the manner of the Jewish Synagogue Bucanus also describing this Discipline sayth (n) Loc. cō loc 44. de Discipl qu. 12. Christ hath expressely appointed this order translated unto us from the Church of Israel And againe (o) Ibid. qu. 22. Christ doth not describe a temporary but a perpetuall order of his Church Mat. 18.17 where following the custome that had bene alwayes observed in the ancient Church of the Iewes he signifyed that the Church cannot want that spirituall jurisdiction which had bene from the beginning And lest any should blame us that we seeme to be drawne with the judgement and consent of late Writers the same (p) Dissert de Gub. Eccles p. 49.50 Gersom Bucerus doth also alledge divers of the ancient Writers as (q) In 1. Tim 5. Ambrose (r) In 1. Tim. 4. Theodoret (f) In Ioan. l. 6. cap. 20. Cyrill (t) In Cant. cap. 6. Gregorius Magnus agreeing with us that the Church of the new Testament succeeding the Church of the Jewes hath borrowed from thence the forme of her Politie and the order of jurisdiction And to these I might adde many other but that I have further occasion to doe it hereafter in answering the objections from the perverted Testimonies both of new old Writers It is not here to be omitted that Mr Iohnson Pastour of the Separatists who had bene a principall instrument in oppugning this interpretation of Matt. 18. by whose writings many had bene confirmed in their opposition against us hath yet before his death after long experience and consideration confessed his errour in this poynt and a in peculiar Treatise publickly revoked the same And though in other poynts touching the order of government prescribed in Matt. 18. he came not to the cleare sight of the trueth yet thus farre he hath shewed his consent with the former Writers saying (v) Expos of Mat. 18.17 C1 Note here that if Christ now had given a new Rule of government that Israel had not the Disciples to whom it was spoken could not have understood it by these words which were according to the Iewes received phrase practise and the Pharisees other adversaries of Christ would have beneglad if they could have had such an exception against Christ that he had taught contrary to Moses and had led the people from the way order of government which the Lord himself had prescribed in his word AFter evidence of Scripture consent of so many Writers agreeing in the interpretation of this place let us now examine the exceptions of such opposites as maintaine that Christ gave a new rule in Mat. 18. Some object with H. Barrow the unjust ungodly dealing of the Rulers in that time and reason thus that it is not likely or possible that our Saviour should fetch his patterne from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the Iewes c. To these I answer I. Though the Governours of the Jewes in Christs time were most of them wicked men and abused their authority yet the forme of government it self and namely so much of it so farre as it is described in that Rule Mat. 18. that there should be a Synedrion or Presbyterie for the judging of offences in such order as is there specifyed cannot be shewed to be unlawfull nor contrary to that which God had appoynted of old by Moses And therefore our Saviour might well commend the very same unto his Disciples Thus Calvine answereth a like objection (x) Harm Evang. in Mat. 18.17 If any man except that all things were corrupt perverted in the time of Christ so as that tyranny could be accounted nothing lesse then the judgement of the Church the answer is easy Though there was then an adulterate perverse manner yet Christ might worthily commend the order so as it was delivered from the Fathers And when a little after he erected his Church the corruption being removed he restored the pure use of excommunication II. How great soever the abuses and corruptions of Governours Government were in Christs time yet were not the godly required then to renounce or forsake the communion of that Church Christ himselfe both by his example his commandement taught otherwise whiles he both communicated therewith himself Matt. 26.17 18. and likewise required others to doe the same Luk. 17.14 Mat. 8.4 23.2 3. Now forasmuch as the publick worship of God and his ministery are holy ordinances as well as the government of his Church seeing Christ taught his people to goe unto the worship ministery of the Jewes either in Synagogue or Temple what reason is there to think that they should be forbidden to repayre unto their government in their Synedriō or Presbyterie Moreover as our Saviour taught ordinarily in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Iewes alwayes resorted Iohn 18.20 Matt. 4.23 so there were some righteous and faythfull men Governours and Rulers of the Jewes in Christs time who though they consented not unto evill and unrighteous judgements but testifyed against them Luk. 1.6 Ioh. 7.50 51. Luk. 23.50 51. yet were they not required to forsake their offices and their government And if they might lawfully retaine their office and government why might not others resort unto them in their government and seek redresse of offences and so by them tell the Church according to the rule Mat. 18.17 III. For the further clearing of this poynt concerning which many are diversly minded and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty minded and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty doubting what is meet to be done when corruptions doe abound in a true Church as the Jewes in Christs time were when as yet some of the Ministers Governours thereof doe become oppressours of the godly persecutours of the trueth we are therefore to observe divers rules of direction according to which both the Jewes then and Christians now in such case are to carry themselves 1. There is a difference to be put betwixt the causes and matters of complaint about which men had occasion to goe to the Jewes Synedrion or Eldership There were some kinde of sinnes as of open theft adultery extortion sacriledge legall impurity Sabath-breaking divers the like scandals against which the Pharisees and Rulers of the Jewes were very zealous Luk. 18.11 12. Rom. 10.2 Phil. 3.5 6. Luk. 18.18 21. Mark 10.21 And what should hinder the godly from going unto their Presbyterie to seek redresse and so to tell the Church of such offences In other quaestions touching their traditions they had not the like encouragement to goe unto them 11. There was a difference to be put betwixt the Rulers of the Jewes to whom they had occasion to complaine As there was a multitude of Synagogues among them so there was great variety of the Rulers of those Synagogues some of them being more modest humble and attentive to the
one Minister or Elder greater authority then another but their questions are determined by most voyces and they are all mutually equally subject unto one another in the Lord. IV. This government of Churches by Classes doth not deprive particular Churches Congregations of their liberty power but serves to direct strengthen them in the right use exercise of their power for example when a particular Church with their Elders or the greater part of them agree together to choose a Minister that is offensive or unfit for them if the Classis upon due consideration of the matter doe disanull their election hinder their proceeding yet doe they not hereby deprive them of their liberty nor take from them their priviledge of election forasmuch as they doe still leave unto them a freedome to choose another fit Minister they doe not in this case goe about to choose for them or to obtrude upon them another Minister against their will but onely exhort them to use their power and liberty aright and to shew more care and godly wisedome in seeking out such an one as may be more inoffensive fit for the edification of their Church Against this authority of Classes and Synods divers opposites have risen up and have pleaded for a new kinde of Discipline contrary to the order of all Reformed Churches and contrary to that Reformation which the ancient Non-conformists in England have so much desired laboured for And yet many of these Opposites doe in the meane time in generall termes seeme to (d) Mr Iacob in his Auestation of Church-gov p. 118. 178. Churches plea. p. 94. embrace Synods and greatly to approve of the benefit that comes by them But herein is the poynt of difference that they doe limit confine all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Congregation Though they acknowledge Synods to be lawfull expedient and necessary yet this they hold to be onely in regard of counsell advise for provocation direction countenance but doe not acknowledge them to have any authority to give sentence for the decision of causes they doe not allow Classes or Synods to use any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction or censure in judging the controversies that arise in particular Congregations They maintaine that (e) Churches plea. pref Mr Dav. Reply p. 229 c. every particular Congregation is independent not standing under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves This opposition of Classes Synods is made specially by the (f) H. Barrow Discov p. 190. 191. Apol. of Brown pos 9. Brownists and by them have the Ministers of England bene reproached for the respect which they had unto Synods After them Mr Iacob in his writings often allowing them for counsell (g) Necess of Reform p. 31 32 33 yet denyes the power authority which we asscribe unto them And in that booke which is intitled English Puritanisme (h) Chap. 2. art 3.6 c. this their opinion is most plainly peremptorily propounded And now also Mr Davenp though he (i) Apolog. Repl. p. 226 allow a combination of particular Churches in Classes and Synods and such a consociation of them as is betweene equalls and is by way of counsaile or brotherly direction yet he saith (k) Ibid. p. 229. that their authority is not a prerogative of jurisdiction but of aestimation reverence rather because Gods ordinance hath limited the former viz. jurisdiction to particular Churches as his delegates in their owne matters it is not in their power to alienate it from themselves But the latter viz. estimation reverence is due to Classes consisting of grave learned prudent and faithfull men for their excelent personall gifts in which respect their judgment is to be much valued receyved with due regard But if any doe asscribe unto Classes a power of jurisdiction over particular Churches and that in things which he calls proper unto themselves this he saith (l) Ibid. p. 230. is to subject particular Churches under an undue power this he calles an usurped power Now then behold what this estimation reverence is which Mr Dav. allowes to Classicall assemblies or Synods viz. not so much power as is allowed to any one man though it were the most ignorant and offensive that is a member of a particular Church for when a controversy ariseth about the election of a Minister the one half of the Congregation giving voyces for him another half excepting against him as unsound in doctrine unfit for thē if a whole Classicall assembly of Ministers Elders deputed from all the Churches round about doe also except against him as unsound and unfit and with one consent judge that he ought not to be called yet for one voyce of that one ignorant person whereby the one part of the Congregation comes to exceed the other in number is that unworthy one to be received called This is that due regard that estimation value which Mr Dav. affords unto this Classis consisting of so many grave learned prudent faithfull men of excellent personall gifts while he maintaines that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to the particular Church and all the counsell brotherly direction of the Classis must be of no authority against the resolution of such a wilfull company to censure their unjust proceedings to stay the same So againe (m) Apol. repl p. 47. he pretendeth Mr Cartwr his authority to prove that other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election but by admonition which power every Christian hath in another for his good The speciall or onely remedy which the Opposites flye unto in such cases is the help of the Magistrate But hereby the importance of this Question and the danger of despising Synods may appeare Though they hold that Christ hath not subjected any Church or Congregation of his to any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then unto that which is within it self c. yet they hold (n) Engl. Purit cap. 2. § 6. 3. that if in the choyse of Ministers any particular Church shall erre that none upon the earth but the Civill Magistrate hath power to controule or correct the same for it c. that in such cases others are to leave their soules to the immediate judgement of Christ and their bodies to the sword of the Civill Magistrate c. But this help remedy is weak insufficient that many wayes for I. The Churches of Christ doe sometimes remaine under heathenish Magistrates that either regard not the cause of the Church refuse to judge their controversies as Paul Gallio Iohn 18.31 Act. 18.14 15. or els seek wholly to root out the same II. The Churches are sometimes dispersed sojourne in the countries of Popish Princes and Magistrates as the Churches which at this day live under the Crosse in Brabant Flanders sundry other places where they keep themselves as secret
same is to be referred unto such judges who as is before noted may either (r) S. Theol l. 7. p. 243 244. confirme or make voyd the Election A plaine acknowledgmēt of a lawfull power out of a particular Church to judge the cause thereof IV. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in the description (ſ) Ibid. p. 245 246. both of the Elders office in generall and of the Ruling Elders in particular where the warrant and authority of their office is derived from the Elders in Israel and from the government of the Jewish Church as appeares in those testimonies of Scripture which he alledgeth for proof thereof as namely these beside other Lev. 4.13 14 15.2 Kin. 6.32 Ier. 19.1 Ezek. 8.1 Neh. 8.5.8.10 Act. 4.5 6.12 5.21 Now seeing he derives their offices from that forme of government which is confessed not to have bene a single uncompounded policie this is an evidence that he also did not hold jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Church V. He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in distinguishing the Presbytery or Eldership of many Churches (t) Ibid. p. 281. into a Synod or a Generall Councill And not to speak of other things he omitteth that description of a Generall or Vniversall Councill viz. that it is a Presbyterie consisting of the deputies of many Synods to determine and compound those things that may be profitable for the whole Church or for the greatest part thereof The word which he useth to expresse the authority exercised therein when he saith ad ea statuenda t.i. to determine to make a statute or decree imports more then a bare admonition or counsell and therefore it is manifest from hence that Mr F. did not allow of this new Discipline which denyes the authority of Synods II. His unfaithfull translation of Mr Fenner is also to be observed in divers points I. When speaking of the Eldership of one particular Church (v) Apol. reply p. 238. he tells how Mr F. saith it is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of Mr F. are that it is (x) S. Theol l. 7. p. 279. proprio nomine sie dictum so called with the proper name His meaning is that in common use of speech it had the proper name given unto it even as it comes to passe oft times that a part is called by the proper name of the whole and one species or one sort receives the proper name of the whole kinde as when in speaking commonly of the Ministers and Elders of a Church the ruling Elders are so called with a proper name that belongs to the whole kinde seeing Ministers of the word are Elders as well as they 1. Tim. 5.17 so when the ruling Elders are called with the proper name of Governours 1. Cor. 12.28 though Ministers of the word are governours also as well as they And unlesse we thus understand Mr Fen. there should be no trueth in his words for as he himself saith (y) Ibid. p. 245. there is a Synecdoche in the name of Elders when it is given to Ecclesiasticall Governours and therefore there must be a double improper or figurative speech a double Synecdoche when the assembly of some Officers in a particular Church is called with the proper name of the Eldership whereas but some of them are elderly or aged men and whereas the assembly of such men in a Synod is an Eldership as well as the other II. It is a notable falsification of Mr Fenners testimony when as he distinguishing the Ecclesiasticall Eldership into the Eldership of a particular Church and into the Eldership of many Churches and giving before-hand in the first place a generall definition of the Eldership common to both those kindes Mr Dav. comes and restraines that generall definition to one kinde and brings in Mr F. speaking on this manner The Eldership of the first sort he sayth is a compound office wherein all the Elders doe in the name of the whole Church administer all the businesses c. But this Mr F. hath not sayd I desire the Reader to look on the (z) S. Theol l. 7. p. 276. place as also on that which followes in his * Pag. 279. transition from the generall unto the species and severall sorts of the Eldership and there to behold how grosly Mr D. corrupteth the words of Mr F. and abuseth the reader and that in a point of maine consequence touching our question for while Mr F. gives the same generall definition to the Eldership of many Churches viz. to Classes and Synods which he gives unto the Eldership of a particular Church thereby the same authority and jurisdiction which he gives herein unto a particular Church is also given by him unto a Synod the Eldership of many Churches and then are not Synods for counsell onely or admonition but they are to exercise a jurisdiction and power as well as particular Churches III. Another instance of his unfaithfull translation is to be observed from those words of Mr F. (a) Ibid. p. 278. postea autem auditis assentientibus decernenda pro decretis Ecclesiis proponenda sunt which he translates thus (b) Apol. reply p. 239. and afterwards the opinions and assent of all being declared matters are to be concluded Those last words should have bene translated thus matters are to be decreed and to be propounded unto the Churches for decrees and being thus translated they import an act of authority and a power of jurisdiction in making decrees which are more then counsell or admonition especially when those matters so decreed are propounded unto the Churches for decrees But the word of concluding which Mr D. useth is ambiguous and is applyed sometimes to the reasonings of men either in private or publick where there is no authority to give definitive sentence or to make decrees for the Churches Mr Canne himself though he condemne the Classes and Synods of the Reformed Churches yet doth he allow Ministers and brethren of divers Churches to come together (c) Churches plea p. 95. to conferre of things yea and to conclude if they can what they judge meet c. This use of the word conclude serves to elude and frustrate this pregnant testimony of their power IV. Another mis-translation is when in the same page those words of Mr F. leges maximi momenti constituendae are thus translated by him orders also of the greatest moment to be made This I doe therefore note the rather because Mr D. keeps so great a quoile about the strict difference betwixt orders and lawes and saith (d) Apol. rep p. 257. 258. that orders lawes are ill confounded by me and is large in declaring his minde therein His friend also that made the Alphabeticall Table for him and prefixed it before his book notes this as a remarkable matter therein * Letter L. Lawes and orders differ Now if these things be so then hath he done very ill
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
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
Authors more in number then those he hath specifyed and not inferiour for learning and piety unto some of those that he hath named all which in their severall writings Common places Commentaries and other Treatises have in like manner as the former described the use the necessity and the authority of Synods not onely for counsell but for judgement and decision of controversies divers of them alledging not onely examples of ancient Churches but the holy Scriptures also for the warrant of that which they teach and therefore shewing that they maintaine them lawfull jure divino and that their tenure of them is from the grant that Christ hath given unto his Church But the trueth of that assertion touching the multitude of those that consent with me will most plainly appeare when we come to speak of the publick and generall testimonies of whole Churches most solemne assemblies of learned godly men touching this controversie In the meane while let us follow Mr Canne according to his owne Method SECT IV. Touching the Testimonies of English Conformists IN the next place they proceed and in an homely phrase they say Touching the English Conformist the formablest of them are for us in this poynt And here they alledge B. Whitgift D. Bilson Whitaker Bell Willet and Taylor Touching these I answer First for B. Whitgift though he confesse that in the Apostles time the state of the Church was popular See Def. ag T. C. p. 180. 182. because the Church had interest almost in every thing yet this proves not that he thought particular Congregations to be independent and uncontrolable by the Deputies of other Churches assembled in Synods The ordinary practise of B. Whitgift in judging the causes of other Congregations shewed that he was farre from the meaning of the Brownists in this poynt His words are wrested by an unjust consequence to prove independency of Churches and the undue power of Synods For D. Bilson there is notable wrong done to him in clipping his words and defacing his testimonie by omitting that which is most materiall in this controversy For when D. Bilson had sayd (a) Perpet Gover. c. 15 p. 360. Though the Presbyters had more skill to judge yet the people had as much right to choose their Pastour if the most part of them did agree they did carrie it from the Clergie Thus farre Mr Canne reciteth his words but here in the midst of the sentence before the period be ended he breakes off and leaves out this exception that is added viz. so the persons chosen were such as the Canons did allow and the ordainers could not justly mislike In this exception D. B. acknowledgeth that there may be just cause to disanull the election of the people if it be found worthy to be misliked And his meaning is yet more evident by the story which in the sentence immediately preceding he alledgeth out of (b) Lib. 7. cap. 35. Socrates touching the election of Proclus who being chosen by the greater number was yet refused because the election was sayd to be against the Canon of translating Bishops and so the people were forced to hold their peace That which is practised in these Reformed Churches is in this poynt the very same thing that D. B. testifies of the Primitive Church for Classes and Synods doe not use to impose or choose Ministers If particular Congregations doe choose a Minister neither Classes nor Synods can disanull the election if there be no just cause of exception against the person elected And if upon just exception the election be hindred yet then also is the new election of another permitted to the free choyse of the particular Church neither doth the Classis deprive them of their just power and liberty therein That it may more plainly appeare how unjustly and unreasonably D. Bilson is alledged as agreeing with my opposites let it be further observed that in his Dispute against Beza such as approve the Discipline of these Reformed Churches he doth not as my adversaries complaine of the undue power of Synods that judge and determine the causes of particular Congregations He acknowledgeth that (c) Perpet Gover. c. 16 p. 370. the necessity and authority of Synods is not so much in question betwixt us as the persons that should assemble and moderate those meetings c. He would have (d) P. 378 c. Metropolitanes to be the Moderatours and rulers of Synods he would have (e) P. 387 c. lay-Elders thrust out from assembling with Ministers in Synods he complaines (f) P. 386 387. of the intolerable charges and expences of having frequent Synods c. Herein he differs from us and we from him But that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authoritie in Synods to decide the causes of particular Churches which is the poynt in question herein he agreeth with us He saith of such Synods and their power to judge as followeth (g) P. 372. Their warrant so to doe is builded on the maine grounds of all divine and humane societies strengthened by the promise of our Saviour and assured unto them by the example of the Apostles and perpetuall practise of the Church of Christ Afterwards he saith of their meetings in Synods (h) P. 374. This hath in all Ages as well before as since the great Councell of Nice bene approved and practised as the lawfullest and fittest meanes to discerne trueth from falshood to decide doubts end strifes and redresse wrongs in causes Ecclesiasticall yea when there were no beleeving Magistrates to assist the Church this was the onely way to cleanse the house of God as much as might be from the lothsome vessels of dishonour and after Christian Princes began to professe protect the trueth they never had nor can have any better or safer direction amongst men then by the Synods of wise and godly Pastours And many other things to like purpose are written by him complayning that the denyall of this order is (i) P. 376. an heathenish if not an hellish confusion c. That which they bring out of Scultingius a Papist before alledged is idle impertinent untill they heare me avouch such things as he doth for change of the order of Christ let them refraine their surmises and conjectures of imaginary arguments which they guesse that I will use Having brought such Authours against me mark how Wil. B. or Io. Ca. for him doth triumph against me before the victory in these words (k) Chu pl. p. 85. To say that this superiour power of Classes and Synods is Jure Divino I thinke he will not any more doe it there being in the Scriptures no proofe yea I may boldly say nor shew of any proofe for it I confesse indeed it is boldly spoken of him for who so bold al 's blinde B. But whether there be at least shew of proofe in the Scriptures for the superiour authority of Synods in judging the causes of particular
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
that no man be excommunicated without the consent of a Classicall assembly (z) Art 63. that the deposition of Ministers be done by the judgement of a Classicall assembly and consent of the Magistrate These and the like Articles there concluded doe shew how farre the Nassovian Churches were from that opinion of the Brownists and some other in denying the subjection of particular Congregations unto any Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves Where could Mr C. finde more pregnant testimony against himself then in such resolutions of Reformed Churches as these be With the former Reformed Churches alledged by Mr Canne doe agree all the other so farre as I can learne by any enquiry For the Church of England B. Jewell testifveth (a) Def. of Apol. of Ch. of Engl. par 6. c. 17. div 1. 2. that we have had ere now in England Provinciall Synods and have governed our Churches by home made lawes and he maintaineth that without wayting for a Generall Councell it was rather thought good to doe that which both rightly might be done and hath many a time bene done as well of other good men as also of many Catholick Bishops that is to remedie our Churches by a Provinciall Synod And besides other examples there is a (b) Syntag. Confes p. 125 136 speciall monument recording the Acts and Articles agreed upon in the Synod holden at London Anno D. 1562. and againe of another Synod Anno 1571. confirming the Articles of the former Synod ratifyed by the approbation of Qu. Elizabeth to be observed through the whole Kingdome c Now howsoever there be great difference in divers Churches touching the manner of celebrating these Synods yet herein which is the poynt of our present controversy they doe all agree viz. that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods to judge and determine the affaires of particular Congregations The testimony of the Church of Scotland for the authority of Presbyteries and Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations is most cleare In the admission of Ministers to their offices there was (c) First book of Discipline p. 29. ed. 1621 required not onely the consent of the people and Church whereunto they should be appoynted but also approbation of the learned Ministers appointed for their examination Touching all sorts of Synods among them it was concluded that (d) Sec. b. of Discip ch 7. p. 80. they have power to execute Ecclesiasticall discipline and punishment upon all transgressours and proud contemners of the good order and policie of the Kirke and so the whole Discipline is in their hands Touching Provinciall Synods which they call the lawfull conventions of the Pastors Doctors and other Elders of a Province gathered for the common affaires of the Kirkes thereof c. they (e) Ib. p. 81. say Thir assemblies are institute for weightie matters to be intreated by mutuall consent and assistance of the brethren within that Province as need requires This Assembly hath power to handle order and redresse all things committed or done amisse in the particular assemblies It hath power to depose the office-bearers of that Province for good and just causes deserving deprivation And generally thir Assemblies have the whole power of the particular Elderships whereof they are collected Besides these Canons and rules of their Discipline there be also divers Actes of their Generall Assemblies prefixed before the foresayd First and Second bookes of their Discipline which by many instances doe shew how that power of Synods was exercised and put in practise in the Church of Scotland For example we read (f) P. 14. Edinb Iul. 5. 1570. that there was an Excommunication directed against Patrik called B of Murray to be executed by M. Robert Pont Commissioner their with the assistance of the Ministers of Edinburgh We finde there in another Assembly (g) P. 15. Edinb Aug. 6. 1573. that Alexander Gordoun B. of Galloway being accused of divers offences it was concluded that he should make publick repentance in Sackcloth three severall Sundaies first in the Kirk of Edinburgh secondly in Halyrudhous thirdly in the Queenes Colledge under the paine of Excommunication We finde in another Assembly (h) P. 16. Edinb Mar. 6. 1573. that the B. of Dunkell was ordained to confesse his fault publickly in the Kirk of Dunkell for not exequuting the sentence of the Kirk against the Earle of Athol For the confirmation of this Synodall authority there is added in the same place an Act of Parliament (i) P. 19. 20 c. The 12 Parl. at Edinb Iun. 5. 1592. prefixed also before the sayd bookes of their Discipline having this Title Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk of generall and Synodall Assemblies of Presbyteries of Discipline c. The Confession of fayth made by the Church of Scotland both for the Doctrine and for the Discipline thereof is yet further confirmed unto us both by generall Subscription and by a most Solemne Oath The formall words of that Subscription and Oath are thus recorded unto us (k) Syntag. Confes p. 158 160. We beleeve with our hearts confesse with our mouth subscribe with our hands c. promising and swearing by that great name of the Lord our God that we will continue in the Doctrine Discipline of this Church and that we will defend the same according to our calling and power all the dayes of our life under paine of all the curses contained in the law danger of body and soule in the day of that dreadfull judgement of God Hereunto is annexed in the same place the Mandate of the Kings Majestie whereby he enjoyneth all Commissioners and Ministers of the Word throughout his kingdome that they require this confession of all their Parishioners c. And so farre as I can learne even unto this day there is still observed this substantiall and maine poynt of Discipline namely a power in Synodall assemblies to judge the controversies that doe arise in particular Congregations Here Mr Canne instead of a Iurie of 24 men to condemne my position for an errour and untrueth as he (l) Ch. pl. p. 83. speakes may see a Iurie of more then thrice 24 Congregations in Scotland maintayning my position and condemning his errour by their example The Reformed Churches in Savoy as that of Geneva (m) Kerckel Ordon der gemeēte van Geneven p. 9 10 c. and the Churches in the villages thereabout standing under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in Geneva were combined together for their mutuall guidance and the Ministers of those Churches meeting weekly together were subject to the censure of such Ecclesiasticall assemblies and the affaires of those Churches judged therein The knowledge of this is so common a thing that in appearance hereupon grew the reproach reported by Mr Canne himself that (n) Ch. pl. p. 94. at Geneva subjecting of Churches to this order first began The Evangelicall Churches in the greater