then those that doe so many wayes pervert his meaning he being not onely a member of the same Church but a member of the same family living under the same roofe with me where we had continuall and daily occasion to talk of these things and at that time when Mr Iacob published his unsound writings touching this question He being afterwards also a member of the same Eldership and by office sitting with us dayly to heate and judge the causes of our Church and so becomming a member of our Classicall combination yet did he never testify against the unduepower of the Classis or complaine that we were not a free people though the Classis exercised the same authority then as now it doth Yea he being also for that time the Scribe of our Consistory the Acts of our Eldership and Church being recorded with his owne hand are extant to shew his agreement with us in the government of this Church And it appeares hereby that he was of another spirit and judgement then Mr Davenp who hath published so many vaine cavills against the government and discipline of these Reformed Churches and this under the cloake pretence of his agreement with Mr Parker Yea and further it is apparent that the knowledge and experience which Mr Parker got by this his living here in communion with these Churches hath bene a speciall help unto him in the writing of those learned treatises of Ecclesiasticall policie which for the substance and maine are as a lively Table wherein the government of these Reformed Churches is plainely pourtrayed before our eyes his discourse being as it were a narration and defence of their practise which discourse might yet have bene more perfect had he lived to finish the same SECT IV. His Allegation of D. Ames examined IO. DAV To these I might adde D. Ames in that which he wrote in his latter time wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set downe his judgement more warily in this matter Casus cōsc l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. c. 25. qu. 5. then formerly See his Cases of Conscience the 4. Booke where he speaketh clearly of this power as essentially belonging to particular Churches ANSVV. Thus instead of Arguments from the Scripture for the confirmation of his cause Mr D. still leads us from one mans testimony to another thither I am forced to follow him And for D. Ames 1. I may justly testify that I have found him wavering in his opinion touching the authority of Synods For through the inward familiarity which I had with him a long time for more then 20 yeares together while he lived in these countries having oftentimes had earnest conference with him touching this question and much complayning of the wrong done to many Ministers by that booke entitled English Puritanisme which he had translated into Latine wherein there is such a peremptory restraint of all Ecclesiasticall authority unto particular Congregations though he did never plainely retract that which he published yet he shewed himselfe divers times enclining to a change of his judgement yea sometimes acknowledged that Synods had power to judge of causes and by their sentence to decree the excommunication of such as had deserved the same II. For his writings D. Ames when he (t) Preface to Mr Par. book de Pol. Eccl. anno 1616. gave so great approbation of Mr Parkers work which he wrote of Ecclesiasticall policie wherein he doth so largely maintaine the power of Classes and Synods might cause the Readers to think that he was of the same judgement with him seeing he gives such generall allowance and commendation thereof without any exception about this question III. It is to be observed that in none of his latter writings he doth use that peremptory phrase in limiting Synods or Churches combined in Classes or Synods onely to counsell or advise in such manner as was done in that (v) Engl. Purit c. 2. first writing IV. And more particularly in his Treatise of Divinity he writes thus of particular Churches (x) Medull SS Theol. l. 1. c. 39. th 27. that as their cōmunion requires the light of nature equity of rules and examples of Scripture doe teach they may and also ought frequently to enter into a mutuall confederation and consociation among themselves in Classes and Synods that they may use common consent and mutuall help as much as commodiously may be done in those things especially which are of greater moment Now as in particular Congregations the greatest acts of power and jurisdiction which are exercised therein receive their strength from common consent and doe consist therein so if in matters of greater weight the common consent of Synods is to be used then is a power and authority asscribed unto them then ought not particular Churches to proceed without and against the authority of common consent in Synods And that mutuall help of other Churches is then most effectuall whē there is not onely advise but authority also to cōfirme the same Though D.A. adde in the same place that this combination doth neither constitute a new forme of the Church neither ought by any meanes to destroy or empaire that liberty power which Christ hath left unto his Church for the directing furthering whereof it onely serveth this we also willingly grant When a particular Congregation is hindred stayed frō the exercise of their authority in an unlawfull businesse in an unjust excōmunication or electiō their liberty power is not hereby destroyed or taken away but rectifyed and preserved Here is to be remembred that which Mr Par. as was noted before sayth upon like occasion when some objected that the Churches of the villages in the Netherlands wanted the power of excommunication he replyes (y) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 349. Imo potestas excommunicandi ordinandi jurisdictionis caeterae illis illibata relinquitur c. The power of excommunication ordination and other jurisdiction remaines unto them uncorrupted c. though they doe not proceed thereunto but with common consent of the Classis V. After this D. Ames in his Disputation against Bellarmine touching Synods or Councels doth sundry times acknowledge that they have more authority then onely to counsell and advise This is to be observed in divers povnts as first in the Question whether the greater Prelates onely have jus suffragii decisivi the right or authority of a determining or definitive suffrage or whether the same belong unto the Elders also or inferiour Officers to whom Bellarmine allowes a consulting voyce but not a definitive Here D. Ames according to the receyved opinion of the Protestants (z) Bellarm. enerv Tom. 2. l. 1. de Conc. c. 2. allowes unto them also the right and authority of suffrages when they are deputed and sent as the Delegates of their Churches unto Synods This he oft repeateth And although he say (a) Ibid. th 8. that in matters of faith there is no
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
so that the 120 persons met together at this time Act. 1.15 cānot be sayd to have bene a distinct particular Church of persons dwelling in Ierusalem but an occasionall assembly or Synod upon such ground as the story of the Scripture doth manifest II. In respect of the busines it self here performed viz. the election of an Apostle it was such a work as did not appertaine unto any one particular Church but all Churches had interest therein seeing the care of all the Churches was cōmitted unto the Apostles 2. Cor. 11.28 All Churches were alike bound to beware of false Apostles that could transforme themselves into the Apostles of Christ 2. Cor. 11.13 It had bene a presumption in any one Church and a wrong unto all the rest if without their consent one alone should have chosen an Apostle especially considering there were even at this time a multitude of the faithfull in other places whom this work concerned Many had bene lately converted by the ministery of Iohn Baptist Matt. 11.12 and now immediately before the Ascension of Christ we read of more then 500 brethren at once which were witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ 1. Cor. 15.6 These 120 had done injury unto them save that these generall persons the Apostles called of God for the service of all Churches did for them by divine appointment appeare in this Synod III. In respect of the manner of this election which was made with a threefold limitation 1. Unto one of those men which had companyed with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Iesus went in and out among them beginning from the baptisme of Iohn even untill that same day that he was taken up from them Act. 1.21 22. Now these Disciples that thus waited on Christ such as Barsabas and Matthias were being no inhabitants of Ierusalem what power had a particular Church to determine and dispose of them that were no members of their particular society 2. There was a restraint from absolute electing of any one of these they were onely allowed to present two and to offer them unto the choyse of the Lord. vers 23.24 3. The way and meanes of inquiring the will of God herein was determined and restrained unto a Lot whereby the judgment and definitive sentence of God was declared unto the Synod that rested therein And by these extraordinary directions it pleased God to honour this first Synod of the new Testament It is here also to be observed that although some Writers have spoken of this election as made by a particular Church yet we have sundry learned men consenting with us in the exposition of this story who labouring to shew the profit and necessity of Synods (a) Whitak de Concil qu. 1. c. 3. doe argue from this place Act. 1. and affirme that in the New Testament the Apostles and whole Church did celebrate a Synod for the choosing of Matthias into the place of Iudas The Professours of Leyden to the same purpose (b) Synops pur Theol. Disp 49. alledge this example Act. 1. and call it the first Synod at Ierusalem II. The example of that renowned Synod which is recorded Act. 15. is a sufficiēt warrant wherein the use and authority of Classes and Synods is commended unto us and this not onely for counsell and admonition but also for the judgement of causes and for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction As that which went before the Synod namely the great dissention about a dangerous errour with seeking of redresse by a solemne deputation of messengers from the Church of Antioch Act. 15.1 2. did call for help in the most effectuall manner so the things done in the Synod are an evidence of the authority which they used therein both by a definitive sentence which they pronounced concerning that controversy which was brought unto them vers 28 29. and by an authentick ambassage of chosen men sent from that Assembly of Apostles Elders and brethren both to carry the Epistle that was written and by word of mouth to declare the same things vers 22 23 25 27. That also which is noted to have bene done after the Synod in the publication of the acts thereof doth also beare witnesse touching the authority of those acts in that they are called the decrees ordained of the Apostles and Elders c. Act. 16.4 The fruit also which by the blessing of God followed hereupon in being a meanes of great consolation and establishment of the Churches in the faith Act. 15.31 16.5 is to be considered as an argument whereby the H. Ghost doth further commend unto us the authority of such Synods in the right government of the Church Upon this example doe generally all judicious Writers build the authority of Synods as upon a sure foundation groundwork Calvine saith that (c) Cōment in Act. 15.6 here is prescribed of God the forme and order of gathering Synods c. Beza upon this place (d) Annot. maj in Act. 15.12 V. 23. having shewed that here was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or foregoing consultation of the Apostles and Elders which was related unto the whole Church and ratifyed in the common assembly thereof he affirmeth that this was the right forme of a lawfull and true Apostolick Synod c. And both these are to be understood of such Synods as exercised authority of Ecclesiasticall censure according to the practise of those Churches wherein they lived of which more hereafter Bullinger observeth here as is noted by (e) Expos Eccles in Act. 15.6 Marlorate that this custome was in old time diligently kept of the holy Bishops in imitation of the Apostles and complaineth of the neglect thereof D. Rainolds when as the Papist objected unto him that there must be a chief Iudge to end controversies to keep the trueth of faith peace of the Church that it be not pestered with heresies and schismes he answers thereunto (f) Conf. with Hart. c. 6. div 2. p. 206. that The wisedome of God hath committed that chieftie of judgement so to call it not to the soveraigne power of one but to the common care of many For when there was a controversy in the Church of Antioch about the observation of the law of Moses some Iewes teaching contrarie to that which Paul and Barnabas taught they ordained that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should goe up to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question Act. 15.2 And so by their common agreement decree the controversy was ended the trueth of faith kept and peace maintained in the Church After which example the (g) Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. 21. 22. lib. 7. c. 26. 28. Cypr. epist 6. 14 31. 53. 72. 75. Concil Ancyr Gangr Antioch Laodic c. Bishops that succeeded them made the like assemblies on the like occasions and by common conference took order for such matters both of doctrine and discipline
and approbation he sayth it followeth hence that no one Church was superiour unto others but all were equall among themselves This he declares by instance in the Church of Rome which though in ancient time it was of great estimation and dignity yet had it no speciall authority and jurisdiction above other Churches as he shewes by the testimonies of D. Rain Whitak and Iunius But he doth not collect thence that many Churches concurring together in Synods doe want authority to judge and to give definitive sentences in the causes brought unto them Yea the contrary is manifest for whereas Bellarmine perverting the testimony of the Magdeburgenses who had sayd that the unity of faith might be preserved by the consociation of Churches which mutually were to help one another objecteth (y) DeRom Pon. l. 1. c. 9 Non sat est confilium imperium requiritur Counsell is not sufficient but authority is required Mr Parker in this (z) P. 327. same chapter alledgeth alloweth and commendeth the answer which D. Whitaker (a) DeRom Pont. Cont. 4. qu 1. p. 49 giveth unto Bellarmine viz. Consensum multorum non minus habere imperii quam unius voluntatem Sicolim Haeretici per Synodos refutati et alii in eorum locum suffecti Quid amplius postulas aut quae melior ratio excogitari potest conservandae pacis c. that is The consent of many hath no lesse authority then the will of one Thus have Hereticks bene refuted of old time and others put into their places What doe you require more or what better way of preserving peace can be thought upon c. Or what plainer testimony can Mr Dav. require for the jurisdiction of Synods They doe not answer Bellarmine that counsell alone is sufficient but plead for authority and power arising from the consent of many Iunius also answereth this objection of Bellarmine in like manner and sayth concerning the power of Synods (b) Anim. adv in Bellarm Contr 3. l. 1. c. 9. u. 74. Et est revera imperium Christi qui primum jubet per Apostolum ut spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subjiciantur deinde vero remedium adhibet 1. Cor. 11.16 quod si cui contentiosum esse videtur nos ejusmodi consuetudinem non habemus neque Ecclesiae Dei There is indeed the power of Christ who first commands by the Apostle that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets and then addeth the remedy 1. Cor. 11.16 that if any list to be contentious we have no such custome nor the Churches of God And Mr Parker in the same place reasoning in like manner confirmeth his answer and enforceth it saying What I pray you can be answered to this last reason for the Apostle Paul referreth us from the contentions of any one Church unto many whose example if it prevaile much how much more their sentence when they are assembled together in a Synod HAving answered these Allegations of Mr Dav. we may now see what wrong he hath done to Mr Parker in perverting his words and meaning and making him a Patrone of this erroneous opinion that is so prejudiciall to the Church of God in the government thereof by Synods and yet for the further clearing of the trueth and vindicating of Mr Parker and for the help of the Reader that he may better understand his meaning touching Classes and Synods for many have not his booke and many understand it not being written in Latine I will set downe his judgement more particularly touching the divers kindes and degrees of consociation of Churches with the speciall questions touching Synods and shew withall how he applyes the same to the practise of the Reformed Churches for the defence thereof in all which the jurisdiction of Synods is maintained And First comming to speak of the kindes of conjunction or consociation and shewing (c) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 22. p. 336. that some are more imperfect by way of Communication some more perfect by way of Combination The Combinations he sayth are of two sorts for some communicate among themselves by Letters onely and some both by letters messengers or Delegates These communicatory letters were called in old time Pacificall Synodall letters and Formatae And he (d) P. 337. alledgeth divers examples both from the Scripture and from the primitive Church touching this kinde of communication by letters And howsoever he notes from the Magdeburgenses that this communication by letters did not proceed from dominion and subjection c. yet this is to be understood touching the subjection of any one Church to another and not of subjection to many Churches for so he expounds himself touching this particular of communication by letters as he had often done before in generall For whereas it is objected If all Congregations be equall what shall be done in case of Schisme and Heresy when there is no Synod nor Christian Magistrate He answers (e) Ibid. c. 21. p. 324. The time scarsely falles out when no Synods can be had or if Synods be wanting yet Churches may communicate together by letters and although there be no authority in one Church above another yet many Churches joyned together either in a Synod or by letters have authority over one Church offending And in the next page (f) P. 325. againe alwayes every one Church is subject to many Churches And thus he expressely avoucheth a jurisdiction of many Churches over one even in their communication by letters And yet more particularly he applyes this to the present practise of the Reformed Churches highly commendeth the same saying (g) Ibid. c. â—2 p. 337. And now in the Reformed Churches the necessary use of Elderships is acknowledged ubi communicatio per literas primaeva purissime floret where the primitive communication by letters doth flourish in greatest purity Againe Mr Parker proceedeth in describing the consociation of Churches and sayth (h) Ibid. p. 338. The second communication of Churches followeth when some deale with others concerning any Ecclesiasticall busines not by letters onely but by messengers also This consideration is of great moment for unto whomsoever this handling of Ecclesiasticall businesses doth belong to them also of necessity doth belong the rest of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction This he often repeateth but most fully when speaking of the authority of sending messengers or Delegates he saith (i) P. 342. The power of sending Delegates in Ecclesiasticall affaires was not in any one Bishop but in the Church it self and therefore all the other jurisdiction Now it is evident that the Synod at Ierusalem did send Delegates in an Ecclesiasticall businesse Act. 15.25 26 27. and therefore according to Mr Parker did not onely consult admonish but also exercised jurisdiction therein and had the power of all other jurisdiction Thus the Reformed Churches doe dayly practise their Classes and Synods doe upon occasion send their Deputies unto particular Churches to judge compound and decide the
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
doth agree best For saith he it is not likely that the Apostles would depart from the first order or course which we have seen to have bene observed in the election of Matthias c. And upon Act. 1.26 he labours to prove that this manner of choosing is still to be observed in the Church as most safe and convenient whereby certaine men being found that are esteemed meet for the office unto which the election is to be made the event of our counsels may be referred unto the judgment of God by casting lots in such sort as Matthias was chosen unto the Apostleship However that he doth not deny the matters of particular Congregations to be subject unto the judgement of the Ministers of other Churches assembled in a Classis or Synod may be gathered from those testimonies which evē in this booke here alledged he gives concerning the authority of Synods and the Divine warrant upon which it is grounded Speaking of the authority of a Generall Councell which many then so much desired he sayth (y) Ibid. in cap. 5.21 To me also it seemes to be a most profitable thing if a free Synod could be obtained in which all controversies might be composed out of the word of God alone such as that Apostolicall Synod was of which we are to speak in chap. 15. and such as we know those of old to have bene viz. of Nice constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and the like c. And afterwards againe (z) Ibid. in cap. 20.17 intreating of Pauls sending from Miletus to Ephesus and calling the Elders of the Church he calles it a Synod By which example he saith as the faithfulnes and industrie of Paul doth appeare so also we are admonished that the assemblies of Ministers are altogether necessary in which Church-affaires may be handled by the common voyces of all This makes greatly for the maintaining of Church-discipline for the restraining of the ambition of Church-governours for the preserving of consent in true doctrine and for the repressing of heresies which if Ministers doe not most faithfully joyne their paines together are wont often to creep in This he declares againe by the example of that Synod Act. 15. and he commends the pietie and prudence of Constantine the great for his frequent assembling of Synods as on the other side he notes the wickednes of Licinius and of Antichrist in resisting and hindring the due exercise of this authority of Synods How doe these things agree with Mr Cannes discourse who yet alledgeth this Author as one of the Jurie by which he saith my position as he calles it is condemned viz. that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves Touching Sibrandus the order of electing Ministers in these Churches (a) Sibrād Lubb. Resp ad Piet. H. Gr. p. 159. approved by him is the same that is used in our Church and approved by me also and he hath notably perverted it in opposing of it unto me For that order hinders not but that there may be another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority in a Classis or Synod to judge of the elections made in particular Congregations or of other controversies This trueth is so often and so earnestly avouched by Sibrandus that scarsely any have bene more vehement in this poynt And in this very book alledged he in his first entrance in the preface to the Senate of Gelderland complaines of Grotius for oppugning this order of Classes and Synods and in the conclusion of his preface he professeth that there was scarsely any other meanes then a Nationall Synod to heale the evills of that time and desires them to perswade the calling thereof Afterward in the (b) P. 140. 141 c. book itself he shewes at large both from the Scriptures and practise of ancient Churches the use the order and the authority of Synods not onely in deliberating but in judging and deciding of controversies In his Disputation with Bertius he shewes (c) Epist Discept de Fide p. 3. that it is altogether needfull to have a Synodicall judgement to heale the wounds of the Church In his book against Vorstius after long dispute (d) Declar. Resp Conr. Vorst p. 142 143.144 in conclusion he offereth yea he provoketh and urgeth him to referre their controversy and differences to the judgement of other Churches which he there nominates And in the preface thereof unto the States Generall of the United Provinces he shewes from the word of God and examples of the godly the necessity of Synods he declares what confusion and distraction of Churches ensueth where they are neglected and makes earnest supplication unto them for the maintenance of this order in government In another of his bookes against Vorstius (e) Cōment ad 99 Errotes C. Vorst pref p. 45 Cōm p. 503 504. p. 841. both in the beginning middle and end of it he harpes upon the same string His appeale unto the judgement of other Churches and his willingnes to submit unto their judgement with his desire of a Nationall Synod is plainely declared therein Speaking of the fruit of Synods he saith (f) Ibid. pref p. 34. 35. that the holding of them in their Churches hath bene next unto God the chief sinew of preserving both the true doctrine and tranquillity of the Churches and that if any man acquainted with their affaires dare deny the same he shall manifest his impudency or make warre with his owne conscience And thus by the verdict of Sibrandus if my opposites understand the Discipline and state of these Churches and deny the fruit of Synods they must be held for impudent and unconscionable persons Moreover in his book against Bellarmine concerning Councells he gives divers testimonies (g) DeCōc Lib. 1. c. 1. l. 2. c. 3. l. 5. c. 1 3 5 8. touching the profitable use of Councels for the determining of controversies their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and the exercise of it in making decrees and censuring offendours By all which it appeares how injurious Mr Canne hath bene unto Sibrandus in producing him as a witnesse against the authority of Synods whereas he hath so often testifyed his judgement to the contrary Mornaeus in the place (h) Histor Pap. p. 542 c. edit 1612. alledged hath no such thing as for which he is quoted unlesse he meane that which is noted in one of the following pages (i) Ib. p. 545 that the Popes of Rome were chosen in publick assemblies of the Priests the Nobility the common people the Senate by the voices of all c. which if it be explained and applyed to the question in hand may easily be discerned to fall short of proving any thing against us But this Author in the same booke shewes plainly his approbation of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes He alledgeth frequently and maintaines against Baronius and Bellarmine the judiciall Acts and sentences of sundry Synods against the Popes of Rome
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
c. Doth not this distinction of offences different manner of dealing allowed by yourself shew that for some trespasses we are not bound to admonish the trespasser nor to insist upon them V. If Magistrates may lawfully passe by the judgment of some lesser sinnes then may the Church also passe by the publick censure of some lesser offences But the Magistrates may doe it Therefore the Church also The consequence of the Proposition appeareth because the Church is not more strictly bound to judge any sinne then the Magistrate is his commission for the judgement of all kinde of sinne great or small being as large as the Churches he being ordained of God to keep all the words of his Law to be a keeper of both Tables and to judge all evill according to the nature of it as well as farre as the Church is Deut. 17.18 19. Iosh 1.7 8. 1. Kin. 2.3 1. Chron. 28.7 8. 29.19 Prov. 20 8. Rom. 13.3 4. The Assumption appeareth likewise to be true from the first proofe of the Assumption in the former Argument as also from this that men are sometimes reproved for bringing their brethren before the Magistrates even in cases of injury sinne committed against them 1. Cor. 6 1-8 whereas if they were absolutely bound to let no small offence passe without judgement then should it also be the fault of others not to bring the same unto them this whether they were Christians or Infidels the like law charge being given unto them both VI. The ending of some controversies judging of some publick offences without the knowledge of the whole Congregation is by yourself acknowledged to be lawfull in the approbation of that Discipline in the English Church at Franckford which was there confirmed by the Church Magistrate for whereas it was there agreed that (k) Disc of troub at Franckf pag 115. c. art 53. if admonition with witnesses prevayled not the offence was then to be declared to the Ministers Elders to whom the Congregation hath given authority to take order in such cases according to the Discipline of the Church that (l) Art 54. there be three degrees of Ecclesiasticall Discipline first that the offendour acknowledge his fault and shew himselfe penitent before the Ministers Seniors secondly that if he will not so doe as well his originall crime as also his contempt of the Ministers Elders who have the authority of the Church be openly declared by one of the Ministers before the whole Congregation c. that (m) Art 67. if any controversy be upon the doubtfull meaning af any word or words in the Discipline that first it be referred to the Ministers Seniors if they cannot agree thereupon then the thing to be brought and referred to the whole Congregation Hereupon after recitall of these Articles held by the learned and most conscionable of the Church of England heretofore you adde as I noted before in another particular that (t) Animad vers p. 8.9 if they had continued herein it would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacie c. And further as you would there have it to be observed by the reader against Mr Clyfton Mr Iohnson in your third note upon the allegation of these Articles so may we as fitly observe against yourself in your owne words that if you had looked upon the examples which yourselves alledge you might have seen your errours resisted by others against which the Lord hath now called me also to witnesse CHAP. III. A Refutation of sundry errours vvhereupon Mr Ainsvvorth grounds their Popular Government The first Errour YOu seek to build the government of the Church upon unsure foundations these of sundry sorts First in that you argue from the examples of Civill Government in the Common-wealth to demonstrate the power of the people in the one by the authority exercised in the other This errour is to be observed in you divers wayes 1. In your (a) Art 24. Confession of faith and (b) Pos 8. p. 60. Apology you describe labour to prove the power given unto each Christian Congregation for the cutting off of any member to be in the whole body together from the Law of God mentioning a Civill judgment to be executed by the people of the Land in killing the man that should give his children unto Molech Lev. 20.4 5. and from the commandement that bound the Israelites to bring the Blasphemer without the campe to stone him to death Lev. 24.14 But 1. These judgements were Civill corporall punishments not spirituall censures 2. These were to be executed on strangers and such as were no members of the Church as well as upon them that were members thereof Lev. 20.2 24.16 3. These were to be executed on the offendours without exception whether they repented or not By what manner of reasoning then can the power of Ecclesiasticall censures be deduced or demonstrate from such examples as these II. In your (c) Animad vers p. 28. answer to Mr Iohnson you confesse that you alledged Numb 15.33 27.2 35.12 to give light unto the Question touching the power of Excommunication by shewing what was the peoples right then under the Law and under the Magistrate which may be more but cannot be lesse now under the Gospel c. Now those Scriptures the examples contained therein even as those before mentioned doe concerne Civill judgements pleas controversies as the stoning to death of the Sabbath-breaker the dividing of inheritances and possessions unto the daughters of Zelopehad the preserving of him that had staine a man unawares from the avenger of blood unlesse therefore you can shew that the power of excommunication is in all those that have power to execute the sentence of death and of the like Civill punishments you doe in vaine alledge all these examples wrest the word of God unjustly for the maintenance of your owne opinions III. This errour is so much the more inexcusable in you in that you condemne it in others and yet will not acknowledge and see it in yourself When Mr Iohnson would shew the power of the Elders in Ecclesiasticall judgements by the power which the Magistrates had in Israel you tell him that he (d) Anim. adv p. 14. streynes too farre you alledge the testimonies of sundry learned men that disclayme such manner of arguing say that to reason (e) Ibid. p. 16. from the Magistrate to the Minister from the sword to the word from the Law to the Gospell c. the leap is so great that cart-ropes will not tye the conclusion to the premisses that the argument is not good from Civill government to Ecclesiasticall and againe that the example is altogether unlike of temporall empire spirituall ministery betweene these there is not neither ought neither can a proportion or comparison be rightly made And how then comes it now to passe that the reasoning
judgement belongs unto men but of inquisition discretion consultation and that therefore that whole distinction betwixt persons defining and consulting is vaine yet it is manifest and undenyable that in the censuring of Hereticks that erre in matters of faith there is an Ecclesiasticall judgement belonging unto men and a definitive sentence to be pronounced against such The matters of faith are as little to be subjected or submitted unto the judgement of a particular Congregation as unto the judgement of Synods and yet Hereticks are not to be exempted from the judgement and censure of either of them D. Am. himself in the same place doth plainly acknowledge this distinction betwixt consultation and definitive suffrage when he saith (b) Ibidē Bene consulere majoris est virtutis quam ex aliorum consilio bene definire quamvis hoc sit majoris potestatis To consult well is a matter of greater vertue then from other mens counsell to define well although this be a matter of greater authority Seeing therefore he confesseth that to have a definitive voyce is a matter of greater authority then to counsell and advise and seeing withall that this power of suffrages and definitive voyces belongs unto the Deputies of Churches in Synods and that by his confession it is evident that herein he asscribes more power unto Synods then he did in that book of English Puritanisme Againe in the question whether a Generall Councell be above the Pope or the Pope above the Councell although D. Am. in handling the same doth not so fully and directly speak against Bellarmine as D. Whitaker D. Rainolds Iunius Sibrandus Lubbertus Chamierus and other of our Divines which maintaine that the Pope may be justly condemned deposed and Excommunicated by a Generall Synod yet doth he (c) Ibid. de Conc. c. 7. acknowledge the Councell or Synod to be above the Pope in the very proposition of the question and after takes upon him the defence of the Arguments commonly used by Protestant Divines for the proofe thereof Would he have spoken plainly according to the positions set downe in that booke of Engl. Puritan according to Mr Dav. his opinion that limiteth all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely he should then have sayd that as the Pope hath no power over a Generall Councell so neither hath the Synod any authority over the Pope either to depose excommunicate or any way to censure him but might onely counsell and advise him c. he should as well have refuted the Protestants for giving too much power to the Synod as the Papists for giving too much power to the Pope Now this he hath not done but hath set down his minde in such manner that neither the Papists against whom he disputed nor the Protestants whose receyved opinion he seemed to maintaine could easily observe any difference in him from our common tenent VI. In another booke after this he acknowledgeth (d) Cas Consc l. 4. c. 29. q 9. th 23. that it belongeth unto Classes and Synods when any difficulty is to declare by common counsell and to decree who ought to be excommunicated Now to decree an excommunication is an act of power whereby judiciall sentences are determined and in all propriety of speech doth containe more in it then a bare counsell or admonition and therefore herein he doth apparantly give unto Synods more authority then onely to counsell and advise And thus D. Burges had reason to understand this speech of D. Am. which he alledgeth and approveth and agreeably thereunto professeth that God hath established the use of Ecclesiasticall Synods for Church affaires as well as the gathering of Churches (e) Rejoyn p. 206. D. A. did either acknowledge the authority of Synods in this sentence or els was too blame for deceyving his Reader with ambiguity of speech VII In his (f) Fresh suit ag Cerem p. 90.91 last booke which he wrote immediately before his death when he speakes of representative Churches though he dissalow that kinde of Synod or Convocation which is sometimes kept in England in respect of Hierarchicall Officers and in respect of their imposing humane ceremonies yet doth he not condemne the Synodall assemblies of Scotland before Perth nor the Reformed Churches of France which have their association and combination without any Hierarchy And yet it is undenyable most certaine that those Synods of Scotland and France have used Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in censuring of notorious offendours and were not onely for counsell and advise as is further manifested hereafter Had he dealt plainly and answered his opposite fully he should have condemned the Assemblies of Scotland for that jurisdiction which according to Mr Dav. his opinion and that booke of Engl. Purit they unjustly usurped Yea further he doth justify those Synods for when as D. Burges (g) Rejoyn p. 206. had spoken of such Ecclesiasticall Synods as have jurisdiction and authority of censure as appeares by his opposing of them unto other Synods which the Separatists and Mr Iacob doe allow which have no power to controle but by way of brotherly admonition D. Am. in his reply unto that place confesseth that D. Burges did speak of (h) Fresh suit p. 183. right Ecclesiasticall Synods and for the other Synods of Mr Iacob the Separatists the same that Mr Dav. allowes he passeth away from them and sayth not a word in their defence which yet had bene most pertinent unto the question VIII As for those places in particular which Mr Dav. alledgeth out of D. Ames his Cases of Conscience for the (i) Cas cōsc l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. first of them though it be sayd there that the power of remooving scandals and excluding the wicked for the right thereof and in respect of the first act cannot be separated from a true Church because it flowes immediately necessarily from the essence thereof c. this is not against us for 1. When Synods judge the causes of particular Churches they doe not take away their power but onely restraine and correct the abuse of their power the authority of particular Churches is not separated from them but the corruption or fault that appeareth in the exercise of their authority They are still permitted to use their authority and judgement in censures elections c. when the Synod perceives that they doe not goe astray therein 2. Though there be a streame of authority flowing immediately from the prime Churches this hinders not but helps and furthers the authority of Synods unto which that power by delegation is immediately derived And therefore as there is a fountaine of authority springing out of a particular Congregation so there is a Sea of authority in the Synod where the waters of so many fountaines and the authority of so many Churches doth concurre and meet together As for that other place Cas Consc l. 4. c. 25. it is answered hereafter in the Allegation that is taken from D.
of the single uncompounded policie Though there were some differences among them concerning the government of the Church yet no one of them or of those other exiles who had sojourned at Strasbrough Basel Zurick Arrow Geneva and other places in Q. Maries dayes that left behinde them any monument of their agreement with Mr Dav. Mr Cann in limiting Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Church But of this story we have occasion to speak further hereafter (y) Chap. 7. Sect. 5. where Mr Can. againe brings more objections from thence SECT IX Mr Dav. his pretence of agreement with Iunius examined BEsides the former Allegations Mr Dav. pretendeth his agreement with Iunius in this question And after his vaine excuse of H. Grotius for slighting the authority of Classes and Synods as he did in that treatise which he published against Sibr. Lubbertus he sayth (z) Apol. reply p. 225. thereupon Bogermannus published his Annotations learnedly and succinctly penned in defence of D. Sibrandus wherein for answer of that part which concerned the necessity and authority of Synods he referred Grotius to what Iunius had written against Bellarmine de nceessitate potestate Conciliorum wherein I fully agree with Iunius ANSVV. Had Mr Dav. fully agreed with Junius then had it bene meet that the should have brought at least some one pregnant testimony out of Junius to have manifested their agreement which he hath not done If he will constantly and fully abide by this confession of his full agreement with Junius in that which he wrote against Bellarmine concerning the necessity and authority of Synods then must he acknowledge that they have jurisdiction over particular Churches for the judging of their causes and that they are not onely for counsell and admonition c. because (a) Animadv ad Bellarm Contr. 4. de Concil Junius is plentifull in witnessing thus much of them as appeareth First Bellarmine complayning how the Protestants by the instigation of Satan did destroy Ecclesiasticall judgements Junius answereth (b) In proefat nota 1. We also complaine of the deceytfull arts of Satan but they are not to be deemed to take away Ecclesiasticall judgements which with Paul 1. Gor. 14. doe urge that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets but that do we urge c. Junius applying this to Synods doth thereby confesse that they are for censure and judgement of causes and persons not for counsell onely He acknowledgeth the Protestants justly desired such a Councell (c) Not. 11. in quo cognosci decerni confici omnia posse confiderent that is wherein they hoped that all things might be examined decreed and dispatched This was more then counselling and implyed jurisdiction and power of judgement More plainely he saith we desire a Councell c. (d) N. 13. after such a manner as we see to have bene done of old in the examples of Synods especially of the first Nicene of the Chalcedon c. Now it is manifest in the Histories that in these Synods there was not onely a giving of counsell but an exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the censure and condemnation of Hereticks as is hereafter shewed at large Againe when Bellarmine accuseth the Protestants that they desire a Generall Councell but such a one as never was Junius answereth (e) N. 38. It is false But if we should desire such a Councell as Mr Dav. describes such a one as should be for counsell and admonition without jurisdiction then should the Answer of Junius be false we should desire such a Synod as never was It cannot be shewed that ever such a Generall Councell was held When Bellarmine accuseth Melancthon for requiring such conditions of a Synod that neither the persons nor causes of men should be condemned and that so nothing at all should be decreed in the Synod Junius answereth that this is fayned or forged of him and shewes further that though it doe not become the Church to use a bloody cure and corporall punishments yet there is a more wholesome order and tells what that is saying (f) N. 40. What Arius being overcome and convinced how was he punished of the Synod How was Macedonius Nestorius Eutyches in those renowned Synods Silence was injoyned them and their office taken away nothing more A most expresse testimony of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in the deposing of evill Ministers This was more then counsell onely After the Preface when in the book it self Bellarmine complaines of Hereticks that they devise a new forme of Synods and then give almost no authority unto them Junius answereth (g) Animadv in Cōtr. 4. de Cōcil l. 1. c. 1. n. 1. As for us we deny both and will God willing confute the first affirmation in the first book and the latter in the second But Mr Dav. cannot justly deny eyther of those assertions for first the single uncompounded policie doth necessarily inferre a new forme of Synods if it be not so let him shew when and where such a forme was ever used of old And for the second it is granted by Mr D. his owne confession when he alledgeth (h) Apol. reply p. 47. that other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good Is not this to give almost no power to Synods Bellarmine to shew the divine originall of Synods alledgeth Matt. 18. there am I in the midst of them Iunius assenting to him sayth (i) In cap. 3. l. 1. de Conc n. 1. It is also demonstrated in these words of the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 14.32 The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets Both places import an authority whereunto subjection is required When Bellarmine sayth of Bishops in Synods that they are not Counsellours but Judges Junius noteth (k) N. 2. that they are neither Counsellours nor Iudges but declarers ministers of the judgement of God in the holy Scripture in which words he asscribeth as much power and jurisdiction unto Synods as he doth unto particular Churches His meaning for both according to his use of speech is that they are not absolute but ministeriall judges Whereas Bellarmine reckoneth up sundry sorts of persons that may be present at Synods some as judges which have a deciding or determining voyce some for disputation which have a consulting voyce some as servitours or attendants some for the defence of the Synod to maintaine peace c. Junius denyeth not this but shewes that his enumeration is insufficient saying (l) Ibid. in c. 15. n. 2. It is to be added others as parties or persons accused whose cause is to be handled for certainly it is inhumane that any should be condemned not cited or not heard Others againe to be Auditours seeking their edification by enjoying that communication of holy things Hereby it is plaine that he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods and that they were not onely
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
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
for it while he addeth three other causes wherein the authority of Synods is superiour unto particular Churches wherein is expressed contained as much power as we asscribe unto Synods But that it may further appeare how Mr Dav. is condemned by his owne witnesse it is to be considered touching this famous light of Gods Church that as he (z) Epist Dedicat. undertook that great work at the appoyntment and command of a Synod as his sonne Adr. Chamierus after his fathers death dedicated that work unto the excellent and faythfull servants of God the Pastours and Elders of the French Churches assembled in a Nationall Synod comparing them to the threescore valiant men of the valiantest in Israel compassing the bed of Salomon all holding swords expert in warre every man with his sword upon his thigh because of feare in the night Sol. song c. 3.7 8. and as againe speaking of the Synod he applyes unto them that which is sayd of the Tower of David where the shields of the mighty men are hanged up c. Sol. song 4.4 so in the book itself there are many ample and pregnant testimonies touching the authority jurisdiction of Synods And first of all where he proves that the government of the Church is Aristocraticall by many and not Monarchicall by one he makes this distinction (a) Chamie Panstrat Cath. Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 5. The government of Churches is either of severall Churches or of many together viz. by Synods In both he maintaines an Aristocracie or jurisdiction of many He doth not restraine jurisdiction to particular Congregations and allow onely counsell or advise to Synods but he useth the same words and phrases to describe the power and government of one sort as well as of the other to note a like kinde of authority in both For the government of many Churches together in a Province he savth (b) Ibid. c. 7. For the disposing and directing of publick affaires Provinciall Synods were appointed that is companies of Bishops in the same Province which were assembled so often as need commodity required For evidence thereof he alledgeth divers Canons commendeth Cyprian for observing that order Touching the administration of all Churches in the world he sayth (c) Ibid. c. 8. He that denyeth these to have bene governed by Vniversall Synods must be either notoriously impudent or ignorant of all antiquity For in the very beginnings when a great question was raysed about the rites of Moses and some would have those that were converted from heathenish Idolatry to be subjected unto them Luke testifyeth that a Synod was assembled Act. 15. The Apostles and Elders came together to looke unto this matter And by the authority of this Synod that question was compounded which authority that they might signify to be the greatest the decree is conceived in these words It seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us And that this was an Oecumenicall or Universall Synod he there maintaineth by divers reasōs against Ioverius who in regard of the small number that met together affirmed it to be a particular Synod It seemes also that this was the place from whence Mr Parker took that which he alledged out of Chamierus because in these two chapters 7. 8. are contained those testimonies which he citeth And here it is that he speakes of causa communis or the common cause which Cyprian would have to be judged by a Synod And here it is that he speakes of some proper causes belonging peculiarly to some Bishops in their speciall charges viz. c. 7. But these things are not onely misquoted by Mr Dav. by putting the 2d book for the 10th but the sense is altered while Chamierus comparing Bishops with Metropolitanes restraines some things from Metropolitanes to such Bishops as had divers countries under them And though he shew how Cyprian brought a common cause unto the Synod yet he doth not affirme that onely such common causes were to be brought unto Synods Chamierus doth not witnesse that the power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters as Mr D. alledgeth him for witnesse thereof And in c. 8. he brings many evidences to witnesse the power of Generall Synods in judging the causes of all Churches Againe in the Question whether the Bishop of Rome may be judged of any Chamierus shewes the opinion of the Protestants whom he calleth Catholicks in opposition to the Papists that (d) Ibid. l. 13. c. 17. No Bishop at all may by divine right be judged of another but of many to wit in a Synod so as it hath most often bene done And when Bellarmine objected the examples of some Synods that refused to judge the Bishop of Rome Chamierus answereth that some of them were particular Synods consisting onely of such as were under the Romane Therefore they could make no generall decree but could onely ordaine that the Bishop of Rome should not be judged of them assembled in a particular Synod which certainely they either did not speak concerning a Generall Synod or els they spoke falsely A plaine confession of the jurisdiction of Synods for had he spoken of counsell or admonition onely why might not any one particular Bishop or Synod have admonished the Pope upon occasion and given their advise touching him In his dispute touching Appeales he sayth (e) Ibid. l. 14. c. 2. We doe not take away all appeales For they are of common equity and truely without them the Discipline of the Church could hardly or not at all subsist And he speakes there of such appeales as were made unto Synods Afterward speaking of the imposture or coosenage of the Bishop of Rome in the sixt Councell of Carthage where appeales denyed to Rome are yet expressely allowed to be made unto the Synods of their owne Province or to a Generall Councell hereupon Chamierus cryes out (f) Ibid. c. 3. Immane quantam crucem c. O how unspeakable a crosse is procured unto our Papists by the sincere constancy of those good fathers among whom were those great men Aurelius of Carthage and Augustine of Hippo c. Now look what weight and strength the testimony of those African fathers hath against the Papists even so much authority hath it against such as stand for the single uncompounded policie which deny the jurisdiction and power of Synods to determine such causes as by appeales are brought unto them For the jurisdiction of Synods in receiving appeales is in the same place as plainly confessed as the jurisdiction of the Pope is denyed by their prohibition of appeales to be made unto him Againe when he proves that the Pope is subject to Ecclesiasticall judgement he doth in the same question with one conclude that there is a superiority of power and jurisdiction in Synods to judge of him He instanceth (g) Ibid. c. 10. in Honorius a Bishop of Rome who by the sixt Synod was not onely judged but condemned as a
It is a most false consequence to inferre that because all Bishops are equall in power therefore Synods have no power to judge and as false it is to inferre that because the Keyes were given to all the Apostles therefore there is no Ecclesiasticall power to judge the actions of a particular Congregation In summe Mr Canne doth most ignorantly and grosly abuse all these Papists against their words their writings and their continuall profession and practise For though there be this maine difference betwixt the Papists that some of them doe asscribe the greatest authority unto the Church that is unto a Generall Synod or Councell maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope power to depose the Pope others of thē asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope rather then unto the Church or a Generall Councell representing the same yet doe they all agree in this that there is a superiour power above particular Congregations to judge the same The University of Paris and the Doctours of Sorbon have in speciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the Pope they (p) De Eccl. Polit. Pot. pag. 1. c. edit 1612. Paris bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same They alledge the sentence of Pope (q) Ibid. p. 16. Zozimus confessing himself to be inferiour unto the Councell They avouch that (r) Ibid. p. 19. the frequent edebrating of Synods is simply and absolutely necessary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church Whereas a certaine Frier Ioannes Sarrazin had by word and writing under his hand preferred the authority of the Pope above the Synods they (ſ) Ibid. p. 46-56 record at large and publish in print a most solemne decree made by the Theologicall faculty of that University whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion and a forme of recantation was prescribed according to which he confessed his fault acknowledged the power of Synods above the Pope The (t) Acts Monum p. 546 547. An. D. 1414. c. Councell of Constance did not onely exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in condemning of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage but also decreeing the authority of Synods and Councells to be above the Pope did actually depose divers Popes as Iohn the 23th and Benedict who was likewise excommunicate by them even as the Councell held at (v) An. D. 1083. Act. Mon. p. 164. Brixia had in former time by their sentence condemned Pope Hildebrand and judged him to be deposed So in like manner did the Clouncell held at (x) Ibid. p. 632.634 Bafile depose Pope Eugenius put another in his place By all which it is evident what the Papists then judged of the authority and power of Synods As all these so the other faction of Papists and the Iesuites in speciall that maintaine the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods Councells whatsoever that their decrees are not of force unlesse they be approved by the Pope these doe evidently teach that the affaires and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superiour judicatories out of themselves This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings where he shewes (y) Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 9 10 11. l. 2. c. 2. c. the causes the necessity and the authority of Generall and Provinciall Synods the (z) Tom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7 8 9 10. 14. c. power of elections and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter The same is maintayned by him in his (a) Tom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14 l. 2. c. 1 c. treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies plenary or for a certaine number of dayes for the living or for the dead And the like is to be found in (b) Tom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 c. Tom 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1 2 3 c. sundry other of his writings And to these might be added more then an hundred of other witnesses of the Romish Church acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes controversies of particular Churches Instead of many other the Councell of Trent called by (c) Concil Trid. Bul. Indict p. 8. Pope Paulus the third continued by (d) Bul. Resumpr p. 66.67 Pope Iulius the third and confirmed by (e) Bul. Confirm p. 243 c. Pope Pius the fourth together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in severall Sessions of that Councell doe give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts. Onely to conclude this Section let it be remembred how of old in our owne countrie the like testimony hath bene given to shew the authority of Synods We read (f) Act. Mon. p. 112. col 2. art 7. of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provinciall Synods should be kept within the Realme at least once a yeare Another Synod (g) Ibid. p. 155. was held at Winchester Anno D. 1070. where Stigandus Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed for receyving his pall from Benedict the fift And another (h) P. 157. was after held at London where many decrees were made in the time of Lanfranck the Archbishop c. This being the continuall and universall practise of the Papists what sense was there in Mr Canne to alledge their testimonies in such a poynt wherein they are so full and pregnant against him It is the fault of Papists that they give too much authority unto Synods and it is as grosse a fault of these my opposites to pervert their testimonies contrary to their meaning practise further then their words will beare SECT II. Touching the Testimonies of Lutheranes IN their first allegation taken from Lutheranes they say It is affirmed by the Centuries of Meydenburg that from Christs ascension unto Trajans time which is about a 100 yeares every particular Church was governed by the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the same Cent. 1. c. 4. To this I answer This allegation comes short of the question in hand and is therefore insufficient and perverted to prove that the Churches then did not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority for it is not affirmed by them of Meydenburgh in their Centuries that the Churches were governed by them alone or that there were no Synods in those times to judge of the actions of Bishops Elders and Deacons in cases of controversy which could not be well ended in particular Churches but the contrary is expressely taught by the same (i) Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. de
abuses about excoÌ„munication he saith Can the Bishop alone excoÌ„municate ExcoÌ„munication doth not belong unto any one man whosoever he be but unto the Church By these the like speeches of Zuinglius it appeares that his testimonies are not prejudiciall unto our practise nor unto that authority of Synods which we maintaine seeing we grant that no one person alone can by right excommunicate any man by his owne authority neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate those that are not in communion with them The other place cited out of Zuinglius touching the calling of Ministers is so farre from prooving any thing against us that being duely considered it may fitly serve to blame those popular courses which Mr Can. pleades for and to justify our practise in not performing this weighty businesse without the advise and approbation of neighbour Ministers assembled in the Classis Zuinglius in that treatise called Ecclesiastes having spoken of the Popish tyranny bereaving most Churches of the liberty of election he reprooves another extreme saving (f) Eccles Tom. 2. f. 54. If there were any Church unto which election was yet left free the common people rashly without all deliberation and without all counsell of learned prudent and faithfull men did choose those whom they did most favour not such as were indued with true vertues beseeming a Bishop Therefore there is nothing so agreeable unto the Divine ordinance and ancient institution as that the whole Congregation of a faithfull people together with some learned and godly Bishops or other faithfull and experienced men doe make choyse of a Pastour Thus he plainly disavowes the independency of Churches in such cases not allowing a Congregation to proceed unto the election of a Minister without the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches and to this effect he explaines himself further in the same place saying It is meet that the power of election should be in the Church being furnished with the counsels of faithfull and learned men For as that matter may not lye in the power of any one man so neither may the rude and unlearned multitude take upon them so great a weight of election c. And in the same leafe speaking of Anabaptists intruding themselves into the Churches of their owne accord he proves that they are no lawfull Ministers because they have not a due calling thus Bishops they are not for they are not chosen of any Church by lawfull and unanimous consent the authority of other Bishops excelling in faith and prudence also concurring Observe how that with the free consent of the people he joynes not onely the counsell or advise as he had called it before but the authority of the Officers of other Congregations Moreover that Zuinglius did not absolutely deny the authority of Synods though he speake much against Popish Synods may appeare if we consider the reasons which he useth against them viz. because they were not assembled in the holy Ghost because they did not judge of matters according to the Scriptures but according to the ordinances and customes of men c. Now this is not to dispute against the thing itself but against the abuse of it And therefore having spoken against such Councels of the Pope Cardinals and Bishops in such sort as Mr Canne had alledged him (g) Ch. pl. p. 75. before he addes withall (h) Art 8. expl I speake onely of these that are such my writings shall not hurt others who set themselves under the Scriptures not above the Scriptures And that these conditions for the want whereof he opposed those Popish Synods may yet be found in other Synods which have made decrees for the deciding of controversies raysed in the Church he acknowledgeth in these words (i) Paraenes ad coÌ„mun Helvet civ Tom. 1. f. 116. If the Councill of Gangra were assembled in the holy Ghost which no good man will deny while he sees that the decrees thereof doe agree with the lawes of the Gospell and with the doctrine of the Apostles it was unworthily done of those that came after that have disanulled the decrees thereof without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures Againe in another place speaking of the foure Generall Councels though he justly blame those that accounted them to be of equall authority with the foure Evangelists yet he saith (k) Archeteles T. 1. f. 137. Truely I would not have any thing to be detracted from them He was not therefore of Mr Cannes minde who will have all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be detracted or removed from Synods Besides Zuinglius doth not onely approve of these Synods held in former times but he also shewes himself ready to joyne in the like practise even in the exercise of the same Ecclesiasticall authority that was used in those Synods For when the Magistrates of Zurich had assembled together all the Ministers of the Churches both in their city and countrie and had procured the presence of divers others for the solemne vindicating of the doctrine taught in their Churches there Faber Vicar of the Bishop of Constance having spoken of a Generall Councell that it onely had authority to determine these things Zuinglius replyes (l) Act. Disp 1. Tom. 2. f. â—10 Whereas in this our assembly there be so many right faithfull men both of our owne countrey and strangers and furthermore seeing here be so many godly learned Bishops present who doubtles have a desire not onely to heare and understand but also to advance divine trueth verily I see nothing to hinder even in this place whereby it should not be lawfull for us according to the Vicars meaning to dispute of these things and to decree what trueth teacheth But other nations he sayth will never consent unto these our decrees c. By these and the like (m) Ibid. f. 621. c. passages it is evident that Zuinglius did allow the Ministers of severall Congregations assembled in a Synod not onely to consult and dispute but also to determine yea and to make decrees for the removing of controversies settling peace in the Church while they did it according to the Scriptures which is the same that we maintaine The words of Mr Luther whom he cites in the next place as they are to no purpose alledged against us seeing they touch not the question as I shewed before so being compared with other his writings they make it appeare that these two propositions may well stand together viz. that the Church hath power to judge to call to depose c. and yet that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation but that Synods Councells have authority to judge of Church affaires and to censure offendours forasmuch as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other In the yeare 1518 having understood that they proceeded against him in the Popes Court at Rome and that an unjust sentence was likely to
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
of that order which for election of Church-officers is practised at Geneva saying (q) Ibid. p. 105. that it is religiously and prudently observed Mr Canne might there have seen himself condemned under the name of Morellius even by this Replyer also as well as by Beza seeing it is as true of him as of the other that which is there sayd that he hath presumed by word and writing to reprehend that order c. our course being in substance the same and opposed by Mr C. in like manner as theirs was by Morellius Againe in the (r) P. 106. next page the sayd Authour doth expressely reject and detest that popular government practised among the Brownists and pleaded for by Mr Canne when having sayd that the peoples consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment according to that which we teach and practise he addes withall Notwithstanding a meere Democracie wherein all matters are handled of all aequato jure by an equall right we doe no lesse detest then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates which other reformed Churches have abolished And afterwards (Å¿) P. 113. when he allowes a preheminence for orders sake unto some one to be the mouth of the rest in executing that which was by the whole Presbytery decreed and then explaines that one to be the President of the Presbyters that is to say in each Congregation the Pastor and in a Synod or assembly of the Pastors and Presbyters of many Churches that one which with the consent and choyse of his brethren moderates the action there is no reason why we should not hence conclude his approbation of Synods such as are and have bene celebrated in well ordered Churches even such as doe not onely advise but also decree what is meet as he had sayd of the Presbyterie in generall As for the other places alledged out of this Authour I referre the Reader unto that which I have sayd (r) P. 116.117 before touching the same in my answer to Mr Davenport Mr Parker next alledged speakes downe right in this thing saith Mr Canne The words cited out of Mr Parker are these All Ecclesiasticall power is alwayes in the whole Congregation from hence it flowes as from the fountaine and to the same it returneth as to the Sea For answer hereunto 1. This Testimony here alledged by Mr C. is not onely cited amisse viz. Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 6. instead of c. 8. p. 28. and some words also unjustly added by him unto the testimony to make it seeme more full for his purpose but being taken as he sets it downe it doth not infringe the authority of Classes and Synods For though all Ecclesiasticall authority be sayd to flow from the Church as from a fountaine this hinders not but rather shewes how power may be and is derived unto Classes when particular Churches as fountaines doe by deputation and delegation send forth a streame of authority and power in Classicall and Synodall Assemblies in such manner as Mr Parker himself doth afterward (v) Pol. Eccl l. 3 c. 13. c. 23 24 25 c. often shew unto his Reader II. For the downe-right speech of Mr Parker wherein Mr Canne glorieth I desire the Readers that understand to review those passages which I have (x) P. 89-105 before noted at large out of Mr Parkers booke them that are able to looke upon those places in the booke itself and then to judge whether Mr Canne be not either very blinde in alledging the testimonies of learned men when he knowes not what they say or els very impudent and dishonest in corrupting and perverting their testimonies contrary to their meaning As for Mr Baines he is confusedly alledged viz. Dioces Tryall Conclus 4. for whereas in that booke there is often mention of Conclus 4. who can tell what place he meanes The trueth is that none of those fourth Conclusions in any part of his booke doe by any word empeach the authority of Classes or Synods But on the contrary in that his writing he gives plaine and evident testimonies of his agreement with us as I have (y) P. 111-116 already sufficiently declared Come we now to the testimony (z) Chu pl. p. 23. alledged in the name of D. Fulke whom Mr Canne praiseth to be a man famous and of rare learning They object unto me that he saith (a) Learned Discours of Eccl. Gov. p. 84. There ought to be in every Church an Eldership which ought to have the hearing examination and determining of all matters pertayning to the Discipline Government of that Congregation Hereunto I answer that such authority is to be exercised by the Eldership yet so as that the judgement and consent of the Congregation in weightier matters be not excluded and so also that the judgement of the Classis or Synod be not refused or denyed This Author will have the Eldership to determine all matters if they be able to doe it so he expounds himself shewing afterward that there be divers matters which the Eldership is not able by themselves to finish without help of a Synod And because Mr Canne in the margine of his booke sets his marke over against this place desiring us to Note this so I desire both him and others to note wel what this Author writes concerning the authoriy necessity and use of Synods I am glad to heare Mr C. to give so great commendation unto this indeed Learned Author who is so pregnant a witnesse for me and for Synods against the Brownists This is that which he (b) Ibid. p. 82.83 saith Seeing our Saviour Christ promised his presence and authoritie to every Church indifferently Matt. 18.19.20 None may challenge any such prerogative afore other but as the Churches are limited out for order and conveniencie so is every one of them of like authority in itself but because they make all but one Church and one body of Christ therefore there is but one authority in them to determine of matters concerning them all By which there appeareth to be a double authority of the Pastor one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour the other with the whole Synod or assembly whereof he is a member and both these authorities we finde sufficiently authorised in the Scripture c. Againe (c) Ibid. p. 111. 112. There is a double authority of the Pastour the one joyned with the Elders of the Church whereof he is Pastour the other with the Synod or holy assembly whereof he is a member There ariseth oftentimes in the Church divers Controversies which cannot otherwise be expressed pertayning to the state of the whole Church then by a generall assemblie of all the Pastours of that Church which is called a Synod or Generall Councell Also there be divers cases wherein the severall Churches are driven to pray the ayde of the Synod where matters cannot be determined among themselves For this cause the Holy Ghost
inferreth from hence this common law that other members of the Church which have no Ecclesiasticall office are to be subject to this government and ought to advance the same according to their power c. it is thereby evident that he could not like the course of W. B. or any such other schisming from the Church for this cause and complayning that they were not a free people if they were subject to Classes and Synods Mr Udall in the Demonstration of Discipline pag. 24 25. in that edition thereof which I have hath no such matter as is alledged before out of that treatise of English Puritanisme against the authority of Classes and Synods neither is it to be found in any part of that Demonstration that Christ hath not subjected any Congregation unto any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then unto that which is within itself c. And therefore it is untruely affirmed of Mr Canne that there is nothing there sayd but Mr Vdall with others above mentioned hath sayd the like On the contrary in that writing asscribed to Mr Vdall there be sundry testimonies shewing the authority of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations As it was (m) P. 204. before noted out of D. Fulke that there is a double authority of the Pastour one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour the other with the whole Synod or Assemblie whereof he is a member and both these authorities sufficiently authorized in the Scriptures so saith Mr Vdall to like purpose (n) Demōst of Discip c. 1. The word of God hath described sufficient ministers ministeries for doctrine exhortation overseeing distributing and ordering of every particular Church or generall Synod And againe he saith of Bishops or Pastours that (o) Ib. c. 10 they are of equall authority in their severall charges and in the generall government of the Church And in the same chapter he alledgeth the decrees of divers * 2. Concil Carth. tom 1. c. 10. 3 Conc. tom 1. cap. ◠Councels shewing how the causes of one Church or Congregation were judged by many Bishops of other Congregations meeting together In speciall when some (p) Demōst of Disc c. 14 objected that there would be so many Elderships so many divers fashions seeing one may not meddle with another Hereunto he answers The Government desired is uniforme for every Church and admitteth no change no not in outward ceremonies without a Synod of the choyce men of severall Elderships Hereby he plainely declares his meaning what he judged concerning the power of Synods for alterations to be made in particular Churches The Agreement of the English Church at Franckford in Queene Maries dayes is also alledged as a proofe of the Non-conformists dissenting from me whereunto I answer I. Those three Articles of their Discipline objected the one that the Ministers and Seniours severally and joyntly shall have no authority to make any manner of Decrees or Ordinances to binde the Congregation or any member thereof But shall execute such ordinances as shall be made by the Congregation and to them delivered Another that none shall be excommunicated untill the matter be first heard by the whole Church And further that Ministers and Seniours and every of them be subject to Ecclesiasticall discipline as other priváe members of the Church be these doe not at all concerne the question betwixt us For these things being granted it doth not follow that then the authority of Synods is overthrowne that they may not judge of any ordinances made in such a Congregation or that such a Church where these Articles are agreed upon hath thereby denyed and condemned such a Classicall government as we submit ourselves unto II. These Articles of their Discipline are not rightly and plainly but darkly and confusedly cited In the quotation of the first the page 115. is put for pag. 125. The two next are alledged without any quotation at all either of page or number of Article specifyed in the booke and both are joined together as if they were but one Article And in the second Article there is omitted that disjunction which affords an exception touching the strict observation thereof For whereas Mr Canne alledgeth it simply thus None shall be excommunicated untill the matter be heard by the whole Church the (q) Disc of troubl at Frankf p. 129. booke itself admitteth the liberty of a different practise by adding this clause or by such as it shall specially appoynt thereunto This falsification is so much the greater in that Mr Horne objecting against this Article and arguing that thereby (r) P. 163 164. the authority of the Pastour and Seniors is all wiped away for every thing is referred to the confused multitude of the Congregation Mr Whithead in the same booke answereth him on this manner Where he saith all things is referred to the confused multitude it is manifestly false For it is alwayes added by such as the Congregation shall appoint thereto as it is also in the 54 Article added in plaine words Let the Reader observe this deceitfull allegation both against the expresse words of the Article against the plaine explicatiō thereof by Mr Whit. in the name of that English Church at Frankford Whereas Mr Canne (ſ) Chu pl. p. 36. objecteth further from Art 26. 67. that in some cases the forenamed English Church agreed that appeales should be made unto the body of the Congregation I answer that in such cases as are there specifyed If the Ministers and Seniours which have authority to heare determine c. as it is elswhere specifyed though not in this Article be suspected or found to be parties that then they had reason to appeale rather to the body of the Congregation then that parties should be suffered to be judges in their owne cause And no marvell considering what I have noted (t) P. 121-125 before touching the state of that Church where the Reader may see a further answer unto these objections But then he askes me what I say to this and hopes I will not say that they were Brownists I answer His hope is right in this poynt I may not say they were Brownists nor their practise the same with the Brownists 1. Because they made this agreement through necessity when they wanted a Classis whereas the Brownists wilfully oppugne and refuse Classicall combinations 2. Because the Brownists deny authority of judgement unto Ministers and Elders in such cases where they are no parties which this (v) Art 59.63 Church at Frankford did not 3. Because the English Church at Frankford did not teach the doctrine of Separation as the Brownists doe but when they could not obtaine the reformation desired did (x) Disc of troub Frākford p. 187-191 still hold one another brethren in the Lord though greeved for the defects among them But it is wonder that Mr Canne is not ashamed to alledge the example of this English Church
at Frankford for whereas G. Iohnson in a peculiar (y) Disc of troub in the banish English Church at Amsterd p. 21-73 treatise which he wrote against his brother Franc. Iohnson and that Church of the Brownists whereof he was Pastour hath compared the troubles of these two Churches together in the first part of this treatise which is entitled The agreement between the banished English Church at Frankford in Q. Maries dayes and some troubles in the banished English Church at Amsterdam in Q. Elizabeths dayes he brings more then an 100 severall instances to shew that where any disorder scandall or offence was in the English Church at Frankford the like evills scandals and offences were also to be found and observed in the English Church of the Separatists in Amsterdam And in the second part of this treatise entitled (z) Ibid. p. 73-93 Differences between the Pastor Elders people in the troubles at Frankford in Q. Maries dayes and the Pastor Elders and people in the troubles at Amsterdam in Q. Elizabeths dayes he brings more then 20 severall instances to shew that the English Church of the Separation was worse then the other and that where divers good orders and practises were in the English Church at Frankford the same were wanting in the Church of the Brownists at Amsterdam And in particular let this be observed that concerning the English Church at Frankford G. Iohnson (a) P. 74. alledgeth that there was agreement among them that the matter should be decided by learned men But concerning those at Amsterdam he saith These differ farre from them herein they will not consent hereunto they will not be persuaded or intreated to let the Reformed Churches heare try judge and end the controversy between them and us For proof hereof he notes in his margine This is witnessed by the testimony of the Dutch Preachers given to the Pastors father Now instead of pleading from the orders of that Church at Frankford it had bene fitter for Mr Canne to have taken warning from these unparalleld offences of his predecessours not to maintaine the like disorders or els to have answered these parallels and censures of G. Iohnson and so to have removed if he could the scandall and blame which hath so long lien upon his fellowes for not answering this book HAving considered the particular testimonies of Non-conformists and how they have bene perverted by Mr Canne in applying them against the authority of Synods it shall not be amisse to adde yet further a threefold Testimony to manifest this poynt more clearly and fully and so to conclude this Section namely by the Petitions of Non-conformists to Qu. Elizabeth and to the Parliament the opposition of the Prelates to the Non-conformists the scorne of the Brownists against Non-conformists First when as the Ministers have made request unto Q. Elizabeth for reformation of things amisse shewing how controversies may be compounded they say (b) Petit. to the Q. most excel Maj. p. 3. that a free Nationall or Provinciall Councell at home were much to be wished c. And in a treatise annexed thereunto entitled Opinions of such as sue for Reformation among other things which they hold sue for this is one (c) Ibid. § 19. p 57. That if any dissention grow or cause of grievance be given in any particular Church by the Minister or Officers the partie grieved might appeale to a particular Synod from the particular Synod to a Provinciall Synod from a Provinciall Synod to a Nationall Synod Which Synods should be appointed at set times the more particular the Synod is the more often for the time to be moderated by some fit man changeably by election that might write speak and pray in the behalfe and at the direction of the rest c. And a little after againe (d) § 21. they doe professe and protest that they can and will avow this Reformation which they desire to be most agreeable to the Scriptures to have the testimonie of the best most learned men that have bene since the Apostles c. If Mr Ca. will not winke with his eyes he may here see what reformation hath bene sought and held needfull and that Iure Divino In like manner Mr Travers testifieth of these conferences or Classes Synods (e) Eccles Disc p. 98. with p 103. 104. reprin 1617. that nothing could be more profitable then these Assemblies being so used as they are appointed to be used by the word of God and used by other purer and better reformed Churches c. and concludes that his treatise of Discipline with an humble supplication unto Qu. Elizabeth of happy memory for the establishing of such a Discipline in her dominions To like purpose doe they write which were the Authours of the Admonition to the Parliament holden in the 13. year of Q. Eliz. begun Anno 1570 and ended 1571. They (f) Admon to Parl. p. 51 52. ed. 1617 describing the platforme of 2 Church reformed and presenting their desire to the consideration of the Parliament doe therein commend the use of Conferences and of Synods Provinciall Nationall and Generall for determining the weighty causes which could not be ended in particular Churches And they require that men should stand unto these determinations unlesse they can be shewed to be contrary to the Scriptures Secondly such as have bene speciall maintayners of the Prelacie doe confesse and testify that the Ministers which sought for reformation did therein seek for government of the Church by Classes and Synods and that not for counsell onely but to judge the causes of particular Churches and to censure such persons as were found guilty It is by one of them manifested in a speciall (g) Danger Positio for Presbyteri Governm l. 3. c. 2-15 Record that when divers Ministers not conforming were cast into prison and some of them brought into the Starre-Chamber and examined upon their oathes they declared the earnest endeavours of many Ministers for the obtayning of Classes And there among such as gave pregnant testimonie in allowance of Classicall government are nominated these following Mr Chark Mr Travers Mr Gardiner Mr Barber Mr Chester Mr Crook Mr Egerton Mr Field Mr Wilcox Mr Standen Mr Iackson Mr Bonham Mr Crane Mr Sâ—inctloe Mr Edwards Mr Cholmeley Mr Wright Mr Gifford Mr Gelibrand Mr West Mr Browne Mr Knewstubs Mr Wight Mr Walker Mr Cartwright Mr Fen Mr Oxenbridge Mr Perkins Mr Allen Mr Dike Mr Culverwell c. And about Northampton-shire alone are (h) Ib. p. 77 recorded more then 20 of this minde About Northampton Mr Snape Mr Penrie Mr Sibthorp Mr Edwards Mr Litlâ—ton Mr Bradshaw Mr Larke Mr Fleshware Mr Spicer c. About Daventrie Mr Barbon Mr Rogers Mr King Mr Smart Mr Sharp Mr Promdlos Mr Elliston c. About Kettring Mr Stone Mr Williamson Mr Fawsbrook Mr Patinson Mr Massey c. The lawes rules and order both in Classes and in Synods described in
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
Sabbath bestowing it wholly in divine and religious exercises resorting (k) Ib. cap. 3. p. 54. 72 73. foure times a day to the publick assemblies of Gods worship even in the Winter time and in Summer five times a day c. The bond of that perfection which they seek for and have in some measure attained unto seemes to be their combination in Synods and that unity therein whereupon they are denominate Their government and the fruits thereof have bene such that many of the speciall lights of Christendome since the time of Reformation have admited and commended the same and sundry of them have wished for the like Discipline and order in the Churches where they lived as appeares by the testimonies of Luther Melancthon Bucer Pet. Paulus Vergerius Beza Zanchius Olevian Vrsinus Chytraeus Pet. Martyr Calvin Polanus Bucholcerus which testimonies are (l) P. 106-122 affixed unto the end of that book of their Discipline Yea the printing of this book of their Discipline according to their cōmon order in such cases was not done without the (m) Pref. p. 8. 16. authority of a Synod namely of that which was celebrated at Lessna in Poland anno 1632. they being by the present troubles dispersed abroad into those parts Unto that which he had alledged out of the Bohemian Confession Mr Canne saith the Churches under the Palsgrave likewise consented and to this end he citeth their Publick Catechisme in the end of part 2. For answer hereunto 1. If these Churches consent unto that which the Bohemian Churches have professed then they doe not agree with Mr Can. as appeares by what hath bene sayd in the foregoing Answers 11. The place here alledged hath nothing touching the persons to whom the Keyes are given which is the thing for which it is produced it speakes onely of the use of the Keyes and the ordinary exercise of Discipline in the Church without restraining the same unto the sole jurisdiction of a particular Congregation or excluding the authority of Classes and Synods either for advise consent before hand or for the correcting of abuses committed in the administration of it And that the power of a superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatorie exercised in such cases is agreeable unto the doctrine and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate may appeare from the testimonies (n) P. 191.192.193 before noted out of Vrsinus Tossanus Paraeus Divines of speciall eminencie in those Churches III. Whereas it is sayd in this Catechisme (o) Qu. 85. concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline that offenders after other admonitions persisting in their errors and wickednes are to be made knowne unto the Church lest this should be understood of the whole multitude it is added presently or to them that are appoynted for that matter and purpose of the Church and if neither then they obey their admonition are of the same men by forbidding them the Sacraments shut out from the assembly of the Church c. The meaning is as it is explained (p) Explic. Catech. ad Qu. 85. by Vrsinus who also yeelded speciall help for the compiling of that Catechisme that when any is to be excommunicated the matter be first heard tryed and judged by the whole Presbyterie and that their judgement be approved by the Church that it be not undertaken by the private authoritie of one alone or of the Ministers alone This serves to justifie what we teach and practise and to condemne both the tyrannicall and popular courses of others IV. Moreover for the judgement and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate concerning the authority of Classes Synods which is the poynt in controversy it is to be observed that all the Ministers which according to order are there confirmed in the Ministerie are as a Jurie of so many sworne men bearing witnesse against the Independencie of Churches For at their ordination they doe not onely testify and promise by subscription and giving of of the hand but withall they doe binde themselves by a solemne oath among the rest (q) Churf Psaltz Kirchendi bestall punct Art 16. to obey the Politicall and Ecclesiasticall Lawes the Officers and Inspectors there appointed c. to referre or submit Church-affaires unto the Ecclesiasticall Senate set over them c. and also according to the appointment of their Inspector to frequent the Classicall assemblies in whatsoever place or quarter they are held willingly and freely to subject themselves unto the censure of their brethren to deale faithfully uprightly and quietly in their censures votes to doe nothing neither for feare nor favour of any but what they judge to be profitable for the edification of the Churches and Schooles The Confession of the Churches of Switserland or Helvetia is notably falsifyed by Mr C. They confesse in the place (r) Confes Helvet Art 16.17 alledged by him that the power of the Keyes ought to be committed unto select and fit persons either by divine or by certaine and required suffrage of the Church or by the sentence of those to whom the Church hath delegated this office in which latter disjunction omitted by Mr C. they acknowledge another Ecclesiasticall authority besides that of a particular Congregation about the election of Ministers And a little after (ſ) Art 19. this is further declared when they acknowledge that the faulty are to be admonished reprehended restrained and those that goe further astray by a godly agreement of such as be chosen out of the Ministers and Magistrates to be excluded by Discipline or punished by some other convenient meanes so long untill they may repent and be saved Such an Ecclesiasticall Senate it seemes was among them for the government of particular Churches And further the authority of Synods for such purpose is likewise specifyed and justifyed in the larger (t) Cap. 18. p. 63. Helvetian Confession Besides this we have a particular story hereof related by Walaeus out of Beza who recordes that (v) Ampt der Kerckēdien p. 214 out of Bez. Apol. pro Justif ex sola fide p. 263. c. when a controversy arose at Berne betwixt Huberus and Abrah Musculus the sonne of Wolfg. Musculus touching the doctrine of Praedestination the Rulers of Berne following the order of the Apostles did appoynt a Synod out of all the Classes within their jurisdiction who together with the help of other excellent Teachers called from Zurich Basel Schaphuysen and Geneva did take cognition of the differences and after due triall according to the word of God made a conclusion so that thereby the Churches were brought unto their former peace That which is next alledged by Mr C. from the Confession of the French (x) Art 30. Churches viz. the equality of all true Ministers and Churches so that none may arrogate dominion over another is not at all hindred by that authority which is exercised in Synods seeing all the particular Churches united in Synods are in like manner and equally
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
ministery of the Word and Sacraments unto the whole Church but not so that everie one rashly and of his owne accord should take unto himself and exercise that ministery without a lawfull calling but that after immediate calling hath ceased God sends the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments by the calling and election of the Church if it be performed according to the direction of his word so that the chiefe power of the Word and Sacraments is in God secondly that the ministery is in the Church as by which God doth mediately call choose and send Ministers thirdly in those who are lawfully chosen and called of God by the Church as in the Ministers to whom is commanded the exercise or administration of the ministery of the Word and Sacraments Not to speake of some difference which the Reader may easily perceive betwixt Mr Cannes allegation and his Authors words there is nothing here sayd that doth any way prejudice the jurisdiction of Synods neither can he from hence inferre any thing against us Moreover if that distinctiō be considered according to the meaning of the Authors from whence it is taken it doth flatly contradict the opinion and practise of Mr Canne and others of the Separation who will have not onely the power but also the execution or administration of it to be in the people promiscuously when all causes must be brought to the body of the Congregation there to be heard and determined Thus Mr Parker (d) Pol. Eccl l. 3. p. 26. opposeth this distinction unto the Democratie or popular government of Morellius whom Mr Iacob in this respect parallels with them of the Separation as was noted (e) P. 176. before These maintaine that the people are to exercise their power in judging of causes which the sayd Authors both Chemnitius and Mr Parker conceive to be derived into the Aristocraticall part or Officers of the Church for the ordinary exercise of it she still retaining her interest therein so farre that in matters of speciall moment nothing be concluded without her knowledge and consent That moderating and guiding of the action which Mr Canne and those of his minde reserve onely unto the Officers of the Church in which respect he doth here call them Guides cannot make that difference betwixt the judiciall exercising of power as it is in the Officers and the first receyving of that power which is sayd to be in the whole Church by those that maintaine that distinction In a word they say that the exercise of this power doth not ordinarily belong unto the people he saith that it doth Such is the agreemēt betwixt Mr Canne and his witnesses Melanchthon whom he alledgeth for the same purpose with Chemnitius as Mr Parker had done (f) Ubi supra p. 26. before hath not any thing in the place mentioned that sounds that way He speakes there Loc. Theol. de Regno Christi onely of the spirituall kingdome of Christ against the Jewes and some sorts of Anabaptists Neverthelesse seeing he was one of speciall eminency among those with whom he is here joyned it may be usefull to observe how Mr Canne is condemned by this witnesse also whom he hath sought to produce against us in this controversy touching the authority of Synods Among other Articles propounded unto the Protestants to ensnare them this being also questioned Whether the holy Oecumenicall and receyved Synods have erred Melanchthon answers (g) Respōs ad Artic. Bavar Art 7. By this generall demand they seek to kindle hatred against us as if we seemed to reprehend all Synods all things that have been acted in Synods But we professe openly that there ought to be judgements in the Church and we affirme that there have been many godly Synods and profitable unto the Church and we doe greatly wish now in these dissentions that the judgement of the Church might be rightly settled If he had bene of Mr Cann minde he should have answered farre otherwise viz. that all those Synods erred that exercised any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction that they were to be blamed for the making of all those Actes wherein such authority and power was implyed such as were generally all the Actes of the Synods of Antioch Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon Gangra c. which as he saith in the same place their Churches doe imbrace he should have sayd also according to Mr Cannes principles that though there may and ought to be judgements that is Ecclesiasticall sentences and censures in particular Congregations that yet they ought not to be in Synods or Assemblies of Ministers of severall Congregations that these have no such power to judge that no such determinations are to be desired But Melanchthon we see declares himself to be an opposite unto such conceits and lest we should thinke that by the judgements of the Church he meant not such as are exercised in Synods or that by judgements he understood rather acts of consultation inquisition deliberatiō then of determination and pronouncing of sentences heare how he explaines himself elswhere saying (h) Enarr Symb. Nic. Tom. 1. f. 391. There are in the Church judgements concerning doctrine which are called Synods And againe Synods are ordinary judgements which are pronounced against the unwilling as they use to say And the Church is commanded to make a lawfull inquiry which being done if sentence be rightly pronounced obedience is to be yeelded And if any doe not obey he is justly punished He hath also upon other occasions given plaine and pregnant testimonies of his judgement in this particular among the rest that especially is worthy our observation which he writes in a certaine Disputation concerning Synods it being one of those Disputations which Luther by a preface thereunto prefixed hath commended unto the Readers for which cause it seemes they are also inserted among Luthers workes as being in speciall manner approoved by him (i) Luth. Tom. 1. f. 444 445. There Melanthon intending to speak of Synods reasoneth thus It is most true and most agreeable unto the nature of men that which Plato sayth that the best state of a Common-wealth is that which is the meane betwixt Tyrannie and Democratie or popular government This is to be framed and maintained as in all government so especially in the Church Both these Tyrannie and Democratie are to be avoyded and detested in the Church as most noysome plagues It is Tyrannie to constraine men to approve of manifest impietie to obey contrary to the cleare word of God c. Againe Democratie also must be removed from the Church that is the common people without difference are not to have licence or power granted unto them to alter doctrines or to give sentence concerning doctrines for the Multitude also as Herodotus sayth is a most cruell Tyrant But a middle state is to be sought that is Aristocratie ought to be established wherein by proportion the authority of the learnedest and best men may be the greatest This Aristocratie Paul
requireth 1. Cor. 14. Gal. 2. and it is most gravely written unto the Romanes that every one must know the measure of his owne faith Rom. 12. Therefore that tyrannicall speech is to be hissed at which takes away this proportion in the Church and asscribes unto the Pope an unbounded Tyrannie viz. which affirmes that greater is the authority of the Pope then of the whole Councell beside c. In the choyse of judges the best way is to follow that meane betwixt Tyrannie and Democratie namely to choose the best and the learnedest When by the consent of both parties good and learned judges are chosen and matters have bene examined in order it is meet there should be an obeying of their judgment for every one ought to know the measure of his owne faith Thus Melanthon hath fully declared himself in this controversy touching the ground of Synodall government together with the power and use of the same yet for further satisfaction it may be observed how that in another place he applyes that which is here spoken against Democratie or popular order unto that part thereof which Mr Canne so much pleades for concerning election unto Church-offices when he sayth (k) Ibid. f. 442. According to ancient custome the Church did choose that is these to whom the Church hath committed this businesse the judgement and approbation of the Bishop ordaining did also concurre Contrary to divine right and to the ancient Church is that Democratie where the people doe snatch unto themselves the election without the judgement approbation of Pastours By Pastours he meanes doubtles the Ministers of other Congregations seeing he speakes of them in the plurall number and seeing it were unreasonable to thinke that in such cases people should neglect the counsell and consent of the Ministers of their owne Church He doth therefore by this plaine testimony justifye our course in the calling of Ministers by how much we doe not proceed therein without taking along with us the advise and approbation of the Classis that is of the Pastours of neighbour Churches Forasmuch as we may easily discerne from that which hath bene hitherto sayd in this Section what the judgement of the chiefe of the Lutheranes is in this controversy and what small credit is to be given unto Mr Cannes allegations and affirmations touching the consent of others with him in these matters of difference betwixt us it may suffice to have examined the testimonies of these Authors whose words he hath set downe and for the rest to judge of them according to the profession of their esteeme of those already mentioned which are of chiefe note among them and according to the publick Confessions of their Churches of which we are to speak (l) Sect. 7. hereafter as also according to their generall practise Concerning this it is testifyed by some of them here named not to speak of other evidences that they are so farre from including all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Church that their Churches are governed by Ecclesiasticall Senates or Consistories as they call them which are gathered out of three rankes of persons Poluticall Ecclesiasticall and Popular or Oeconomicall that these Ecclesiasticall Consistories are appointed and directed by the authority of the chief Magistrate that by these the Magistratâ— doth exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and call Ministers that the election of a Bishop or Superintendent which of old was performed by all the Bishops of the Province in which a new Bishop was to be chosen is now in well ordered Churches rightly performed in the Consistorie where some principall Divines together with Politicall men doe choose a Superintendent who is confirmed by the assent and approbation of the chiefe Magistrate These are the assertions of Mylius Rungius Osiander and others as they are cited and approved by (m) Dise Theol. de Potest Ecc. th 7.10.17.18 arg 10. c. Vestringius one of the same profession Though these Authors doe not accord with us in divers of the foresaid expressions yet Mr Canne had lesse cause to boast of their consent with him seeing they agree in this that their particular Churches are not independent bodies but stand under Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves holding that their Churches in this respect are well ordered What trueth is there then in Mr Cannes words when speaking of these men he saith they consent with us fully As for his jesting at the particular Churches such as all the Reformed Churches are in giving them a title of noun-adjectives that cannot stand without Classes and Synods it may be demanded of him whether among all the Orthodoxe Churches in Europe at this day there was ever heard of such a staggering noun-substantive rent with so many scandalous Schismes as is that Anti-Synodall Church of the Separation whereof Mr Canne calles himself the Pastour Let those that are wise consider of it SECT III. Touching the Testimonies of Calvinists THus Mr C. and W.B. doe though as they say for distinction sake yet unjustly call those Authours whom here they alledge as if there were no other fit and convenient speech to describe Godly and learned Ministers of whom I spake but the name of Calvinists Though it be lawfull to denominate men of their errours and Schismes wherein they stand against the Churches of God and to call such Sectaries by names taken from them that have bene their chief ringleaders as the Brownists of Browne and the Nicolaitans of Nicholas Rev. 2.15 yet is there no warrant so to stile those whom we doe not charge with the like errours and offences Mr Canne (a) Chu pl. p. 81. after an idle and impertinent declaration of his owne surmise and imagination that these Authors as he is perswaded doe not teach the doctrine maintained by me and after an unjust imputation which he implyes as if I should say that the whole Church Officers and brethren wants authority to performe in and for it self all Church-services he comes to name his Authors and alledges the words of foure of them and telles that the rest doe agree with them His Authors are these P. Martyr Iunius Musculus Viret Bullinger Danaeus Gualter Sybrandus D. Mornaeus Morell Tilenus Bastingius Vrsinus Piscator Calvine Paraeus Keckerman Hemmingius Tossanus Polanus Hyperius Praedirius Munster Oecolompadius Beza Bucer Having cited these witnesses to appeare for him he then beginnes to insult and glory saying (b) Chu pl. p. 83. And now Mr Paget what thinke you of these men were they not learned and godly Ministers Reverend and judicious Divines Are they not authentick witnesses If you confesse it then marke what followes viz. your position that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves is hence condemned by a jurie of more then 24 men of your owne choosing for an errour and untruth The reason is because these affirme I say all of them that every particular Eldership with the Churches consent may