fire yet hereby heat is not denyed to be in the water but on the contrary acknowledged to be derived into the water and experience shewes that by the heat so communicated unto the water many excellent effects are produced for the service of man And so when Ecclesiasticall authority is by the Church committed and communicated to Ecclesiasticall Officers in calling of them then doth it belong unto them though secondarily and lesse principally as both D. Whita confesseth Mr Dav. himself repeateth THat it may yet further appeare how unjustly the name of D. Whitaker is pretended and alledged both by Mr Dav. here by Mr Canne hereafter against the authority of Synods I will here set downe divers pregnant assertions and expresse testimonies of his gathered out of sundry of his writings for help of the Readers In them all may see how fully opposite he was to my opposites To beginne with this treatise de Conciliis of Councells or Synods out of which Mr D. took this allegation above-mentioned This book comprehends 6 Questions touching Synods in handling every one of these Questions he speakes plainly for the authority jurisdiction of Synods These 6 Questions are 1. Touching the necessity and profit of Synods 2. By what authority they are to be assembled 3. Of what persons they consist 4. Who is to be Praesident in them 5. Whether they be above the Pope 6. Whether they can erre For the first Question touching the necessity of Synods There he brings 8 reasons to prove the necessity and profit of them I will not insist upon each of them as I might but mention onely one or two of them The third cause is sayth he (i) Whitak de Conc. q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order and right and lawfull discipline may both be appoynted and maintained and that Canons may be made and confirmed For the Church hath alwayes had authority of making and enacting Ecclesiasticall lawes and of prescribing them to others and of punishing those which did not observe them And this authority hath alwayes bene accounted necessary This was more then counselling or admonishing (k) P. 21. The eight and last and that the chiefest cause of Synods is that even as in Politick and Civill judgements malefactours upon examination are accused and condemned so in the Church Hereticks might be condemned and pronounced anathema by publick judgement and that the trueth might be vindicated from their calumnies But as there judgement is not to be given according to the will of the judge but according to law so here Hereticks enemies of faith and religion are not to be condemned but according to the publick and Imperiall law that is the Scripture For a Synod is as it were a publick Court or Imperiall Chamber or Parliament wherein the Judges hearing both sides do give sentence and decree matters of greatest weight For although Hereticks may be condemned of severall Churches apart yet when they are condemned as it were of the whole Church the sentence is more solemne and of greater weight So Arius was condemned first of Alexander and the Councell at Alexandria but afterward with greater authority by the Synod of Nice c. By these words of D. Whitaker we may see what wrong they doe unto him which pretend that he should deny the jurisdiction of Synods The second Question is by whose authority Synods are to be assembled Here D. Whitaker relating how Bellarmine pleads for the Popes authority (l) De Cōc q. 2 c. 2. p. 42 c. repeats his 4th Argument taken from an ancient Canon wherein it was concluded that without the minde of the Romane Bishop it was not lawfull to celebrate or hold Synods D. Whit. answers that this Canon mentioned by (m) Lib. 2. cap. 8. Socrates is not rightly translated he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify celebrare Concilia to hold Synods as Cassiodorus hath ill translated it whose translation they abuse nor yet Ecclesias consecrare to consecrate Churches as Illyricus doth amisse translate it but leges Ecclesiasticas sancire et canones Ecclesiis praescribere to ordaine Ecclesiasticall lawes to prescribes Canons unto Churches And being thus translated he sayth We acknowledge approve this Canon as most just For reason itself teacheth telleth that that which concerneth all ought to be approved of all Therefore it was meet that those Canons which should be generall should be approved also of the Bishop of Rome who was one of the chief Bishops Now if D. Whita allow that Canon to be most just which grants unto Synods an authority of making Ecclesiasticall lawes and enjoyning the Churches to keep them then it is manifest hereby that he confessed the jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely for counsell admonition And in the same place D. Whitak (n) P. 45 46 relates how the Bishops of the Orientall Churches meeting together in a Synod at Antioch did by common sentence write unto Iulius the Bishop of Rome and by way of rebuke sayd unto him that they were not to be overruled by him that if they would cast any out of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that such ought not to be restored of him even as those whom he cast out could not be restored of them Although D. Whit. acknowledge the errours and faults of some that were in that Synod yet he approveth this their writing in reproof of Julius and sayth they all did gravely rebuke his arrogance insolence Though that Synod abused their power in censuring Athanasius unjustly yet that they had a power of censure casting out of their Churches is not denyed but maintained against the Bishop of Rome The third Question is touching the persons whereof Synods doe consist Here D. Whit. (o) De Cōci Qu. 3. c. 1. first describes the Popish opinion and reckons up the foure sorts of persons whom they allow to come unto Synods namely that Some are present as judges who have a determining voyce Others to dispute and examine difficulties and these have a consultative voyce Others to defend the Synod and to see that peace be kept within without Others to serve as notaries watchmen servants Then he shewes that they allow onely the greater Prelates that is all Bishops and Archbishops to have the right of a determining voyce in universall and particular Synods ordinarily but that Cardinals Abbots Generalls of Orders though they be not Bishops yet by extraordinary priviledge may also have a determining suffrage as for all others whatsoever they be they may be profitable but not have a determining voyce or suffrage After this he shewes the opinion of the Protestants that not onely the greater Prelates but whatsoever learned and godly men are sent being chosen by the Churches of severall Provinces and judged fit for that busines ought to have equall authority in giving suffrages and so to be judges as well as any
lawfully not onely when it condemneth and excommunicateth those which are to be condemned pronounced Anathema but also when it ordaines and maintaines those decrees which agree with the Scripture c. Had he bene of my opposites opinion he should have sayd the contraty viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemne those that deserve to be condemned but onely admonish them and so leave them to others Yea he proceeds further sayth concerning Generall Synods that (b) Ibid. p. 270. In them is a soveraigne power and they have the highest authority in the Church He doth not onely grant unto them jurisdiction but greater then is in any particular Church or in any other Ecclesiasticall judicatory Moreover whereas Bellarmine maintaines that Synods cannot erre when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope and that all their authority depends upon him hereupon D. Whita argueth thus against him (c) Ibid. c. 1. p. 214. If there be such weight in the Pope that without him neither Provinciall nor Generall Synod have in them any force it may worthily be demanded what part the Bishops have in a Synod whether they be onely admonishers or counsellours or whether they be judges for if they be counsellours onely why are none but Bishops admitted unto Synods why not others rather who are more learned then Bishops c. He notes it as a poynt of great absurdity and as a great strait whereunto the Papists are brought against their will against their profession that Bishops should have no other place in Synods but of admonishers and counsellours For indeed what use is their of suffrages of definitive and determining voyces if in the end all be determined by the Pope why might not advises and counsels have sufficed in such case This observation D. Whitaker holds to be of speciall use and worthy to be remembred and therefore repeats it oft (d) Ibi. c. 2. p. 221 222. What place I pray you doe Bishops obtaine in Synods what doe they to whâ—â— end doe they meet Is it that they may judge or is it that they may onely counsell and admonish Are they therefore judges or are they onely admonishers counsellours This indeed some of them thinke that they may onely admonish in Synods that they may move questions and dispute but may not judge Naclantus Bishop of Clug as we taught before in his treatise de potestate Papae Concilii sayth The power of the Pope is royall the power of the Synod is consiliaria by way of counsell the power of the Pope is altogether definitive the power of the Synod is of ambulatory definition that is as I interpret it wandring uncertaine Bellarmine indeed and the Iesuites that now are hold that the Bishops are judges but doubtles they meane an ambulatory judgement that is none at all For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone Now this absurd opinion which he notes to have bene the conceit of Naclantus expressed in plaine words and of Bellarmine and other Papists by consequence is even the same that is professed by Mr Jacob Mr Dav. Mr Cann for though they differ in respect of the power of the Pope yet in respect of the power belonging to Synods they make the persons whereof the Synods consist to be no other then admonishers or counsellours not having any jurisdiction at all D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus but speaking againe of the Popes over-ruling of Synods he doth againe record this observation saying (e) Ibid. c. 3. p. 267. Certainly this is that which we sayd before that Bishops assembled in a Synod are not judges but onely admonishers that the Pope alone is judge of all controversies that the rest have no authority For if Bishops were judges judgement should be done according to the greatest number and the sentence of the most judges should prevaile We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a speciall providence of God and directed by his Spirit thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to poynt out and commend to our consideration this evill consequent of making Synods to be onely admonishers or counsellours that so we might have his writing for a Testimony against this errour which within a while after was to be broached made common by Mr Jacob and some others that which the Brownists had done before being neither so commonly knowne nor regarded VNto this his writing De Conciliis we may adde his treatise De Pontifice Romano in which controversy he discusseth 8 questions and in the most of them he gives testimony for the authority of Synods against my opposites The Questions be these 1. Whether the government of the Church be Monarchicall 2. Whether any Monarchy of the Church was setled in Peter 3. Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome and dyed there 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in a Monarchy Ecclesiasticall 5. Whether the Pope be Antichrist 6. Whether the Pope can erre in the faith 7. Whether the Pope can make lawes to binde the conscience 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be given by Christ to the Pope immediately In handling the first Question whereas the Papists require a Monarch to keep inferiour Officers in order and unity D. Whitaker sayth (f) De Pont. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 19. If any will not doe their duety and discharge their office they are to be admonished and rebuked and except they obey they are at length to be remooved by the judgement of the Church or the Synod or the Christian Magistrate and there are knowne meanes enough of keeping Ministers in their duety and the Church in unity without a Pope He acknowledgeth that Synods have not onely power to admonish which every Christian may doe but after admonition to censure remove or depose the obstinate When Bellarmine to prove the superiority of Bishops objects 1. Tim. 5. Those that sinne rebuke before all D. Whit. answers (g) Ibid p. 43. This equalls also may doe So of old if any Elder or Bishop was accused the Bishops brought the matter unto an Ecclesiasticall Senate or Synod and if he did seeme worthy of it they condemned him by a publick judgement that is they eyther suspended or excommunicated or deposed him He declares (h) P. 48. 49. that the Church hath bene preserved in greatest tempests and troubles by Synods and commends them for their use of jurisdiction in judging of causes and shewes how those that would not yeeld unto such authority were removed from their places and others amended by their examples He sayth (i) P 92. Though one alone could not judge of another yet a Synod and as it were a Senate or Session of Bishops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their causes He observeth againe out of Cyprian (k) P. 93. No Bishop could be judge of another of another I say not of others because a Synod of Bishops could alwayes judge
abuses about excoÌ„munication he saith Can the Bishop alone excoÌ„municate ExcoÌ„munication doth not belong unto any one man whosoever he be but unto the Church By these the like speeches of Zuinglius it appeares that his testimonies are not prejudiciall unto our practise nor unto that authority of Synods which we maintaine seeing we grant that no one person alone can by right excommunicate any man by his owne authority neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate those that are not in communion with them The other place cited out of Zuinglius touching the calling of Ministers is so farre from prooving any thing against us that being duely considered it may fitly serve to blame those popular courses which Mr Can. pleades for and to justify our practise in not performing this weighty businesse without the advise and approbation of neighbour Ministers assembled in the Classis Zuinglius in that treatise called Ecclesiastes having spoken of the Popish tyranny bereaving most Churches of the liberty of election he reprooves another extreme saving (f) Eccles Tom. 2. f. 54. If there were any Church unto which election was yet left free the common people rashly without all deliberation and without all counsell of learned prudent and faithfull men did choose those whom they did most favour not such as were indued with true vertues beseeming a Bishop Therefore there is nothing so agreeable unto the Divine ordinance and ancient institution as that the whole Congregation of a faithfull people together with some learned and godly Bishops or other faithfull and experienced men doe make choyse of a Pastour Thus he plainly disavowes the independency of Churches in such cases not allowing a Congregation to proceed unto the election of a Minister without the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches and to this effect he explaines himself further in the same place saying It is meet that the power of election should be in the Church being furnished with the counsels of faithfull and learned men For as that matter may not lye in the power of any one man so neither may the rude and unlearned multitude take upon them so great a weight of election c. And in the same leafe speaking of Anabaptists intruding themselves into the Churches of their owne accord he proves that they are no lawfull Ministers because they have not a due calling thus Bishops they are not for they are not chosen of any Church by lawfull and unanimous consent the authority of other Bishops excelling in faith and prudence also concurring Observe how that with the free consent of the people he joynes not onely the counsell or advise as he had called it before but the authority of the Officers of other Congregations Moreover that Zuinglius did not absolutely deny the authority of Synods though he speake much against Popish Synods may appeare if we consider the reasons which he useth against them viz. because they were not assembled in the holy Ghost because they did not judge of matters according to the Scriptures but according to the ordinances and customes of men c. Now this is not to dispute against the thing itself but against the abuse of it And therefore having spoken against such Councels of the Pope Cardinals and Bishops in such sort as Mr Canne had alledged him (g) Ch. pl. p. 75. before he addes withall (h) Art 8. expl I speake onely of these that are such my writings shall not hurt others who set themselves under the Scriptures not above the Scriptures And that these conditions for the want whereof he opposed those Popish Synods may yet be found in other Synods which have made decrees for the deciding of controversies raysed in the Church he acknowledgeth in these words (i) Paraenes ad coÌ„mun Helvet civ Tom. 1. f. 116. If the Councill of Gangra were assembled in the holy Ghost which no good man will deny while he sees that the decrees thereof doe agree with the lawes of the Gospell and with the doctrine of the Apostles it was unworthily done of those that came after that have disanulled the decrees thereof without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures Againe in another place speaking of the foure Generall Councels though he justly blame those that accounted them to be of equall authority with the foure Evangelists yet he saith (k) Archeteles T. 1. f. 137. Truely I would not have any thing to be detracted from them He was not therefore of Mr Cannes minde who will have all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be detracted or removed from Synods Besides Zuinglius doth not onely approve of these Synods held in former times but he also shewes himself ready to joyne in the like practise even in the exercise of the same Ecclesiasticall authority that was used in those Synods For when the Magistrates of Zurich had assembled together all the Ministers of the Churches both in their city and countrie and had procured the presence of divers others for the solemne vindicating of the doctrine taught in their Churches there Faber Vicar of the Bishop of Constance having spoken of a Generall Councell that it onely had authority to determine these things Zuinglius replyes (l) Act. Disp 1. Tom. 2. f. â—10 Whereas in this our assembly there be so many right faithfull men both of our owne countrey and strangers and furthermore seeing here be so many godly learned Bishops present who doubtles have a desire not onely to heare and understand but also to advance divine trueth verily I see nothing to hinder even in this place whereby it should not be lawfull for us according to the Vicars meaning to dispute of these things and to decree what trueth teacheth But other nations he sayth will never consent unto these our decrees c. By these and the like (m) Ibid. f. 621. c. passages it is evident that Zuinglius did allow the Ministers of severall Congregations assembled in a Synod not onely to consult and dispute but also to determine yea and to make decrees for the removing of controversies settling peace in the Church while they did it according to the Scriptures which is the same that we maintaine The words of Mr Luther whom he cites in the next place as they are to no purpose alledged against us seeing they touch not the question as I shewed before so being compared with other his writings they make it appeare that these two propositions may well stand together viz. that the Church hath power to judge to call to depose c. and yet that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation but that Synods Councells have authority to judge of Church affaires and to censure offendours forasmuch as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other In the yeare 1518 having understood that they proceeded against him in the Popes Court at Rome and that an unjust sentence was likely to
answer the testimonies produced by Aërius and wonders that such a Divine that tooke upon him to refute all Heretickes did not see his owne foule errour Yea it is further t Soc. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 11.13 recorded of Epiphanius that he disorderly intruded himself into the charge of Chrysostome contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons observed in those times by celebrating the Lords supper ordaining a Deacon in the Church at Constantinople And thus we see Mr Cannes witnesses are in extremity opposite unto himself Another of his witnesses is Ierome from whom he alledgeth that v Jer. ad Gal. q. 10. In every Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders To this I answer I. This is nothing against the authority of Synods The Reformed Churches have in every Congregation such a Senate of Elders and yet this hinders not but that they have ought to have Classes Synods also both for direction and correction of Elderships and for decision of the controversies arising in particular Churches II. Though every Congregation ought to have a Senate of Elders yet Ierome doth not avouch so much in the place alledged His words are falsifyed for in the place which they misquote ad Gal. instead of ad Alg. the words of Jerome are these x Ad Algas qu. 10. How great the traditions of the Pharisees are which at this day they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what old wives fables I cannot expresse For neither doth the greatnes of the booke permit and many of them are so filthy that I blush to tell And yet saith he I will tell one of them to the ignominy of that envyous nation They have Rulers in their Synagogues of their wisest men deputed unto a filthy work c. What this filthy work was though Jerome expresse it yet I thinke it shame to publish And this which he saith in detestation of the Jewes without approbation of their order is all that he there saith for an assembly of Elders So vaine and insufficient are the Allegations of Mr Canne III. That Hierome allowed the authority of Synods above particular Churches it may appeare by that he sayth y Ad Euagriu ep 85. Si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe If we seek for authority greater is the world then the city that is as D. Whitaker expounds the same the Churches dispersed through the world he sayth z De Pont. Rom. qu. ◠p. 9◠99. All the authority of the Church of Rome is not so great as is the authority of all Churches every where And thereby he acknowledgeth the authority of Synods arising from the deputation of many Churches to be greater then the single authority of any one particular Church Besides whereas Damasus Bishop of Rome was a zealous opposite to the Arian Macedonian and other heresies and in divers Synods furthered the censure and condemnation of such as persisted in those errours and wrote divers Synodicall Epistles which witnesse the exercise of that authority by Synods Hierome a Ad Gerontiam confesseth that in the writing of those Synodall letters he did assist and help Damasus which he could not with good conscience have done unlesse he had allowed the authority of Synods Lastly if Hierome wrote that in every particular Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders then is Mr Canne and his Congregation condemned by Hierome because they have now for many yeares had no Senate nor assembly of Elders to governe them Mr Canne being sole governour of them without an Eldership In the next place touching this assembly of Elders he addes that The power of choosing them is in the people And for this he alledgeth three Authours together b Ad Rust Hil. ad Cōst August Cyr. in Ioh. 20.21 Hierome Hilarie Cyrill I answer For Hierome ad Rusticum there is nothing at all spoken touching the matter but he is falsely alledged For Hilary I. He is also falsely alledged he sayth nothing touching the Senate or assembly of Elders of which Mr C. speakes II. Though he entreat Constantius the Arian Emperour who had banished many worthy Bishops that he would permit the people to heare those Teachers and Ministers of the Sacraments whom they would whom they thought good and whom they had chosen that they might offer up prayers for his safety and felicity yet doth he not hereby prejudice the authority and jurisdiction of Synods This hinders not but that Synods might censure and judge of the elections made by the people and of other controversies of particular Churches III. Hilary also c Cent. Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 10 col 1134 1135. wrote a peculiar booke touching Synods exstant among his workes which he had translated out of Greek into Latine wherein the Acts and decrees of divers Synods that censured and condemned the Arian heresy are recorded Had he thought with my opposites that this jurisdiction of Synods had bene an usurped and unlawfull power he ought not to have given so much approbation of them in alledging their authority for defense of his opinion without some testification against their power Besides what colour of reason hath Mr C. to shew that Hilarius should vary from the judgement of Orthodox Bishops who in that age d Ib. Cent. 4. c. 7. col 519. 528 c. ordinarily used to meet together in Synods for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction For Cyrill in Ioh. 20.21 whom he also brings to prove that the Senate or assembly of Elders ought to be chosen by the people he is in like manner abused and falsely alledged by him For I. Cyrill upon those words of Christ As the Father hath sent me so send I you sayth that Christ in those words ordained the Teachers of the world and Ministers of the divine mysteries c. That therefore Paul is true saying No man takes this honour unto himself c. Heb. 5. c. He shewes how Christ called his Disciples but hath not a word neither touching an assembly of Elders nor of their choosing by the people Such falshood and forgery there is in the Allegations of Mr C. And yet if he had spoken as much as is here pretended it had bene no empeachment unto the authority of Synods as was shewed before II. That this Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria did acknowledge the use of Synods not onely for counsell and admonition but for censure and judgement of causes it appeareth evidently by his practise while in the e Euagr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 4. Synod holden at Ephesus in the time of Theodosius he being a principall member of that Synod did together with others give sentence against Nestorius and deposed him from his office for his obstinacy in refusing to appeare before them and for his heresy whereof he had bene convicted The next witnesse abused by him is Ambrose who is alledged to shew what the Senate or assembly of Elders is to doe viz.
helpe they sent to Ierusalem freely for the help of their counsell in this matter 3. In case of right and lawfull administration 4. In case of no evill administration presumed by those who finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence appeale to the judgement of the Synod In which 3 last limitations other Churches to whose judgement or advice persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeale doe concurr in way of counsail declaratiō of their judgement to helpe particular Churches to exercise their power aright P. 47. P. 239. in their owne matters as was before noated out of Mr Cartwr Mr Fen. out of the Authour himselfe in the foregoing passages which being so understood doeth not justifie any undue power of jurisdiction if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases manner complained of by the Subscribers how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section will appeare to the indifferent Reader whē he shall have compared both together ANSVV. The judgment of Mr P. is very partially corruptly described by Mr D. in this place for whereas Mr P. here describes 4 bridles of restraint or 4 limitations by which the supremacie of power in particular Congregations is to be moderated and kept within bounds lest it should seem to be absolute by every one of these it is manifest that he acknowledged this authority power and jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely for counsell and admonition He sayth (f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301 302. The first limitation is ad rem propriam unto their proper businesse for in a common matter the Synod is chief that is the authority of Churches joyntly gathered together is the chiefest Hence it is confessed that Synods have power of jurisdiction over Churches for 1. In judging these common causes particular Churches though differing one from an other are overswayed by the most voyces and each Congregation is subject to the sentence of the Synod 2. Let any Scripture be alledged by Mr Dav. to shew the summity or soveraignty of Synods in these common causes and he shall finde thereby the use of Synods proved to be for jurisdiction in one Ecclesiasticall cause as well as in another being lawfully brought unto them for what reason is there why the counsell and admonition of a Synod may not suffice for the help of particular Churches in a common controversy as well as in other speciall businesses leaving the sentence and decision unto the prime Churches The second limitation is also in a proper businesse to wit ad casum sufficient is potestatis in the case of sufficient ability for if any Church be found unable to end their owne businesse vvho doubts but that it is bound to require the help of fellow-Churches In this case Mr P. acknowledgeth the superiority or soveraignty of power and authority in Synods but if Synods were onely for counsell admonition what needed a supremacy of power seeing inferiours may give counsell unto their superiours admonish them also of their duety Mr P. shewes well that in case of impotencie or weaknes the Church of Antioch sent to Ierusalem c. Act. 15. But this Mr D. seeks to pervert by his glosse when he saith they sent to Ierusalem for the help of their counsell as though they did not as well desire help by their authority and sentence in determining the controversy If counsell onely had bene sought why did not the Synod at Ierusalem content themselves to give counsell and advise why did they also make a decree and this not onely by authority of the Apostles but also by common authority of Elders and others that were in the Synod Act. 15.23 16.4 The third limitation is in a proper busines and ability also to wit in the case of right and lawfull administration for vve are to think the same of the Church as of every Pastour of the Church now vve have shewed before out of Gerson touching the rectour that he in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration is subject so the Church which in case of right administration is subject to none yet in case of aberration doth now beginne to be subject Even as therefore the Pastour erring and offending is subject to no one of his fellowes as to a Bishop but onely to many of his Church so also the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod Hence it is evident that Mr P. asscribed unto Synods more authority then a bare counsell or admonition onely for 1. He often useth the word of subjection which implyes an authority and jurisdiction in those to whom in regard of their calling men be subject This is passed by as unseen or unregarded in Mr D. his allegation 2. He speakes of being subject so as the Pastour erring and offending is subject to many of the Church that is to their jurisdiction and censure 3. He speakes of such subjection as is distinguished from receyving of counsell and admonition otherwise it should not be true which he sayth of the Pastours and Churches subjection seeing every Pastour erring and offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one of his fellowes and the Church erring offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one particular Church though it be not subject to the jurisdiction of any one in speciall but onely to many in a lawfull Synod The fourth limitation is in case of right administration when no evill administration is presumed or imagined for although the Church administer aright yet if any man thinking himself wronged do appeale from it the same is now become obnoxious or subject unto the censure of her fellowes and sisters so that judgement may be given in a Synod touching her administration That Mr P. here also speakes of subjection unto the jurisdiction of Synods it is evident while for the allowance of appeales he alledges in the same place the testimonies of the Synod of Sardica of the University of Paris and of D. Whitaker who doe all speak of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction for the correction and redresse of unrighteous sentences and proceedings by inferiour judges Againe in the same chapter he sayth (g) Pa. 31◠Christ would have every man to be judged of his owne Church Matt. 18. or if the judgement of his owne Church displease him yet alwayes of the Church that is of a Synod of many Churches Againe in the same page We certainly finde Mat. 18. that causes are to be ended by the Synods of the Churches and not by one man if any doe appeale from the judgement of his Church Thus we see 1. that he makes Mat. 18. a common ground for the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches 2. The very phrase of terminating or ending controversies shewes that
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
prevaile to take away the offence either immediately or mediately for a meanes is so farre good as it makes to the obtaining of his end As though God did not blesse his owne ordinance above our hope and reason above all that we can thinke or as though we were not to use his meanes and leave the successe unto him He that begins a good work and proceeds so farre till he be stopped by others is accepted of God as if he had finished it SECT V. His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined IO. DAV (r) Apol. reply p. 242. Dioc. tryal p. 13. â—â— To him I may adde Mr Paul Baynes a man of singular noate for learning and piety in Cambridge where he succeeded Mr Perkins who freely expresseth his judgment for the right of particular Churches and their independence in this sense in his Diocesans tryall ANSVV. As Mr Baynes was a man of singular note for learning and piety so is his testimony of singular note to shew the right use power of Synods not onely for counsell but for authority to censure and judge Ecclesiasticall causes so that particular Churches may not doe within themselves what they would without their consent 1. After he had set downe 4 conclusions wherein we agree with the opposites he comes to speak of the poynt of difference and sayth (f) Dioces tryall p. 13. That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish-Churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues that Nationall Church of the Iewes and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches This doe I willingly assent unto And this is no other thing then that which is practised in these Reformed Churches with whom we are united Here is no one head-Church that hath more authority then another all Congregations are equall independent each of other here is no subjection to any one Diocesan all are equally and mutually subject to the Synod consisting of many their dependency is not upon one more then another but it is onely in regard of many combined notwithstanding which combination they have their government within themselves being subject to the Synod onely in some more weighty and difficult cases II. As for that other place when some had pleaded from the example of the Reformed Churches as if they had not bene distinct Churches c. Mr Bayes so explaineth their estate and practise as Mr Parker (t) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 348 349. c. more largely had done before that therein he doth not at all prejudice their subjection to Synods for speaking of the 24 Churches at Geneva and of their combination and subjection unto one Presbytery he sayth (v) Dioc. tryal p. 21. They have power of governing themselves but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbyterie Secondly it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein they shall have no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherein themselves are members and judges with others After that againe he addeth Geneva made this consociation not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect and to make one Church by this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion Thus he notes not onely the counsell but the consent of others required And as at Geneva a particular Church proceeded not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in a common Presbytery so in these Low-countries in weightier affaires they proceed not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring in their Classis III. Mr Baynes having shewed how every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body and having Governours every way equall there is yet no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracie especially when God ordaines it is a forme of government sufficient to preserve order hereupon he propounds this objection (x) Dioc. tr p. 68. But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it self And hereunto he answers thus Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled and to the Civill Magistrate who in case of delinquencie hath directive and corrective power over it And thus we have his expresse testimony and confession that Synods have authority not onely to counsell and advise but to censure that particular Churches are subject to the censure of other Churches that consequently there is a double Ecclesiasticall Aristocracie one in particular Churches severally another in many Churches Synodically assembled that if a particular Church erre in matters of faith and religion that it is subject not to the power of the Magistrate alone but both to him and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall jusridiction arising from the combination of many Churches contrary to that assertion in the English Puritanisme chap. 2. IV. Speaking of Presbyters that is of Ministers and Elders and of their government he saith (y) Ibid. p. 67. There is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo but the Scripture doth asscribe it to them power of suffrage in Councell Act. 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to have bene in the Church of Corinth c. While he alledgeth Act. 15. for an evidence of the Presbyters power in Synods or Councels he doth hereby acknowledge that in Synods there is a lawfull exercise of jurisdiction and of the power of the keyes and that therefore they are not onely for counsell and advise To like purpose he saith afterwards againe (z) P. 82. The Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbyterie with them Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had receyved power of the keyes doing it ex officio and others from discretion and duety of confessing the trueth And a little after he there addeth It is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters had right of suffrage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therefore in Oecumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instruction of Bishops receyved from their Churches V. Whereas one errour useth to accompany another and commonly those that deny the authority of Synods doe also in
for counsell both because he allowes a distinction of them in the Synod which had the authority of a determining voyce from them that did onely dispute or consult and because he intimates a judiciall proceeding in the Synods by mentioning parties accused their citing or calling of them the condemning of them which imports a further matter then onely of admonition or counsell Whereas Bellarmine accuseth us that we allow any learned men though Laicks to have a determining voyce let their office be what it will Junius answereth (m) N. 4. These things have none of us sayd or thought as they are here layd downe This is that which we say such are to be taken into the Synod which are furnished with gifts and calling which for gifts are godly honest learned for their calling which are either ordinarily appointed to teach or extraordinarily sent for and brought by just authority Now this necessity of a calling which he so (n) See c. 16. n. 10. 18. 20. c. 17. n. 1. often urgeth and requireth to be in the members of a Synod doth argue a speciall power and authority belonging unto them by vertue whereof they may give sentence in the judgement of causes whereas to admonish or counsell requires no more power then that which every Christian hath in another for his good as Mr D. himself confesseth To the same purpose Junius shewes against Bellarmine that the meaning of Theodosius and Valentinian was not to admit Bishops onely but that (o) Ibid. c 15. n. 13. those onely might heare examine and give sentence in a Synod which being sent from the Churches unto the Synod were reckoned up of the Bishops according to their letters of publick authority which they were wont to exhibit Againe he sayth (p) N. 15. They which are present without the authority of the Church of them some may onely heare as the laicks or common people some may be used in consultations as the learned men especially Ecclesiasticall persons but they may not give definitive sentence And thus still by distinguishing those that gave counsell from those that gave sentence in the Synod it appeares he acknowledged a power of jurisdiction in Synods and that they were not onely for counsell So when Bellarmine sayth it was a fault in the Councell of Basill that Presbyters or other learned men besides Bishops were allowed to have not onely a consulting voyce but a deciding suffrage affirmeth that this was against the custome of all antiquity c. Junius answereth (q) N. 19. This we denye for it was the first institution Act. 15. and not onely the manner and custome Seeing therefore there was such an institution of the Apostles in their assembly what need was there to alledge custome c. When Bellarmine chargeth the Protestants as holding that a Synod is nothing but an inquisition and that Christ alone and his written word hath a determining voyce Junius sayth (r) Ibid. in c. 18. n. ◠It is false for Synods have both an inquisition of that which is true just holy by religious communication and also a ministeriall giving of sentence Though he shew there and in many annotations following that it is not lawfull for Christians to obey them further then they agree with the Scriptures that their sentence of it self is but a persuasion and not a constraint a ministeriall judgement not of absolute authority of itself c. yet he (ſ) N. 3. grants the Lord hath commanded that we should obey the sentence of a lawfull Synod assembled together in his name c. He sayth (t) N. 14. Synods have true judgements so farre as they are of God according to the tables of his trueth and commandement of themselves they are not judgements but declarations publications and ministeriall pronouncings of the trueth and judgements of God And more then this cannot be yeelded to any Ecclesiasticall judicatory whatsoever Herein he fully grants as much jurisdiction to Synods as belongs to any particular Congregation or Eldership either apart or joyntly together When Bellarmine blames the Protestants for their exception against the Councell of Trent Junius answereth (v) Ibid. in c. 21. n. 1. It is the ordinary way of right in every appeale that the judgement of Synods and the exequution of their sentence be suspended and stayed so long untill the matter be againe examined in another more free or greater Assembly c. This answer had bene needles and impertinent unlesse Synods had more power then of counsell and admonition onely He sayth (x) N. 7. Certainly in every just Synod Hereticks being cited heard present or willfully hiding themselves have bene condemned c. When Bellarm. objects that Protestants will have nothing to be determined in Synods and so strifes to be never ended Junius answers (y) N. 23. that he perverts their meaning and referres us to his preface nota 40. where the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods is plainely avouched IUnius proceeding to the examination of his second book touching Synods where Bellarmine repeats that Synods of Bishops may judge all controversies both of faith and manners Junius answereth (z) Animadv in Bell. l. 2. deCōcl c. 1. n. 1. We have granted it of those that are lawfull Synods When Bellarmine had sayd that nothing is greater then a lawfull and approved Generall Councell Junius answereth (a) Ibid. c. 4. n. 2. It is false for Christ is greater and the Scripture is greater seeing Christ and the Scripture are great of themselves the Church is great by them c. But this answer had bene insufficient not direct enough if my opposites opinion were true For then according to their opinion he might more fitly have answered that the authority of a particular Congregation is greater then the authority of a Generall Synod because though the counsell and advise of the Synod was more to be reverenced in respect of many excellently learned and godly men from many Churches that were in it yet seeing Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation therefore the same is greater in the power of censuring and in the use of the keyes for binding and loosing of impenitent sinners seeing Synods have no jurisdiction at all over any other Churches Againe when Bellarmine sets downe this insolent proposition that the Pope cannot commit neither unto a Synod nor to any man the coactive judgement over himself but onely the discretive Iunius answereth (b) Ibid. in c. 18. n. 1. The proposition is most true he cannot commit because God hath committed it to the Synod and lawfull Councell Wherefore we say on the contrary neither can he commit it for if he be the servant of God God hath committed the judgement concerning him unto his Church neither can he reject it but though he be unwilling yet both the Church is bound to judge concerning him and he to undergoe the judgement thereof discretive and coactive howsoever it
observe 1. How little Mr Canne understands what the Authors be whom he alledgeth not knowing whether they were Papists or Protestants placing Saravia in the number of Papists so well is he acquainted with the Authors he alledgeth at second hand such injury he doth to his witnesses So afterward (i) P. 93 98. againe in this same book he wrongeth Saravia by setting him among the Popish Writers and making him of their profession and religion by accusing me to make the same objection and to use the same reason that Papists doe and then giving instance in Saravia for one of them What a blindenes and inconsideratenes is this in Mr Canne 11. He perverts the meaning both of Saravia and Schola Parisiensis for what though they grant that all Ecclesiasticall authority belongeth to the Church primarily c. doth it follow hence that the power of Classicall and Provinciall Synods is an undâ—â— power as W.B. and Mr C. accuse them doth it not rather follow that there is a due power secondarily and by delegation in Synods where the Deputies of the Churches meet together in their name Mr Parker (k) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 29.30 42. from whom he hath both these testimonies doth not so alledge them against the authority of Synods He might have seen these words in the same place cited by Mr Parker out of Saravia whereby authority is asscribed not onely unto the Church but also unto Synods when he is (l) Ibid. p. 42. brought in saying Bishops Arch-bishops have no authority but what is conferred and bestowed upon them by the Church and Synods III. He perverts the meaning of Schola Parisiensis which speakes not of particular Congregations but of the Universall Church and specially as it is represented in a Generall Councell This is plaine and evident throughout that whole writing IV. He doth deale deceitfully in his translation of that testimony of Schol. Paris for the Doctours of Sorbon doe there say that all Ecclesiasticall authority doth belong to the Church primarily properly essentially but unto the Romane Pope and other Bishops instrumentally ministerially and for execution onely c. instead of the Romane Pope and other Bishops he puts in the word Officers onely to blinde the eyes of the Readers who if those words had not bene left out might easily have seene that they spake of such transcendent and usurped authority as is exercised by the Pope and his Bishops c. Hence it may appeare what is to be judged of that which he inferres from this testimony to make it serve his purpose in oppugning of Synods As for Alphonsus de Castro and Franciscus Victoria 1. It is an errour to approve their testimony there (m) Ch. pl. p. 78.79 alledged viz. that all Bishops doe receive jurisdiction and power immediately from God for then should they all have an extraordinary calling such as the Apostles had Gal. 1.1 15 16. whereas all ordinary Ministers have their jurisdiction not immediately from God but mediately by men and from the Church How erroneously doe W.B. and Mr C. put light for darknes and darknes for light when they avouch that thus God ordered these mens tongues to give witnesse unto his trueth 11. All the shew of help which they pretend to have from this testimony is grounded upon that groundlesse consequence whereby they inferre that Classes Synods have no authority over particular Congregations because all Churches Elderships and Officers are equall This their assertion remaines yet to be proved which we doe expressely deny as I have (n) P. 159. shewed in my answer unto his first Reason The testimonies of the three next Popish Authors viz. Cusanus de concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11 c. Sanders de visib Mon. l. 1. c. 6. Scultingius Hierarch Anarch l. 4. pag. 103. are all of them before alledged by (o) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 1. p. 2. c. 3. p. 11. Mr Parker from whence it seemes Mr Canne hath taken them but without judgement not applying them aright for 1. When they affirme that Christs promise of giving the keyes unto Peter must be referred unto the whole Church as also that Peter in person presented the body of the Church though these speeches shew the power of binding and loosing to be in the Church yet can it not hence be inferred that a particular Congregation ought not to be subject unto the censure of Classes and Synods or to stand under the authority of any Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of itself when that Congregation is complained of for errour or wrong doing It is a perverting of these speeches and a false consequence which is drawne from hence that because a Congregation hath power to judge the members thereof therefore no other have power to judge of it 11. When Mr Canne inferreth hence that the power of electing Ministers is not in Classes or Synods he beates the ayre erres from the Question When did I ever affirme any such matter or when did the Classis ever offer to obtrude a Minister upon us III. These testimonies touching the Keyes given unto the Church shew what power is in the Church originally and primarily but yet they doe not import that the execution and exercise of this power is in the whole Church Preaching and administration of the Sacraments are a part of that Ecclesiasticall authority comprehended in the power of the Keyes and yet the exercise thereof is not permitted to the whole Church by the confession of the Brownists themselves For his next witnesse having alledged the words of Ferus upon Act. 11. that the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also depose them and reject them altogether if they be not fit c. he insulteth hereupon and gloryeth saying What can be more for us then this I answer This might have bene more for you if he had sayd that when a Congregation hath deposed their Minister there is no other Ecclesiasticall judicatory that may judge whether they have done well or ill This had bene to the purpose then had he absolutely granted you the thing which the Brownists stand for but this he doth not When Mr Canne was deposed from his ministery by them of the Separation and when they rejected him altogether and left both his ministery and the fellowship of all that took part with him was it not his their misery that there was none to judge betwixt theÌ„ When he alledgeth the names of Gratian Gregorie P. Aeneas Sylvius Pope Anacletus Sixtus Senensis Thomas of Aquine Alexander of Ales Iohn Scot c. some of them affirming that the greatest authority is in the Church that the keyes were given to all the Apostles others that all Bishops are equall in power and the like these and the like speeches being alledged to prove the undue power of Classes and Synods they are all perverted neither can the question in controversy be ever concluded from hence against us
It is a most false consequence to inferre that because all Bishops are equall in power therefore Synods have no power to judge and as false it is to inferre that because the Keyes were given to all the Apostles therefore there is no Ecclesiasticall power to judge the actions of a particular Congregation In summe Mr Canne doth most ignorantly and grosly abuse all these Papists against their words their writings and their continuall profession and practise For though there be this maine difference betwixt the Papists that some of them doe asscribe the greatest authority unto the Church that is unto a Generall Synod or Councell maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope power to depose the Pope others of thē asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope rather then unto the Church or a Generall Councell representing the same yet doe they all agree in this that there is a superiour power above particular Congregations to judge the same The University of Paris and the Doctours of Sorbon have in speciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the Pope they (p) De Eccl. Polit. Pot. pag. 1. c. edit 1612. Paris bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same They alledge the sentence of Pope (q) Ibid. p. 16. Zozimus confessing himself to be inferiour unto the Councell They avouch that (r) Ibid. p. 19. the frequent edebrating of Synods is simply and absolutely necessary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church Whereas a certaine Frier Ioannes Sarrazin had by word and writing under his hand preferred the authority of the Pope above the Synods they (ſ) Ibid. p. 46-56 record at large and publish in print a most solemne decree made by the Theologicall faculty of that University whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion and a forme of recantation was prescribed according to which he confessed his fault acknowledged the power of Synods above the Pope The (t) Acts Monum p. 546 547. An. D. 1414. c. Councell of Constance did not onely exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in condemning of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage but also decreeing the authority of Synods and Councells to be above the Pope did actually depose divers Popes as Iohn the 23th and Benedict who was likewise excommunicate by them even as the Councell held at (v) An. D. 1083. Act. Mon. p. 164. Brixia had in former time by their sentence condemned Pope Hildebrand and judged him to be deposed So in like manner did the Clouncell held at (x) Ibid. p. 632.634 Bafile depose Pope Eugenius put another in his place By all which it is evident what the Papists then judged of the authority and power of Synods As all these so the other faction of Papists and the Iesuites in speciall that maintaine the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods Councells whatsoever that their decrees are not of force unlesse they be approved by the Pope these doe evidently teach that the affaires and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superiour judicatories out of themselves This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings where he shewes (y) Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 9 10 11. l. 2. c. 2. c. the causes the necessity and the authority of Generall and Provinciall Synods the (z) Tom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7 8 9 10. 14. c. power of elections and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter The same is maintayned by him in his (a) Tom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14 l. 2. c. 1 c. treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies plenary or for a certaine number of dayes for the living or for the dead And the like is to be found in (b) Tom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 c. Tom 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1 2 3 c. sundry other of his writings And to these might be added more then an hundred of other witnesses of the Romish Church acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes controversies of particular Churches Instead of many other the Councell of Trent called by (c) Concil Trid. Bul. Indict p. 8. Pope Paulus the third continued by (d) Bul. Resumpr p. 66.67 Pope Iulius the third and confirmed by (e) Bul. Confirm p. 243 c. Pope Pius the fourth together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in severall Sessions of that Councell doe give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts. Onely to conclude this Section let it be remembred how of old in our owne countrie the like testimony hath bene given to shew the authority of Synods We read (f) Act. Mon. p. 112. col 2. art 7. of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provinciall Synods should be kept within the Realme at least once a yeare Another Synod (g) Ibid. p. 155. was held at Winchester Anno D. 1070. where Stigandus Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed for receyving his pall from Benedict the fift And another (h) P. 157. was after held at London where many decrees were made in the time of Lanfranck the Archbishop c. This being the continuall and universall practise of the Papists what sense was there in Mr Canne to alledge their testimonies in such a poynt wherein they are so full and pregnant against him It is the fault of Papists that they give too much authority unto Synods and it is as grosse a fault of these my opposites to pervert their testimonies contrary to their meaning practise further then their words will beare SECT II. Touching the Testimonies of Lutheranes IN their first allegation taken from Lutheranes they say It is affirmed by the Centuries of Meydenburg that from Christs ascension unto Trajans time which is about a 100 yeares every particular Church was governed by the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the same Cent. 1. c. 4. To this I answer This allegation comes short of the question in hand and is therefore insufficient and perverted to prove that the Churches then did not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority for it is not affirmed by them of Meydenburgh in their Centuries that the Churches were governed by them alone or that there were no Synods in those times to judge of the actions of Bishops Elders and Deacons in cases of controversy which could not be well ended in particular Churches but the contrary is expressely taught by the same (i) Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. de
spread abroad by the authority of Constantine and of that Synod and many confirmed in the profession thereof thereby they were sealed in their foreheads the name both of the Lamb and of the Father was imprinted on their foreheads according to that in Rev. 14.1 In the exposition of that mysticall Song of Solomon where there is mention made of a fountaine of gardens a well of living waters and streames from Lebanon this Mr Brightman doth also (t) Cōment in Cantic c. 4. V. 15. p. 75.76 interpret and particularly apply unto the Synod of Nice The decrees of that Synod are by him avouched to be the living waters to refresh and make fruitfull the gardens of God which are the Churches of Christ And while he alledgeth such divine warrant to prove the fruit and benefit of Synods how injurious is Mr Canne unto him in perverting his testimony yea how injurious to the Church of God in drying up these fountaines of comfort by his impugning the authority of Synods Besides this to omit other the like testimonies of Mr Brightman touching Synods even in that (v) OnRev 12.1 very place mentioned by Mr Canne touching the purity of the primitive Church Mr Brightm maketh mention of Paulus Samosatenus the Synodicall Epistle concerning him and so leadeth us to that story which shewes the power of Synods in that primitive age For there we read that about the yeare of Christ 280 there was a (x) Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 26 27.28 29. edit Basil 1611. Synod held at Antioch where many Bishops and others met together from many Churches and out of divers Provinces who did not onely give counsell about the controversy but gave sentence against Paulus Samosatenus and by common consent rejected and excommunicated him Aurelianus the Emperour using his authority to represse the insolency of that person when he would have resisted the Synod The same story is recorded also by the (y) Cent. 3. c. 9. col 206.207 Magdeburgenses in their Centuries shewing that divers Synods were held at Antioch about that busines before it could be finished Whereas they doe here in their marginall note send me to see what Mr Iacob saith Necess of Reform p. 57. c. I have long since seene what he writes both in that place and in other of his treatises published of later time and though he went too farre in this businesse yet I finde that he disallowes the practise judgment of the Brownists and wonders at their blindenes and bewailes it For speaking of Morellius and the popular government which he strove for he sayth (z) Attestat c. 8. p. 249. Some of the Separation I grant are too offensive this way which I am heartily sory for They take the wordes in Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church more popularly then there is need or then reason or good order would Howbeit in this yet they hold the substance of the true Church-government They erre but in the circumstance of order though it be too (a) Beza Annot. in Mat. 18.17 foule That is they will examine all scandalls c. whatsoever in the presence and under the judgement of the whole multitude perpetually and necessarily I say perpetually and necessarily Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents which will and must ensue many times And afterwards againe in the same (b) P. 280 281. chapter he saith But to hold those popular circumstances in every Church perpetuall and necessary absolutely as the Separation doth it was neither Cyprians meaning nor Christs nor any well advised Christians Yea upon this his testimony touching the disorder of the Brownists he sets this note and mark of his vehement dislike in the margine of that page Separation itself is no such error as this is And this ought seriously to be considered of Mr Canne and his client In the next place (c) Ch. pl. p. 81. he brings divers allegations of Scriptures and other Authors to prove that we may not change the Apostolick Government nor leave their institutions c. In all which he beates the ayre and trifles leaving the question that is betwixt us as I have noted (d) P. 145. c. before seeing they prove not that the authority of Synods is against the Apostolick institution Come we therefore unto his testimonies of Lutheranes of such as he confusedly mingles with them viz. of Zuinglius Luther Chemnitius Melancthon Sarcerius Brentius D. Rungius Hunnius Osiander Salneccer Pelargus D. Mylius Hegendorphin c. These all are notably perverted by him for to answer first in generall What though these teach that the power of excommunication of calling Ministers c. is in the whole Church doth it therefore follow that Synods may not judge the actions of a whole Congregation if they abuse their power If Congregations call a Minister though never so vile or so unworthy or if they would excommunicate an innocent person shall there be no liberty of appeale unto a superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory for the redresse of such wrongs Or doe any of his Lutherane witnesses condemne such an appeale This he ought to have concluded from their Testimonies by some just consequence if he would have spoken to the purpose The insultation of Mr C. and W. B. upon these testimonies is most vaine containeth many falshoods It is false that my opinion is a new opinion as they call it It is false that these Lutheranes are contrary unto me It is false that upon my grounds Officers how vile soever must be left alone if Ministers of other Churches judge them fit to continue It is grossely false that the power which I leave unto particular Churches is just nothing It is an open and foule falshood that these many Authors alledged doe consent fully with them viz. with Mr Canne and W. Best But this will more plainly appeare if we take a particular survey of the chief of those witnesses here produced whose testimonies he vouchsafeth to set downe The first of these is Zuinglius who though he was no Lutherane as Mr Canne notes in his margine who had promised to set downe his allegations taken from Lutheranes next after the Papists yet here he is brought in with Luther And as he is misplaced in respect of the order which Mr C. propounded to himself so his testimonies both touching excommunication and calling of Ministers are unjustly alledged against us In the first sort of testimonies touching excommunication not to speake of Mr Cannes altering and transposing his Authors words to make them serve his owne purpose Zuinglius reprooves the abuses and enormities of the Pope and his Bishops undertaking by their sole authority to excommunicate those that were none of their Church His words are these (e) Art 31. No private man may excommunicate but the Church wherein he that is to be excommunicated doth dwell together with the Bishop And in the explication of that Article having spoken of other
be pronounced by them (n) Sleid. Comment lib. 1. he appealed from the Pope to a Councell or Synod The compleat forme of his Appeale is recorded (o) Tom. 1. f. 231. edit 1545. among his workes wherein he doth plainly acknowledge the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods both by the whole drift and substance thereof and when he saith that a sacred Councell being lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost representing the holy Catholick Church is in causes concerning the faith above the Pope c. This his Appeale was repeated and further urged in the yeare 1520 when the Pope had condemned and excommunicated him Among other reasons which he useth to reenforce his Appeale he alledgeth this (p) Tom. 2. f. 52. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 2. that the Pope most wickedly preferred his owne tyranny above the power of the Councell c. and therefore he beseecheth the Emperour and other Magistrates that for the glory of God and for the maintaining of the liberty of a Councell they would admit of his Appeale and represse the others tyranny c. In the yeare 1539 he wrote a booke in the German tongue de Conciliis concerning Councels or Synods where though he inveigh severely and not without cause against the Pope for his frustrating the desires of those that sought a Generall Councell admitting of none but where he might sway all by his owne authority and command yet he doth fully approve of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had bene formerly exercised in Synods Councells lawfully assembled and rightly ordered A Councell saith (q) Oper. German Tom. 7. f. 260. edit 1562. he is nothing els but a Consistory a Court of justice an Imperiall Chamber or the like where the Iudge having heard the parties pronounceth sentence but with this condition that it be according to Law c. Thus a Councell condemnes an Heretick not according to their owne opinion but according to the Royall law that is according to the holy Scripture as they professe which is the Law of the holy Church Speaking of the right and power of Councells having shewed (r) Ibid. f. 257. c. Sleid. CoÌ„m l. 12. that it is not lawfull for them to make new Articles of faith to command any new work to binde mens consciences to new ceremonies nor to intermeddle with Civill government he declareth withall that it is their duety to condemne new doctrines contrary to the Scriptures and to censure the persons to remove and condemne new ceremonies that are superstitious or unprofitable for the Church and to examine and judge of those things that are controverted as it is prescribed in the word of God Moreover demanding what the office or work of a Councell is he answeâ—s (Å¿) Ubi supra f. 260. Anathematisamus we pronounce Anathema so is their office called Anathematisat Ecclesia the holy Church condemnes or excommunicates So farre was Luther from denying the authority of Synods that he allowes them the power of pronouncing this heavie sentence of Anathema or Excommunication To proceed unto his other witnesses there is nothing in the words alledged out of Chemnitius and Polycarpus Lyserus who is the Authour of that part of the Harmony quoted under the name of Chemnitius that by any just consequence can be opposed unto our doctrine and practise touching election excommunication examination of sentences c. Onely observe how Mr Canne here abuseth his Authour and his Readers by his imperfect allegation setting downe this testimony of Chemnitius in such manner as if that which was sayd with an expresse condition had bene uttered simply and absolutely without any such restraint Chemnitius sayth indeed that election or calling doth belong unto the whole Church but how that Mr Canne leaves out as unfit for his purpose which his Authour addes immediately in the same period saying that it belongs unto the whole Church certo quodam modo in such wise that both the Presbytery and the people have each their owne share in the choyse or calling Chemnitius in that (t) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram Ord. Can. 7. learned discourse touching the calling of Ministers intends principally to prove against the Councell of Trent that the consent of the people and of the Christian Magistrate is requisite in elections but withall he gives as full and plaine testimony for the judgement examination and approbation of the Presbytery under which he comprehends the Ministers of other Congregations called Bishops and Clerkes in the places alledged by him And this kinde of election he shewes to be agreeable unto the practise of the Apostolick primitive ancient and their owne moderne Churches Besides Chemnitius doth sufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods which is our maine question in divers pregnant passages of that book which he wrote against the Councell of Trent He (v) Exam. Conc. Trid par 1. praef alledgeth commendeth the words of Augustine saying that most wholesome is the authority of Councels in the Church while they judge according to the rule and square of the holy Scripture c. He saith (x) Ibid. Exam. Decret 1. 2. that many have often wished and long waited for a true lawfull free and Christian Councell as the right medicine for the curing of those manifold errours and abuses that were crept into the Church He doth frequently alledge and approve the acts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in former Synods throughout that whole booke He saith indeed in one of the places cited by Mr Canne (y) Ibid. praef that the decrees of Councells are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture but this doth no more empaire that authority of Synods which we asscribe unto them then it doth the power of all Church-acts and sentences whatsoever concerning which Chemnitius (z) Exam. par 1. de bon op qu. 2. sayth the same thing and Mr Canne cannot deny but that they are to be examined and tryed by the word of God though they be made in such manner as he himself (a) Ch. pl. p. 95. requireth There is another allegation of Chemnitius touching the distinction betwixt power and the administration of it which Mr Canne hath taken at all adventures as it seemes from Mr Parker or rather from the Scribe or Printer that caused that quotation Exam. c. 6. to stand so defectively (b) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 26. in his booke and as he is thus briefe and obscure in the quotation so he is as sparing in the application of this testimony unto his purpose bidding us onely observe what is attributed to the Congregation what to the guides thereof to the first power to the latter the administration of it For the thing it self we grant that there is such a distinction alledged out of Luther and explained by Chemnitius teaching (c) Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Sacram in geÌ„ Can. 10. that Christ hath delivered and commended the Keyes that is the
superiour power above one particular Church and that they may judge of the affaires thereof and of the persons therein either Ministers or people This he declares at large in a peculiar treatise touching yearely Synods (f) DeSyno Annuis Opusc Theol. p. 768-870 Bas 1570. wherein after he had shewed the necessity and use of Synods by many divine and humane testimonies he then describes their power not for counsell onely as the Brownists and my opposites doe but for the exercise of all kinde of Ecclesiasticall censures as Rebukes of offenders Suspension Excommunication and Deposition or deportment of Officers from their ministery Of all the men of the Iurie before mentioned there is none that gives a more full and cleare verdict against Mr Canne then this Hyperius doth Oecolompadius another of his Authors hath declared his judgement touching Synods and the authority exercised in them to be such as argues his thstimony alledged by Mr Canne to be perverted while it is produced against the same For in his answer to Luther inserted among the workes of Zuinglius (t) Tom. 2. fol. 491. he doth highly commend the Councell of Nice and specially for decreeing that none should afterwards attempt to adde any new articles unto that Confessiō of faith which they had set downe Which Nestorius being found guilty of Oecolompadius approves of that Act of the Councell of Ephesus whereby he was excommunicated saying For which cause being condemned of the crime of heresie he was by common consent shut out of the Church which was sensible of peace restored unto her by this meanes Hereby it appeareth that the acknowledged Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō censure to be a power due unto Synods and that which may lawfully be exercised by them Beza next alledged upon 2. Thes 3.14 though he there call Excommunication an Ecclesiasticall judgement yet doth he not thereby infringe the authority of Classes and Synods neither can any such thing by any just consequence be gathered from his Annotations on that place But on the other side he shewes (v) Epist 83. De Ministr gradib c. 23 p. 155. c. 24. p. 176. 177. elswhere that Synods have their Ecclesiasticall judgements grounded upon the word of God and a profitable use in the Church of God and that the fanaticall opinion of Morellius much like unto the Brownists hath bene worthily condemned in many Synods And according to his writing so was his practise both at Geneva where he was one of them that had their voyce in the government of that Church by a joynt Presbytery or Classis and in France where he himself was President of that famous (x) Harmo Confes p. 112. edit 1612. Synod at Rochell where the Confession of their faith was subscribed by divers Princes and many Ministers and Elders assembled together And therefore if Mr Canne and W. Best their accusation of me were sound and just they might as well complaine of Beza for bringing the Churches of God into miserable slavery and bondage by his tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine Bucer last alledged accordes with the foregoing Authors and his words in commendation of Synods may serve to close up this kinde of Testimonies being an advise unto King Edward the Sixt for the constant celebrating of them In his Admonition given to the King for the restitution of the Kingdome of Christ in his dominions amidst other wholesome counsels out of the word of God he saith (y) De Regno Christi Lib. 2. c. 12. It shall be the duety of the Bishops of each Province to celebrate two Synods every yeare as it is ordained by so many Canons and Lawes of godly Emperours At which Synods must be assembled and heard not onely the Bishops of the Cities but also inferiour Bishops and other Presbyters and Deacons that are endued with a larger measure of knowledge and zeale for the kingdome of Christ that so the more effectually both the faults crept into the Church may becorrected and the pietie of all repaired He had also spoken before of other inferiour and more frequent assemblies like unto our Classes requiring that all the Ministers within the compasse of about 20 Parishes should often meet together for their mutuall assistance in removing offences advancing the kingdome of Christ Touching Synods he speakes also in (z) De vi usu S. Min. tit de Disci Cler. Opuse f. 582. another place to the same purpose approving the ancient constitution whereby it was ordained that the Bishops of every Province should assemble together with the Presbyters and Deacons as often as the need of the Churches should require but without faile twise in the yeare that they might inquire concerning the doctrine and discipline of Christ how it were administred and did flourish in severall Churches that where any default was discovered they might correct it and where they found things in good state they might confirme and promote the same By that correction spoken of here and in the former testimonie he understands not onely counsell and admonition but the judiciall exercise of authority in Ecclesiasticall censures For he doth plainly distinguish betwixt admonition and correction when in the following words concerning Metropolitanes he saith If any thing were done amisse by the Ministers of the Churches or by the common people which by their admonitions they could not amend that then for the correcting of it they should call a Synod of Bishops for there was no power of judgement allowed unto them which by their owne authority they might exercise in the Churches c. Thus Bucerus also as well as the former hath condemned Mr Cannes position viz. that particular Congregations must not stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves And these are all the Authors here alledged by Mr Canne except onely Morell Praedirius and Munster either not seen at all nor to be procured for the present as the two former or not seen to touch this controversie in the writings at hand as the latter Having now heard what these chosen men of the Iurie all nominated by W. B. his Advocate have testifyed concerning Classes or Synods let the Reader judge whether they have given verdict for or against Synods whether every one of these Authors alledged had not just cause if they were living to complaine of great abuse done to them in perverting their testimonies and making false consequences from their words contrary to their meaning And forasmuch as all these witnesses here examined are so farre from testifying ought against us that they have on the other side witnessed the trueth of that which we maintained against Mr Canne hence it is evident that I had just cause to say that which he would seeme to disprove by alledging these Authors against me viz. that there were a multitude of learned and godly Ministers of the same judgement and practise with me For further proofe whereof it were easy if need were to produce another Iurie of approved
inferreth from hence this common law that other members of the Church which have no Ecclesiasticall office are to be subject to this government and ought to advance the same according to their power c. it is thereby evident that he could not like the course of W. B. or any such other schisming from the Church for this cause and complayning that they were not a free people if they were subject to Classes and Synods Mr Udall in the Demonstration of Discipline pag. 24 25. in that edition thereof which I have hath no such matter as is alledged before out of that treatise of English Puritanisme against the authority of Classes and Synods neither is it to be found in any part of that Demonstration that Christ hath not subjected any Congregation unto any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then unto that which is within itself c. And therefore it is untruely affirmed of Mr Canne that there is nothing there sayd but Mr Vdall with others above mentioned hath sayd the like On the contrary in that writing asscribed to Mr Vdall there be sundry testimonies shewing the authority of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations As it was (m) P. 204. before noted out of D. Fulke that there is a double authority of the Pastour one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour the other with the whole Synod or Assemblie whereof he is a member and both these authorities sufficiently authorized in the Scriptures so saith Mr Vdall to like purpose (n) Demōst of Discip c. 1. The word of God hath described sufficient ministers ministeries for doctrine exhortation overseeing distributing and ordering of every particular Church or generall Synod And againe he saith of Bishops or Pastours that (o) Ib. c. 10 they are of equall authority in their severall charges and in the generall government of the Church And in the same chapter he alledgeth the decrees of divers * 2. Concil Carth. tom 1. c. 10. 3 Conc. tom 1. cap. ◠Councels shewing how the causes of one Church or Congregation were judged by many Bishops of other Congregations meeting together In speciall when some (p) Demōst of Disc c. 14 objected that there would be so many Elderships so many divers fashions seeing one may not meddle with another Hereunto he answers The Government desired is uniforme for every Church and admitteth no change no not in outward ceremonies without a Synod of the choyce men of severall Elderships Hereby he plainely declares his meaning what he judged concerning the power of Synods for alterations to be made in particular Churches The Agreement of the English Church at Franckford in Queene Maries dayes is also alledged as a proofe of the Non-conformists dissenting from me whereunto I answer I. Those three Articles of their Discipline objected the one that the Ministers and Seniours severally and joyntly shall have no authority to make any manner of Decrees or Ordinances to binde the Congregation or any member thereof But shall execute such ordinances as shall be made by the Congregation and to them delivered Another that none shall be excommunicated untill the matter be first heard by the whole Church And further that Ministers and Seniours and every of them be subject to Ecclesiasticall discipline as other priváe members of the Church be these doe not at all concerne the question betwixt us For these things being granted it doth not follow that then the authority of Synods is overthrowne that they may not judge of any ordinances made in such a Congregation or that such a Church where these Articles are agreed upon hath thereby denyed and condemned such a Classicall government as we submit ourselves unto II. These Articles of their Discipline are not rightly and plainly but darkly and confusedly cited In the quotation of the first the page 115. is put for pag. 125. The two next are alledged without any quotation at all either of page or number of Article specifyed in the booke and both are joined together as if they were but one Article And in the second Article there is omitted that disjunction which affords an exception touching the strict observation thereof For whereas Mr Canne alledgeth it simply thus None shall be excommunicated untill the matter be heard by the whole Church the (q) Disc of troubl at Frankf p. 129. booke itself admitteth the liberty of a different practise by adding this clause or by such as it shall specially appoynt thereunto This falsification is so much the greater in that Mr Horne objecting against this Article and arguing that thereby (r) P. 163 164. the authority of the Pastour and Seniors is all wiped away for every thing is referred to the confused multitude of the Congregation Mr Whithead in the same booke answereth him on this manner Where he saith all things is referred to the confused multitude it is manifestly false For it is alwayes added by such as the Congregation shall appoint thereto as it is also in the 54 Article added in plaine words Let the Reader observe this deceitfull allegation both against the expresse words of the Article against the plaine explicatiō thereof by Mr Whit. in the name of that English Church at Frankford Whereas Mr Canne (ſ) Chu pl. p. 36. objecteth further from Art 26. 67. that in some cases the forenamed English Church agreed that appeales should be made unto the body of the Congregation I answer that in such cases as are there specifyed If the Ministers and Seniours which have authority to heare determine c. as it is elswhere specifyed though not in this Article be suspected or found to be parties that then they had reason to appeale rather to the body of the Congregation then that parties should be suffered to be judges in their owne cause And no marvell considering what I have noted (t) P. 121-125 before touching the state of that Church where the Reader may see a further answer unto these objections But then he askes me what I say to this and hopes I will not say that they were Brownists I answer His hope is right in this poynt I may not say they were Brownists nor their practise the same with the Brownists 1. Because they made this agreement through necessity when they wanted a Classis whereas the Brownists wilfully oppugne and refuse Classicall combinations 2. Because the Brownists deny authority of judgement unto Ministers and Elders in such cases where they are no parties which this (v) Art 59.63 Church at Frankford did not 3. Because the English Church at Frankford did not teach the doctrine of Separation as the Brownists doe but when they could not obtaine the reformation desired did (x) Disc of troub Frākford p. 187-191 still hold one another brethren in the Lord though greeved for the defects among them But it is wonder that Mr Canne is not ashamed to alledge the example of this English Church
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
the Church or whether the Officers being chosen with the publick knowledge and free consent of the Church have not by vertue of their calling power to heare judge matters to rebuke and censure offenders without the advise of the multitude yet so that in matters of greater importance more publick concernmēt as admissions excommunications absolutions of members elections depositions of Officers c. the case be made knowne unto determined with the free consent of the people according to the practise above-written The former of these is denyed the latter affirmed maintained in the ensuing discourse CHAP. II. Arguments to prove the power of the Eldership injudging ending some cause vvithout the knovvledge of the Congregation 1. THe titles given by the holy Ghost to Ecclesiasticall Offices Officers are such as import a power of judging causes being such titles as doe expresse declare the power of judgement which was in the Rulers of Israel both Civill Ecclesiasticall as for example 1. A Guide or Leader 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the title given to Ecclesiasticall Officers Heb. 13.7 17 24. is the same that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament agreeable to the Originall is given to Civill Rulers Iosh 13.21 Deut. 1.13 Mica 3.9 11.2 Chro. 5.1 Ezek. 44.3 45.7 Dan. 3.2 as also in the New Testament Act. 7.10 Besides it is the same with another word so often given unto Civill Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 2.6 27.2 Act. 23.24 26 33. 1. Pet. 2.14 c. And so is this word also used by other humane writers abundantly 2. A Bishop or Overseer the title given by the H. Ghost unto Ecclesiasticall Officers to describe their authority power Act. 20.28 Phil. 1.1 1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.7 is the same word that is given to expresse the power of Civill Magistrates in the Greek translation of the Old Testament Num. 31.14 Iudg. 9.28 2. Kin. 11.15 and very often in other Writers 3. An Elder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nafi the title which the Scripture useth to denote shew the office of Ecclesiasticall Elders Act. 14.23 15.2 4. 20.17 1. Tim. 5.17 Tit. 1.5 1. Pet. 5.1 is the same word which is likewise given to Civill Rulers Elders in the gate Iudg. 8.14 Ruth 4.2 3. c. 2. Sam. 5.3 1. Chron. 11.3 4. A Prince or Ruler being the title of Civill Governours in the Common-wealth to signify their authority Num. 7.2 Gen. 25.16 34.2 Levit. 4.22 Rom. 13.3 1. Cor. 2.6 is also given to Ecclesiasticall Rulers to note their office and authority as Act. 23.5 with Exod. 22.28 Mat. 9.18 Luk. 8.41 Ioh. 3.1 Num. 3.24 30 32 35. And hereby it may appeare how untrue it is which Mr Robinson writes concerning the difference betwixt Civill Officers Church-governours when having mentioned some of the titles given to Magistrates he saith (a) Justifie of Sep. p. 135. Ecclesiasticall Officers are not capable of these the like titles which can neither be given without flattery unto them nor received by them without arrogancy And yet the very first of the titles wherein he gives instance is that title which here I shew to be given to Ecclesiasticall Rulers as well as to Civill 5. The title of Heads Rosch wherein Mr Robinson (b) Justific ibid. instanceth in the second place that it may not be given to Ecclesiasticall Officers is yet if we will regard what the Scripture affirmeth given to them as well as to Civill Rulers As it is given to Magistrates in Deut. 1.15 the place alledged by Mr Robinson so is it also given to Ministers in 1. Chron. 15.12 23.24 24.4 26.10 12. 2. Chron. 19.11 Ezra 8.1 17. Nehem. 12.12 22 23 24. 6. The title of Governours or Governments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greekes are (c) Steph. Thes ling. Gr. noted to use to expresse the power of Civill Magistrates thereby by a Metaphor from pilots out of Xenophon Aristotle Plato Cicero c. is the same that the holy Ghost also useth to signify unto us thereby the authority of Church-governours in guiding the ship of Christs Church 1. Cor. 12.28 7. The title of Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which H. Stephanus (d) The saur l. Gr. shewes to be used by Thucydides Demosthenes Herodotus Plato Plutarch others for the Rulers of Cities of Armies Kingdomes is that same which the Scripture useth to describe unto us those Officers that beare rule in the Church which is the City of the living God and his spirituall Kingdome Rom. 12.8 1. Thes 5.12 1. Tim. 5.17 8 The title of (e) Elohim Gods which is so often used to expresse the dignity and authority of Civill Governours Psal 82.1 Exo. 21.6 22.8 1. Sam. 2.25 c. is also given to Ecclesiasticall Officers to declare signify the authority that they have Though Mr Robinson (f) Justif of Sep. p. 135. denyes this title also unto them yet if we diligently weigh what the Scripture saith we may well discerne that this title is also given to Church-governours Ministers for 1. The description of those persons to whom this title is given is that they are such to vvhom the vvord of God comes such as the Father hath sanctifyed sent Joh. 10.35 36. and therefore according to the exposition of our Saviour seeing the word of God is come unto Ecclesiasticall Ministers Rulers giving them thereby a commission to administer in his name seeing such are sanctifyed sent of God we may hereby see how this title belongs unto them 2. By the exposition application of the Apostle those who in Moses are called Gods Rulers Exod. 22.28 are shewed to be Ecclesiasticall Rulers Act. 23.5 And howsoever some differ about this title yet are there of the learnedest that doe (g) Iun. Trem. Annot on Ex. 22.28 Iun. anal expl Ex. 22 28. Ioan. Rainol Cens lib. Apocr tom 1. prael 6. so interpret these places viz. of such as have either Civill or Ecclesiasticall administration committed unto them And if we come unto those Authors that are so much honoured by you they will also confirme the same The (h) Onkelos Targum on Exo. 4.16 7.1 Chaldee Paraphrast upon those places where this title of God is given to Moses translateth it Rab a Master or Doctour which is such a word as is given unto Ecclesiasticall Ministers Others (i) Aben Ezra com on Exo. 22.28 of the learnedest Iew-doctours doe expound that title of the Priests Levites so apply it to Church-governours Another (k) Baal hatturim on Exo. 22.28 Cabalist often alledged in your Annotations doth shew these Gods mentioned in Exo. 22. to be all kinde of Rulers over the people by his Gematria because the numerall letters of the words Elohim venasi yeeld the same number with these hu dajan vecol shehu signifying Iudges of
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
as concerned in common the state of their Church So did the Apostles and Apostolike men provide against schismes and heresies Their wisedome reached not unto the policie of one chiefe judge Thus D. Rainolds doth many wayes acknowledge the authority of Synods he calleth that power which they have the chieftie of judgement he avoucheth that they have it by divine right that the wisedome of God hath committed it unto them he pleadeth from the forenamed warrant Act. 15. he extendeth this power unto matters both of Doctrine and Discipline the testimonies which in his margine he alledgeth out of the Ecclesiasticall history to shew that the like assemblies were kept in succeeding times are such as speak of their excommunicating wicked Hereticks viz. Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. c. l. 7. c. 26 28. c. whereby it appeares that he allowed unto Synods not onely counsell or admonition but a power of exercising Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction censure Those Councels mentioned and poynted at by him for instances of this chieftie of judgement were such as did not onely admonish but also determine and judge of causes The Synod of (h) Barthol Carranza Summa Concil p. â—3 c. Ancyra in Galatia made most severe Ecclesiasticall lawes for the excluding of such as did fall in time of persecution The Synod of (i) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 3. col 111. c. 6. col 463 Gangris in Paphlagonia exercised Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in deposing Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia for his errours and the like might be noted for the rest Whatsoever particular errours were in any of these yet the authority and jurisdiction it self is approved of him as proceeding from the wisedome of God declared in this place Act. 15. D. Whitaker in his disputation against Bellarmine touching Councels layes downe this Text Act. 15.6 for a ground of that which he takes occasion to intreat of and (k) De Concil Qu. 1. c. 1. p 1 3 4 c. often repeats that text applying it to each of the questions which he discusseth And whereas our Opposites doe grant a lawfull use of Synods for counsell but not to judge nor to give judiciall sentence for the deciding of causes D. Whitak describing the State of the Question betwixt us and the Papists touching the persons that are to be called to a Synod shewes that (l) Ibid. qu. 3. c. 1. p. 79. the Papists will have onely the Bishops or greater Prelates to be allowed for judges and the Presbyters or inferiour Clergie to be onely inquisitors disputers or consulters to give counsell but not to have suffrages in giving definitive sentences This is the opinion of the (m) Bellar. Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 15. Romish Church Now D. Whit. in the refutation of the Papists doth as wel refute the Brownists and other opposites while he proves (n) De Concil qu. 3. c. 3. that all who have a lawfull deputation and calling are to be allowed for judges and not for counsellers onely and that their suffrage is not onely for consultation but for decision as is hereafter shewed more at large Observe onely at this time that the first argument in that dispute is taken from this very place Act. 15. G. Bucerus pleads from this same ground of Scripture and writes (o) Dissert de Gub. Ecc. p. 65. that not onely severall particular Churches had their proper distinct Presbyteries but that the history of the Apostles witnesseth that when greater controversies did arise which could not be ended in lesser Colleges then more Churches under the new Testament did runne unto a Generall Synod Act. 15. And what power they were wont to exercise therein he shewes by a distinction of persons comming to the Synod As D. Whit. refuting the popish distinction of greater and lesser Clergie shewes that there was a right and power of suffrages judgement in the Synod so Bucerus (p) Ibid. p. 107. 108. c. confirming the distinction of Iunius viz. that some persons came to the Synods as Delegates sent from the Churches which therefore did give definitive sentence of matters propounded that others comming without such deputation and commission might give their advise and counsell but without suffrages doth hereby acknowledge a power of jurisdiction in the Synod by those that were peculiarly called to be judges therein Zepperus (q) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 8. de Syn. p. 713. 714. 715. c. alledging Act. 15. for a patterne of Synods declares that after the Apostles the primitive Church in the new Testament being most studious of this consociation or combination in Synods did not onely communicate by letters but meeting together in Nationall or Generall Councels did heare the causes of Hereticks others that appeared before them so convinced condemned and excommunicated them sent their decrees unto all Churches with the names heresies of those that were excommunicate c. Thus did he acknowledge the right of Synods not onely for counsell admonition but also for jurisdiction in censuring Piscator (r) Thes Theolog. vol. 1. Loc. 23. p. 361-364 writing of Councels and Synods and of the seven questions concerning them doth seven times alledge this place Act. 15. for a ground of direction in each of them And for the authority of Synods he plainly expresseth his meaning when speaking of the government of the Church in generall he sayth * Thes 62 63. it consisteth chiefly in Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and againe distinguishing this jurisdiction into two parts he sayth that the one part consisteth in the power of making lawes potissimum spectatur in Conciliis that is it is chiefly seen in Synods Bucanus (f) Loc. CoÌ„ Loc. 43. qu. 21 22 25 27. writes much to the same purpose and asscribeth unto Synods authority of making lawes of deciding controversies and this from the example of that Synod Act. 15. often mentioned by him Mr Fenner (t) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 278-281 briefly and methodically describing the nature of Synods the kindes the use authority of them doth derive their authority from this ground Act. 15. which even in that short description is more then tenne times alledged by him Many other such Testimonies might be produced to shew the consent of judicious and learned Divines in this poynt of which somewhat more is to be sayd when I come to give answer touching that multitude of Authors which Mr Canne alledgeth against me Let us now heare what my Opposites say concerning this Example Mr Dav. his Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered I. DAV * Apol reply p. 254. 255. This Text Act. 15. is alledged by Bellarmine to prove the binding force of the decrees of Councills and by the Answerer to shew the authority of the Classis whereunto Iunius giveth 2 answers also 1. Non sequitur ex particulari si custodienda fuerint decreta Concilii Apostolici ergo omnium servari oportere It
it followeth hence from the consideration of that which is here confessed to be done by each kinde of person here mentioned that the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition but also to give sentence and to make decrees which are acts of authority and power The errour of Bellarmine and the Papists is (c) De Con. cil l. 1. c. 15. 16. that onely Majores Praelati the greater sort of Prelates such as are their Bishops and Archbishops and by priviledge or custome Cardinals Abbots and Generals of Orders have jus suffragii decisivi that is authority to give definitive sentence that Presbyters Elders and other Doctours or learned men in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum a voyce in consultation liberty to give counsell to deliberate and dispute but not to give definitive sentence in the deciding of any matter Thus they take away the right and power of judging from one half or more of those persons that are to appeare in Synods The errour of the Brownists and other our Opposites is that all the persons in the Synod have onely suffragium consultivum onely power to deliberate to advise and give counsell that all jurisdiction is limited unto a particular Church and so they destroy wholly the authority of Synods which the Papists doe in part The Papists deprive one half of the persons of their power and these deprive all the persons of their power But now in this case Mr Canne by his confession refutes both these errours granting jurisdiction a power of giving sentence and making decrees unto the people as well as others Thus is he condemned out of his owne mouth Thus is he condemned by those whom he alledgeth when D. Whitaker sayth of Act. 15. (d) De Cōc qu. 3. c. 3. p. 97. In hoc ergo Concilio quivis laicus Presbyter definitivum suffragium habuit non minus quam Petrus that is In this Synod every lay-man and Elder had a definitive voyce as well as Peter Thence it followes that there was an authority and jurisdiction in the Synod it was not onely for advise and counsell He saith againe (e) Ibid. c. 2. p. 85. The end of Synods is to decide controversies to prescribe Canons to correct abuses to set Churches in order c. What plainer evidence of their power can we seek for This same authority of Synods is in like manner proved by that which (f) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 108 126. 334. Mr Parker to like purpose witnesseth together with D. Whitak and others II. Mr Canne here doth yet blame our practise in depriving the Church of her right and the people of their interest and is so eager in seeking to blame the manner of our keeping Synods that unawares he hath yeelded us the matter itself about which we dispute viz. an authority of giving sentence and not onely a giving of counsell by Synods His reprehension is that Mr Paget and others doe otherwise practise But who be those others beside me Why did he not name them as well as me Are they any other then all the knowne Reformed and Orthodox Churches in Europe He might well think that if he had mentioned these the very naming of them and my following of their practise would have bene not so great a blame unto me as an occasion of making himself suspected and condemned for his unjust opposing of them That it may the better appeare how unjustly he blameth our practise let us examine more particularly what he hath sayd and withall set downe some observations whereby the peoples right in Synods may the better be discerned I. To shew the peoples interest he alledgeth Act. 15.12 22. where there is mention made of the multitude that was present and of the whole Church sending messengers c. But by the multitude we may understand not the whole number of the Church at Ierusalem which consisted of many thousands but rather the multitude of such speciall persons as were met in the Synod So Beza interpreteth it (g) Annot. maj in N.T. in Act. 15.12 Multitudinis autem nomine intellige non totam Ecclesiam c. By the name of the multitude understand not the whole Church which was not yet wholy adjoyned but the whole company of the Apostles and Elders as appeareth before from the 6 verse c. Piscator likewise (h) Schol. in Act. 15.12 approves this interpretation and addes some further light unto it from the reference of the Greek article though he also give liberty for another interpretation So for that phrase the whole Church mentioned vers 22. Iunius (i) Animad in Contr. 4. de Conc. l. 1. c. 15. n. 19. c. 16. n. 1. expounds the same of the Elders and Deacons or the whole Clerus or Clergy serving that Church these saith he are designed by the common name of the Church Calvine also (k) Cōmen in Act. 15.6 writes to the same purpose Luke saith not that the whole Church was gathered together but those that were men of learning and judgement and which by vertue of their office were lawfull judges of this cause It may be indeed that the disputation was before the people but lest any man should think that the common people were promiscuously admitted to handle the cause Luke expressely nameth the Apostles and Elders as more sit to take cognition thereof II. We grant that besides Ministers and Elders other members of the Church may have suffrages or voyces and give sentence in Synods as well as those that are Officers alwayes provided that they be lawfully deputed and sent thereunto Thus D. Whitaker explaines himself touching his allowance of lay-men to have voyces in Synods and sayth (l) De Conc. qu. 3. c. 2. p. 92. Every man ought not to be admitted into the Synod nor to speak therein but he that shall be chosen of the Church and designed thereunto Againe he saith (m) Ibid. c. 3. p. 103. Not onely Bishops are to be chosen of the Church to be sent unto Synods but other godly prudent learned men which happily can dispute more skilfully and inquire into controversies better then the Bishops Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the Church And so (n) p. 97. 98. 104. oft in other places Iunius in like manner (o) Animadv de Cōc l. 1. c. 15. n. 4. c. 16. n 1. n. 10. requires of such as have voyce in Synods that they be furnished with gifts and calling whether Officers or any others And this also is the practise of the Reformed Churches in these parts where upon occasion divers times some such are deputed and sent unto Synods which have no Ecclesiasticall office and even in the Nationall Synod at Dort divers other members of the Church which were neither Ministers nor Elders were sent thither allowed to be Delegates were to have not onely deliberative but also definitive voyces as well as any other
secondary Church which receiveth authority from the prime Churches that under the like condition to wit that no rectour or Praesident be made without election of the Churches which are combined in that Assembly This he declares at large and refutes the contrary arguments Now this Election of a Praesident is an act of Ecclesiasticall authority a part of the Churches power and seeing this is confessed to be in Synods it appeareth hence also that Synods are not onely for counsell admonition but also for the exercise of jurisdiction A sixt controversy about Synods concernes the Execution of the Synodall Canons (k) Ibid. l. 3 c. 30. Mr Park holds that this belongs not unto any one Bishop or Arch-bishop but unto particular Churches and their Elderships He argues on this manner (l) P. 428. The execution of Canons of what kinde soever whether they be those which are published of Christ in the Scriptures or whether they be ordained in Synods according to the Scriptures is a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction a part of the exercise of the Keyes as the Parisians call it But the Keyes and Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction are not given to one Bishop but are promised to the Church and Eldership Mat. 16. and given unto them Matt. 18. Therefore the execution of Canons belongeth not unto one Bishop but unto the Church which importeth many Now if the execution of Synodall Canons by an Eldership or particular Church be a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and of the Keyes then much more is the making of these Canons in the Synod and then Synods have not onely liberty of giving counsell and admonition but power of jurisdiction also which Mr Daven denyeth This conclusion and inference is afterward noted by Mr Parker himself also when as he addeth (m) P. 432. Why should not he be judge in the execution of Canons who hath power of judging in the sanction or decreeing of the Canons c. And againe If it be not lawfull for them to execute the Canons neither will it be lawfull to ordaine them on the other side if they have authority of making Canons then have they authority to execute them and that much more The seventh controversy about Synods is concerning the Conditions (n) Ibid. c. 31. thereof And among other conditions Mr Parker (o) P. 452. requires this for one that there be a common consent or a community of suffrages and he complaines of it as a great corruption when there is in Synods a negative voyce allowed unto Bishops or Archbishops He notes (p) P. 454. that to be not without reason called an Oligarchicall Synod when things are not done by common consent but one maketh frustrate the consent of the rest Now if it be a violation of the Synods right and authority when the generall consent of the greatest part is made frustrate by the dissenting of one or of a few then much more is the authority thereof violated when as notwithstanding the universall and entire consent of the whole Synod both of the Praesident of all the Deputies of all the Churches there assembled yet by receiving this erroneous opinion of my opposites the definitive sentence of them all is made frustrate and disannulled as if they had no jurisdiction nor power of censure but were onely to counsell or admonish AS that which Mr Parker hath written particularly touching the combination of Churches in Classes and Synods doth sufficiently shew his minde touching this controversy and that Mr Dav doth in vaine seek to shrowd himself under his shadow so that which he writes more generally in defence of the Discipline practised in the Reformed Churches where the authority and jurisdiction of Synods is maintained doth serve for a more full declaration thereof He laboureth to prove q by 10 Arguments (q) Pol. Ecc. lib. 1. c. 29. p. 84. that the Church of England is bound to imitate the Reformed Churches in their Discipline which yet if Mr Dav. his opinion were true they ought not to doe but rather to avoyd it flee from it as being an usurpation of unlawfull power whereby their people are kept in bondage under the undue power of Classes and Synods In speciall Mr Parker following Mr Brightman in his exposition of the Revelation (r) Ibid. p. 84.85 86. saith that in Philadelphia which is the type of the Reformed Churches nothing is reprehended but all things are commended and among the rest the discipline which is noted by the key of David Rev. 3.7 He saith that the Angel of the Reformed Churches stands in the Sunne Rev. 19.17 as being the naturall sonne of the woman clothed with the Sunne Rev. 12.1 that the Reformed Churches are as the beautifull mountaine the mountaine of Christs delights Rev. 16.16 the hill of precious fruits He saith againe that the Philadelphian Church is the type of the Reformed Churches that it is commanded to hold fast her crowne Rev. 3.11 Now if Mr Parker did judge this rare and high commendation to be due unto the Reformed Churches and that by divine warrant by the testimony of the holy Ghost foretelling their estate and the purity of the Discipline observed by them then was he not of Mr D. his minde for then he should have judged them not to be a free people while the causes of particular Congregations are judged and determined by another superiour authority in Synods Then should he rather have judged that their Churches wanted the key of David and were deprived of their lawfull and proper priviledges and prerogatives being subject to an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the assembly of the combined Churches And in summe then should he according to Mr D. his opinion have judged them to carry a yoke of servitude and subjection to be cast off with all speed rather then a crowne of lawfull liberty to be held fast by them then should he with Mr Canne (f) Churches plea. p. 74. have taught them to complaine in the misapplyed words of the Prophet Ier. 4.13 Woe unto us we are spoyled viz. by the authority of Classes Synods TO conclude for the judgement of Mr Parker in this controversy there are few that did better know or at least had more meanes to know his minde then I. The trueth is when he came from Leyden where he and Mr Iacob had sojourned some while together he professed at his first comming to Amsterdam that the use of Synods was for counsell and advise onely but had not authority to give definitive sentence in the judging of causes But after much conference with him when he had more seriously and ripely considered of this question he plainly changed his opinion and professed so much not onely unto me but unto sundry others upon occasion so that some of Mr Iacobs minde were offended with him and expostulated not onely with him but with me also as being an occasion of altering his judgment I had meanes to understand his minde aright and better
part deny the authority of particular Elderships as we see in the Brownists and therefore after private admonitions doe in a popular order referre the judgement even of lesser matters unto the publick examination and decision of the whole Church assembled together not permitting the same to the judgement of the Eldership Mr Baynes doth also impugne this practise For he speaking of the rule of Discipline Matt. 18. where Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many yet after some other observations touching the meaning of the word Church he further explaineth himself when he addeth these notes and sayth (a) Dioces tryall p. 80. Thirdly as Christ doth speak it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the Congregation For then Christ should give not some but all the members of the Church to be governours of it Fourthly Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderlie complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie as all but Morellius and such Democraticall spirits doe affirme And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church doth shew that often the number of it is but small For where two or three are gathered together in my name c. whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Againe shewing on the other side that Christ by the Church doth not meane the chief Pastour who is virtually as the whole Church and that the word Church doth ever signify a company and never is found to note out one person after other reasons he pleades from the example and practise in the old Testament saying (b) Ibid. p. 81. The Church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtuallie but an assembly of Priests sitting together as judges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie and joynt execution of a representative Church a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours And thus he concludes from Mat. 18. that there is a representative Church of one particular Congregation as before from Act. 15. he acknowledged a representative Church in the Synod for many Churches VI. Whereas Mr Dav. alledgeth out of Mr Parker that the power Ecclesiasticall do the essentially and primarily reside in the Church it self as in its proper subject although this be no ground for the refutation of that power and jurisdiction belonging to Synods as I have shewed (c) P. 89.90 before yet even this ground also is denyed by Mr Baynes who goes not so farre as Mr Parker (d) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 8. p. 28. c. touching the derivation of all Ecclesiasticall authority from a particular Church as from the fountaine but doth in some part oppose that opinion especially in respect of that influence of authority per intuitum viz. that which is in Ministers called immediately of Christ as the Apostles were yet in respect of the end and the whole is sayd to be from the Church mediately c. And therefore though Mr Parker was farre from the opinion of Mr Dav. yet was Mr Baynes farre further from it His judgement herein as being worthy the consideration of the Readers I have thought meet to set downe the more fully And first speaking by occasion of the power of jurisdiction in the Church he sayth (e) Dioc. tryal p. 69. Christ hath committed it originaliter exercitative to the representative Church that they might Aristocratically administer it And afterwards coming to intreat of the third maine question in his booke (f) Ibid. p. 98. Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any one singular person or to a united multitude of Presbyters he there sets downe his judgment more largely in divers conclusions (g) P. 83.84 on this manner Conclus 3. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof was not given to the communitie of the Church or to the whole multitude of the faithfull so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ and virtually deriving it to others This I set downe against the Divines of Constance our prime Divines as Luther and Melancthon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians errour for in his booke depudicitia he maketh Christ to haue left all Christians with like power but the Church for her honour did dispose it as we see The proportion of a politick body and naturall deceived them while they will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omni simile for then should it be the same with the analogatum True it is all civill power is in the body politick the collections of subjects then in a King from them And all the power of hearing seeing they are in the whole man which doth produce them effectually though formally and instrumentally they are in the eare and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the communitie or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the communitie in the King from them but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our King before any in the Church from him But to whom should he first commit this power but to his Queene Answ Considering this power is not any Lordly power but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole communitie which are the Queen of Christ For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herself properly but to have persons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in naturall bodies the power of seeing is first immediately in the man from the man in the eye and particular members In the mysticall body the faith of a beleever is not first immediately in all then in the beleever but first of all and immediately in the personall beleever for whose good it serveth more properly then for the whole every man being to live by his owne faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel so derived to the Priest but immediately from Christ seated in Aaron and his sonnes Object Yea they were given the Church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis totius Answ I but this is not enough that power may be sayd to be immediately received by the Church as the first
receptacle of it and from it derived to others as the power of seeing is not onely given intuitu hominis as the end of it and the totum to whom it agreeth but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the Church For as all are sayd not to have been Apostles so not to have been Doctors But if the power of ordinarie teaching had been given to every beleever all should have been made Doctors though not to continue so in exercising the power Secondly were the power in the Church the Church should not onely call them but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe then should the Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers Besides there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly as women and children This conclusion in my judgement Victoria Soto and others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained Conclus 4. Fourthly ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it to the Senat or Presbyterie of the Church If any faile in any office the Church hath not power of supplying that but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant Conclus 5. Lastly though the community have not power given her yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her that all power is to be executed in such manner as standeth with respect to her excellencie Hence it is that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them Not that they have joynt power of the keyes with them but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with without open dishonour in such things which belong in common to the whole congregation Afterwards againe (h) P. 88. speaking of some derivation of power from the Church in taking in Officers he shewes that the Church doth this onely as an instrument in taking that person whom Christ describeth and would have to be placed in this or that office but hath not this power in herself either formally or virtually And from this Stewardlike power of the Church he declares that Officers in the Church are not to administer in the name of the Church but in the name of Christ As a Butler taken in by a servant doth execute his office not in master Stewards name but in his masters who onely out of power did conferre it on him By these sundry other assertions it is apparant that Mr Baynes was of a farre different opinion from Mr Dav. touching the state of particular Churches the authority of Synods Let us heare his next Author SECT VI. His Allegation of the Replyer upon D. Downam examined IO. DAV r Apol. reply p. 242. Part. 2. l. 2. p. 104 105. c. i With whom I might joyne the Replyer upon Dr Downams defence who not onely declareth his owne judgement herein concurring with the above mentioned but also joyneth with them the suffrages of divers others at the Centurists Illyricus D. Andrewes Bishop of Winchester Dr Fulke Willet Thom Bell Cyprian Augustine Gerson Ferus ANSVV. I. If this Authour did in his judgement concurre with the above mentioned and in speciall with Mr Baynes next above mentioned as Mr Dav. affirmes then did he allow the jurisdiction and authority of Synods for the censure of things done in particular Churches then did he judge each Congregation to be subject unto the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled II. This testimony of the Refuter of D. Downa is alledged also and more plainly by Mr Canne who expresseth his words and sayth (k) Churches plea p. 86. he often affirmeth (l) Lib 2. par 2. p. 104 that the administration of all Church-matters at first was in every Congregation the right in the Church the execution in the Presbytery thereof And besides this he alledgeth another place where he sayth For this purpose he instanceth Cenchrea (m) Lib. 1. part 2. p. 22 23. howsoever it was the Port of Corinth and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lime-house to London yet is was a distinct Church from that of Corinth and alike indued with full power of Ecclesiasticall government But in all this the jurisdiction of Synods is not denyed as is manifest by a like instance here in these Reformed Churches The villages of Diemen and Sloten this on the one side and that on the other side of Amsterdam and not farre from it and in all apperance farre lesse in comparison of Amsterdam then Cenchrea was in respect of Corinth yet are these small Congregations distinct Churches from that of Amsterdam alike endued with full power of all Ecclesiasticall government That which Mr Canne by a Note in the margine would have specially to be marked may as well be observed touching these and many other little Churches hereabout that they have in themselves the administration of all Church-matters and the execution thereof by their Presbyteries as fully and as amply as the Church of Amsterdam or any other of the greatest Churches in these countries being alike combined together in the Classis and equally subject to one another in the Lord for their mutuall guidance III. Even this Replyer upon D. Downam Mr S. who now resteth in the Lord hath bene very carefull not to prejudice the authority of Synods as may appeare further if we consider what he answereth concerning those whom D. D. calleth the late Disciplinarians such as were of Mr Iacobs opinion First he saith (n) Reply par 1. l. 2. p. 106. As for Synods if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctour can give neither more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their Protestation sheweth Art 8.12 13 14. Now as for the present Synods such as are in these Reformed Churches they are such as he mentioneth here called and assembled by authority of the Magistrates and their Acts approved confirmed and ratifyed by them This may be seen in the Records of that Nationall Synod holden at Dort Anno 1618. and 1619. where (o) Act. Synod Dordr Ses 138. the Decree of the States Generall which are the soveraigne and supreme Magistrates in these countries is inserted among the Acts of the Synod for the ratification thereof And this is not onely observed in Nationall Synods but in the Provinciall Synods also held every yeare where the States have also their Deputies Civill Magistrates which ordinarily are present in those Assemblies to see that all things be well ordered therein Thus farre therefore according to his relation there is an obedience and subjection due unto Synods Againe whereas he proceedeth to describe their opinion on this manner If they want
please men to call it If Mr Dav. doe fully agree with Junius as he professeth then must he acknowledge that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Church that lawfull Synods have authority not onely to counsell and admonish the Pope himself and so other obstinate offendours but also to censure thē to give sentence both of directive coactive judgement against them as occasion requires Junius to make this more plaine repeats it againe and speaking of the Synods judging the Pope saith (c) N. 2. Truely we grant that he cannot appoynt judges in his owne cause because God hath already appoynted them by the Apostle saying The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14.32 and that he may appoynt Arbiters but we adde this withall that the judges which God hath ordained may by no right be rejected or refused of him When Bellarmine pretends that divers Popes as Sixtus the 3d Leo the 3d Symmachus and Leo the 4th being accused were willing to have their causes discussed in a Synod of Bishops c. Junius sayth (d) N. 6. And this ought so to be done of them for they are subjected of God to a Synod of Prophets by authority of the word When Bellar. addes that yet the Bishops durst not judge them affirming also that they left the whole judgement unto God Junius answers (e) N. 7. This is a fallacy from that which is not the cause as they call it For they did not therefore abstaine from judging because they wanted authority to judge but partly because they had rather that the Popes being guilty should be first judged of themselves and their owne conscience partly because they thought it better to have their cause examined in another more full Synod partly also because when they would examine it the matter was not evident enough c. Whereas the Popes that thus farre submitted their cause to tryall pretend that by this fact they doe not prescribe a law to their successours whereby they should be constrained to doe the same Junius sayth (f) Ibidē The impudency of these men is so much the greater who after they are delivered from judgement doe after this manner mock their judges and such as examined their cause and will have their ambitious licentiousnes to be esteemed for a lawfull order asscribing the lawfull order of judgements in their cause unto an extraordinary and voluntary dispensation as they call it But had Junius bene of my opposites minde he should have answered after another manner should have sayd The Bishops in the Synods which durst not judge the cause of the Popes but left the whole judgement unto God did well therein if they had knowne what they did and the right ground thereof for they did indeed want authority to judge Synods might advise and counsell but have no jurisdiction to give sentence in censuring either the Pope or any other Synods may onely direct particular Churches to use their power aright but have no power themselves to judge other Congregations or any member thereof c. How farre was Junius from giving such an answer Other examples and instances alledged to shew the power of Synods in the judgement of causes are avouched cleared and maintained by Junius against Bellarmines exceptions as appeares in the cause of (g) Ibid. in c. 19. n. 1. Marcellinus of the (h) N. 3. Donatists and of (i) N. 5. Leo. Had he thought that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction had bene shut up within the bounds of a particular Congregation he ought to have reprehended those Synods rather then to have spent time in vindicating their practise from the cavills of adversaries AS in these books de Conciliis alledged by Mr Dav. Junius hath plainely shewed his agreement with us so in his disputations against Bellarmine de Verbo Dei he hath likewise declared his consent with us touching the authority of Synods He writes there that (k) Animadv in Bell. contr 1. 〈◊〉 Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3. n. 9. there be two kindes of judgements in the Church one Private which belongs to all the faithfull universally and severally the other Publick depending upon a publick calling and authority the law and rule of both these judgements is the holy Scripture the authour and guide is the holy Ghost The publick judgement is either of a particular Church or of many Churches meeting together into one body or of all which body they call a Synod a Councell or an Assembly c. Seeing the Praesident and judge of the private judgement whereof the publick is compact is the Spirit of God and the Scripture the law there can be no other judge or law appoynted in the publick judgement of Synods without most hainous blasphemy against God and reproach to his Church And the Praesidents which are given to Synods have not the dominion and arbritement of the busines but the procuring of order committed unto them to determine matters by that one judge according to his law It is here to be observed that under the publick judgement of the Church he doth in like manner comprehend the authority of particular Churches and of Synods consisting of many Churches he speakes no otherwise of one then of the other as touching the kinde of power that they have he doth not attribute jurisdiction to one counsell to the other he notes both to depend upon a publick calling and authority for a ground of their proceeding And though in both the Spirit of God be the principall judge yet as he (l) Ibid. in c. 5. n. 3.5.28 afterwards notes more plainly he acknowledgeth a ministeriall judgment committed to them for the denouncing of his judgement against such as are guilty according to his word Afterward Junius (m) Ibid. in c. 6. n. 3. shewing how unlike the Councell of Trent was to the Nicene Councell where the Arian Bishops being present were heard convicted by the authority of Gods word and being convicted were condemned though he avoucheth the Bishops of Trent to have bene the enemies of the Gospel yet he sayth (n) N. 4. Otherwise as for lawfull Bishops or Elders and Deacons lawfully called into a Synod holding the same lawfully we acknowledge all these things When Bellarmine alledgeth Basilius Emperour who speaking of the judgment of Ecclesiasticall causes in a Synod sayd To try and search out these things it belongeth unto Patriarkes Bishops and Priests who have an office of government alotted unto them who have the power of sanctifying of loosing and binding who have obtained the keyes of the Church and not unto us which are to be fed which stand in need to be sanctifyed to be bound or loosed from binding Junius answereth (o) Ibid. in c. 7. n. 9. We allow this testimony of Basilius touching the lawfull order of Synods as before Herein we have the expresse confession of Junius touching the authority and jurisdiction of Synods in the use of the
others But had D. Whit. bene of my opposites minde he should have condemned each of these opinions both of Papists and Protestants and should have sayd that neither one nor other sorts of persons were to be admitted for judges in Synods but onely for counsellours and admonishers that none of them were to have determining voyces or to give definitive sentence but onely to shew their advise to have a consultative voyce When Bellarmine alledgeth that the Prelates onely as being Pastours of the Church are to have definitive voyces D. Whit. answering his arguments sayth (p) Ibid. c. ◠p. 85. The end of Synods is not to feed viz. by teaching as proper pastours but to decide controversies to prescribe Canons to correct abuses to order Churches and to doe other things which belong unto the peaceable and quiet state of the Church Herein he yeelds unto Synods not onely advise for direction but jurisdiction and power of correction c. To prove this authority of Presbyters or Elders he alledgeth Act. 16.4 where there is mention of the decrees ordained by the Apostles and Elders and sayth thereupon (q) Ibid. c. 3. p. 96. 97. Who dare now denye the Elders to have had a determining suffrage They did not onely dispute or consult but did also judge and decree together with the Apostles For the word * determined ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equally applyed unto both These things are so manifest that no man can gainsay it To this end also he argueth (r) P. 102. 103. that a Generall Synod represents the Vniversall Church that whosoever is sent of a Church represents the person of that Church And finally (ſ) P. 103 104 c. from ancient histories he alledgeth the examples of divers Synods as of Chalcedon Nice and Constantinople wherein this power jurisdiction was exercised A fourth Question is about the Praesident of Synods In this dispute Bellarmine alledging that Constantine professed himself to be subject unto the Bishops and that he ought to be judged of them D. Whitaker allowing and commending that profession answereth and sayth (t) De Cōc q. 4. c. 3. p. 132. What then This hindereth not but that he might be Praesident For if a Bishop had bene Praesident ought be not to have bene judged of other Bishops What godly Prince would not have sayd so Hereby he acknowledgeth that jurisdiction authority of judgement is no undue power of Synods and that even the worthiest persons ought to be subject thereunto A fift Question is whether Synods be above the Pope Here D. Whitaker having first shewed what the Popish opinion is he then declares the opinion of the Protestants and sayth (v) De Cōc q. 5. c. 1. p. 146. Seeing the Pope is the Bishop onely of one Church he is not onely not superiour unto all Bishops assembled together but not so much as superiour unto any of them apart Therefore we say that a Synod may also decree against the will of the Pope may take cognition of the Popes cause may judge the Pope compell him unto order may prescribe lawes unto the Pope which are to have force against his will and finally may condemne the Pope and deprive him of his office if he be worthy of such a punishment Now if a Synod have this power to judge censure and depose the Popes then hath it as much power to judge and censure other Ministers and members of other Churches unlesse it can be shewed that they have more authority then the Pope or some strange priviledge to exempt them from that jurisdiction of Synods whereunto others are in subjection Afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 3 he brings 10 Arguments to prove the superiority of Synods above the Pope And in them there be plenteous evidences touching the authority of Synods Those arguments which prove that the Synods have jurisdiction over the Pope and power to censure him doe alwayes prove that Synods have jurisdiction and power of censure Otherwise though the Pope deserved censure yet it should be an usurpation in the Synod to doe that for which they had no calling nor warrant even as in the execution of Civill judgments it should be a presumptuous and unlawfull usurpation if private men being no Magistrates should take upon them to punish malefactours though they had justly deserved the same Not to insist upon many other things which out of those 10 Arguments might be alledged for our purpose I will onely instance in one example that is there (y) Ibid. p. 195. 196. urged by D. Whitaker and taken out of Sozomen lib. 4. c. 15 or as in some editions c. 14. who recordes that the Synod of Syrmium made an Act whereby Foelix the Bishop of Rome was appoynted to admit Liberius to be his fellow in the administration of the Romane Church Hence D. Whitak inferres So it seemed good unto the Synod therefore the Synod was above the Pope and above that Church Bellarmine answers The Synod did not command but onely exhort Foelix by letters that he would suffer Liberius to sit with him D. Whit. replyes againe Touching letters of exhortation Sozomen makes no mention of them He sayth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They write unto Foelix c. And that these letters were mandatory it appeares because otherwise Foelix would never have yeelded Thus we see from hence that Synods have power at least in the judgement of D. Whit. not onely to exhort admonish which every Christian may doe but also to prescribe injoyne that which is equall just and so that others are to be subject thereunto The sixt and last Question is whether Synods can erre Now lest any should take occasion hereby to deny the authority of Synods it is to be observed that D. Whitaker doth in like manner affirme that any lawfull assembly even of those that are met together in the name of Christ z De Cōc q. 6. c. 2. p. 216. may erre also He sayth a Though Christ be in the midst of them which are assembled in his name it followes not that they doe not erre For all are not free from errour with whom Christ is present And truely two or three which meet in the name of Christ may be deceived may erre in many things and may aske those things which are not to be asked and so be disappointed of their hope and yet Christ be among them For Christ doth not alwayes exempt them from errour with whom he is Wherefore seeing every Ecclesiasticall assembly every Eldership and every particular Church being subject to errour and erring often are not yet deprived of their jurisdiction and power in the judgement of causes so though Synods want infallible judgement and erre sometimes yet are they not therefore without jurisdiction and authority But further he avoucheth plainly that Synods have judiciall authority when he sayth (a) Ibid. c. 3. p. 322. A Synod is sayd to doe
a Bishop therefore the Monarchicall primacy of the Romane Bishop is of no divine right As he doth fully condemne the usurpation of one Bishop above another so by way of opposition he doth fully and plentifully avouch the authority of many meeting together in Synods not onely for counsell admonition but for jurisdiction in judging censuring of offendours After this in the prosequution of the second Question Bellarmine pleading for the Monarchy and jurisdiction of Peter because he in speciall was charged to feed the sheep of Christ and among other Pastorall acts noting this for one to judge controversies D. Whit. answers (l) De Pont. Rom. q. 2. c. 7. p. 229. What controversies Of religion But the other Apostles did that also as well as he and the Synods of Bishops and learned men can doe this even as we read that it hath often bene practised in the Churches for many ages before this principality of the Pope was brought into the Church Furthermore D. Whitaker useth this argument to prove a superiority of power in a company or assembly of the Apostles above one or two of them (m) Ibid. p. 260. The Apostles send Peter to Samaria therefore Peter was not the head of the Apostles but rather was in subjection unto their authority Act. 8.14 He sayth A sending doth alwayes and necessarily imply a subjection in him that is sent if he be sayd properly to be sent This manner of reasoning makes for the authority of Synods consisting of a company of Ministers or other Deputies of Churches orderly assembled whiles he argueth that a Colledge or company of the Apostles had superiority of power over some singular persons among them though considered apart they were all equall in power He sayth concerning Peter Iohn (n) P. 261. We read that both of them were sent by the Colledge of the Apostles from whence we doe justly conclude both that these two Apostles were equall that the authority of sending was in the Apostles He shewes also (o) P. 297 297. that the decree made in the Synod Act. 15. was not confirmed by the authority of Peter alone but by common consent of the Apostles the Church for the repressing of false Apostles c. In the examination of the fourth Question whereas Bellarmine would have a double errour to be observed one of those who teach that the Pope may be judged punished and deposed by the Emperour if he discharge not his office aright another of them that maintaine he may be judged and censured by a Synod of Bishops though not by a secular Prince D. Whitaker answereth (p) Ibid. qu. 4. p. 513 514. We acknowledge both of these but we say there is no errour here For the Bishop of Rome may be deposed both by the Emperour when there is cause and by a Synod of Bishops and that not onely Generall but Particular of that Province whereunto Calvine most truely affirmeth him to be subject and that he may be judged of it and those that perswade the Pope otherwise we affirme them to be flatterers parasites rebels to God the Emperour And many the like assertions he hath in the handling of that question wherein the jurisdiction of Synods is witnessed by him In the fift Question concerning Antichrist (q) Ibid. q. 5. p. 674 675. he notes it to be an evidence of Antichristian pride in the Pope that he is by the Jesuites affirmed to be above the Synod Proceeding to the sixt Question touching the errours of Popes (r) Qu. 6. p. 797.805.812 813. he avoucheth the jurisdiction of Synods by alledging many examples and instances wherein they exercised this power as in the condemning of Pope Honorius Gregory the 7th or Hildebrandus John the 23th Eugenius c. Touching the seventh Question about the Popes making of lawes to binde the conscience though D. Whitaker teach that it belongs to God alone to give lawes unto the conscience yet he sayth (ſ) Qu. 7. p. 853. The Church hath authority of making lawes concerning decency it is our duety to obey yet concerning the things themselves the conscience is alwayes free c. He addes Whereas the adversary saith that all true lawes have a coactive or constraining force if he so understand it that they constraine burden the conscience with respect unto the things themselves it is false for certainely even these also doe constraine after a sort to wit if we have respect unto the generall rule so that if there come contempt or offence or schisme the violation of them cannot be excused Againe he saith to like purpose (t) P. 867. Whereas Bellarm. sayth we can abide no lawes therein he doth egregiously slander for we allow much esteeme of lawes even Ecclesiasticall lawes do teach that they are to be obeyed do subject ourselves unto them but we will not that our consciences be bound or ensnared nor the liberty which Christ hath givē to be taken from us How the Church exerciseth this power of making lawes he explaineth (v) De Cōc q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. elswhere namely in Synods And seeing here he teacheth obedience and subjection unto them it is plaine that he allowes unto Synods a greater authority then onely of admonishing or counselling This he expresseth more plainly even in this Question also when he sayth (x) De Pont. Rom. q. 7. p. 849. It is lawfull for Synods both Generall Provinciall to make lawes and to ordaine certaine rites which belong unto good order and the outward policie of the Church and they are to be deposed which doe not keep the same but our consciences are not bound with those lawes except contempt scandall be added as was sayd before SECT XI His Allegation of Chamierus examined BEsides these Allegations set downe in his Apologeticall Reply there remaineth yet to be considered of us the testimony of Daniel Chamierus another learned man whom Mr Dav. had cited before any of these to wit in his letter which he sent to the Classis printed by W. B. saving (y) Book of compl p. 2. The power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters or in things which are proper to it self as a Synod hath the chief power in things that are common to many Churches witnesse Chamiercont Bell. lib. 2. ANSVV. The quotation of this Testimony is imperfectly described so that men cannot finde the same by the direction he gives there being many second bookes in those 4 Tomes of that great work each of them contayning many chapters and none of them specifyed by him It seemes he took this testimony from Mr Parker who hath also imperfectly cited the same for though he mention not onely the second book but also pag. 193. yet is not that testimony there to be found But wheresoever it is he might have * See before pag. 92 93. found in Mr Parker sufficient answer and satisfaction
Catharists were excommunicated by a Synod holden at Rome consisting of 60 Bishops with many Elders and Deacons how k L. 7. c. 29. Paulus Samosatenus was deposed and excommunicated by a Synod holden at Antioch He declares l De vita Const l. 3. c. 6 7 c. at large and celebrates the piety of Constantine the great friend maintainer of Christian religion for assembling the Nicene Synod wherein Arius was condemned And in like manner he shewes the m Ibid. l. 1. c. 44. impiety of the Emperour Licinius the enemy of God who by a mischievous devise sought to ruinate the Churches of God by depriving them of their liberty in meeting together in Synods for deciding of their controversies So expressely and clearely doth Eusebius give testimony unto Synods That which is collected out of Athanasius viz. that elections excommunications c. according to the Apostles precept ought to be done in the publick Congregation by the Ministers they taking first the peoples voyce or consent is such as I doe willingly assent unto Neither was there ever any election either of Minister Elder or Deacon nor any excommunicatiō of any offender among us but that the matter was first solemnely communicated with the Church and declared severall times in the publick Congregation the consent of the people required obtained before any such act was confirmed finished among us But what is this to the purpose Athanasius notwithstanding this doth witnesse unto us that the causes and controversies of particular Churches were in his time submitted to the censure of other Churches and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves This Athanasius shewes in these very places here alledged against me And in the first of them having n Tom. 1. Epist ad ubiq Orthodoxos made a lamentable narration of the miseries procured to the Church of Alexandria by the intrusion and cruelty of an Arian Bishop he then most vehemently supplicates unto those that were members of the same body with them in other Churches that as the former yeare their brethren at Rome were willing to have called a Synod but that they were hindred so they having greater occasion to vindicate the Church of God from new evills would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their suffrages condemne and reject the Authors of such mischiefes And more plainely in the 2d place he declares o Epist ad Solit. vitam agentes at length that in the Synod holden at Sardica where Hosius was President and whither the accusers of Athanasius were cited the cause being heard the Synod did not onely advise and counsell what was meet to be done but did give sentence touching the matters of controversy absolved Athanasius and deposed the Bishops that were found guilty such as Stephanus Menophantus Acacius Georgius Vrsacius Valens Theodorus Narcissus As for the third allegation Epist cont Nicae c. 9. Ecc. Hist it seemes to be misquoted I finde no such Title in all the works of Athanasius Instead thereof therefore let us see another testimonie of his wherein he teacheth what the government of the Church was in those times namely ruled by authoritie of Synods where the weightier causes were judged decided Of this he p Tom. 2. Epist ad Rusinian gives instances in the Synods of Alexandria Greece and Spaine where Euzoius Eudoxius and such principall offenders were deposed from their offices and other upon their repentance retained And the like Ecclesiasticall authority is in many other places throughout his writings by him commended unto us Let us heare how Mr C. proceeds I. C. To these we will adde Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose Cyrill Hillarie and Greg. Nazianzen writers in noe age Touching Ecclesiasticall Government these to this purpose speake Particular Churches may lawfully ordaine their owne Bishops without other Presbyters assisting them Epiph. cont Haer. 73. and among themselves excommunicate offenders Id. l. 1. Haeres 30. Tom. 2. Haer. 5. ANSVV. I. Here be three places at once misalledged In the two latter viz. Haer. 30. and Haer. 5. there is nothing at all spoken touching this poynt In the first of them viz. Haer. 73. he doth but catch at a shadow and pervert the words of Epiphanius and falsify them by changing some and adding other and omitting other that might give light unto the question His words upon occasion of Meletius his confession and suffering for the trueth are these There are many people of this order of this Synod which setting Bishops over themselves doe make a marvellous confession touching the faith doe not reject the word Coessentiall Yea and say they are ready if there were a perfect Synod to confesse not to deny it Here is no mention of particular Churches or Congregations nor of lawfully ordayning nor of doing this without other Presbyters assisting them But that which is recorded touching the acknowledgement of a lawfull or perfect Synod that is omitted Thus he varyeth from the Latine translation of Epiphanius the Originall Greek in divers Copies is further from the matter having this beside other differences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which made themselves to be Bishops instead of lawfully ordaining their owne Bishops Such are the Allegations of Mr Canne II. Suppose the words Epiphanius had bene the same that Mr C. relates yet had not the authority of Synods bene any thing diminished thereby Is it not the common and ordinary practise in these Reformed Churches that where two or more Ministers are in one Congregation there the newly elected Ministers are ordained and confirmed without any other Presbyters from other Churches to assist them Yet this is no good argument to prove they want Classes and Synods And though also they doe among themselves excommunicate offenders yet this hinders not but that Classes or Synods may exercise their authority in judging or censuring such as have unjustly excommunicated any or proceeded contrary to their advise therein III. That Epiphanius did approve the authority and jurisdiction of Synods it is manifest by his practise It is q Socrat. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 9. recorded of him that he being Bishop of Salamis or Constantia in Cyprus procured a Synod to be called in that Iland wherein the bookes of Origen were condemned a decree made that none should read his bookes IV. Epiphanius did not onely approve the lawfull authority of Synods but he went further and did maintaine the unlawfull authoritie of particular persons over divers Churches This appeareth in his r Epiph. Haer. 75. condemning of Aërius of heresie that held Bishops Presbyters to be the same by divine institution whom D. Whitaker ſ De Pont. Rom. q. 1. p. 104 105 106. doth justly defend against Bellarmine and others and shewes that Hierome and other ancient Fathers were of the same minde with Aërius therein and sayth that we are not to regard the absurd men that doe so often object Aërius unto us he sayth Epiphanius doth foolishly and childishly
Christ from having a keye of power in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes Had he proved that the title of the Church belongs onely to a particular Congregation in the full assembly thereof and not at all unto a Synod then had it bene something to the purpose in the meane time nothing And that the minde of Augustine was otherwise it appeares by the great approbation which he (v) Epist ad Ianuar. Ep. 118. De Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 3. gives unto the use and authority of Synods as being most wholesome in the Churches of God D. Whitaker (x) DePont Rom. q. 4. p. 484. 497 alledgeth often the presence of Augustine at divers Synods And it is recorded in the Acts of the third Councell of Carthage where Augustine was both present and subscribed with the rest unto the decrees which were then agreed upon (y) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. co 866 867. that there should be kept a yearely Synod unto which they were to repaire out of divers Provinces that those which having controversies with others being called unto the yearely Synod did refuse to come should be held guilty and be excluded from the communion or excommunicated And it is (z) Ib. Col. 870 c. noted further that the like decrees were made at another Synod held at Hippo the place where Augustine lived and that the same decrees were againe confirmed by another Synod at Carthage Hence it appeares that Augustine as well as others in his time did hold that the causes of particular Congregations were to be judged decided by another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves After Augustine he alledgeth Chrysostome whose name is also abused for confirmation of this opinion For I. Chrysostome in the place alledged viz. De Sacerd l. 3. c. 4. speakes of no such matter as he pretends In that whole third book I finde no one word against the authority of Synods And for the fourth chapter which Mr C. alledgeth there is in the best editions of Chrysostome no such chapter they are not at all distinguished into any Chapters and where there is a division of Chapters found yet there is no such matter to be found in that fourth Chapter Mr Canne it seemes never read the Authours he alledgeth for would he then have so falsely cited them II. Chrysostome is plaine for the authority of Synods For speaking of the honour due unto the Deputies or messengers of the Churches in Synods he saith the Apostle (a) In 2. Cor. 8.24 maketh his speech more terrible saying in the sight of the Churches He saith it for the glory of the Churches for their honour For if ye honour them ye shall honour the Churches which sent them c. And then he concludeth This shall be no small matter for great is the power of a Synod that is of the Churches III. When as a wrongfull sentence had bene given against Chrysostome being unjustly procured by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria he then (b) Tom. 5. Epist ad Innocent appealed unto a Synod of many Bishops both before and after the sentence was pronounced The summe of his defence afterward was this that he was willing to be judged by a Synod And he complaines that his adversaries dealt with him contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons In those Canons it had bene oft decreed that there should be liberty of appeale unto Synods IV. When Bellarmine pleading for the Popes authority alledged the request of Chrysostome unto Innocentius Bishop of Rome desiring him to write for him that those things which were unjustly done against him might not prevayle c. Chamierus expounding the words of Chrysostome (c) Panstra Cath. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 23 distinguisheth betwixt admonition and giving of sentence and shewes that Chrysostome desired an admonition should be given by Innocentius but that he exspected sentence from a Synod Chamier sayth this is confirmed to be his meaning because he appealed to the Synod c. And hereby he expressly and distinctly confesseth that Synods have jurisdiction to give sentence and not onely a liberty of admonishing V. When after this Chrysostome (d) Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. having bene both deposed from his place and banished out of the city was yet called back by the Emperour from his banishment and was by the people desired to enter upon his ministery againe he professed he might not doe it untill his cause was further examined he proved innocent by greater judges or in a greater judicatory (e) Edit gr R. Steph. l. 6. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he acknowledged a power of Synods not onely above a particular Congregation but also of one Synod above another as of a Generall Synod above a Nationall or Provinciall c. VI. The minde of Chrysostome touching Church-government may further be knowne to us by this that he (f) In Matt. 18. will have those words Tell the Church to be understood of the Presidents or Governours of the Church And againe speaking of Priests or Bishops the Ministers of the Gospell he thus describeth their speciall power (g) De Sacerd l. 3. Col. 508. Edit Basil It is granted unto them to dispense the things that are in heaven power is given unto them which God would not have to be given either unto Angels or Arch-angels For it was not sayd unto them Whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Earthly Princes have also the power of binding but of the bodies onely But that binding by the Priests whereof I speake remaineth unto the soule commeth up to the heavens so that whatsoever the Priests doe below that God ratifyeth above the Lord confirmeth the sentence of his servants What els can you say this to be but that all power of heavenly things is granted unto them of God For the sayth Whose sinnes ye retaine they are retayned What power I pray you can be greater then this one The next perverted witnesse is Basil touching whom observe I. Their threefold false allegation in citing three severall bookes of his viz. Constit Monach. l. 4. 14. 6.2 7. c. 35. whereas Basil wrote onely one booke with such a title and as for the 4th 6 t 7th here mentioned by Mr C. there be none such What grosse dealing is this II. Suppose it was the Printers fault that these bookes were thus misalledged and that it was but Mr Cannes oversight to let them passe without correction yet even for that one book of Monasticall constitutions which Basil did write therein also is nothing to be found against the authority of Synods nor any such matter as Mr C. pretends It is a great forgery and abuse of the ancient Fathers thus to pretend the vaile of their authority for covering of errour when as the places pretended have not a word sounding to such purpose III. That Basil allowed
the authority of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes it appeareth both by the praise which he (h) Basil Magn. Epi. 60. 78. gives unto the Nicene Synod that for the censuring of Hereticks which was an act of jurisdiction and not of admonition or counsell onely and againe in that he complaineth unto his great friend Nazianzen touching the intermission of Synodall assemblies and saith (i) Ep. 33. If we had yearely met oftner together both according to the ancient Canons and according to that care and solicitude which we owe unto the Churches certainely we had never opened a doore unto slanderers And againe writing unto Athanasius touching such meetings he calleth them (k) Eâ— 48. the way of help for troubled Churches Thus also doe the Centurists (l) Cent. 4. c. 7. col 522 understand him and alledge his testimony to shew the consociation of many Churches in Synods in that age The Author next objected is also misalledged The letter of reference in the line leades us unto a book in the margine which was not written by Socrates and what place he therefore intends in Socrates he must tell us another time In the meane time let it be remembred that this Ecclesiasticall Historiographer doth plainely and plentifully record against my opposites that the causes and controversies arising in particular Churches were judged by another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves to wit by the authority of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in Synods This he shewes in the (m) Hist Ecc. l. 1. c. 5 condemnation of Arius by the Councell of Nice in the (n) L. 2. c. 24. deprivation of Photinus by the Synod of Siâ—mium in the (o) L. 7. c. 33. deposition of Nestorius by the Councell held at Ephesus and in many other the like instances If happily he intended those places misapplyed unto Basil in the former quotation he is not thereby excused seeing in the first place viz. l. 4. c. 14. there is nothing at all spoken of this matter and in the two latter viz. l. 6. 2. 7. 35. Socrates againe declares the authority of Synods in those times Isidorus it seemes must owne the quotation Lib. de Offic. which by the marginall note is assigned to Socrates he having written two bookes concerning Ecclesiasticall Offices These Mr Canne cites at large without specifying either book or chapter But in those bookes of Isidorus as there be many things which Mr C. would not be bound to approve so there is nothing that with any shew of reason can be applyed against the authority of Classes and Synods On the contrary we may justly inferre that he did not there restraine all Ecclesiasticall power unto a particular Congregation as from many other so especially from these his words (p) De Offi. Ecc. l. 2. c. 6 Moreover that a Bishop is not ordained of one but of all the Bishops of the Provinces this is acknowledged to be appointed because of heresies lest by the tyrannicall authority of some one ordaining they should attempt any thing against the faith of the Church Therefore they all concurring he is confirmed and no lesse then three being present the rest consenting by the testimony of their letters Againe for other of his writings to shew his judgement in this poynt this Isidorus is (q) Cus de Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 3. c. sayd to have made a collection of all the Synods that were before his time which booke is (r) Concil Tom. 2. p. 146 147. alledged in a Synodall Epistle of the Councell of Basil to prove the authority of Councels above the Pope For his practise he is (Å¿) Magdeb. Cent. â— col 261-287 513. recorded to have bene President of a Synod at Sevill in Spaine were he was Bishop and as some relate of two other at Toledo wherein appeare divers actes of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the exercise whereof he joyned with others after the manner of Synodall proceedings Bernard is in like manner misalledged through want of attentioÌ„ diligence not onely by a wrong note of reference but by a defective mention of his writing Ad Eugen. For Bernard having written 5 bookes of Consideration Ad Eugen. and besides them more then 30 Epistles Ad Eugen. he doth not specify which of these bookes or which of these Epistles he meanes But whether we consider those bookes or Epistles we finde Bernard in extremity opposite to Mr Canne giving power not onely unto Synods as the Ancient Fathers before mentioned but even to the Pope himself to judge the causes of all Churches For living in a time of great blindenes and height of Poperie when the smoke of the bottomlesse pit had darkned the Sunne and the ayre he was led aside through ignorance to exalt Antichrist and writing unto Pope Eugenius that had bene his disciple he gives him these most ambitious titles and (t) De CoÌ„si ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 8. calles him the great Priest the supreme High Priest the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles Abel in primacy Noah in government Abraham in Patriarkship Melchisedek in order Aaron in dignity Moses in authority Samuel in judgement Peter in power Christ in unction c. the onely Pastour of all flockes and of all Pastours themselves c. the Vicar of Christ c. And though otherwise he gave many lively testimonies of a godly minde that was in him yet not without cause is he (v) Whit. de Pont. Rom. q. 4. p. 425.426 taxed for blasphemy in these unrighteous titles given to the man of sinne More particularly in his first Epistle which he wrote unto Eugenius after he was created Pope upon occasion of the controversy that was betwixt the Archbishop of York the Archbishop of Canterbury he puts this Pope in minde that he (x) Bernar. ad Eugen. Epist 237. hath authority to judge the controversies that arise in other Churches and wisheth him to use the same and to give unto them according to their works that they might know there is a Prophet in Israel And writing againe (y) Ep. 238 of the same matter he calles the Archbishop of York that Idol of York in regard of his intrusion he might better have entitled Eugenius the Idoll of Rome provokes the Pope as having the fullnes of power to cast his dart to give peremptory sentence of deposition against the Arch B. and as the phrase of Bernard is to lighten or strike with the thunderbolt of his power The like exercise of power over those in other Congregations is often elswhere (z) Ad Innoc Epist 189 190. allowed by him And hereby it may appeare how grossely Mr Canne hath alledged these ancient Writers quite contrary to their meaning and Bernard in speciall that subjects Congregations not onely to Councels and Synods as the Fathers before alledged have justly done but doth unjustly subject them to one person even to the
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