priest the minister of the Church that so the Priest making an atonement for him before the Lord it should be forgiven him Lev. 6.2 5 6 7. Now under the Gospell the law is If thy brother trespasse against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him Luk. 17.3 neyther is such a man bound to goe to a Minister that he may pray for or forgive him as the Papists by proportion (e) Bellar. de Poenit. l. 2. c. 3. doe gather Now for answer hereunto and to shew how they were mistaken about the rule of admonition in the old Testament in teaching that men were bound upon admonition to bring an offering so bound that if they wilfully refused or regarded not to doe it they were to dye or to be cut off from among their people we are to observe that God did not lay such a bond of necessity upon his people and this appeareth by these considerations I. The * vehebi words of the Text Levit. 4 23-28 being rightly translated doe not inferre such a bond Whereas the words are commonly translated then he shall bring his offering c. they should rather have bene thus translated and or if he will bring his offering c. or thus then he may bring his offering c. And so the words being conditionall and not imperative there is no absolute commandement to bring a sacrifice but the ordinance of God in that place is that if they would bring a sacrifice for their sinne then they must doe it in such manner as is there prescribed And there is a double reason for this translation I. The particle vau is (f) Vau omnium aliarum Conjunctionum significationem assumere potest c. aliquando conditionē includit Cevall Bertr in Galeed p. 44. often and very conveniently expounded conditionally by if or and if as Numb 5.13 14. 12.14 Deut. 24.1 3. Exod. 4.23 So the principall Interpreters doe sundry times translate the same the Chaldee Paraphrasts both Onkelos and Ionathan as also the Greek version in Num. 12.14 So the ancient Arabick version of Rabbi Saadias as also that edition of the Chaldee printed at Constantinople in Exod. 4.23 So Tremellius and Iunius in Gen. 18.30 Levit. 26.40 Numb 12.14 So our English translation in Exod. 4.23 Levit. 26.40 Numb 12.14 Deut. 24.3 And to omit a multitude of other interpreters Mr Ainsworth himself doth sometimes so translate the same as in those places before specifyed Exo. 4.23 Lev. 26.40 Numb 12.14 and further (g) Annot. on Lev. 26.40 notes that so it ought elswhere to be translated as in Mal. 1.2 3.8 II. Suppose that the conjunction or particle vau were not conditionall in this place yet the word turned into the future tense by vau hippuc according to the Hebrew speech as other simple (h) See Galeed p. 117. verbs future doth not alwayes necessarily imply a commandement but rather a permission Though sometimes they import an absolute commandement as in the Decalogue yet sometimes they are used to signify what we may doe and what we are permitted to doe This is commonly observed by Translatours who in their translation of the very same forme of the future verb doe sometimes expresse it by a commanding phrase thou shalt doe sometimes by a phrase of permission thou mayest doe for example in our English translation Gen. 2.16 Lev. 11.21 22. Deut. 12.15 20 20.19 23.20 24 25. 24.2 Thou mayest eat Thou mayest lend Thou mayest eat grapes Thou mayest pluck She may goe c. Thus are many of these places translated by Mr Ainsw himself and thus in like manner might this place Lev. 4.23 28. be fitly translated Then he may bring his offering c. And being so interpreted there is no such bond of necessity contained therein II. As the words and forme of speech in the Text doe admit this interpretation so the matter it self the nature of the ordinance doth determine it constraine us to entertaine this translation which shewes it to be a permission because otherwise it had bene impossible ever to observe it in Israel The sinnes spoken of in Lev. 4.2 27. are for the generall nature of them all manner of sinnes great or small except presumptuous sinnes The words of the Text are If
alledge for the warrant of this combination of Churches in Synods for their mutuall help they are all of them such as doe equally yea and primarily concerne the communion and society of severall persons and members in a particular Church where it is confessed by our opposites that there is jurisdiction as well as counsell If these places would have removed jurisdiction from Synods and condemned the subjection of Churches unto a Synod then would they also have done the like for particular Churches and have condemned the subjection of members thereunto Seeing they doe not the one therefore not the other also II. In prosequuting his 2d Argument (o) P. 330.331 taken from the forme of combination which is consociation consisting in a mutuall obligation he confirmeth it by the testimony of D. Whitaker alledging that Calvine sayd well that by brotherly charity Cont. 4. qu. 4. p. 448. not by naked authority but by letters and admonitions and other such meanes Hereticks were deposed in the time of Cyprian Deposition of Hereticks was an act of jurisdiction in Synods And againe alledging Mat. 18. as the fountaine of this combination he sayth Many Churches are combined after the same manner that the prime Churches grow together into one body in their members and therefore it must be confessed that as Mat. 18. is a ground of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in particular Churches so is it also for Synods III. Mr Parker for confirmation of his 3d Argument (p) P. 331.332 taken from the matter of this combination which are the severall Churches equall members of one body alledgeth the example of the Reubenites who when they would expresse their combination with the Tribes on this side Iordan do call it their part in the Lord which was not unequall because of the distance of place Ios 22.24 25 28. And from hence then it may appeare that as the Tribes of Israel equally combined together were not subject to any one Tribe apart and yet were each of them subject to the whole society and body of Israel so the particular Churches having each of them equall part in the Ecclesiasticall consociation of Classes and Synods though they be not subject to any one Church apart that is exalted above the rest yet may be subject to the whole society of many Churches concurring together in Synods IV. In the explication of his 4th Argument (q) P. 332 333. taken from the object which is a common matter concerning all or many Churches he alledgeth a distinction (r) Conf. with Hart. c. 8. d. 5. maintained by D. Rainolds betwixt questions of the Church requiring knowledge onely and causes of the Church requiring jurisdiction also for the judging of them Questions of the Church were sent unto them that had no jurisdiction over those that propounded them but the causes of the Church not so They in Africa were (ſ) Concil Carthag Graec. c. 2◠Milevita c. 22. forbidden to appeale unto them beyond sea viz for the decision of their personall causes which yet were to be judged by the Synods in Africa whereby it is acknowledged that Synods have a power of jurisdiction which is more then counsell Whereas Mr P. addeth The first combination of Churches is in matters of faith c. The second combination of Churches is in personall causes yet by accident onely for these properly belong unto each severall Church as they are proper yet when they become publick by accident then Churches are combined indeed but without subjection as it fell out in Cyprians time in causa lapsorum in the cause of them that fell in time of persecution which thereupon became publick because the offence was common in many Churches Lest any should stumble at these his words it is to be considered that as personall causes and offences are by accident the object of Classicall and Synodall judgements so by like kinde of accident they are the object of that judgement and jurisdiction which is exercised by particular Churches In that maine ground of Ecclesiasticall discipline Mat. 18.15 16 17. all the degrees of admonition and censure are ordained to be used according to those 4 accidentall ifs If thy brother sinne If he will not heare thee If he will not heare the witnesses If he will not heare the Church And so in like manner those 4 limitations before noted by Mr Parker are 4 accidentall cases wherein the power of Synods is to be exercised and wherein it is greater then the authority of particular Churches viz. if it be a common cause if the Church be unable if the Church administer unlawfully if it be so presumed Such kindes of accidents are properly the lawfull and just object of Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction by proportion from the same rule Matt. 18. If one member sinne or suffer it becomes a common cause so farre as it is knowne all the members suffer with it and take care for the redresse of it in a particular Church 1. Cor. 12.25 26. And if one Church sinne be in danger it becomes a common cause all the Churches that are members of the same body especially those that are united by covenant in a Classical and Synodall government are to take care for it and to seek help according to the quality of the danger Thus the community of cause inferreth combination And further for that which he repeats againe that this combination of Churches by accident is without subjection it is still to be remembred that his meaning is without subjection to any one above the rest for so he againe largely explaines himself in the same place giving instance in the Church of Carthage and in Cyprian the Bishop thereof maintayning against D. Downam that Cyprian was no Metropolitane that the province was others as well as his that in the Synod there held there was a parity that the Churches were equally combined without subjection to any one that Bishops Elders had equall power in giving their suffrages V. In setting downe the 5 t Argument (t) P. 334. taken from the outward manner of proceeding which was by conference and communication of counsels he shewes withall that therein there was an exercise of jurisdiction when as in the words of Cyprian he shewes the end of those counsels ut communi consens◠figerentur sententiae that by common consent firme decrees might be made And the authority of these judiciall sentences and decrees touching those that were fallen is further declared by Cyprian when he shewes that they were (v) Cypriā L. 1. Ep. 8. tempered with discipline and mercy whereby it is evident that there was an exercise of discipline or Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction therein and that Epistle of Cyprian containes in it sundry other sentences which shew that he spake of the administration of censure and not of counsell onely VI. In his last Argument (x) P. 335. taken from the end of this combination which was not to receive mandates but for consent counsell
shewes the contrary He saith (t) P. 358. 359. The superiour power that is in Classes ariseth from the Churches that are combined in Classes c. No Church hath dominion or preheminence over another He sayth that in the Metropoliticall or Episcopall jurisdiction Churches have not their owne government but are spoyled of their Elderships and subjected to the power of one and to an externall Church namely the Cathedrall All which things are contrary in our Classes Every Church injoyeth her owne government by her owne Eldership the Classis is no externall Church much lesse an externall Court for it consisteth of these Churches that are combined so that here is no authority over many the parishes doe joyne their authority together and that equally After the combination of many Churches into one Eldership and one Classis Mr Parker proceeds (v) Pol. Eco lib. 3. c. 25. p. 362. to speak of that combination of many Churches in many Classes which is into one Synod and that either Provinciall Nationall or Generall the Nationall containing under it the Churches of sundry Provinces and the Generall comprehending the Churches of many Nations Touching Synods he speaketh of the 7 controversies about them and first of the Necessity of Synods He sayth he never knew any in the Reformed Churches to deny the necessity of Synods before Hugo Grotius that was the great friend of Arminius He sheweth from Bogerman that the Reformed doe stand for the necessity of Synods more then any other Whereas D. Sutlive condemneth such as would have status Synodos Synods kept at certaine set times and not onely extraordinary as he saith that Synod of the Apostles was Act. 15. (x) P. 364. 365. Mr Parker refureth him and argueth thus from that place This example of the Apostles sheweth that Synods are to be called as the necessity and edification of the Church requireth but there fall out so many abuses errours controversies scandals and other such things that set and frequent Synods are necessary for the neglect whereof the English Hierarchy doth sinne grievously which contenting it self with an extraordinary Synod onely doth not call a Synod after the example of the Apostles so often as abuses errours controversies and scandals doe arise but contrary to the example of the Apostles committeth all these things to the care of one Bishop alone And whereas he addeth further in the same place that the Hierarchy is crept in in place of the Synod taking violently unto it self those things which by divine right doe belong unto Synods he doth herein acknowledge the authority of Synods to be of divine right for what els or what more doth the Hierarchy snatch unto themselves then authority of censure and jurisdiction in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes Touching the second controversy about Synods viz. the authority and power of them (y) Ibid. c. 26. p 367. he notes that as there is an Aristocraticall government in Elderships so there is an Aristocraticall government by Synods and from this his assertion it followes that as the Consistories or Elderships have a jurisdiction and power of government in them and are not onely for counsell so the Synods in like manner When as he saith further (z) P. 368. that the Synods borrow that authority which they have from the prime Churches this argues that he confesseth they have some authority els how could they be said to borrow it To like purpose he argues there againe (a) P. 370. It appeares by the very obligation that Synods have their authority from the prime Churches for otherwise Synods should not binde the prime Churches unlesse by sending their Delegates they did avow their consent unlesse they have just cause afterwards of dissenting Thus he acknowledgeth a bond of authority and an obligatory power in Synods as for the exception which he addeth it is as well to be added unto any judicatory either Civill or Ecclesiasticall whatsoever for there is no jurisdiction nor authority of the highest Governours on earth that ought to binde us unto the obedience of their decrees if we have just cause of dissenting For the Convocation of Synods which is the third controversy (b) Ibid. c. 27. p. 371. Mr Parker doth maintaine and much commend the practise and order observed in these Reformed Churches and declares at large what their manner is from divers acts of their Synods He sayth it is cum sapientissime tum saluberrime instituta a most wise most wholesome institution He shewes that the Church hath power of calling Synods but where there is a Christian Magistrate (c) P. 372. this power is regulated of the Magistrate He brings (d) P. 373. c. 10 Arguments to prove that this power of calling Synods is not in a Metropolitane Bishop He sayth touching Ecclesiasticall persons (e) P. 375. The power of convocating is in no one but in many therefore Synods are not to be called by one nor by the authority of one but by the Synods themselves by the precedent assembly itself as is usuall in the Reformed Churches And speaking of Act. 15.6 he sayth Doth not this example binde all ages that the meeting in Synods be by common consent even as the Acts in the Synod are by common consent decreed This decree of calling together is an act of jurisdiction more then counsell or admonition onely The fourth controversy about Synods is concerning the Persons (f) Ibid. c. 28. p. 379. c. whereof the Synods consist Whereas Bellarmine distinguisheth betwixt the greater lesser Clerkes and alloweth unto Hierarchicall Bishops to have a deciding voyce and to the inferiour sort to have onely a consulting voyce Mr Parker shewes at large that whosoever is lawfully deputed and sent whether Ministers Elders Deacons or any of the people have a deciding voyce and may give definitive sentence in Synods and thereby he acknowledgeth the jurisdiction exercised in them He saith (g) P. 387. As the materiall foundation of Synodall right is the excellency of inward gifts not the dignity of any office so the formall foundation thereof is delegation from the Church from which whosoever they be that have receyved authority and therefore Elders also they have power of decreeing and judging in Synods And many other testimonies thereof he gives in that chapter A fift controversy is about the Praesident or Moderatour in Synods (h) Ibid. c. 29. Mr Parker labours to prove that this presidency doth not belong to an Hierarchicall Bishop or Arch-bishop but maintaines the practise and order of the Reformed Churches where the President of the Synods is elected or chosen by the Synods themselves (i) P. 402. We argue first sayth he from the authority of the Church for in Matt. 18. Ecclesiasticall authority is given primarily and originally unto the prime Church so that no rectour without the election and designation thereof may challenge any authority unto himself The Synod is a combined or
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
certaine as it is certaine that he which by force repelleth force is armed with publick authority He distinguisheth their jurisdiction in respect of the causes judged by them and repeats this their authority againe in the (e) N. 28. next animadversion And though these two kindes of government Civill and Ecclesiasticall doe use a different manner of compulsion he sayth (f) N. 29. Nihil refert nos de rei substantia agimus coactionem uterque habet sed hic spiritualem ille temporalem c. It skilleth not we intreat of the substance of the matter both of them have a coactive power or a compulsion but the one spirituall the other temporall c. A most evident assertion of Synodall jurisdiction and that they are not to direct onely by way of counsell but to correct also by way of censure To these I might adde many other testimonies of Iunius but these evidences already cited may be sufficient to shew that he was not of this strange opinion touching the independency of Churches and that Mr Daven therefore hath abused his Readers and sought to blinde their eyes when for the credit of his cause he would have it thought that Iunius was of his minde while he professeth that he doth fully agree with him SECT X. His pretence of agreement with Dr Whitaker examined M R Dav. to colour his opinion as if it were no singular conceit of Mr Iacob and some few others makes mention of the Centuriatours as if they were of the same minde yet he alledgeth not their words to prove the same But instead of others he chooseth out Dr Whitaker as if he had bene a favourer of this opinion which it is likely that he never heard of and sayth (g) Apol. reply p. 237. 238. Whit. de Cōci quest 5. Argum. To these I may adde those who have handled the controversies concerning the necessity and authority of Councills amongst whom I will instance in Dr Whitaker who speaking of the fullnes of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church not to the Pope which he applyeth to the Keyes in binding and loosing shutting and opening retaining and remitting finnes sayth that this power belongeth primarily principally and essentially to the Church but to the severall Bishops onely accidentally secundarily and lesse principally and explaineth himself by a rule in Philosophy which is that when any power is in two in one necessarily essentially in another contingently and accidentally it is more principally in him in whom it is necessarily and essentially then in him whose it is onely contingently and accidentally As the heat is more principally in the fire then in the water because it is in the water by reason of the fire So sayth he seeing this jurisdiction and fullnes of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily but to the Pope onely secundarily and by the Church it is manifest that it is more in the Church then in the Pope What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope holds in all other parallell instances ANSVV. First had Mr Dav. repeated this Argument of D. Whitaker fully and justly as it is set downe by himself then might the Reader have seen therein a plaine evident testimony for the authority of Synods but divers things being omitted in the beginning middle and end of it thereby the trueth is obscured and hidden from his Readers In the beginning of it D. Whitaker propounds it thus If the fullnes of power be in the Church not in the Pope then it is evident that it hath more authority then the Pope but the first is true therefore the second also Now by the Church in this place he meaneth the Generall Synod or Councell as appeares by the title of this Question noted in the beginning of it viz. (h) DeConcil Qu. 5. c. 1. with c. 3. Arg. 5. Whether the Synod be above the Pope and if he had not so meant it this his Argument had bene beside the Question And therefore while D. Whitaker here directly concludeth a fullnes of power in Synods and as he further calles it in this same place that highest authority and jurisdiction which Christ hath left unto his Church it is manifest hereby that he did not hold them to be onely for counsell admonition and so was farre from limiting all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation In the middle in the confirmation of this Argument D. Whit. saith For if all this power were in the Pope or in any one man principally and essentially then he dying it should perish and so the Church should altogether loose it But it is not lost though the Pope dye a thousand times but it remaineth with the Church without which the Pope though living could have no part of this authority Now to argue on this manner against the authority we asscribe unto Synods by comparing them with particular Churches as he doth against the Pope compared with Synods would be inconsequent unequall and no parallel instance because the title of the Church is no where given unto the Pope or unto any one person as it is unto an assembly of Ministers Governours or Deputies of Churches met together in the name of Christ in Synods because though we asscribe unto Synods some jurisdiction yet we doe not say that all power is in them originally and so to be derived unto others as is sayd of the Pope and consequently because there is no such danger that the power of the Church should be lost and perish by the death of such as are members of the Synod as might be by the death of the Pope if all power were primarily and essentially in him alone And therefore it is a vaine assertion of Mr Dav. touching this argument of D. Whit. viz What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope holds in all other parallell instances In the end of this Argument prosequuted by D. Whitak he concludeth thus Wherefore seeing it is certaine that this power is given unto the Church primarily and not unto the Pope but secondarily and by accident and seeing the Church is represented in the Synod it is of necessity that the Synod must be above the Pope And thus most evidently he grants unto the Synod as being a representative Church a power jurisdiction above the Pope a power which consists in binding and loosing shutting opening retaining and remitting of sinnes as himself here explaines it and so is directly contrary to them which allow no more unto Synods but counsell and admonition Why did Mr Davenp omit and refuse to name the Synod which D. Whit. so expressely mentioneth applying yeelding unto the Synod that power which he there pleades for Secondly as for that similitude of fire and water though it be granted that heat is more principally in the fire then in the water because it is in the water by reason of the
lawfully not onely when it condemneth and excommunicateth those which are to be condemned pronounced Anathema but also when it ordaines and maintaines those decrees which agree with the Scripture c. Had he bene of my opposites opinion he should have sayd the contraty viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemne those that deserve to be condemned but onely admonish them and so leave them to others Yea he proceeds further sayth concerning Generall Synods that (b) Ibid. p. 270. In them is a soveraigne power and they have the highest authority in the Church He doth not onely grant unto them jurisdiction but greater then is in any particular Church or in any other Ecclesiasticall judicatory Moreover whereas Bellarmine maintaines that Synods cannot erre when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope and that all their authority depends upon him hereupon D. Whita argueth thus against him (c) Ibid. c. 1. p. 214. If there be such weight in the Pope that without him neither Provinciall nor Generall Synod have in them any force it may worthily be demanded what part the Bishops have in a Synod whether they be onely admonishers or counsellours or whether they be judges for if they be counsellours onely why are none but Bishops admitted unto Synods why not others rather who are more learned then Bishops c. He notes it as a poynt of great absurdity and as a great strait whereunto the Papists are brought against their will against their profession that Bishops should have no other place in Synods but of admonishers and counsellours For indeed what use is their of suffrages of definitive and determining voyces if in the end all be determined by the Pope why might not advises and counsels have sufficed in such case This observation D. Whitaker holds to be of speciall use and worthy to be remembred and therefore repeats it oft (d) Ibi. c. 2. p. 221 222. What place I pray you doe Bishops obtaine in Synods what doe they to whâ—â— end doe they meet Is it that they may judge or is it that they may onely counsell and admonish Are they therefore judges or are they onely admonishers counsellours This indeed some of them thinke that they may onely admonish in Synods that they may move questions and dispute but may not judge Naclantus Bishop of Clug as we taught before in his treatise de potestate Papae Concilii sayth The power of the Pope is royall the power of the Synod is consiliaria by way of counsell the power of the Pope is altogether definitive the power of the Synod is of ambulatory definition that is as I interpret it wandring uncertaine Bellarmine indeed and the Iesuites that now are hold that the Bishops are judges but doubtles they meane an ambulatory judgement that is none at all For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone Now this absurd opinion which he notes to have bene the conceit of Naclantus expressed in plaine words and of Bellarmine and other Papists by consequence is even the same that is professed by Mr Jacob Mr Dav. Mr Cann for though they differ in respect of the power of the Pope yet in respect of the power belonging to Synods they make the persons whereof the Synods consist to be no other then admonishers or counsellours not having any jurisdiction at all D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus but speaking againe of the Popes over-ruling of Synods he doth againe record this observation saying (e) Ibid. c. 3. p. 267. Certainly this is that which we sayd before that Bishops assembled in a Synod are not judges but onely admonishers that the Pope alone is judge of all controversies that the rest have no authority For if Bishops were judges judgement should be done according to the greatest number and the sentence of the most judges should prevaile We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a speciall providence of God and directed by his Spirit thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to poynt out and commend to our consideration this evill consequent of making Synods to be onely admonishers or counsellours that so we might have his writing for a Testimony against this errour which within a while after was to be broached made common by Mr Jacob and some others that which the Brownists had done before being neither so commonly knowne nor regarded VNto this his writing De Conciliis we may adde his treatise De Pontifice Romano in which controversy he discusseth 8 questions and in the most of them he gives testimony for the authority of Synods against my opposites The Questions be these 1. Whether the government of the Church be Monarchicall 2. Whether any Monarchy of the Church was setled in Peter 3. Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome and dyed there 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in a Monarchy Ecclesiasticall 5. Whether the Pope be Antichrist 6. Whether the Pope can erre in the faith 7. Whether the Pope can make lawes to binde the conscience 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be given by Christ to the Pope immediately In handling the first Question whereas the Papists require a Monarch to keep inferiour Officers in order and unity D. Whitaker sayth (f) De Pont. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 19. If any will not doe their duety and discharge their office they are to be admonished and rebuked and except they obey they are at length to be remooved by the judgement of the Church or the Synod or the Christian Magistrate and there are knowne meanes enough of keeping Ministers in their duety and the Church in unity without a Pope He acknowledgeth that Synods have not onely power to admonish which every Christian may doe but after admonition to censure remove or depose the obstinate When Bellarmine to prove the superiority of Bishops objects 1. Tim. 5. Those that sinne rebuke before all D. Whit. answers (g) Ibid p. 43. This equalls also may doe So of old if any Elder or Bishop was accused the Bishops brought the matter unto an Ecclesiasticall Senate or Synod and if he did seeme worthy of it they condemned him by a publick judgement that is they eyther suspended or excommunicated or deposed him He declares (h) P. 48. 49. that the Church hath bene preserved in greatest tempests and troubles by Synods and commends them for their use of jurisdiction in judging of causes and shewes how those that would not yeeld unto such authority were removed from their places and others amended by their examples He sayth (i) P 92. Though one alone could not judge of another yet a Synod and as it were a Senate or Session of Bishops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their causes He observeth againe out of Cyprian (k) P. 93. No Bishop could be judge of another of another I say not of others because a Synod of Bishops could alwayes judge
for the judging of lesser causes without bringing them to the whole Congregation the other for the deciding of weightier matters which neither Eldership nor Congregation can so well end And this is acknowledged by sundry of his Witnesses whose names he abuseth in this controversy Mr Parker touching Mat. 18. sayth (f) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 15. p. 160. The Church of the faythfull is intended of Christ not as it is simply considered as we sayd before but as it exerciseth Discipline according to an Aristocraticall temperament in the Eldership For we doe think that the Church mentioned in the first place in those words Tell the Church doth precisely signify the Aristocraticall part that is the Eldership but that which is mentioned in the latter place in these words If he heare not the Church if as Downame teacheth it include the Church excommunicating for contempt and not onely decreeing or examining then it doth also comprehend the Democraticall part of the Church forasmuch as the consent of the people is necessary unto excommunication And a little before he sayth (g) Ibid. p. 159. Almost all interpreters doe agree that those words in vers 19. If two or three doe containe an amplification from the lesse to the greater from a lesse company to a greater so that it is most plaine that under the name of the Church he included as well the greater company as that which consists of two or three How Mr Parker proved the Synod also from Mat. 18. is shewed (h) See Ch. 3. p. 45. 49. before where D. Whitaker Mr Cartwright and others also teach the same thing ARGVM III. (i) Church plea. p. 70. Whatsoever was commanded to the 7 Churches to be practised by each of them apart in and for themselves that no Church of God must now omit But Ecclesiasticall government was commanded to the 7 Churches to be practised by each of them apart in and for themselves Therefore no Churches of God must omit the practise of Ecclesiasticall government apart in and for themselves The Proposition cannot be doubted of For as Chytraeus c. The Assumption is proved clearly in chap. 2. vers 2 14 20. c. Moreover Mr Perkins c. ANSVV. I. This Argument for the forme of it is a misshapen Syllogisme and that in a double respect both because the Minor terminus is superfluously put into the Major Proposition and because the same terminus is confusedly joyned with the Praedicate in the Minor proposition when it should have bene placed with the Subject therein But this is one of the least faults in Mr Cannes reasonings II. For the matter of it this Argument doth also come short of the mark reacheth not home to the question And that which he concludes being well understood may be safely granted of us That which Mr Canne alledgeth from Chytraeus Bullinger Brightman Perkins for the proof of his Proposition Assumption I doe willingly assent unto and it was but an idle labour to bring them for proof of that which is not denyed There be no Churches here among us which refuse to practise Ecclesiasticall government apart in for themselves This they practise after a double manner 1. There be many rebukes and censures against sinne administred in them without the knowledge of Classis or Synod apart in and for themselves 2. When as more hard weighty causes are brought unto the Deputies of other Churches assembled in Classes for their advise and judgement even then also when upon their consideration matters are cleared and there remaineth no scruple they are then remitted againe and referred unto the particular Churches so that the Eldership with consent of the Congregation proceedeth therein as they finde cause according to the repentance or obstinacy of the persons with whom they have to deale And so the sentence is both determined and executed apart in for themselves without the Classis But if by government to be practised apart in and for themselves he meane such a solitary and separate government as refuseth combination with other neighbour Churches such as admitteth no liberty of appeale in case of greatest wrong such as excepteth a particular Congregation from the censure of all other Churches though it should erre never so perniciously and in summe such a government apart as denyeth all authority and jurisdiction of Classes and Synods then is his Assumption most false and all that he alledgeth for proofe thereof helpes him nothing for 1. Though the Angel of the Church of Ephesus be commended for not bearing with the wicked c. and the Angel of the Church of Pergamus and Thyatira be reprehended for suffering divers enormities Rev. 2.2.14.20 by what good consequence can these examples overthrow the authority of Synods There might be occasion at this day to write unto some Ministers standing under the Classes and Synods in these Reformed Churches and some of them might justly be commended for their zeale in not bearing with the wicked others might justly be reprehended for their negligence in tolerating of such as offend now Mr Canne according to this reasoning might as well conclude against experience against the knowne trueth that these Ministers doe not stand under any Classicall government 2. The praise or dispraise which is given to the Angels of severall Churches apart doth not so much serve to argue an independency or disunion in government in these Churches but the very * Rev. 1.16.20 2.1 3.1 forme of the vision in the union of these Starres of the Churches in Christs right hand doth rather argue a consociation of them for their mutuall help in the government of his Church They appeare not scattered in the Firmament but gathered and drawne together What is a Classis or Synod but as a Constellation of so many Starres of the Churches combined together which by their conjunction together doe yeeld both a greater light of direction and a stronger influence of authority for the confirmation of the trueth and conviction of errour And as for the testimony of Mr Perkins though he acknowledge (k) Vpō Rev. 2.20 3.7 God hath given to every Church power and authority to preach the Word administer the Sacraments represse evill men c. yet doth he not thereby exempt those Churches from the censure of others if they be found to pervert the word corrupt the Sacraments and judge unrighteously It is not probable that such a conceit did ever enter into Mr Perkins head neither can it be collected from his words ARCVM IV. If the Church of Corinth had power and authority within herself to exercise Ecclesiasticall government yea and did it I meane the Ministery and the rest of the Church there Then ought not particular Congregations now to stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves But the first is true Therefore the second The first part is unquestionably certain and of this judgement was D. Willet c. ANSVV. That which
he so boldly affirmeth to be unquestionably certain viz. that which is indeed the first part of this Argument is on the contrary most certainly false This consequence of his Major proposition remaines to be proved Scripture he alledgeth none at all and for those eleven Authors mentioned by him there is not one of them that confirmes his consequence Why did he not expresse their words apply them to his purpose enforce thē against us if he thought they would have served his turne It is sayd to have bene a stratageme of theeves that to affright men they have taken many hats and set them upon stakes afarre of that passengers imagining them to be men partakers with those theeves that came unto them might the sooner yeeld Thus doth Mr Canne who sets downe the names of many Authors and their writings in his marginall quotations as if they were of his minde or partakers of his cause when as there is no such matter to be found in them Let us heare how he proceeds I. CAN. Againe whereas the Papists and Hierarchy do say much after Mr Pagets new doctrine that the Church of Corinth had not sole and alone authority in itself to exercise Ecclesiasticall government our writers viz. (l) Ref. Rhem. 1. Cor. 5.4 Mr Cartwright (m) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 4. p. 17. 18. c. Mr Parker others refute them and prove the contrary by many reasons ANSVV. That which he saith here of sole and alone authority c. is more then he propounded in his Syllogisme I acknowledge that the Church of Corinth did exercise Ecclesiasticall government within herself and I affirme as much for our owne and other particular Congregations here and Mr Canne with as good reason might argue that we doe not stand under Classes and Synods if there were any soundnes in his Syllogisme My opinion touching the Church of Corinth may be discerned sufficiently by that which I noted touching the 7 Churches in answer to his former argument And as for Mr Cartwright and Mr Parker whom he specially alledgeth they help him not at all I acknowledge Mr Parker doth justly oppose them that held the Church of Corinth did not excommunicate the incestuous person but Apostle alone But I doe more fully assent unto Mr Cartwright who differing something from Mr Parker and refuting the Rhemists most effectually by many reasons doth yet withall shew that the authority and power both of the Apostle and of the Church did concurre in this excommunication Whereas the Rhemists would have the Corinthians to be onely witnesses Mr Cartwright in his third reason against them sayth (n) Conf. of Rhem. upon 1. Cor. 5.4 If the Church were assembled onely to beare witnesse and not to have authority in this case it followeth that Paules spirit was there also onely to look on and beare witnesse considering that the personall presence of the Church and the Apostles spirituall presence are associated in this affaire of the Church Thus he joyneth both together and so afterwards againe reasoning from those words Do not you judge of those that are within 1. Cor. 5.12 he sayth thereupon that the Apostle giveth more unto the Church in excommunication then to be witnesses and lookers on For he useth the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 5.3.12 word to declare the Churches interest that he used before to note his owne If then you will say that the Churches judgement in excommunication is but to beare witnesse it followeth that the Apostles then and consequently their successours now are onely to beare witnesse of the excommunication Hereunto commeth also that the release of this censure is asscribed in the same word of forgivenes or absolutiō unto the Church as unto Paul 2. Cor. 2.10 Now to have the same word in the same verse and the same cause to be understood diversly and referred to Paul to have the proper signification of remitting but referred to the Church to signify a witnessing of remission needeth more learning for the defence of it then falleth unto the Iesuites capacity Thus he shewes that neither the sole authority of the Church on the one side nor the sole authority of Paul on the other side did determine this busines Againe had there a dangerous contention risen in Corinth which by their sole authority they could not end what should have hindred them from following the example of the Church at Antioch in seeking help both by counsell and authority of other Churches for the judgement thereof I. CAN. The latter part is proved before in the Minors of the 1. and 3. arguments ANSVV. It it manifest that he did not know the Minor from the Major in some of his former Syllogismes and so in this place it appeares he doth not discerne the first from the latter part of his argument But what he objected before is already answered it is vaine helples for him to rely upon his former poofes ARGVM V. (o) Churc plea. p. 71. Such actions the Church may lawfully doe wherein no Law of God is broken But there is no Law of God broken when particular Congregations doe in among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances Therefore they may lawfully doe it The proof of the Proposition doth arise from the definition of sinne which as (p) Cōt Fan. l. 22. c. 27. Augustine and (q) Lib. de Paradis c. 8. Ambrose truely define it is either a deed or word or thought against some Divine Law (r) Lib. 2. dist 35. Lombard (ſ) Th. 12. q. 71. Aquinas and other Schoolemen as they are called agree hereto The Assumption is manifest in our first Argument the first part of it ANSVV. This Argument toucheth not the question we grant his Conclusion that particular Congregations may in among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances and among the rest this ordinance of combining themselves in Synods for the decision of their controversies This may be sayd as well to be in among themselves as the use of Synods for counsell which my opposites allow for an ordinance of God And as particular Churches may refuse the counsell of Synods if it be unlawfull so ought they to disobey the sentences and decrees of Synods if they determine any thing contrary to the word of God His Proposition being so manifest it was needles to bring proof for it But the definition of sinne which he brings needlesly is insufficient because it comprehends not all sinne under it There is an originall corruption and depravation of nature which is Sinne considered distinctly apart beside thoughts words or deeds The Law requireth integrity of nature and all disconformity with that Law is sinne though not yet come so farre as thoughts Deut. 6. with 1. Iohn 3.4 The saying of Augustine is to be taken rather for a distribution then for a definition and for a distribution not simply of Sinne but onely of Actuall sinnes as they are either thoughts words or
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
to choose a Bishop which being sent thither as an Embassadour in the Embassage of God it might be granted unto them to glorify God in their meeting together He speakes there not of choosing a Bishop to minister in their owne Church but of choosing one to be their Deputy to travell unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for settling of order in that Church And in the same place to moove them the more he sheweth what was the practise of the Primitive Churches in such cases viz. that alwayes the neighbour Churches did send Bishops and some of them Elders and Deacons Againe writing upon the same occasion unto Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna he saith (e) Epist ad Polyc. p. 97 98. It was meet to gather a Synod comely in the Lord and choose some dearly beloved and diligent person which might be called Theodromos or one that should runne for God who might travell into Syria and thereby celebrate their diligent love to the praise of God And using many arguments to commend that businesse unto him as the work of God he intreateth Polycarpus that he would write unto other Churches that they would doe the same thing that they which were able would send men to travell on foot that others would send their letters to be conveyed by such as Polycarpus should send thither From these testimonies of Ignatius Mr Parker (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. p. 356. concludes that in those times according to the practise of the Reformed Churches with us neighbour Churches were combined together as it were Classically for the mutuall communication of offices And whereas D. Bilson (g) Perpet Gov. c. 7. confesseth that it was the manner of that time if any Church was tossed with waves of discord that neighbour Churches round about did send a Bishop Elder or Deacon for appeasing that tempest Mr Parker inferres justly thereupon If neighbour Churches had right or authority in compounding of strifes why not also in moderating of elections His conclusion in the same place is Let this very right in compounding strife be a sufficient authorization for our Classes Thus then it is apparant that Ignatius was not directly with Mr Canne as he boasteth but his meaning hath bene manifestly perverted contrary to his words Tertullian that is next alledged though misalledged c. 29. being put for c. 39. relating the manner of Christian assemblies in his time saith in effect (h) Apol. c. 39. They came together into the Congregation it is not sayd into one Congregation as Mr C. alledgeth it for to pray unto God for to rehearse the Divine Scriptures and with holy words yo nourish faith stirre up hope and fasten confidence And they used exhortations reproofes and divine Censure I answer I. Though particular Churches met together for such end this hinders not but that the Deputies of those same Churches might meet together in Synods for their mutuall assistance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult causes It followes not because severall Congregations have their due power that therefore the power of Classes is an undue power II. that Tertullian himself intended no such thing it appeares evidently by the great approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods in saying (i) De Jejunüs advers Psychi c. 13 The appoynted Synods are kept through the countries of Graecia in certaine places out of all the Churches whereby both the deeper or more difficult matters are handled in common by that representation of the whole Christian flock they are celebrated with great reverence He alledgeth the words of Origen writing much to the same purpose (k) In Jos Hom. 7. Such as were brought in the third place for sinne unto the Congregation if they stood obstinate by the judgement of the whole Church were excommunication from the body the Elders of the Church pronouncing the sentence And then in his owne words he sayth (l) Ch. pl. p. 90. Observe here he saith not that the matter was caried to a Classis and there first determined c. but names onely the Congregation and Elders thereof notwithstanding had there bene any such superiour judicatorie Assembly it is likely he would have omitted it and mentioned a subordinate and inferiour one ANSVV. I. The words which they alledge in another letter in Origens name as if they had bene his speech verbatim described are not his words He neither speakes of men brought unto the Church nor of the judgment of the Church nor of Elders pronouncing the sentence he shewes how all the people might be polluted by the sinne of one man when the Briefts which rule the people being unmindefull of priestly severity doe not rebuke nor take away evill from them nor make him as a Publicane and Heathen which hath despised the admonition of the Church but not in such words and forme of speech as Mr Canne faineth II. All that Origen there speakes is not repugnant to Classicall government all that he there requireth is dayly performed by the Churches among us which stand under the government of Classes and Synods Obstinate offenders having their names and offences divers times published before the whole Congregation are with the consent thereof excommunicated by the judgement of the Eldership going before III. If Origen in his writings had expressely denyed the authority of Synods it had bene of no great weight against the generall judgement of other ancient Fathers the rather seeing his writings are rejected and condemned by so many especially by Epiphanius and Hieronie the Authours hereafter alledged by Mr Canne And see how vaine many of his glosses were even touching this poynt Speaking of the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Mat. 16. he there telles us of many keyes to open severall gates in heaven◠that (m) Orig in Mat. 16. Tempérance is one key to open the Gate of Temperance in heaven that Iustice is another key to open another Gate and so for all other vertues And afterwards expounding the promise made Matt. 18.18 touching binding and loosing in heaven comparing it with the promise made unto Peter Mat. 16.19 because a word of the plurall number is used in the promise to Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelis and to others a word of the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coelo Origen from thence (n) Idem in Mat. 18. teacheth us this Doctrine that Peter did binde and loose in all heavens whereas some others did but binde and loose in one heaven And therefore he concludeth Look how much better he is that bindeth by so much is he that is bound bound in more then one heaven and by how much better he is that looseth by so much the more blessed is he that is loosed because he is loosed in all the heavens Such are many of the interpretations of Origen IV. As Mr Canne misalledgeth Origen to impugne the authority of Classes and Synods so other more learned judicious Writers alledge him
f Amb. Offi. l. 1. c. 1 These with spirituall bridles order men c. I answer I. In the place alledged there is not a word to be found either touching a Senate of Elders or touching spirituall bridles or any thing to like purpose II. If a Senate of Elders be spirituall bridles then the Brownists with Mr C. that now want such a Senate are an unbridled company wanting order c. III. What though an assembly of Elders order men with spirituall bridles Is there therefore no other spirituall bridle in the authority of Synods What consequence is this IV. That Ambrose did allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods it appeares both by his practise he g Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 9. himself being present with Damasus Britto Valerian and other Bishops at the Synod holden at Rome for the censure of Apollinaris and Timotheus his disciple and by his h Amb. Tom. 3. epi. l. 10. ep 78. ad Theoph. exhortation given unto Theophilus and others to judge the cause of Euagrius and Flavianus being deputed thereunto by the Synod of Capua and againe by his i Ib. Epi. 79. ad Theoph Anys exhortation given unto Theophilus Anysius that they being chosen by the same Synod of Capua would give sentence touching Bonosus and his accusers forasmuch as the Synod had givē this authority unto them and they did now supply the place thereof With Ambrose he joynes k In orat fun de patr Nazianzen to testify also that a Senate or assembly of Elders doe with spirituall bridles order men But in the place alledged I finde no such testimony as is mentioned and therefore the three first answers made before unto the testimony from Ambrose may also serve for Nazianzen And further that Gregory Nazianzen did not limit all Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely it may appeare if we observe I. How l Soc. Hist Ecc. l. 4. c. 21. Sozom. Hist Ecc. l. 6. c. 17. he himself was made Bishop of Constantinople by the suffrages of many Bishops met together which is a further degree of Ecclesiasticall authority then that which is exercised in the Classes or Synods of these countries II. How he pleadeth (m) Nazian Epist 1. ad Clidon from a Synodall law touching the receyving of those that were fallen III. How he alloweth the order of convocating and assembling neighbour Bishops about the creating of a new Bishop affirming this to be (n) Epi. 30. ad Caesariē right and according to the Ecclesiasticall law IV. How he in his counsell and exhortation unto the Synod at Constantinope (o) Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 8. asscribes unto them authority and power for his owne dimission and translation for the setting of another unblameable Bishop in his place and thereby withall for the deposition and abdication of Maximus which was accordingly performed That which might with more colour be objected out of Nazianzen against the use of Synods and which is also alledged both by Mr Canne and by Mr Davenp though not directly against the authority of Synods is yet so brought in by the way as might cause a simple Reader to stumble thereat The words of Nazianzen as Mr Canne (p) Ch. pl. p. 93. alledgeth them are these (q) Ep. 42. ad Procop. I am minded saith he to shunne all assemblies of Bishops because I never saw any good event in any Councell that did not rather increase then diminish our evills Their contention and ambition passeth my speech ANSVV. I. Observe how Mr C. mistranslateth those words of Nazianzē 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he rendreth as signifying passeth my speech whereas they signify prevayled more then reason as (r) Apo. tep p. 225. Mr Dav. doth rightly translate them But it is no wonder that Mr Canne should mistake that which some more learned have done before Grosser faults are more common with him II. As for the testimony of Nazianzen the answer of D. Whitaker may give sufficient satisfaction who sayth (ſ) De Cōc qu. 1. c. 3. p. 13.14 15. It may seeme strange that Nazianzen denyes he had seene a good issue of any Synod For in those two Synods viz. of Nice and Constantinople which had beene mentioned before trueth got the victory and heresy was put downe And though it be certaine that Arianisme was encreased and grew strong and troubled the Church after the Synod of Nice more then before yet that is not to be imputed to the Synod but to the contention and ambition of men For as our corrupt nature doth more vehemently resist the knowne law of God and rusheth headlong unto sinne so falshood opposed itself more boldly unto the trueth then explained and openly defended whereupon after that Synod which none excelled greater incōmodities did arise from the wickedness of men c. When Nazianz. saw so wicked dispositions of men he was wholly turned from Councels Although without doubt he disallowed not the thing itself but the wicked indeavours of men Now if any will reason after this manner The issue of Synods is not good or more evils follow thence therefore Synods are to be avoyded that man shall dispute deceitfully from a wrong cause from accident and from the fallacy of consequent But Nazianzen was to be pardoned because he lived in the worst and most turbulent times of the Church when by meanes of Valens the Emperour that degenerated from the Catholick faith Hereticks did more prevayle c. Againe he opposeth Augustine unto Nazianzene and sayth It is most true which Augustine sayth Epist 118. that the authority of Synods in the Church of God is most wholesome which certainly he would not have sayd if he had bene of the same minde with Nazianzen And further he opposeth unto the speech of Nazianz. the testimony of Christ saying Christ himself pronounceth and promiseth Matt. 18.20 Where two or three are assembled together in his name there he will be in the midst of them In which words he signifyeth that the assemblies and Synods of godly and religious men undertaken and appoynted for godly causes are not displeasing unto him III. The testimony of Nazianzen is as much against the opinion of Mr Can and Mr Dav. as against that which we hold touching Classes and Synods For seeing they allow such meetings for counsell and admonition though not for exercise of any jurisdiction and seeing the testimony of Naziā doth extend itself to all kinde of assemblies of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether for counsell or censure without exception of one sort more then another therefore he no more condemneth our Synods then those which my opposites allow Augustine his next witnesse is in like manner perverted as the former Though he in the place (t) DeDoct Chr. l. 1. c. 17. objected doe write that the keyes were given to the Church yet doth he not thereby exclude Synods gathered together in the name of