mm trnffiummii *e 4SCS &\mm 3 ;•> c_ %&*%??* r 4 *s : A DEFENCE CHVRCH- GOVERNMENT, Exercifed in TK£ SBTTEKIALL.C LAS SIC ALL, & S*TNODALL tASSEMBLIES s « According to the praftifeofthe Reformed Churches: Touching L The power of a particular Elderfhip 3 againft thofe that plead for a meere Popular Government/pecially M r Ai n s v v o R T H in his ^Animadvetfion to Mr Clyfi. (STc. II. The autho rity of Gaffes and Synods , againft the Patrons of Independencie : anfwering in this poynt M r Davenport his lApologeticali B^eply , 7- thing there is a feafon: A time to keepe filence,and a time to fpeake. Truly it hath feemed to be a time to keepe filence in fome by-gone yeeres in England, when the< b) prudent Minifters of 0>M>»w»5Mj. God were neceflitated to keepe filence through the e- vill of the times , having beene^ made offenders for (OV^-m* aword,as if their do&rine had beene^conrpiracya-(d)^?»o/,7.jo. gainft the State,and the land not able to beare all their words. Howbeit for theEnglifh^ Zion and Ierufa- &*&*'?& lems fake, the Lords remembrancers could not hold their peace nor keepe filence in fecret: but -^ entring-(f)i/**z$.ao. into their chambers, and (hutting the doores about them,to hide themfelves as it were for a litle moment, have powred out their complaints and fupplications before the Lord (who is & a God that heareth pray- (gJ Pfd-tp*- ers, and (h) feeth in fecret) waiting on him till the in- (h) Math.6.6. dignatio fhould be overpaft. But now it feemeth there is a time to fpeake in England, (And (ij a vvordfpoke (ijP^^.^. in due feafon how good is it ?) fith W a great doore & ^ x x or . ,6.9. effe&uall is opened by a longed-for hopefull Parlia- ment. Oh how admirable it is , even to amazement ! * 2 that that the hearts and tongues of the people of God throughout the Englifh nation, have beene fo graci- (I) Hof. 14.2. oufly enlarged M in taking words with them, (not on- (m) ^c^. ir.ia, jy Cm) j n their humiliations apart in families, butalfo) ln)\ 4 'cbron. 20. on the dayes^ appointed by authority for folemne 5.4 prayer & fading j to (°) feeke a right way for themfcl- (o) E^.8.11 . ves ^ anc j f or t jj e i r ij t l e ones ^ anc j f or a u their flibftance; (p) Amos,-.*), fpeakingand crying unto the Lord , ($ Ceafe we be* feech thee, by whom fhall Englifh Iacob arife ? for he is fmall . Yea, and is it not exceedingly marvellous al- fa)AEt.i7'.i6. fo? how after fupplicatingGod in fuch fort, their ^> Spirits were ftirred in them to fpeake to your Honors of the cure-all-court of Parliament in their manifold Petitions for Reformatio, contributing votes by thou- {r)i.Cov.i6. 9 . finds offevcrall Counties. And what thought -there be many adverfaries that doe murmur and repine at ({) 1^.19.39,40. t h f e 19 wel-approved zelots ? May it not be thought that if they had held their peace, the (tones would im- mediately have cryed out? The bieffed tidings of this reviving ftate of Englifh affaires fp reading abroad in fundry countreys , is come (t) vrov^.z^. a jj ] mo t he Vnited Netherlands,to refrefh (as f J good news is wont from a farre countrey) fuch of us of the Engliih nation,who have been enforced by home-op- preflions to feeke for liberty, imployment and liveli- Cv) z.Cbro.i 1. j 3, hood (as the ' v ) Priefts & Levites in Ilrael did on fom- uiier 1 what the like occafion) who yet in our meafure (x} re- pfaLi^.^X member the Lordafarreof 3 not daring through forget- fulnes to let goeoutofmindeour moft endeared na- (y) P/4/. 1 21.6,9. tive countrey. W Let them profper that love and feeke the welfare of England. Hence your Honors moft humble advertifer con- (z) i.Kjngj-9- vinced of not '?) doing well to remaine altogether filet, rea- readily tooke hold on the opportunity of theenfuing trestife (as( a) Zacheus climbed up into a Sycomore (a) Luk.19.2^ tree to fee his Saviour , becaufe of the pre(Te,and litle- nesofhisftature)to itiferc a word, to be as^thewi-W^V*' 4 *'- dows farthing, fome addition to the great flock of more able qualified feekers of Reformation, Moft noble and right worthy Sirs - 3 It were much to have beenewifhed,t'hadn ever beene^ told in Gath, (c) i.Sam.x.io, that the {d) godly men have ceafed, and the faithfull fai- (d) pf a i. %%sU led inEngland: Woe is us,tistot> notorioufly knowne 5 Mic.-. 1,1. how that divers worthies of the Lord of b. m. (ej the (e) Zm jq ngt z , xu chariots and horfmen of the Englifh Ifrael , who by & (fj F^/46.4. the chriftallineftreamesofpuredo&rine made glad the cittyofGod, had their (g) untimely deaths haftened (gJXew.ji.7. by lharpe tempefts of perfecution raifed againft them by theHierarchie through their Summoning, Tradu- cing , Reproching, Sufpending, Excommunicating, Depriving, Fining, Imprifoning,& trampling on them as unfayory (alt , or as broken and defpifed veffels caft to the wals. Others have beene conftrained to provide for their breathing as they could by removing into for- raine parts, after much iuf&rkig at home , and thereby expofed to the bitter miferies <"> of wanderers , being (*?) PWJ4i& debarred of he pleafant land of their nativity, ancient (f' l &* habitations,naturallkinred,familiaracquaintance,mea» nes of fubfiflance, accuftomed aire ? and wonted man- ners of peoplejand inftead thereof { l l caft into a land of %k3-5^. ftrangers, and of a ftrange language , as a greater aggra- vation of their moft difconfolate condition. Yea & (k) (*) p /** : 44««7- all this come upon them,onely for their ^endeavoring (ij Aa.z±\6. to keepe confeiences void of offence towards God , & towards men; in refufall of conformity tofome fuper- ftitious ceremonies, &fubferiptionto the Canon (al- 3 beit / • ft*t4£K{.f *• beit they never refufed to fubfcribe according to * the: law of the land) whereas otherwife they were ortho- doxe and painfull in their miniftery , and unblamable (m) z.Cor.+.z. in their convcrfation , approving themfelves to the ( ffl > confciences of their adverfaries . Moreover they were fuch as highly prized the Church-affemblies of En- gland,and diligently frequented and joyned in the fo- lemne administration of the word, Sacraments , and prayers, fo farreasthey could free themfelves from (11)^^.23.1,2,3. theirowne perfonall pollutions and defilements, as^ our Lord Chrift direfteth in fuch cafe. a true report of May it pleafe your Honors to receive ahintoffome ^l^finctlK ' P re ' at * ca " proceedings,exemplified moftly in the par- Diouf™ ticular of your humble advertifer; who was called to the work of miniftery many y ceres agone in fuch place of Chefter Dioceffe , where he could execute his func- tion, without fuch officiating as is ufually required of incumbents,that take the Cure in Parifhes. In procefle *No»B.o/D«r. of time * D. Morton became Prelate, who taking knowledge of divers Non-conformifts in thisDioceffe, t ^^°J^ cw tfent out letters miffive to fummon fome of them to ¥rd!anL$rec2?fly the high Commiffion Court then kept at Chefter. bmag.nfufirsof Which being divulged,it pleafedGod to ftirre up fome iu^riihiouscmmo^ Q ( the em j nent & wd-affeded Knights & Efquires in- habiting in that Dioceffe, to confult & agree together ZntltthtfcT t0 write a lettcr t0 thc Bifho P in thefe words; * Right ^mfLlwmhy ' » Reverend, &c. Whereas wee underftand that divers gentlemen ofihedio-„ of our painfull and difcreet Minifters, are lately by non^nri^ v letters miffive from y our L « & others of his Majefties „ high Commiflion for caufesEcclefiafticall within the 5 , Diocefle of Chefter , enjoyned to appeare before , 5 you , to anfwer to fuch matters as (halbe objeded a* „gainftthem: We have thought fitting to acquaint your „ your L. with our opinions of thefe our Minifters* 3, whofe names are fubfcribed, for the better preveting ,, (if need require) of fuch finifter and malitious infor- „ mations,which in thefe cafes are frequently ftirred up 9y againft men of their fort & quality,fomtimes by lewd to & profane perfons remaining in our owne Church, to & many times by the difguifed, fubtill , & fuperftiti- ^ousRomanifts, &Ghurch-papifts, whofe hearts are 33 wholly againft us, all the while their faces arefee- 33 mingly with us.Firft therfore we have obferved (foe 3, farre as we are able to judge) in thefe our Minifters, 33 Integrity of life & converfation 3 orthodoxall found- 35 nes of dodrine in their teachingjdiligence & painful- 33 nes in their places- fobriety , & peaceablenes in their 3 3 difpofitionsjfree from fadioufnes. In regard wherof, to as alfo the great good and profit which our Congre- 33 gations where they remaine have abundantly re- 3, ceived from their miniftery ; we are emboldned eft- 33 foones to intreat 3 &c. The letter was delivered to the B. at * Stocport, who having read it , let fall thefe * TheB. hatkfi- words . They whom the letter concerneth are t^f^^S ^ worfe to be liked , for the good teftimony the Gentle- \m^ruhfngthz men give of them : And then /peaking to me, (btinggrMteftiemfictin one of the Subfcribedin the letter) required a pro- aUch ^ m - pofall of any argument againft the ufe of the CrofTe in Baptifme ; that fo he might inftantly difcover (as he boaftingly fpake) our weaknes and folly in refufing to conforme . But I defired to de- cline difputes with him, partly fith my errand at that time was to obteine his favour for releafe from the High C. Court, if it might be procured; and partly fith He was to be the chiefe judge in our caufe , which might prove prejudicial! to us in- cafe of a de- A denyed dimifflon. Nevertheles when he preffed his demand in the prefence of many perfons of quality (left I fhould feeme to betray a good caufe in being * *..P#.3,f y.. unwilling or * unready to give anfwer, when a reafon of my profeffion was a(ked) I propounded an argumet, ftating it according to the faireft pretence of urging the figne of the Crofle in BaptHme, even as the Canon in- terpreteth the ufe of it : For the dedicating of the party haptifedto God. Whence I proved that the figne of the GroifeinBaptifme was fuperftitious,fithfuch dedicati- on fignified by it,is an ufurpario of an office befides di- *LmV.io.i 5 2. vine inftitution,&confequentlyunlawfull,as*bytwo Galat.i.s i9 . texts ofScripturealledged& applied I did evince. Af- ter fome debate about this argument, & of a non-fenfe diftindion ufedby him, viz. A dedication of confecra- rion, and a dedication of proteftation, &c. He then laid,he could not beleeve that the Canon was fo expla- ned,& therfore fent for the booke of Canos; but being therby further convinced> & not knowing what to an- fwer, he paffionatly wifhed, that either it had beene o- therwifeexprefied,orthatnoe explanation had beene added to the Canon. In fine he ingenuoufly acknow- ledged his former negled to ftudy thefe controverfies, having hitherto efteemed lightly of them ; yet fith oc- cafion feemed to require, he now refolved to apply his ftudies a while this way. Heerupon he was pleafed to undertake our difmiffion from theH. C. C. till he lfim B ai7l7 lhouId firft have a[ra y ed t0 winne us t0 conformity in thegnateftgrievace a fcholafticall way , fith he difcerned in us (as hefaid) oftheNon-confor- fame fchollerlhip above his expe&ation • At the fame S^f& time he ordered us > kvmll y to fct downe in writin s y books m'feveraii within thefpace of the moneth following (& then to pomsqueftionabu bring to him) 3 * areuments,a2ainft the CrolTe in Bap- ygifrty. * > b tifin ^ tifme, the Surpliffe in divine fervice , & kneeling atthe Lords (upper. His order was accordingly obferved, al- beit a defired fucceffe failed. For fome of us fhortly af- ter were againe furamoned by letters miflive, to the H. C. Court, & then dealt with in a vexatious fort. I was compelled to travell 30 miles from my dwelling,three feverall times in i4daies. On one of thefe Court daies M.Nichols of b. m. a moft pious and learned Minifter , being required to give an accompt of his arguments he had delivered to the B. was in open Court by the B. & D.Snell fcornfully taunted & giered, as if what he had written was raw, andfhould therforeberofted 5 when they were not able to gainfay the wifedome & Spirit , by which he fpake. At the fame time ( I having beene immediately before fharply fpoken unto by the B. and Commiflioners,& deferred to theCourt for the weeke following) one of the B s cheife * Gentlemen,accom- * Prelaw have panied with two Popifh Gentlemen, belonging to af^^^ ' 1 great Earle then in Chefter, plucked me a VitkaCid^8c fulTfonllZofi did idly &difdainfully upbraid me offimplicity, & re-P ar t*** arenotor i- proch me as if I were conjuring,becaufe I looked to the ^tlmmmflihZ ground, & anfwered nothing 5 they therfore alfo con- v*!™ ° ny ° eluded I fhould goe to Hell, fith my looks feemed thi- therward . Such their vile language uttered likewife with blafphemours fwearing & curfing, in the hearing of many thronging about us, occafioned a Gentleman thatwasprefentto complaine of their uncivill behavi- our^ in humane cariage : whereupo they being much inraged,thruft him on the fuddaine to the doore of the palace,and cart him headlong dovvne the ftaires 5 to the endangering of his life. When the Court was rifen the B. was privatly informed of his mans infolencies, who feemed to be fomwhat difcontented towards him ; yet ** faid, fayd,that what his fetvant had difordcrly done could be noe difparagment to him , that was his matter . At my comming to Chefter the weeke follovving^as I had beene ordered,the B. was not well in the morning of the Court-day, & in that refpe&kept his chambenyet having notice of my attending,fent for me,& lying on his bed reafoned & expoftulated with me touching the Ceremonies afullhoure, letting fall by thewayfome complaints , ; that his remilTe courfe with us, had beene prejudicial! to his preferment to Lincolne Bifhoprick, vacant about that time . Soe that in great paflion he threatnedtofufpend , excommunicate, degrade, and make the land too hot for me; afking me what I would *Mk.yj. doe. I anfvvered in the words of the Prophet, * I will looke unto the Lord,I will wait for the God of my fal- vation : my God will heare me . He retorted , God would not heare a blafphemer,a blafphemer of his mo- ther the Church of England, & that defpifed her ordi- nances. I anfvvered againe,that I defired to feare God, & abhorred blafphemy; & that a refufoll of conformity to fuperftitious ceremonies, efteemed by the Prelaticall party to be things indifferent , was neither blafphemy nor contempt. In condufion he was pleafed to di& * Ahidgm.wasgi- m ifle me at that time without any cenfure,five of pay- Midflerfondoffa- in g lar g e fees t0 officers of the Court, towards pay met they Midfiey. They wherof he gave ten (hillings. Not long after this the both had beene Vi- f a jj p re i ate printed a booke in defenfe of the 3 no- carsofi{ai\dalem ^ r . .. r a*. Lancajhire,&de- c ent Ceremonies, pretending to anlwer our argumets ftivedfor inconfor- given in againft them, * & alio that unanfwerable A- rmty to ceremonies, bridgment of the reafons of the Minifters of Lincolne I be onneaher.de- r^- m r r • 1 • ^ i n k gradation became a Diocefle, io farre as it argued againlt them . But the Phyfitian,®- was weaknes of his Defenfe and pretended anfwer is fully BjlSS & cffe(auall y difcovcrcd by the learned D.Ames in his rncm. ptin- printed Reply therto: And in his Frefh Suit againft hu- mane Ceremonies in Gods vvorfhip , or Triplication to D .BurgefTe his Rejoynder for D. Morton. The translation of the faid Prelate to Lichfeiid neere the fame time, became occafion to D. Bridgman,the Parfon of Wiggan in Lanca(hire,'to fucceed in the Bi- fhoprick of Chefter; who for a fpace moved not much againft any , purfuing rather his worldly affaires, lave only that hefufpended a few Non-conformifts 5 and * * f K«**ff*ri * J^ . ^ , , ' : market toti+nemChe* Knutefrord Chappel. But when D.Neale the Ptehtepn a Gentleman of of Winchefter, could not refift the title of Grace,but f/; ^- ^mny being vvas removed to York,&(hould vifit in ^^^/ ; - that at his Vifitation he f hould finde any Non-confor-^^'^^^2 mifts,,&foetaxehim of oegligenceor partiality, did ^e Chappdl from therfore fend for & inhibit privatly moft of the Non- k*™gm dhin< r r '/i'I'-tn' /r-ALtr • - erviceor ermonsror conformifts in his DiocelTe. About the fame timQ,uDo J a i ongti J mei as i eirjg notice given, I went to him at his houfe in Lancafhire, profaned by the &defired his favorable connivency as formerly; which***** he denied to grant, left (as he faid) he I hould hazard the favour of his Prince . Yet he required to heare at that time what I could fay againft kneeling at the Sa- crament . I alledged our Saviour Chrift his argument againft it. For f he efteemeth it a vaine worfhipping of jj^f *; x ^ 9 ° him, when mens precepts are taught for dodrinesj 4r ^ 7 ' 7 * which by a juft inference I applyed againft kneeling at the Sacrament. Now all the anfwer the B. gave was that he expe&ed from me a more learned argument . And then faid, He thought I would haveinfifted in the gefture ufed by Chrift at the inftitutiS, which he would fhew me what manner of gefture that was, to convince therbyhow unfeemly theufe of it would be in the ** 2 Church, A Church. And fo he gravely laid himfelfe along on a bench by a table in his parlour, leaning on his elbow:& then affirmed Chrifts poftureallthe Supper was fuch; which he (aid J was not able to contradi&,efpecially if [ underftoodGreek,fiththeorigina!l word ufed in the Gofpells, implied foe much. I replied , that what ever my underftanding in the Greek tongue was, yet un- doubtedly the Tranflaters of the new Teftament were *Matb.t6.io. fkilful therin,& had rendredit*#///#g. Yea & D.Mor- ¥ukVz\ l8 ' ton,his predecefibr, notwithftanding he kept a ftirre a- John.i^iz. bout the tran{latio,yetc6fefTed,it was a kinde of fitting. About two yeers after (whe 'twas thought the ftorme of theArchb.Vifitation had been blowne over)meanes wasufedagainetotheB. of Chefter to obteine liberty of preaching;but failing, there were procured from Y. 3 writings,fignedby theRegifter of theH.Com.inthc behalfe ofthreeofusin Chelhire, giving way to our going on in preaching as formerly. But within t hree moneths following,attachmets were brought from the H. Com. (no letters miffi ve having preceded) to appre- hend & bring us toYork,& there to imprifon us till we fhould give fecurity to fatiffy the Court, in all their de- mads. In this ftrait (having had fome notice through the good providence ofGod,before the attachments could (a)2.Tk/.3.*. be ferved,& knowing too much already W of the abfurd unreafonablenes of thatCourt) we withdrew ourfelves (b)i.K>g.i7.?. asthe {b 'ProphetEliahfomtimeefcapedthefury of A- hab. Howbeit the inquiry of thefe H. Comtffi. was not (c) ibilca.\$.io. only fuch,as was after the^Prophet in publik intimati- ons in ourParilhes in Chelhire, & taking the meffengers oathhefoudusnor,butalf>infoekinde more malicious: for they fined us in great fumes of money, & agravated our fines oneCouu-day after another, & then returned them them into the Exchequer at London, where they were extended for theKings ufe & then begged by M.Tirill 2 fervant to his Maj. with who we were enforced to com- poud for prefent money paid in had to our great impo- verifhmet,as being otherwife liable to greater troubles. I humbly befeechyourHonors topardon this boldnes thus farre animated by your garcious aimes & endea- vours to vindicate the liberties of your diftrefled coun- trymerWherin I fhould ftill have remained patiently fi- lent.both in my owne & brethres behalfe,had our fuf- feringsbeene ail (although theHierarchie could not^)^'?- 4 * countervail the damage to our King & nation) & had there not now beene an opportunity of fome redrefTe. I crave leave therfore to fuggeft a few of the wofull fruits * Sciadconfequents ofPrelaticall proceedings.For eve *Sadconfqwmsof hence it is come to pafle that, 1 . Some well affe&ed Pa- ?nUc ^ rents have beene difcouraged from training up their hopefull fonnes in fuch learning as ihould fit to theMi- niftery. 1 1. Some confcientious yong men^having at- tained to a good degree of Iearning,have diverted 3 & ap- plied their ftudies 0therwaies.111.S0me in theMiniftery concerning the faith have made fhipwrack,or fchifmed dangeroufly,entertaining unfoud 3 & unwarrantable o- pinions & courfes, turning to be Anabaptifts, Separa- tifts, Semi-feparatifts 3 &c. and othersbecome licenti- ous y or meerly formall and careles in the execution of their calling, iv. Some of the $ people have followed ( e ) if®-*^* their pernicious & deceivable waies of Anabaptifme, Separation Jndependecy>Popu!arity,&Profanefle 5 by reafon of whom the way of trueth is evill fpoken of. (f (f) H0/.4.5?. Like Prieft 3 like People. v.But behold greater fcandals the thefe^for hence (g ^the image of jealoufy, which pro- (gj e#..s.j. V9kethtojealou(y 3 even (h 'the Myftery of iniquity hath (*0 *«W.a-7- ** x beene (i) e^. $.12,16. beene more bold to lift up the head , & P) chambers of imagery have beene raited at the upper end of Chacels, & Altars placed theron, and worlhip dire&ed towards *intheyejrei6i'?. theEaft. vi. Hence* a wide gap hath beene opened Rr^m^tbtd^ 10 ^^^' 1 ^^^ m ^e audacious profanation of the iwsforthe firftli- Lords day 5 grofle contempt of the faithfull miniftery ; bemgratedto (pons (corning at the performances of family duties;bolftring on the Lords day-at ftpnorancc 5 the ftepdame of devotiS ; countenancing the fame time he Joe D 5 r. J _ b eagerly profecutedtbc of Wakes 3 Rulh-bearings,Mixt-dancings, May-poles, Now-cowfom//?^ 4- Beare-beatings 5 Stage- play es 5 Revellings,Healthings 3 & bout ceremonies. a]1 manner of the ^ bordered courfes,with a cenlu- ring all ftri&nes in religion, & circumfpeft walking to be foolifh precifenes & Puritanifme. v-i 1 . Hence have followed thofe irregular confufions in the popular and independent governmet of theBrowniftically affedied, breaking in pieces againe and againe to their great re- (k) Aft. y-3S. proch; & yet difcovering therby, that their (k) new Voay is not of God , fith it doeth daily come to nought 5 by their owne difuniting and unchurching of themfelves. (1) Mg.5-.if. vui. Hence have rifen thofe great thoughts of heart a- mongftbrethre,occafioning bitter contentions,fruitles janglings,cenforious words,tart & galling writings, a- lienation of aflfedtions, ftrangenes of countenance, breach of Chriftian fellow(hip,inrerruption of prayers, & ncgle& of neceflary mutual offices. 1 x. Yea & hence doubtles hath iffued (as from the proper originall) that unworthy Remonftrance againft Prelbytery, reprefen- tedto the houfe of Peers from divers Noblemen and Gentleme ofCheihire 3 as appeareth by a printed booke under the name of Sir Thomas Afton Baronet, 1641. The greivous fcadal& offence wherof may in fome part Animadverfions onbe evinced by thefe ihort animadverfions following. theche(hireRjmon- \ t The title of it; A Remonftrance againft Prelbytery. pane*. * ^ Animadvers. Of the title the fame may be faid, k which was obferved * by the great & wife king lames * Declarations* of famous memory, touching the title of Bertius hisg ain ft Voy f xim - booke de apftafmpwciorum, viz. The title only were e- nough to make it worthy the fire. Becaufe i. The holy Scripture approveth of Prelby tery,as a divine ordinace both for the (m ; impofitio of hands, & alfo for ( n ) the ex- ( m ) J( Tk 4.14, ercifeofrule& government. ii.Prelbyteryiseftabli-(«) p%m$tt& fhed in the neighbour Reformed Churches, which are precious in the eyes of the Lord, & of all well-affeded to the reformed religio in England, in. Prelaticall men are not wont in their writings to contradict it fimply. Howcommethit then to pafTethat fomein Chelhire (°) are not afraid to fpeake againft Prefbytery ? {o\Numb. u.s. II. The pretended occafion of theRemonfhance againftPrefbytery,alledged by the contriver & fubfcri- bers,is, A Petition ; & Pofitions preached at Chefter, & Knutefford,annexed to the Remonftrance. Amimadv. The occafion of the fuggefted pretence, is but a meere pretence,having noe juft ground at all.For 1 -Neither the Petition,nor Pofitions afiexed to theRe- monftrance doe feeke for *Prefby tery,but feeme rather * FrefiyterianJifci- to affeda popular government. 1 1. The Patrons £po-P^ r mmimed ' n • A * Y, iir-t c* • ~ x the pofitions in grea- pular government (contended for in the pofitions) are te/cbaraBers feeme for themoft part either Separatifts, or Semi-feparatifts, *<> Uthewordsof^ who are asoppofite to Prefbyteriall governmet,as they ^ m ^f3^% are to Prelacy ; as is well knowne to them that know prefipSgolm,, them. And therforeit behooveth Chefhiremen to (pl m ™- give righteous judgement, when they take upon them ^ Io/; ^7-M- to ceniure,& in-no-wife confound & jumble together opinios& defenders of them foe direcftiy oppofite. For (t J } we muft all appeare at the tribunall of the (r) righte- (q) z.Cor.^o. ous judge of alhhe world, who will doe right, (0 G0M-8..2*. Ill ZbbIZ^ . W-R^onstr. taketh for granted that* Provin- mderfood 'bnlzl c * a ^ & Dioceftn Bifhops areor Apoftolicall inftituti- Zemonftr. othenvife on ; W alledging in the margent two texts of Scripture a!filirr! M for his P roofe - i .TZmJlu l An i m a d v.Neither of the texts alledged doe infcrre an Apoftolicall inftitution of Provinciall & Diocefan •gsr/jncowflf. Bifhops. For, i. The originall words tranflated*Bi- * irpr&vTtps. fhops or Overfcers, & * Prelbyters or Elders,are equi- (t)Aa.io. 17,2s. valcnt names of the fame office, & are foe ufed in the W i.f«.f .!>)»» Scripture, n. The pleaders for Hierarchie doc grant thatBifhops and Prelbyters in Scripture phrafe are the fame. in. The textintheEpift.to Phil.i.i. mentio- neth Bifhops in the plurall number,that is , fuch officers as did overfee the Church atPhilippi,& not a Bif hop a- lone, fuperiour to other officers in degree , or govern- (v) sJdbn.}* ment, according to the opinio of Hierarchical! men {v > affe&ing preeminence, i v. The text in 1. Tim. 3.1. men- tioned alfo officers well as Bifhop, which office is de- (x) 1 .Ttm.3.z>M, fcribed in the C*J fubfequenr verfes to be the office of the Prefbyter. And this may appeare further by comparing (y)T/M.5r,6^7. therwith the {y) Epift. to Titus, v. It is good to be wife according to fobriety in underftanding fome things in (z) LP**.;.* tf. to Pauls Epiftles & other Scriptures,left for wat of lear- ning & liability they be wrefted to deftruftion.This is an ufefull item for Chefhire men & others alfo. IV. Remonstr. commendeth Bifhops, thatthey were the great lights of the Churches - y and Martyrs in primitive rimes. Aniimadv. There is noe confequence to juftify Pre- lacy hence. For 1 .Papifts pretend the fame thing, albeit unjuftly,in the behalfe of their Romifh Bifhops & Hie- rarchie. 11. The name of Bifhops or Prelbyters is of- tentimes indifferently by the Fathers attributed to thofe thofe great lights, and Martyrs: as is evident In their books, & fuffieiently cleered by Orthodox Writers a- gainft the Papifts. in. SuchBifhops as had a fuperiori- ty in thofe times . * received it from the Church in hu- * i^.c™*. 7 ,. \ ,. . . n . . onEptn.to Titus. mane policy, not by divine lnttitution. J V. Remonst. aflfcribeth to Prelates the redempti- on of the purity of the Gofpell now profefled in En- gland from Romifh corruption* Animadvers. This aitertion feemethto want the trueth of ftory. For i .In the booke of Martyrs alledged^ a J^ ioo/ ^ by theRemonftr.the reformation of religion is referred to KingEdward himfelfe,& hisCounfell,& Parliamer. ii. KingEdward approved himfelfe better then the befl of the Prelates,in withftanding toleration ofMaffe to his fifter , at the requeft of the Emperour. in. Archb. Cranmer acknowledged to M. Cheke that KingEd- ward had more Divinity in his litle finger,then all they had in all their bodies.Ler theRemonft.therfore hence- forth take heed of detra&ing from Kings unjuftly , to extoIltheBifhops unjuftly. VI. Rexmonst. obferveththat divers of the Prelates have beene great affertors of our religion againft the common enemies of Rome, Anim adv. i. Divers of the Prelates have beene too great friends to Rome, as it is famoufly knowne, both heretofore, &oflatealfo. n. The Prelates generally have more vehemently profecuted the faithfull Mini- sters refufing conformity to fome popilh ceremonies , (albeit of the fame religion profefled and eftabUflied in England) the thefuperftitious & idolatrous Papifts,the grand enemies of the reformed religion. 1 1 . The Pre- lates generally doe make ufe of divers arguments ufed by Romanifts againftProteftants for theirHierarchicall difcipline & Ceremonies. iv.The greateftafTertorsof the reformed religion amongft the Prelates makeufe againft the Papifts of the Non-conformifts arguments againft prelacy &fuperftirion. v. Non-conformifts & Minifters of the ReformedChurcheSjWhere Preibytery is eftablifhed, have approved themfelves oppugners of Antichrift to purpofe. VII. Re mo n st. urgeth a continuance of Prelacy 3 fith it is eftablilhed by the laws of the land. p)i.Kjng.iz.zS t Am mad v. i.Itfomtirnesfalleth out that (a )unjuft laws *bu°Kin 3Z 6^6 are ena ^ e ^?^ b 'continued in a land profcffing religio 3 MkA.if. U 'touching both the Miniftery & Ceremonies. n.Parlia- ments doe afwell ferve to repeale 5 as to enad laws 3 as juft caufe & occafionlhall require. And accordingly Englifh Parliaments have beene wont to proceed. VIII. REMONsT.affirmeththat inthedo&rineofthe Prelates generally taught nothing is found diffonant from Gods word. An i m a d v. i . The Prelates generally have taught very feldome, foe that it cannot much be taken notice what maner of dodrine they teach. Queene FJiz.is reported to fay,that when fhe made a Biihop., (he marred a Prea- (c) 2.0.1 mj. cher.u.' c) Deceitfull workers doe fomtimestranfforme themfelvesinro the Apofties of Chrift. in. It is well knowne that many of the,& their favorites have beene deeply ftained with Popifh,& Armtnian points. iv. The Prelates generally have countenanced Arminians ra- ther then any way oppofed them. IX.ReMoNs-rR. fuggeftecha danger of tenentsprea- chedpublickly 3 & of printed pamphlets, &c. * Secaknu.A- Amimadv. i.Such*luggeftion againft tenentsintima- nimadv. ted, doth not at all refled on the feekers of Prelbyterial government.ii. Albeit 'twere to have beene defired,that noe noe fuch unwarrantable courfeshadbeeneheldbypr^ pofterous and popular zealots , yet it is noe new thing that^Sata by his inflruments (hould fow tares in Gods (d) Math. u«f £♦ wheat field.m. Anabaptifts inLuthers time were a great fcandall to the begun glorious reformation^ et not any juft ground of prejudice againft it. X. RfiMoNsTR. conceiteth that the 26 Prelates are eafily refponfall to Parliaments 3 for any of iheir deviati- ons from the rule of la w. Animadv, i. Deviation that is l e] wholly devious is (e) 1.15^.45. it- not at all refponfall either to God or rationall men . Such a deviation isPreiacy-confideredasPrelacy^in the fenfe ofthe* rigid patrons of it. ii. Prelates have not *£>Mfi n > beene eafily "refponfall jo Parliaments at any time for ^lll^ their deviations in prelacy ,nll this prefent Parliament, m.There are more then 26 Ordinaries that difpenfe the Civill & Canon Iaw.viz.Suffiaganes, Chancellors,Co- miffaries, Arch-deacons, Officials, Surrogates, Rurall deanes^Subdeanes, &c. iv. Itis better to (f ^roote up (£)Math*\it may be 7000) that as W Iuda \ t )Hof.\ i iL doe yet rule with God>and are faithfull with the Saints. M Right honorable,there is no feare of your abundant wifdomesindifcerningofthefegreivousPrelaricallma- ladies,nor ofycur companionate faithfulnes in apply- ing feafoable remediesjfith all me muft needs acknow- (V)uK.wg.»o.<5.7. ledge,that its W a true report, they have heard of your (x) Luk t-&*' a ^ s & w *fclomejexceeding the fame thereof. (x BlefiTed be the Lord God of England that hath vifited and re- (v) p/al. n8.2, deemed his people. (y Let the Churches of the Saints in England, Scotland , & Ireland, now fay , his mercy (2)P/4/.3j.j. endurethfor ever. LettheNon-conformifts ( (ZJ Gods hidden ones in thofe lands) now fay , his mercy endu- (z)iudg.6.\i.\+. reth for ever. Yee' a} mighty men of valour, the Lord 'b)i.teM7.$6. ' iat h beene with you hitherto, Subduing the Lyon & theBeare(even the High Commiffion court,& Starre chamber) that did prey upon the flock. Goe on in this your might to fave from (that uncircumcifed Phililtin) (c) uSamif.iu theoppreifing Hierarchic And let it be (c) noe offence (d) z.Pet. 1.12. of heart to your Honors to (tl) be ftirred up to goe for- (e)Pfai.% 19.24. ward, making the word of God the (e ) man of your (fj^as.ji. counfell. And for your better helpe and fj guidance, may it pleafe your Honors to make ufe of the labors of godly-learned Interpreters , that have beene the excel- * Calvin, Be$a t lent lights of the Reformed Churches , both * abroad G.Bucer, Didoda- & alfo in *EngIand; obferving withall the Apoftolicall ^^^ght^ra'^ v ^ ttm ^ mcnl touching^the CuftomeoftheChurches vcrfeydd, Parker, of Chrift,and their (h ^ comly order, even ofthepureft* Baym,&c. reformed Churches from all Antichriftianifme,bothin (l)Coiof^^ 6 ' doctrine & difcipline.Thefe Reformed Churches have * Scots, French, in their titties, townes, and villages vi J Prefby teries; (k) rf'sfof" t confiding of teaching & ruling Elders, chofen by the (l)\.Tim^a'7. plurality of their voices , confented unto by the Con- gregation, & approved by the Magiftrates and Claflis. (i) jia.fto. 17.28. Thefe (l) Elders doe take heed to the flock, over which the the Holy Ghoft hath made them Overfeers j They or- daine Officers, admit to the Sacraments, admonifh and cenfureoffend^rs^ccordingto (ra) Chriftsruleofdifci- (m)Math\S.i7, pline : and they fignify to the Congregation what be- longeth to the to take knowledge of, either to confent unto the fame,or except againft it, as juft caufe (hall re- quire. Andincafefome difficulty doe appeareinthe affaires of the Church, that cannot be decided well by the Prefbytery,the they have a liberty (& are wont) to appeale ^ n} & feeke helpe &affiftance from the Claflis, {n)^ta.i^%, confifting of neighbour Prefbyteries , (called by fome alfo Prefbyteries) with which they are combined in an equall power & authority,noe O ne exercifing any pre- laticall preeminence . And if the matter controverted cannot fatiffa&orily be determined by the Claflis , the there is a rcferece to the Provinciall Synod , confifting of the Deputies chofe by the feverallClafles, of equall power & authority. And if yet agreement be not made, then the matter is tobe brought to a Nationall Synod y cofifting of Deputies fent fro the Provinciall Synods. In their feverall Prefbyteries, ClaiTes, & Synods, Pro- vincial! & Nationall,they have Prefidents and Scribes chofen fromamongft themfelves for the more orderly mehaging of their Seffions. And in Synods fome cheife Magiftrats are prefent to fee order obferved. This way of Chrift,walked in by the Reformed Churches,is the way of peace, liberty, & edificario,though carped at by fome (0 -that fpeake evill of what they neither know nor (o) iudeiwp.i6. underftand. Andfor the more cleere& pregnant de- monftratio hereof, the following treatife touching the power of Elderfhips, Cla0es,& Synods may be of An- gular ufe; written by an ^ able 3 judicious, & pious ;Cp)M***m*. Divine,inftru&ed to the Kingdome of heaven^ having beene beene well fludied,and diligently exercifed in the doc- trine & pradife of difcipline above 30 yeeres together; whilft he was Paftor of the Englifh reformed Church (qjAittilr.*?. io. m Amfterdam j where was fptciall occafion (tj) to put forth his talent 5 byreafon of the cheifeft of the Sepa- ratifts that fojourned there at the fame time. And al- beit the Author lived not to fini(h,&review his paines, (r) 1. Cvr. 4. 17. yet through divine providence^ Timothy (rj who knew his waies (trained up in the Scriptures , & other good learning in Schooles , and Vniverfity , and for prefent ([) i.Tim. z^^. (0 a workman that needeth not to be afhamed) hath (t)i.Ti».4. xi. brought the ^parchments he left bchinde him topu- blick ufe, for the common benefit oftheEnglilhna- (v) z.Sam. 1 5% 54. tion in a time of need , calling for helpe M & counfel to defeate the dangerous proje&s of all Achitophels. (x)2.S^.j4. 17. Right honorable,yeareas( x ' Angels of God to di£ cerne good & bad , & to fpeake comfortable words to yourafflided&bantfhedCountreymen; Yee are the great Counfellers, Iudges,and State-phyfitians of En- (y) 1/4.9. 6. gland. Now (y J the Wonderfull,Counfeller,the migh- ty God , the everlafting Father , the Prince of peace (z) ifa. ii.z. furnilh your Honors more &more with the (z ^Spirit of wifdome & underftanding, the Spirit of Counfell and might , the Spirit of knowledge & of the feare of the (a) Pfai.zo. 4. Lord, ( a) & fulfill all your counfells which are for the (c| !". p7!°;~ % ' (b) § lor y of God > for the (c) honor of our g racious Kin § (d) iob, 2,2. jo. ' Charles, and for the true W welfare of England, Scot- land , & Ireland ; even foe prayeth Tour Honors mofl humble advertiftr 9 And devoted ob fewer t Thomas Paget. - The The Tuhtifher to the Chrijiidn Reader. T Here are two ftaves wherewith the Lord Chrift , the great Shepherd of his. f heep , doth ufually feed his flock ; Doctrine and Difcipline . By the one he maketh them to liedowneingreene paftures, and leadeth them befidetheftili waters > replenifhing their foules with the food of life; by the other he guideth them and ordereth them in their going out and comming in , for their further peace andfafety : and both his rodde and his ftaffe doe comfort them . If either of thefe be wanting,the flock is endangered ; & if God in his juft judgement caufe one of them tofaile , the other prefently comes to be in jeopardy . Wofull expe- rience hath taught,that where the reignes of Difcipline are (iackned or ill guided, there the foundnes of Doctrine doth hardly fubfift long: and where the trueth of Doctrine is aflfaulted , there the courfe of Difcipline is not free from injurious attempts. Though Doctrine juftly challenge the firft place, yet feeing Difci- pline alfo , to fpeak properly , is a part of Doctrine , being onely the practife, of di- vine trueth revealed concerning the guidance of the Church; hence it may not without caufe ihare in the arguments alledged for the neceffity and benefit of the other. They both being foneerlyallyed j and joyntly requisite to the welfare of Gods Church , the Enemy > ever envying the profperity , and plotting the ruine thereof, where he cannot prevayle againft the one, he fets on work his mifchie- vous devices againft the other: When he cannot hinder the growth of good corneand found trueths, by fowingtares; then he makes fo much the more fu- rious onfets upon the fences and hedges of due order and government- And if his defignes may be effected in the one, he findes a readyer way to the other . Buc he that hath bruifed Satans head , is not ignorant of his devices , nor (low to refiii him in his enterprifes . Chrift doth gracioufly provide for the fafety of his flocks againft both kindes of evills , by fuch inftruments as he is wont to rayfe for the ex- plaining and vindicating the trueth of thofe lawes which he hath given , both to direct and maintaine his people in the obedience of his will,and to ftop the mouth of all iniquity oppugning the fame . His goodnes therefore is to be acknowledged in whatfoever helps to this purpofe are affoorded unto us. And that thou mayeft the better be provoked hereunto, Chriftian Reader,concerning the Treatife now prefented unto thee, take a brief furvey at thy firft entrance, offomewhat may further fit thee unto a more judicious and profitable perufall of the work itfelf. The maineerrours touching the exercife of Church-government, may be re- duced unto thefe two extremes, whereby men fwarve from that middle and fafe way prefcribed by Chrift , the onely Prince and Lawgiver of his Church . Some ambitious of preeminence , making themfelves lords over Gods heritage , have brought in, and feek to maintaine a Tyrannical! kinde of government in the Church , by ingrofling all Ecclefiafticall jurifdiction into their o wne hands , as the Popes , and Popifh Bifhops : Againft thefe Vfurpers many Worthies have ftood up,and done valiantly, in their Writings, whereof divers rernaine yet unanfwered. Others have erroneoufly fallen into a contrary extreme ; while oppofing Hierar- chical! Tyranny , they have become pleaders for a meere Democracy; and not coatee to reject Provinciall & Diocefan Bifhops, they have impugned the lawfull **** com- combination of Churches in Provinciall and Clafficall Synods . Againfl: this two- fold errour the enfuing Treatife is directed . The former part thereof was written long agone » about the yeare 1618, upon the occafion noted in the Introduction. And though it was but a beginning of a larger writing, neither finilhed nor po- lifhed for publick view: yet confidering how little there is extant in this kinde, how ufefull ic may be for thefe times, and what affinity it hath with the other con- troverfy touching Clafles and Synods , by how much the oppofers of fuch joynt Prefbyteries doefeldome allow the due power of particular Elderfhipsjl thought good to prerixe it before the other, in fuch wife as it doth now come foorth. The fecond and maine part of this Treatife difcufleth at large ( and more fully then any other yet feene ) the queftion concerning the due power of Clafllcall & Synodall Aflemblies . A controverfy >in a manner unknowne to former ages , and for the prefent fcarcely heard of among the Reformed Churches in other nations . For though the pofitive trueth thereof be manifeft from the testimonies of Orthodox Writers of all times and places; yet hitherto it hath not beene (hewed that ever any Authoursofnote ( I meane either of former ages , or other nations) have maintained the aflertions here oppofed , viz. that the power of Clafles & Synods is an undue power, and that all Ecclefiafticall jurifdiftion muft be confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation. H.Barrotv, & thofe of that Sett, are no- ted to be the firft that in fuch fort have oppofed this kinde of government. The Jrminians indeed have fpoken much againft the jurifdiftion& deciding fentence * Cenfur. of Synods , * but upon other grounds ; to wit > fo farre as ic taketh away that li- ^onft^p 6 * berty of Prophecy which they plead for, and defcribe to be in effect an unlimi- 322, yl\ ted licentioufnes of venting and maintaining almoft any thing in matters of reli- 318. gion . They doe fo contradict the power of Synods, that withall they overthrow tnonftffi all Ecclefiafticall judgment and cenfure (at leaft in matters of herefie & falfe doc- 6c 28 2- trine ) as well in a particular Congregation as elfwhere . Herein they differ from -290. the Patrons of Independence , here difpuced againft . Thefe therefore , though they be not all Brownifts , yet they muft not take it ill to fee this errour in the following Treatife fometimes branded with the mark of Brottmifme , efpecially when the Authour deales with Mr Canne , a knowne Separatift , and hitherto the bufieft Difputer for this opinion. Befides, it is not unknowne that this Tenet of Independecy hath been attended with Semifeparatifme in divers of the better fort ofthofethathaveheldit, both in Mr Jacobs rime, when Orthodox men began firft to be ftained with it ; & of later yeares alfo , when new exorbitant oppreffions of the Hierarchy, have occafioned many to witnefle their diflike of Prelaticall go- vernment , whereof fome efchewing that rock of ufurping Epifcopacy , have in- confiderately rufhed upon thefe fands of Popularity and Independency. And thefe are the points here difcufled . Concerning the Authour of this Defence, not to fpeak of his other abilities wherewith he was excellently furnilhed unto every good work in the Miniftery whereunto he was called > ic may be obferved how he was fpecially fitted unto the maintaining ofcrueths of this nature . He was not as one of yefterday in regard of his knowledge , ftudy & praftife of thefe points of Church- government . Long experience hath caught him in thefe things what he fayth , and whereof he affir- meth. mtth . Of thofe fourty yeares 8c upward , wherein he laboured in the Miniftery, for thirty of them & above > he hath beene converfant intheexercifeofPrelby- teriall and Clafficall government. During which time, his abode being in the fame place where the ancient and chiefeft oppofitesunto this Difcipline were feated , he had fpeciall occafion to be acquainted with their courfes , and to arme himfelf and others againft them. Befides, it may not be amifie to obferve the cor- refpondence which the Authour hath had with divers of the learnedeft of our na- tion , together with the efteeme which they have had of him and his abilities in thefe points of Divine learning . I will inftance onely in thefe three Worthies , Mr Parker, Mr Sh^ the Author of the Reply to D.Down. and D.Ames^ whofe names ^ nfe frequently to be mentioned in writings of this kinde . For Mr Parker, the fa- miliar and loving acquaintance betwixt him and the Authour, is partly noted * in *Pag.io>. the Treatife itfelf . And though Mr Dav. would make his Reader to fufpeft it were otherwife , yet if what he hath written * to this purpofe be examined by the * Apot re- rule and fquare of trueth ; it will be found to be onelv a (inifterinfinuation,groun- £ Iy ' f; 74j dcd upon unfound reports . The widow of Mr Par. hath of later yeares before 7 fufficient witnefTes protefted folemnely the foulc untrueth of that that was layd to this our Authours charge concerning him . Which charge while M r D. under- takes to juftify, he fleightly paiTeth over the maine thing wherewith the Anfwerer, as he calles him , had cleered himfelf from that imputation, and infteadofdue anfwer , turneth afide unto other matters , neither true nor pertinent > as may be manifefted from undenyable evidences. After Mr Parlor removed to Doejborough, to preach to that Garifon (not to a Leager, as M r D. hath it ;) where he died , not about 3 moneths fas M r D. faith,) but above 8 moneths at leaft after he went from tAmftevdam ; not in the yeare 1 6 1 3 . (as M r D. was informed ) but in the y. 1 6 1 4: from thence he wrote many loving letters to the Authour, wherein he doth thankfully acknowledge fundry kinde offices received , & occafionaliy intreateth the performance of others . Among the reft, being caufelefly accufed touching Come things in his booke de Defcenfu ad Inferos (which he dedicated to our Au- thour, together with the other Officers of the fame Church) he writes thus, I pray , ufe the meanes which conveniently you can, tocleeremy innocency , &c. And after- wards in another letter ; J thanks you for yonrpaines in defending my innocency , which I would keep if I might , howfoevtr the fuccefie fall out for my relurne to ^Amfterdam , &C. Touching that very matter he writes, I thanke you for the paines you have taken for me, although in vaine : at which I am not difmayed nor any whit moved , being affured that itiscometopaffebytbewilloftheLord, who I know will be my God as well out of Amfter- damasinity&c. Whereas the fecondpartof M r Sh. his Reply was committed to the Authours truft , for the overfeeing of the prefle , and fome paflfages were ob- ferved , which he conceived to be prejudicial! unto the due maintaining of the caufe » Mr Parker being advertifed thereof, returned this anfwer : I have gone in my * third book., to the very poynt you doubt of, and there left > till I had feen this bookjprinted . * De Polit, I am not as yet refolved fully about thefe things : (?c. Being I am not as yet clearely refolved , Eccler > you may not look. I Jhouldfend you my judgement therein , fave onely this , that I encline to your opinion ,for ought I yet fee in the Specialities by you mentioned, &e. Afterwards , ha- ving confidered further of thofe particulars, he approved our Authors judgment, **** ♦ and I gation. The former of thefe is fufficiently maintained in the enfuing Treatife. For the other i though the Author have not gone fofarre in it as in this; yet he hath Iayd fuch a foundation, as upon which it will not be difficult to build what may fatiffy for the clearing of that controverfie . Whereof more hereafter , as conveniency and publick benefit (hall require . Touching perfonall concern- ments , though I acknowledge my felf doubly and trebly bound to vindicate the Authors reputation,at whofe feec I have been brought up,and from whom I have received farre more then by fuch or better meanes I am ever able to requite ; and though it were eafy tofhewhowhisoppofites have offended in manyuntrueths touching matters of fact, and vaine pretences of meeknes inthemidftofgreac bktcrnes , &c yet I am refolved to pafle by , and to bury thefe things in filence , unleflfe further caufe be given for the publifhing of them. And hereunto as I have been advifed by others > fol have the rather yeelded , confidering (as they alfo alledgedj that the benefit to be expected from dealing in thefe matters, would be but of a narrow extent, reaching onely to thefatiffactionofafew, and little concerning the maine caufe ; that the Authours good name and bleflfed remem- brance is fo deeply ingraven in the hearts of thofe that are acquainted with his waves and writings, that no envie norobloquie fhalleverbeabletorafeit out. Againe, they that will but compare the Anfwer and Replyes together, and diftin- guim betwixt plaine dealing and groundlefle furmifes , evidence of trueth and un- charitable insinuations, fhall hardly need any further help for their fatiffadtion ; fpeciallyiftheybemindfulloftheRuIe, \\Tim.%. 19. from which thefe oppo- fices have too too frequently fwarved ; and in which refpect M r D. had juft caufe to intt eat his Reader CQ tofujpend his cenfure concerning what he hath [aid , 0V. More- over, that plaufible and colourable name of the Church -, ufed by theReplyers when they fpake of a few diflfenting from the Authour, is now further manifefted to be inconfiftent with thofe paflages whereunto in fuch fort it was applyed ; for- afmuch as they that then complained, doe now quietly enjoy themfelves and communion with the Church, in the continued obfervation of the fame orders that were practifed before : except onely W. B. the foreman of the Complay- nants,now a profelTed Arminian. And of thofe that once joyned with him , fome before, others fince the Authours death have plainly fignifyed their better re- fpects unto him , and given free and full teftimony of his well defervings , even of that Church , both for Doctrine and Difcipline. (g) Printed fo returne unto his Defence , here pubiifhed, the greater part of it is in way of re 163?!*" anfwer to M r C. who hath been the forwardeft and largeft in this part of the plea (h) in the touching Gaffes and Synods . Itfeemes alfo that he hath not been a little confi- y. 1641. dent of his paines about this work , by the reiterated editions and fundry (napes Theolde' * nt0 which this his writing touching Independent government hath been caft. UnioneEc- The (g) firft edition , which the Authour here deales with , was feconded with ciefiarum . another , into which he hath taken onely that which concernes this controverfie, Re U irmne adorning it with this new and faire title > (h) Syons Prerogative Royall . And this in cuffibas hath been anfwered (») by the famous and truely excellent Divine of thefe coun- & Synodis. tries , D. Voetius , A third edition , it feemes , hath been put forth with fome ad- K^V 1 " ditions againft the Preiby teries of particular Churches > under another title > viz. traj, 1041. o ' * ,j.i The Prejbyteriall Government examined . And this alfo hath been examined and an- fwered by the Authotir of the {*)Affmion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, (k) E for further con virion . However, * it may be profitable to behold feverali learned men y- avouching and * AugafUe pleading for the fame trueth : and many blowes may beat downe anerrour, that^ nn,I * 1,c « could not be feild at once. But it may feemeftrangethat Atfrtoww^writings j being fuch as the feverali Refuters have obferved them to be > f hould yet have the honour of three feverali Refutations . Who ever faw fuch groiTe Logical! mif- See afterw. takes in one that makes fuch a flourifh with Syllogifticall reafonings i Who ever ^ I e 4T ' 14 ^ faw in a ferious writing fuch abundance of quotations , fo generally perverted » or fo little to the purpofe? Hevainelyalledgethabovean ioo teftimonies of Au- thours, oldandnew, toprovethat which was never denyed bythofe whom he oppofeth. And yet on the other fide , who fo confident of his owne caufe, amidft fuch barrenes of proofs > where there was need of it > either from Scripture or ap- proved Authours i Let thofe that feem to hold with him in this controverfie, judge whether M r C. be not in thefe refpe&s aDiJputer* one of a thoufand, as his phrafe is 0) elfwhere , to another purpofe . How comes it then to pafie » that 0) Cb. pi* they that have been induced to write in defence of Preibyteriall and Clafficall go- & IJ * vernment, have had no other matter to work upon > but what was afToorded by M r C. or that the caufe of Independencie » which makes fo great a noyfe among fome » yeelds yet fo little to be feen for the maintenance of it t May not we juftly doubt concerning others that feem to favour this way i that their judgements are notfetled in this poynt ; by how much they are fo flow to profefle , what they hold > and upon what grounds ? If they agree with M r D. and M r C. and their grounds & pretences be the fame with theirs, they may here receive fatiffattion . But fome happily will think the Authour hath been needlefly curious in noting the manifold groiTe faylings ofM r G. both in his Reafonings and Quotations. For anfwer hereunto, befides that for the moft part they be fuch as in thistho-~ rough kinde of refuting , ufed by the Authour , could not be pafied over with fi- lence ; it appeares that M r C. ftands in need of being told of thefe faults ; for in his latter edition of the fame things > I finde not any of thefe foule miftakes amen- ded . Herein onely he hath fomewhat corre&ed himfelf, that what he had before (ro)aflcribed to Mr Paget, now he attributes it(n)to the Prefiyterian governows , (mjcfmr. mdfuch as ftand for Prejbyteriall government: hereby acknowledging that what heP lea »P-74* had before called (o) Mr Pagets new doctrine, (p) Mr Paget s lately -deVifed T«»«j,?^ s ons . (q) Mr Pagets new opinion , was neither his device > nor fole opinion , but common prerjoy.p. with him to atleattall that allow of the government of the Church of Scotland ; J$» »*« from whom that M* C. might profefle his di (Tent, he hath put in the words W™- P 1 - Prefiyterie. and Prefiyterian, with Claflis, and Claficall, feeing the Prefiyterks in ( P ) ibid. p. Scotland are in effeft the fame with the Clafles in thefe countries . 7% ForthepublifhingofthisTreatifci Iha&more need co plead excufe for not gMw4fc fecting ' / fetting it forth before, according to their judgement who have frequently called upon me and encouraged me unto the finif hing of this taike ; rather then to pro- vide againft their difpleafure, who are apt to cenfure as unfeafonable what in this kinde is unwelcome unto them . But for the feafonablenes of ic , let the times fpeak. And for the delay, occasioned partly by the difficulty of the work, and partly by other diffractions , & want of neceftary helps for difpatch , the book it- felfunto thofe that are not unacquainted with bufinefles of this nature, will give reafonablefatiilaclion. That which thou here feeft touching ClafTes andSy- nods, was written by the Authour in the latter dayes of his pilgrimage, amidft fundry bodily weakneffes;& other necefTary imployments. There are now three yeares expired , (ince he refted from this & other his labours , having ferved the will of God in his owne age , & entred into the joy of his Lord . Being warned fome time before by a meflenger of death to defift from the purfuit of this work, he gave way that in convenient time , as I was able, I f hould hufband thefe his notes for publick ufe . It were to have been wiihed that his owne eve & hand might have prevented the charge of an executour herein. Soihouldeft thou have had this work farre more compleat and refined then now can be expected. But the Almighty , infinite in underftanding , to whom belong the iflues of life and death,hath ordered otherwife: & who will fay unto him,What doeft thou? Ac- cording to the truft therefore committed unto me,I doe now at length fet foorth this monument of his godly & painfull labours touching this weighty point of Church-government . 1 have forborne , as much as might be , to interpofe my rude pencill in this mafter-piece . The liberty allowed unto me for the perfiting of what was wanting, I have ufed no further then was requifite, for the coupling of the parts together , out of feverall papers , written at feverall times, & for the filling up of a few gaps, fpecially in C/;. 7. having had the opportunity to meet with fome bookes which the Authour wanted. I have withall added a fmall Supplement , for anfwer unto what remained in M r Cannes book, touching this poynt , according to the firft edition , the fame which the Authour onely faw 8c followed in this his Defence . A nd thus I have alfo caft my mite into this Trea- sury , before I opened it for publick benefit. If my coine be not currant , let not that prejudice the rich fupply that may be had out of the Authours ftore ; the value whereof will fufficientlv difcover itfelf,unto them that with underftanding & unpartiall mindes receive it. Howbeit , thou art allowed & defired according to the Authours meaning , to bring it to the touchftone of trueth , to the Law , & to the Teftimony . According this word try the reafons on both fides , and hold faft that which is good. - Fare well, 'from Dort: Where a moft pregnant & effeftuall teftimonie hath been given , for the needfull authority of Synods \ with which teftimony the Authour hathclofed his writing touching this fubjed : Where this his Treatife now comes to light ; which we hope may prove ufefull to direct unto, the like remedy , where the like cafe may require it. He that hath the Starres in his right hand , To guide the beamesof this Candle , now fet upon the Candleftick, that it may givelight unto all that are in the houle ; thatthe darke corners oferrour may be further difdofed, 8c theluftreof his owne Ordinances become more apparent . With particular Elderjhij)* CHAP. L The occafton of this writing , and the State of the Jj>ueBion. Hereas M r Ainfworth was defired by the Authour (a) to (a) Arrow fet down hisreafons concerning whatfoever he thought ag.SeparX might be a juft caufe of refilling communion with that 2,v * particular Congregation whereof he was aMinifter: M r Ainfw. in hisanfwer among the reft hath 00 thefe (b) ibid, words; Other things there are 3 wherein you know me differ from P a g-y. you : , when they defire the fame : yea we our felves have* oft defired their prefence to 91 behold the conviclions, admonitions & rebukes of offenders. And further,be- »> fore any fentence be given for the cutting ofFof any offender, wedofiiftpro- » pound the matter unto the whole Church , requiring their prayers , advife and 9) confentj without which never yet any judgment of excommunication hath bene >, executed againft any amongft us : and this alfo is propounded unto them by di- >, vers degrees, long & oft before any pronouncing of fentence , that fo our bre- >» thren may have fufficient time, both to informe themfelves of the matter and to *> deliberate ripely thereof. &c. Mr Ainfworth in his next having f d ) fayd , I put you in minde that you have not tu (d) ibid p, yet alledged any one word of God ,foryour Confiflory , tyc. the Authour puts him in 3 '7- minde of his owne allowing the fame by communicating therewith in fome mea- ( e ) Ibld -P # fure, whereof he had bene told (e) before, Sc whereunto he anfwerednot a word, ff)* ibid P . „ and addes (fj further : Seeing you have not yet anfwered , neither the (g) firft 3 30. „ nor the (ty laft booke of Mr lohnfon, wherein he hath written againft your po- fa) Ex P- of I pular government, what meane you to call for more i ifmoreberequifite, you (hjxhrifti. 1 may fee that I promifed you in my former (^writing that when I fhould receive an plea. „ any arguments from you to prove your refufall of communion upon thefe Ck Arrow 7y grounds, that I would then give further anfwer unto you, The errours which J& e P e* A ' »yoir* i TH E POWER OF 9i you have publiihed in your uAnimadvirfion for the maintenance of your popular » order, and the enormities which in that order are committed by you in your un- „ lawfull excommunications & cenfures , are fo many that they require a diftinct „treatife for the refutation thereof: of which I purpofe to fay more hereafter as „ occafion is given. &c. Hereupon and about the fame time was written that which followes> though not happily all that was intended. By that which is fayd it may appeare that the Queftionis not , whether the po- wer of the keyes be given to theChurch,or whether the power of excommunica- tion be in the body of the Church>or whether Church-government ought to be with the peoples free confent , Sec. All this may be granted , and yet the point in controverfy remaine undecided. But the difference is about the execution & ju- dicial! exercifing of this power: Whether every offence to be judged or caufe to be determined , ought to be brought to the multitude or body of the Congrega- tion, and they to give their voyces therein together with the Officers of the Church ; or whether the Officers being chofen with the publick knowledge and free confent of the Church , have not bv vertue of their calling power to heare & judge matters, to rebuke and cenfure offenders without the advife of the multi- tudejvet fo that in matters of greater importance & more publick concernmec (as admiffions,excommunications & abfolutions of members, elections & depofitions ofOfficers,&c.) the cafe be made knowne unto & determined with the free con- fent of the people, according to the pra&ife above- written. The former of thefe is denyed,the latter affirmed & maintained in the enfuing difcoui fe. CHAP. II. Arguments to prove thefo^oer of the Elderjhip in judging,^ ending feme caufes without the knowledge of the Congregation. I. HTHe titles given by the holy Ghoft to EcclefiafticaliCffices & Officers are fuch -*- as import a power of judging caufes; being fuch titles as doe expreffe & de- clare the power of judgement , which was in the Rulers of Ifrael , both Civill & Ecclefiafticall : as for example; Hya- '• A Guide or Leader, is the title given to Ecclefiafticall Officers, Heb. 1$. 7, 1 7>2-4.& is the fame that in the Greek tranflation of the Old Teftament, agree- P s ' able to the Originall,is given to Civill Rulers, lofh. i^.zi.Deui;.i.\^.Mica.s-9> \\ . z. Cbro.$. \ . E^.44.3 . z6,tf. x.Ptt.z.x+.&c. And fo is this word alfo jMW. ufed by other humane writers abundantly. EV*V- 2 * A Si fi°P or Overfeer , the title given by the H. Ghoft unto Ecclefiafticall Officers to defcribe their authority & power,A8.zo.z$ .Phil. 1 . t . 1 -Tim.j .z.Tit. X07T0S* 1,7. is the fame word that is given to expreiTe the power of Civill Magiftrates in the THE ELDERSHIP, the Greek translation of the OldTeftament, Num.$i . 14.18^.9.28. z.Kjn.u . \ f. •and very often in other Writers. 3 . An Elder, the title which the Scripture ufeth to denote & I hew the office IIpg Iudg.S.\4.Huth.4.2,$>&c. z.Sam.to fignify their authority, Num.7. 2. Gm.2^.16. iff^.z.Levit. 4.22. jRow. ^tf 13.3.1 .Cor.2.6. is alfo given to Ecclefiafticall Rulers to note their office and au- thority, as iA8.z$ .5-. with Exod.zz. 28 . Mat. 9. 1 8 . L«^« 8.41. Jofc. 3 . 1 . N«w. 3 .24, i'o»3 2 '>35'* And hereby it may appeare how untrue it is which Mr Robinfon writes concerning the difference betwixt Civill Officers & Church-governours, when having mentioned fome of the titles given to Magiftrates, he faith ; (a) Ec- (*) Jaftific clefiafticall Officers are not capable oftbefe iff the like titles which can neither be given with- ° ep ' p ' out flattery unto them , nor received by them without arrogancy : And yet the very iirft of the titles wherein he gives inftance , is that title which here I f hew to be given to Ecclefiafticall Rulers as well as to Civill. 5. The title of Heads , wherein M r Robinfon (b) inftanceth in the fecond Rofch place,that it may not be given to Ecclefiafticall Officers , is yet ( if we will regard (b) Juftific. what the Scripture affirmeth) given to them as well as to Civill Rulers, As it is lbld " given to Magiftrates in Deut. 1 . 1 5-. the place alledged by M r Robinfon , fo is ic alfo given to Minifters in 1 .Chron. \<$.\z.iff zi.z4.iff Z4.4. iff z6. 1 o, 1 z. z.Chron. I9.1t ,E^,8 . 1,17. Nehem. 1 2. 1 z,zz,z$ ,24. 6. The title of Governours or Governments , which the Greekes are (O noted KvfZep* to ufe to expreiTe the power of Civill Magiftrates thereby , by a Metaphor from v J T eir pilots,out of Xenophon, Ariftotle, Plato, Cicero, &c. is the fame that the holy ,*. h " Ghoft alfo ufeth to fignify unto us thereby the authority of Church-governours xheCiing! inguiding the f hip of Chrifts Church. 1. Cor. \ z. 28. Gr/ 7. The tide of Rulers , which H. Stephanus (d) f hewes to be ufed by Thu- Tlpoi gently weigh what the Scripture faith , we may well difcerne that this title is alfo (J J l,ftlf - given to Church-governours & Minifters. for 1. The defcription 1 of thofe per- 13^^' fonsto whom this title is given , is that they are fuch, to whom the word of God comes j fuch as the Father hathfanBifyed iff fern : Jo/;, 1 o. 3 ^,3 6. and therefore accor- ding to the expofition of our Saviour , feeing the word of God is come unto Ec- clefiafticall Minifters & Rulers , giving them thereby a commiffion to adminifter in his name; feeing fuch are fanctifyed & fent of God>we may hereby fee how this A z tide 4. THE POWER OF title belongs unto them. 2. By the expofitioo 5c application of the ApoflIe f thofe who in Mofes are called Gods&c Balers , Sxod. 2 1.18. are (he wed to be Ec- clefiafticall Rulersi ^A&.zi .?. And howfoever fome differ about this title , yet (g) lun. 8c are there of the learnedeft that doe (g) fo interpret thefe places, viz, offuth as have Trem.An- either Chill or EccUJiafticalladminijlration committed unto them, Andifwecome unfco iT'tftil*' C ^°^ e Authors that are fo much honoured by you , they \rill alfo confirme the anai.expi. ' fame. The (h) Chaldee Paraphraft upon thofe places where this title of God is gt- Ex. t% 28. yen to Mofes, tranflateth it B^tb, a Mafter or Do#o«y,which is fuch a word as is gi- n°o?Cenf ven unto Ecclefiafticall Minifters. Others BJ of the learnedeft Iew-doftoursdoe Hb.Apocr. expound that title of the Priefts& Levites,& fo apply it to Church govemours. torn, i.prael. Another (k) Cabalift often alledged in your Annotations doth ihew thefe Gods fh)o k - mem i° ne< ^ inExo»i2.to be all kinde ofRulers over the people by hisGematriabe- los Taroum caufe the numerall letters of the words, Elohim,venafi,yee\d the fame number with on Exo?4. thefe, hu dajan ,vecoljhehu , fignifying Iudges of all forts , the fayd words as they arc n Ah- ' '" vv " ttcn m tne i r owne letters,being compared together ey ther joyntly or feverally. Ezra com. H- IftheDeacons may diftribute fome almesuco the poore without the know- onExo.2'2. ledge of the whole Congregation ; then may the Elders alfo judge fome caufes rui r without the knowledge of the whoIeChurch.But the firft is true.Therefore.&c. Lttiirlm The confequence of thePropofitio is proved by this:Becaufe the wholeChurch onExo,z2. hath as much right & authority to difpofe of theChurch-treafure & almes,as they *&• have to judge of the offences that are committed therein.This theScripture I he w - eth by the exam pies of fundry Churches, of Antiochia, Macedonia, Achaia,&c. iA&.\\.Z9,lo.R$m.\<;.i<;»z%. \.Cor.\6.i.z.Cor.%.\.^\^.?hilz.Zf;.withc.^\Z, The Affumption is manifeft, and your owne pra&ife coofirmeth it. III. If Arbiters chofen by confent of fome particular perfons may judge the caufes of wrong & injury, whether publick or private, wherein they ftrive againft one another; then may the Elders chofen by confent of the whole Church, judge the caufes & offences that arife, when they willingly fubmit unto the fame. But Arbiters fo chofen may judge the caufes referred unto them. There- fore the Elders may doe it alfo. The truth of the Proportion appeares ; becaufe the free & folemne confent of the Church in any election gives authority unto fuch perfons, either in general! or fpeciall workes, as well as the choyfe of any particular men in their caufes.^c7. 14.23. c^.Cor.S. 19. The truth of the Affumption appeares , by the doctrine of the Apoftle giving fuch power of judgement unto Arbiters : 1 .Cor. 6.^. i\) H.Ainf. If you anfwer hereunto as you 0) elfwhere expound this place : that thefe con- A °m 1 ci V f trover ^ es t0 De referred unto Arbiters, are for civill things of this life _j that fuch are ron,p. 43! * not Church-matters, nor there to be heard, &c. this is inefficient and will not help you, feeing it appeares by the text that thefe Controverlies in Corinth might as well have bene fayd to be Ecclefiafticall caufes as Civill , and belonging to the judge- ment of the Church as of the Magiftrates or Arbiters. Had their controverhes bene touching a wound or ftroke given, touching any flander or theft, which may be fayd to be Ecclefiafticall caufes , as belonging to the judgement of the Church; THE ELDERSHIP. 5 Church; yet might' the Apoftle have fayd unto them thereupon all that he doth> i. Cor. 6. 1-9. for 1. Thefe are bufineffes which Infidell Magiftrates in thofe times ufed to judge 1 and the generall fpeech of the Apoftle imports as much* v.t*&6* 2. The reafon which the Apoftle ufeth , taken from the honour &dignity of Saints in their judgement of Angels & the world, ferves to perfwade them to fubmit the judgment of fuch caufesto one another mutually as well as any other caufes, v.z,$ . * 3 . The reafon taken from their fhame , as if there wese no wife men among them to judge thefe caufes,ferves to reprove them for a wane ofwifedomeinEcclefiafticall things as well asCivill. 4. The matters of con- troverfy among them were of wrong & injury done to brethren , f.7, S, 9. And thefe being finnes & fcandals, belong to the judgment of the Church,as doth the judgment of * all knownefmnes. **.Co£ This Argument is in effeft yeelded unto by your felf,when you («) allow the ^{££^2 Articles of the Difcipline agreed upon in the Reformed Englifh Church which (mjH.'AiS; was at Franckfordin Q^Maries dayes; for whereas in the 62. art. thereof, in cafe of Animadv. difference betwixt the Governours of the Church & others it is there concluded, JJj£™ ^ f " that the body of the Congregation may appoint fo many of the Congregation to heare & deter- mine the fayd matter or matter s> as it Jhall feemegood unto the Congregation: hereuponin approbation of this Difcipline you obferve , that hereby the reader may fee what thz^ learned & moft eonfcionable of the Church of England held heretofore : which if they had con- tinned in , would have freed them of all slntichriftian Prelacy , the bane offo many Churches, And hereupon I obferve further againft you, how the reader may hereby fee , that if the body of the Church may appoint fo many Arbiters as they will to 'beared de- termine matters, then may the Elders of the Church receive this authority as well as any others ; then is it no unlawfull ufurpation for them to heare & determine fome matters among the brethren by themfelves. IV. If particular perfons may lawfully pane by fome letter offences &' leave them unto the confeiences of the offenders , without profequuting die or bring- ing them to the Church for any judgment at alhthen may the Church alfo leave fbmeleffer offences unto the judgment of the Elders. But the mft is true. Therefore the fecond alfo. The confequence of the Proposition is proved; becaufe God doth no more require the Church to judge of (innes made knowne unto the fame , then he doth require particular perfons to profequute and to deale againft the offences made knowne unto them : the Scripture fpeaking as fully & giving unto particular per- fons as ample commiflIon& charge to *admonifh andcomplaineoffinne>a5 it *Mau8, : doth unto the Church to judge &cenfure the fame. LeviiM-' The Affumption is proved: i. By expreffe teftimonyes of Scripture ,that teach us to pane by fome (ins &offences> and not to profequute them. Prov. \ 9, 1 1 .Eccl.j.zi . 2. Particular perfons being taught to love their neighbour as them- felves, & to doe good unto all, Levit. ly.iS.Matt.zz^^.B^om.i^.^.Gal^.i^rlam. e.8. are thereby bound to admonifh them that are without,thofe that are not me- bersofthefame Church with them , but of any other eyther trueorfalfe, or of none. Now if chis be to be done > it followes neceffarily that the reproofes of A 3 many 6 THE POWER OF many letter faults are to be omitted;becaufe otherwife men could never difcharge this duety » neither would their time fufficeto performethefedueties of admo- nition to all fuch as they fhould finde fubjeft thereunto both within the Church & without. Yea fuppofe they had no other calling to attend upon , yet could not the whole age of man be fufficient to teftify effe&ually & in order againft all fuch tranfgrefllons which an intelligent perfon might difcerne to be committed dayly before his eyes, both in private & publick. J. Even yourfelf feem to acknow- (i) Com. of ledge this alfo, when touching the difference of offences you (ay , (i) whenoffen- Saints, cap. ces arife, itfnalbe our glory if we can palTe them bv , as Solomon bath fay d. But if the tref- 22,. # 2, & p a jj* e be fuch as we may not but infift upon, both for the honour of God who is offended ,& foul e of the finner which is endangered , <& our owne or neighbours good who are endammaged there- by : then are we bound to admonish the trefpaffer hereof &c. Doth not this diftinction of offences & different manner of dealing allowed by yourfelf, f hew that for fome trefpaflfes we are not bound to admonilh the trefpa(Ter,nor to infift upon them. V. IfMagiftratesmay lawfully paffe by the judgment of fome letter (innes, then may the Church alfo paffe by the publick cenfure of fome letter offences. But the Magiftrates may doe it. Therefore the Church alfo. The confequence of the Proportion appeareth , becaufe the Church is not more ftri&ly bound to judge any finne then the Magiftrate is : his commiffion for the judgement of all kinde of finne, great or fmall, being as large as the Churches; he being ordained of God to keep all the words of hisLaw,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. Iojb. 1.7,8. i.K'w. 2.3. l.Cbon.2$.7&.& 29.19. Prov.Zo,S. R$m. 13.3,4. The Aflumption appeareth likewife to be true, from the firft proofe of the Af- fumption in the former Argument 3 as alfo from this that men are fometimes re- proved for bringing their brethren before the Magiftrates even in cafes of injury & finne committed againft them: x.Cor. 6. 1-8. whereas if they were abfolutely bound to let no fmall offence pafte without judgement , then fhould it alfo be the fault of others not to bring the fame unto them ; & this whether they were Chri- fiians or Inrideis,the like law & charge being given unco them both. VI. The ending offome controverfies& judging of fome publick offences without the knowledge of the whole Congregation^ by yourfelfacknowledged to be iawfull in the approbation of that Difcipline in the Engliih Church at Franckford, which was there confirmed by the Church & Magiftrate. for whereas (k) Difc.of it was there agreed that ( k ) if admonition with witneftes prevayled not ,the offence was then troub at p be declared to t he Minifters £T Elders, to whom the Congregation hath given-, authority to Franckf. ta ^ oy ^ Y j n f HC fj ca f es according to the Difcipline of the Church : that 1) there be three de- &x.art! \i-Z Yei5 ofEcclefiafticall Difcipline; firft , that the offendour acknowledge his fault andftew (1) Art. 5 4. himfdfe penitent before the Minifters ty Seniors • fecondly , that if he will notfo doe , as well his originall crime , as alfo his contempt of the Minifters & Elders who have the authority of the Church, be openly declared by one of the Minifters before the whole Congregation :&c. that (rr,)Art.$7. (ra ) if any controverfy be upon thedoubtfuli meaningaf any word orwords in the Difcipline-, that firft it be referred to the Mtnifters (? Seniors j {? if they cannot agree thereupon, then the thing THE ELDERSHIP. 7 thing to be Brought and referred to tht^ whole Congregation. Hereupon after recital! cf thefe Articles held by the learned and moft confcionable ofthe Church of En- gland heretofore , you adde as I noted before in another particular, that ft) if they (t)Aniread had continued herein, it would havefreedthem of all lAntichriftian Prelacie, &c. And fur- verf - P- 8, s- ther as you would there have it to be obferved by the reader againft M r Clyfton & M r Iohnfon, in your third note upon the allegation of thefe Articles , fo may we as fitly obferve againft yourfelf in your owne words , that if you had looked upon thuxamples which yourf elves alledg^ , you might havefeexu yourerrours refifled by others <, againft which the Lord hath now called me alfa t o witnejfe. CHAP. III. ^Refutation offundry err ours , whereupon M y Am f worth grounds their Popular Government. Thefirji Errour. YOu feek to build the government of the Church upon unfure foundations, Sc thefe of fundry forts: Firft in that you argue from the examples of Civill Go- vernment in the Common-wealth,to demonftrate the power of the people in the one by the authority exercifed in the other. This errour is to be obferved in you divers wayes. I. In your (a) Confeflion of faith s and ( b ) Apology you defcribe & labour to W-"J r V i 4, prove the power given unto each Chriftian Congregation for the cutting off of i^ 0# * 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 ihould give his children unto Molech: Lev. 20.4,5. and from the comman- dement that bound the Ifraelites to bring the Biafphemer without the campe, 8c to ftone him to death : JLev.24. 14. But 1 . Thefe judgements were Civil! & cor- porallpunifhments, not fpiricuall cenfures. 2. Thefe were to be executed on ftrangers,andfuch as were no members of the Church, as well as upon them that were members thereof-, Lev.zo.2.& 24. 16. 3. Thefe were to be executed on the offendours without exception, whether they repented or not. By what man- ner of reafoning then can the power of Ecclefiafticaii cenfures be deduced or de- monftrate from fuch examples as thefe t II. InyourfcJanfwertoMf Iohnfon you confeffe that you ailedged Numb. (c)Aniniad 1 5-3 3 &2.7*Z.& 35. 12. to give light unto the Queftion touching the power of verf - P- 28, Excommunication, by JImving what was the peoples right then, under the Law.and under the Magijlrate -which may be more,but cannot be leffe now under the GoJpeL&c. Now thofe Scriptures & the examples contained therein ( even as thofe before mentioned ) doe concerne Civill judgements, pleas & controverfies; as the ftoning to death of the Sabbath-breaker, the dividing of inheritances and poffeffions unto the daugh- ters of Zelopehad, the prefer ving of him that had Maine a man unawares from the avenger of blood : unleffe therefore you can (hew that the power of excommuni- cation is in all thofe that have power to execute the femence of death > and of the like 8 THE POWER OF like Civill punif hments , you doe in vaine alledga all thefe examples & wreft the word of God unjuftly for the maintenance of your owne opinions* III. Thiserrour is fo much the more inexcufable in you, in that you con- demne it in others,and yet will not acknowledge and fee it in yourfelf. When M f Iohnfon would i hew the power of the Elders in Ecclefiafticall judgements by the (d) Amm* power which the Magiftrates had in Ifrael,you tell him that he Wftrtynes toofarrt, adv.p.14. & you alledge the teftimonies of fundry learned men that difclayme fuch manner of arguing & fay, that to reafon (e) from the Magiftrate to the Mnifter ,from the/word \t '*' to the word, from the Law to the Gojpell, tyc. the leap is fo great, that cart-ropes will not tye the condufion to the premises : that the argument is not good from Civill governmmtto Ec- clefiafticall : and againe , that the example is altogether unlike , oftemporall empire tyjpiri- tuall miniftery- betweene thefe there is not, neither ought , neither can a proportion or compari- fon be rightly made. And how then comes it now to paffe, that the reafoning from che peoples power in Civill judgements unto their power inEcclefiafticall judge- ments {hould not be as unlawfull as the reafoning from the power ©f Civill El- ders unto Ecclefiafticall Elders 1 or why might not M r Iohnfon derive the pow- er of the Elders in Ecclefiafticall matters from Civill , as well as you may derive the power of the people from Civil! judgements unto the fpirituall judgements of the Church? , IV. The excufe which you bring to colour this unfound manner of reafoning (f) Anim- in yourfelf , is that (f) the Apoftle apply eth many things from Aarons priefthood (g) to ? d% i' h f*' Ckrifl :yet he maketh Chrifts priefthood not to be after Aarons order (h) but Melchi^edekj: 4 ? 8c 9.6%, foould men now thus carp at his allegations ? JBut 1 anfwer, i . When t he H . Ghoft in 6c 131 1, the New Teftament reafoneth from types & figures in the Old , fuch reafoning is /hi Heb authenticall & infallible ; but when men doe reafon by proportion & fimilitude \u\t>\ j. 7 fr° m c yP es & otner temporary ordinances in the Old Teftament, their reafonings ferve onely to iiluftrate things proved in other places of Scripture, but els prove nothing of themfelves : and therefore though the firft kinde of reafoning may not be carped at,as being divine;yet the latter may ofte juftly be reproved, 2. Though fome things may be applied from the Civill government to the Ecclefiafticall ; yet that Ihewes not that they are like in this poyntof the perfons by whom the power is to be exercifed : even as Aarons priefthood & Melchizedeks , though they be like in fome things , yet not in all. 3. If there be any weight or worth in this evafion,it may as well ferve to excufe M r lohnfons reafoning from the Civiil authority of the Magiftrates, as yours from the Civill authority of the people; both of you arguing alike from a Civill power of judgement unto an Ecclefiafti- call power. The Second Errour. YOur fecond errour in the do&rine of Ecclefiafticall government is , that you doe not onely derive the power of the Church from the Civill authority ex- ercifed in the Common -wealth, but alfo from fuch a fuppofed power of Civill judgement in the people as the Scripture no where gives unto them. I. All the places before alledged by you to this purpofe doe not prove the fame. As for that allegation* Levit. Zo.Z>4« where the people of the land are commanded - to THE ELDERSHIP. 9 to kill anoffendourj we are thereby to underftand both Princes & Rulers as wel '"* as the fubje&s : and fo that the power of judging & giving fentence is to be ascri- bed unto the Rulers, as the liberty & duety of complayning before fentence , and of execution after fentence belonged unto the fubje&s. This wordpeople is taken diverfly in the Scriptures : fometimes for fubjects alone by way of cppofition to Princes, as Exod. 18. 21.22. 'Num. 1 1 .16,17. fometimes for the whole body of a nation comprehending Rulers of all forts together with the fubjeits , as Gen. z$* 23 . t>eut. 4. 6,33. and when any thing is in generall commanded unto the people (taken in this fenfe ) as here , fuch commandements are to be pra&ifed according to thefeverall callings of men - 3 but doe not prove the like power of performing thofe commandements to be in all the people. That place , Levit. 24. 14. fhewes that the people did execute the blafphemer but fhewes not that they had power to decree that fentence ,or to pronounce the judgement in the rirft place which they executed in -the laft. Thofe Scriptures, Num. 15.33.^27.^.(^35. 12. doe {hew that divers Civili caufes were brought before the people as witneflTes to heare the fame decided,but not as Iudges to give fentence upon the fame. Yourfelf fpeake but faintly of the matter, when you (»J plead from R$th a 4.2>7>9> 1 1 . that the people were alfo ihterefted (i) Anim- al the Elders in thefe affaires : they might have intereft to heare thofe controvert adv -P^9* lies debated,but what is this to prove the power of judgement to be in the whole body of the Congregation? Befides,iffuch a prefenceofthe people to heare con- troveifies do prove a power of judgement in the people; you might as well plead that almoft all Civili governments at this day are Democraticall , as in England, France & Germany , where malefa&ours are brought before the Iudges & before the multitudes of people aiTembling together at fuch places. Other pretences alfo you doe bring to obfcure & diminifh the authority of the Magiftrates in Ifrael, as if they had not power to put a man to death & to cut offa man fromlfrael without the confent of the people»&c.but they are as the former, frivolous & infufncienr. H. Ai n s v v. ( k ) J know>when Gods Law condemned a manjf it were flawed by all or (k) Anlm, any one of the Iudges > or Priefts, or Prophets, yea or Ifraelites- the people (hould in order have aiv.p. 10. executed him. A n s v v. But what order was that for the people being fubjects to take upon them the execution of judgement upon the teftimony of any one of the Iudges or Priefts , when all the reft both of the Iudges & Priefts & Prophets did not alTent < What warrant did the law of God in any place give unto the people to exercife fuch power of judgements upon the declaration of any one of the Ifraelites* when all the Rulers both Civili & Ecclefiafticall did make a contrary declaration, and could not fo underftand the law of God,as one of thelfraelites had I hewed itf What is this order but the plaine way to fedition & tumult t H. Ain s v v. (U Oft times the Heads of the people judged for rewards , Mich. 3.1 1. (I) Ibid, the Princes as Ltonsjhe Iudges as Wolves devoured them, the Priefts polluted the SanBuary f&wreftedthe Lam. ^eph.^.^^.Ifa. 1.23. And then the people of the land, whofeduety alfo it was to looks t0 °pen wickednes, ( Levit. 20. 2*4. ) were neither to follow the many nor mighty in evilL Exod. z$.Z>7* An s v Y. 1 . Oft times the people alfo were wicked, B rebel- / fo THE POWER OF * rebellious, Idolatrous, Apoftates, and prefumptuous abettours 8c maintained of evill, fometimes as bad, 8c fometimes worfe then their Governours. Exod. 32. r, iSfc. Numb. 1 4. 1 -10. devouring widowes houfes, polluting the Sanctuary 8c wrefting the Law , ( John. id.Matt.z$.) yet we are taught to acknowledge the authority of fuch. Matt. 8. 4. ^8.23.5. 2. Though wicked Rulers are not to be obeyed in their unlawfull commandements , and therefore the fervants of Saul did well not to execute his bloody commandement (i.Sam. 11. 17.) wherein for one aft he ravened as the wolfe of Benjamin: Gew.49.27. yet the authority remained in him, & not in thofe that difobeyed him. Subjection unto authority is f hewed, if not by obedienccyec by patience in fuffering according to the will of God, if need require. 3 . But that any of the people which are fubjects , (hould goe further to execute Civill judge- ments when the Rulers neglect juftice, this is not proved by Lev. 20.2,4. The people their mentioned are not the fubjects confidered apart from their Rulers: but under the title of the children of Ifraehhere fpoken unto, are comprehended principally the Princes of the people 8c Rulers of Ifrael. The other people if they did mourne in themfelves 8c complaine unto others for the redrefie of fuch evils> were not to be blamed, but had the markc of Gods favour upon them. E%eJ{. 8. 6. withE^e^.^ (ro)'Anim- H. Ainsvv. ( m ) 1 finde how inNaboths cafe (though it were a wicked fatl) thirty adv.p.io. was afolemnefafi and ajfembly of the_ people with their Governours. 1 . Kjn. 2 1 . 1 2, 1 3 . Ansvv. But you finde not one word there to prove any power in the people either to condemne or to abfolve & acquit Naboth. The prefence of the people is noted, but the killing of Naboth is arfcribed unto the Elders and Nobles of the city, according to that which Iezebel required of them. Ihid.verf.a-> 10,11. (n) Ibid. H. A 1 N S v V. ( n ) Jw leremies cafe, he was accufed to the Princes andpeople, made^ his defence to Princes ty people,and was acquitted by Princes W people, lerem. 26. 11, 1 2, 16, Ansvv. This action was partly tumultuous at the rirft , not much unlike that when Paul was fo violently haled and accufed unto the people, ^AB. 21 . 27, 28. And when it grew into order by help of the Princes , it appeares that the authori- ty of judgment was in the Rulers, for 1. The Princes are expreflely named in each part of the action, in the accufation brought to them, in hearing the defence & in givingof the fentencejand therefore nothing was done without their autho- rity. 2. Whereas there is mention made of the people together with the Prin- (<0 Trem. ces, verf. 1 1, i6.there fome learned (o) Interpreters doe tranflate it for explication SX^See Se "' oyes j> P ul t> that is, the Elders of the people: and this agreeth with the text, verf. j 7. aifo Com. where there is mention of the Elders of the land rifing up out of their feats and Bertr.de fpeaking to the multitude, as well as the Princes of the Court that came up from cip^&j, the Kings houfe>wr/*. 10,16. Even in that pare of the Government which was THE ELDERSHIP. ib Democraticall and popular, yet were there fome Rulers reprefenting the people, 3. Perfons accufed doe foroetimesfpeake to their accufers for refutation of them , as Ieremy here might doe unto a multitude of the people that had dealt fo unjuft- ly with him » vtrf. 8,9. and yet without allowing them to have authority in giving fentenceagainfthim. H. Ai n s vv. {?) When King Saulfware that Jonathan Jhould dye- the people {ware fjj) A nim« thiCMtraryi&favedbimfrom&atb.i.Sam.i+zgytytf. An s vv. I. It is not evi- a v,p,2 °* dent and certaine that the people did peremptorily (wear the contrary ; for accor- ding to the tranflation of learned (s) Interpreters, the words in the text may be (& that upon their requeft, Marks 15.6,8. was an evidence of the peoples want of power in judgement : for had they had authority to have judged & determined fuch mat- ters, what needed they to have petitioned to Pilate , or what favour had it bene in the Romane Governour to have granted that unto them for one perfonatone fpeciall time, which they might have done of their owne authority at any time? 4. Though it be fayd , that they prevailed with their voyces , this is to be under- ftood of their importunate requeft and voyces of petition, as is noted in the fame place,and not of their fufTrages or giving of voyces with authority in the fentence of judgement: as the importunate widow prevayled with the unrighteous Iudge r JLttk. 18. 5. fo did the Iewes prevayle with Pilate, by their importunate requefts> cryes & clamours in begging Barabbas of Pilace & defiring him to crucifyChrift. ji8.$. 14. 5. This condemnation of Chrift was done by the Romane authority; the lewes confeflfethat it was not latrfull for them toput any man to death; loh.iS. 3 1.. the fcepter was now departed from Iuda ; Lu^.2. 1. &c, they acknowledged no Kjngbut Crtfar; I0/7.19.15. and Pontius Pilate a Romane Governour under Cx- far gave fentence of death upon Chrift ; the people of the Iewes were now vaflals to the Romanes and had not the power pretended: when you therefore fend to this example, you fend us to Rome & to the Romifh government, and not unto that order and policie which God had commanded and planted among his owne people. (v) Anim- II. Whereas you fay , ( v ) it is not manifefted that the Magiftrates in Ifrael had adwp.ao. in themfelves full & abfolute power to cut off a man or to put him to death, &c. the contrary may be f hewed : Firft, by the example of David > who as he refolved & profefTed for himfelf , that he would cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord: Pfal. 10 1.8. fo when occalion was given he prefently condemned the A- malekite to death for flaying Saul; 2. to*. 1. 1 5. he bv his owne authority appoin- ted Baanah & Rechab to be flaine for killing If hbofheth s without gathering any aflfembly to aike tbe peoples confent. 2. Sam. 4.8-12. When David heard from Nathans parable of a rich man opprefling the poore,he forthwith pronounced the fentence of death againft that opprefTour , not waiting for the counfell or confent of the people,though in a rare & unufuall cafe.2. to*. 12.5,6. When the woman of Tekoah makes requeft for her fonne that he might be abfolved in judgement and delivered from the fentence of death , David prefently by his owne authority decrees that he (hall be pardoned, and confirmes it with an oath , he ftayes not for approbation from the people. 2. to*. 14.4. -if. Againe if we looke upon the way czf his fonne after him, we fee the fame thing, even in Salomon j and that both in his THE ELDERSHIP. 13 his do&rine,where he teacheth that the power of life & death is in the hand of the King-, Prov. 16. 14,15. £T 20. 2,26. and in his pra&ife he confirmed the fame, in the judgement & fentence of death » which he forthwith decreed & proncunced- upon Adoniah > & fwore to have the fame accompiilhed prefently without aiking confent of the people. i.Kjng.2.2} ,24,25. III. If the Magiftrates in Ifrael had not in themfelves authority to put a male- favour to death without confent of the people , then doe you unjuftly blame thac proportion chat might be made betwixt the Elders in the gate and Elders in the Church, betwixt Magiftrates and Minifters ; then doe you unjuftly impugnethe Lord Cheef-Iuftice himfelf with his Bench , wifhing alfo that the Ecclefiafticall (y) find, p. EIders> whom he & you oppofe , would allow thebody of the Church tbt- likeliharty at l J 3« their Jpirituall SeJfimsjhdX thofe Iudges allow unto the country or lury in the judg- ment of malefaftours : if the Magiftrates in the Common-wealth might not decree the fentence of judgement without confent of the people > no more then the Minifters in the Church without confent of the Congregation; if the Mini- fters in the Church might governe the action and the people in their judgements as well as the Elders in the gate ; is there not then here an even & manifeft propor- tion both of government & power betwixt the one & the other t IV. If the power of judgements & giving fentence of life & death Were not in "the Magiftrates in Ifrael, then doe you contradict the teftimony of the lew-doc- tours out of their Thalmud alledged not onely by (*) Beza & many others, but by (z). Ahnor. your (a) felf alfo in the description of their Overall Courts & the authority which on Ma "-. *•' they exercifed in the fame. Yea you doe more plainly yet contradict yourfelf,when ^' An j m- afterward from the teftimonies of Scripture alledged by M r lohnfon you doe adv. p. 17. againe (bj confefle thac the Magiftrates in Ifrael had power oflife(? death. (b ) lbkl - P» The third Err our. 9 ' A Third errour in the proofe of the Churches power , is in that you derive the fame from other unfound proportions of the ceremoniall obfervation in Ifra- el: Though you yourfelf doe acknowledge againft M r Johnfon that the drawing of proportions from the government in Ifrael is one of the (<0 maim pilars ofPo- ( c ) ftniaw peryjo underprop the tower of Antkhrift ; yet the trueth is that neither M r lohnf. nor ^v.pref.i. Cardinall Bellarmine himfelf doe gather more unequall proportions for their fu- & pl IJ * premacies which they plead for,then you doe. I. Whereas you would prove (<*) trie power of excommunication to be in the (d)Co*fdv whole body of every Chriftian Congregation , and not in any one member apart, art - M-Ap. or in more members fequeftred from the whole , &c, and-feek to prove this by a P J V Z „ A ^' proportion drawne from the government in Ifrael , becaufe as you argue from "Numb.$.2>$ not the Prieft onely , but thio. a jf by their fentence of judgement, & by their power to cenfure ; therefore is i Prieft faydtomakehim polluted or to make him cleane, L«>. 15.3,6.^. infuch (ftimme, (0 phrafes as in their full Ggnification doe expreflTe unto us the judicial! fentence tihar. of their remoovall out of the hoft, as well as a bare declaration of their opinion in the matter : even as the like ufe of other phrafes in the Scripture, Deut.z$.i.Prov. tg)hhfdikj 17- 15-fignifyingto g) make juft& to make wicked doe alfo import the judiciall hirjhiagn. fentence of abfol ution & condemnation > & not onely a declaration of the ludges opinion thereabouts. 1. It is noted of the Prieft, that indoubtfuIIcafes,in the cryall of the Ieprofy, he ihould {hut up him that had the plague feven daves: Levit. 13.4, 5. nowashehadthepoweroffufpeniionina doubtfull cafe to fhut up for 3. time ; fo by your owne doctrine it will follow that in a manifeft cafe of Ieprofy he had the power ofjhuttingout the leper, untill the time that he was cleane. g. The Lord requires the like fubmiiTion & fubjection unto the judgement & fentence of the Prielts in mac ters of controverfy berweene plague & plague , as he doth unto the ludge in his judgements : Deut . 17.8 --13. and therefore as the ludges had the power of judgement & giving fentenceCivillyjfo had the Priefts power of judge- (h) Confer, ment Ecclefiaftically. 4. Whereas you dO Ihew every member of the Church **•**• tobefubject unto the cenfure of excommunication by alledging,2.C^ow.z6.2o. you may thereby difcerne the weaknes of your proportion for the power of the people ; for in that ftorye you fee how the King Vzziah fo foone as his Ieprofy ap- peared, was haftily remooved & caufed to depart out of the Temple , and this by the authority of the Priefts, without waiting to afk the confent of the people. And therefore if Minifters & Elders have now as much power to excommunicate , as the Priefts had then to remoove that Leper , then your proportion for the people vanifheth as a fmoak. 5 . Though the children of Ifrael be commanded to put the Leper out of the campe, Num.5. 2. yet is the praclife thereof to be underftood ac- cording to the diverfttyof mens callings, namely fo that the Priefts did put out the Leper,bv giving fentence & pronouncing him uncleane; the people by com- plaining & bringing the matter unto the Prieft in the firft place & helping to exe- (i)Anim- cuteit in the laft place. 6. Whereas you grant a proportion herein thus farre,(») adv.p, 1 p, t y atas ever y Prieft then might according to the L aw , declare what was Ieprofy - fo every Mi- nifler now may <$ ought by the law to declare what isjinne <$ herefy^this though it be with' out or againft the confent of the Church & of all the world: your grant herein is nothing worth, while you grant as much both to the Prophets & people under the Law as well as to the Priefts, and to the Prophets & people now as well as to the Mini- fters & Elders. The declaration of finne, the triall & conviction of (inne you doe now allow to one as well as to the other. Laftly 3 as the Lord com mands the chil- dren of Ifrael to remoove the leper out of the campe, fo he gives them the like chargefor thofe that were defiled by the dead or by uncleane iffues: 'Numb. 5.2. And yet who will fay that the judgement & dayly adminiftracion of thefe actions did belong unto the multitude of the Congregation j or that they were bound to come THE ELDERSHIP. i? eome together in a folemne aflfembiy upon fuch occasions of remooving thefe perfons & receyving them againe at their cleanfing? The law of their purification requires no fuch thing. Num.iy. 18,19.1. ew. 15. 13,14,^. And therefore how- ever the aft of remooving thefe uncleane perfons in the time of the Law may be held as a generall type to fhew the exclufion of wicked perfons fro the holy things of God under the Gofpel ; yet the perfons by whom thefe Legall & Ceremonial! reparations were ordinarily adminiftred &: performed > cannot ferve for a fufficienc proofe that obftinate tinners are to be cenfured and remooved by the whole Con- gregation alTembled for that purpofe. II. Another ofyourwrefted proportions from thepra&ifeofIfrael>youmay fee in your Apology, where you labour to prove that the power of Excommuni- cation is in the body of the Church by this reafon becaufe (k) the duety of putting (k) Apol.pi a way leaven out of their houfes atthefeaft ofPajfeover £T unleavened bread was by the L%rd 62 ' himfelf lay d upon all Ifrael, and not committed or injoyned onely to the Officers. lXor. 5. 7, I2,i 3 .compared with Exod.iz.$,i$. Lev.z$.Z>5>6. Deut.16.1-4. Hereunto I anfwer. x. If the power of Excommunication be in the members of the Church nowjas the power of putting away leaven was in the-Ifraelites of old: then as eve- ry particular Ifraelite under the Law had power of himfelf to remoove leaven out of his houfe, yea & was bound to doe the fame whether the reft of the Congrega- tion confented or not,as appeares in the places of Scripture here alledged by your- felf ; fo now in like manner every particular member of the Church fhould have power in his hand to excommunicate & remoove a wicked man out of the Con- gregation , whether the reft of his brethren confented or not. 2 . If you further intend that as each Ifraelite for himfelf was to put away leaven , fo alio he was to looke to others that they did the fame,this I grant fo farre as the meanes of admo- nition , exhortation and complaint might reach ; but that the Ifraelites had all of them judiciall authority and power to judge thofe that offended herein , (about which authority thequeftion is) theScriptures by you alledged doe notprove the fame. 3. As for that place, i.Cor. 5.7. where the Apoftle fhewes that the ince- ftuous perfon ought to be excommunicate by an allufion unto the ceremony of purging out the Ieaven^he therein onelv teacheth the duety that is to be done>buc as for the authority of the perfons by who the cenfure was to be executed* though he teach them that alfo in other verfes of that chapter, yet doth he not derive the ground thereof from the ceremony of the leaven put away : therein is your errous to ftretch & rack the proportion too farre. The fourth Errour. TN the fourth placcyour warrant & ground for the peoples power is inMrienr, •* when as you derive the fame from that feparation which you fay was appointed of God before theLaw.This you teach,whe as you would confirme the fame un- to us from (*) the trueth Wproofes of the third Pofitionin your Apology, where among ,„ A , other teftimonyes of Scripture you would prove your Separation by thefe allega- L.pof.i^' tions, Gen.^.i6,l6.with6.z. #9.27. ($ 12. 1. & 13.6,7,8. Exod.$. 3. But thefe with P . 4 ^ Scriptures doe neither juftify your kinde of Separation, though they be often per- P° f -3* verted by you to that purpofe; & much lefle doe chey fhew unto us that the pow- er i5 THE POWER OF er of Excommunication is in the body of the Church. As for Gtn. 4. 16. where it is fayd that Cain went out from the pretence of the Lord: i. It is uncertaine whether it was by an excommunication from the place of Gods word & publick worfhip: Many are fayd to be caft out of Gods prefence> as wereadfometimesof Ifrael& Iudah,though we cannot fay that they were then excommunicate. 2.K/w-i7>i8,2o>2g.ey Iey.52.3. &c. Though the face of God doe fometimes fignify his all-feeing providence & government from which none (m)Annot. can flee, P/4/.139. 712.Itt.23.24. as you doe ( m ) write ;yet your reafoning there on Gen.4. j s imperfect , becaufe the face of God doth fignify divers other things befides his all-feeing providence & the place of his worf hip,as nameiy his more comfortable prefence& providence, &c. Pfal. 30.7. with lob, 29. 2, 3,4. whereof men may be deprived though not by excommunication. 2. SuppoleCain was excommuni- cate, yet this proves not the Separation you plead for. you cannot deny but that excommunication of murderers and fuch like is fometimes prattifed in divers Churches, whom yet you will not allow for a feparate people according to your profefllon. 3. With what colour of a juft conference will you collect that the power of excommunication is in the body of the Church,from this proof of your third pofition?how doth Cains feparation demonftrate unto us the peoples power in Ecclefiafticall cenfures? As for Gw.4.26. when Sheth begate his foone & named him Enofh,and when (according to your tranflation ) men began profanely to call on the name of the Lord J 1 . Your reafoning upon this verfe is un warrantablcwhen as you fay, that (n) Annot. ^ the forowes of this ageweregreat , as the very name of Enos tejlifyetk and the hifiorie fel- on Gen.4. lowing in Gen. 6. confirmed : for neither is the name of Enos a witnefle of great fo- z6 > rowes in that age any more then the name of Henoch , given both to the pofterity ofCain &Sheth ( Gen.q. 17.& 5. 18. ) is a witnefle of the great holines or catechi- Cng in their age,or the name of Ifaac a witnefle of the great joy and gladnes of that age , or any more then the name of Enos given to every man is a witnefle of the forowes of every age: Pfal.S.^.( Co'* Armor, whereas you (o) note that by the daughters of men are meant they of Kjiins pofteritie ,that w\Qe.6X out were of 'GodsChttrch,&c you might as well have fayd that they had bene ofSheths pofteritie»which was alfo degenerated that for their wickednes they were fwept away THEELDERSHIP. 17 away with the flood & deftroyed as well as Cains pofieritie , Noahs family onely excepted. Who can fay that the pofterity of Cain for more then athoufand yeares together were ftrangers from the Church of God,durin§ the time of fo many Pa- triarkes ; or that fome of Sheths pofterity alfo did not ceafe to be the Church of God? And if the teftimony of yourHebrew do&ours were to be admitted J mighc eafily Ihew you many of them that tell us of Cains repentance , & confequently of the receiving of him & his pofterity into the Church of God. Yea if Naamah was the wife ofNoah as they (p) prefume,you might then obferve the pofterity ofGain ( p ) R.Sofo* living ftiil after the flood in her that was the daughter of Lamech,cn Cains fide, nion com, Touching Gew.9.27. though laphet was to be perfwaded to dwell in the tents Jj Gen -4> of Shem, &c. yet how are we to be perfwaded thence touching the forme of go- vernmentamong them, and that the power of excommunication was in the peo- ple, rather then in any Rulers among them 1 Thefe bare allegations of Scripture help you nothing untill you draw fome argument from them to ihew the matter in controverfy, which yet is not done by you. Touching Gen.iz.i. where Abram is called out.of his native country: 1. That placeisftrangelyabufedby you for your Separation, feeing Abram there is cal- led to travell he knowes not whither , unto a land which God weuld afterwards fhew and give unto him , (Hebr. 11. 8. Genef. \%. 1.) without any mention of feparating or joyning unto any Church. And the land of Canaan unto which he came appeares to have bene as Idolatrous at that time , 8c more manifeftly accur- fed then that of the Chaldaeains from whence he came.GfK.9.25,26,27. '2. With what kinde of arguing can you ihew us the peoples power in judgements & cen- fures of finne from this ground ? This we defire to know & wait for. Yet to make you more circumfpedtagainlithat time, confiderin the meane while the errourofyour Annotations touching this calling of Abram, Gen.12.1. 1. When as concerning the time you write that it was (qj after thatAbrams father was dead, (q) Annot* xAB. 7. 4. this your aiTertion is unwarrantable and without proofe : Though it be onGep.i*. manifeft from AH. 7.4. that God brought Abram from Charran after his father *' was dead ; yet this (hewes not that the calling mentioned in Gen. 12. 1. was after his fathers death. 2. Whereas you note further upon the fameverfe, touching the place from which Abram was called, Gm.12. 1. that ic was that country wherein he now dwelt in Charran, this is alfo unfound and appeares to be contrary to the ex- preflfe word of God,mentioned by Stephen,vvho fayth {lA&.y.z^ . ) that The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham , when he was in Mefopotamia , before he dwelt in Charran,and fayd unto him , Come out oft hy country <&from thy kindred, and come into the land which ijballjhav thee: The words ufedofGodin that calling, Gen. 12. 1. are plainly noted to have bene fayd unto Abram , befcre he dwelt in Charran; and who can then without great prefumptio faine them to be fayd at another time & place, (OR.Soio- having no warrant of Scripture for the fame «? I know indeed that CO fome of your mo "* a r £l » Rabbines (who doe fo often mifiead you) doe write that this call was from Char- °' r ran, but their authority is too light to reft upon it. They will have N#;?,:he laft (f) in Gen, letter of the word (0 Charran to be written with the head of it downward and the I r - .3 ; - loweft part of it upward, contrary to the order > to ihew (O'that the wrath of God /£& ' C - bur-'" i8 THE POWER OF (v)Baal hat- burnecJ unt iH Abram. One of your authors according to his Cabalifticall art ft) turimon tels us that the numerall letters of the word arecha ukd in the call of Abram, Gen* Gen, i z> i. 12. i. doe yeeld the fame number that begnananim doth, which fignifyeth by the- clouds, to teach us that the clouds went before him & fhewed him the way in his journey. And the inversion of this Nun haphucah is as well & as worthy to be ob- served for matter of meditation & inftru&ion,as are t he great & little letters which (x)^Annot. you 00 mention for like ufe. You tell us in the fame place that the Hebrew doElours ° n £™' % \' expound the name Chznw by Charon aph >fW/V, wrath full anger , (R. Menachem &Lev.i.i.onGen.i2.) as if he were now to depart from the place of wrath * &c. butifyou had al- ledged the place more plainly & fully, the vanity of that Rabbine would thereby nactar^on ^ ave a PP earec ^> while he faith that (y) whe Abram went togivehis influence or abundance Gen, 12,4. «M° the higher land , Lot went with him , for that land was to receive from them both : and the word Lot is from Levatin (which fignifyeth curfes) and this at hisgoingfrom Cha- ran: the word charon fignifyeth anger. This is the vaine conceit contained in the alle- gation which you fend us unco>& compare with fo many places of Scripture. And fuppofe Charan be denominate of anger , yet this will not prove that the calling (2) chazku. Gen. 12. i. was from Charan. Againe itappeares to be the opinion of other UJ nicom.on Rabbines, that this calling of Abram , Gen. 12. 1. was from Vr of the Chaldees, Aben f Ezra before he came to Charan. And befides thefe, the judgement of learned (a) Chri- on Gen. 1 1, ftians is herein againft you, and more to berefpe&ed then the lewilh do&ours Sciz.i. whom you fo much follow. %, Befides other things, ho wgrofTe is that errour, GeJfTz.' 011 w ^ en y° u write ( b ^ c ^ a: c ^ e ^ w ^ of Canaan is a country in Afia the leffe&c. It appea- Trem.& reth not by the Scriptures that Abram ever came into Afia the Ie(Te. And had he iun.annot, gone thither tofeek Canaan, hefhould never have found that land unto which he & Mufc V * was ca ^ e d of God. This your errour of mifplacing Canaan is reproved not onely com.ibi'd. by the generall teftiraony of the cheefeft (0 Geographers , but alfo by the evi- (b)Annoi. dence of the holy Scriptures,which doe ofce & plainly diftinguifh thefe countries on Gen. 1 2. £ ma ^ e - lt very man if e ft that Canaan is not a country in Afia the lefle , as you fay. fc)Ptoi. 1A8. 1.9. & 16.6. <& 10.16. 1. Pet. 1. 1. Geogr.iib. Touching your allegation of Gen. 13. 6,7, 8. we read there of the riches of A- 5 -b' "s Afl b k ram an< ^ Lot, of the ftrife betwixt their fervants , of the Cananites and Perizzites GeooV.i" 2. dwelling in the land , of Abrams care to avoyd ftrife : but how you will conclude Piin.Hift. ' your Separation from hence , together with the peoples power in excommunica- nat.i.y.c.27 tions, who can imagine or comprehend it i we would faine fee what face of an ar- l\°hc 43" g u ment you can paynt out unto us from this Allegation. And as for Exo. 5.3. where Mofes & Aaron tell Pharaoh, how the God of the Hebrewes met them, how they defire togoe three dayes journey into the wil- dernestodoefacrifice , and of the danger of peftilence or fword to come upon them if they did it not ; by whatconfequence will you maintaine your Sepa- ration from hence i and by what fecond confequence will you then demonftrat« the peoples authority from this Separation here implyed , as you write *. Thefe things doe yet lye hid, wrapt up in darknes , that men cannot difcerne what you meane thereby. It is a ftrange folly in matters of fo great Controverfy , fo barely to alledge fuch a number of Scriptures, which feeme not fo much as to looke to- wards wards the poyntof the c/ueftion in hand > and this your fault is Co much the grea- ter in that yon can finde time & leafure to note and publifh fo many other idle and unprofitable things ; as when in the explication of this verfe you fet downe thofe dotages oihlaimony about the Peftilence > Deber , which have no weight in them* no ground or colour of trueth. Why did you not rather manifeft your Separation from hence, if it be here taught as you fay , for the clearing of your caufe & pluc- king others out of the darknes & fhadow of death » wherein (according to your profeffion) they do remaine < CHAP. UN. Whether the people be bound to be prefent at the proceedings againft offendours* ANother errour concerning the government of the Church is this , that you, hold the people bound to be prefent at the conviction of finners & triall of caufes. Though M r Iohnfon (*0 left it free for any of the people to come if fa) Adver- they would ; yet you (b) hold not that fufficient > unlefie they be bound to come tiCof Mr & to heare the proceedings, Againft the liberty of being abfent or prefent you ^> ft ^ 4I * alledge many things , and plead as followeth. (bjunim- H. Ain svv. J snot this to divide the body, when the head muft be prefent>& the /howl- adv.p.4z, den with the other parts and members may be abfent ? A N s v v. Jt is no divifion in the 43» body myfticall , when the head labours for the good of the body > though fome members thereof be abfent ; no more then there is a division or difunion among the friends that confult for the comfort of onevanother , though not prefent ; no more then there is betwixt the States of thefe lands & the people thereof? when the States meet apart to determine fome things without the people; no more then there was a divifion when theElders at Ierufalem met apart without the peo* pie. ^8.21.18-25. H. A I N S v v. The xApoflz^ writing to the Church of Corinth > how to doe when they came together for the Lords fupper. i.Cor. u.i%,$$.writethalfoto them howwhenthey were gathered together , they Jhould deliver the wicked umo Satan. i.Cor. 5. 4, 5. We finde no difference, but they were bound to come to the one as to the other. And if they anfwer, they are bound to afjemblefor to excommunicate him , but not to hearz^. him by the word con* vincedin the triall of his caufe • they may as well teach the people they are bound to come to eat ihebread and wine in the Lords fupper, but not bound to heare the word teaching & preparing them hereunto. Ansvv, i. Incoming to the' Lords fupper every man is bound unto a fpeciall & particular examination & preparation of himfelf > & by his owne knowledge to convince & judge himfelf: i.Cor. 1 1.28,5 1. but in coming to the excommunication of offendours a man may lawfully content himfelf with the te- ftimony of others touching their conviction > and foreft in the judgment of the Church j Dm. 19.15,16,17. & ch, 17. 8-13. neither doth the Scripture in any place requit e more of us. 2. A man may be fitted & prepared unto the Lords fup- per, though he doe not heare thewordofGodtaughund preached at the fame C z time to THE POWER OF time when lie comes thereunto. True faith & repentance make men worthy 8c lawfull communicants & able to difcerne the body of the Lord , though by fome meanes they be hindred from hearing the Word immediately before. l.Cor.i.zt, 22. Io/;.6.4o. And therefore to follow you in your owne comparifon ; as a man may lawfully come to the Lords fupper , though" he have not heard the word be- fore : fo may he lawfully come to the excommunication of a (inner, and confent thereunto, though he have not bene prefent at his conviction before , but onely heareitteftifyedby others. 3. Ifyoufinde no difference , but that men are alike bound to come to heaie the examination & conviction of offendours, & to come to the Lords fupper ; why doe you not then cenfure thofe amongyouthat after your Sermon ended doe depart , when you enter upon thefe convictions & difpu- tations, continuing fometimes untill eight, nine , or tenne a clock in the night , as well as thofe that afcerSermo (hould depart & ref ufe to eat the Lords fupper with you ? Doth not your owne confeience and practife reprove you in this poynt ? ' H. A I N S vv . We doe fo undcrjland Gods laiv , that when it commmdeth us any thing, it doth alfo command us to ufe all meanes for the right & holy performance of'u: and all will be little enough. An s v v. Thus doe we alfo underftand the Law: but the Quemon is whether all the meanes for the right and holy performance of this judgement of excommunication cannot be ufed, unlefTe all the members of the Church be pre- fent at the conviction of the excommunicate. The reader is to confider whether this be juftly proved by you. H. Ai n s v v« The people therefor ethat were hound toftone an Idolater in Jfrael , were hound by that Law, Thouihalt not (lay the innocent, Exod. 2^7. to looks that he were duely conviEied of the crime. An s vv. But could not the people know that an Ido- later were duely convicted, unlefle they themfelves were all prefent at his exami- nation & conviction i By thiskindeofreafoning, 1. Youcondemne the juft& lawfull warre undertaken againft the enimies of Church & Common-wealth: you might as well fay that becaufe no fouldier may flay the innocent, therefore every particular fouldier is bound to be prefent in the aiTembly of the Rulers, where the caufe of the warre is tryed , and there to heare the examinations & convictions of the wrong-doers. But how was this poflible in Ifrael , where fo many hundred thoufands were fometimes a.Tcmbled together unto the warre ? Z-Chron. 13 .2>g. t?c. or how f hould it now podibly be obferved in our times? how f hould private fouldiers with good confeience goe into the tield, unlefle they may reft in the te- stimony of their Governours touching the caufe of the warre ? 1. Bythatcom- mandement , Thoujhalt not flay the innocent, Exod. 23.7. thofe alfo are condemned that fuffer the innocent to be flaine , having authority & power in their hands to hinder the lame: & thus according to your reafoning,the King or other fupreme Ivlagiftrates of any country , that f hould fuflfer any perfon to be flaine or pu- nched within their dominions , t hould be bound to be prefent at their examinati- on & conviction in like manner , contrary to the liberty that God hath given unto Princes, in appointing & fending Governours for the punif hment of evill doers. 1 . Pet.z. 13,14. And divers other the like unreafonable confequences would fol- low upon this manner oi arguing* H. THE ELDERSHIP. ti F. Al N s V V. ^4nd now by this law, Be not partaker of other mens finnes:Keep thy felre pure j I .Tim. q.iz. every foule that is bound to caft out a man condemned for he- refy or other finne , is alfo bound tofe^. him, conviBed , leJ} Diotrephes caufe to cafi out i 'aithfull brethren^. 3 Job. 9,10. Ansvv. 1. The errour of this collection ap- plyed to the Queftion in hand,appeareth by your owne practife; when thofe mem- bers of your Church who having bene fick or abfenr while any perfon is condemn tied for herefy or other finne, doe yet upon the teftimony of the Church reject him as an excommunicate and caft him out of their focietvi Here you allow a re- jection of orTendours by fuch as have not bene prefent to fee their conviction, II. Your errour in this allegation may likevvife appeare in this, that thofe who are excommunicate by one true Church are alfo to be rejected by other true Chur- ches that have not bene prefent to fee the conviction of fuch perfons. Luk.-io.i6, Matt.i$.i$Aob.2o.2$. f.Cor.c, 3- Z.Cor.z.io. This fhewesthat a man may keep himfelfe pure, refting m the teftimony of others : and that the place, i.Tim.5.22. isnottobeapplyedagainft them that doe upon the wicnefle of a Church reject orTendours. in. As for Diotrephes caufing to caft out faithfull brethre, 1. There is no appearance inthetextalledged^.Iofc.^io. that this was done for want of the peoples prefence : his love of preheminence & his tyranny might be exerci- fed in their prefenccas well as in their abfence. 2. The reader is here to mark the contradiction of H.Barrow unto you, and his further errour who will not have this cafting out of the faithful by Diotrephes , to be underftood of excommunicati- on, (c) nor to bemeantofthe abufe of any cenfure of the Church, &C. 3 . For rafh excom- (<0 H.Barr. munications & actual! cafting out of brethren, name any true Church where ever 5-5? t0 ^ this finne hath prevailed fo notoriously as among yourfelves and the Anabaptifts, p ' *' where the popular order hath bene moft in ufe. If you looke upon all the Refor- med Churches & their practife , where the people are not bound to be prefent at the conviction and examination of orTendours , t thinke % our owne heart will tell you & your mouth will acknowledge , that the like rafh & unjuft excommunica- tions have not bene executed among them, as among yourfelves & other Sects of Separatifts that ufe the fame manner of proceeding which you doe. H. Al N S V V . He thatflands out to excommunication-, , will commonly plead his caufe to bejufi, andcomplaine that the Elders have perverted judgment : with what comfort of heart tan the people now excommunicate him, if they have not beard the proceedings -dgainfi him,and yet muft execute the Elders fintence upon him .«? L et wife men judge whether this be notjpiritu- all tyranny , which the Elders would bringupon the confidences of the Church . Ansvv. i. They which confent to the excommunication ofa perfon judged by the Church, and doe thereupon reject his fellowship; may have the fame comfort of heart? which your people ordinarily have when themfel yes upon divers occafions being prefent neither at the conviction of orTendours, nor at the pronunciation of fen- tence againft them, doe yet reft in the teftimony & fentence of others ; and there- upon avoyd fuch an excommunicate, though he plead his caufe to be juft & com- plaine that the Elders & others of the people have perverted judgement, n. They may have the fame comfort of heart, which divers of your people have , being fouldiers here in ihefervice of cheCky,who together with the reft of the fouldiers — C 1 doe *t THE POWER OF doe at the Magistrates appointment attend upon the execution of juftiee of di- verfe malefa&ours, as pyrates & others ; and though they have not heard the pro- ceedings againft them , though they have not bene prefent at the examination and convi&ion of fuch perfons,doe yethelp to execute the Magiftrater fentence upon them>being ready to aflift & defend the executionerj if need f hould require j even then when the condemned perfons doe ftil plead that they are innocent, and com- plaine that the Magiftrates have perverted judgement againft them. Thus you may fee how this your kinde of reafoning brings blood upon the head of your people,and fonpon your owne & your Churches head for retaining of them. in. They may have the fame comfort of heart , which the Ifiaelites had in avoyding the Lepers , & putting them out of the campe upon the teftimony of the Priefts, 'Num.e;.z,$.Levit.i$.z--46.though they had not bene prefent at the proceedings> nor come together to fee the markes & tokens of the leprofy ', and this even then when the Lepers did plead that they were cleane , & complained that the Priefts had done them wrong, iv. The manner of proceeding againft offendoursjboth in the Reformed Churches & in our particular Congregation , is fuch that any of the people may fufficientlyinforme themfelves both touching the matter offaft 8c right in any queftion & caufe, before the fentence of excommunication be pro- nounced : They have liberty & opportunity to deale with the parties accufedjand with the Elders alfo; and this not onelv with either of the'fe apart> but alfo if they wills to heare the conviction of the offendours before the Elders. Yea the caufe offuchoffendours is fo often publickly propounded to the whole Congregation and the people are fo often exhorted & ftirred up to admoni(h & deale with thofe which are run into fcandall , that they may fully difcerne the guiltines of fuch per- fons before they be call out ; and therefore cannot by wife men be judged to be under any fpit ituall tyranny for confenting unto the rejection of thofe, whofe ini- quity Sc obftinacy they may fo plainly underftand. v. If the law of God may be expounded according to thofe felecl: interpretations of the Rabbines > which you make fpeciall choyfe of & commend unto our confideratio above others;then are the people to execute the judgemets of theElders,though the proceedings there- in be kept in farre greater fecrecy then we require, for expounding thofe words, (d) Annot. Thoufoalt not walks a talebearer , you fay thereupon » W ) As this Law immediately foU on Levit. Uweth the former about the ludges ; fo the Hebrewes apply this precept unto them,faying } It is l 9' l6 - unlawfullfor any of the Judges, when hegoeth out from the judgment hall,tofay, I am he that doth acquit or condemn e • and myfellowes are againft me: but what can I doe , feing they are tnoe then I. And if he thusfpeaf^he is within the compaffe of this, HE THAT WA L- KET H as Exod.zo.i6. Pro, THE ELDERSHIP. ij. Trov. 14.25. E^.5.11. Ep.59.4. 1^.9.3. Mc.7.3,4. andagainft the law of nature it felf > which taught even the wicked Pilate to take water and wafh his hands be- fore the multitude! & to make publick proteftation of his innocency againft them that were authours of unrighteous judgement. Matt.zy.z^.Ioh.iB.^B,^ 19.4. Thus doe your writings lead men into contrary extremities. THus farre for anfwer unto your o wne reafons : An argument on the contrary fide brought to f hew the f reedome of the people in coming or not coming to heare the examinations & convictions going before the cenfure , and to {hew that the people are not bound thereunto , is thus fet downe , becaufe ( e ) So it (hallnot j$*-Qj& be enough .that the Elders by their Office are bound unto it , & ought to have maintenance for p 4 V 2 m * the doing of it & of the other dueties of their Office : but the men mtft (without any allowance Rom'. 1 2,73 for it) leave their trades & caUings>the womentheir houfes (? families \the children their fchoo- 8. Ibigftnd employment ■> the fervants their worl^ and labour and mujlcome together (though it j 2 *' ftouldbeday after day) to heare & judge the cafes that fall out between brother & brother ac- wiim.%, cordingto Matt. iS.iy. forby this Scripture in 1X0r.12.ch.. they will have it under flood l 7>&. ofmen> women, £T children that canforrow &_ rejoyce with others , as before was jbewed. I n t ^ s m ^ co ® your anfwer hereunto by a crooked winding you turne away from the argument i n greac and doe notdireft your anfwer unto the poynt & force thereof, when as you fay, Congrega* (f ) Let them then excommunicate alone y as well as try ihe~cafe alone : feing they have mainte- ll ° ns and nance for both- 3 & lenhe people be bound to eome to neither : no nor to the Paflours miniflring cafes are«> of the Word and Sacraments ( if this reafon begood, ) becaufe he is more worthy maintenance be heard, thenthe>uling Elders,as the lApoftlefaeweth. i.Tim. 5.17,18. For if the Elders were ^ c - . onely bound to utter and pronounce a fentence of excommunication , when the J V ,^T people are gathered to heare the fame j then ihould the Elders deferve no more maintenance then the people. If the Paftour were not bound to ftudy all the week & to take paines to prepare himfelffor the miniftery of the word and Sacraments, but did onely fpeak the fame without labour going before ; then could not the double honour & maintenance mentioned, i.T/w.5, be due unto him. Where there is no fpeciall workjthere is nofoeciall maintenance. And therefore while you doe not require double labour 01 the Elders in trying cafes, but doe binde the people even to the fame labour of enquiring , examining & trying matters, how can you require double honour &fuch fpeciall maintenance for them i But after 1 this generall evafion, you proceed unto foroe more particular anfwers;& fay there in your. Animadverfion : H. Ai n s v v. F/V/J, they reftrain things too mucKwhm they fay between brother & brother: for what if it be apublkkjcafe ofherefy or idolatry, as that mentioned Dm. 1 3 . 1 2 3 I£>i4.&c. will they fay women , children Scfewzntswerethtn > or are now bound f© leave their callings , <$ come together to try out the matter? Hereunto I reply. I . They reftrain things no otherwife then Chrift himfelf doth, when fpeaking generally of the fundry forts of finne,he alfo notes them to be between brother & brother 3 faying, If thy brother flnneagainft thee. Matt.i2.i$. Even to publick finnes ofherefy and idolatry, as that in Deut.fi 3. though immediately they are committed againftGod^ yet as they are fcandals and occafions of falling unto others , fo are they cafes be- tween man & man ; brother & brother? to be cenfured & judged by itiem*D&-% 4^ U THE POWER OF 4.^13.5,6,15. 11. If they reftrain things too much, then doe they no wrong unto you but unto themfelves : then is there more force in the matter, thep their words doe make fhew of. For if it be unmeet to binde ail the members of the Church to heare cafes dayly between brother & brother even in a ftri&er fenfe , as you would have their words to found ; how much more inconvenient ihall it be» when by a larger bond they Thai be required to heare ail cafes of iinne,both bet wee brother & brother* & between the Lord and our brethren K III. What fenfe or reafon have you to make this queliion, Will thy fay <&c whereas it is not they,buc you which fay & plead by all this your arguing , that women, children & fei . ants are bound to leave their callings & come together to trv out thefe controverfies * H. A I N s v v . Secondly, many controverfies between neighbours , are for civill things of (g) Luk. 1 z. thislife: fuck are (g) not Church matters, nor there to be heard,but by (h) Magiftrates, orarbi- (h Rom, terscbofm. i.Cor.6.4,5. Repl. i. Even the controveifies about Civill things 13. of this life, are Church-matters & there to be judged, lung all finnes are there to be judged. Matt. i 8. I5-*I7- i.Cor.5. n. 2.00^.10.4,5,6. If you could prove that men did never make falfe & deceufull bargaines^nor ufe falfe weights, nor any kinde of extortion, opprefllon , coofenage , &c. then might you exclude contro- verfies for Civill things from the judgement of the Church. And the controver- fies about thefe things being profequuted before the Church cannot but require a greater time for the examination of them , then the callings & workes of men, women, children & fei vants can well afford: fo that the force of the argument by this exception is not diminifhed, but further manifefted hereby. 11. For one &: the fameiinne God hath appointed two judgements, one Civill , another Ecclefi- afticall : as for example , if a man Ihould refufe to divide the inheritance with his brother; this man by the Magiftrates might be forced thereunto - 3 and this judge- ment is a Civill adminiftration. And this is that which our Saviour remooves from himfelf, LwJ^. 12. 13,14. Againe,the fame man for his deceit , covetoufnes & finfuli opprefllon of his brother ufed in this controverfy for Civill things of this life, might juftly be cenfuredby the Church & excluded-from the fame; which is an Ecclefiafticall judgement and adminiftration. You cannot Ihew any place of Scripture, that denyes this judgement unto the Church. Moreover our Saviour at that time was none of the ordinary ludges , no not in Ecclefiafticall caufes. He did not in his life time erect another judicatory befides that which was already the eftablifhed among the lewes : and therefore did not ufe to excommunicate any or caft them out of the Synagogue. And if Chriftdidnotnow ordinarily give fen- tence, neither in Civill nor Ecclefiafticall judgements, howJarre is this his exam- ple from proving that controverfies for Civil! things are to be remoovedfrom the Church? in. As for RQ>n. 13. (hewing that controverfies for Civill things are to be judged by Magiftrates, this is not contrary to any thing in the argumenc, neither doth it weaken"the fame. The caufes of Murder, Adultery, The?t,Coo- . fenage, Slander , as they are to be judged by the Magiftrate , fo by the Church al- fo. And if all the members thereof, men, women , children & fervants be bound unto the labour of trying and examining fuch caufes, why have they not mainte- nance for the fame, as well as either Magiftrates or Ecclefiafticall Elders? 1 v. As for THE ELDERSHIP, i S for matters referred unro Arbiters, feeing they are oftentimes matters offinne, of wrong & injury (i.Co>'.6.7 J 8.)fubje&inthat'refpe& unto Ecclefiafticall cenfu- res, this courfe of deciding controverfies doth as wel fervefortheeafe & help of the'EldersjSc faves them a labour as well as the people. And therefore the confe- deration hereof doth help to Ihew that there is flill no reafon why Elders (hould have fpeciali maintenance* when their eafe & excufe from labouring is as much as any others. H. AiN S V V. Thirdly for doubt full cafes EcclefiafticalUpeople are to inquire the law (*) (i) Mai. a. j Mt the Priefls mouth,and to afkcounfell of their Elders, fever ally orjoyntly,who are to havc^ their meetings apart for fuch & other like ends:AB.2l.lS. fo many things may becompofed without trouble of the Church. Re pl. i. The people are to afk counfell ot one another alfo,as well as of theirElders, for in the multitude of counfellers is health; Prov. ii. 14. and all the brethren are to inftruft , guide and fupport one another : 2^.2.17-20. 0*15.14. Heb. 3. 13. and by your owneconfeffion they are to be ufed not onely in private , but in (k ) publick confutations alfo. Yea befide this* (k) Anim, you acknowledge furtherjthat (0 the greateft Errours, Herefies,Schifmes & evils jfel ' have both arifen& bene continued by the Elders; that fometimes they are blinde ,LJ p ' guides and without understanding: and oftentimes they differ in counfell among themfelves ; and thus in doubtfull cafes men become more doubtfull by their counfell,and fo have the more need to confult among themfelves. If therefore this duety of giving counfell doe lye upon the people and they be bound unto it ; this work alone being common to others with the Elders , could not fhew the double honour & maintenance due unto them, unlefle fome other Itudy and work together with the labour of hearing , examining and judging of caufes did require thefame. 11. As for M«J. 2.7. the knowledge in the Priefls lips there fpoken of, was that which he principally manifefted in his office of publick preaching the !awofGod:D«tf.33.io. Lev. 10. 11. in which office the Elders doe not fucceed them,andfo have no fpeciali maintenance due in that regard. Againe> the know- ledge in the Priefts lips appeared fecondarily in judiciall caufes,which they heard, examined & judged. Deut. 1 7.8,9-- 12. 2. Chron. 19.8. Zfck-$.7. This power you give unto the people now as well as unto the Elders, who therefore by your doc- trine deferve no more maintenance for the fame then doe the people in this re- gard. 111. Though we grant that Elders are to have their ordinary meetings apart for the Church- affaires, yet doth not your allegation from AB. 21. 18. prove the fame, for that meeting being upon extraordinary occafion > to entertaine the Apoftle Paul and thofe that were with him , who being new come to Ierufalem, they came together to falute & embrace one another , to heare tidings of the fuc- cefle of the Gofpel & to rejoyce together in the Lord , verf. 19. and then conful- ted further of fuch things as tended to the edification of the Church , verfio.&c. You might as well conclude that ftrangers of other Congregations fhould be pre- fent in the ordinary affembiy of the Elders, becaufe we doe here read of fome fuch who being in Pauls company were now alfo prefent at this fpeciali meeting of the Eiders inlerufaiem. «^4#.2i. 15,16,17,18. H. Ai n s v v . Fourthly , when apparamfnnersfo conviBed by whneffes* are to Ujud- D gd z6 THE POWER OF ged by the Church : there is no time more fit then the Sabbath day ; wherein all men are bound to leave their owne workj, (Exo.2o. I o. ) & tend to the Lords ,cf 'which fort this is.R e p l . i» Though I doe not hold ic (imply unlawfull tojudgecaufesonthe Sabbath day, yet that this day is the fitteft > your allegation from Exod. 20. fhewes it not. Men may then leave their owne works & tend to the Lords , though they heare no controverfies pleaded : yea much more fitly , comfortably and fruitfully may they attend upon the publick adminiftration of the Word , Prayer & Sacraments, and fan&ify themfelves thereunto in private both by dueties of preparatio before, and by dueties of meditation, repetition,conference, &c. afterward,if the mindes of Minifter & people be not diftracled or hindred bv other controverfies and con- tentions. Pfal.26.6.Matt. 5.8. E^o.19.10.0' 40.18-21. Acl.ij. n. Pfal.uc). 1 1 .#<:. That there hath bene fuch a diftui bance and hindrance among you , it is teftifyed not onely by ftrangcrs which fometimes hearing you doe complaine hereof, but alfo by your owne Minifters, as M r Iohnfon & M r Clyfton, and your owne people , both fuch as have left you and even fuch as ftill remaine with you. it. As Eccleliafticall judgements are the Lords works , fo are Civill judgements alfo , which the Magiftrates fitting on the Lords throne in ftead of the Lord their God, doe adminifter& execute in his name. 2. Chron. 19.6.^9. 8. And by this reafoning you might make the Sabbath to be the fitteft day for them alfo. H. Ai N s v v. Or if that dayfuffice not , they may take any other for them convenient : for&c. Re pl. You doe hereby yeeld unto us that you have walked in an un- cleane way,and that you have (according to your owne doctrine) an uncleane and (m) Treat, polluted people, for feeing as M r Iohnfon confefieth & witnefieth, (m) yourwon- on Matt. 18 , ted manner hath bene to heare matters on the weekday ; at which time there wasfeV&ome half P 1? - . the Church together: if now according to (") your former arguing from i. Tim. 5. ajv.p.^T," 22. men cannot keep themfelves pure from partaking with other mens finnes, unleffe they fee & heare the conviction of thofe whom they doe reject , then hath half your Church together bene defiled many times , while they have confented to the excommunication of fuch , at the hearing and examination of whofe caufe they have not bene prefent. H. Ai N s vv. For unto publick_aff aires the Church is to be affembled. 1 , Cor.5. 4. A&. 14.27. & 15. 4>30. <2Z\. 18--22. Repl. This your general! land indefinite fpeech doth admit many exceptions: for 1. Even the Elders when they have their meetings apart , as you grant unto them , doe confider together of the publick affaires ; and there you fee then that the Church is not alwayes to be affembled unto publick bufines. 11. Ifthe whole Church and all the members thereof, men , women , children and fervants muft affemble to heare the procee- dings againft them whom they are to avoyd & reject, according to your plea ; and this alfo on the week dayes though it f hould be day after day , as may come to VR Q , fr paflfe in great Congregations and when many cafes are to be heard, &c. as was (o) Advert p. '* before objected unto you : what reafon is there that the Elders (hould have fpeci- 42. all maintenance in refpect of this work , where all the members of the Church are bound to attend upon the work as well as they? To this you fay nothing. in. Even unto the publick adminiftration of the word and prayer , you doe not binde vour THE ELDERSHIP. 27 your people on the week day > but leave it free for them to come or not to come unto the fame : And fhall the hearing of examinations & proceedings againft par- ticular men have more honour then the word preached? Yea which is much more, by this your opinion and reafoning you doe more binde your people to be prefent at controverfies even on the week day , then to heare the word and prayer even on the Lords day : for to be abfent from judiciall proceedings on the week day doth not onely require acknowledgment of a fault , as doth the abfence from publick worfhip on cheLords day, but by your doftrin it doth alfo require a rever« fing & repeating of the proceedings , or dCc a refufail to allow the fame in not re- buking or rejecting them who are publickly cenfured, rebuked or excommuni- cated by the Church. 1 v. As in refpect of the eafe & commodity of the Churcht the hearing of fome publick affaires is to be committed to the Elder! hip , as hath bene f hewed before; fo alfo for the avoyding of fcandall & offence, for example: the examination of each particular act and ch curaftance ferving for the conviction of offendours in fome uncleane Sc filthy finnes, and the open repetition & naming hereof before the whole Congregation* men & women, young & old,your owne people & ftrangers that come to heare,cannot but be very offenfive, & fo is found to be: for it is ajhame even tofpeal^oftbe things which are done of many infecret.Ej)b.$. 1 2. And even (name ic felf (as it feemes) hath forcedyou fometimes to leave this your praftife , which you fo earneftly plead for : As heretofore in the cafe of H. C. it is teftifyed , that in the examination of an uncleane fact imputed unto him> there were certaine men deputed to heare and examine the caufe apart from the Congregation , that the eares of women and children and of the whole multitude ihould not be offended therewith. And why may you not now ftill by the like reafon yeeld that the hearing and examining of offendours may be done apart by the Elders which are the Churches deputies thereunto , as well as heretofore by fome other deputies new chofen ? Touching the Scriptures alledged by you , although that which is fayd already might ferve for anfwer thereunto,yet this in particular may be further confidered. As for 1. Cor. 5. 4. there is not a word of the Churches meeting together to ex- amine the fact of the inceftuous perfon , but onely of giving femence after ic was fufficientiy knowne. In 1A8. 14.27. we read that the Church was gathered to- gether 1 and fo with us both on the Lords day and on one of the week dayes there is a gathering of the Church together. What an idle thing is it to prove that there ihould be publick alTemblies of the Churchjwhich none'denyes t But thispiace ijiewes not that the Church was gathered together to the publick examination of fcandals & to heare the proceedings againft offendours, according to the queftion in hand. As for l6*Z$ • ) & confequentlv to receive the farrie^though D z' not if THE POW. OF THE ELDERSHIP. not gathered together at one time. In Aft. 15.3a. Lukefhewes that the E- piftle of the Apoftles was delivered to the multitude aflembled at Antiochia. So we read that the Epiftle written to the Colofllans was to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans : C0/0/.4. 16. So the letters and decrees of Princes & States at this day are often times upon fundry occasions delivered and openly read to the multi- tude & people in feverall cities aflfembled and called together to heare the famei even as thefe decrees of the Apoftles and Elders were delivered in fundry places: Aft. 16.4. But doe thefe manner of aflemblies prove that no cafes of controver- fy, fcandall or finne may be examined & heard by the Rulers &Governours with- out the prefence of the people gathered together in fuch an afTembIy,according to the queftion betwixt us 1 How can fuch kinde of collections be ever juftifyed by you ? That place, ./48.2 1. 18--22. is oft alledged by you to f hew the peoples power> while it is there fayd , that the~ multitudemuft needes come together ; touching which words* though neither the Syriack nor the Arabick verfions of the New Tefta- ment have them ; though the want of thefe words from the text in this place is by Amuxta ^ f° me ' earne d men judged not to be unmeet ; yet will I not infift thereon. But Arab tranfl. i. to take the words as they are in the Greek > the word (q) tranflated mufi needes, inA£Ui. doth not alwayes fignify a duety to be done, but fometimes onely aneceflity of a (q) a ~ thing comming to pafle& done by men, though they ought not to doe it: andfo ati, this very word is elfwhere ufed by the Apoftle , when he faith there mufi be herefies, 1. Cor. 1 1 . 1 9. (hewing thereby the neceflity of an event , but not the duety of any perfon to doe that thing. Neither doth any thing hinder but that the word here alfo in tAft. 21. may be taken in like fenfe , \iz. that the multitude would needs come together, though not bound by duety thereunto. 2. Suppofe that this comming together of the multitude was according to duety , yet feing that both the occafion was extraordinary , & that alfo the forme of their comming together is not fpecifyed , whether they were to come as hearers onely of Pauls do&rine,or as judges in judiciall manner to examine him \ how can you now conclude from hence that all cafes of controverfy among brethren are ordinarily to be examined by the multitude of the Congregation in apublickaffembly ? THE z 9 THE SECOND PART, Touching The power of Clafficall and Syno- dall Aflemblies. CHAP. I. The State of the £>ueftion 7 and the importance thereof, ^ Hcfumme & fubftance of the Difcipline or Church-govern- ment appointed of God & pra&ifed in the Reformed Chur- ches, confifts chiefly in thisj that when as for the remooving of private offences private admonition in the firft and fecond degree prevayles not > or when as the offence is publick ac firft, the matter be then brought unto the judgement of the Elderfhip; and fo that in weightier cafes , as receiving of members, excommunication , election & depofition of Mi- nifters,&c. nothing be concluded & executed without the knowledge & appro- bation of theChurchjIikewife that in more weighty & difficult cafes, as the afore- named or the like> the advife, help and allowance of the Claflis under which they ftand.and if need be of the Synod unto which the Claflis is fubordinate, be foughe Sc refted in:8c this in fuch manner, that if any perfon, ey ther Minifter, Elder , ev any other, even the leaft member of the Church doe findeany evill to be maintai- ned, either againft faith or manners , either by the Elderfhip or by the Congrega- tion, it is then lawfull for them for the redreffe of fuch evill , to repaire unto the Claflis or Synod, that by their authority & fentence , the offence may be cenfured & the abufe reformed. As the Elderfhip of a particular Church confifts of Mi- nifters & Elders chofen out of the fame > fo the Claffis confifts of many Minifters & Elders fent from many Churches, & affembling together to heare & determine the cafes above written. Thatihe State of the Queftion may yet more clearly be underftood , it is to be remembred that in this combination of Gaffes and Synods , i. The authority which they exercife is notabfolute, nor their decrees held -to be infallible, but to be examined by the word of God,and not to be received further then they doe agree therewith. And therefore alfo (*0 there is liberty of appeale from them , (a; Kerckg- from the ClafTis to the Synod,and from a Provincial! Synod to a National], n ° rde ™g § The authority of Gaffes & Synods is not Civill, neither have they power to in- Dordr.ar?' fli& Civill punifhments j they (b) judge onely of Ecclefiafticall caufes& that in 31.36! Ecclefiafticall manner, ufingno other then fpirituall cenfures. in. IntheClaf- (W^id. ficall union & confociation of neighbour Churches , (c) no one Church hath any a ^j f g^. prerogative or power aboveanocher, nor an v one Minifter orElder greater autho- »x.8 .1, * D 3 rity_ 3 o THE POWER OF rky then another : but their queftions are determined by moft voyces; and they are all mutually & equally fubjeft unto one another in the Lord. iv. This go- vernment of Churches by Gaffes doth not deprive particular Churches & Con- gregations of their liberty & power > but ferves to direct & ftrengthen them in the right ufe & exercife of their power : for example , when a particular Church with their Elders or the greater part of them agree together to choofe a Minifter that is oflfenfive or unfit for them> if the Clatfis upon due confiderationof the matter doe difanull their election & hinder their proceeding) yet doe they not hereby de- prive them of their liberty nor take from them their priviledge of election , foraf- much as they doe ftill leave unto them a freedome to choofe another fit Minifter; they doe not in this cafe goe about to choofe for them > or to obtrude upon them . another Minifter againft their will> but onely exhort them to ufe their power and liberty aright , and to f hew more care and godly vvifedome in feeking out fuch an one as may be more inofFenfive & fit for the edification of their Church. Againft this authority of Clafles and Synods divers oppofites have rifen up and have pleaded for a new kinde of Difcipline, contrary to the order of all Reformed Churches,and contrary to that Reformation which the ancient Non-conformifts in England have fo much defired & laboured for. And yet many of thefe Oppo- (d) Mr la- (ices doe in the meane time in generall termes feeme to (&) embrace Synods and Steftation S reac ty t0 approve of the benefit that comes by them. But herein is the poynt of of church- difference > that they doe limit & confine all Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion within the gov.p.i 18, bounds of a particular Congregation. Though they acknowledge Synods to be ? h x r 78 h * lawfull> expedient and necefTarvj yet this they hold to be onely in regard of coun- pi:a.p .94. fell & advife,for provocation>dire&ion & countenance: but doe not acknowledge them to have any authority to give fentence for the decifion of caufes ; they doe not allow ClaflTes or Synods to ufe any Ecclefiafticall jurifdiction or cenfure in judging the controverfies that arife in particular Congregations. They maintaine he]piea fC " tnat (e ^ ever y particularCongregation is independent,not (landing under any other pref. Ecclefiafticall authority out of themfelves. |ir Dav.Re- This oppofition of Claries & Synods is made fpecially by the ( f ) Brownifts> and gW"S» by them have the Minifters of England bene reproached for the refpeft which foH.Bar- they had unto Synods. After them M r Iacob in his writings often allowing them rowDii'cov. for counfell* (g) yet denyes the power & authority which we aflcribe unto them. p.;r.o hji. ^ nc j m t fa t booke which is intitled Englijh PuritanifmeW this their opinion is Sown%of. moft plainly & peremptorily propounded. And now alfo M r Davenp. though «zS P omr t0 alienate it from themfelves : But the latter ( viz. eftimation & reverence) is due • k/ibki p. toClaffesconfiftingof gravejearned, prudent and fait hfull men , for their excelent perfonafl gifts, in which refpetl tlwr judgment is to be much valued, <$ receyved with due regard. But if any doe afTcribe unto Clalfes a power of jurifdiction over particular Churches, and '-ZQ, CLASSES AND SYNODS. p and that in things which he calls proper unto themfelves , this he faith (l) istofuB- 0) r ^l- p. jeB particular Churches under an undue power : this he calles an ufurpedpower. Now 23 °' then behold what this eftimation reverence is which M r Dav. allowestoCIafli- call afifemblies or Synods $ viz. not fo much power as is allowed to any one man, though it were the moft ignorant and ofFenfive that is a member of a particular Church, for when a controverfy arifeth about the election of a Minifter, the one half of the Congregation giving voyces for him , another half excepting againft him as unfound in doctrine & unfit for the; if a whole Claflicall aflembly of Mini- fters & Elders deputed from all the Churches round about doe alfo except again ft him as unfound and unfit , and with one confent judge that he ought not to be cal- led* yet for one voyce of that one ignorant perfon , 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 , rhat eftimation o* value which M r Dav. affords unto this Ciaflls confirming of fo many grave , learned, prudent (ffaithfull men of excellent perfonall gifts, while he maintaines that all EccleHafticall jurifdi&ion is limited to the particular Church: and all the counfell & brotherly direction of the Claffis muft be of no authority againft the refolution of fuch a wilfull company,to cenfure.their unjuft proceedings & to ftay i he fame. So againe ( m ) he pretendeth M Apoi. M r Cartwr. his authority , to prove that other Churches have^. no power of hindring rwp ,p ' 47 * a faulty eletlion, but by admonition-, , which power every Chriftkn-, hath in another, for his good. The fpeciall or onely remedy which theOppofites flye unto in fuch cafes is the help of the Magiftrate. But hereby the importance of this Queftion and the danger of defpifing Synods may appeare. Though they hold that Ghrift hath not fubjectedany Church or Congregation of his, to any other fuperiour Ecclefiafti- call jurifdictlon then unto that which is within itfelf , &c. yet they hold fa) that ( n ). Ett gi« if in the choyfe ofMinifters any particular Church jhall erre , that none upon the earth but the F * ^"J 3 ?' 2 ' Chill Magiftrate hath power to controule or cornel the fame for it, yet it would be in vaine for them to feek help of the Popilh Governours that have dominion in fome of the places where they have their abode. 1 v. In thefe Vnited Provin- ces of the Netherlands, where the Reformed Churches are maintained, yetforr afmuchas here is a toleration of many Sects and Religions, and among the reft of the J2 THE POWER OF the Brownifts , the Magiftrates doe not ufe to judge their EccIeGafticall comro- verfies, & fo afford no help unto thofe Seisin that kinde. When did the Brow- nifts ever feek any help from them to repreffe their contentions and fchifmes * v. That or thofe Churches wich are fecretly gathered in England according to the direction & example of M»" Iacob , doe they not altogether want the help of the (o) Neceir. Civill Magiftrare in their controverfies * He prefcribes this remedy , (o) that if of Reform. p eo pi e /^ fagfr church-eletlions, tstc. willprefume to be unruly comming out of England for this purpofe, to make peace betwixt his two fonnes : had they ufed the help of neighbour Churches & permitted them to judge betwixt them> it might have bene a meanes through Gods blefling to have preserved them from (p) pk fuch extreme courfes. HereofGeorge Iohnfon oft complaineth in his booke:(p) troubles ^ Wl ^ mt con fi nt hereunto , they will not be perfivaded nor intreatedto let the~ Reformed 8ccp.74.8c Churches hear e, try, judge end the controversy between them and us. And this is not the F 3S.39. & complaint of G. Iohnfon alone, but the Minifters both of the Dutch and French 41 ' Churches in Arnfterdam doe likewife give teftimony thereof, being deputed by the Elderfhips of both thofe Churches> & that upon the requeft of the father , to fee if they could procure Franc. loh. and the Elders of his Church to fubmit the controverfv to their tryall & judgement. This appeares in the Teftimony hereof (q) tohan- given unt0 ' t he father John lohnf. by the (s) Minifters of thefe Churches in wri- PetrulE ting under their hands. Yea & further the Church of the Separation didfo much dus.iaco- abhorre to have their caufes and affaires fubmitted unto any cenfure or judgement busArmini - out of their owne Church, that in the excommunication of the father, an old Gouknius. man of 70. yeares, that had undertaken fo hard a journey (as he confefled) for the ' reconcilement of his fonnes, & fought fuch meanes from other Churches to end their ftrife, this was fct downe as one diftina & fpeciall caufe of his excommunica- tion, viz. for labouring to draw the Church into Antichriftian-, bondage in the the judging thecaufes thereof. This appeares in the Copy of his Excommunication delivered un- (r) Daniel to him & fubferibed by (0 two of their Elders in the name of their Church. Sttidley, And fince that time ? when the Brownifts have fo often fchifmed& rent in the stanihaii m idft,asinM f Iohnfon & M r Ainfworths divifion whe they feparated one from Mercer. thc CLASSES AND SYNODS. | r the other; when after the death of M r Ainfworth that company rending againe in the midft, one half followed lohnde Clufe & the other M r Canne •, when af- ter the death of M r Robinfon 3 his company alfo rending in peeces theyforfooke their old fellowfhip together ; when M** Canne was firft ralhly ele&ed a Minifter bytheBrownifts, whenfhortly after that election he was cenfured and depofed from his office by that half that rejected him & renounced communion with him: In all thefe & the like controverts they wanted help & durft not feek the benefit of Clafllcall Government > nor fubmit their caufe unto fucb. an order of tryall and cenfure, left they Should enthrall themfelvesin *Antichriftian bondage, as they call it. They that allow not Synods with authority to decide caufes, doe yet proitfTe that they are to be approved & embraced for counfell & advife : but it appeares by thefe & other not unlike parages among thofe that are of the fame opinion > that they which deny the power of cenfure inClafles, doe feldome enquire after their counfell. And although the importance of this controverfy doeth hereby appeare plain- ly enough , yet doe we not hold the fame to be fo great as fome of our oppofites doe make it> as if the efTence of the Church & our owne falvation depended here- upon. M r Canne calls it (0 a matter of faith, appertaining to life tyfalvathn. M r la- (f CIlUr " cob fpeaking of this particular Church, wherein this fingle , uncompounded po- p^ p ea * iicie is maintained, faith> (0 This onely ought to be allowed £r beleeved to be a trueChurcb (c j Necefl: by all Chriftians : and againe , (v) This is tbc~ onely true vijible Church ofChrifi having of Reform. from him thejpirituall power of order & government in itfelf ordinarily. The proper Mini- P / Jj rbi j fters thereof are the onely true ordinary Minifters ofChrifi. He faith further , <*) The trm6. forme indeed of Chrifts vifible (f minifteriaU Church is an Inward thing. It is the Power of a (?) The di- fingle & uncompounded Jpirituallpolitie. He denyes the Profeillon of faving faith , to &"nftic gl f" be the efTentiall forme, and often inculcates that the forme, elfence,naturs & con- drifts true ftitution of the Church coniifts in that power of JpiruuaU p\ hie 9 before rehearfed. vifibIe Hecomplaines of them that doe not pra&ife according to his rule, faying, (y) p r h e £ Ch * Thefe truly feeme to deftroy the confcienct & faith of the people , &c. And he gives this ( y ) ibid. exhortation,that ( Z )AU Chriftians every where ought to frame the vijible Church where they pref. live to this onely true forme, or els to betaks themfdves unto fome Church foformed 3 as they ten- ^ Iblc1, A * der their Jpirituall fafety nod for judging & determining the ca- fes of manv particular Churches bvjoynt authority , is" a divine ordnance and ap- pointed Jure Divino,is that which I maintaine & labour to prove in t his Difpute & in the following Arguments. As it is not a thing arbitrary and left unto evei y mans liberty , whether he (hall joyne himfelf as a member unto a particular Church, if he have meanes and opportunity to doe it : fo it is not a thing arbinary nor left in the liberty of particular Churches > whether thev fhall combine them- felves into Gaffes & Svnods, for their fpirituall government, if thev have oppor- tunity. All that neglect to doe it finne againft the communion of Saints, & w alke not as becomes the members of the body of Chrift. Rom. \z. 5. 1. Cor. 12. 25. fyh.4. 16. I. Can. Whither all fuch cafes and controverts , as are decided by many Mh jfierSy tombined into Claffes & Synods • muftfo ftand, as that particular Congregations may not (if they thinks fit) reject the fame, and praRife other wife then hath bene there determined byjci):t authority. Ansvv. Men are bound to ftand unto the judgements of Gaffes & Synods, fo farre as their determinations are found agreeable unto the Word,& no further. ^#.4.19. But if any particular Church reject their fentence & deter- mination being confonant unto the Scripture > then that Church committeth double finne, once for tranfgreffing againft the written word of God , andagaine for defpifing the ordinance of God and contemning the joynt authority of fuch as are met together in his name. Particular Churches arefo to refpeft and ftand unto the determinations ofGafficall or Provinciall Synods, even as particu- lar men and members of a Church are bound to ftand unto the fentence of that Church where they are members , viz. according to the trueth and will of God* andnototherwife. CHAP. II. The firjl ^Argument , taken from the Veords of the Law , Deut. 17. 8-12. THe firft Argument is taken from the ordinance of God delivered by M^fes of old untolfrael, where the people of God in pamcular Congregations were taught to bring their hard & difficult controverfic s as well Eccltfiafticall as Civill unto a fuperiour Judicatoryjunto the Priefts the Levites,or unto the Jidge in thofe dayes > according to the qualitv of the ca fe , for the deciding thereof. De/tf.17.8-12. This Order was alfo reeftablifhed in the dayes of lehofhaphat who placed and fettled in Ierufalem an fcccielialucall S) nedrion or Senate for the mat- CLASSES AND SYNODS. 3f matters of the Lord, over which Amariah was Prefident, & thefe were to receive the complaints and to judge the caufes of their brethren that came up unto them from other cities & places of cheir habitation; even as there was alfoaCivill Sy- nedrion for the affaires of the King, over which Zebadiah was Prefident. i.Ckron* 19. 8- 1 1. This forme of government is commended unto us of David , as the praife of lerufalem , when he poynts out diftin&ly thefe two kindes of Senates, (aj Ecclefiafticall and Civill> thrones of judgement and thrones of the koufe of David, (a)$eelun» whereunto the Tribes, even the Tribes of the Lord did goe up, Pp. 122.4,5. As §£*£* Paul once rejoyced in the fpirit to fee the order of the Coloffians j CoLz.$. {o Da- vid confidering the beauty of this order declares the fame to be one fpeciall caufe of his fpirituall gladnes &'joy in the Lord witneffedin that Pfalme. Hereby it is evident that the Aflemblies& Synagogues oflfrael were not independent, but ftood under an Ecclefiafticall authority out of chemfelves '; they had no fingle un- compounded policie ; all Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion was not limited unto particu- lar Congregations. Now let us fee what our oppofites fay to this. I. Ca n. < b ) Hee feezes to ftrengthen the authority of Claffes & Synods by the Jewifapo* fj>) Char- litie & government : Now the Papifts to eftablifli the Sea of Rome , ufe the fame argument, ^l? ea,p * And the truth is , // M r Paget intend to dijpute this way , they will cary it quite away from him. But I thinke he will hereafter be mm considerate , andfpeake no further of that manner andforme of Church government :feeingheknowes, the moft learned on our fide doe ccn- demne the Papifts for it • vi%. (c) Junius, id) Calvin, (e) Cartwright , (£) D.Whitaker, <$ (c) Anim- others. Ansvv. M r Ainfworth before him fpeakes much in like manner to this aci . v,contr * purpofe, he faith, (g) It is a mavn pillar of Popery , to proportion the Church now , in the (d]inft.l4* outward politie to Ifrael. The Pjpemifts would 'have (hj the fee of Rome in the new cV.feft.z. law , to be anfwerable to the chair of Mofes. Cardinall Bellarmine [}} maketh hUfirft ( e l A §* argument for the Popes judging of controverfi.es from j/;ePrieft & Judge that was appointed „ 5/? ' ' Z ' in the Law , Deut. \ 7. (ffc. And there alfo he ailedgeth three of the fame witneffes (f) Contr, againft arguing from the lewilh policie, which here M r Cannecitethagaine. M'f^ 1 '. Davenp. pleads to the fame efFeft, faying, (k) The Texts which Bellarmine ailedgeth for [flt^iS the power ofCouncills inmakinglawes , are the fame which the yAnfwerer fometimesharpeth (h)Rhem. upon in this cafe, but lunius clearly faeweth that they make nothing to the purpofe. The fir ft is annot - on Deut 17. &c. Hereunto 1 anfwer : mDsRom, I. Though the Papifts argue from the Jewifh politie, and from the fame pla- PonJ.4.c.i ces of Scripture alledged by usj yet it is falfe which M r Canne here faith,viz.that &1 Apoi. they ufe the fame argument. ' They argue thence after another manner , make other re P I -P- a y4» confequences & draw other conclufions from thofe places then we doe. Their abufe of thofe Scriptures doth not hinder us from the right ufe of them, for then we might be quicklv deprived of the whole Scriptures > wrefted by many unto their deftruaion.2.P«.3. 16. The (1) Papifts alledgeMtf.iS. 17. as well as Deut. (i) Bellamy 17. to ftabliih their Romifh authority , yet my oppofites think it to be no preju- con L r 'i e - dice to themfelves that argue in another manner from the fame place. Lxj. °' II. More particularly , the Papifts argue from Deut. 17. to prove that there fmj Conf. fhould be one perfonfupreme judge of Ecclefiafticall caufes > as there was one -withHartc, High Prieft among the Iewes, This is juftly refuted both bv (mj d. Rainoids & l^*' Ei by / %6 THE POWER OF (n)OePont. tyW D. Whitakers,f hewing that the judgement given there was not by theHigh Rom. com. Prieft alone, but by a Golledge or Senate of Priefts noted in that Text. The Pa- t'Ti'*' pi ^ S argue * rom Dm ' l 7- t0 P rove an infallibility of judgement in this one Judge, ' l9 ' to f hew that the Pope cannot erre. Thefe & fuch like falfe colleaions from the Policy of the Jewes are juftly reproved by Orthodox Divines. Had I ufed any fuch reafonings,then had there bene caufe to have complained. III. Whereas Mr lohnfon ufed to plead for the power and authority of El- ders in the Church,and to maintaine the fame from the Civill Policy of the Jewes &from the authority of the Magiftrates in Ifrael ; M r Ainfworth had juft caufe to (o) Anim- diflikethe fame, and doth (o) juftly alledge againft him the Teftimonies of D. v -P- l • jvhitakjrs Junius, Carttvright, & others . 1 1 is true which they affirme, The argument is not good from Civill Government to Ecclefiafiicall: and againe , The example is altoge- ther unlike,oftemporall empire and fpirituall mint fiery : between., thefe_ there is not, neither ought , neither ca>z-> a proportion or comparison bt^ rightly made , viz. in fuch a confufed manner as M r Iohnlbn hath done it. But as for me, I never pleaded on that man- ner, I argue not from the Civill , but from the Ecckfiafticall Policie in Ifrael , to fhew the lawfull government of the Church by Synods. M r Canne therefore doeth not rightly imitate M r Ainfw. in the allegation of thefe Writers. IV. If M r Canne would fee who they be that doe in fpeciall manner offend by reafoning from the lewilh Policie and government , let him Iooke vet better upon the writings of the Brownifts. There he {hall finde not onelv M r Iohnf. (p) Anim- worthily complained of for (p) wrefiinga proportion^ from the Princes of ifrael to the^ M ibid Minifters of the GofidlSox (q) ftreyning too farre in proportioning the authority and 4. ' ' p " power of Elders in the Church with the authority of the Elders the Magiftrates: (0 Ibid p. for (r) matching the power of the Minifiers in Spirituall things with the power oftheMagi- l ?- Jlratein Civill tbings,&c. But there {hall he alfo finde the reft of trie Separation, fo many as doe allow their Confefllon & Apology,pleading from the Jewifh Policie & government to eftablifh & confirme the authority & power of particuIarChur- chesin their adminiftration of fpirituall and Ecclefiafticallcenfures : he {hall finde M r Ainfw. proceeding yet further,not onely to reafon from the Jewiih politie but from an imagined power of the people in Civill judgements ,fuch a power as was not due unto them bv the Law. Thefe errours have I noted & refuted atlarge in (f) Pag.7- the (f) former part of this Treatife. -13- V. Whereas thefe Oppofers doe often alledge that (t) Mofis politie is done away adv p«r& ® ^ogated^ I anfwer , Though the Ceremonies that were fhadowes and figures p. i4,i)-.' of things to come,beabrogatediyettheJudiciallLawes are not wholly boargated, &c. but onely fo much as ferved to eftablifh the Ceremonies, or had a peculiar refpect to the condition of the Jewes>& to that land of promife given unto them. Other- * wife , that part of Mofes Politie which was of common equitv , grounded upon principles of reafon and nature>& ferving for the maintenance of the MorallLaw, tv\ De Po * s perpetuall & not changed. This is {hewed at large by Orthodox Divines. Iu- lit?* Mofis, nius (v) in fpeciall doth manifeft this,both in general! rules and in particular inftan- cap.3. thef. Ces , as i n tne i aw of making battlements upon the flat roofes of their houfesj Veu. ^j«4.i j. US, in the law of notputting to death the childre for the offence of the fathers; Vmu CLASSES AND SYNODS. 37 PM.t4.16. in the law of not admitting one witneffe; Deut.19.15. Thefeand the like Judiciall lawes in the Politie of Mofes are not abrogated. This is like- wife f hewed by that learned W Writer who defending the Government & Difci- (x)GeHbm pline of the Reformed Churches againft D. Downam , declares fuch Judiciall {^ c e e ril t 3, de lawes to be adperpetuam Ecclejia ivjapiav, for the perpetuall good order of the Gubem. Church. Now our prefent controversy is neither about Ceremoniall ordinances* Ecc1 ^ l > nor other Judiciall lawes peculiar to the Jewes, but onely about the liberty of 5% ° Appeales, from one Ecclefiafticall judicatory to another > from the judgement of 3 particular Church unto a Synod Clafllcall, Provinciall , or Nationall. This li- berty of appeales being granted, then a dependency of Churches is granted , and then the (ingle uncompounded Policie is not to be urged upon us. That this li- berty of appeales dependeth upon com mon equity & the light of nature,the p^c- tifeofall ages & nations generally witneffeth unto us. It was the light of nature that taught this law of common equity unto Jethro> Mofes his father in law) approved of God himfelf. Exod. 18.22- -z€. for there (as Iunius interprets the fame) there was a law appointed touching Appeales from fubalterne or fubordinate Judges : (y) That if any matter did either feeme obfcure (y) Analy* unto them [the Judges] that they couldnot determine it, or did appeare hard unto the parties £ x P llc - ln [contending] that they could not reft therein • then they were to betaj^e themfelves unto fu- periour ludges. And againein the fame place,comparing Deut.17. with Exod.iS^ he writes tnat according to the fumme & fubflance of that counfell which Jethro gave? and exillofundamento, Cc. from that ground Mofes here, viz. Deut. 17. defineth the manner of the appealing of parties, (# of confutation to be made by inferiour Judges, when my weighty bujinesjhould be, arifing from the ground of common equity. In like manner G. Bucerus fpeaking of thefe fame judicatories* inferiour & fuperiour s & applying that whkh he had fpoken before in general! , unto this particular ordi- nance) f newest hat (2) the judicatories of the Church at this day are lawfully framed accor- (z) Differ^ ding to the fame forme, and that the reafonis , hecaufeit clearly appear es that this order being de Gubem, anciently inftituted of God <$ moft religiou(ly obferved of the Fathers , did belong onely unto cc ,p " 5 * the good order of the Church and not unto the pcedagogie of the Law , &c and therefore was not to be abolifhed. Againe, it was prophecyed of Chrift and his kingdome, that hjhould deliver the needy when he cryeth ; the poor e alfo and him that hath no helper : that hefhould redeeme their foule from deceit & violence, &c Pfal.y 2.12,14. But if liberty of Appeales be now- taken away by the comming of Chnft; then in refpeft of Ec-efefiafticall govern- ment! confefled to be a part of Chrifts kingdome, the yoke of the Law Ihould be more tollerable, fweet and eafy in this poynt ofappeaIes,then the yoke of-Chrift; for under the Law the poore being opprefled in Judgement by unrighteous Iud- ges in one place, they cryed for help by appealing unto a fuperiour Synedrion , and there found releafe > and fo were redeemed from deceit & violence, but now un- der the Gofpell > if it were as our Oppofites hold , that all fpirituall jurtfdi&ion ' fliould.be limited co a particular Congregation ; then might the afflifted & wron- E--3- . g ed 58 THE POWER OF ged foules cry in vaine & finde no helper, there being no Ecclefiafticall judicato- ry to releeve them and to redeeme their foule from tht deceit and violence of their oppreffburs. We read of Cranmer, the holy Martvr, how that when he was cruelly handled by unrighteous fudges he fought to comfort himfelf by his Appeale from them unto a free Generdl Councell: The forme of his Appeale is exacllv fet downe by him, and he d >ech as it were cry our for it with great vehemencv of words, faying> (a)Toh.Fox. ( a) I defire, thefirjl.thefecond, as if God had ihewed more grace and provided more help for affli&ed foules under the Law > then under the Gofpell ? This erroneous conceit is fo much the more blame-worthy in fbme of the Brownifts , in that when they plead againft the ufurpation and injuftice of Eldersi (b)H.Ainf.they the confrfle this fame thing in effect faving,(b Js it meet that thevjhouldbeludges Animadv. in their owne cafes? In Ifrael when any complained of wrong in the Synagogues or Citiesjhcrc p ' z 1 ' was an higher Court to contro 7 unruly Elders O" to help the opprejfed. But now 1 or j Elders in a Chirclu bearing themfelves upon their forged authority from Mat. 1 8. 1 7.10. may bt^, lawleffe- and who pull let them i>u, their proceedings ? And for proof of this liberty in Jfrael they alledge Deut, 17.8,9. <2 l.Chron.i 9.8,10. And why then cannot M^ Canne endure that I fhould alledge the verv fame Scriptures to a like end? for,is it meet that particular Churches fhould be ludges in their owne cafes? In Ifrael if any complayned of wrong againft a whole Sv nagogue, there was an higher Court to controll unruly & difordred Congregations, and to help thofe that were oppref- fed by them. And (hall now 6 or 7 perfons in a Church (for fometimes there be no more,fpecially in the new erected Churches of Separa; ifts ) (ball t hofe be law- leffe, bearing themfelves upon their forged authority, falfelv collected from Mat, 18? f hall there be no meanes by any Synod or by any fuperiour Ecclefiafticall ju- dicatory to let them in their proceedings? (c)IbiJ. p. Againethev confefle,thatche (O Saints have as much more power andlibertie inthe^ 2 4- Gojpel now,then the Jewes had $ as the heyr when he is ofyeares , hath more then in his child- hood ■ Gal. 4. 1,2,3. And likewife fpeaking of the peoples right then under the (d)ibid.p. L aw an( j urrderthe Magiftrate, thev fav it (d)may hemore, but cannot be lefie now under the Gojpel, where the Church mimftery hath not the power ofMagiftracie over Gods heritage. What is then this libertv that the people have? Jn the offensive controverfies ari- fing and continuing in a Church,the people are either doers of wrong or fufFerers of wrong,either oppreflburs or oppreffed: is it now the right & liberty of oppref- fours , that they in their wrong-doing fhall be exempted from the judgement of any fuperiour Church-government to controll them? and for the oppreUed ; is this their CLASSES AND SYNODS. '& their fory inheritance now under the New Tefhment » that they are deprived of this liberty ofappealing to any other judicatory outofchemfelves, fo astofeek any help therebv ? What is this els but to diffupilh and obfcure the grace of the Gofpcll» and to ihorren the hard of the Lord a s if he did not now ftretch it out as farre > either in mercy for help of the oppt <. (Ted by allowing them the liberty and comfort of appeales , or in judgement for rebuke of oppreffburs, by permitting them to be lawleflfeandfecure without danger of further cenfure after they had once prevayled by an unrighteous proceeding in a particular Congregation ? D.lVhitaker,whom M r Canne often alledgeth and often pervenech contrary to his meaning, is verv pregnant and full in witneffing tnis fame rruech with me, tou- ching the lawfulnes & neceflity of appeales. He favth fa) Trudy appeales areofDi- ^Komr.4 vine and natur all right > and certainly very necejlary in ever^fociety, becaufe of the iniquity or R m°Qu.4, ignorance of many ludges. Otherwifethe innocent perfon jhould be undoneifit were not law- c,2. p.4jo» full to appealefrom an unrighteous fern ence : andfdng many comroverfies doe arifeitz-, caufes (fperfons Ecclejiafiicall, who can deny that the right of Appeales is ofnecejpty to hegr anted? Thus he avouchech that the denyall uf appeales is agai-ft common equityagainft the law of God and the law of nature. D.Rainolds alfo ( f ) agreeth with D. Whit. ^5° nf " in allowing of appeales in Ecclefiafticall caufes. As both of them condemne the ^livXp.' Appeales unto Rome, fo both do grant liberty of Appeales unto Synods. Yea 772.573,'' andall the Arguments generally both of Greekes and.Latines directed againft the appeales made unto the Pope > doe vet referve a liberty of appeale unto Synods. This may be obferved from D. Whit, in his (&) large & ample defence of the Ar- ( g ;DePonr, guments of Nilus the learned Bifhop of TheflTalonica* as he calls him > and in his R0m.Qu.4i maintaining of the Arguments of the Latines alfo. And now if thefe-appeales P-4 6 -&- begranted,then is the queiiion clearly granted and fully veelded unto me : then is 4Sl,8cc * not all fpit ituall jurifditon limited to a particular Church^then are not Churches independent \ then is there a fuperiour Ecclefiafticall power to judge the contro- verfies of particular Congregations out of themfelves; Laftly> though Mr Canne cannot endure that we fhouldfeek to ftrengthen the (hj Lib, ft authority of Synods from the Policie oft he Jewes, vetif he would open his eyes, E P i;t 8 ad he might fee ( befide th/»fe above noted) others alfo arguing in like manner. The rlcb E e ^' ancient Fathers have often argued from the Judiciall ordinances delivered bvMo- ?d Pompon, fes unto Ifrael, yea they ha^e of-en alledged this very place infpeciall,De#M7. to devirgini- fhew thereby the praftife of Chriftians in the New Teftament. Cyprian bjciteth- fc ls » ^ 7 °{ it often, and the like might be obferved in other writings < ft he Fathers. Among Rooat.V. 3 later Wri(ers,the lights of this age, Vrjinus >i) plezdeth from Deut. 17.. tofhewthe 192. authority of the Church, for the excommunication of obftinace fim.ers. Mr Cart- Q?*fe u Wright (k) to {hew what authority Minifters and EccleGafticall Governours have l ^h\[%of now in the New Teftament for the governing ofthe Church » argues from the&Tom.j. Jewifh Policie , and from that EcckGafticalf i'yr/^/'owdefcribed a. Chron. 19. 8, J:|J^ e 11. whichhadpover to judge the caufes ofpaiticuiar Synagogues. 'Dudley fen- p.^.Soj. jwfpeakingofthePrefbytery ingenerall, as it containes under it bothCIafles (k)Fii'ftRel and Synods , as well as the Elderlhips of particular Churches > to fhew the au- Pty r ° D - thority and ufe thereof, among other -places' taken from the Jewifh Policies ™ ltg,2# at- 4<> THE POWER OF (t)S.Theoi. (ij alledgeth this alfo, Deut.iy.y.with Z.Chron.iy.S,! i. ^eppeyuno fhew a divine 2 b '6 7 2 ,7P ' warranc ^ or c ^ e g overnmentot Churches by Synods, (m; alledgeth thefe fame (m) Poiit. places of Scripture, D«tf. 17.8. z.Chron. 19.8. Ruardus Acronius in like manner Ecclef. 1.3. in his treatife (") of the^ Church ofGod&thz^ government thereof, to teach how the c^8. p. 707. more we jghty controverfies were to be brought from Synagogues and from parti- (n/ap. 7. cular Congregations unto greater AiTemblies, he alledgeth out of the Judicial! withc.ij. lawes of Mofes this fpeciall place, Deut.iy=S-&c. To omit many other,how is it that M r Canne doth fo much forget the pra&ife of his owne Se& ? Is it not their manner frequently to alledge the ordinances of the Jewifh Policie,to ftrengthen and conrirme that power of the Church and that order of government that is maintained and pra&ifed by them of the Separation i Their Confetflon and Apology is full of fuch reafonings. But inftead of the reft* confider we at this time the writings of H. Barrow , who to prove the duety of the fo) H.Rarr. Church (oj alledgeth this place , Deut. 17. 8, then others were under Mofes in the Old. THefe things being duely considered » it may hereby alfoappeare howvaine thatis,which M r Dav.excepteth concerning appeales , or the bringing of caufes unto Claffes. Touching that which I had favd upon another occafion from Deut. 17.8. with i.iz. & z.Chron. 19.8.9,10. he excepts as followeth. (r) Apol. I. D a v. ( r ) The pretended reafon, &c. will not help him in the cafes queftioned , unlefft Repl.p. 2 1 7 he can prove, I. That the Clafies are of the fame ufe by Divine infitutionfor the help of Fa- fours which have the ajfihance of their Elderfiip , whereof that judicatory was for the help of Mofes, O'c. An s v v. 1. Obferve how M r Dav. being an Accufer , and an Ad- vocate of accufers > inftead of bringing any proof to juftify the accufations , calls upon me for proof of that eftabliihed order of government, fo long enjoyed in thefe countries. 11. Seing it appeareth that the order of Ecclefiafticall govern- ment prefcribed Deut. 17. & z.Chron.19. was for the fubftance of it no part of the Ceremoniall law , but of common and perpetuall equity, and that the power of Clafles for the receiving of appeales & judging the caufes of particular Churches was CLASSES AND SYNODS. 4l was included therein ; it is thence alfo manifeft that the power & author ity exer- cifed by Clafles & Synods is therefore of Divine inftitution for the fame ufe,frora the fame grounds of holy Scripture, ni. Whatreafonhadheindefcribingthe ufe of CJafTes to mention this oneiy > that they were for the helpofPajlours , feing both they & thofe judicatories, Deut.iy. 2.Chron.i$. were for the help & benefit of every member of the Synagogues then and the Churches now, as well as for thehelpofPaftours? iv. WhatreafonhadhealfoinfpeakingofPaftoursnow, to adde thefe words>wbkhhave the affiance of their Elder jhip&'mg in theSvnagogues anciently their Paftours & Teachers had the afliftance of an Elder! hip,and Rulers of the Synagogue,as well as now. I. Day. It is to be proved If. That the caufes in quefiio*.,, which he carry ed from the Conjijioyy to the Clafts.are of the fame nature with thofe caufes between Mood & Uood,be- tween law & commandemem,Jlatutes & judgements , which were deferred to the Levites, the Pwfts t &c. Answ. i. It is here alfo to be noted ,howinfteadofdifproving that which I fayd, and inftead of (hewing any diffirailitude of the queftion brought unto the CIaffis,from thofe brought unto the judicatories , Deut.17. z.Chron io. he leaves his accufation without proof. 1 1. As for the proof he requires,it is molt plaine and evident from the places alledged: for in them it is manifeft , that about whatfoever caufe there was any ftrife or contention in Ifrael , it might be brought unto the judicatories there mentioned. All Ecclefiafticall affaires, all matters 0$ the Lord, were to be brought unto the Ecclefiafticall Senate,over which Amariah wasPrefident : All Civill affaires , aU matters of the ^ing, weretobe brought unto the Civill judgement,over which Zebadiah was Prefident. 2. Chron. 19. 11. And what controverfy can there be in any Church or Eftate that may ikk be reduced to one of thefe? lunius in his expofition of thefe places (0 plaine- (f) Anal. Jy dilhnguifheth thefe caufes & queftions on this manner. Againe , whereas, 2. E*pl*Ai!. okZ'J \l : I rf L IO * lh l re [ S eXpre(re a " d ^, enera11 mention of an y c **te whatfoever^'lT^ Judgements, I would demand of M^Dav. what caufe can be excepted or exemp- ^ tedfromthefe,udicatories? Was there ever any controverfy or any contention in any Church , which hath not reference to fome Law or Commandemmt * And ^^^ fhi ^f m S? 6 d ^P u ^s, pretends ^ Law and Commandemem againft us,doe not thefe queftions therefore , being of fuch nature , belong unto fSZ\ 7 ' ZX m l I 9-^dmtha\lfccmgthecaufesinqueftion i e'c. have bene *^i^S and caufes taken from the ^toords of Chriji ,Matth.i%. 15-20.. THe fecond Argument is taken from that Rule of Difcipline, delivered by Chrift unto his Difciples, for the government of his Church in the New Teftamenr, Mat.i 8- 15,16,17, 18, 19,20. From this rule we may reafon divers waves, and chiefly thus: If chis Rule of Chrift be the fame that was prefcribed unco Ifrael of old, and be tranflated from the Jewes Synagogues unto the Chrifti- an Churches ; then are not thefe Churches independent , then are they not fingle uncompounded policies, then isnotallEcclefiafticall jurifdittion limited vuthin tfee compafTe of particular Congregations , then cannot appeales unto fuperiour judicatories be juftly denyed. But the rlrft is true. Therefore the fecond alfo. The AiTumptionofthis Argument is denyed bv many kindesofoppofites. H. (a) Refut. BM r °w cry es out againft it *, 00 Is it likely or poffible that our Saviour Chrift would fetch of Giff.p. his patternefor the Elders of his Church & the execution ofthef^ high judgements from that 7 5 » corrupt degenerate Syncdrion of the learn, which by the inftitution of God was merely Civilly andnot ordained for caufes Ecclefiafticall, as appear eth Exod. 1 8 . Num. \ i . Deut. l . the— Priefts bearing the charge & having the deciding of all Ecclefiafticall caufes: Num. 1 8 .Deut . 1 7. But this Councellcfiheirswas now mixed of the Elders of the people and thePriefts, £T handled all caufes, both Civill £T Ecclefiaflicall indifferently. Matt. 2,6. 5 . Aft.^.% . How unjuftly and ungodly they dealt, may appeare by their handling our Saviour and his Apoftles from time to time. Now as their is no likenes to colleft thefe fur mifes from that place , fo is there no one circumftancein that Scripture to lead thereunto. ,'b) Anim- Mr Ainfworth would perfwade that (b) -Chrift s dofirinc in Matt. 18.1 S-isamwruh aJv.n.18. which Ifrael had not : and thinks it would be good for men to yeeld unto this perfvafion. Mr Smith , that declined unto Anabaptifme , fpeaking of the order obfei ved in (c)Parall. theold Teftament,favth, (c) The Lord did not then require men to proceed with theirbre far Sea *8. threninthree degrees of admonition, andfo to bring them to the acknowledgment of their finm p, 7) -, ' and repentance : Thatisthe Lords difpenfation for the new Teftament. Butthe Lords order for thofe times was 1 . reproof for finne, Lev. 1 9.17. z. Thepartie reprooved was to offer afacrifice, which if he did he was cleanfedfrom hisfinn: vifiblu, Levit. 4.23 . 3 . If the wil- fully refufed to hearken, he was to be promoted to the Ma?jftrate, and put to death for his pre- Jumption^ . Numb. 1 ? .3 0,3 1 . Deut. 17.1a. This was the Lords ceconomiefor thofe times : when this order was violated, then all communion was defiled - 3 whiles it was obferved , all was well in the viftble communion. Let any man declare the contrary if he be abUrp\\ us he chal- lenged all men in the confidence of this opinion , that Chrift gave a new rule, (d) Axtert. Mr Jacob fpeaking of this rule , Mat.1%. fayth , (d) The lewifli Church-government c. 8 .p. 278 . canm fa ij ere a u U( i ec i umo muc ] ) i e jf e re q u i na t0 fa kept & praBifed by Chriftians. Con- cerning which together with all other Iewifh ordinances , the Apoftle teacheth and confirmeth unto us that all thofe old things are parted awav, and that all things (offuch nature) un- der CLASSES AND SYNODS* 43 itr the Gofieti, are mack new : 2, Cor. 5.17. and that the fame things aye lhakenand changed and remaine not now unto us. Heb> \z.zj. TWTOwon the contrary toihew the truethof the Affumptionagainftthefeand £ IN the like denyals thereof, and to prove that Chrift gave no new Rule,butthe very fame for fubftance which was given formerly to the Jewes ; let us confider it in the feverall parts thereo£,& fo by indu&ion from them demonftrate that which is affirmed by us. In that Rule of Chrift, Mat. 18. 1 5--20. we have defcri- bedtous, x. Three degrees of admonition, z, A cenfure upon contempt of ad- monition, g. A confirmation of that cenfure. The firfi degree of admonition is moft private , betwixt the perfon admonjfhing and the perfon offending alone , verf. 15. This is no new commandement , but taught of old, both generally in the equity of the Law, to love our neighbour as ourfeives, Liv.19.18. and more fpecially, toihew this love by admonition,inthe iebukeoffinne ,£^.19.17. and that with fecrecy. Prov. 11. 13. & 25.9. And further, as Chrift defcnbes the perfon offending by the name okzbrother, to fhew in what loving manner this duety was to be performed to him 5 fa\ ing, If thy brother finne againfl thee, &c. fo h ad Mofes do ne before,T/;o« jhalt not hate thy brother in thint beart,&c. As Chrift requires not onely a fimple telling of the fault,but a * convincing * \\%y» of the offendour: fo had Mofes taught Ifrael before , * thoroughly to reprove or con- y vince, and not to fuffer llnne upon a brother. Mat. 18. 15. with Lev. 19. 17. As Z ^* Chrift in the fame place to encourage unto this duety, propounds the winning of a * *? ~ brother ; fo the Lord in the old Teftament, f hewes how the fruit of the righteous k a*™ tocfc* tree of life, and how the wife doe winntfoules. Prov. 1 1.30. Thus farre it was no *&• new rule . T he fecond degree of admonicion was with witneiTes : If he heare thee not, take with thee one or two more , that in the mouth of two or three witneffes every word may be eftablifhed. Mat.i8>i6. ThisisexprefTelytakenfrom& grounded upon the Policie of Mo- fes, who prefcribed the fame order for Ifrael. Deut . 19.15. Hitherto therefore it is the fame rule. The thirddegree of admonition was by the Church, being complained unto and told of the offence. Mat.iS. 17. This admonition was alfo obferved in Ifrael,whe as the Church)Or thofeEcdefiafticallGovernours which represented theChurch* either in Synagogues,or (as occafion required) infuperjour Judkatories,did teach, informe , and admomjh offenders , before they gave fentence of their obftinacy and preemption. Deut. 17. 9,10,1 1. z.Chron. 19. 10. Herein likewife the fame rule was prefcribed. And the word thus duely fpoken in his place , or * on thewkeeles * m^ of order, in divers degrees of admonition, that it might runne and prevayie » was v phnatu like apples of gold in pitlures offilver. Prov.2$. II. I he cenfure which followed upon the contempt of thefe admonitions was Ex- communication, or rejection of the obftinate offender. Mat.i 8. 17. This was no new kinde of cenfure, feeing Excommunication was alfo an anqent ordinance, a part of that Ecclefiafticall Policie under the old Teftament; yea'defcribed by the fame phrafe o£cuttingojf(Exod.iz.j^. Num. 15.30,31* ) which is alfo ufedin the Gofpeil of Chrift. Gat. 5, 1 2. As in Ifrael they had a cenfure offeparating from F 1 the 44 THE POWER OF the Congregation; Eya. 10.8. Co in the newTeftament, in an equivalent phrafej the like judgement was fignifyed, by denouncing fome to be accurfed 1 anathema, or feparate from the Church of God. Gal, 1.9. And even in this text> Mat. 18. 17. the cenfure of excommunication being defcribedbv declaring men to be as Heathens <& Publicanes , there is not onely amamfeft allufion and refpeft unto the e- ftateofthe Jewes,butacomandement of the fame order for avoyding the obfti- nate, by denying civill communion , of eating & drinking with excommunicatest as they did unto the Publicanes; Mat. 9.11. LM^.15.2. and both religious & civill communion, both in publick& private, as they did unto the Heathen: A&..\i.z> $ . & 21.28,29. neither could this rule be well underftood without knowledge of the prefent pra&ife of the Jewes in this behalf. The confirmation of this cenfure, is defcribed in the rule of Chrift , by a threefold teftimony and promife. 1 . That this judgement of the Church given on earth fhould be ratifyed in heaven, eir her for binding or loofing, Mat. 1818. Andfo JVlofes fetting life and death > blefTmg and curling , the judgements of God before Ifrael, calles heaven & earth to record for confirmation, tobinde them to reve- rence thofe ordinances of God. Deut.$ 0.19. #4.26. 1. AsSolomon, under the Law, at the building of the Temple, did by his prayer conrlrme Ifrael in hope of having their prayers to afcend from earth to heaven; i.iC^g.8.30,31,32. fo Chrift here promifeth that the prayers of thofe which agreed touching any thing on earth, (hould be granted in heaven, verf. 19. 3 . As lofaphat for the eftablilh- ment of the Iudaicall Policie > encouraged the Iudges with the promife of Gods prefence & afliftance ; that the Lord would be with them in the matter of judgement, that the Lord would be with the good : 2. Chron. 19.6,1 1. fo here Chrift to encourage his fervancs in the obfervation of this order promifeth his prefence, to beinthe midfl of two or three gathered together in his name.vcrf.lo* Thus it appeareth from the enumeration of all the feverall parts of this rule* compared with the ordinance of God in the oldTeftament, that this is no new rule. Though there were many other Ceremoniall and temporary ordinances in the Law, for the purging of finne and uncleannes : yet fo farre as concernes this Rule, Mat.iS. there is no new order prescribed herein; here is nothing fpecifyed which was not taught before. EVen thofe witnefles > before alledged by M r Canne , and before him by M r Ainfw. doe teftify the fame : they and others , the moft excellent fervants of God , the ftarres of the Churches , fubfcribing unto this trueth, and bearing wit- neffe with us unto this interpretation of Scripture , and arguing divers wayes for the authorityofGlaires& Synods from this place, Mat. 18. and fpecially in this refpe&jthat it was no new rule. Calvine fpeaking of this rule and oftheEcdefiafticall jurifdidtion prefcribed (e) Inftit. therein , fayth plainly > ( e ) Chriftus nihil hie novum inflituit^&c. Chrift here injlituted li 4£. iJUjf no new thing - 3 but followed the cuflome alwayes obferved in the ancient Church of his owne na- 2 * 4 ' tion : whereby hefigmfyedthat the Church could not want the Jpirituall jurifdiEtion-, which had bene from the beginning, tyc. And this he alfo applvesunro the jurifdi&ion ex- q § Ib i Jc ' errifedin Synods, when he writes , ( f ) If it h demanded what tb* authority of Synods is from 11. S-J". CLASSES AND SYNODS. 45 from the Scriptures , there is no clearer promife extant then in this fentence of Chrift fWherz^ two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midft of them. Mat. 1 8. 20. p Againe in his expofition of thofe words, Tell the Church, he faith (g) The quae- (g) Harra, j>ftionis, what he meanes by the name of the Church, for Paul commands that ? t vang o in ? » the inceftuous Corinthian f hould be excommunicated, not by any choyfe num- at< 5 ? ber but by the whole company of the godly, i. Cor. 5.5,6. and therefore it might r> feeme probable that the judgement is here referred unto all the people. But j? becaufe there was then no Church which had given the name unto Chrift , nor n fuch a manner appointed , but that the Lord fpeakes as of an ufuall and received „ Cuftome;there is no doubt but that he alludes "unto the order of the oldChurchj ? » even as in other places alfo he applyes his fpeech unto the knowne cuftome,&c* i9 So therefore he now had refpeft unto the forme of difcipline which was recei- ved among the Jewes : becaufeit would have bene abfurd to propound the ,> judgment of a Church which'yet was not. Moreover feing the power of ex- >, communication among the Jewes, was now in the Elders which reprefented ,>the perfon of the Church, Chrift fitly fayth that thofe which had offended „fhouId then at length be brought publickly to the Church, if either proudly j, they contemned orfcurriloufly reje&ed private admonitions. We know that j, from the time that the Jewes returned out of the captivity of Babylon, the cen - ,, fare of manners and of do&rine was committed to that chofen Councell which >r they called Sanhedrin, and in Greek Hwiog/w, This government was Iawfull » & approved of God, and this was the bridle to keep in order the froward & un- tra&able. Thushathhe fully exprefledhimfelf> that this commandement of Chrift, M*m8. is no new rule > but taken from the Eccleiiafticall Policie of the Jewes. Be^ain like manner confirmeth this interpretation, faying , (h) This power &ju~ (h) Anno?, rifdiclion was in thofe which arc^ therej 'ore called, A'wKrvvdydoy 01 , Rulers of the S.inMat, Synagogue , Mark. 5.Z2. & 'an example of this cufiome is found, loh. cy.ZZ. & 12.42. l %--}7* &c. And fpeakingof this word Church , mentioned Mat. 18. (he fayth , ) It 9 > is to be obferved that they doe foulelyerre which would prove from this place „that all things are to be referred unto the afiembly of the whole multitude. ,, They fay the name of Church is never otherwife taken : which from this very 5 > place is convinced to be falfe. for certainly it appeares that thefe things are fpo- 3 , ken as of the Jewes, at leaft from this which he addeth, Let him be unto thee as „ an Heathen and Publicane. But all writers- of thefe things doe terrify that the 5, judgements of thefe matters among the Jewes were in the Elders, and that the 3 , whole multitude of the people was not alwayes wont to be aflembled. And cer- sjtainly unleffe Chrift had applyed his whole fpeech unto the cuftorneofhis ,, times, who could have underftood whathefpoke? Afterwards againe in the fame place he addeth this , Sed doteo AriftocratiamChriftianam non effe novum aliquod inftitutum , (fc. I teach that the Chriftian government of the Church by an Elderjkip is no ■ new inftitution, &c. no new rule. ; TiiWBtakzr to prove the authority of Synods, brings warrant & evidence , not F i^ ondy^ 4 6 THE POWER OP (i) Com.3. onelyfrom the newTeftament, but alfo (*) from the Churehof Ifrael and from deconc.qu. t h e Ecclefiafticall Policie of the Jewes before Chrift,in the times of David,Eze- Concu!"*! kiaS| * ^ as & 0t ^ ier 8°^y P" nces » by which it appeares that he held this part of lV i y , ' Church-government not to be a new ordinance> but a praftife common both to Jewiih & to Chriftian Churches. And befides,from this very place, Mat.i2. he drawes a double warrant for Synods : firft from the commandementi given to Pe- ter as well as to others, to tell the Church, verf. 17. from thence he argueth againft (k) ibid.de the Papifts,that the Pope may be judged of a Councell. ( k ) If (faith he) every par- Concil.qu. ticular Church hath greater authority in judgement, then Jfeter or any particular man; then i6o\ -o muc ^ mon ^ n wwpfdl Church,which is reprefented in agenerall Councell or Synod. Herein he is directly oppofite to our oppofers, who grant a power of jurifdi&ion to a par- ticular Church, but none to any Synod whatfoever , further then to counfell and (fl) Ibid, direft. Againe he 0) argueth from the promife of GhriR,Mat.i 8. Where twoor gu. 1 .c.3 . three are met together in my name there am I in the midfl of them , & applyes that fentence to the maintenance & allowance of Synods, particular or general!. Junius in like manner , as he is plentifuli in giving allowance unto the authority of Synods, fo he derives this authority from this place , Mat. 18. both from the (m) Anim- (m) commandement of telling the Church , verf. 17. and from the (n) promife made j ad r ^ in Bel - unto Ecclefiafticall affemblies, to be in the midfi of them, verf 20. while he allowes ConciU.2. tnat promife alledged by others to be a juft ground thereof, though he adde other c;io.art.8. warrant alfo. And further, fpeaking of the Councell or Ecclefiafticall Senate, (n) ibid. in h e f hewes what reference it had unto the Policie or government of the JewilhSy- (o)Ecdefi- nagogues; he faith, That which Co) the Church of the lewes called the Synagogue^ , that aft.I. 2,c3. Chrift in like manner called the Church in that place , Mat. 18. for as the Synagogue or Ec- clefiafticall Counfell was a certaine Epitome of the Church, fo alfo is the Preflytery. MrCartwright above many other is very pregnant in giving plaineteftimony, that this rule of difcipline is no new ordinance, and this for that part of the rule in fpeciall which is moft controverfall. He difpudng about the interpretatio of Mat, (p)Firft „ 18. faith, (p) It is commanded of our Saviour Chrift, that in fuch a cafe when a whuop ' " brother doth not profit by thefe two warnings, it fhould be told the Church. 176/iiFt'z. » Now I would aike who be meant by the Church here: if he fay by the Church „ are meant all the people, then I will alke how a ma can conveniently complaine ,, to all the whole congregations how can the whole congregatio conveniently „ meet to decide of this matter. I doe not deny,but the people have an intereft in „ the excommunication , as (hall be noted hereafter; but the matter is notfofarre „ cornejhe muft firft refufe to obey the admonitio of theChurch,or ever they can „ proceed fo farre. Well, if it be not the people that be meant by theChurch,who is it? The Ihewing that by theChurchone perfon alone cannot be meant, he conclu- „ des; Seeing then that the Church here is neither the whole congregatio>nor the , , Paftour aione,it followeth that by theChurch here he meaneth thePaftour with , , the Ancients or Elders.Or elfe whom can he meane? And as for this manner of ,, fpeech,wherein by theChurch is underfunded the cheef governours & Elders of „ the Church,it is oftentimes ufed in the old Teftamecfrom the which our Savi- our borowed this manner of fpeaking.For inftances he aIledgeth,E.vo.4.Z9>30.Io/. 20<4> CLASSES AND SYNODS. 47 2a4»6. i.Chr. i I.24.&C. After this he is yet more plaine in refpeft of the cenfure, „ faying,(q) Now that this charge of excommunicato belongeth not unto one>or fa) Ibid « P» „ to the Minifter,but cheerly to theElderf hip &Paftour,it appeareth by that which 3 * » the authors of the Admonitioalledge out ofS.Matth.c. 1 8. 1 7-which placel have ,, proved before to be ne cedar ily underftanded of the Elders of the Church. And further in the fame place, It may be the clearlyer underftanded that the Prefbv- » rery or Eiderfhip, had the cheef ftroke in this excommunication, if it be obfer. j, ved that this was the Polity or difcipline of the Jewes, and of the Synagogue^ >, from whence our Saviour Chrift took this , and tranflated it unto this Church; » that when any man had done any thing that they held for a fault , that then the >, fame was punif hed & cenfured by the Elders of the Church , according to the >, quality of the fault, as it may appeare in S. Matthew, ch. 5.22.&C. A little after „ he addes , And if the fault were judged very great,then tfhe fentence of Excom- >, munication was awarded by the fame Elders, as appeareth in S.Iohn , cha.y. 22. » And this was the caufe why our Saviour Chrift fpake To fhortly of this matter >, in the i& of S.Matthew , without noting the circumftances more at large ? for >, that he fpake of a thing which was well knowne and ufed amongft the Jewes j, whom he fpake unto. To the fame purpofe he writes in his anfwer to the Rhemifts , where fpeaking of the Governours of the Church, which were fet over every feverall afiembly in 5, the time of the Law , he faith , (*) Thofe governing Elders are divers times in ( r j confer* >, theftory of the Gofpell made mention of under the title of the Rulers of the Sy- of Rhem. ' » nagogue. And this manner of government , becaufe it was to be tranflated unto w anfl, ° n g 5 » the Church ofChrift under the Gofpell, our Saviour by the order (at that pre- aM "'* ' » lent ) ufed amongft the Jewes , declared what after Ihould be done in his „ Church. Neither doth he fpeak thefe things touching the Elderf hips of particularCon- gregations onely, but applyes the fame unco Clafllcall & Synodall Prefbyteries al- io, and doth allow of appeales unto them , and thereby acknowledged a depen- dency of Churches mutually one upon another. It is to be obferved here (fayth „ he) (0 that both in this part of the Difcipline , vi%. touching excommunication , and (0 Fir ® >,alfo in all other parts of it (as I have {he wed) as in harder and difficultercaufes, ^itep^* ,» things were referred unto the Synods Provincial! , Nationall or Generall , as ig 7 \ 3 , the cafe required: fo if the Elders of any Church -(hall determine any thing con- >, trary to the word of God, or inconveniently in any matter that falleth into their » determination , the parties which are greevedmay have recourfe for remedy* ! }> unto the Elders and Paftours of divers Churches* that is to fay, unto Synods of 3, Shires, or Diocefes, or Provinces, or Nations , of as great or of as fmall com- 9, paflfe as ifoall be thought convenient by the Church, according to the difficulty ,, or weight of the matters, which are in controverfy. Which meetings ought to >, be as often as can be conveniently, not onely for the decifion of fuch difficulties >, which the feverall Prefbyteries cannot fo well judge of, butalfo to the end that ivcommo counfell might be take for the beft remedy of the vices or incommodi- 91 ties* which either the Churches be in 3 or in danger to be in, And as thofe things which 4 S THE POWER OF „ which cannot be decided by the Elderfhip of the Churches are to be refer ved „ unto the knowledge of fome Synod of a Shire or Diocefe : fo thofe which for „ their hardnes cannot be there decided, muft be brought into the Synodes of » larger compaffe, as I i have (hewed to have bene done in the Apoftles times, and 9) in the Churches which followed them long after. And thus it appeares that according to the order and praftife of the Jewes under the Law , he allowes and maintained a liberty of appeales for parties greeved, and a fuperiour judicatory above particular Churches > an ufe of Synods not onely for counfell but for deci- fion of controverfies,for cenfuring of offenders even unto excommunication, ac- cording to divers inftances thereof given by him in the precedent pages, of which more is to be fayd hereafter. Mr framrfi agreeth fully wich theformer,and witneffeth plainly that the Rule of Chrift , Mat. i8» is no new rule, but taken from the Jewifh Policie , and this both in refpeft of the perfons judging , called the Church , and in refpeft of the cenfure&fentence of excommunication there deferibed. Forthefirft, hefayth> (t) Eccief, ,,fpeakingofthea(Tembly of Elders , CO In Mat, 18. our Saviour calleth them by ? il e$ l ' P# " c ^ e name °^ c ^ e Church, becaufe they rule and governe Church matters under if i>. » tne name and authority of the Church. So likewife the name of all the Aflem- i, bly, by Mofes is given to the Elders of the Jewes -, that is to fay, unto certaine • , chofen & picked out men who were afflgned by all the Congregation to the go- „ vernment of the affaires. Thus plainly it is taken in NumbJi. where the Lord ,, appointeth the Congregation lhall lay hands upon the Levites : but I think na ,, man will fay this is to be underftood of all the congregation , that fo many thou- s, fands f hould lay their hands upon them, as are rehearfed then to have bene in the 9, hoft of Ifrael , but the Elders and Princes onely as Abm E^ra doth rightly inter- 9,pretit. Which is to be noted the rather, becaufe fome will have the word of 9, our Saviour to be expounded ofall the Church,whereasaccording to the mar- iner of fpeaking which the Hebrewes ufe, the Confiftory or Councell of the 3 , Church is called the Church: Where" alfo it is to be obferved that together 9, with the name, the thing it felf is tranflated from the Jewes unto us : that looke 9 , what a Councell the Jewes ufed for the government of the Church, we ought „ to underftand by this name that fuch a one is appoynted by our Saviour to be u- 99 fed in the Church. Therefore in the fame place he attributeth to this Coun- „ cell the chief government ofall Church matters ; that all fuch things as cannot 9, otherwife be agreed and ended be at the laft brought unto them, and ended by 9, their authority & judgement. As for the fecond , the cenfures of the Church , having fpoken before of Suf* (v) ibid. p. penfion and proceeding to fpeak of Excommunication, he faith , (vj This part of 9Z ' j, EccIeGafticall cenfure, as alfo the firft, were tranflated unto us from the Jewes; 9, for the Church of Chrift in all this matter of Difcipline hath received all her 9, lawes & decrees from the Jewes : for as it hath bene Ihewed before, it is plaine 9, & manifeft that our Saviour in Mat. 18. 17. alluded to the manner of the Jewes, 3j becaufe that otherwife his fpeechfhould have bene very obfeure, and fuchas ,9 no man had bene able to underftand. But this appeareth moll manifeftly by the ex- CLASSES AND SYNODS. 4s> „ excommunication of the blind man in the 9. of John, &c. And further, that which he fay th concerning the government of a particular Churcrnhe extends aU jo unto the (x) Synods for the governing of more Churches, of which there fhall ™P* be more occafion to fpeakeagaine hereafter. s8, MrFenturio _hts Comterpoyfon touching the certaine forme ofEcclefiaflicall go- vernment, declares himfeif to be of the fame minde , viz. that the Rule of Chrift, Ecelefiafitcall Preflwm Jpeaketh according to the lewes ,for otherwise the Apoftles could » Regita, not have mderfioodhm^hen he fayd, Tell the Congregation, or Church, which m*-* 9 ' themle thengiven unto the Ecclejiafticall Senate ; andhiswords ofhavmg asaPublicane & Heathen, doe manifeftly prove he meant to fpe.i\accordingto their cuhome, &t. And therefore alfo 10 his M generall defcription of a Pre'byterie comprehending under m s T he Churr h L t e h, g FM r r en V° f 77 Ch u mcheS , b * > ods ' a S of one particular lii"." £hl h, ,u h W^ th f. Cof ' O fo ^ he P' oof aDd warrant of on e as wellas the P- *»* ,r^, r J gh T m c MKa he f ",? "? s that Chrift in hisChurch hath appointed a more ferved »?« derforren ?°«a 1 l of lefle offences, then that which the Phar.feeTob! finned ■'?! T"^ **& *&P* erroneous g lo(I "«> condemning groffer finals murders.and negleaing lefler tranfgrefllons fyetfor theforme of the Ju- dicacorie he declares that it was fuch an one Is the former Writers doe wffito have bene taken from the Jewes Policy , when as he thus defcribeth »2 , , S»"*b'ft*>' (or * beares the iplace )ofthe whole Congregation, iscalledof Chrift hilfelf t?S h t « ^»f °u Senate °f cma!m ch °fo> P-fint. And for ouX fl # anH rnnfi m gathe ?f r ° m u th ^ hi 5 «P ofiti °". " was no new rule , but 2 /3t/ '^- M? p! T^ ° f u hat Wh ' Ch had bene 0f old P r£fc " bed un H> Ifrk a «. * JMrP^rforthe maintenance of CiaffesandSynods whereby manvDarticubr Churches are combined & united together.argues alfo from K| JdrtL »f ter a double manner, for firft, tolhew withall that th" SK^erand forme of combination doth confift in a mutuall obligation of Churches , wfthout fobfeffi S'| rU e ° rdom i" ion ° f a ™ «* ' "e reafons thus (b Leusg^fel to ft* toMtame of combmatton which (as Ghamiems faith well) is fomimMat ThcZeml^ 11 ^ ^^ofmutuaUcotfentinotoi.dyforconnfeU&^ift^r^KS- Q ft. so THE POWER OF Turing 8c judging of their offences,and this without fuperiority of one member a- bove another ; fo by the like bondofmutuall confent many Churches are alfo u- nited*not onely for counfelhbut for the mutuall cenfuring & deciding of one ano- thers caufesi and this without fuperiority of any one Church above the reft. O- therwife alfo how could he have applyed thefe things as he doth , for the de- fence of the Reformed Churches , wherein fuch authority of Clafles and Synods is exercifed ? Secondly» whereas D. Whitgift 8c others difpute againft the ClafTes & Prefby- teries of Scotland & the Low-countries, where the faults and caufes of particular Churches are judged & cenfured, and afke for Scripture to prove and juftify fuch an order of government ; M r Parker in defence of them,befides other anfwers & [ c l, P f "' proofes alledges this place, Matt. i8. for the warrant thereof, and fayth, (c) This *£». Is - C P rocee ^ n i>f rom an EMwJhip to a Clajfts,from a Claps to a Synod, is founded in the infti- tution of Chrift, Matt. 18.17. by proportion on this manner. He commands that from the admonition of one being defpifed men proceed unto the admonition ofttvo or three-jfthat be con- temnedunto thecenfureof the Elderfoipjf that be defpifed unto the cenfure of the whole Church: therefore why not from one whole Church unto many in a CUjfis , <2 againe from many in a Clajfismto yet more in a Synod ? And having layd this juft foundation he reprooves the oppofites further from the confetflo of fome of them contradi&ing the other, (d]Ibidem. (d) Both Sutlive & Downam doe imerpret the Church , Mat. 1 8. to be either a Confiftory or a Synod. Behold therefore by the judgement even of Hierarchicall men themf elves , a mani- fefl commandement of Chriftfor Clajftcall ajj'emblies. for what r Is not the Clajfts a cer* taine kjnde of Synod ? Zjpperus having fpoken of the Ecclefiafticall Policie or government in the Ju- (e) Polir. daicall Church, f hewes how the fame was continued, when he fayth, (e) Tim ad- i"p 198 C * mini ft mion ofEcclefiafikall difcipline Chrift alfo eft ablifhed and made to be perpetually ipj' Mat. 18. 15.&C Gerfom Bucerus , that excellent and worthy fervant of God , who hath given Co full an anfwer to D. Downam , in defence of the Difcipline pra&ifed in the Re- formed Churches, is as full in this poynt, that the Rule of Chrift, Mat.iS. is no (f) Differt. nevv ru i et He maintaineth that ( f j the forme of the facred Politic in the new Te- Ecd m8z ftament,ought to be framed according to the manner of the Jewes Politic To (g) ibid.p. this end he (s) brings the teftimony of many learned Writers, witneffing with him 48 • unto the fame trueth. Philip Melanchthon, as he is there alledged by him , f he wing what order of Dif- (h)P.Mell.cipline wasappoyntedby Chrift,in thofe words, Te!l the Church, Mtf. 18. fayth, ( h ) coment.in fj m CH j} ome was not fir ft infthuted of the Mejfias , but was the old manner of the Levhicall 1 }*'* Priefts, who in their place maintained the difcipline by fuch judgements , though they had alfo other Polhicall judgements punijhments. (i) Hypom. Viftorinus Strigelius, cited alfo by him,fpeakes in like manner , (i) ^A new forme of Mat! iV. ln j u dg emm * » not infiituted in this place, but the old manner is repeated,deliveredfrom thefirfi (k) Arg\m. fathers , the fteps whereof have alwayes remained in the Church. &c. & Kefp. Pe^el'im having expreffed the forme of Government in Ifrael , writes thus, ( k ) 1 h %°^ n ' ^According to this example of the old Politie, almofi the fame order of judgements was hep* 7 ' in CLASSES AND SYNODS. 51 in the navTeflament.&c. Mufculus (l) , & Aretius (m), are likewife brought in by him as deriving & defcri- (I) Loc.cS. bins the Discipline of che Church , Matth. x8. from the manner of the Jewifh ? e % cL ^I« o (ra.Froble. Synagogue. Tom.z.ioc Bucanus 2lfo defcribing this Difcipline > favth, fo) Cbrijl hath exprejfely appointed deExcom.' this order tranflated unto stsfrom the Church oflfrael. And againe,(o) C/^/J* doth not de- (n)Loc.co ? fcribe a temporary but a perpetuall order of bit Church, Mat. 18.17. where following the cu- rjfctpi^u, ftome that had bene dm ayes obferved in the ancient Church of the lewes, hejfignifyed that the 12. Church cannot want thatfiiritualljurifdiBion, which had bene from the beginning. (°) Ibi & And left any fhould blame us , that we feeme to be drawne with the judgement qu '"' and confent of late Writers, the fame (p) GerfomBucerus doth alfo alledge divers of ( p \ DiiTem the ancient Writers , as (q) Ambrofe, (t) Theodoret , (Q CyriU , (t)'Gregorius Magnus , de Gub.Eo agreeing with us that the Church of the new Teftament fucceeding the Church ^ f,p 49 * of the Jewes bach borrowed from thence the forme of her Politie , and the order ^ j i n I# ofjurifdi&ion. And to thefe I might adde many other, but that I have further Tim. ?» occafion to doe it hereafter,in anfwering the objections from the perverted Tefti- £) ln u 1 1 r »ii err ° litn.4- monies both of new & old Waters. ^ in loan, It is not here to be omitted, that Mr lohnfon, Paftour of the Separates , who 1.6. cap. 20, had bene a principall inftrument in oppugning this interpretation of Matt.1%. by (O 1 ^ 2 ^ whofe writings many had bene confirmed in their oppofition againft us, hath yet c ^' ' before his death, after long experience and consideration , confefled his errour in this poynt,and a in peculiar Treatife publickly revoked the fame. And though in other poynts touching the order of government prefcribed in Matt.18. he came not to the cleare fight of the trueth,yet thus farre he hath f hewed his confent with the former Writers, faying, (vj Note here,tkat if Chrift now had given a new B^ule of go- (v) Expof. vernment that Ifraelbad not, the Difciples to whom it wasfpoken , could not have ttnderftood°^ tA ^ a it by thefe words, which were according to the lewes received phrafe 1st praSlife:and the Phari- l '' * fees & other advevfaries of Chrift would have beneglad , if they could have hadfuch an excep- tion againfi Chrift, that he had taught contrary to Mo fes, and had led the peoplefrom the way <$ order of government which the Lord himf elf had prefcribed in his word. AFter evidence of Scripture & confent of fo many Writers agreeing in the in- III* terpretation of this place , let us now examine the exceptions of fuch oppo 1 (ices, as maintaine that Chrift gave a new rule in Mat. 18. Some objett with H. Barrow the unjuft & ungodlv dealing of the Rulers in that time, and reafon thus : that it is not likely or poflible that our Saviour ihould fetch his patterne from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the lewes, &c To thefe I anfwer : I. Though the Governours of the Jewes in Chrifts time were moft of them wicked men, and abufed their authority ; yet the forme of government it felf>and namely fo much of it & fo farre as it is defcribed in that Rule, Mat.iS. that there fhould be a Synedrion or Prefbyterie for the judging of offences in fuch order as is there fpecifyed , cannot be Ihewed to be unlawfull , nor contrary to that which God had appoynted of old by Mofes : And therefore our Saviour might well commend the very fame unto his DiCcipks^ Thus Calvine anfwereth a like ob- G z jec- $t THE POWER OF (x) Harm, jeftion, (x) If any man except that all things were corrupt & perverted in the time ofChrifl, M Van %" in f° aS ^ mi *y ram y C0U Mbe accounted nothingleffe then the judgement of the Church : the an* ,l7 'fwer is eafy, Though there was then an adulterate £T perverfe manner, yet Chrifi might worthi- ly commend the order fo a* it Wtu delivered from the Fathers. *And when a little afte r he erec- ted his Churchy the corruption being removed, he reflored the pure uje of excommunication. II. How great foever the abufes and corruptions ofGovernours& Govern- ment were in Ghrifts time; yet were not the godly required then to renounce or forfake the communion of that Church. Chtift himfelfe both by his example & his commandement taught otherwife , whiles he both communicated therewith himfelf, Aidtt.26. 17,18. and likewife required others to doe the fame. Luk. 17. 14. iW^.8.4. <*r 23.2,3. Now forafmuch as the publick worfhip of God and his miniftery are holy ordinances > as well as the government of his Church ; feeing Chrift taught his people to goe unto the worfhip & miniftery of the Jewes either in Synagogue or Temple > what reafon is there to think that thev Ihould be for- bidden to repayre unto their government in their Synedrio or Preibvterie? More- over as our Saviour taught ordinaril s in the Synagogue and in the Temple , whither * /;c- Jewes alwayes reforted • lohn. 18. 20. Matt. 4.23. fo there were fome righteous and fraythf ull men Governours and Rulers of the Jewes in Chrifts time, who though they confented not unto evilland unrighteous judgements , but teftifvedagainft them; Lukj 1. 6. 10^.7.50,51. 1^.23.50,51. yet werethey not required to for- fake their offices and their government. And if they might'lawfully retaine their office and government , why might not others refort unto them in their govern- ment s and feek redreife of offences > and fo by them tell the Church, according to cherule,-M*7M8.i7? III. For the further clearing of this poynt, concerning which many are di- verfly minded>and many ftumble at this day alfo upon occafion of a like difficulty, doubting what is meet to be done, when corruptions doe abound in a true Church (as the Jewes in Chrifts time were) when as yet fome of the Minifters& Gover- nours thereof doe become oppreflburs of the godly & perfecutours of the trueth; we are therefore to obferve divers rules of direftion according to which both the Jewes then and Chriftians now in fuch cafe are to carry themfelves, 1 . There is a difference to be put betwixt the caufesand matters of complaint , about which men had occafion to goe to the Jewes Synedrion or Uderfhip. There were fome kinde of finnes, as of open theft, adultery, extortion , facriledge , legall impurity, Sabath- breaking & divers the like fcandals , againli which the Pharifees and Ru- lers of the Jewes were very zealous : Luk? 18. 11, 12. K om - *o- 2. Phil. 3-5>6, Luk; 18. 18,21. Mark. 10. 21. And what Ihould hinder the godly from going unto their Prelbyterie to feek redrefie , and fo to tell the Church of fuch offen- ces ? In other quxftions touching their traditions thev had not the like encou- ragement to goe unto them . n. There was a difference to be put be- twixt the Rulers of the Jewes to whom they had occafion to complaine. As there was a multitude of Synagogues among them, fo there was great varie- ty of the Rulers of thofe Synagogues - 3 fome of them being more modeft, humble and attentive to the Gofpell then others > as we read of Iairus,Crif- pus, CLASSES AND SYNODS. rf pus > Softhenes* and diverfe of the Priefts and cheef Rulers : -Mark. 5- tz, 23. ^#.18.8,17. Mark. 12.28,32,34.10/7. 1242. A8.6.7. And to fuch there was yet the more reafon to complaine upon occafion. As for others that (hewed themfelves open 8c obftinate contemners of the Gofpeli & perfecuters of Chrifb our Saviour taught his Difciples to beware of fuch , Matth. 10. 17. to fi-y from them, loh. 1 1.54. andnotralhly tocaft thepearles ofholv admonition before fuch as would tread them under their feet, and feek to rend the admonif hers. Mat. 7.6. with Prov. 20. 15. & 9.8. Paul fometimes went voluntarily unto the Jewifh Synagogues. Atl. 13. 14. <*r 17. z-& 18. 4. fometimes he withdrew himfelf from fuch as were hardened & blafphemed; AB. < 3. 46,51.0' 19.9. 111. For the perfons admoni{hing> there is alfo a difference to be obferved betwixt them ; fome of them being weake , and fome ftronger. Such of them as were weake in knowledge and weake in refolution and courage, were taught to take knowledge of their owne infirmity and not to prefume above the grace given unto them} but to wait untill God had further prepared & inabled them, by furnilhing them with fuch gifts as were meet and required for the performance of great & hard dueties. Matt* 17.9. lohn. 13.36. L^.5.36, 37,38. It was required of them that were to goe unto the Elderihips of the Jewes ,andfoto tell the Church ofcorruptionsa- bounding among them> that they fhould be able to argue from the Scriptures & to convince the gainfayers, in publick as well as in private in the firft degree of ad- monition > Matt. 18. 15. and withall to ftand conftantly as yron pillars againft the faces of unrighteous & cruell men. ley. 1.18. E/d.50.7. Peter being yet weak, 8c prefuming above his ftrength , did therefore fall fo greevoufty. Matt. z6. 3 3 . 74. But for thofe that are ftrong, confirmed in knowledge and godly refolution > they are to gird up their loynes for the doing of that which is not fo fafe for the weake to enterprife. Andas the Apoftle giving direction in other cafes, wherein it was , alfo fomething hard to difcerne and determine what was beft to be done, requires snen to look unto their refolution & perfwafion without wavering or fainting (as in the matter of marriage, of going to a feaftwith unbeleevers, and eating of meats then in queftion) and defcribes their refolution in many words, facing, He that ftandtthf aft in his heart, having no mctfliiy, but hath power over his owne will , &hath fo decreed in his heart, &rc. x. Cor. 7,37. and If any of them that beleeve not bid you to afeafhe? yebedijpofedtogoe, or as the words are and y twill got, v^c, 1. Cor. 10.27. and Let tvsry man btfully perfwadtd in his owne mindt : P\om. 14. 5. - So in the cafe of going to telltht Church among perfecuters , every man was and is ftill to fee that he beftrong in the Lord & ftand faft in his heart. iv. Even thofe that werefiron- geftandmoftrefolute, were yet bound to diilinguifh the times, and in allfpiri-- tuali wifedome to put difference betwixt eccaftons. When Paul went bound in the fpirit unto Ierufalem, knowing that bonds 8c afflictions waited for him -there* u4#.2o.22 ) 23.therewasnointreaty, noteares&cryesof his godly friends could ■; perfwade him to ftay j or hold him from going up thither to tell the Church and" Rulers of the Jewe's)fuch things as God called him to witneiTe unto them , lAtY. Z 1 . i2>i 3,14. though he was ready to have bene torne in peeces of that Seditious Church, tAbl, zi< 10. Awnothcrtirne when Paul being bold as a Lvon-would G 1 fcave- 54 tHE POWER OF have adventurecHiimfeff among the tumultuous Ephefians for the defence of his companions in danger , yet not having fo expreffe and ftrong a call thereunto as in the former example, he yeelded to the counfell of others & fuffered himfelf to be over- ruled : when hc~ would have entredin unto the people , the Difciples fuffered him not, AB. 19.30. Here is the wifedome , faith & patience of the Saints j let thofe that have undemanding lay thefe examples before them, & labour to apply them unto themfelves upon like occaGons. v. Even thofe that are the weakeftalfo are to put difference betwixt unadvifed going of themfelves and a neceflary calling, for though men fhould not ralhlyexpofe themfelves to danger, yet being brought by others & drawne before a Jewifh Synedrion, & being examined touching their profefijon and praftife , it is then required even of the fimpleft to anfwer for the trueth with meeknes & reverence, fo farre as they know and are able, i.Pef.3 . 15, and not to betray the trueth by their filence, but to tell the Church of the evils to be reformed. Such were and are to remember the promifes ; that out of the mouth of bales O'fucklings God ordaineth jlrength, to fill the enemy & the avenger: Pfal. 8.2. that fuch are bleffed in fufferingaccording to the will of God. Matt. 5. io, 1 1 , 12. AB. 5. 41. 1. Ptt.4. 19. And thus according to thefe directions in divers kindes there was oc- cafion to pra&ife in the Jewifh Church that Rule of Chrift,M*M8. Some others, as was noted before , to prove that Chnft gave a new rule , Mat. (y)H.Ainf. IO *. doe object that (y) ChrijlwastodefiroybothCitie&'SanBuary -fo to force the Iewes Animadv. to an endof their politie:Dan. thekatred, that is the law ofcommandements which floodin ordinances, (?c. that we are built, not upon Mofespolhie that k done away, but upon the foundation of the ^Apofdes <$ (z)H.lacob, Prophets, &c. Eph. 2. t <>, 1 9, 20. That (2) all thofe old things are pafied away , that all Atteft.p. things ofjuch nature under the Gofpdl are made new , and that the fame things arefhaken-, *7%>i79> and changed , and remaine not now unto us , the Iudiciall law it felf for inquifition after murders > being of common equity, ought ftill to continue among us. Againe,itis further to be obferved how fomeofouroppofites labouring to finde a difference between Mofes politie and Chrifts rule, have defcribed unto us fuch a rule of proceeding in Mofes time, as is not to be acknowledged. Mr Smith, as is noted (b) before, makes this to be the order of proceeding in the time of the „.- o Law, i. reproof of iinne,.Lfw>. 19. 17. 2. afaciificeforthecleanfingofthe as ' 4 *' party reproved, Lev. 4.23. 3. death infli&ed by the Magiftrate upon the partie reproved, if he wilfully refufedto hearken, &c Numb. 15. 30,3 1. Deut. 17.12. Mr Ainfmrth agreeth with him in this poynt, & fayth , (<0 God commanded this dm- J5^' Alnf « ty in his law, playnly to rebuke our neighbour; Lev. 19.17. that fo upon warning and ofs.c^ fight ofhisfinne , he might bring hisfacrifice <2 reconcile himfelfunto the Lord whom he had p. 440. offended. Levit. 4.2,3 —2,8 . which if he regarded not, butjhould doe ought with a high hand, foffo»#^j^toblafphemetheLord, andmuftbecut off from among his peo- ple , Numb. 15. 3o> 31. becaufe hedefpifedthe word of the Lord, &c. Againe he writes; (d) That private men forgave notjinnes in Ifrael, fo abfolutely touching the Church order or (J) Arrim- politie , as Chriftians doe now, is evident by the Law, which bound the offender not onely unto adv *>P- 1 2 °» - repentance ana Ifaith in Chrift, A&.\%. 9,11. as alfo to confef.e hit finne, Levit . 5: . y . and lzu fatiffy his neighbour offended - } Lev. 6.5 . but withall to bring a trefpaffe offering to the P r iefl (the minijler of the Church) that fo the Prieft making an atonement for him before the Lord, idhould be forgiven him. Lev. 6.2,5,6,7* Now under the Gojpell thelawis. If thy brother trefpalTe againft thee rebuke him,and if he repent forgive him : L ul{. 1 7. 3 . neyther is fuch a man bound to goetoa Mini ft er that he may pray for, or forgive him yets the Papiftshy proportion (e) doe gather. Now for anfwer hereunto, and (e) Bellar. tofhew how they were miftaken about the rule of admonition in the old Tefta- dePoEnit . J . ment, in teaching that men were bound upon admonition to bring an offering, & 2,c ' 3 ' fo bound that if they wilfully refufed or regarded not to doeit,they were to dye x>r to be cut offfrom among their people, we are to obferve that God did not - lay fuchabondof neceffity upon hispeople, and this appeareth'by thefe con- siderations : 1. The * words of the Text, Levit. 4, 23-28. being rightly tranflated doe * vehebh not inferre fuch a bond. Whereas the words are commonly tranflated , then hejhall bring his offering, &c. they mould rather have bene thus tranflated , and or if he will bring hit offering , &c. or thus , then hemay bring his offering , <&c. And fo the words being conditional! and not imperative , there is no abfolute commandement to bring a facrifice; but the ordinance of Godin that place is > that if they would bring: ?5 THE POWER OF bring a Sacrifice for their finne, then they muftdoeitin fuch manner as is there prescribed. And there is a double reafon for this cranflation. i. The particle vau ffivauom- is (*) often and very conveniently expounded conditionally by if or and if, as Numb. ram'con " *' ^'H- ** 12 " r 4- DeuL2 4- i^ExoL 4.23. So the principal! Interpreters doe jankionum fundry times tranflate the fame: the Chaldee Paraphrafts > both Onkflos and Ion** fignificatio- than, as alfo the Greek v«rfion, in Num. 12.14. So the ancient Arabick verfion of nem aflli- ^abbi Saadias , as alfo thatedition of the Chaldee printed at Conftantinople in eeft&c?" ■E-*°^4'^3« S0TremelliusandIuniusinGew.18.3o.Lew.26.4o. Nnmfc.i2.i4. aliquando So our Englifh tranilation in Exod. 4.23. Levit. 26.40. Numb. 12.14. Dew.24. J. co.iditione And to omit a multitude of other interpreters > M r Ainfworth himfelf doth cevaii!& f° mecimes f° cranflate the fame,as in thofe places before fpecifyed,E^o.4.23.Lev. Benr.in 26.40. Numb. 12. 14. and further (g) notes that fo it ought elfwhere to bettan- Gaieed.p. fiated, as in Mai. 1.2.^3.8. 11. Suppofe that the conjunction or particle vau (i) Ar.not were not con ditionall in this place > yet the word turned into the future tenfe by on Lev. 16. v ^ hippuc according to the Hebrew fpeech, as other fimple ( h ) verbs future , doth 40. not al waves neceffarily imply a commandement> but rather a permifllon. Though ^^^'fometimes they import an abfolute commandement, as in the Decalogue; yec ,p ' 117 ' Sometimes they areufedtofignify what we mav doe, and what we are permitted to doe. This is commonly obferved by Tranilatours , who in their tranflation of the very fame forme of the future verb , doe fometimes exprefle it by a comman- ding phrafe,^o«^/^oe,fometimes by a phrafeof permiffion , thou mayefl doe: for example, in our Englilhtranflation, Gen.2.16. Lev. n.2i,22. Deut. 12. 15,20,0* 20. 19.^ 23 .20,24,25. & 24.2. Thou mayefl eat , Thou mayefl lend , Thoumayeft eat grapes , Thou mayefl plucky, Shcmaygoe,(.4.23» 28- be fitly translated, Then he may bringhis offering, (?c. And being fo interpreted there is no fuch bond of neceflity contained therein. II. As the words and forme of fpeech in the Text doe admit this interpretati- on ; fo the matter it felf & the nature of the ordinance doth determine it , & con- ftraine us to entertaine this tranflation, which f hewes it to be a permiflion: becaufe other wife it had bene impoffible ever to obferve it in Ifrael. The (innes fpoken of in Lev.4.2,27. are for the generall nature of them all manner of finnes,great or fmall, except prefumptuous finnes.The words of the Text are, Ifafoulefhall finne through ignorance againfl any of the commandement s of the Lord, concerning things which ought not to be done,&JJjall doe againfl any one of f to:the word fchegagah | here ufed co- taming under it all (innes of inrirmity,ignorance,errour,forgetfuliies or unadvifed- nes.Now the holyeft men on earth being ready to offend on this manner every day & houre; if for every dayly unadvifed word or deed they had bene bound to bring a facri(ice,& no other way "to purge their finncthe had k bene utterly impoffible to have kept this ordinance ; 1. In refpeft of the coft and charges,efpecially for the *hamfuc- poore ,defcribed by this argument , that he f* wants an offering , fo impoverrthed tan tern- that he was not able to bring an oblation. Efa. 40.20. The poore foule that had mah. but two mites, -M^. 12.42,44. and the poore man that had but one lamb lying in his bofome> 2.^2,12.3. could not purge their dayly (innes with facrifices for them CLASSES AND SYNODS. 57 them all : efpecially confidering that in this (in ne-effering here fpoken of, they muftof neceflitybringeitheraihee-goatora lamb-female without bleniifh: Levj 4. z8> 32. there was no refpeft of the poo re to fpare them or to difpenfe with them for bringing a facrifice of leffe price > as yet in other cafes we fee they were difpenfedwithall. Irj. 14.21,22,30,3 1. # 12. 6,7,8. whereupon the mother of Chrift being very poore (asappeareth hence) brought a paire of turtle-doves or two young pigeons, L04.2.24. which had not bene lawfull, if (he had bene able to have brought a lamb. Now if the Lord had this care to eafe the burden of the poore leper at his cleanfing > and of the poore woman at her purification , which might fall out to be but once in the yeare,or once in a life time, and to many never in their life ; then how much more agreeable is it to the mercy of God , that the charges of the poore fhould have bene refpe&ed in t-hofe facrifices which they might have had occafion to offer even every day in the yeare t but hence we may gather that this facrifice was not of necedity impofed upon them. Yea it had bene impoffible for the richer fort to have fuftained this charge , efpecially in the yeares of dearth or fcaificy. All the cattell upon the mountaines of Ifrael, with thefheep ofKedar and Nebaioth were not fo many as theknowne finnes of Ifrael, which needed this facrifice. 11. In refpeft of the labour and cravell , this order was not poflible to be obferved » when for every knowne finne they ihould take a journey to Ierufalem,many of the IfraeJites dwelling divers dayes joumeysfrom theTem- ple. Abraham travelling from Beerfheba in the South to offer his fonne in the mount of Morijah , where the Temple was afterwards built , z.Chron.$.i. came not thither before the third day, Gen.zz.2y 3,4* And fome others that dwelt in the Tribes Northward from Ierufalem,were as farre againe diftant from theTem- %^ ple,as appeares by the (»} Geographicall defcription of that country;fo that to goe ^ c2 Pt{ ^ and come & to performe that facrifice could not be much leffe then a weeks work Geo°r.i.y. unto divers of them : & every week in the yeare they might have occafion to take c < s&ab.^- this journey, if this facrifice, Lru.4. had bene exacted of them. Yea as Iofeph & Mary having bene at the feaft, when they had cornea dayes journey homeward from Ierufalem , feeking the child Iefus and nocfinding him in the company did returne back againe to Ierufalem : Luk. 2. 43,44,45. fo many finners having of- fered this facrifice and comming homeward, might in the way come to the knowledge of fome new Qnne , and fo be forced to goe back to Ierufalem to offer againe \ yea and this fo often that all their life long they might doe no other work I buttravellup anddowne to offer facrifices. But feeing it was impoffible for the I tribes and families of Ifrael to endure fuch travell, we may therefore conclude from hence , that both Mr Amfwortb and Mr Smith have erred in teaching thac Ifrael was bound unto fuc h a rule. But againft this it may be objefted from the interpretation of the Rabbines al« ledged by Mr Ainfwonhxhat thefe errours for which theSinne-offering was to be brought were not fo many & common, but few and rare , and that therefore there was no fuch impodibility of purging them by facrifice. Therefore to cleare the Text, and to vindicate the ordinance of God from the abfurd traditions of the Thalmudifts s and that it may appeare how men have corrupted the Rules of ad- H mo- 5* TH E POWER OF monition & difcipline, as well in the Old as in the New Teftamenc , I will briefly poync out fome of their vaine glo(Tes,& {hew their contrary extremities about this particular ftatute. The errours & finnes for which this facrifice was appointed are in one extremi- ty restrained too much by the Jew-doftours : i. By expounding them onely of fuch works and deeds as are diftinguif hed from thoughts and from words. Be- (k) H.Ainf. cau f e the Text fayth,/W/ doe, (kj this they reftraine to deeds and facts , and there- Lev^r ^ ore tne ? teacn tliat the Blafphemer becaufe his finne was in word & not in deed, was not to bring this finne-offering. This glofle is a vaine and falfe colleaion: becaufe the H. Ghoftin the Scripture* doth ordinarily defcribe the words , fpee- ches and favingsofmen under the phrafe of doing, as appeares, PfaL 15.2,3. with verf.$.& Pfd.50. 19,20. withverf 21. And whatreafon is there that the finnes of fiandering, rayling, curfing, perjury, blafphemy , being repented of fhould not be purged by facrifice as well as other hainous facts & deeds i 1 1. By a fecond re- ftriction of thefe errours in deeds and facts unto the tranfgreifing of negative com- (I) Ibidem, mandements onely. Herein they 0) (hew themfelves partiall in the Law,dividing it into 6 1 3 commandements , & thofe againe into 148 affirmative comandements according to the fuppofed number of bones in a mans body > & 365 negative co- mandements according to the number of dayes in the yeare : & the finne-offering they require onely for the breach of negative comandements, pretending a reafon from the Text, which makes mention of all the comandements concerning things which Should not be done. Hereupon they fay, that no finne-offering is tobe broughtfor neglecting of Gircumcifion or the Paffeover , becaufe they are affirmative com- mandements. And thus at once they caft out 248 kindes of finnes , according to the number of the affirmative comandements, from having any part in the Sinne- ofFering. And this their exposition is not onely alledged but allowed & approved (m) Annct. f jvir Ainfw. when he faith, (m) Thefinne-offerings in ch.4. wen for greater offences* in 00 * v ' 1 ' u doingthings forbidden of God, viz. in the negative commandements. And to pre- (n) Annot. vent an objection that might be made againft this diftinction , hefayth, (0) Other onLev.4,i.yj MWW (viz. againft the affirmative commandements ) in omittingthings to btdone , were expiated by Burnt -offerings, which were offered dayly for the whole Church , or by particular pcrfons, as they would bring thtm, m isfhtwed on Lev.i. ^Alfo by the facrifices offered on^ tAtonement (Uy> whereof fee Lev. 16. &c. But how vaine is this diftinction? what juft warrant is there that the expiation of finnes of omiffion, againft the affirmative com mandements, fhould be reftrained and apply ed with fuch diftinction unto the Burnt-offerings or unto that one day of Atonement ? It is a generali rule and re- ceived of Divines that in expounding the commandements the affirmative pare fhould be comprehended under the negative, and the negative under the affirma- tive. And there is ground for this from the word of God, who in his fpeech fometimes comprehendeth all our obedience of the Law under an affirmative commandement, as Dtut. 5. 33. fometimes under a negative , m Deut.S.ii.witb Dew. 5. 3 2,£rc. hi. By a third reftriction they doe yet further limit & ap- propriate this Sinne-offering to the ignorant or negligent breach of fuch nega- tive commandements, for the prefumptuous tranfgreffion whereof men deferved cut* CLASSES AND SYNODS. $9 mtingoffby the Law, as is noted (°) in general! by M r Ainfworth , for the inter' (ojlbidcm, pretation and illuftrationofthis ordinance. But that the Reader mav the better difcerne and judge thereof? I will fet down the particular errours: (p) The firfi when (p) Maimo- a man did ly ffiihbis mother , z . with Ins wives mother , 3 .with his mothers mother , ^.with n y in j*e- his fathers mother, 5- .with his daughter, 6. with his daughters daughter,?. with hisfons dough- gagot ,c * x ' ter , ti.with his wives daughter , y.with her daughters daughter , to.with herfons daughter, i\. with his fifter, \ z. with his fifier, of his fathers wife* \ $. with his fathers fifier ,\+.with his mothers fifier, 1 ? .with his wives fifier, 1 6. with his fathers wife, \ j.with his fathers bro- ther s wife, 1 8 .with hisfonnes wife, \ 9 .with his brothers wife, zo.with a mans wife , z 1 .with a menftruous woman, zz.with a male, z\ .with his father, zo.with his fathers brother, zo.with abeafi, z6. a woman lying with a beafi. And befides thefe z6 monftronsand unnacurall pollutions,they reckon 17 other cranfgreffions, \. Idolatry, z. giving oft heirfeedtoMo- lech, $ . having a familiar Jpirit, 4. to be a wizard, $\ profaning of the Sabath, 6. to worf^upon ^Atonement day, 7. to eat or drinkjon Atonement day, %.toeatthe remainder,(viz.o( the fa- criflce on the third day, Lev.j. 17,18.) 9.^0 eat leaven at the Paffeover , io.toeatfat t 1 1. to eat blood, \z.to eat the abominable thing, \%.to kjU holy things without the court, 1 4. to offer facrifice without the court , \%.to make the anoynting oyle , \6-to ma\e thefweet in- cenfe , t y.to anoynt with that anoynting oyle. Unto thefe 43 particular and enormous errours they reftraine the Sinne-ofFering. As by the former reftriftion they ex- cludedallthe 248 affirmative commandements, foby this of $65 negative pre- cepts they exclude 3 z 2. By thefe and fundry other groundles reftri&ions they doe many wayes make both this and other commandements and ordinances of God of no effeft by their traditions, and as for private perfons, fo alfo for the Prieft,the Congregation and Rulers , which being fo vaine , I will not infift upon fun her refutation of them; they being alfo many wayes contradictory unto themfelves about the fame. And as the Jewes doe thus offend in unjuft reftriftions,fo doe they alfo in a con- trary extremity of extending the words of this ordinance in fome other refpefts too farre: as when it is fayd according to the tranfiation of M r Ainfw.andfiall doe, o/any one of them. Levit. 4. 2. hence they gather that this Sinne-ofFering is to be brought by fuch as break any piece or part of thofe negative commandements; (s) (q) R.Soio- as for example, if upon the Sabbath one fhould write ShimotShimeon, Nahof Na- mon l ^ hi > hor, Danot Daniel, againft fuch they doe apply the words of this commandement. J^J^*' Now if for fo fmall a tranfgrelfion as writing with a pen upon the Sabath but haltMikkotfi in a word, a fyllable or two letters of a mans name , they were bound to bring this Sepher finne-oflfering, and fo accordingly for other finnes of like nature and weight, whatj^ ^ man though the holyeft on earth, could have endured the labour and charge off ep taffir." finne-oflfering, and fo accordingly for other finnes of like nature and weight, what man though the holyeft on earth , could have endured the labour and charge "ofl_ r - fo many facrifices as fuch kinde of finnes might have occafioned? Thought- *■& Urmine erred in labouring to (0 prove auricular confeffion of finnes unco the Prieft (OBelfcr.de from the legall facrifices, as M r Ainfworth mentions ( though the place be cited ,' 3 ' e ' amifle,which I fuppofe to be the Printers fault, lib. %. for lib.3. ) yet M r Ainfw. himfelf doth erre likewife in defcribing an impoffible & unrealbnable order in the Old Teftament, as Bellar. doth for the New. Laftly, fuppofe there kad bene fuch a bondof neceffity lavd upon the Jewes of Hz old, to THE POWER OF old , to bring a facrifice for each finne when it was made knowne unto them ; yee this proves not that any new duety was prefcribed in Matt. 18. which was not taught in the Law before. We know that the iegall facrifices and ceremonies are wholly abrogate : yet this hinders not but that the mot all dueties obferved in t he midft of thoie ceremonies may ftill remaine , when the ceremonies are abolithed. When the Minifters of the Lord in old time entred into their offices with know- ledge and confent of the people, and together at rhe fame rime were confer rated with divers facrifices and other ceremonies , Numb. 89,10, <3>c. LevitS. 2,2 ,4,5. though the ceremonies of confecration be aboliihed , yet the peoples right of knowledge and confent is not therefore aboliihed. The Brownifts themfelves (0 Confef. a iiedge (f) the fame places for the continuance thereof: and why can they not ob- I0g.p0f.5J." ^ erve c ^ e ^ ame *° r tneru ^ e i n Mm. 18. notwithftanding any ceremonies that had 4M7*4?. formerly bene annexed unto the praftife & obfervation of fome dueties contained in that rule ? Moreover,it may be obferved from M r Ainfworths owne words that the Rule in Matt. 18. and in fpeciall that which concernes the third degree of admonition, was for the fubftar&e of it no new rule, but that which was required and pra&ifed under the Law. In Ifrael they told the Church two wayes : 1. By telling the Go- vernours that reprefented the Church , becaufe it then alfo chiefly appertained to the Minifters (St watchmen of the Church to give the people warning , to admonifh them of their wicked wayes , to teach the people the difference between the holy and (t)Comun. profane, &c. Divers Scriptures are (*) alledged by M r Ainfw. himfelffor proof ofSts.c.iz. hereof, as E^ek.^.iyyiS^c.E^.^.z^.Jer.i.io. Hof6.5.&c. It was therefore P-45°» no new rule in the new Teftament when the like order was eftablifhed for going firft unto the Elderfhip and feeking redrefle of evill bv them. M r Ainfw. acknow- (v)Ibid, p. ledgeth, that (v) the keyts of the kjngdome of heaven are in more fpeciall manner given unto *s r * them 5 and therefore in fpeciall manner ought thevtobe rold and fpoken unto for the reformation of evils : feeing [they were^ toQuide andgoe before the people, as in other affairiSyfoinadmwiftringthecenfures of the Church; therefore ordinarily mat ters were to be brought unto them before they were brought unto rhe wholeCongregatio. II. As it is the ordinance ofGod in the newTeftamenr, 1 . Cor. 5. &accordingly the praftifeoftheReformedGhurchesinthefecountriesjthatthemore weighty affai- res &cenfures of the Ghurchfhould not be adminiftred without knowledge and confent of the body of the Church;fo that none is either received for a member of the Church,or caft out by excommunication,butthey doe firft tell the Churchmen the whole Congregatio is folemnely & publickly acquainted therewith, & hoerty granted unto them to fhew their aflent or diffent therein : fo M r Ainfw. himfelf acknowledgeth that there was a like order in the old Teftament. The Scriptures which he afiedgeth, and his manner of arguing from them doth import fo much. (aOCSmun. Of Ifrael he faith,(x)Kiwfo all & every ofthelfradites,was commended the care & obftrva- of s.c. 18. tf on f a u Godsftatutes - 3 that neither all nor any of them , man nor woman , nor familie, nor * ' tribe, jliouldforfake the Lord, norfujfer among them any root to bring forth gall and worm- wood, &c. Deut. 29. 18. So of the multitude of beleevers and people in the new (y) ibiitf jeftament , he writes in like manner , that (y) they wen willed to exhort and admonifh 9 ' ' each CLASSES AND SYNODS.- 61 t&eh other ; even the Officers of the Churches, #V. and to loo^that n root oj 'Internes fprung up and troubled them,&c.Heb.i2.i5,&c. Agai-e he faith , fc) Even the leprous &un~(z) IbU, c* €lean,though the try all of them apperteyned to the Priefts,Lev. 1 3 .yet all the children oflfrael l8 • $ t . Were to look, that fuch were removed out of the hoft j yea the care of the Priefts purity in their adminiftration, apperteyned to all the people. Levit. 21. 1 , 8, 24. ^And long after \ both in tounfels, 3 as the Scripture (he veth. z.Chron. $0.21,23. Eqra. io. 1*9,12, V in^'i The Churches in the Apofles dayes had alfo the like right andlibert v : for the multitudes ofbeleevers were both beholders and aBors in the common aff aires, tyc. Afterwards againefpeaking of the rules of admonition & of the cenfures of the Church > he faith > (a) The keeping rf which rules belongethto all ^ Ihii c the Saints, at the commandementdireBed of old to the children oflfrael (Num. ^.z.Lmt. zz .§ I/ a 'g I9.17.) andin thenew Teftament to allthebrethrent? Church, doth fheiv.Matt. 18.15. 449. 1. Cor. 5. And thus by his owneconfedioD, yea even according to his owne opi- nion $ in refpeft of the Churches powei and the peoples right , there was no new rule given by Chriftin Mat. iS. Whereas it is objected that the Jewifh Svnedrion ( b ) bytheinftitution of God was (b) H.Barr. merely Civilli&c. that (c Mofes appointed neither Judges nor Elders in Citieor Svnedri- R ?^- of on> but they were MagiRrates to execute the judgements of the law > is worthily to be embraced of us. But the government of the Church by Synods » which be- fides their counfell and admonition > doe alfo with authority judge and determine the weightieft caufes and affaires ofparticular Churches 3 is commended unto us as is above fayd ; Therefore? &c« H> The 6i THE POWER OF The Aflumption of this Argument is proved : I. By that holy aflembly or Synod which is recorded A&. i.i 5 --26. wherein there was not onely counfell giveni but alfo an exercife of Ecclefiafticall power & authoritie > and that in fuch a bufines as was of great and rare importance , in the choyfe of a new Apoftle. This Aflembly was not an ordinary Congregation or particular Church > but it was a Synodicall aflembly > and performed fuch a work as did not belong unto any one particular Church. This appeares divers waves : I. In refpe&ofthe perfons of whom this Aflembly didconfift , and thefe againe of two forts; Firft ,of Apoftles, who being fuch perfons as were not tyed unto any particular Church> but had an univerfall charge; Matt. 28. 19. K om - 10. 15, 18. This commifllon was unto them as much as if they had had a fpeciall dele- gation from many or all Churches > fo that their prefence and concurrence was fufTicient to make this AfTembiy in fome meafure , as a generall or univerfall Sy- nod. Thefe eleven Apoftles having alfo a peculiar charge to be at this time at Ierufalem> the place of this AfTembly, and to tarry there for a while (1^.24.49. AB.i.^.) were by divine direction brought unto this Synod. Secondly, for other perfons , the Difciples that were prefent at this AiTembly > it appeares they were from divers places ; fome of them from Galilee j as the brethren of Chrift there mentionedj-<4#. 1 . iq.with Mat. 1 $.$5>$6. & how many of them were inhabitants of lerufalem or Iudsaut is not fpecifyed : fo that the 120 perfons met together ac this time, A8. 1. i$.canot be fayd to have bene a diftinft particularChurch of per- fons dwelling inlerufalem,but an occafionall aiTembly orSvnod upon fuch ground as the ftory of theScripture doth manifeft. 11. In refpeft of the bufines it felf here performed, viz. the election of an Apoftle:it was fuch a work as did not appertaine unto any one particularChurch,but allChurches had intereft therein,feeing thecan t ofaUtbeCburches was comitted unto the Apoftles^.Cor. 11.28. AllChurches were alike bound to beware of falfe Apoftles, that could tranfforme themfilves into the A* poftks ofCbrijl.z.Cor.i 1. 13. Ic had bene a preemption in any one Church, and a wrong unto all the reft, if without their confent , one alone ihould have chofen an Apoftle : efpecially confidering there were even at this time a multitude of the faithfull in other places whom this work concerned. Many had bene lately con- verted by the miniftery of lohn Baptift : Matt. 1 1 . 12. and now immediately be- fore the Afcenfioo of Chrift we read of more then $00 brethren at once which were witneffes of the Refurreftion of Chrift. i.Cor. 15. 6. Thefe 120 had done injury unto them > fave that thefe generall perfons , the Apoftles, called of God for the fervice of all Churches > did for them by divine appointment appeare in this Synod, in. In refpeftofthe manner of this ele&ion, which was made with a threefold limitation, 1 . Unto one of thofe men which had companyed with the Apoftles all the time that the Lord Iefus went in and out among them>beginning from the baptifme of lohn , even untill that fame day that he was taken up from them. AB. 1.21,22. Now thefe Difciples that thus waited on Chrift, fachas Barfabas and Matthias were , being no inhabitants of lerufalem , what power had a particular Church to determine and difpofe of them that were no members of their particular fociety * u There was a reftraiat from abfolute electing of any one CLASSES AND SYNODS. ef one of thefei they were onely allowed to prefent two » and to offer them unto the choyfe of the Lord. verf. ^.24. 3. The way and meanes of inquiring the will ©f God herein* was determined and reftrained unto a Lot, whereby the judgment and definitive fentence of God was declared unto the Synod that refted therein. And by thefe extraordinary dire&ions it pleafed God to honour this firft Synod of the new Teftament. It is herealfo to be obferved , that although fome Writers have fpoken of this election as made by a particular Church,yet we have fundry learned men confen- eing with us in the expofition of thisftory, who labouring to ihew the profit and neceffity of Synods, (*) doe argue from this place , AB. 1. and affirme that in the c a }whhak. New Teftament the Apofties and whole Church did celebrate a Synod for the deconcii." choofing of Matthias into the place ofludas. The Profeflburs ofLeydento qni.c.3. the fame purpofe (ty alledge this example , Elders and brethren , both to carry the Epiftle that was written » and by word of mouth to declare the fame things, verf, zz,z^z$,zy. That alfo which is noted to have bene done after the Synod in the publication of the afts thereof) doth alfo beare witnerTe touching the authority of thofe a&s , in that they arecalled the deems , ordained of thi Apofties and Elders, &C AB. 16.4. The fruit alio which by the bleding of God followed hereupon, in being a meanes of great confolation»and eftablif hment of the Chur- ches in the faith (A8.i$.$ i.& 16.$.) is to be conftdered as an argument where- by the H. Ghoft doth further commend unto us the authority of fuch Synods in the right government of the Church. Upon this example doe generally all judicious Writers build the authority of Synods, as upon afure foundation & groundwork. Calving faith that (<0 here is frefsribed of God the^ forme and order of gathering ( C )cz mem Synods, and Aft.ij.5, complainethof tbeneglecl thereof. D.f{ainolds,wh&n as the Papift obje&ed unto him that there muft be a chief ludge to end concroverfies > to keep the trueth of faith , & peace of the Church , thatic (f) Conf. be not peftered with herefiies and fchifmes *, he anfwers thereunto , (f) that TAc- withHarr.c. wifedome of God hath committed that chief tie of judgement (Jo to call it) not to thefoveraigne ao5 V 2 P power of one,but to thecommon care of many. For when there was a controverfy in the Church of Anrioch about the obfervation of the law of Mofes > fome lewes teaching contrarieto that which Pau! and Barnabas taught : they ordained that Paul and Barnabasj and certain other of them i fhould goe up to Ierufalem,to the Apoftles and Elders about thac queftion. AB.i 5.2. Andfo by their common agreement iff decree , the cyntroverfy was en* ded , the trueth of faith kept » and peace maintained in the Church. After which example the (g) Eufeb. (g) Bifhops ( that fucceeded them) made the liks afiemblies,on the like occafions : and by com* h c r C &: * moncon f erencetoo k.°rder for fitch matters Mth of doBrine and discipline* as concerned in a , ,'& \ Zt common the ftate of their Church. So did the ^Apofiles and Apoftolike men-, provide againft lib.7x.16. fchifmes and here fies. Their wifedome reached not unto the policie of one chief : e judge. Thus ^ l *- D.R^ainolds doth many waves acknowledge the authority of Synods: he cal- 6.<§c!i7.& * et k tnat P ower which they have , the- chief tie of judgement : he avoucheth 31.8c jj.& that they have it by divine right, that the— wifedome of God hath committed it un- 71 ■& 7 y. to them : he pleadetltfrom the forenamed warrant 9 A3. 15. he extendeth this wGaner* P ower unt0 matters both of Doctrine and Difiipline : the teftimonies which in his Ant'ioch. " margine he alledgeth out of the Ecclefiafticafl hiftory , to Ihew that the Ukeajfem* Uoiiic&c. bites were keptinfucceeding times , arefuchas fpeak of their excommunicating wicked Hereticks, viz. Eufeb. hift. Eccl. /.$. c.14. but a power of exercifing Ecclefiafticall jurifdiftion & cenfure. Thofe Councels men- tioned and poynted at by him > for inftances of this chief tie of judgement , were fuch as did not onely admonifh, but alfo determine and judge of caufes ; The Synod of (h)Rarthoi. (h) Ancy rain G alalia made moft fevereEcclefiafticalllawes for the excluding of Carranza, [ ac h as ^ c^i m t ; me f perfecution : The Synod of (i) Gangris in Paphlagoni* Conciitp. cxercifed Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion in depofing Euftathius , Biihop of Sebajliafot i^.&c'. his errours : and the like might be noted for the reft. Whatfoever particular er- (ijMagdeb. rours were m an y c t^gfg f yet t ^ e aut hority and jurifdi&ion it felf is approved of coTi njk mm as proceeding from the wifedome of God, declared in this place , AB. 1 5. ctf.coi.463 D. Whtiaksr in his difputation againft Bellarmine touching Councels laves downe this Text > AB. 15.6. for a ground of that which he takes occafion to in- cii.Qii. i°c" treac °f » an£ i ^ ohtn repeats that text,applying it toeach of the queftions which ip: 1.3.4. he difcufleth. And whereas our Oppofites doe grant a lawful! ufe of Synods &c. for counfell > but not to judge , nor to give judiciall fentence for the deciding of caufes \ D. Whitak. defcribing the State of the Queftion betwixt us and the Pa- (l)ibid.qu. pifts , touching the perfons that are to be called to a Synod , ihewes that (0 the 3.CX.P.79. papifo will have onely the Bifhops or greater Prelates , to be allowed forjudges, and CLASSES AND SYNODS. */ gnd the Prefbyters or inferiour Clergie to be onely inquifitors , difputers or con- fulcers > to give counfeli , but not to have fuffrages in giving definitive fentences. This is the opinion of the («J Romif h Church. Now D.Whit, in the refutation W M*& of the Papifts i doth as wel refute the Brownifts and other oppofites i while he c^ 2 i. d e proves ( n ) that all who have a lawfull deputation and calling are to be allowed for coneii. i. f. judges 9 and not fo/counfellers onely ; and that their fuffrage is not onely for con- c - y . fulcation but for decifion , as is hereafter (hewed more at large. Obferve onely ^w} Tl atthistime, that the firft argument in that difpute is taken from this very placd AB. iy. G.Bucerus pleads From this fame ground of Scripture, and writes (o) that not one- [ ^ ahn ' lyfeverall particular Churches had their proper difiinB Prefiyteries, but that tbiL~ hifiory o/p^ ,EcCr the Apo fdes witneffeth , that when greater controversies did arife which could not he mded in Ujfer Colleges , then more Churches under the mm Teftament did runne unto a Generall Sy- nod. A3.l$. And what power they were wont to exercife therein , he fhewes byadilhn&ionofperfonscommingtotheSynod. As D.Whit, refuting the po- piih diftinction of greater and letter Clergie, fhewes that there was a right and power of fuffrages & judgement in the Synod: fo Bucerus tpj confirming the di- ioiiols itin&ion of Junius , viz. that fome perfons came to the Synods as Delegates fent &c.' from the Churches > which therefore did give definitive fentence of matters pro- pounded ; that others comming without fuch deputation and commiflion, might give their advife and counfeli but without fuffrages > doth hereby acknowledge a power ofjurifdi&ion in the Synod i by thofe th.2t were peculiarly called to be judges therein. Zjpperus{<\) alledging AH. 15. for a patterne of Synods, declares that after the h) PoIl V Apoitles the primitive Church in the new Teftament being moft ftudious of this ^ e l s * n c ' consociation or combination in Synods, did not onely communicate by letters , but 713,714, , meeung together in National] i orGenerallCouncels,did heare the caufes ofHere- 7»j.Scc. ticks & others that appeared before them, & fo convinced,condemned and excommuni- cated them, &fent their deems unto all Churches with the names tst herejies of thofe that were excommunicate j&f. Thus did he acknowledge the right of Synods , not onely for counfeli & admonition, but alfo for jurifdiction in cenfuring. Pifcator frj writing of Councels and Synods, and of the (even queftions concer- f r ) Thef « ningthem, dothfeven times ailedge this place , AB. 15. for a ground of direction voiTloc. lin each of them. And for the authority of Synods , he plainly exprefleth his aVp.^i- ,meaning , when freaking of the government of the Church in generall , he fayth "3 6, *\. * it conpjleth chiefly in EcclefiaficaU jurifdiBion : and againe diftinguifhing this ju 1/ 6 *' rifdi&ion into two parts , he favch chat the one part conlifteth in the power of making lawes > C potijfmum fpeBatur in-> Conciliis, that is> it h chiefly feen^ i*u Synods . Bucanus (f) writes much to the fame purpofe, and aflcribeth unto Synods autho- Cp Loc &° rity of making lawes, ofdeciding controverfies,and this from the example of that zu il^. Synod, AB.15. often mentioned by him. 27' MrFermer(c) briefly and methodically defcribing the nature of Synods , c he^)STheol. »mdes,the ufe & authority of chem>dotti derive their authority from this ground, a lj£2L I AB. 66 THE POWER OF *A&.i$. which even in that (hort defcription is more then tenne times ailed- ged by him. Many other fuch Teftimonies might be produced to fhew the confent of judi- cious and learned Divines in this poynt, of which fomewhat more is tobefayd, when I come to give anfwer touching that multitude of Authors which M p Canne alledgeth againft me. Let us now heare what my Oppofites fay con- cerning this Example. Mr Dav. his Exceptions touching AR. i 5. answered. * Apol re- I. D A v. * This Text , AH. \^.w alledged by BelUrmine to prove the Binding force of ply, p. 2j4» *^ e decrees °f Councills, and by the jAnfwerer , tofiew the authority of the Claffu : whereunto 251. Junitts giveth z anfwersalfo. 1 . Non fequitur ex particular! , (i cuftodienda fuerinc decreta Concilii Apoitolici , ergo & omnium fervari oporrere. J* doeth not follow from a particular \ that becaufe the decrees of an Apojlolicali Council! are to he obferved, there* Contr.3. H. fore the decrees of all Councills muft befo kept. And whereas Bellarmine affirmeth that the_^ 4.cap. \6. queftion there was not defined by Scripture, but by the voyces of the ^Apoftles , Junius denyeth that any thing was ordained in that Councill, but from the Scriptures >as he had before demon- ftrated. and t hereunto referreth the Reader. Answ. I. It may be obferved here (v) Pref. to how untrue it is which M r Dav. pretends in excufe of his large writing, faying,(v) the Reader. f oy t fj e } K \p f t ] n Rjaderin comparing the B^eply with the Anfwer , I have infirted his owne words every where. This hath he not done here , nor in- many other places. 1 1 hew- (x) Anfw . e ^ (s ) how this place AB. 15. had bene alledged bv another againft the Brownifts, to unj.copl. and that this his allegation fervedto condemne both himfelf and his fellowes. M r p.88, D. hath neither inferred mine owne words > nor vet the words of him that had al- ledged this place, ik Inalledgingthetwoanfwers of Junius unto Bellarmine> he wanders wide from the queftion in hand. I am of the fame minde with Iuniusr in both thofe anfwers : Though the decrees of that ApoftoJicall Synod were in- fallibly true and juftj yet is it not fo with other Synods, many whereof are to be reje&ed for their erroneous and unjuft decrees. All the decrees in that Synod , tAB. 15. were grounded upon the Scriptures, and refted not merely upon the fuffrages of men. Iunius had juft caufe Co to anfwer Bellarmine , that maintained an unlawfull and abfolute authority of Synods, and exafted obedience of necefllty to all their decrees. Is not this to abufe both me and his Readers , and to bleare their eyes, that they fhould not rightly difcernethe ftate of the queftion ? 11 k That the Reader may better conceive in what manner an authority and power is afTcribed to Gaffes and Synods > let the authority of particular Churches be con- fidered, as an example and modell of that authority which is in Synods. My op- pofites themfelyesconfeffe that there is in particular Congregations an authority and power to judge and cenfure offendours , and yet they will not deny but that they may erre in their judgements , that they want fuch infallible direction as the Apoftles had, and that their decrees and Ecclefiafticall cenfures are to be regar- ded no further then they are grounded upon the Scriptures. So is it with the au- thority of Gaffes & Synods. {y) Apol.re- I. D A v . (l) And, whereas Bellarminefayth that the decree of the tApoflUs was not left ply. p. 1 j 5 • to tbt examination oftfo DiJcipUsM* that they wmfimply commanded to obey, Junius char* geth CLASSES AND SYNODS. * 6j guh him with falfely fuppofing two things, i. That the Apoftles alone made this or- der. For the Elders concurred with the Apoftles in this fentence,and the whole Church, all of them being taught by the fpirit oftrueth to thinly the fame thing. And t his he faith is the manner of proceeding in thofe Councilis where Chrili is prasfident. i.That the fame refpeB is to be had to the determination of others, as of the ^Apoftles. Which is an errour, befayth, For it was thefingularpriviledge of the ^Apoftles, that they had immediate ajfiftance of the Holy Ghofl , and infallibility in their Apo ftoticall determinations, fo that what they delivered was to be received without examination, whereas the diBates andfentences of all other are to be examined by their writings : whereby it appeamh that thc~ Scripture acknowledged no fuch power of making lawes to be due to the Claffes, unleffe they can-, produce fome other text Si which when they piall be alledged, fhall be further examined, if G od permit . A n s vv. i . All that M r Davenp. hath here fet downe is wholy impertinent , and all being granted, our aflertion touching the law full authority of Synods & Claries remai- ,. Anim _ neth firme. We grant withlunius,(z) that the Apoftles alone did not judge,but the ^ t - m Be j" Eiders and others alfo concurred with them , notonely incounfell, but in giving hrm.Con- judiciall fentence with them. We grant that there is not theIikerefpe&tobe tr °^ 1,i,c - had co the determinations of others, as of the Apoftles: we grant that nofuchpower l '* "" of making lawes is due co Clafles, that is , nofuch power of infallible determinati- ons , &c and yet we hold they have a lawfull authority of judging and deciding controverfies, &c. The like we hold concerning particular Churches with their Elderlhips ; we grant they have nofuch power of infallible determinations, and yec a lawfull power to determine and judge of caufes : We grant that there is not the like refpeft to be had to the determinations of particular Churches , as of the A- poftles ; and yet a due refpeft not onely for admonition and counfell , but alfo for power to eenfure and to give fentence. We grant that the cenfures , fentences and judgements as well of Elderlhips and Churches, as of Synods and ClaflTes, are in like manner to be tryed and examined by the Scriptures, and yet this grant iro- peacheth not the lawfull authority of either of them , in exercifingapowerof judgement, n. For the better direction how to difcerne & judge of the actions of the Apoftles , and how farre their example is a rule of pra&ife and imitation to the Church of God, it ihali not be amifle to fet downe a profitable and ufefull di- ftinftion obferved bylunius, (a) which is, that the Apoftles had a twofold manner of (a)lbid!ib. Power , Common and Proper. The Common is that ordinary power which the) had together zc - l6 ' n - 6 ' with the Elders, as they were Bijhops. The Proper or peculiar is that extraordinary power ■. which was for a while given unto the Evangelicall Church at thejpringing up thereof, in ftJpeB of which the Apoftles were above the whole Church. According to that common power , Peter was c-v^fl-£€0"/3urg£C£ 3 a fellow Elder , i.Pet. 5. i. according to this peculiar power be deftroyed ^Ananias and Sapphira, AB.%. By that common power Paul fay th, 1 . Cor. 5. 4.. You and my fpirit being gathered together in the name of our Lord iefus Chrift *. but by that peculiar power he fayth,whzt will you?' fhall I come unto you with arod?&c i.Cor.4.20. This he fets downe elfvvhere more fully , andapplvesic to the power exercifed AB. 15. faying , (b) Here the Apoftles arefaydto haveufedcom- (b)ibid.hi Ivnmcation : therefore this power was common to the Church > and not a peculiar aBion of the c; itf.n. 1. ^poftks in this Synod atlerujakm. We doe therefore thus determine diftinftly concerning I 2 this 68 THE POWER OF thti thing : All that were furnijhed with gifts and calling judged in this Synod: fir ft the A- pofiles and Apofioltcli men: then the Elders that laboured in the miniftery oftheWord.at well they of the place in hritjaltm, as thofe ofAntioch,W if any moreover were come from other places, &c. Therefore when we alledge this example, A&.15, to {hew the autho- rity and power of Synods in judging ofcontroverfies, thofe that to fruftrateSc dude this example doe plead and except that the Apoftles had extraordinary pow- er , they are here reproved by Iunius , who f hewes that though the Apoftles had extraordinary gifts in judging, which might procure the more refpeft in that re- gard; yet the power it felfby which they did judge, AS. 15. was not extraordi- nary and peculiar to the Apoftles,but ordinary, and common to Minifters, Elders, & other Deputies of the Churches , & therefore commonly & perpetually to be obferved & ufed, as occafion requireth. Mr Can's Exceptions touching Aft. \ 5- . anftvered. Before he comes to the point , he intreats me to refolve five Queftions , the two latter whereof I have anfwered (<) before - 3 . the other with their anfwers areasfolloweth. (d) Chur- I. G A N. I. ( d ) Whither the Affembly, mentioned in A8t. I ?. were a Synod or Clajfis. ehespiea,p. Ansv v. The AfTembly mentioned Atl. 15. was a Synod , andnotpropeily a 3 2 >33* Claflis, according to the ufuall acception of the word in thefe places. Clafles are AfTemblies of Minifters comming often together out of neighbour Churches within a lefler circuit; Synods have a larger extent,comprehend many Claflfes un- der them , & come more feldome together. I . C a N . 11. How it can he manifefiedfrom that place ,t hat both are divine injlitutions, ai here is affirmed. Ansvv. This place , Act. 15. or any other that yeelds war- rant for one of thefe Aflemblies , yeelds it for both : becaufe both are of like na- ture, and differ not eflentially, but in circumftantiall matters of timcplace, num- ber of perfons. In both thefe is a fuperiour Ecclefiafticall authority over particu- lar Churches : in refpeft of both there appeareth a mutuall dependence of Chur- ches, & that all Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion is not limited unto a particular Church* which is the Queftion betwixt us. I. C A N . in. How he can naturally from thence rayfe this doBrine ; vi^.Excommuni* cations and eleBions ofMiniJlers, are ablions belonging unto Claffes and Synods. A N S v v. Whenlrayfefuchadoftrine from AH. 15. ashementions, which I have not done any where , then is it time for me to manifeft how the fame arifeth naturally from the Text. Election of Minifters is an a&ion belonging to feverall Congre« gations, and not to ClalTes and Synods: but if any particular Churches doe offend in choofing unlawfull and unfit perfons, then are ClafTes and Synods to judge thereof, and to hinder fuch elections. Had the Church of Antioch gone about toele&fora Minifter among them one of that Seel: which taught the brethren there, Except ye he circumcifed after the manner of Mofes-, ye cannot be faved y ASL 15. 1, 5. then hadth'e Synod at lerufalem authority to have hindred that election, which appeareth becaufe they had power to make a decree againft fuchfalfe do&rine* A#. 15.28. And thence alfo it followeth, that if any ofthe Chriftian Pharifees had ftood obftinately in fuch errours , tending to thefubverftonoffouUs t to the brin- ging GLASSES AND SYNODS. <& gfng in of 'another Go/pel, and making Chrift hcome of no effeB unto men, AB. 15.24.V Gal. 1.6,7. $'4' then after due convi&ion , that Synod at Ierufalem had au- thority as well to cenfure the perfon, as to condemne his errour j having inreadi- nes a revenge againft alldifobedience , z. Cor. 10.6. with GaU 1. 8,9. efpecially if the particular Church whereof fuch a perfon was a member , (houldrefufe to doe the fame according to their direction. I. C A N . To the- point now : I doe deny that this place AB. l 5- . proveth any fuch thing* for which it is alledged. For I. Here wcu no combination of many Minifters of direr s Chur' ches- but onely a fz-w me fiengersfent from Antiochia unto the Congregation at Ierufalem > about a controversy therefpecifyed. Hence it is affirmed by many learnedmen (e) that as this (e) D.Brid,- was an aflfembly of one onely particular Church - fo it binds (f J onely but in a fpe- P?8- \ gM- ciall or particular meeting. Ansvv. i. It is untrue which he fayth, that here^^^ was no combination of many Minifters of divers Churches ; becaufe here were the Mini- 2.^6, 8c 67 fters of all Churches* even the Apoftles that had the care of all the Churches, of whom all Churches might fay , thefe are our Minifters. AS, 15,6. z. Cor. 11, 2)8. i.Cor.$,.zi,Z2. Mat.2%.19. This was the nobleft combination of Minifters that ever was. 11. It is without warrant that he faith , onely a few meffengers were ftnt from Antiochia, for befides Paul and Barnabas , the deputies and meffengers of that Church > which might ftand for many other, it is fayd, that certaim other of them were Cent i AB. 15. 2. but how many or howfewitisnotfpecifyed, 1 1 1. That which healledgeth from D. Bridges is unfound, viz. that thu -was an A fftem* Uy of one onely particular Church. As it is expreflely againft the text,fo I may oppoie againft it the teftimony of Iunius * before noted, who fpeaking of them that *?ag.6^ judged in this Synod, reckons upfirft the Apo files and Apoftolickjnen^ • then the Elders that laboured in the miniftery of the Word, as well them of the place in Ierufalem , as thofe of Antioch, and if any moreover werecome from other places, &c. 1 v. - Whereas he citeth D. Whitaker, as if he affirmed of this Synod at Ierufalem , that itbindes onely but m> aj^eciall or particular meeting, he doth herein falfify the teftimony of D. Whitak. for though he diftinguilhing Synods into Particular, Provinciallor National!, &U= mverfall , doth in (g) that place, call this a Particular Synod , yet hath he no fuch aftertion as though it Ihould binde onely in ajpeciall or particular meetings and it had ^ DeCotl3 bene againft the text, AB, 15.23. & 16.4, where it is noted that the Synodicall "p^' 1 ' 0, Epiftlewasfentuntothe Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch , Syria& Cilicia, that they might obferve the decrees thereof. As for that ( h ) other place out o£D. (h) ibid, p< Whit.it is mifalledged , there being.no fuch matter at all there mentioned. In- 6 7* Read of that miftaken place, let him confider what M r Cartwright faith hereof, (i) TVe will not ftrive whether the Councell were Gener all or Provinciall : but it may be court- /^ coniat ted 4 Generall Councell in refpeB of the prefenct of the Apoftles ', which were Govemours of-of Rhem. ' tilth Churches of the world. Annot.on I. C a n. II. As Mr Cartwright faith , (k) Paul and Barnabas went norup tele- ^Rtim.ct rufalem, to fubmit their judgement to the judgement of the Apoftles ; for that Rhem.on had diminished the authoritie of their do&rine, then which there was no greater Replace, in the world: they being both infallibly directed by the Holy Ghoft. Onely they went up to conferre with them > and for countenance of the truth, in refpecV • £3; o£ 7 o THE POWER OF of men,and for the flopping of the mouthes offuch deceivers % as pretended they were fent bv the Aporfles. verf. %\. In a word that no fuftkion might rtmaimin^ the minds of the people, as if Paul in docirine differed from the reft. A n s w . i . M r Canne corrupteth and faKifyeth the words of Mr Cartwright> by adding unto them this word Owe//. Though Paul and Barnabas went up to conferre, yet the words of M r Cartw. are nor, Onely they went up toconferre, as here they are ailedged. A- gaine, thofe words that follow, which M r Canne fets downe in fuchaletteras if M r Cartw. had fpoken word for word in fuch manner , viz. for countenance of the trueth in refpetl of mm, and for the flopping of the mouthes offuch deceivers tu pretended they (muftif.of ^refembytheApoftles i U.&4. thefeare the words of M r Robinfon 0) verbatim, & Separ.p, ' taken out of his writing , and therefore ought rather to have bene ailedged in his **9. name, then in M r Cartwrights. 11. Though Paul and Barnabas went up for fuch ends as are here propounded , for count enancingof the trueth, &c. vet thofe ends doe not argue that therefore the Synod at Jerufalem did not exercife Ecclefiafti- call authority in giving delinitive fentence touching the controverfy brought un- to them ; feeing thofe ends were more effectually and fully obtained thereby, for by fuch judicial! fentence the truth was countenanced before men , and the mou- thes of decey vers more effectually flopped, and fufpicion of difference betwixt the Apoiiles more clearly taken away. 1 1 1 . Though Paul and Barnabas went not up tojubmit their judgement to the judgement of the ^Apoftles • yet this hinders not their going to procure that the judgement of thofe decey vers » which had trou- bled the Church of Antioch, and like wife that the judgement offuch as had bene made to doubt by them might be fubmitted unto the judgement of the Apoftles, or that thofe decey vers might be cenfured by the Synod , if after conviction they ihould perfift in their evill. 1 v. That which M f Cartw. fpeakes of P. and Barn, not fubmitting their judgement unto the judgement of theApoflles,as if it would have diminifhed the authority of their doctrine,&c is to be underftood (as I con- ceive) as fpoken by way of opposition to the Rhemifts and other Papifts againft whom he dealt, who fay as well concerning Paul and Barnabas , as concerning the (m}Rhem. other deceivers , (m) chat they did notflandftifly to their owne opbuon on either fide, but on Ad. 1 y. xcondefcended to referre the whole controverfy and the determination thereof to the Apoftles , (n) Rainol. ^ ru fl s or -Ancients , but rather mag- CLASSES AND SYNODS. 7 r ' magnify and illuftrate the fame. 1. Can. ill. If lerufalem lay northward zoo miles from Antioch , as I yead'(q) it (q) Itinetv did : Surely then he hath [mail reafon to bring this Scripture , as the ground and foundation of N - Teft - fol » the Clajficall ^Affembly - yeaandtotellus * that it js a remarkable place of Scripture, \ p'ag.gg, to warrant the exercife of that power which we deny. And alittle after , This one allegation is fufficient to evince the falfhoodoftheiraflertion. Ansvv. i. He miftakes and fo perverts the teftimony of the Author whom he alledgeth, direct- ly contrary to his exprefle words > who frj in divers places of this book,as is to be (V) rtiner. feen in the feverall editions , fayth not as it is alledged ,that lerufalem lay Northward ^T' p ' 6 f-' from Antioch, but on the contrary that ^Antioch lay Northward from lerufalem. So un- j^lte L' circumfpeft is he in his quotations, u. Suppofeithadbene written in his Au- 8 2.&10/. thor (o as he alledgeth it j yet then it was a great Gmplicity and want of judgement edit - 16 35* in him , that could not of himfelf have corrected fuch a raanifeft and palpable er- rour. Had he had a very fmall meafure of knowledge in the Geographicall de- fections of the holy Land and the countries bordering thereupon , without the knowledge whereof men cannot well underftand the ftory of the Bible > there being fo many references which the H.Ghoft hath unto the different fituation of feverall places, then might he have knowne that lerufalem lay Southward and Antioch Northward fromlerufalem. for *. The common Geographers, (0 old ^A cl , Pt ° ] ' and new , of all forts , doe beare witnefle hereof in their Mappes and ordinary de- AdTs^ierc. fcriptions of the world and thofe parts thereof, i. Had he gone no further but &c, looked well on this ftory, AEl. 15. where the mefTengers travelling from Antioch to lerufalem, are fayd in their way to pafle through Phaniceznd Samaria, he might have obferved that as thofe countries in the way lay Northward from Ierufalem,fo m uft Antioch alfo from whence in the right way they came to thofe countries. Let others be admbnifhed hereby > that they rafhly follow not fuch a guide, that will be a great matter and teacher of the Churches, and yet as the wife man no- teth, knowes not the way to the City. Ecckf.10.1f. 1 1 1. I doe willingly grant that Antioch was 200 miles from lerufalem : thofe 70 Dutch miles which this Authour mentions , according to common account make 280 Englifh miles , 80 more then M r Canne reckons. Now the further that Antioch was from lerufa- lem, the ftronger is this ,our Argument from AB. 15.. The greater paines they tookein travail , to come unto another fuperiour judicatory out of themfelves , doth argue- the greater neceffity of Synods , and fhewes that the fruit expected thereby was the more precious in their eyes. The Deputies of the Churches that came to the late Synod at Dort , from Geneva , Zurich and Berne, travelled further then thefe Antiochians did. And of oldtime they came more then twife fo farre unto Synods. Had this combination of Churches and their authority in judgingbrought the Churches into Antichriftian bondage , as the Brownifts call it, s ee before then might it have bene favd unto all thefe travellers , as once unto the Idolatrous Pag.3*. Jewesi O yefivift dromedaries , &c. kjef your feet from barenes and y our thoat from thirft. 1^.2.2,3,25. iv. It is to be obferved how he omitteththe things that were fpecially intended by me, for the conviction of thofe I had to deale with by the teftirnony and reafoning of one of their owne fellowes. Whereas I grounded my re- 7% THE POWER OF reproof of them upon his confeffion, and the conclusion I made did arife from the premises of his alTertion; this is pafifed by , fo that the Reader cannot underftand the force of mv reafoning in that place , and vet he cryes out to me , teaching his client to fay , But before you make fuchhajly condufions ; have a little patience to heare us, tofpeakfor ourfelves. VV. B. i hould rather have fayd . to heare wh*t- a Brownijl can fay for w,andhow MrCanne can defend the matter. I defire the Reader to look on my ti\ Anfa to ^ ^ r ^ Anfwer, 2nd then to judge whether that was a hafly conclufion , wherein the w.B.pgj, ancienteft of themfelves went before me. But let us heare how he proceeds. 83. I. C A N . (v) I pray how can you prove that the Officers ofthefe two Churches Ming zoo che ? leTp m ^ es a f mi ^ er> wm com b' m ed and met ordinarily together (as the Qlaffes doe) to determine the c^esp &t v' ca j ts ^ mari yQ^ Hrc ^ s f Ansvv. i. Their combination is manifeft in this aft of -communion andcomming together for the judgement and decifion ofthecon- troverfy raifed among them. n. That they met ordinarily together I never faydf neither doe I affirrne it\ this being not a Clafficall but a Synodall AiTemblyjaccor- ding to the common diftinftion thereof, and according to the pradtife among us» *Pag.6p. in. That they determined the cafes of many Churches I {hewed * before,froin 4& i5.23-0'i6.4. J. C a n. Or how doe you prove that there was any officer at all ofAntioch, in lerufalem atthistime? Ansvv. Iproveit, i. Becaufe Paul and Barnabas were both fpeciall Deputies of the Church ofAntioch, and like wife had fuch a generall cal- ling as made them Officers of every Church, n. Becaufe the Apoftles which then remained at lerufalem as Peterand Iames> were as well Officers ofAntioch as of lerufalem, Apoftles being Governours of all Churches, in. For the other meiTengers fent from Anrioch , feeing Elders are approved bv the Church as fit- teftto mannage the affaires thereof > therefore it wasreafonablethatatleaftfome -Pag. 68. of- them fhould befentabout-ibis bufines > & thereupon Jw«y« (as is * before no- ted) takes it for granted , that the Elders of the Church ofAntioch were^mong thole that judged in this Svnod. I. C A N . Briefly , or how doe you proove, that the brethren fent from ^Antioch exercifed authority in the Church at lerufalem f. An svv. 1 hat the Deputies fent from An- tioch, had authority and power of fufrages in the Svnod at lerufalem, appeareth by the generail and fpeciall commifTions given unto them , as is mentioned in the anfwer to his former demand. As Paul once anfwered for himfelf and for Bar- nabas upon another occafion » when he was carped at by fome in rhe Church of Corint h : Or I onely and Barnabas have we^ mot power , but that the caufes of one Church may be fubmitted unto the judgement of another. This is the fubftance of the Queftion betwixt us , and this being granted it followes that Churches have liberty to ap- point Claffes and Synods for the mutuall fudging of their caufes , as occafion ihali require. 1 1. By charging me with untrueth in fuch manner as here he doeth > he makes himfelf guilty of double untrueth : for i. This affirmation here men- tioned was not mine at that time , but his in whole name I repeated it , and thac with condition) if it were f o , If the Churches here doe praBife , &c. as may be plainly feen in the forementioned place of my Anfwer. z. Though at that time I inten- ded not to difputethe csufe, but firft waited for the proofes of fuch as accufed me;yet had I then ufed fuch an affirmation,yet it had bene true 3 as I Ihew through- out this Chapter, and therefore it was an untrueth in Mr Canne to avouch the contrary. And as for that place Ier.z$.$ i . which he mifapplyeth againft me, the threatning contained therein is to be feared of him who hereafter abufech & per- verteth fo many Scriptures for the fubverting of Synods. > I. Can. IIII. It is certaine, that at lerufakm not onely the Apoftles and Elders met together ■ but as ILuke exprefieth it, verf. \z>zz. the Church alfo± beingintereftedinthz^ thing : And therefore gave fentence with the reft , to the decree then made. Ohferve what D. Whitaker reply es unto Bellarmine, denying the multitude to be called: It was alwayes * , „, (faythhee) (*) the pra&ife of the Apoitles in common cafes, to call the whole q^ 8 \ t °^ Church together: and no doubt but they did fo here. Now there was no need to Qu^.c'./.p, have it mentioned, feeing it had bene their conftant cuftome formerly fo to doe. ?^' 9 p 7 \. M r Parker (y } affirmes the fame : So the Authours of the Cent . (z) *And itfeemes in Cypri- ^dl.Us ans (a) time , the Church was not deprived of her right herein - } howfoever the Papifts (b, in la.p.ioK thofe dayes teach otherwife > and M r Paget and others , doe otherwifepraBife. A n s v V . * 26 '334- I . In that not onely the Apoftles and Elders, but other brethren alfo gave fentence^ £?!£* withtherefttothedecreethenmade • it followeth hence from the conftderacion of that 547. V^I which is nere confefled to be done by each kinde of perfon here mentioned , that (a) Lib.4. the ufe of Svnods is not onely for counfell or admonition , but alfo to give fentence (bttif r ' m . andto make decrees , which are a&s of authority and power. The errour of Bellar- de eonc. 8c mine and the Papifts is (c) that onely Majores Pmlati , the greater fort of Prelates Eccl.l i.e. (fuch as are their Biihops and Archbif hops, and by priviledge or cuftome,Cardi- fcioiion* rials, Abbots, and Generals of Orders) have jusfujfragiidecifivi, that is , authority ffrcai.KeVifr givedefinitivefentence } that Prelbyters, Elders, and other Doftours or learned men& i& ' in the Synod have onely fuffraghtm confultivum, a voycein consultation* liberty to give counfell , to deliberate and difpute , but not to give definitive fentence in the de- ciding of any matter. Thus they take away the right and power of judging from one half or more of thofe perfons that are to appeare in Synods. The errour of theBrownifts and other our Oppofites is that all the perfons in the Synod have onely fuffragium confultivum , onely power to deliberate ? to advife and give coun- r K fell 74 THE POWER OF fell t that all jurifdiftion is limited unto a particular Church : and fo they deftroy wholly the authority of Synods , which the Papifts doe in part. The Papifts de- prive one half of the perfons of their power , and thefe deprive all the perfons of their power. But no w in this cafe M r Canne by his confeflion refutes bot h thefe errours > granting jurifdiclion , a power of 'giving femence and making decrees unto the people as well as others. Thus is he condemned out of his o wne mouth. Thus is he condemned by thofe whom he alledgeth : when D. Whitaker favth of Aft. (d)DeCoc. ,£ # (d) In hoc ergo Concilio quivislaicus <2 Pre/by ter definitivum fuffragium habuit,non mi' quj.c.3.p. nus quam Petrus • that is , In this Synod every lay-man and Elder bad a definitive voyce , as wellasPeter. Tnence it followes that there was an authority and jurifdiftion in the (e) ibid.c. Synod : it was not oneiy for advife and counfell. He faith againe , (e) The end ofSy- *' p ' ^ nods is to decide controverjies, to prefcribe Canons, to correct abufes, tofet Churches in order, i ame our praftife in depriving the Church of her right , and the people of their intereft, and is fo eager in feeking to blame the manner of our keeping Synods, that unawares he hath yeelded us the matter itfelf about which we difpute ,viz.an authority of giving fentence, and not onely a giving of counfell by Synods. His reprehenfion is that Mr Paget and others doe other wife practife. But who be thofe others befide me ? Why did he not name them as well as me K Are they anN ether then all the knowne Reformed and Orthodox Churches in Europe ? He might well think that if he had mentioned thefe > the very naming of them and my fol- lowing of their pra&ife , would have bene not fo great a blame unto me ,as an oc- casion of making himfelf fufpe&ed and condemned for his unjuft oppofingof them» That it may the better appeare how unjuftly he blameth our pra&ife, let us examine more particularly what he hath fayd * and withall fet downe fome ob- fervations,whereby the peoples right in Synods may the better be difcerned. I. To (hew the peoples intereft, he alledgeth Aft. 15. 12, 22. where there is mention made of the multitude- that was prefent , and of the whole Church fending meflengers > &c. But by thermdtitude we may underftand not the whole number of the Church at Ierufalem > which confifted of many thoufands , but rather the multitude of fuch fpeciall perfons as were met in the Synod. So Beqt interpre- (g) Annot. tet h it, (g) Multitudints autem nomine inteliige non tot am Ecclefiam^c. By the name— of {nA and addes fome further light unto it , Adt. 15.12. f rom t he reference of the Greek article, though he alfogive liberty for another (i) Aniraad. interpretation. So for that phrafe , the whole Church, mentioned verfiz. Junius (i) in Comr. expounds the fame of the Elders and Deacons , or the whole Clerus or Ciergv fer- j'c^n ' vm S cnat Church : thefe faith he are defigned by^ the common name of the Church. Calvine 19.6c caff, alfo W writes to the fame purpofe , Luke faith not that the whole Church was gathered n • l ' - together, but thofe that were men of learning and judgement , and which by vertue of their office InAft T? "(J wm hvfatt J u ty es °f tki* cau fc* *t ma y to indeed that th< dictation wm before the people, ' *' but CLASSES AND SYNODS. H ; %m left toy man foould thinly that the common people were promifcuoujly admitted to handle* thecaufey Luke exprejjely nameth the *Apo pies and Elders, fts'more^fit to taly cogni- tion-, thereof. I [. We grant that befides Minifters and Elders, other members of the Church may have fufrrages or voyces , and give fentence in Synods as well as thofe that are Officers; aiwayes provided, that they be lawfully deputed andfent thereunto. Thus D. Whitaker explaines himfelf touching his allowance of lay-men to have voyces in Synods , and fayth , 0) Every man ought not to be admitted into the Synodnor UjDeConc, to fpeakj herein, but hethat frail be chofen of the Church anddefigned thereunto. Againe he JJL**: ■* faith , (m) Not onely Bijhops are to be chofen of the Church to befent unto Synods , but other ( m j Ibid.c, godly, prudent, & learned men , which happily can difyute morejkjlfully , and inquire into con- 3-P. i«3« troverfies better then the Bijhops. Whofoever is fent of the Church he reprefents the Church. And Co (a) oft in other places. litmus in like manner (°) requires of fuch as have C n ) P»97» voyce in Synods that they be furnifad with gifts and calling, whether Officers or any ?lyj$ m i others. And this alfo is the pra&ife of the Reformed Churches in thefe parts, a dv.de C6c. where upon occafion divers timesfome fuch are deputed and fent unto Synods, i.i.cij.n. which have no Eccleftafticall office : and even in the Nationall Synod at Dort di- fj^ Jv^P vers other members of the Church , which were neither Minifters nor Elders* ' were fent thither & allowed to be Delegates, & were to have not onely delibera- tive but alfo definitive voyces , as well as any other; asappeares (p) in the lawes & (tO A&.Sy* orders prefcribed by the Illuftrious LL. the States Generall, &c. tSr* Sell, ill. Even of thofe which by a lawful! election & deputation are fent unto Sy- 4.AK.3. nods , whether they be Minifters and Elders , or other members of the Church* there ought to be a limited and certaine number : for if every Church in a whole nation might fend as many as they would or could ; there might be thoufands and ten thoufands gathered together into fome Synods , whereby great confufion and diforder in the difcuffing and judging of many caufes would apparently follow. D. Whitaker faith , (s) Certainly confufion cannot be avoyded ,. when too many meet together : (q)De Coa And as for that Synod at Ierufalem,he faith,* That affembly could not be great, becaufe **f: 81 ' theyweriL. compared about with thePriejls and Pharifees. And therefore alfo in the £g ld '*" pra&ife of thefe Churches there is a certaine number determined , of fuch as are to be fent unto Synods, as appeareth likewife in (0 thofe lawes before mentioned. (0 Atf.Sy. If M«" Canne will allow any limitation of number, and can therein fatiffy himfelf, K^drSeffi that he doth not deprive the people & Churches of their right,he may thereby al- 4,Art.3. e * fo fatilfy himfelf for any thing that he objeð unto us in this behalf. i V. We doe further grant this liberty , even unto fuch as are no Delegates or Deputies of the Church , that though they be not allowed for judges , yet many of them (0 as hearers may for their edification be prefentat the comunication& (s}run.A« conference in the Synod , that they may profit in godlines. This alfo is the prac- nimadv.in tife of thefe Churches, both in Provinciail and Nationall Synods , fo farre as the gjf'* ffii place will conveniently receive a competent number : and fo alfo it was obferved " i!j"& o! mi the Nationall Synod at Dorr. ' V. This liberty of hearing in Synods isfo moderated & reflrained,that though they which have no calling unto the Synod , may heare queftions touching doc- Ks trine 76 THE POWER OF trine and religion difcufled , yet fuch are not allowed to be prefent and to heare when perfonall matters of fcandall and offence come to be examined* becaufe as ft) IbiiLc, ^ mms kith » ( l ) contra charitatemfuifjet. Nam veritatis cognitio ad omnes pertinet , mfir- i ) .n.o, mitatum minime. t hat is , It had bene again fi charity, for the lyiowledge of the trueth belongs unto all : the knowledge of infirmities notfo. VI. Touching tne right and liberty of Synods there are manv other things to be further obferved. When Mr Cartwright had fpoken very m uch for the liberty ofthe people in Synods j yet for prevention of mifhking, and by way of correc- oftheRhel" c * n £ himfelf after afore ne feith> W Yet write we not this,as though the peoples mitfs Ann.» prefence , either in all Councels where the do&rine is not in contro vei fy > were onAd.iy. ,, *needfull: or that in thofe Councels where they were prefent, they hiavelike ^" ^ oa _i> right with thofeBilhops and Elders. For they (we mean Bifhops and Eldeis) tive particle » ma y firft by a feverall and forefet deliberation , take counfell whether it be ex- addedthere,» pedient to propound any fuch matter,as is in cotroverfie in thatCouncell where b^ h eS p°" " c ^ e P eo P^ e * ha ^ ^ e P re ^ ent « Whereby if they perceive any generall and obfti- ters fault?""" nate oppolition of them againft the truthj they may hold that poynt of doctrine being con- » back. This we fee to have been done by lofias , who or ever he afifembled th^ »«;/«> that » people , firft of all aflfembled the Elders of luda and lerufalem. 2. Kjng. 2$. 1. before and' » Al *° b ? Iames > who ac Pauls miwa.\\ to lerufalem , tirft alTembled the Elders to foibwesaf-» debate'ofthe matter, or ever he was prefented before the Church. AB. 21.18, ter.making „ jy. Secondly, if the people fhould bewray a wilfull ftubbornefTe againft the fenS^nhis " truthjnotfufpe&ed by them: yettheGovernours being found (without whom words, 8c is >>there can nothing be concluded) there fhould notfollowany prejudice ofthe therefore to,, Councels authority againft the trueth: albeit the number ofthe people afTem- fcs omitted, fi ^led were g reater t hen f t hofe Bifhops and Elders. Hereupon it commeth >, that the Decrees ofthe Councell are after called the Decrees ofthe Apoftles & >, Elders : leaving out the brethren , which Luke had rirft fet downe. And upon » the fame ground in the decifion of doubtfull matters, Mofes, Deut.iy. comman- s, deth that they fhould have recourfe unto the Priefis ofthe Leviticallfiockef or that ,, they bare the principall fwav in thofe deliberations. Laftly , the cafe of Coun- 3 , eels being as it hath bene declared , it is nomarvell although Augufine call a a> Generall Councell in fome refpeel, the confent ofthe whole-Church, confldering 5, that not onely thofe Bifhops and Elders, but fome of the peopie were (in all jjlikelyhood) there afTembled. That which MrCartw. fay th ofthe feverall and forefet deliberation, agreeth with (x) Ann.in thatwhich Be^a (x) writes of a Tlpofix Adfyta 5 or foregoing confultation. The f% l Th Z ' *~ arne IS ac ^nowledged by (y) MrFenneraMo. And hereunto accordeth that which S # ' y°' Gcrfom Bucerus fitly noteth concerning the meaning of Cyprian , who writing unto the Elders & Deacons that he had determined from the beginning of his govern - (z)Cyprian. m ent to doe nothing bv his owne judgement privately , ( 2 ) without their counfell, and '^' ep ' 10, without confent of the people - 3 Bucerus explaineth his fpeech diftinftly , onthisman- "(a) Diflert. ner ( a ) Behold , firft In mentions the counfell which was to be borrowed from the Prefbytery ; de Gub.Ec- andtheri-* the confent , whereby the judgement ofthe Prefbytery was publicly approved ofthe P«MM4f- people. And this he applies alfo to the order of tnat judgement defcabed, i.Cor, 5, B« CLASSES AND SYNODS. 77 $. But concerning the judgement of Cyprian we have occafion to fpeak more Hereafter. ■ - I. C A N. V. Howfoever the Church at Antioch ,fent fome Brethren , with Paul and Barnabas, unto the Church at lerufalem : notwith ftanding (and let it be well obferved ) they did not this as being a dependent bod\ , and ftanding under another Ecclefialticall authoritie out of rhemfelves. For as M r Parker $) excellently proves it, the Church at {\>}v£$i* ^Antioch at this time, had absolute power in, and for her f elf , to have ended the controverfy * cl.L3.c20, and might have done it : I fay , in refpecl of authority ; without acquainting therewith any other P -& l \ & Congregation-, at all. To the fame purpofe another faith , (c) The Church of Antioch ( c )D.whit fent not to lerufalem, as being bound induecv thereto: But in regard it was the Concqiu. chief place of Religion, therefore they made chovfe freely of that Congregation, CiI • as knowing them to be heft able to refolve the controve: fie. True it ts, the Hierar- chie < d ) deny thvs : ofwhofe opinion Vi r Paget muft either be - } or els the Claffes , (at they (d)D.whis« now rule) mufifall to the ground i for any relief that this Scripture, tASt. i$ % willyeeld un- §- T ' C '3* tothem. Ansvv. i. Had M r Canne weti u derftoodthe ftaceoftheque&on, or what he faith and whereof he affirmes , he might eafily have knowne that we are of the fame minde wich Mr Parker , in this , that as Antioch fo every other parti- cular Church hath like authority to end their owne controverfies , if they finde themfelves able. This condition > concealed by M r Canne, is foure or five times repeated by Mr Parker in the(e) place alledged,fpeakingof Antioch and other ('e)Pol.Ecc. particular Churches with thefe expreflTe words, fi modo poffit ,fimodo vires fuppeti- 1 -!- c a0 -P» vijfent,&c. if they could; if they hadability - 3 if 'they found not themfelves too weak,; in cafe^ 01 ^ 01 ' ofimpotency&c. M r Canne hiding thefe conditions from the eyes of his Readers* doth hereby hood-wink them and keeps them indarknesfrom feeing the right meaning of Mr Parker, iu Befides rhe cafe of imporency alledged by Mr Par- her, there was another reafon whv this controverfy at A: tioch was to be brought unto a Synod, viz. becaufe it was caufa communis , a common caufe,that concerned both many other Churches in regard of the matter , and in fpeciall the Church of lerufalem , becaufe the authoursof this controverfy were not members of the Church of Antioch , but came from Iuda?a and from them' of lerufalem, A8 : .i$. 1,24. and therefore that Church of lerufalem had more right and authority to judge,of them, then they of Antioch had. 111. Whereas he would have it to be well obferved, that the Church of Anrioch fent to them of lerufalem, notm \&inga dependent body , ftanding under another Ecclejiafticall authority cut of themfelves : the right and wdl obferving hereof Hands in this>irhat we acknowledge particular Churches to be dependent bodies , not by way of fubjeftion unto any one fuppo- fed to have more authority then the reil, but fo dependent that every one is equal- ly and mutually fubjecl: to one another, as occafion reqaireth. The Churches of lerufalem, of Antioch, of Samaria, and others a were all of equall authority, and yet each ftanding under the authority of a Synod compounded of them all': and this appeareth by theinftance of this controverfy , referred hereto the decifion of the Synod at lerufalem. iv. Forthe teftimony of D.Whitakertf) that the Church (0 Cone- of Antioch fent not to lentfdem 04 being bound in duety thereto : i. It is mifalledged by ^ l,UCkl > him, for inrjie Chapter mentioned by him there are no fuch words to be found : K 3 the 78 THE POWER OF the words are indeed M r Parkers , and not of another as he fay th » poynting at D. Whit, in his margine. He jumbles teftimonies together; that which one fayth f he fets downe in anothers name , and followes the miftake that is in M r Parkers fhlDtfCSc* ^ book throu § h che Printers or Writers fault. And though in the (h) Chapter Qu.ifc*, C "following D. Whir, fayth of ferufalem j that there was asitwereacertamecaftleof p.o, Religion and the head of 'the Church; yettheorher words are none of his. So licenti- ous and negligent is M r C. in his quotations, z. For the thing it felf, though in the combination of Churches into Synods, they are not limited and (imply bound in duety {ex ohligato , as M r Parker fayth) to any one Church more then another, yet this freeth them not from their duety of uniting themfelves to fome ClafTes or Synods : even as particular perfons though they be not fimply bound to one Congregation more then another, but may ufe a Chriftian liberty therein; yet are they bound in duety to joyne themfelves as members to fome Chuch : and fur- ther where no abfolute neceffity is impofed , yet godly wifedome teacheth men a duetv in refpeft of circumftances and accidentall occafions, tomakechoyfeof one Church rather then another, v. He alledgeth D. Whirg. fo defectively that no man by his quotation can tell how to finde his words. But whereas he fayth of the Hierarchy , that I muft either be of their opinion ; or els theClajfes (astbeynoio rule) muft fall to theground • for any relief, tyc. this coniequence remaines to be de- clared and proved by him. I. C a n. VI. When the Hierarchic alledge bt c 20.P.3 1 j , effeHuall ( as indeed it is J againft them ■ then it U no lejfe effe&uall againft the Claffes: Now 3 l5 - I have in part already /hewed , how quite contrary their doings are unto the Example in A8* \ 5" . unto which thU further may be added : that the matter carried from Antioch to lerufa- P.ig.3 38. lem , was agreed upon by the whole Church ; and fent thither by their mutuall defire and con* fent : And hence our Divines teach , that the power of bringing things from one Con- gregation to anocher,belongeth not to any one Officer, but to the whole Church. * Thus he I/w* be true, by what word of God then doth M r Faget , by his * owne authorise, and haccufed without the confenc oftheConfiftorv* or any one of them , carry matters to the Ser° in E he & a $ s > an ^ ^ m ^ an ^ '% together , undoe all that , which the Elders , with the Churches records of confmt,had before joyntly concluded. Ansvv. I. That the particular a&s of the Apo* ourChurch, files, incafes alike, muft alike be obferved, I doe willingly grant, and thereupon ground oa.6, our Argument for the authority of Synods. To this end it is alledged of M r Par- ker in this very place which M r C. doth cite > viz. to fhew how controverfies are to be brought from particular Churches, not to one perfon, to a Biihop or Arch- Bifhop, as^the Hierachy would have it, but unto a Synod according to the exam- ple in AB.15. How M r Canne doth imagine that this fhould be effe&uall againft ClafTes, he neither declareth, neither can f conjecture. 11. Whereas he addeth* that the matter carried from ^Antioch to lerufalem was agreed upon by the whole Charcb&c. I argue thence ; if a whole Church fometime be fo offended and troubled by falfe teachers, that they hold it needfull to feek help of a Synod j it is lefle marvell that fometimes one or'two ihould be driven to feek fueh help. Had there bene buc one CLASSES AND SYNODS. fe one perfon in Antioch troubled and unfatiff yed in conference about that poynt of juftification and falvation by the works of the Law » who could have forbidden him to feek help of the Synod > either by way of counfell or judgement) when he could not finde it at home i And in matters of judgement , feeing juftice is to be done to one perfon as well as to a multitude ; I0M1. 12.& 22.3. Efa. 58.6. Amos* 5. 1 2.24. therefore if one perfon think himfelf oppreffed by a particular Churchi the liberty of appeale is not to be denyedhim. 111. Whereas they fay, Hence ouv Divines teach, &c. whom do they meane by this phrafe , our Divines ? Doth W. B. mean the Arminian Divines, unto whom he hath declined, and is become one of their difciples * Doth M r C. mean the Divines of the Separation ? The communion of other Divines is renounced by them. And thefe alfo are fuch, that if a whole Church together fhould agree to referre their contro vet fies unto the judgement of a Synod , they hold it to be an Antichriftian bondage. Doe they mean Mr Parker whom they aliedged immediately before, and unto whom they feem to have reference by that ambiguous quotation , fo fet downe in the margine as if it belonged unto that which went before ? Yet he is but one , and none of theirs. Mr Parser faith indeed * there , that this delegation and power ofde- * Pol. Eccl legating is not in oneBiJhop,but inthe Churches themselves. He fpeakes of that commu- P'33 8 » nication of Churches, when fomedeale with Others concerning any Ecclefiafti- callbufines, by fending their delegates or meflengers unto them, which power of fending delegates in Ecclefiafticall affaires , he proves to be in the Church it felf> and not in any one Bif hop, in oppofition unto the Hierarchy , who will have fuch bufineffes to be done by themfelves and in their owne name. That which M r Parker fay th is no way contrary unto the praftife of the ClarTes and Synods, where the Deputies and Delegates of the Churches appeare in the name of thofe feve- rall Churches from which they are fent, acknowledging the power of their de- legation to be derived unto them from the fame. Mr C. and W. B. confound thefe two things which are to be diftinguifhed , viz. the dealing in Church af- faires In the name of the Church, which they onely are allowed to doe who are chofen of the Church and defigned thereunto , and the propounding of perfonall grievances in cafe of appeale or complaint touching any thing that is amiffe » which, as we fayd before , is free unto every Officer and member of the Church when he cannot>otherwife be fatiffyed, he doing it ftill in his owne name. Now both thefe may be underftood by that their phrafe of bringing things from one Con- gregation to another : whereas M r Parker meant onely the former, as is plaine by his whole difcourfe in the place mentioned; though M r C. and W.B. would faine apply it unto the latter , as appeares by the inference which thence they make a- gainft me. But for this their opinion they cannot fhew any one word of God>nor any one Divine, whereas I have the * wi'tnelTe of both. iv. Touching theac- *v ag , 37 ^ cufationof me in particular, that I have brought matters to the Claffis , without '.41, confent of the Confifiory, or any one of them, &c. how earneft foever they be both in the line and in the margine to load me with double rebuke ; yet their owne words fail upon them , and while they feek to accufe , they excufe me rather, for if it be as they fay > then it appeares that the matter I took in hand was fuch as might ftand firme %o THE POWER OF firme upon tryall and examination by the Deputies , Minifters and Elders of ma- ny Churches, when as the contrary proceedings were all undone and came to no- thing. And yet it is alfo falfe which they fay of the Churches confint : the matter being never propounded unto the Church, nor their confent required orafkedt notwithstanding all that was done by fome particular perfons. The complaints and reproaches with which they make up their 6 Exception are not worth the anfwering. The teftimony or. the Englijh Church at Franckford is afterward to be confidered. I.Ca n. VII. The thingthen and there concluded, was divine Scripture, impofedupon all other Churches of the Gentiles, although they had no delegates there >v.zz,z$.ch. 16 .4. Ansvv. 1. The Argument is not taken from the infallibility oftruethchat was in the decrees of this Synod, but from the order according to which they were made, and the perfons determining the things that were then and there conclu- ded, being fuch as did not all belong unto that particular Congregation > where the controverfy was rayfed. 11. Though the decrees in that Synod were groun- *Vtg.66. ded upon the Scriptures, as I granted* before ; yet they could noc be fayd to be divine Scripture, untill they were by Luke recorded among the ABs of the Apoftles: neither was it manifeft unto all that they were according to the Scriptures , untill it was concluded in the Synod ; for els ir had bene in vaine to have repaired thi« * Pag.69. ther for this refolution. ill. He that would feem ro fay * before out of D. Whit, that this aflembly didbindeonelybm in afpeciall or particular meeting, doth now acknowledge that the thing then and there concluded did bindc all other Chur* ches of the Gentiles, being impofed upon them ail, to be obferved by them. It is true indeed that the decrees of this Synod were directed and delivered unto feverall Churches of the Gentiles, where the obfervation of them was judged robe ne- ce(Tary,notonely becaufethey were by infallible direction from the holy Ghoft, which reafon is implyed by M r Robin fon (from whence this and thefubftanceof moft (k)Iuftifofofthe former exceptions is borrowed) when headdes, 00 and fo impofed upon all Sep.p.199. ot fj er churches i&c, but befides , becaufe the Apoftles were chief judges in this * Pag.6* Synod , who as 1 have f hewed often * before , were as Delegates from all the 7*. Churches; in which refpecl:, as was alfo noted * out of M r Cartwright , this Sy- * Pag.6p. noc j ma y kg accounted a Generall Councell. I. Can. VIII. It is obfervable , how M r Pagetftumhlethatthe fameftone,andmif« (1) Rhem. applyeth the very fame place of Scripture , cu the Papifts (lj have done before : For ihtu they on the place. mr j tt . p au land Barnabas condescended to referre the whole controverfie , & the determination thereof, to the Apoftles and Ancients at lerufalem , that is to fay* to commit the matter to be tryed by the Heads and Bif hops , and their determi- nation in Councill. And indeed fuch application of it , better ferves the turne oflefuits and ¥riefts,thatfeektofet uptheVopes Supremacie >and a Tvrannicall Hierarchie *then thofe that defire toftandfor the Rights and Priviledges , which Chrift hath given unto his Church. Ansvv. There is nothing fayd here , but either it is refuted by that which I have fayd already ; or els it is a mere begging of the queftion , by avou- ching that which remaines by him to be prooved»and which I am to difprove when I come co the examination of his Arguments. Though the Papifts abufe and! j CLASSES AND SYNODS. Si and pervert this place j yet that is no prejudice to our and others right ufe of it, as I (hewed before * touchingthe like exception about Veut. 17. How can I be *P«g. jy. fayd to mifapply this place as the Papifts have done, feeing i doe not apply it in 3 6 - fuch fort as chey have done , either to derogate from the certainty of the doftrine preached by Paul and Barnabas, which their opinion noted in thofe very words of the Rhemifts which he cites, I have* before rejected; or to prove that Coun- *&&** eels have abfolute authority, and that their decrees are infallible, which errourof theirs I have in like manner difclaimed> both in my (m) former writing , anrfat the (m) Anf. to very * firft entrance into this Difpute? Inaword,feeing I have applyed this place w.Rp.89, no otherwife, then other Orthodox Divines have done before me, it is needles to * *'£$; infift further upon this matter. see before, ^^ _ _____ „ htlMfo, CHAP. V. An Anftoertothe Attegations~ofMr Davenport 9 tou- ching the Authority of Synods. Aving fearched through M r Dav. his book for fomefpeciall Arguments from the Scripture, to lhew the undue power of Clafles and Synods, where- of he with others doth accufe them, I doe therein finde my felf deceived and fru- ftrate of my expe&ation. He fpeaks ofc of the warrant of the word , but he brings it not where and when it moft concerned him. I finde onely in one piece of a leafeC^a few teftimonies of Scripture, butfo loofelyand ambiguoufly noted, (a)Apol.re- without framing any Argument from them or without applying them direttly to P 1 ^ P ,z 3^ the Queftion, that men hardly can guelTe at his meaning. I finde alfo the moft of the very fame teftimonies firft alledged by M r Canne before M r D.his book came forth, and by him framed into Arguments; and therefore in anfwer to M r Can. I f hall fpeak fomething of them in the next Chapter. That which he doth moft largely infift upon , is the writing and teftimonies of men : and of thefe he fayth, (b) I will not ftand to give a Catalogue of their names , though 1 might be plentiful therein, (b) Ibid, p, lut will content my felf with the three Writers of this hjmdt , whom the Anftverer pretended, 2 3 8 * in conference with me , to make for him. and IJhalljhew them to bejlrongly againfi him , Mr Cartwrighh and Mr Fenner, and Mr Parker, men of our owne nation. Sect. I . His Allegation of Mr Cartwright anfwered. "COr Mr Cartwright; His owne words undivided are thefe : (?) And if it fhould £ c ) T - c -* A „ nappe (which may come to paffe) that any Church { hould defire or choofe, JSfifc?^* 9, or content upon by the moft part , fome that is unmeet , either far doctrine or „ manners , then the Minifters and Elders of the other Churches round about, I fhould advertife firft, and afterward as occafion fhould ferve , fharply & feverely », charge, that they forbeare fuch ele&ion, or if it be made, that they confirme it >,not, by furTering him to exercifeanyminifterie. And if either the Churches » round about doe faile of this duety , or the Church which is admonifhed , reft » not in. their Admonition > then to bring it to the next Synode \ and if it reft not L there* *t THE POWER OF ii therein ithen the Prince or Magiftrate, which muft fee that nothing in the » Churches be diforderly and wickedlv done , ought to drive that Church from i> that election to another which is convenient. Now upon thefe words M r Dav. without any juft explication or further declaration thereof) makes this (d) Apolre- bold and unreafonable conclufion. W) Thus Mr Cartwright. So that in his judgement, ^/'P-47. other Churches have nopoiver ofhindring a faulty eleBion, but by admonition, which power every Chrijlian hath in another, for his good. But that Mr Carttv. givet h more power unto the Churches and Synod,then that which every Chriftian hath,& more then the power of admonition onely> it appeareth thus : I. He doth in this place manifeftly diftinguifh betwixt admonition, & a charge or commandement, which implyes a greater power and authority ; when as he fayth of the Claflls , or of the Minifters and Elders of the Churches round abouti that they fhould adveniftfirft, which notes their admonition, and afterward harply tstfeverely charge, which implyes a commandement and authority therein. There- t fore in Scripture one and the fame * word is ufually and indifferently tranflated ei- flB/^y.thcr to charge or command, Matt. 10. 5. L«fc 8. 29. AB. 1. 4. & 4. 18. & 5. 28. tyT i.Tim. $.11. with Luk.$.i^.< #6.13, 17. thereby ye/Aco. t0 eX p re (f e a fpeciall authoritie of fuch as ufe the fame. And the propriety of Trx&ty -this word is thus declared by Mr Cartwr. himfelf , when expounding thofe words yikia*, of Paul, 1. Tim.6. 13. he faith , (e) It is to be noted that he faith [Idenounceor I (e) t. c! 1 cnar g e ] he doth not fay [ I exhort or give counfell] leaving it to the liberty ofTimothie, Rep.p.177. And thus here we are in like manner to underftand him, when he tells how a Claf- fis of Minifters and Elders were f harply and fe verely to charge a Church , that they ufed an authority more then of exhorting or admonifhing and counfelling , fo thac the matter was not left in the liberty of them that were fo charged. II. He proceeds further , and after both admonition and a fevere charge or prohibition, he fhewes that the Claffis hath vet more to doe in this bufines,if their charge be not regarded , inrefpeft of the unlawfull ele&ion , viz. that they confirm it not byfujfering him to exercife any minijlery. Whereas ordinarily Minifters newly e le&ed are confirmed and ordained by impoGtionof hands by fome Minifters o the Churches neere unto them ; this Mr Cartwr. would have to be denyed unto him. And this denyall of his ordination after his election, is to be efteemed a kind ofcenfure»infome fort proportionable to the depofition of a Minifter already confirmed; feeing keeping out or cafting out from the Miniftery, are aftions 0" like nature. And this is that which MrFenner, who was well acquainted with the meaning of Mr Cartwr. in thefe things, poynteth at, whenfpeaking ofacon- (f S/rheoi,troverfy rifing in a Church about the calling of a Minifter, he faith ; (0 that the I.7.C 2.p. C4w j- e ^ t0 y e Ytftrred unto the judges whom it concerneth , (and who are after mentioned) that they may eyther ratify the eleBion ormakeitfruftrate. Now in the Ecclefiafticall poli- tic thefe judges are no other thenClaffes or Synods,whereof he afterward fpeakes; and this their abrogating and making voyd an unlawfull election, is a power more then fimple admonition. 1 1 [. Whereas Mr Cartwr. here faith , that if either the Churches round about doe faile ofthii duety>or the Church which is admonifhed , reft not therein > then to bring it to the next CLASSES AND SYNODS. 83 next Synod , #c. hereupon (g) D. Whitgift calles for proof of Scripture , comman- ( g ^ o e f £ dement or example to juftify this order. Mr Cartw. in his fecond Reply having Anfw.to firft {hewed other warrant for admonition by Churches* proceeds further and ^ monp * faith, (h) That from the admonition of the Churches, it is meet to come to Synods, if the judge- (hf t.C. * merit of the Churches be contemned ; may be jhewed by proportion from the place of our Saviour Reply.p. ChriflinS, Matthew, ch. 18. for as when one brother is not mooved with the admonition of z i l ^i z * two or three , the matter mufi be referred unto the Church, to fee whether the majefiie of it will moove him , whom the authority of two or three would not : evenfo it is meet that the Churchy that maketh light of the judgement of two or three Churches, faould be prefied with the judge- ments of the Diocejfeor Province, asjhallbe in that behalf advifed. From this proportion, feeingthe rule* Matt. 18. was not onely a rule of admonition > But alfo a rule far the exercife of authority in cenfuring , it folio wes hence in like manner,that many Churches combined in a Synod » have power to cenfure as well as to admonifh. IV. Mr Cartwr.doth further declare his meaning in the fame places when he alledgeth the example of the Reformed Churches in this matter : If I werein-, this poynt (faith (») he) deftimeofthewordofGod: yet the naked examples of the- Reformed (i ) IWd.p* Churches ought to weigh downe a Popijh cufiome. Now it is undsnyable,that the Re- ziz * formed Churches doe allow the ufe of ClafTes and Synods, not onely for counfell or admonition, but alfo for the exercife of Ecclefiafticall authority and jurifdi&ion in judging of caufes & cenfuring of offendours. V. Mr Cartwr. fpeaking of the utmoft that can be done by a Clafiis»or by Mi- nifters and Elders of neighbour Churches in time of perfecution,wanting a Chri- ftian Magiftrate,againft an obftinate Church that refufeth to be admoniihed.faith, (k) if they excommunicate the whole Church ,itisa hard matter , and yet if they may doe that; 00 T - c » * there is all they can doe. To excommunicate a whole Church together iis indeed a hard Re P • P-J z » thing, and fuch a thing as I never heard of in the practife of the Reformed Chur- ches: yet this intimates that he thought they had a power of excommunicating at!eaftfome,ifnotail,uponajuftoccafion. And when D.JVbitg. (i)anfweringtoa n) De f l0 f teftimony of Cyprian alledged by Mr Canwr. faith , Who ever denyed but that the Sy- Anfw.to nods might excommunicate .«* Mr C. (m) replying againe unto him , yet (hewes no Adm.p 67? dillike at all or difference from his Oppofite herein , which yet he ought to have ^ e p e 5gf donejifhe had thought it an undue power,& to have reproved him for giving this power of the greateft cenfure , even of excommunication unto Synods. Hence it appeares that he was farre from limiting all jurifdi&io unto a particularChurch; that he allowed Synods more power then of counfelling or admonif hing. VI. Mr Parser fpeaking of this very place in Mr Cartw. and vindicating it from the oppofition o£D.TVhitg. (hewes that he agrees with me in the interpreta- tion thereof,and not with .Mr Dav. Hefayth>(^; Cum prejjtjfet Thomas Cartwrightus ( n )p l.Ec^ Ecclejiarum Reformatamm morem , &c. When T. C. had urged the manner of the B^for- lib. 3 .c'24. med Churches incorreBingthe faulty eleBionofMinifiers^rftbyaClalJis^ifthatprevay- P-35i« led not by a Synodtfthatfayled alfo, by the Magiftrate,&c.For if the example, cultome and pra&ifeof the Reformed Churches be urged herein, then doth he notfpeak of hindring an unlawfull election bv admonition or counfell onely ; then doth he acknowledge a further authority of judgement & cenfure in the ClafTes. L 1 VII. $4 THE POWER OP Vlf. The judgement of Mr Cartwr. touching the authority of Synods is manifeft by that right which he aflfcribeth unto them for the decifion of caufes> and Y a 8-47» not for counfell onely , as was (hewed * before : and this may further be feen by 4 ' that blame which is imputed unto him for Scottizing and Genevating , declared ■KChap.7. * hereafter. Had he bene of this new opinion, he could not have defended the fe viz. that it is a divine politie t fofarrea* 0I.I.7.C. 1 . it is infiituted ofChrifi ,for the government of particular Churches , joyntly and feverally. P.-4*. This definition being admitted>overthrowes that Jingle tUncompoundedpolicietmaia- tained by Mr lacob ; as alfo the afTertion of Mr Dav. for jurifdi&ionlimited to particu- lar Churches: becaufe herein he allowes a compounded policie, not onely for coun- fell> but for the government of Churches, as well joyntly as feverally. Herein Ec- clefiafticall policie and jurifdi&ion is extended further then the limits of one par- ticular Church , even unto a Synod or Claflis ; becaufe there is no joynt govern- ment of Churches perfectly found but in fuch afTemblies. The Scriptures alfo which Mr Fenner alledgeth for confirmation of this definition, being many of them taken from the old Teftament , doe undenyably lead us unto fuch a joynt & (p)IbiJS. compound government of the Church. 11. He omitteth the definition of a (p) particular Church , which M r Fen. applyes as well to the Churches and Syna- gogues under the old Teftament>as unto any fince. This appeares in divers of the Scriptures and inftances which he bringeth to confirme his definition, as namely, I.Sam. 10.5. Pfa.io7.$2.iov 9 The words of Mr F. are, Pty»P«*38. that it is [•*) proprio nomine fie diBum , fo called with the proper name : His meaning is , (x) S.The- thatin common ufe of fpeechit had the proper name given unto it j evenasit ol,I -7-P» comes to paiTe oft times that a part is called by the proper name of the whole,and ZJ9% one fpecies or one fort receives the proper name of the whole kinde , as when in fpeaking commonly of the Minifters and Elders of a Church , the ruling Elders are fo called with a proper name that belongs to the whole kinde, feeing Mini- fters of the word are Elders as well as they : 1. Tim. 5. 17. fo when the ruling El- ders are called with the proper name of Govemours , i.Cor. iz.zS. though Mini- fters of the wordaregovernoursalfoas well as they. Andunleffewethus under- stand M r Fen. there fhould be no trueth in his words ; for as he himfelf faith , (y) (y) ibid, p* there is a Synecdoche in the name of Elders when it is given to Ecclefiafticall Go- HU vernours ; and therefore there muft be a doubie improper or figurative fpeech , a double Synecdoche, when theaffembly of fome Officers in a particular Church is called with the proper name of the Elderf hip , whereas but fome of them are el- derly or aged men , and whereas the aflembiy of fuch men in a Synod is an Elder- {hip as well as the other. 11. It is a notable fabrication of M r Fenners tefiimo- . ny, When as he diftinguiihing the Ecclefiafticall Elderfhip into the Elderfhip of a particular Church and into the Elderlhip of many Churches , and giving before- hand in the firft place a generall definition of theElderfhip,eommon to both thofe kindes, M r Dav. comes and reftraines that generall definition to one kinde , and brings in M r F. fpeaking on this manner, TheElderjlupofthefirftfort,hefayth>isa compound office wherein all the Elders doe, in the name of the whole Church, admtnifter all the hufinejfes &c. But this M r F. hath not fayd : I defire the Reader to look on the (*) ( z ) s. The* place , as alfo on that which followes in his * transition , from the generall unto 01.1.7; p. the fpecies and feverall forts of the Elderfhip, and there to behold how grofly M r \ 7 ^ D. corrupted! the words of M r F. and abufeth the reader , and that in a point of s * 9 ' maine confequence touching our queition: for while M r F. gives the lame gene- L * , rail 86 THE POWER OF rail definition totheElderfhip of many Churches, viz. to Glaflesand Synods » which he gives unto theElderf hip of a particularChurch>thereby the fame autho- rity and jurifdi&ion which he gives herein unto a particular Church isalfo given by him unto a Synod> the Elderfhip of many Churches : and then are not Synods for counfelj-onely or admonition, but they are to exercife a jurifdi&ion and power as well as particular Churches, in. Another inftance of his unfaithfulltrar.fia- tion, is to be obfer ved from thofe words of M r F. (a ) pojlea autcm audit is & ajfenti* (a) Ibid.p. cntifrusy decernenda & pro decretis Ecclefiis proponenda funt j which he tra iflates thus , (b) Apol.re. ( b ) an d afterwards , the opinions and ajfmt of all being declared , matters are to he concluded. ply.p.*j9. Thofe laft words (hould have bene tranflated thus \ matters are to be decreed andtobe propounded unto the Churches for decrees : and being thus tranflated they import an aft of authority , and a power of jurifdi&ion ,in making decrees, which are more then counfell or admonition, efpecially when thofe matters fo decreed are pro- pounded unto the Churches for decrees. But the word of concluding which M r D. ufeth is ambiguous, and is applyed fometimes to the reafonings of men, either in private or publick, where there is no authority to give definitive fentence , or to make decrees for the Churches. Mr Canne himfelf , though he condemne the Ciafles and Synods of the Reformed Churches , yet doth he allow Minifters and (c) Chnr- brethren of divers Churches to come together , (c) toconferreofthings,yeaand to ches plea.p, conclude (if they can) what they judge meet &c. This ufe of the word conclude ferves to elude and frustrate this pregnant teftimony of their power, iv. Another mif- tranflation is , when in the tame page , thofe words of Mr F. leges maximi momtnti conflituendae , are thus tranflated by him, orders alfo of the greateft moment to bemads. . This I doe therefore note the rather , becaufe M r D. keeps fo great a quoile a- (d) Apol. b° ut tne ft 1 "^ difference betwixt orders and lawes, and faith ( I. By M r F. his alledging thofe (f) Scrip- , f g The0s tureSfDeut.iy.y.withz.Chron.iy.Sai. Matt.i2.i2. i.T/w.4.14. to fhew what}, j. p ' tt7 s/ authority there is in a Claflis or Synod , comprehended by him under that gene- ral! definition of a Prefbyterie, as well as the Elderfhipofa particular Church: thereby he confefTeth, that there is a power of judgement, cenfure and jurifdiftion in Synods ; becaufe thofe teftimonies of Scripture fpeak of fuch jurifdi&ion and judgement, of binding and loofing, of impofitionof hands or ordination, Sec. 1.1. Though M r F. fpeaking of excommunication and abfolution from it , fayth that they are to be done in the affembly , by thz_~ authority of the whole Church , which laft words M r D.for fpeciali obfervati'on caufeth to be printed in great capitall letters; yet this doth not prove that he left the whole- power ofjurifdiSlioa^in the-, particular Church : feeing in the fame (g) place fpeaking of Ecclefiafticall Judgements admi- (g) pa.^77 niftred by the Synod or Prefbytery in deciding of doubts, he faith alfo , etfi autho- vitas communis fit > miniftris tamen (s> fententiam dicendi & earn exponendi maxima faciei dapoteftas : that is , though the authority be common,) per omnesEc- (hjibide. ilefiasfumma Ecckjlafticapoteftas Prefbyterio demandata eft : that is , In which throughout all Churches the highefi or chizfe ft Ecclefiafticall authority is committed to the Prefbytery. And hereby alfo it appeares that he did not leave the whole power of jurifdi&ion in a particular Church. But thefe paiTages M r D. omitted , when he tranflated other parts of the fame periods: He thought it not to be for his advantage to have his Reader take knowledge of them. iv. Whereas M r F. requ ire th, that in matters of greateft moment, afterthe npoj38tyo'i$ orfore-confultarionofthe Prefbytery , comprehending both Claffis and particular Elderf hip , their counfeJs be told unto the Church ; that thing ordinarily is thus performed in thefe Refor- med Churches , viz. after that in the Cla&icall aifembly of Minifters and Elders it hath bene found juft and requifite , that any perfons f hould be excommunicated or any Minifters called, thefe cenfures and elections are then firft folemnely pro- pounded unto the particular Church , whom thefe things fpecially concerne, and foaccomplifhed with their confent, and not otherwife : if the greater part of the Church daTent and allow not the excommunication or election; then for the 3- voyding of ftrife , the matter is againe referred ad majorem Senatum , unto a greater Ecclefiaflicai Senate, Ciaflis or Synod, to judge thereof and to compofe the diflfention. v. M r F. in the fame chapter , (*) fhewes from the Scriptures that in. C 1 )^ 2 ?* thefe PrefbyteriallafTemblies there ought to be a mutuall office performed in the %79% fame in fpeciali manner towards one another , not onely for counfels , but alfo for the cenfures of fuch as are members of thofe afTemblies, And this is alfo agree- able 85 THE POWER OF (k) Kere- able to the order prefcribed both in the 00 Nationall Synod at Dort> and in divers nin*?Art ottiers » forthecenfureof fuch faults as are committed in thofe meetings , or by ^" ge * ' contempt of the admonitions of inferiour affemblies. Herebv alfo ic appeares that he allowed an Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion in Synods and Clafles , and did not limit all jurifdi&ion unto a particular Church. vi. After M r F. had fpoken in generall both of the Prelbytery of one and of many Churches joyntly together, then he comes to fpeak of each of them feverally: and there againefpeaking of the Prefbyeery of manv Churches , that is, of Gaffes and Synods , he faith, U) (l)S.Theol. Hie atuem leges Ecclefiaftic* condmdafunt , Here are Ecclefiafticall lawes to he made. Tfnis *.7. P .i8o. wasa power ofjurifdidion, more then of admonition or counfell. ThisM r O. paffeth over alfo; it was no pollicy for him to draw collections from fuch teftimo- (m)lbid.p. nies. vii. That one teftimony of Scripture which M r F. oft ( m )alledgeth> 280,281. z.Coy.8.19,23. (not to fpeak of others alledged with it) is an evidence of the authority of Synods. It is there fpecifyed that the brother who was chofen to $ be a meffenger of the Churches , was 5 elected byfujfrages : now this election was yetpolo- an a< ^ °^ aut ^ or "y > exercifed by fundry Churches in one bufineffe , touching one - J v " perfon ; and hence it appeareth , that a combination of Churches may exercife vqijU£» jurifdiftion together touching fuch as are no peculiar members of one particular Church. And if fuch election may be made by many Churches , then may cen- fures be decreed by many Churches together as occafion requires. Laftly , M* F. having fpoken of the firft part of Ecclefiafticall polirie touching fuch as ad- minifter the fame both by a fimple and compound office in the Prelbytery , both of one or more Churches , in Synods or Generall Councils, he comes at laft to fpeak of the duety of the Saints , other members of the Church , which are noc {n)ibid.p. promoted unto any Ecclefiafticall office, and (n)fets this downe for a common lata 242 with unto them all , that they befubjeB in all thofe things aforefayd , and further the fame according p, *° 2 ' to their power, with their gifts , labour, and wha.foever way they are^. able, Hebr. 13. 17. This peculiar bond of fpeciall obedience andfubmiffion unto fuch Officers, even in Synods as well as in other ordinances, is an argument , that he thought them to have fpeciall authority , more then of admonition & counfell. The judgement of Mr Fenner, this worthy Writer being thus cleared and vin- dicated from thofe unfaithfull omiffions, miftranfiaiions and mifcolleclions of M r D. his demand is hereby anfwered , and hereby he may fee why I referred him to this book. As for thofe matters of fail which he addes , the untrueth thereof is elfwhere to be declared. We will now proceed to M r Dav. his third allegation. Sect. III. His .Allegation of Mr Parker examined. (o)Apol.re- TO. Dav. (°) For Mr Parlor. He largely and ftrongly proveth th/spofition , (p) Po- piy,p.z4o, l te ft as Ecclefiafticaeffentialiter & primario in ipfa Ecclefia, tanquam infubjefto (p)DePolit. proprio, refidet. The power Ecclefiafticall doth effentially and primarily refide Ecd.lr3.c1 inthe Church itfelf, as in its proper fubject. The fenfe wherein he thus fpake, topre* vent aUfuJpicion of his pleading for popular confufion , he declareth out of Zanchy, who faith, Zanch.in toti Ecclefiaj dediffe Chriftum claves,feduautin Ecclefia certieffent ,^/clavi- prscept.4. bus utantur ad falutem Ecclefia; , honoremque Dei. That Chrift gave the keyes SF3. to the wholl Church , but fo , that there ihould be certainc men that Ihould ufe the CLASSES AND SYNODS. So the keyes to the good of the Church and glory of God. For the proof of the former* that the right of power is in every particular Church , he ufethfive Arguments • in the 6 . C 7. chapters , and then in the S. chapter , he commeth to /peak of the exercife ar.d ordinary exe* cution of this power , which is , hefayth , in the Church-officers or rulers, yet with this modera- tion , that this difpenfation of the Churches power in the Officers b^ according to a well tern- pered forme , partly ^Arijlocraticall , partly Democratically the Church committing thofe things to the Prejbytery , which it cannot commodioufiy per forme by itfelfe , and retainingthat gxercifeof power which belongs to the dignity , authority , and liberty which it hath received from Chrifi. Hhui he wholy deftroyeththat Democraty , or popular Anarchy , which Be^a juftly condemneth in Morellius , and is by fome imjuftly imputed to thofe that ple4d for a due reformation of Churches , according to the rules of the word , and the primitive patt ernes. Of the firfi fort of things , which the Church committeth to the Rulers , becaufe it cannot commo- dioufly performethemby it felfe, he fpeaketh in cap. 9.10.1 1 „ Ansvv. M r Dav.pro- feffedand promifed touching Mr Parker and thefe other Writers, that he would fhewthem tobeftrongly againftme : but though he make a long difcourfe of his wri- ting , and doe alledge in groffe eleven chapters at once out of M r Parker ; yet doe I not finde that he applyes any thing to the queftion againftme. for 1. Suppofe . it be granted (which yet fome godly and learned men deny } that all power Eccle- fiafticall iseffentially and primarily in the Church , as the proper fubjeft thereof, andfrom thence derived and communicated toother, either particular perfons, or affemblies of Claffes and Synods ; what is this to our queftion ? doth it follow from hence that Synods have no power to fudge Ecclefiafticall caufes , or that they are onely for counfell or admonition ? This is the poynt of our queftion ; but this neither Mr Parker affirmes , neither doth M c D. offer to conclude it by any juft confequence from his words: and fo all that he alledgeth is not to the purpofe. 11. This very derivation of power from particular Churches unto Claffes and Synods , is an argument of the power of judgement that is in them : for what great need was there of a derivative power to confult or toadmonifh onely i M r D. confeffeth that (q) every Chrifiian hath power of admonition in another (q)ApoI.re. forhisgood. And fhall Synods have no more power then particular and private P l >'»P«47. perfons? in. Whereas Mr Parker diftinguilheth betwixt the power of the Church and the exercife of that power , and acknowledged that the execution of this power in the adminiftration of the Word and Sacraments is not in the whole Church, but in fome fpeciall perfons appoynted thereunto ; it followeth hence that in fome things the Ministers and Governours of a Church have a power which the Church cannot exercife without them ; and therefore in fome rcfpecT: a greater authority then the whole Church befide them . This is confeffed in the pra&ife of the Brownifts themfeives , who keep their children fometimes unbap- tifed for many yeares together, while they want Minifters that have authority to baptife.^ 1 v. The Authors alledged by M r Parker , to fhew that Ecclefiarucall power is originally in the Church, did never draw anyfuch confequence from thence , that therefore there is no power of jurifdi&ion" in Synods , but made the contrary conclufion, that therefore there was a power of jufifdic"tion in them. And this conclufion was made? not onely by the Councell of Conftance and Bafill, M loh. 90 THE POWER OF (r) Ibid.p. lob.Gerfott & ScboU Parifienfii , but by D.JPlMp'tffe , whom M f Dav. (0 ailed- rnDe G5c S eth as if ne made for him> wno y et reafons frongly againft him , faving , (0 If a qil j .p. 1 70.' particular Church have greater authority in-, judgements then Peter, or any particular man , then much more the univerfall Qlmrch , which is reprefented in a generdl Councell or Sy nod. v. For Mr Parker himfelf, though he be very large touching the originall power of particular Churches> and the derivation thereof unto Minifters & Synods ; yet he never concludeth from hence a want of jurifdi&ionin Synods,but-declaresthe (0 Pol.Ecc. contrary in many (0 places, as is to be {hewed hereafter. In the meane time let us 1.3. c.io.8c confider how M r Dav. proceeds in alledging Mr Parker. 7.3.24, Sec. J. D A v. Of the fecondfort of things , which the Church retaineth in it felf, lecaufe it can commodioujly exercife them by it felfe , he Jpeaketh in cap. 1 1. Wherein by tz *Argu- mentSy he proveth the Churches fuperiority over her Paftors and rulers , in $ rejpetls , 1.0/ the end , the power which they have beinggiven them for her edification , 1 . in rejpeEl of the application of it to the perfons , 3 . nu refpeB of regulating the ufe of it , if it be abufed • Ansvv. 1. If thofe ZZ Arguments of M r Park, be good and effettuall to prove the Churches fuperiority over her Rulers; then have we fo many found Argu- ments to prove the authority of ClafTes and Synods. This is evident, becaufe M r P. applyes thofe zz Arguments to prove the jurifdi&ion of Synods as well as of MPoli Ec P ar " cu l ar Churches. His affirmation is (v) that the fuperiorit of jurifdi&ion is retai* d.1.3 c. 1 z" wd in every Churchy fo that neither the Pajlour in the Prime Church , nor the Prafident m V-77* the Combined Church , nor yet any Bijhop is above the Church , but under thepower of every Church. This diftinttion of the Church is more plainly declared by him after- {%) Ibid. c. ward* where he faith>00 Ejl itaque vifihlis Ecclefia dupleXyPrima et OrtayPrima,efi coU 13 .p. 1 17. leBiofingulorum fidelium in unam Qongregationem , etgenerali nomine Ecclefia dicitur. Or* ta y efl coHeBio (fcombinatio Ecclefiarum primarum plurium in unum ccetum , tyappeUatur Synodus. t hat is , The vifible Church is of two forts, The Prime and the Combined Church. The Prime Church is a coll e8 ion of fever aU faithfull perfons into one Congregation* and is called by a generall name , the Church. The C ombined Church is a colleBion of more prime Churches into one company >j& is called a Synod.'Sow the jurifdi&ion which he fpeakes of, he makes common to both, and expreflely applyes it to both , to the com- bined Church or Synod, as well as to the particular or prime Church. And fur- ther that in the 1 2. chapter he fpake generally of both thefe kindes of Churches » fo\ ^^ he manifefts in the firft words of the 13. chapter, where he begins thus, (y) Hither* to we havejpoken of the Church in generall » fo farre as it is the fubjetl ofEcclefiaflicallpoli* tie, now let us come to the divers kindes thereof. 11. Notwithstanding the fuperiority (z) ibid, p. f t h c Church , yet M r Par. (z) acknowledgeth the authority of the Paftour to be very great, as having it immediately from Chrift , and not onely the authority, but alfo the exercife of the fame authority and jurifdi£tion-,in which refpeft he faith he is fuperiour nor to men onely, but to the Angels themfelves, Gal. 1 .8 .as bein£ in Chrifts ftead, Z.Cor.$. 19,20. fo long as he ufeth this authority lawfully. And repeating the fame againe , he proceeds further when he faith , that if he doe not lawfully exercife his authority in the adminiftration ofthe Word and Sacraments* fa) Ibid, p. then he ceafeth to be a Paftour, 00 quo cafufolojumfuie Ecclefi* fubjeBum effe dicimusl * 5 - in which cafe alone wt fay that he iffubjeB unto his Church. If in this cafe alone (which Idurft CLASSES AND SYNODS. *t I durft not have (ayd) then in other cafes > the authority of many Paftours 8c El- ders > especially meeting together in a Synod , may exercife an authority fuperiour unto one particular Church. I . D a v . xAndin cap. 18.13. makjng a eomparifon between a particular Church , and ChurcUs combined in Synods and Claffes , he ajfirmeththat the difference between them is, not in the intenjive confideration of their power (which the Congregation hath , in reference to the ]Cjyes % within it felfe ) but in the extenfive power onely , wherein the Synod hath a power ex* tended to more obje8s,vi%. to many Churches (i*-> things common ) whereas the power of a particular Church is confined , and limited within its ownecompaffe. A N s v v. In this 13 . chap, (for that number of 18. feemes to be miftaken) Mr Parker doth againe give divers pregnant teftimonies for the authority and jurifdiftionof Synods. 1. In the place alledged his words are thefe : (b) Idiftbtguijh touchingthc power of the ftOPol.Ec tyes } which is intenjive or extenfive. No prime Church , no not the leaft of them doth want ?}**£' ' 3 ' the intenjive power • but it wants that extenfive which a Synod hathy feeing the power t hereof is extended to many Churches • whereas the power of theprime^, or particular Church is not extended beyond her owne bounds. The power of the keyes is a power of jurifdiclion* an Ecclefiafticall power of binding and looting; whether intenfive or extenfive: this power he confefleth to be in a Synod ; and therefore the ufe of Synods is not onely for counfell or admonition, but for jurifdiction alfo in the judgement of caufes. Whereas according to M r D. his allegation , the difference betwixt the power of a particular Church and ofa Synod is in the extenfive power onely ; there- lore the Synod is alfo of greater power and jurifdi&ion in extenfion unto many Churches, n. In comparing the power ofa particular Church with a Svnod* he favth expreflfely , (0 Major quidem potefias eft Synodic quam mita alicujui Ecclefia (c) Ibid. r>« prima typarochialit. Greater is the power ofa Synod , then of any one prime or parijhionall ll 9* Church. But if Synods could onely counfell and admoni(h> & a particular Church befides that, could cenfure and ufe Ecciefiafticall jurifdiftion , then fhould a parti- cular Church have greater power then a Synod : and not onely greater intenfive power, but as great extenfive ; feeing a particular Church, yea or a particular per- fon may give counfell oradmonition, either to a Synod, or to manv Churches, as occafion fhall require. It is true indeed which M r P. faith , that all theparifhio* nail Churches are greater then their Synods , feeing by a new Synod they may ab- rogate that which was ordained amifle by their Deputies, without their confent, fentence and will. This he proves bv many arguments , and this we willingly confent unto ; this is the practife of all the Reformed Churches. But this is fuf- ficient for the queftion in hand* that a Synod hath the power of the keyes , and jurifdi&ion » and greater authority then anv one Church. 1 1 1 . This is another conclufion of M r Parkers. ( d ) We fay there is one forme of government inftituted of Chrift f d ) Ibid.^ in all Churches, both prime and combined :fo thatwemay not dreame thereisin^ theprime l3,Q * Church a different forme from that which is in the combined Church : neither may we imagine that in the combined Church there is another different from that by which theprime Church is governed. Ifthisaflerrion be true , theu M r Dav. and thofe of his minde do dreame, when they imagine fo different a forme of government to be inftituted in the particular Churches and Synods > which he calles the combined Churches, M i that 9* THE POWER OF that one fort of them ( houM onely give counfell & admonition, & the other exer* Cife Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion & cenfure. (e)Apol.re. J. D a v. ( e ) The fame atttbour , in the zo chapter ,fpeakjng oftlefummity , orfu*re- ply. p. 24 ) . mac y oftheporer of particular Congregations , propounded the duelimits of it , tr herein , he conceiveth , ft is to beunderjlood , and bounded , &c. Aft. 15. But this M r D. feeks to pet vert by hisgloffe, when he faith? they fentto lerufalem for the help of their counfell 3 as though they did not as welldelire help by their autho- rity and fentence in determining the controverfy. If counfell onely had bene fought , why did not the Synod at lerufalem content themfelves to give counfell and advife ? why did they alfo make a decree , and this not onely by authority of the Apofries , but alfo by common authority of Elders and others that were in the Synod iA&. 15.23. & 16.4. The third limitation is in a proper bufines , and ability alfo , to wit in the cafe of right and lawfull administration, for vve are to thinks the fame of thiChurch, as of every P a- Jiour of the Church : now we have {hewed before out ofGerfon , touching the reftour , that he in cafe of right adminiflration is fubjeft to none , yet in cafe of aberration u fubjeft : fo the Church which in cafe of right adminiflration is fubjeEtto none , yet in cafe of aberration doth flow beginne to be fubjeft. Even as therefore the Paflour erring and offending is fubjetl to no one of his fellowes, as to a Bifhop,but onely to many of his Church: fo alfo the Church that erretb and offendtth is fubjeft to no one Church, astoa Diocefan,but to many afiembled together in a lawfull Synod. Hence it is evident that M r P. affcribed unto SVnods more autho- rity , then a bare counfell or admonition onelv : for 1. He often ufeth the word o£ fubjeftion , which implves an authority and jurifdiftion in thofe to whom in re- gard of their calling men be fubjeft. This is paffed by as unfeen or unregarded in M r D. his allegation. 2. Hefpeakesofbeing fubjeft fo as the Paftour erring and offending is fubjeft to many of the Church 1 that is to their jurifdiftion and cen- fure. 3 . He fpeakes of fuch fubjeftion as is diftinguiihed from recey ving of coun* fell and admonition :otherwife it (hould not be true which he fayth of the Pa- ftours andChurches fubjeftion;feeing every Paftour erringand offending is bound to recey ve counfell or admonition from any one of his fellowes ; and the Church erring & offending is bound to receyve counfell or admonition from any one par- ticular Church , though it be not fubjeft to the jurifdiftion of any one in fpeciallf but onely to many in a lawfull Svnod. The fourth limitation is in cafe of right adminiflration , when noeviHadminiftratioft isprefumed [or imagined. ] for although the Church adminifter aright-, yet if any man thinking himfldf wronged , do appeale from it , the fame is now become obnoxious [or fubjeft unto the_ cenfure of J her fellowes and fifters >fo that judgement may be given-, in a Synod touching her adminiflration, Thar M r P. here alfo fpeakes of fubjeftion unto the jurifdiftion of Synods 9 it is evident , while for the allowanceof appeales he ailed- ges in the fame place the teftimonies of the Svnod of Sardica , ofthe Univerfity of Paris, andofD. VVhitaker, who doe allfpeak of Ecclefiafticall jurifdiftion for the correction and redreffe of unrighteous fentences and proceedings by inferiour judges. Againe in the fame chapter, he favth, (g) Chrift would have ever v man to be (g)Pa.3i8[ judged of his owne Church , Matt. 1 8 . or if the judgement of his owne Clmrch difpleaft him , yet alwayes ofthe Church > that is, of a Synod of many Churches* Againe in the fame M 3; page 94 THE POWER OF page, TVe certainly finde Mat. 1 8. that caufesare to be ended by the Synods of the Churches andnot by one man, if any doe appealcfrom the judgement ofh'u Church. Thus we fee> i • that he makes Mat. 18. a common ground for the jurifdi&ion of Synods 1 as well as of particular Churches. 2. The very phrafe of terminating or ending contro- verfies > (hewes that he fpake of jurifdi&ion ; becaufe counfell alone is not fuflfici- entto end controverfiesjunleflTe there be authority and jurifdittionexercifed with* all. And furtheri whereas D. Bilfon had fayd>that Svnods have had more power (hj Pi. J03 th en Elderihips > M r Parker aflenteth > faying , (hj So truely it ought to have bene done, that theyjhould ontly have more : but this moreferveth not your purpofc , but contradiSleth it : for if they have had onely more, it followeth that the Elderjhips alwayes ought to have had fome power ,though lejfe. Thus expreffely he acknowledged a power of jurifdic- tion in Synods , as well as in Elderf hips:and many the like afiertions (lfneed were) might further be noted out of the fame chapter. Hereby it appeares how vaine it is which M r D. faith , that in the 3 laft limita- tions other Churches doe concurr , in way ofcounftll and declaration of their judgment, as if that were all they did ; as if the Synod confifting of thofe Churches did not give definitive fentence of caufes brought unto them. And hereby it may withall appeare,how the judgement of M r Parker doth agree with the practife of the Re- formed Churches> which doe exercife Ecclefiafticail jurifdi&ion in their Synods* according to thofe 4 limitations fpecifyed by him.There is no matter determined by them and judged in their Synods > but it may be reduced to one of thefe4 heads ; it is either a common caufe i or a cafe of impotencv * where there is need of help, or an unlawfull adminiftration in fome* or at leaft a preemption of evill dealing. (i)Apol.re- I. Dav. ^) Thus have we examined his ownewitnejfes, and finde them to be wholly for piy.p.*4z. us in this caufe. Answ. Whether the forenamed witnefies, MrCartwr.Mr Termer > and Mr Parker, be wholly for M r Dav. and thofe of his opinion > let the Reader j udge. His examination of M r Par. in fpeciall , is done by the halves ; but before we come to fpeak of other pregnant teftimonies which M l P. hath given touching the authority and power of Synods , omitted by M c D. we will fit ft exa- fk) Ibid. p. mine another allegation which he had fetdowne before 5 (k) where he labours to zts.iij. prove that the lawfull combination of particular Churches in Gaffes & Synods* is by way of counfell or brotherly direction, and not otherwife. I.Dav. The reafons whereby it may be proved , are weighty. Mr Parker hathfaved me the labour of this tafke , by laying downefix Arguments , for the proof e of this , in thofe his learned and elaborate treatifes, concerning Ecckfiafticall policy > as \.Frcmthe^ DeEccl.pol. g rounc i f t jj; s combination of Churches , which is love , not obedience, z . From the form© 3z9. iZP " of it , which is communion and confociation^c. $. Prom the matter of it,tthich are Chur* ches, who are a? quail among themf elves, as members in the body, which have avicifp.udeof offices mutually to be performed, amongthemf elves. 4. From the t}b}e& of it, whichisies communis , that which concerneth all the Churches /*_, common. ?. Fr^mthe outward manner of proceeding, which is collatione confiliorum > by conference andcemmunica- tion ofcounfdls. 6 . From the e nd of this combination , which is, not to receive t he mandates of other Churches, bm their confem , counfell and approbation* An s v v. In generall* it CLASSES AND SYNODS. s>$ is to be obferved > i . That the fcope of M r Parker in this chapter is to fhew in what manner many Churches are combined together in Synods,nameIy as equais in a mutuall fellowfhip, and not with fubje&ion to any one Church above the reft. This he propounds in the beginning i as the ftate of the queftion ; when he ,. p favth , 0) The Hierarchy will have this combination to be fubordinate and joyned with fub* ub Jx.2** je&ion unto their Hierarchy : againfl the common opinion of all Protectants , which affirm n o p. 3 27." confociation to be lawfull , but that which is mutuall >fuch as is wont to be among equalls. He thought not cherefore of this new found out combination , by fuch as maintaine the (ingle uncompounded policie,but of fuch as is commonly received by all Fro- . uftants. His arguments are all directed againft the Popilh and Hierarchical! com- bination 1 which we alfo difaliow with him. This he repeats againe for conclude on after his fix arguments j faying , (m) By all which it is plenteoujly demonftrated , that fm) IbiJ.p, the combination of Churches is not Hierarchical} , with fubjeftion unto any one among the 33^» reft , but rather Ariftocraticall , wherein equalls are joyned together. Neither co uld he call the government of Churches by Synods > Ariftocraticall , if they did onely direct by way ofcounfell; feeing an Ariftocracy is fuch a government as exerci- feth jurifdi&ion in the judgement of caufes . 11. If M r Parkers meaning had bene otherwife > viz. that Clafficall and Synodall combinations had no authority nor jurifdi&ion > or that no Churches ought to be fubjeft unto the fame; then had all his 6 arguments bene of no force , neither could they proove any fuch matter. We may fee it plainly in the example of the prime or particular Churches > where in the combination of many members together , though the ground of it be love ; though the forme o£ it be communion ; though the matter of it be brethren, which are equall among themfelves ; though the objeB of it be res communis , that which concerneth all in common ; though the end of it be > not to receive the mandates of any one member, but the confent of many : yet doth it not follow hence , but that fuch a Church and fociety hath power of cenfure and jurifdiftion , and that the members thereof are to be fubjeft unto fuch a combination. And thus alfo may particular Churches fubmit themfelves to many , combined together in a Synod, -in. IfM r Parker did not meane thus > but Mm ply denyed all jurifdie- tion of Synods & fubje&ion of Churches unto themjthen mould he be contradic- tory to himfelf , in that which he had fo expre fielv and fo ofcen acknowledged in other places before : as that , Greater is the power of a Synod , then of any one prime or particular Church : and that the Church thaterreth andojfendeth isfubjsB to no one Church as to a Diocefan , but tomany-ajfembled together in a lawfull Synod. Moreover, to come more particularly to each of his 6 Arguments, there is fomething to be obferved in his reafoning in every one of them,that may fhew un- to us how he acknowledged the jurifdi&ion of Synods. I. The firft Argument, (n) taken from the ground of|ove and mutuall help, (n) P. 31^3 is that which (he faith) is proved by fypperusyt. 3.C.7. (miftakenforc.8.) who in the fame chapter, pag. 715. defcribes the authority of Synods in the exercife of Difcipline and the greaieft cenfures thereof, even unto excommunication , & there- fore not for counfellonelv. Againe, all thofe places of Scripture, Num^z.6,17* EccZ.4.9. fym. 12.13. Phil.Z.+.l.Thef.s.iui+.Heh 10.24. #13. 3. i.Cor.ic* 9 6 THE POWER OF $3. which he together with %ej>perus doth alledge for the warrant of this combi- nation of Churches in Synods ror their muruall help> they are all of them fuch as doe equally , yea and primarily concerne the communion and fociety of feverall petfons and members in a particular Church , where it is confefTed by our oppo- fites that there is jurifdi&ion as well as counfell. If thefe places would have re- moved jurifdi&ion from Synods>and condemned the fubje&ion of Churches unto 2 Synod ; then would they alfo have done the like for particular Churches > and have condemned the fubje&ion of members thereunto. Seeing they doe not the one, therefore not the other alfo. Co) P. 330. II. in profequuting his 2 d Argument, (o) taken from the forme of combina- §**• tion, which is confociarion confiftingina mutuall obligation, he confirmethic Gont. 4.qu. by the teftimony of D. Whitaker , alledging that Calvinefayd well , that by brotherly /j.p.448. , charity , not by naked authority , but by letters and admonitions and other fuch meanes Here* tichj were depofed in the time of Cyprian. Depofition of Hereticks was an act of jurif- diction in Synods. And againe> alledging Mat. 18. as the fountaine of this com- bination, he fayth , Many Churches are combined after the fame manner, that the prime Churches grow together into onebodyix-, their members :aud therefore it muft be con- fefifedjthat as Mat.\%.\s a ground' of Ecclefialiicall jurifdi&ion in particularChur- ches , fo is it alfo for Synods. (p) ? -35 l - ^k M r Parker for confirmation of his ^ Argumenr,(p) taken from the mat- 532. ter of this combination , which are the feverall Churches , equall members of one body , alledgeth the example of the Reubenites , who when they would exprefie their combination with the Tribes on this fide Iordan , do call it their part in the Lord, which was not unequall becaufe of the diftance of place. lof 22. 24,25--- 28. And from hence then it mav2ppeare , thacas the Tribes of Ifrael equally combined together were not fub;e& to any one Tribe apart , and yet were each of them fubje& to the whole fociety and body of Ifrael : fo the particular Churches having each of them equall pare in the Ecclefiafticall confociation of Claffes and Synods, though they be not fubjeft to any one Church apart,that is exalted above the reft , yet may be fubjeft to the whole fociety of many Churches concurring together in Synods. (q)P.?32, IV. J" the explication of his 4th Argument, (q) taken from the cbjeEl, which 333." 'is a common matter, concerning all or many Churches , he alledgeth a diftinc- (r)Conf. tion(0 maintained by D. Retinoids, betwixt queftions ofthe Church, requiring c?3 d/ 3 ." knowledge onely , and caufes ofthe Church , requiring jurifdiclion alfo for the judging of them. Quefiions ofthe Church were fent unto them that had no jurif- diftion over thofethar propounded them: but the caufes of the Church , notfo : (f) Concil. They in Africa were (0 forbidden to appeale unto them beyond fea ; viz. for the Graced decifion of their perfonall caufes , which yet were to be judged by the Synods in 5c Milivita. Africa.: whereby it is acknowledged thatSvnods have a power of jurifdiCtion, c 22. which is more then -counfell. Whereas M r P. addeth > The firfl combination-, of Churches k in matters of faith , (S'c. Thefecond combination of Churches ts in perfonall cau- fes ,yet by accident onely, for thefe properly belong unto each feverall Church , as they arc proper: yet when they become publickjby accident ,f hen Churches arc combined indeed , but with- CLASSES AND SYNODS. $7 Without fubjebtion , tu it fell out in Cyprians time in caufa lapforum » in the eaufeofthem that fell [in time ofperfecution] which thereupon became publicly becaufe the offence was com- moninmany Churches : Left any fhouldftumbleatthefe his words, it is to be confi- dered > thac as perfonall caufes and offences are by accident the objeft of Clafllcall and Synodall judgements ; fo by like kinde of accident they are the object of that judgement and jurifdi&ion which is exercifedby particular Churches. In that maine ground of EcclefiafticaI!difciplineiM<#.i8.i$ s 16,17. ^ tn€ degrees of admonition and cenfure are ordained to be ufed according to chofe 4 acciden- iHYifs; If 'thy h 'other finne; 1 f he will not hear e thee; Ifhewill not hear e the witneffesj tf he will not heare the Church: And fo in like manner , thofe 4 limitations before noted by M r Parker , are 4 accidental! cafes > wherein the power of Synods is to' be exercifed > and wherein it is greater then the authority of particular Churches > viz . if it be a common caufe; if the Church be unable ; if the Church adminifter unlawfully , ifitbefoprefumed. Such kmdes of accidents are properly the lawfull and juft objeel: of Ciafficall and Synodall jurifdi&ion , by proportion from the fame rule , Matt* iS*. If one member finne orfuffer, it becomes a common caiife fo farreas it is knowne> all the members fuffer with it and take care for the redreflfeof it, in a particular Church: 1. Cor. 12.25,26. And if one Church finne & be in danger > it becomes a common caufe ; all the Churches that are members of the fame bo- dy 9 efpeciall y thofe that are united by covenant in a Claflical! and Synodall go- vernment are to take care for it , and to feek help according to the quality of the danger. Thus the community of caufe inferreth combination. And further, for that which he repeats againe , that this combination of Churches by accident , is without fubjeBion, it is ftill to be remembred that his meaning is, without fubje&ion toany one above the re fl : for fo he againe largely explaines himfelf in the fame place* giving inttance in the Church of Carthage and in Cyprian theBifhop thereof 9 maintayning againft D.Downam, that Cyprian was no Metropolitane , that the province was others as well as his, that in the Sv nod t here held there was a parity > that the Churches were equally combined without fubje&ion to any one, that Bi- Ihops & Elders had equall power in giving their fuffrages. V. In fettingdownethe 5* Argument > (0 taken from the outward manner of (t)P. 334; proceeding, which was by conference and communication of counfels , he fhewts withall , that therein there was an exercife of jurifdiftion, when as in the words of Cyprian he f hewes the end of chofe cc>Wife\s,utcommuriiconfaftfigereniurfententi is further declared by Cn - prian, when he f hewes, that they were (v) tempered with difcipline and mercy ; w here- ( v ) Cypril, by it is evident that there was an exercife of difcipline or hcclefialiicall janfdic- L - 1 . £ P-*« tion therein : and that Epiftle of Cyprian containes in it fundry other fentences , Which fhew that he fpake of the adminiftrarion of cenfure , and not of coun- fell onely. VI. In his Iaft Argument, W taken from the end of this combination, which OOM35* Was not to receive mandates, but for confent , counfell and approbation; hefavth it follow- ed hence thac no one Church wtufuperiour umo others , im all wtre^. equall among them- N felves. 9 B THE POWER OP felves. This he declares by inftancein the Chnrch of Rome, which though in an- cient time it was of great eftimationand dignity, yet had it no fpeciall authority and jurifdi&ion above other Churches, as hefhewes by theteftimoniesofD. Rain. Whitak. and lunitu. But he doth not colleft thence , that many Churches concurring together in Synods doe want authority to judge, and to give defini- tive fentences in the caufes brought unto them. Yea the contrary is manifeft: for whereas Bellarmine perverting the teftimony of the Magdeburgenfes , who had fayd chat the unity of faith might be preferved by the confociation of Churches which (y)DeRom. mu cual!y were to help one another , objeaeth , (y) Nonfat eft confilium : imperium Pon.!. 1.C.9 requlritur^ CounfeU is notfufficient , but authority is required : M r Parker in this (*) fame fa/DeRoro' cl ?2pter alledgeth , allowethand commendeth the anfwer which D.Whitalyri*) Pom.Com.' g* vetri unt0 Bellarmine , viz. Confenfum muhorum non minus habere imperii quamuniut 4.qu.'i .\\ 49 voluntatem. Sic olim Hareticiper Synodos refutati,et alii in eorum locum fuffecli. Quid am- plitfs poftulas ? aut qua melior ratio excogitari poteft confervand* pacts ?&c. that is. The confent of many , hath no leffe authority then the will of one. Thus have Heretickj bene refu- ted of old time , and others put into their places. What doe you require more ? or what better way ofprefervingpeacecan bethoughtupon r &c. Or what plainer teftimony can M r Dav. require for the jurifdi&ion of Synods ? They doe not anfwer Bellarmine that counfell alone is fufficient , but plead for authority and power , arifing from the confent of many, limit* alfo anfwereth this objection of Bellarmine in like (b) Anim- manner, and fayth concerning the power of Synods , (b) Et eft revera imptriim adv. in Bel- Chrifti iquiprimumjubet per ^Apoftolum , ut fpiritus Prophecarum Prophetis fubji- laimCon- ciantur j deinde vero remedhm adhibet , 1 .Cor. \ 1 . 1 6, quod fi cui contentiofum eQe e\74. ,I,C ' 9 ' videtur, nos ejufmodi confuetudinem non habemus, neque Ecclefiae Dei. Then is indeed the power ofChrift , who fir ft commands by the Apoftle y that the fpirits of the Prophets be fubjeft to the Prophets ; and then addeth the remedy , 1 >Cor. 11 . 1 <$. that if any lift to be contentious, we have no fuch cuftome, nor the Churches of God. And M r Parker in the fame place, reafoning in like manner, confirmeth his anfwer and enforceth it, faying , Wbat> I pray you , can he anfweredto this laft reafon fforthe^. lApoftle Paul referreth us from the contentions of any one Church unto many > whofe example if it prevail^ much, how much more their f em ence^ when they are ajfembled together iru* a Synod? HAving anfwered thefc Allegations of M r Dav. we may now fee what wrong he hath done to Mr Parker ^'m perverting his words and meaning, and ma- king him a Patrone of this erroneous opinion that is fo 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 underftand his meaning touching Clafles and Synods , (for many have not his booke , and many underftand it not , being written in LatineJ I will fet downe his judgement more particularly, touching the divers kindes and degrees of confociation of Churches, with the fpeciall queftions touching Synods, and fhew withali how he applyes the fame to the praclife of the Reformed Chur- ches for the defence there'of, in all which the jurifdi&ion of Synods is main- tained . And Firft; CLASSES A ND SYNODS. 99 Firft » comming to fpeak of the kindes of conjunction > or confociation > and I. lhewing (c) that fome are more imperfedt by way of Communication, & fome more (c)Poii.Ec* perfeft by way of 'Combination • The Combinations (he fayth ) are^ of two forts :fi*£' 1 3 6 c ' 12 " fome communicate among themfelves by Letters onely s and fome both by letters & mefengers, or Delegates. Thefe communicatory letters were called in old time Pacificall&c Synodall letters, zndFomata. And he( as he had often done before in generall. For whereas it is objected , If all Congregations be equall , whatihail be done in cafe of Schifme and Herefy , when there is no Synod nor-Chriftian Magistrate ? He anfwers » (e) The time fcarfdy folks out , when no Synods can be had : (e) Ibid, c, or if Synods be wanting, yet Churches may communicate together by letters: and although * I »P*3M» there be no authority in one Church above another j yet many Churches joyned together , either in a Synod , or by letters, have authority over one Church offending. And ih the next page (fy againe,alwayes every one Church tsfubjefi to many Churches. And thus he exprefie- ( f J p W> iy avoucheth a jurifdi&ion of many Churches over one , even in their commu- nication by letters. And yet more particularly he applyes this to the prefent prac- tife of the Reformed Churches,&: highly commendeth the fame, faying, (g) And (o) ibid.e. now in the Reformed Churches the neceffary ufe ofElderfhips is acknowledged, u bi com m u- **»$* j 3 7« mcatio perliteras prim^vapuriiiirne &otQt\wherethe primitive communication!?) letters dothflourijh in greateft purity. Againe ».M r Parker proceedeth in defcribing the confociation of Churches , If. and favth,(h) The fecond communication oj 'Churches followeth, when fome dsalewith others ( h ) Ibid.p. concerning any Ecclefiaflicallhufmes , not ly letters onely , hit hy meflengers alfo. This con- 33 " Jideration is of great moment : for unto whomfieverthU handling ofEcckjiafticaB bujineffes doth belongyto them alfo ofnecejjity dothbdongtherefiof theEcdefiaflkall jurifdiBion.T his he often repeateth, but moft fully , when fpeaking of the authority offending meifengers or Delegates , he faith , (i) The power offending Delegates inEcclefiaflkall C 1 ) F<34U affaires was not in any one Bifhop, hut in the Church itfelf, and therefore all the other jurif ditlim. Now it is evident that the Synod at lerufalem did fend Delegates in an Ecclefiafticail bufineffe , 26,27. and therefore according to M r Par- ker, did not onely confult & admoniih , but alfoexercifed junfdi&ion therein,and had the power of all other jurifdi&ion. Thus the Reformed Ch urches doe day- !y pracfcife : their Clafles and Synods doe upon occafion fend their Deputies un- to particular Churches to judge, compound and decide the controveriies that: arife in the fame ; and according to M r Parker doe exercife a lawful! jurif- diction herein. i From this Communication of Churches , he commeth to fpeak (k) of their Com- Ifl« Imation , from whence anfeth a combined Church , derived from other Churches. &\ Ibid - C ' This combination he notes to confift either of two 3 or more Churches, An in- f^?* 15 * N 2 ftance too THE POWER OF ftance of this combination of two > he gives in the Synod at rerufalera , xAB. I$T. and fay th yltwxta Councell and Synod, and that Properly , and that of two Churches , to wit, of Antiochand lerufalem ,for the Mefiengers fern from Antioch were prefent > which re- presented the Church of ^Antioch , as k ufuafl in Councels. And notwithstanding an ob- jection made againft the Church of Antioeh , yet he fayth that Church was alfo judge in that Councell > hecaufe their Mejfengers brought the judgement of the fami with them. Hereupon he reproveth two Spirits of errour, the one ot Grotius , who was fayd to rejeft theufe of Synods altogether :for who would write this (faith M r Parker) but he that is bewitched with errour f feeing the Church of God hath alwayes held, that Synods arc here inflitwed of God to endure for ever , &c. The feco nd fpirit of erro ur wh ich he (l)P,34;, reproves is that of the Hierarchy , (0 becaufe they condemne the Reformed Synods , as if they were degenerate , qucetamen adhunctypum accuratiffime efformantur ; which are notwithjlanding mojl exaSily framed according to thttfatterne. Hence it appeareth that M r Parker held the Synods of divine inftitution to be not onely for counfell and admonition , but for jurifdi&ion alfo: forotherwife he could not have fayd with truth , that the Reformed Synods , all which exercife jurifdi&ion , doe an* fwer exactly thereunto ,* otherwifc he might rather have fayd , that the Synods of the Reformed Churches , fwarving from the primitive patterne, were indeed a- duiterare and degenerate >ufurping authority and jurifdi&ion which did not be- long unto them. IV. The combination of more Churches , M r Par. defcribes in divers kindes or de« (m) ibide. grees alfo : (m) and firft that which is of many Churches into one Elder! hip. The reafon of this is , becaufe fome little Churches knowing their owne weaknes>doe joyne themfelves unto the neighbour Churches , and fo make but one Elderfhip onely among themfelves. He gives an inftance of this in thofe fmall Churches about Geneva, which not being fufficient for themfelves , doe joyne themfelves unto the Church in the next City , fo that they come together weekly into the neighbour-ConfiftoryoftheCity. This combinacion of lefifer Churches into one Elderfhip or Confiftory, M r Parker approves and juftifyes , and declares his Judgement touching this kinde of confociacion. i . He fayth , It is grounded upon the communion of Churches , and derived from the w'tfedome of the Spirit j and complaines (n) P. 348. of the Hierarchy that doe fo virulently impugne the fame. 2. C°) Whereas no- thing is more objefted againft the Reformation in Englandjthen that many Chur- ches or Pariihes are unable for it , wanting fit men to governe and to exercife dif- cipline in Elderfhips : M r Parker anfwereth hereunto ; If it befo,let them joyne them* felves unto the next Elderfhip > or ereEt a common Elderfhip among themfelves $ and fofrom (o] (Calvin, common counfell and help let them feekjemedy for their weaknes. Now it is recorded (°) pi ' l6? ' that in the Difcipline at Geneva , the right of Excommunication is in the power of this Confiftory or common Elderfhip : and hereby then it appeares that all Ec- clefiafticall jurifdi&ion is not limited unto a particular Church onely ; and that M c Parker allowing of this government at Geneva, is not againft the jurifdiftion of many Churches over one. Againe , whereas D. Bancroft and D. Field object that the Churches at Geneva* and the villages of the Netherlands , have not the power of Excommunication* and whereas my oppofites complaine > that Chur- ches . . CLASSES AND SYNODS. ioi thes are brought into bondage , andloofe their liberty , when they may not ex- communicate without the confent of others ; M r Parkers anfwer is , (?) that the (p) P. 34$, power of Excommunication, ordination , and other jurifdiBion remaincs pure in them ,faving that communion which ought to be amongChurches- every Church in greater matters ufeth theconfint and counfell of her neighbours , as of the Claffis or Elderjhtp in the City, quod ego Ecclem'svelperfe&iffimisnonindignumreor, which I judge (faith he) nottobeun- meet even for the moftperfeB Churches . Thus he requires not onel y counfelljbut con- fent of other Churches in weightier matters; which is that we ftand for. This doth not, as he faith, (q) import any Hierarchical! fubjeftion in the pariihes at Ge- (q) ?• 35 °* neva , unleiTe happilv any can be fubje&ed unto himfelf ; for thefe paribus, each for their part . and that equally , are thts very Elderjhip. What fubjeBion is it , where all as well City-churches m the Country -chunks are equall ? for the country -churches are no morefub- jeB unto thts Elderjhip, then are the city -churches. The next combination of many Churches , which M r Parkerfpeaks of, (r) is V. when they are united into one Claps. And of thefe he giveth inftance in the 00 Ibid - c * Churches of the Netherlands ; and in Scotland , where the 5Z Prefiyteries , fo cal- & G f ' 3y3 * led by them , were nothing els but fo many ClaiTes. For the warrant of thefe he bringeth both divers grounds of holy Scripture , and the example of antiquity. He there anfwereth 10 Objections made by the Hierarchy againft thefe Claffes. And it is to be obferved that he doth not (imply fpeak of ClaiTes in generall , but of thefe ClaiTes of the Reformed Churches in thefe Countries , of ourClafles, as he ufeth to call them , not onely for that he approved them, but becaufe together with us , he was a member of this communion , and Jived under the jurildidtion of the Claffis with us. If he had not allowed their jurifdiftion , which he knew and faw to be exercifed by them , how could he with good confcience have praifed them as he doth ? Speaking of the ancient Difcipline ufed in # the Primitive Chur- ches , he faith , (0 Omnia his inpoliteia noftra & in Clajfibus mftris fimilia. O quantum (f) p.j f.7, peccat Hierarchia , qua hanc fuavifpmam Ecclefiarum combinationem diminavit ! that is , All things in our government and in^ our Clajfes are li^e unto thefe. O how much doth th$ Hierarchy offend , which hath banijhed this moft fweet combination of Churches '• And as well might we cry out, Ohow much doe the authours of the (ingle, uncom- pounded policie offend , who likewife feekto banifh and overthrow this combi- nation of Churches in ClaiTes ; while they allow them onely for counfell , and re- gard not their confent \ but allow the Churches in combination to proceed in the weightieft affaires , without or againft the confent ofClafles ! Whereas it is objected not onely by my oppofites , but by fame of the Hierarchy themfelves , that thefe ClarTes doe take untothemfelves that jurifdi&ion which they feeme to condemne in the Hierarchy ; Mr Parker in his anfwerihewes the contrary : He faith , (*) The (t) P.^Sr fuperiour power that is in Claffes , arifethfi-om the Churches , that are combined in Clajfes > 359- &c. No Church hath dominion or preheminence over another. He fay th that /» the Me- tropoliticall or Epifcopall jurifdiBion , Churches have not their owne government, but arejpoy- led of their Elder/hips andfubjeBedto thepoiver of one.andto an externall Qhurcknamely the Cathedrall. All winch things, are contrary incur Clajfes, Every Church injoyeth her owne government by her owne Eldsrfiip : the Clajfis ,# no externall Church > much Ufe an exter- N 3 nafl to! THE POWER OF naU Court '.for it Confifteth ofthefe Churches that are combined :fo that here n no authority over many - the parijhes doejoyne their authority together , and that equally, VI. After the combination of many Churches into one Elderlhip and one Claflls > (v)Poi.Eca M r Parker proceeds (v) cofpeakofthac combination of many Churches in many lib.j.czj. Gaffes, which is into one Synod, and that either Provincial!, Nationall ,or Ge- p * *' nerall ; the Nationall containing under it the Churches of fundry Provinces , and the Generall comprehendingthe Churches of many Nations. Touching Synodst hefpeakethof the 7 controverfies about them, and firftof the Neceftty of Synods. He fayth , he never knew any in the Reformed Churches to deny the necefllty of Synods , before Hugo Grotius , that was the great friend of Arminius. He (new* eth from Bogerman,that the Reformed doe ftand for the neceflity of Synods more then any other. Whereas D. Sutlive condemnech fuch as would hzveftatas Synodos , Synods kept at certaine fet rimes , and not onely extraordinary, as he faith U) P.364, that Synod of the Apoftles was , A8I.15. ^ M r Parker refuteth him, and argueth 36;. thus from that place , This example of the Apoftles fheweth that Synods are to he called,** the neceflity and edification of the Church requireth : but there fall outfo many abufes,errours t controverfies, fcandals and other fuch things • that fet and frequent Synods are neceffary :for thenegletl whereof the Englijh Hierarchy doth finne grievously , which contenting it f elf with An extraordinary Synod onelv,doth not calla Synod after the example of the Apoftles ,fo of- ten as abufes , errours, controverfies , andfcandals doe arifebut contrary to the example of the Apoftles, committeth all thefe things to the care of one Bijhop alone. And whereas he ad- deth further in the fame place, that the Hierarchy is crept in in place of the Synod, ta« king violently untoitfelfthofe things which by divine right doe belong unto Synods: he doth herein acknowledge the authority of Synods to be of divine right; for what els or what more doth the Hierarchy fnatch unto themfelves, then authority of ccn- fure, and jurifdi&ion in the judgement of Ecclefiafticall caufes ? VII. Touching the fecond controverfy about Synods , viz. the authority and power (y) ibid.c. of them , (y) he notes that as there is an Ariftocraticall government in Elder! hips; z6.p 367. f thereis an iAriftocraticall government by Synods j and from this his after tion it fol- lowes , that as the ConGftoriesor Elderfhips have a jurifdidtion and power of go* vernment in them , and are notonelv for counfell , fo the Svnods in like manner, (z) P. 368. When as he faith further , (*) that the Synods borrow that authority which they have pom the prime Churches, this argues that heconfejeth they have iome authority 5 els how could they be faid to borrow it ? To like purpofe he argues there againe, («) l a ; • 37°' j t a pp eam by the very obligation that Synods have their authority from the prime Churches z forotherwife Synods foouldnot binde the prime Churches , unlefie by fending their Delegates they did avow their confent - 3 unlefle they have juft caufe afterwards of diffmting. T h us he acknowledged a bond of authority and an obligatory power in Synods : & as for the exception which he addeth , it is as well to be added unto any judicatory , ei- ther Civill or Ecclefiafticall whatfoever ; for there is no jurifdi&ion nor authority of the higheft Governours on earth, that ou^ht to binde us unto the obedience of their decrees , if we have juft caufe ofdiffenting. bf ib-i For the Convocation °f Sv nods , which is the third controverfy , ( b ) M r Parker W>p 371? doth maimaine a °d much commend the prattife and order obfer ved in theie Re- CLASSES AND SYNODS. in- formed Churches > and declares at large what their manner is from divers afts of their Synods. He fay th j it is cumfapientifme tumfaluberrime inftitma • a moft wife & moft whohfomeinftitution. He f hewes, rhat the Church hath power of calling Sy- nods \ but where there is a Chriftian Magiftrate 3 (<0 this power is regulated of the Ma* ( c ) p. 372 . giftrate. He brings (d) 10 Arguments to prove that this power of calling Synods (d) P.373." is not in a Metropolitane Bif hop. He fayth touching Ecclefiafticall perfons , (e) &&' The power of convocating is in no one , hut in many ; therefore Synods are not to he called by^ Q ' ' * 7 *' one , nor hy the authority of one , but by the Synods themfelves , by the precedent affemUy it' felfios is ufuallin the Reformed Churches. And fpeakiug oi'ASt. 15.6. he fayth , Doth not this example binde all ages , that the meeting in Synods be by common confyit , even as the ABs in the Synod are by common confent decreed ? This decree of calling together is an aft of jurifdiftion,more then counfell or admonition onely. The fourth controverfy about Synods is concerning the Perfons (f) whereof the IX. Synods confift. Whereas Bellarmine diftinguiiheth betwixt the greater & leffer ^ Ibid - $ Clerkes , and alloweth unto Hierarchicall Bifhops to have a deciding voyce , and to &£' i79% the inferiour fort to have onely oconfultingvoyce ,Wk Parker lhewes at large that whofoever is lawfully deputed 2nd fent > whether Minifters , Elders, Deacons,or any of the people > have a deciding voyce , and may give definitive fentence in Sy- nods •, and thereby he acknowledgeth the jurifdiftion exercifed in them. He faith? (g) As the materiallfoundatio>u, of Synodall right , is the excellency of inward gifts, not the (g) P. 3^7* dignity of any office :fo the for mall foundation thereof is delegation^ fiom the Church , fiom which whofoever they be that have receyved authority ( and therefore Elders alfo) they hav^. power of decreeing and judging in Synods. And many other teftimonies thereof he gives in that chapter. A rift controverfy is about the Prafident or Moderatour in Synods. &)M r X. Parker labours to prove that this prefidency doth not belong to an Hierarchical! ( h ) Ibi d- c * Bifhop or Arch-bifhop , but maintaines thepraftife and order of the Reformed %9 ' Churches , where the Prefidentof the Synods is elected or chofen by the Synods themfelves. (* ) We argue fir ft , fayth he ? fiom the authority of the Church, for in Matt, (i) P. 402^ 1$. Ecclefiafticall authority is given primarily, and originally unto the prime Church :fo that no retlour without the election and defignation thereof, may challenge any authority unto him- felf The Synod is a combined or fecondary Chur ch, which teceiveth authority fiom the prime ■ Churches:& that under the likecotiditionjo wit that no reElow orPrxfident be made without ele&ion of the Churches , which are combined in that AffemUy. This he declares at large and refutes the contrary arguments. Now this Election of a Prafident is an aft of Ecclefiafticall authority , a part of the Churches power ; and feeing this is con- feflfed to be in Synods, it appeareth hence alfo that Synods ate not onely for coun- fell & admonition s but alfo for the exercife of jurifdiftion. A fixt controverfy about Synods concernes the Execution of the Synodall Canons. XL 00 M r Park, holds that this belongs not unto any one Bii'hcpor Arch -bif hop>but (k)ibid.L^ unco particular Churches and their Elderfhips. He argues on this manner j(l) The JjJ ^ execution of Canons , of what kjndefoever, whether they be thofe which arepuhlifhed ofChrift, • in the Scriptures , or whether they be ordained in Synods according to the Scriptures , u apart of EcclefiafticaUjurifdiclion x apart of the exercife of the Keyes,as theParifians call it* But the te , If it be not lawful! for them to execute the Canons* neither will it belawfull to ordaine them : on the other Jide, if they have authority oj ' making Canons , then have they authority to execut t them; and that much more. XII. 1 ne f eventn controverfy about Svnods> is concerning the Conditions '*) there- (n) Ibid! c. of. And among other conditions , M r Parker (o) requires this for o..e, that there 3 1. be acommox-, confent , or acommunity offuffrages : and he complai es of it as a great (o) P. 4j 1. corruption when there is in S\ nods a negativevoyce allowed unto Bif hops or Arch- IP; .4*4. fcifhops. He notes (p)thar to be not wirhoutreafon called an Oligarchicall Synod , when things are not done by common confent , but one maketh frujlrate the confent of the reft. Now it it be a violation of the Synods right and authority > when the generall confent ofchegreateft part is made fruftratebv the diflenting of one or of a few j then much more is the authority thereof violated » when as notwithstanding the univerfall and entire confent of the whole Synod , bot h of the PraeGdent, & of all the Deputies of all the Churches t here aflem bled, yet by receiving this erroneous ©pinion of my oppofices, the definitive fentence of them all ismadefruftrate and difannulledi as if they had no jui ifdiction nor power of cenfure,but were one- ly to counfell or admomfh. A S that which M r Parker ha- h written particularly touching the combination jfJLof Churches in Clafles and Svnods, doth fuflkiently fhew his minde tou- ching this controverfy , and that M r Oav doth in vaine feek to fhro wd himfelf un- der his {hadow : fo that which he writes more generally in defence oftheDi- fcipline praftifed in the Reformed Churches , where the authority and jurif. didion of Svnods is maintained, doth ferve for a more full declaration thereof. (v)Pol.Ecc.He laboureth to prove (4/ by 10 Arguments , that the Church of England is lib i.e. 29. bound to imitate the Reformed Churches in their Difcipline; which yeti (if M r *' 4 * Dav. his opinion were true, they ought not to doe > but rather to avoydit& flee from it, as being anufurparion of unlawful! power, whereby their people are kept in bondage under the undue power ofCiafles and Svnods. Infpeciall, M r (r)IbiJ.p. Parker following M r Brightman in his exoofiuon of the Revelation, (0 faith that 84,8 j ,86. - m Philadelphia ■> which is the type of the Reformed Churches , nothing tt reprehended , but all things are commended , and among the refl , the difcii line . which k noted by the key of David, }\ev.$ .7. He faith , that the Angel of the Reformed Churches ftands i»^ the Sunne , F «v 19. 17. 04 being the naturall fonne of the woman clothed with the Sunne. Rev, 1.2.1. that (he Reformed Churches are m the^ beautifull mountains , the mount aine ofChrip delights , Hf*. I CLASSES AND SYNODS. i©5 Rev. 16. 16.& the hill of precious fruits. He faith againe > that the Philadelphian Chunk is the type of the Reformed Churches ^that it ft commanded to holdfaji her crowne.I{ev.$ . 1 1 . Now if M r Parker did judge this rare and high commendation to be due unto the Reformed Churches , and that b£ divine warrant , by the teftimony of the holy Ghoft foretelling their eftate and the purity of the Difcipline obferved by them | then was he not of M r D. his minde. for then he ihould have judged them not to be a free people , while the caufes of particular Congregations are judged and de- termined by another fuperiour authority in Synods : Then fhould he rather have judged that their Churches wanted the key of David, and were deprived of their lawful! and proper priviledges and prerogatives,being fubjeft to an Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion in theafiembly of the combined Churches. And in fumme, then fhould he (according to M* D. his opinion) have judged them to carry a yoke of fervitude andfubje&ion,to be caft oft with all fpeed , rather then a crotvne of law- full liberty, to be held faft by them: then Ihould he with Mr Canne (0 have taught ((} chuf- them to complaine in the mifapplyed words of the Prophet , Ier.4,. 1$. Woeunto ches plea^, «r, wearefpoyled; viz. by the authority of Gaffes & Synods. 74% TO conclude , for the judgement of M r Parker in this controverfy , there are few that did better know , or at leaft had more meanes to know his minde > then I. The trueth is , when he came from Leyden, where he and M r lacob had fojourned fome while together , he profefled at his firft comming to Amfterdam* that the ufe of Synods was for counfell and advife oneiy , but had not authority to give definitive fentence in the judging of caufes. But after much conference with him , when he had more feriouflv and ripely confidered of this queftion , he plainly changed his opinion , and profeffedfo much not oneiy unto me, but unto fundry others upon occafion; fo that fome ofM f Jacobs minde were offended with him , and expoftulated not oneiy with him , but with me alfo j as being an occafion of altering his judgment. I had meanes to underftand his minde aright » and better then thofe that doe fo many wayes pervert his meaning , he being not oneiy a member of che fame Church , but a member of the fame family & living under the fameroofe with me; where we had continuall and daily occafion to talk of thefe things , and at that time when M r lacob publifhed his unfound wri- tings touching this queftion. He being afterwards alfo a member of the fame El- derlhip , and by office fitting with us dayly to heare and judge the caufes of our \ Church , and fo becomming a member of our Clafflcall combination , yet did he never teftify againft the undue power of the Claflis , or complaine that we were not afreepeopk, though the Claflls exercifed the fame authority then , as now it doth, Yea he being alfo for that time the Scribe of our Confiftory > the A&s of our El- derfhipand Church being recorded with his owne hand, are extant to f hew his agreement with us in the government of this Church. And it appeares hereby that he wasof another fpirit and judgement , then M r Davenp. who hath publi- fhed fo many vaine cavills againft the government and difcipline of thefe Refor- med Churches » and this under the cloake &*pretence of his agreement with M r Parker. Yea and further it is apparent that the knowledge and experience which M r Parker got by this his living here in communion with thefe Churches , hath O bene io£ THE POWER OF bene a fpeciall help unto him in the writing of thofe learned treatifes of Eccleff- afticall policie » which for the fubftance and maine are as a lively Table wherein the government of thefe Reformed Churches is plainely pourtrayed before our eyes; his difcourfe being as it were a narration and defence of their prafrife;which difcourfe might yet have bene more perfect , had he lived to finif h the fame. Sect. IV. His Allegation of D. Ames examined. TO. D A v. To thefe I might adde D. Ames in that which he wrote , in his latter time- > ■* wherein the ^Anfwerer pretendeth that he fet downe his judgement more warily , itzj this Cafus cofc. matter , then formerly. See his Cafes of Confcience , the- 4. Booke, where he fpeaketh 4 4 &c 2 2 ^ Nearly of this power , as effentially belonging to particular Churches, Ansvv. Thus qv.y, ' h inftead of Arguments from the Scripture tor the confirmation of his caufe,M r D. ftill leads us from one mans teftimony to another,& thither I am forced to follow him* And for 0. *Ame j, L I may juftly teftify that I have found him wavering in his opinion » tou- ching 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 thefe countries, having oftentimes had earneft conference with him touching this queftion , and much complayning of the wrong done to many Minifters by that booke entitled Englifh Puritamfme,which he had tranflated intoLatine,where- in there is fuch a peremptory reftraint of all Ecclefiafticall authority unto particu- lar Congregations ; though he did never plainely retraft that which he publifhed* yet he 1 hewed himfelfe divers times enclining to a change of his judgement,yea & fometimes acknowledged that Synods had power to Judge of caufes, and by their fentence to decree the excommunication of fuch as had deferved the fame, (t) Preface j j. p or his writings ; D. Ames when he (' ) gave fo great approbation of Mr b°ookde r ' Parkers work which he wrote of Ecclefiafticall policie, wherein he doth fo Poi.Ecci. largely maintaine the power of Gaffes and Synods, might caufethe Readers to anno 1616. think that he was of the fame judgement with him , feeing he gives fuch gene- rail allowance and commendation thereof , without any exception about this queftion . III. It is to be obferved that in none of his latter writings he doth ufe that peremptory phrafe, in limiting Synods, or Churches combined in Gaffes or Synods, onely to counfell or advifi^ , in fuch manner as was done in that (*) firft PurkcT writing. ^ ; IV. And more particularly jin hisTreatife of Divinity,hewrites thusotpar- (x) Medull.ticuiar Churches, (x that as their comunion requires,the light of nature,® 1 equity of rides SS TheoU. and examples of Scripture doeteach,they may andalfo ought frequently to enter into a mutuall % 7 ' f ' corf (deration and confociation among themfelves in Qlaffes and Synods , that they may uft common confent and mutuall help as much as commodioufiy may be done, in thofe things efpecU ally which are of greater moment. Now as in particular Congregations the greateft a&sof power and jurifdic-tion which are exercifed therein, receive their ftrength from commoncorfmt , and doe confift therein: fo ji in matters of greater w eight the common confent of Svnods is to be ufed , then isapowerand authority affcribed un- to them , then ought not particular Churches to proceed without and againft the au- CLASSES AND SYNODS. 107 authority of common confent in Synods. And that mutuaUhelf of other Churches is then moft eflfe&ualhwhe there is not onely advife, but authority alfo to cofirme the fame.Though D. A. adde in the fame place>thar this combination doth neither con- ftitute a new forme of the Church wither ought by any meanes t&deftroy or empairethat liberty t? power whichChrift hath left unto his Cmrchjor the dire&ing (? furthering whereof it onely fervethnhis we alfo willingly grant. When a particular Congregation is hindred & flayed fro the exercife of their authority in an unlawful! bufineffe, in an unjuft ex- comunication or eleftio their liberty & power is not hereby deftroyedor taken a- way,but re&ifyed and preferved. Here is to be remembred that which M r Par. (as was noted before) fa^th upon like occafion : when fome obje&ed that the Chur- ches of the villages in the Netherlands wanted the power of excommunication , he replyes , (y) lmopoteftasexcommunicandi , ordinandi , & jurifdiStionis aetera Hits illi- (y)Pol.Ecc. hatarelinquitury&c. The power of excommunication , ordination and other jurifdi&ion , *J' C '^" P ' remaines unto them unc orrupted&c.though. they doe not proceed thereunto but with common confent of the Claflis. V. After this , D. Ames in his Difputation againft Bellarmine touching Sy- nods or Councels, doth fundry times acknowledge that they have more autho- rity then onely to counfell and advife. This is to be obferved in divers povnts: as firft in the Queftion whether the greater Prelates onely have jusfujfragiidecijiviy the right or authority of a determining or definitive fuffragejor whether the fame belong unto the Elders alfo > or inferiour Officers j to whom Bellarmine allowes a confulting voyce , but not a definitive. Here D. Ames according to the recey- ved opinion of the Proteftants > (*■) allowes unto them alfo the right and authority fzjBeliarm. of fuffrages , when they are deputed and fent as the Delegates of their Churches enerv.Tom. unto Synods. This he ofc repeateth. And although he fay (*> that in matters of ^T J 2 faith there is no judgement belongs unto men, but ofinquifition, difcretion & confultation.and ( a )ibid,ch. that therefore that whole diflinBion betwixt perfons defining and confulting is Vaine: yet it is 8. manifeft and undenyable that in the cenfuring of Hereticks that erre in matters of faith , there is an Ecclefiafticall judgement belonging unto men , and a definitive fentence to be pronounced againft fuch. The matters of faith are as lie tie to be fubje&ed or fubmitted 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 cenfure of either of them. D. Am. himfelf in the fame place doth plainly acknowledge this diftin&ion betwixt confutation and definitive fuffrage ; when he faith (b) Bene confulere, major if eft virtutis, quam ex aliorum confilio bene definire, a^ \i\jfc, quamvishocfitmajorispotejlatis. To confult well is a matter of greater vertuiL- > then from other mens counfell to define well , although this be a matter of greater authority. Seeing therefore he confefleth that to have a definitive voyce is a matter ot greater au- thority , then to counfell and advife ; and feeing withall that this power of fuffra- ges and definitive voyces belongs unto the Deputies of Churches in Synods 5 and that by his confeflion ; it is evident that herein he aflcribes more power unto Sy- nods then he did in that book of Englif h Puritanifme. Againe , in the queftion whether a Generall Councell be above the Pope , or the Pope above the Councelljalthough D.Am, in handling the fame>doth not fo Q z & ful- loS THE POWER OF fully and dire&Iy fpeakagainft Bellarmine, as D. Whitaker, D. Rainolds Junius t Sibrandus Lubbertus , Chamierus , and other of our Divines , which maintaine that the Pope may be juftly condemned , depofed and Fxcommnnicated by a Ge- (c) Ibid, denerall Synod,- yet doth he (c) acknowledge the Cow cell or Synod to be above Conc.c.7. tne p Q p e 9 - n ^g yer y proportion of the queftion , and after take s upon him the defence of the Arguments commonly ufed by Proteftant Divines for the proofe thereof. Would he have fpoken plainlv » according to the pofirions fet downe in that booke of Engl. Puritan. & according to M r Dav. his opinion , that limiteth all Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion unto a particular C^ongregar ion onelv, he lhould then have fayd > that as the Pope hath no power over a Gen^ all Councell, fo nei- ther hath the Synod any authority over the Pope , either to depofe , excommuni- cate , or any way to cenfure him » but might onely counfell and advife him &c . 8c he fhould as well have refuted the Proteftants,for giving too much power to the Synod , as the Papifts for giving too much power to the Pope. Now this he hath not done , but hath fet down his minde in fuch manner , t hat neither the Pa- pifts againft whom he difputed » nor the Proteftants whofe recey ved opinion he feemed to maintaine > could eafily obferve any difference in him from our com- mon tenent. (d) Caf. VI. In another booke after this 1 he acknowledgeth (d) that it belonged unto Confc.1.4. Qlajles and Synods , when any difficulty it , to declare by common counfell and to decree , who th*i?? 9 ow £^ to be excommunicated. Now to decreean excommunication is an aft of power f whereby judicial! fentences are determined > and in all proprietv of fpeech > doth containe more in it, then a bare counfell or admonition: and therefore herein he doth apparantly give unto Synods more authority , then onely to counfell and ad- vife. And thus D.Burges h? J ~eafon to underftand this fpeech of D.Am, which (e^Rejoyn. healledgeth and approverh>ana agreeably thereunto profefTeth;that God hath efla- p. 206 . blijhed the ufe of Ecclefiaftical I Synods/or Church affaires as w &.i gathering of Chur- ches. D.A.did either acknowledge the authority of Synods 111 this fentence,or els was too blame for deceyving his Reader with ambiguity of fpeech. (f)Frdh VII. In his (Olaft booke which he wrote immediately before his death, when frit ag. ce- he fpeakes of reprefentative Churches > though he diflallow that kinde of Synod rera.p.90, or Convocation , which is fometimes kept in England , in refpedt of Hierarchi- cal! Officers , and in refpeft of their impofing humane ceremonies; yet doth he not condemne the Synodall aflemblies of Scotland, before Perth , nor the Refor- med Churches of France , which have their affbciation and combination without any Hierarchy. And yet it is undenyable & moft certaine that thofe Synods of Scotland and France have u fed Ecclefiafticall jurifdiftion in cenfuring of notori- ous offendours ? and were not onely for counfell and advife , as is further mani- fefted hereafter. Had he dealt plainly and anfwered his oppofite fully , he lhould have condemned the AfTemblies of Scotland for that jurifdi&ion which (accor- ding to M r Dav. his opinion and that booke of EngL Purit.) they unjuftly ufur- (g)Rejoyn. P ec *- Yea further he dothjuftify thofe Synods; tor when as D. Burges (g) had p.xo5. ' fpoken of fuch EccleGafticall Synods, as have jurifdiftion and authority of cen- fure , as appeares by his oppofing of them unco other Synods , which the Separa- tes CLASSES AND SYNODS. 109 tills and M r Iacob doe allow > which have no power to controle but by way of bro- therly admonition; D. Am, in his replv unto that place > confefiTeth that D. Burges didfpeakof l h J right Ecclefiafticall Synods , and for the other Synods of M r Iacob & 0») Freih the Separatists , the fame that M r Oav. allowes , he pafleth away from them , and falt, P* l8 ** faythnota word in their defence , which yet had bene moft pertinent unto the queftion . VIII. As for thofe places in particular which M r Dav. alledgeth out of D. Ames his Cafes of Confcience : for the (i) tirft of them, though it be fayd there , (i)CrfcSfo that thepower ofremoovingfcandals and excluding the wicked ,for the right thereof ', and in £' Ct1 *' P reJpeB of tb&firft aB , cannot be Separated pom a true Church , becaufe it fiowes immediately «y neceffarily from the efface thereof, &c. this i, not againft us. for 1 . When Synods judge the caufes of particular Churches , they doe not take away their power,but onely reftraine and correct the abufe of their power ; the authority of particular Churches is not feparated from them > but the corruption or fault that appeareth in the exercife of their authority. They are ftill permitted to ufe their authority 2nd judgement in cenfures , elections , &c. when the Synod perceives that they doe not goeaftray therein. 2. Though there be a ftreame of authority flowing immediatelv 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 par- ticular Congregation ; fo there is a Sea of authority in the Synod > where the wa- ters of fo many fountaines , and the authority of fo manv Churches doth concurre and meet together. As for that other place > Caf. Confc. /.4.C.2;. it is anfwered hereafter in the Allegation that is taken from D. Voetius. Laftly , for that (k) place which M r Canne objeð out of D. Ames , I ac- (k) Caf. knowledge that there isfomething more found againft the authority of Synods , confc J .4» then in any thing that M r Dav. hathalledgedoutofhim. But all that D. Ames C ' Z9 * there writes is not eafily to be admitted. For in that chap, the Queftion being made > (l) Whether whole Churches or members of another Church, maybe excornmunica' (1) Ibid.qu, ted? He anfwereth, They cannot properly be excommunicated. Hebringeth 3 Rea- "• fons. 1 . Betaufe every Church hath communion in it felf , out of which it can no more be caji , thenout of it felf. But this reafon is insufficient , 1 . Becaufe,though every Church hath communion in it felf , yet not onely in it felf, and with it felf , but with other Churchesalfo: £^.4.4,5,6. i.Cor. 12.13. and by excommunication it may be deprived and cut ofT'from that comfortable fellowfhip , to the great grief? terrour and f name thereof, for their humiliation thereby , and for the warning of others. t, Becaufe an obftinate and rebellious Church , by a fentence of excommunica- tion may be caft out of it felf , and deprived of communion in it felf either in the dhTolution of that unlawful] fociety , while the Magiftrate helpes to execute the fentence ; or otherwife in making their communion abhominable even unto their owne confciences , by the ha^d of God working with his owne ordinance, in de- livering them to Satan for the detection of the fief h , and depriving them of in- ward reft , notwithstanding any pretended fecurity of the obftinate. His z d i reafon is : Becaufe the power of excommunicating fiowes from fomefuperiprity $ O 3 ins il0 THE POWER OF but all Churches are conftituted of Chrift with an authority altogether equall. This is alfo a weak reafon. for i. Though all Churches be equali, and no one above ano- ther > yet many meeting togetherin a Svnod » are fuperiour to one> as was fhewed (ra)Pol.Ec- before by M r Parker j (m) Greater ts the power of a Synod, then of any one prime and pa- clef.l j.p. rifliionall Church, i. When two Churches onely are by fpeciall covenant united 1 **• together, as it may fall out necelTarily upon occafion,though this combination be (o) ibid. P . more imperfect , yet is this (n) reputed for a Synod : and though thefe Churches 345.34$. be in themfelves equali, yet when one of them falles into errour& offence, then it becomes fubjeft to the other , and rhe other hath authority over it to rebuke & cenfure the fame. This is to be obferved by proportion of two brethren , mem- bers of one Church : though both of them be in their eftate equall ; yet he that offendeth becomes fubjeft to the other , who thereupon hath power over him, in a degree of binding and loofing , a power of loofing and forgiving him) if he rtpenu Z power of retaining his finne and binding him over to further proceeding , if he doe not repent. Luk. 17. 3,4. with Matt. 18. On this manner that generallcom- mandement of mutuall fubje&ion to one another (i.Pet. 5. 5.J ought to take place in two Churches as well as in two perfor.s. His 3 d reafon is , Becaufe the members of one Church, are neither fubjeB to the govern* ment of another , neither doe they belong immediately unto the communion of other Churches, but by the communion of their owne Church comming betwixt. The firft part of this rea- fon touching fubje&ion , is anfwered before: and for the fecond part of it, there is no weight therein; for thofe that belong unto the communion of other Churches but mediately , are not therefore exempted from thejurifdittion and authority of them. And againe, the covenant of communion made at the firft confederation of Churches for their mutuall government by a Synod, remaineth firmefor the continuance and exercife of authority , either for oragainft fome particular members of any one Church in that combination, although that Church unjuftly violating their covenant , f hould refufe to confent or communicate with the Sy- nod in their a&s of Ecclefiafticall judgement and cenfure of fome fcandalous per- fons among them. Moreover , that which D. Ames writes in the fame chapter, may juftly lead us to acknowledge theneceflity of Synods, and their authority in the cenfure of offendours. I. He addes in his anfwer to the fame queftion , touching whole Churches & members of another Church , that though they may not properlv be excommu- (o)Caf.cof. nicated , (°) yet for manifefiherejies or great faults, they may be condemned, forfaken,rejec* I.4.C.29. that hath more authority then another i all Congregations are equall, independent each of other ; here is no fubje&ion to any one Diocefan : all are equally and mutually fubject to the Synod confifting of many: their dependen- cy is not upon one more then another > but it is onely in regard of many com- bined ; notwithftanding which combination they have their government within themfelves: being- fubjeft to the Synod onely in fome more weighty and diffi- cult cafes. II. As for that other place ; when fome had pleaded from the example of the Reformed Churches , as if they had not bene diftinft Churches , &c. M r Bavnes ft) Pol.Ecc.fo explaineth their cftate and pra&ife (as M r Parker (0 more largely had done be- I.3.C.23.P. fore} that therein he doth not at all prejudice their fubjeftion to Synods, forfpea- |4».349» ^g of che 24 Churches at Geneva and of their combination and fubje&ion unto (v) bioc. <> ne Preibytery > he fay th » (v) They have power of governing themfelves, but for greater iryal. p. 2, 1 . edification , voluntarily confederate , not to ufe nor exercife their power, but with mutuall conu munication , one ajkjng the counfell and confent of the other in that common Prefbyterie. Se- condly, it is one thing for Churches tofubjeH themfelves to a Bijhop and Confiftory , wherein they jhall have no power of fuff rage : Another thing to communicate^. withfuchaPrtjbytery wherein themfelves are members and judges with others. After that agame > he addeth » Geneva made this confociation , not cu if the Prime Churches were imperfect , and to make one Church by this unions : but becaufe though they were intire^. Churches, and had the power of Churches , yet they needed thisfupport in exercifing of it , and that by this meanes the Mini- tiers and Seniors of it might have communion. Thus he notes not onely the counfell » "but the confent of others required. And as at Geneva a particular Church pro- ceeded not without or againft the confent of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in a common Preibytery : fo in thefe Low-countries in weightier af- faires they proceed not without or againft the confent of many Churches concur- ring in their Claflls. III. M r Bavnes having fhewed how every Church being an Ecclefiafticall body >and having Governours every way equall > there is yet no feare of confu- fion > feeing Ariftocracie > efpecially when God ordaines it , is a forme of govern- ( S )Dioc.tr. ment fufficient to preferve order • hereupon he propounds this objection, i*)But p.68 , ' ' every Church might then doewhat ever it would within itfelf. And hereunto he anfwers thus , Notfo neither ;f or it isfubjeEt to thecenfure of other Churches Sjnodically ajfembled, and to the Civtll Magiflrate, who in cafe of delinquencie, hath directive and corrective powet over it. And thus we have his expreffe teftimony and confefllon > that Synods have authority not onely to counfell andadvife, but to cenfure-, that particular Chur- ches xefubjeEt to thecenfure of other Churches; that confequently there is a double Ec- clefiafticall Ariftocracie, one in particular Churches feverally , another in many Churches Svnodicallyaflembled; that if a particular Church erre in mattersof faith and religion , that it is fubieft > not to the power of the Magipate alone , but both CLASSES AND SYNODS. 115 both to him and to another fuperiour Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion , arifing from the combination of many Churches, contrary to that aflertion in the Engliih Puri- tanifme , chap. z. IV. Speaking of Prefbyters , that is of Minifters and Elders » and of their go- vernment » he faith > (y) There is nothing found belongingto the power of the keyes in foro (y) Ibid, p. externo > but the Scripture doth ajferibe it to them , power offuffrage in Councell, %AB. l ? « 67. power of excommunication , which is manifeft to hav^~ bene in the Church of CorintU^ <$c. While he alledgeth A3. 15. for an evidence of the Prefbyters power in Synods or Counceis , he doth hereby acknowledge that in Synods there is a lawfull exer- cife of jurifdi&ion and of the power of the keyes ; and that therefore they are not onely for counfell and advife. To like purpofe he faith afterwards againe , C z ) The (z) P. S*. Apoftles did not offer alone to determine the queftio>t^ , xAB. 1 5 . but had the joyntfuff rages of the Prefbyterie with them . Not becaufe they could not alone have infallibly anfwered'butle- caufe it wm a thing to be determined by many • all who had receyved power of the keyes , doing it ex officio , and others from difcretion and duety ofconfeffing the trneth. And a little af- ter > he t here addet h , It is manifeft by EccleJiafticaU writings of all forts > that Prefbyters had right offuffrage, not onely in their owne Prejbyteries , but in Prov'mciall Synods , and therefore in Oecumenical! Synods, which doth arifefrom a combination of the other , to which their mindes went in the inftruftion ofBiftops receyvedfrom their Churches. V. Whereas one errour ufeth to accompany another , and commonly thofe that deny the authority of Synods, doe alfo in part deny the authority of particular Elderfhips , as we fee in the Brownifts , and therefore after private admonitions doe in a popular order referre the judgement even of leffer matters. unto the pu- blick examination and decifion of the whole Church affembled together^not per- mitting the fame to the judgement of the Elderfhip ; M r Baynes doth alfo im- pugne this praftife. For he fpeaking of the rule of Difcipline , Matt. 18. where Chrift doth manifeftly fuppofe the power of jurifdiftion to be in many , yet after fome other obfervations touching the meaning of the word Church , he further explaineth himfelf , when headdeth thefe notes and favth, (a) Thirdly , a* Chrift (a) oiocef. dothfteak. it of any ordinary particular Church indiflinBly ,fo he doth by the name of Church tl 'y aK ' P- 8 ° ' not understand ejfentially all the Congregation. For then Chrift fcouldgive not fome, but all the mmbers of the Church to begovernours of it. Fourthly, Chrift fpeaketh it offuch a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderlie complaine: now this we cannot to the whole multitude. Piftly,this Church hejpeaketh of, he doth prefuppofe it as the ordinarie executioner of all dif- cipline andcenfure. But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie , as all but Morelli- us andfuch Democraticalljpirits doe affirme. And the reafon ratifying thefentence^ of the Church, doth (Itew that often the number of it is butfmall : For where two or three are gathered together in m y name, &c. whereas the Church or congregations effentiallie ta- ken for teachers andpeople are incomparably great. Againe , i hewing on the other fide that Chrift by the Church doth not meane the chief Paftour , who is virtual- ly as the whole Church ; and that the word Church doth ever fignify a company , and never is found to note out one perfon • after other reafons he pleades from the example and pra&ife in the old Teftament } faying , (b) The Church in the old Tefta- (b) Ibid.p, mntwever noteth the high Prieft virtuallie , but an ajfembly of Priefts fitting together , as* 1 - P jud- ii4 THE POWER OF judges in the caufes of God. Wherefore cu Chrift doth indiftinBlie prefuppofe esxrie pan icu* lar Church : So he doth here onely prefuppofe the joynt amhoritie , andjoynt execution^, of a reprefentative Church , a Prejlyterie of Elders who were Paftors and Govemours. And thus he concludes from iW^.i8.that there is a reprefentative Church of one particular Congregation • as before from AB.15.hz acknowledged a reprefentative Church in the Synod » for many Churches. VI. Whereas Mr Dav. alledgeth out of Mr Parker , that the power Ecclefiafti- caU doth effentially and primarily refide /'*_, the Church it felf y is fayd to be from the Church mediately ,"&c. And therefore though Mr Parley was farre from the o- pinion of Mr Dav. yet was Mr Baynes farre further from it. His judgement here- in , as being worthy the consideration of the Readers , I have thought meet to fee downe the more fully. And firft , fpeaking by occafion of the power of jurifdic* (e) Dioc tlon m C ^ e Church , he fay th , (e) chrift hath committed it originalirer & exercita- tryal.p.69. five to the reprefentative Church , that they might lAriftocratically adm'mifter it. And af- (f ) ibid. p. terwards comming to intreat of the third maine queftion in his booke » (f) Whether 7 8 • Chrift did immediately commit erdinarie power Ecclefiafticall , and the exercife of it,to any onefingularperfon ,ortoa united multitude ofPrefbyters , he there fets ddwne his judg- (g)P.83.$4 ment more largely, in divers conclufions (g) on this manner. „ Concluf. $. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof* was not given to ,, the communitie of the Church , or to the whole multitude of the faithfull , fo ,, that they were the immediate and firft receptacle , receiving it from Chrift, and „ virtually deriving it to others. This { fet downe againft the Divines of Con- 9 , ftance ; our prime Divines , as Luther znd MelanElhon , and the Sorbonifts , who „ doe maintaine it at this day. Yea this feemeth to have been TertuHians errour ; „ for in his booke depudicitia,he maketh Chrift tohauelefc all Chriftians with ,, like power , but the Church for her honour , did difpofe it as we fee. The pro- >, portion of a politick body , and naturall , deceived them , while they will apply „allthatisinthefetoChriftsmvfticallbody , not remembring that amlogon^ is >, not in omniftmile , for then fhould it be the fame with the analogatum. True it is* „ all civill power is in the body politick, the collections of fubjefts , then in a ,, King from them : And all the power of hearing , feeing , they are in the whole ,, man, which doth produce them effectually, though formally andinftrumen- >, tally they are in the eare and eye. But the reafon of this is , becaufe thefe pow- ,, ers are naturall , and what ever is naturall , doth firft agree to the communitie or „ mum, and afterward to a particular perfon and part , but all that is in this body , ,, cannot hold in Chrifts myfticall body. In a politick body , power is firft in the ,> communitie , in the King from them , but all Ecclefiafticall power is firft in our King CLASSES AND SYNODS. 115 » King before any in the Church from him. But to whom fhould he firft com- ,, mit this power > but to his Queene ? Anfw. Considering this power is noc » any Lordly power, but a power of doing fervice to the Church for dhrift his >) fake : therefore it is fit it (hould be committed to fome perfons , and not to the » whole communitie , which are the Queen of Chrift. For it is not fit a King »> fhouldcommit power to his Queene to ferve herfelf properly: but to have per- j, fons who in regard of this relation f hould ftand diftinguiihed from her.Second- » ly } in naturall bodies > the power of feeing is firft immediately in the man, from I the man in the eye and particular members : In the myfticali body, the faith of >, a beleever is not firft im mediately in all 1 then in the beleever , but firft of all and 99 immediately in the perfonall beleever ,for whofe good it ferveth moreproper- 9, ly then for the whole , every man being to live by his owne faith. The power >, of Priefthood was not firft in the Church of Ifraei, fo derived to the Prieft: but >, immediately from Chrift feated in Aaron and his fonnes. ObjeEl. Yea they „ were given the Church intuitu ejufdem tanquam finis & totius. Anfiv. I but 5 , this is not enough , that power may be fayd to be immediately received by the 99 Church as the firft receptacle of it , and from it derived to others, as the power 9, of feeing is not onely given intuitu homints as the end of it, and the totum to whom 9, it agreeth,but is in homine as the firft fubject from whom it commeth to the eye. 99 But the power even of ordinary Minifters is not in the Church. For as all are 99 fayd no t to have been Apofties, fo not to have been Doctors. But if the power 9, of ordinarie teaching had been given to every beleever , allfhould have been 9, made Doctors , though not to continue fo in exercifing the power. Secondlyt 99 were the power in the Church, the Church fhould not onely call them, but 99 make them out of vertue and power received into her felfe : then (hould the 9, Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Minifters. Befides , there i, are many in the community of Chriftians uncapable of this power regularly , 9, as womenand children. This conclufion in my judgement ViBoria , Soto and >9 others deny , with greater ftrength ofreafonthen the contrary is maintained. 9, Concluf. 4. Fourthly,ordinary power of minifteriall government is commit- 99 ted with the execution of it, to the Senat or Prefbyterie of the Church. If any 9> faile in any office,the Church hath not power of fupplying that, but a miniftery 99 of calling one whom Chrift hath defcribed9 that fromtlhrift he may have pow- 9> er of office given him in the place vacant. „ Concluf.*;. Laftly, though the community have not power given her, yet 9, fuch eftate by Chrift her hufband is put on her , that all power is to be executed 9i in fuch manner , as ftandeth with refpect to her excellencie. Hence it is , that 9> the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the confent of 9, the people with them. Not that they have joynt power of the keseswith 9> them , but becaufe they fuftaine the perfon of the fpoufe of Chrift,and therefore », cannot be other wife dealt with , without open dif honour in fuch things , which 9, belong in common to the whole congregation. Afterwards againe,(h) fpeaking of fome derivation of power from the Church ( h ) p » 8& in taking in Officers > he f hewes that the Church doth this onely as an inftrurnent9 P z in US' THE POWER OF in taking that perfon whom Chrift defcribeth and would have to be placed in this or that office : but hath not this power in herfelf either formally or virtually. And from this Stewardlike power of the Church , he declares that Officers in the Church are not toadminifter in the name ofthe Church, but in the name of Chrift : A s a Butler taken in by afervant > dot h execute his office , not in matter Stewards name , but in his majlers , who onely out of power did conferre it on him. By thefe & fun- dry other a(Tertions > it is apparant that Mr Baynes was of a farre different opinion from Mr Dav. touching the ftate of particular Churches, & the authority of Sy- nods. Let us heare his next Authour. Sect. VI. His Allegation oj the Replyer upon D-Downam examined. pfy.pP°4z C " TO. D A v. (0 With whom I might joyne the Reply er upon Dr Downams defence.who^not Tart. 2.1. i. onely declareth his owne judgement herein concurring with the above- mentioned , but alfo p. 104,105. joynethwith them the fujf rages of divers others? as the Centurifis , Illyricus , D. Andrewes ***' Bijhop offVinchefter , Dr Fulke , JViliet , Thorn : Bell , Cyprian , tAuguJline , Gerfon, Te- nts. Ansvv. I. If this Authour did in his judgement concurre with the above mentioned, and in fpeciall with M r Baynes next above mentioned, as M r Dav. affirmes,thendidhe allow the jurifdi&ion and authority of Synods for the cen- fure of things done in particular Churches ; then did he judge each Congregation to befubjeSl unto the cenfure of other Churches Synodically affembled. II. This teftimony ofthe Refuter of D. Downa. is ailedged alfo , and more (k) Char- plainly bv M r Canne , who expreflfeth his words , and fayth (k) he often affirmeth , (1) ches plea,p. that the adminiflration of all Church-matters , atfirfi was in every Congregation, the right in (?) Lib 2. ^ e Church , the execution in the Prejbytery thereof. And befides this , he alledgeth ano - par.2.p.io4 tner place, where he fayth , For this pnrpofebeinfianceth Cenchrea (m) Jmvfoever it was (m) Lib. i. the Port of Corinth , and not farre fi-om it , as I{adclijfe or Lime-houfe to Londonyet is was parL z.p. a fcft ln ft Ql) UYC h t fr Qm Mat of Corinth , and alike indued with full power of Eccl'efufiicall government. Butinallthis, thejurifdi&ionofSynodsisnotdenyed; asismanifeft byalikeinftance liere in thefe Reformed Churches, The villages of Diemen and Sloten > this on the one fide and that on the other fide of \Amf\erdam , and not farre from it , and in all appearance farre lefTe in comparifon of Amfterdam , then Cen- chrea was in refpeft of Corinth , yet are thefe fmall Congregarions 3 diftin& Chur- ches from that of Amfterdam , & alike endued with full power of all Ecclefiafti- call government. That which M r Canne by a Note— in the margine would have fpeciaily to be marked , may as well be obferved touching thefe and many othe? little Churches hereabout /that they have in themfelves the adminiftration of all Church-matters , and the execution thereof by their Pre! byteries , as fully and a& amply astheChurchof Amfterdam, or any other ofthe greateftChurches in thefe countries, being alike combined together in the Claffis,and equally fubject to one another in the Lord for their mutuall guidance. III. Even this Replyer upon D. Downam , M r S. who now refteth in the Lord , hath bene very carefull not to prejudice the authority of Synods , as may appeare further if we confider what he anfwereth concerning thofe whom D. D» (n) Reply, calleth the to Difciplinarians , fuch as were of M r lacobs opinion. Firft, hefaith, | io6 **^ C°) *Asfor Synods , if they be lawfully called , well ordered , and their conflitutions by royall ] au~ CLASSES AND SYNODS. 117 authority ratified- the DoElour cangive neither more honour nor obedience to them , then they I doe, as their Proteftationfluweth , ZArt.%. 1 1, \ J , 1 4. Now as for the prefent Synods , fuch as are in thefe Reformed Churches, chey are fuch as he mentioneth here, called and aflembled by authority of the Magistrates , and their A&s approved , I confirmed andratifyed by them. This may be feen in the Records of that Natio- | nail Synod holden at Dort , Anno i6i8.and 1619. where («) the Decree of the ( )A ! this is not onely obferved in Nationall Synods , but in the Provinciall Synods al- fo , held every yeare , where the States have alfo their Deputies , (Civil! Magi- ftrates , which ordinarily are prefent in thofe AflTemblies , to fee that all things be well ordered therein. Thus farre therefore , according to his relation , there is an obedience and fubje&ion due unto Synods. Againe whereas he proceedethto defcribe their opinion, on this manner ; If they want Rjgall authority to afembleortb ratify them ■ they thinks^, that by Divine or Apofiolicall ordinance , their decrees or canons ; ought not to be impofed on any Churches , without their particular and free confents: h is here to be obferved how he notes onely what they thinks, without approbation there- of; he declares their opinion , but doth not acknowledge it to be his owne judge- ment. Neither hadhe reafonfoto judge: for in the primitive Church, when there were no Chriftian Magiftrates , there was then a lawfull ufe of Synods, and that by Divine and Apoftolicall ordinance , as hath bene {hewed before. And as for particular confents : if any Church walked diforderiy and ofFenfively, there is no reaion to think tjiat thecenfures and decrees of Synods againft fuch Churches fhould be driferred untill they did confent unto the cenfuring of themfelves. It was fumcient that at their firft combination there was a generall 2nd free confent, tofubmit themfelves in the Lord mutually unto other Churches Synodically af- fembled. And yet more plainely , in the fame place he profeffeth that he difTe- reth in judgement from them , when he concludes , Thm muchfcallfujjiceto hefbo- ken in defence of thofe later Difcipl'marians ; from whom alihough in fome things I confeffe I diffem , yet I cannot confent to the D. taking away of their innocency. Though in fome things D r D. did unjuftly charge them , yet M r S. the Refuter of D, D. did alfo judge that in fome things there was juft caufe to diffent from them. IV. Betides the forefayd Refuter of D. Down, there is alfo another learned man > who befides his great learning having alfo as great experience in the difci- pline and government of the Church according to the pra&ife of the Reformed Churches, hath of later time written a compteat and large refutation of D. Dow - nam. And in this refutation he hath dealt more plainly and circumfpe&ly in this poynt,then M r S. hath done. For whereas D« D. relating the opinion of thefe later Difciplinarians,as new andfalfe , fetsdowne their aflertion in thefe words , (?) That every parifh by right hathfujficient authority within it fdfe immediately derived fiom fp)Sermc2i Chrift ,forthe government of it fdfe inallcaufesEcchfiafiicall 3 this afiertion is not ad- ^ ambeth » mittedbut with fundry cautions. To omit the reft, thefe are the two laft,where- in the authority of Synods is evidently acknowledgedjviz, (q) The fourth caution k 9 (q)GenW that the authority givm to a particular- Church , is notfu§ciemfortke handling of all Eccle- J^^qJ^ P 3 ./w-Ecclp.14/ xi8 THE POWER OF fiajlicall caufes by their ottme judgement , but for thofe onely which arefo particular , that they may be deemed altogether proper unto it. For whatsoever cafe falles out belonging unto the^ common order of neighbour Churches , we judge that the fame is to be brought unto a more ge- neraU affembly , wherein thefe Churches doe joyntly meet together. The laft caution is , that both the infiitution and observation of all things , efpecially iftheyfeeme to procure any difcom- modity or not to make for edification , be fubjetted unto the judgement of the next Churches 'meeting together in one. For we doe not permit , that the Governours of parijhesjhould dif~ patch all things m they lifl , but will have them to fubmit themf elves to tin in/peBiot^ of the (r) Aug 1.2. Churches. For wethinhjhat of Augufline ought by allmeanes tobeobferved : (0 Semper deBapt.in univerfum partibus jureoptimoprajponi ; that by good right the whole is Mwayes to be Do ™' CA ' 9 ' preferred above the parts, &c. Thus expreflely hath this Authour given warning, that the whole combination of many Churches united in Synods is of greater au- thority then any part; that particular Churches owe a fubjeclion unto the fame. Laftlv » as for thofe many other Authours > the Centurifts , Illyricus , D. An- drewes B. of Winch. D.Fulk, Willet , Thorn : Eell, Cvprian , Auguftine , Ger- fon , Ferus , whofe names are here alledged by M r Dav. without fpecifyiog their words , they are all of them , except one or two , alledged by M r Canoe , and in (0Chap.7« anfwer unto him ({) hereafter,it is f hewed that all & every one of them are againft 6t ' l ' M ' M r Davenp. his opinion , all giving a cleare and plaine teftimony for the jurifdic- don of Synods. Sect. VII. His ^Allegation ofD.V oetius examined. (t)Apol.re- TO. Dav. CO To the fame purpofe, hath a worthy and learned wrighter of thefe court* ply.p. 14 *• 1 tries , Voetim , Profeffour of Divinity /'«_» Vtrecht , whofe words I thut tranfl ate. T he Etefpcauf. " Church is thefpoufe of Chrift /which is the proper andadjtquate fubje&of PapUb.2.' u that power, to whom Chrift hath committed that delegate right, referving the fedt.z.cap. „ chiefe to himfelf. Which ought to be and to remaine fo proper to the Churcht n.p,i66. „ that it, neither may be fnatched away by the authority of others, nor loft by ,j their voluntary concedion , nor committed to the truft of any other •, although „ divers a&s belonging to the calling of a Minifter may & ought to be performed ,, by certaine members of the Church. An s v v. All that is here affirmed by this worthy Writer , being granted of us, yet is not Mr Dav. his opinion juftifyed* nor the authority and jurifdi&ion of Synods overthrowne hereby, for, I. Chrift was the Bridegroome of his Church , and the Church was the Spotife of Chrift , and honoured with this tide under the old Teftament , as well as under the new : Sol.fong. ch.i.&z. <$c. E/^.50.1. E^. 16. 8. Hofi.&z. yet he notes withall , (*) that this power arijing thenceitby a (x) Defp. certaine fit proportion apply ed unto many Churches united in fome kjngdome or kingdoms, or ca f? f I>a P- fc in the whole world. This is done in National! & Generall Synods, if. Speakingofa J 6 ; I,C,5 ' P ' publickReformation,which hecalles^^om^^.hefhewes (y) how it (being u- (yjibid. p, niverfall) may be done either in an univerfall Synod, or without a Synod. Speaking of 6i > Reformation made by inftru&ion, exhortation , or invitation , he fayth it may be done of any one Preacher , yea and in fome fort of any one Chriftian : but for the Reformation wherein there is an aBuall change ofpuhlickworfhip , he faith , it is ne- ceffary that the help and confent of many, and thofe not of one order, doecon- curre j and that one or a few are mtfufficient, unlefic it fallout that the authority and parts of iio THE POWER OF ofthofemany who are interefted therein ,be devolved unto them. Thus he alloweth the ju- rifdiftion of Synods , while he acknowledged that the authority of many may be derived and communicated unto a few j which is the very thing wherein the jurif- (z)P. 79. diction of Synods doth confift. m. He defends (2) Luther appealing from the fentence of excommunication given out by Pope Leo the tenth, untoalawfull Generall Synod; heallowes the like appeale made by the Arch-biihop of Golen, and the appeale of the King ofNavarre,and the Prince ofCo-nde,the forme whereof was affixed or fetup at Rome j in all which the authority of Synods is acknowledged, iv. He allowes (*) the example of thofe Churches, which determined matters by a public}^, and Nationall or Provinciall judgement. Speaking (b) p. i6q. of the Reformers of Rekgion, he favth, (b) Luther had the right of fuffrage , and ufed the fame in the Univerfity of Wittebergh , as one of the ProfelTours ; in the Church, as one of the Paftours ; in the_ neighbour-churches of Saxony , us a men.ber of them , in the name and by commiffion from the C hurch of Witteberg, and not further. So did %uingliu4,FarelL Vint, Calvin, and all the reft. A juft patterne of the Clafllcall and Synodall jurisdiction exercifed in the Reformed Churches in thefe countries at (c)p.ioi. thisday. v. He avoucheth and maintained (c) that a I aiv full Synod or Church by their fentence and authority may and ought to depofe Minifters that are Idolatrous , Hereti- call andthelike- An exprefle teftimony> that Synods have not onelv right of coun- fell and admonition , but alfo of exercifing Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion in the cen- tring of offenders. He addeth there > that the Wefterne Churches ought to remove fuch Clerics or keep them out from entring , either by a common, or each of them by their particular judgement, either in a Synod or without a Synod, vi. Even in this very page & place ftp P 186. that ^ r D# alled g ecn 1 ^ D - Vottius alledging the example of the Synod at Jei u- {j ' ' falem>^#. 15.3,4,22,23. to {hew that Ecclefiafticall power is given to many in the^' Church, doth thereby acknowledge the authority of Synods. If he had thought they might oneiy counfellandadmonifh , then had this place alledged bene inef- ficient to prove the thing propounded by him , nor fuitable to the other places al- ledged together in the fame place , viz. Matt. 18. 17. 2.Cor.2.6. withi.Cor. 5.4. which are to be underftoodofthejurifdiction and authority of the Church in cen- (e) P.187. furing. This power is alfo againe ( e J poynted at by him in the fame chapter. & l8 ?« Laftly, to come from his words unto his practife - 3 Whereas this learned Mini- (f) Ad.Sy. ^ er °f Chrift was deputed and fent P) with others unto the laft famous Nationall nod.Nat. ' Synod at Dort , & was reckoned among thofe Worthies whofe praife is fo great in DordrXeff. the Gofpell,being the meflengers of the Churches and the glory of Chriftjwhen as he there among the reft did exercife the authority of fuffrage for the decifion of (g)ibid.fef. divers controverfies , and gave fentence with others in the (g) cenfure and depofi- H*» tion of divers both Minifters andElders>it appeareth hereby that he did not thinke all Ecclefiafticall jurifdiition to be limited unto a particular Congregation. If Sy- nods might goe no further then to counfell and ad monifh , then had D. Voetius with the reft bene an ufurper of unlawfull power. Befides , this order of Clafli- (h)Kercke- call and Synodall aflemblies , together with their jurifdi&ion and authority>in fuch jorden. Nat. f ort as it was b e f ore anc j ; s ft^| practifed in thefe Reformed Churches > was con- ' aT*w firmedand eftablilhed W in that fame Nationall Synod, where D.Vottim appeared - a? CLASSES AND SYNODS. i« as amember thereof,and according to which he was bound to praftife both while he was Minifter at Heufden , and fince alfo at Vtrecht , being not onely Profeflbur in theUniverfitv, butaKo Paftourof the Church in the fayd city. So that there is no caufe to do'ubt but that his judgement touching this controverfy is the fame with that which I have here noted out of his writings, andforthefubftanceof the matter, no other then that which I maintaine throughout this difcourfe. Sect. VIII. Touchingthe Englijh Church at Franckford in Q^ Marks time. IO. D A v . (i) And to conclude , thus it was ordered in the Englifr Church at Franckford, ( {j^], ts '' among the exiUs in thofe Marian dayes , that if all the Minifters and Seniors be fuJpeBed, A difcourfe or found parties - 3 if any appeale be made from them , that thenfuch appeale be made to the body of the trou. of the Congregation-, , &c. and that the body > of the Congregation may appoint fo many of J^, 11 ^ the Congregation to heareand determine the f aid matter , or matters , as itjhall feemegood to at f r ' anc ^f* the Congregation. Againe, If any controverfy be about the doubtful! meaning of any word An.62. or words in the Difcipline, that firft it be referred totheMinifters , or Seniors: and if they Art ^7. cannot agree thereupon, then the thing be referred to the whole Congregation. Ansvv. I. It is to be obferved, that thefe two Articles of Difcipline being alledged againft me by W M r Canne as well as by M r Day .there is this difference 00 Chur- betwixt them, that Mr Canne addes more words then he fhould , and M r Dzven. ^"plea, omitsfome words that ihould have been added. That which Mr Canne addes,is p ' 3 * againft himfelfe , andferves to condemne the prattife of the Brownifts, when he faith of the Minifters and Seniors 1 that they have authority to heare & determine , the Minifters, Seniors ,& parties excepted phis latter claufe ihewes there is juft caufe of excepting againft the Elders judgement fometimes ; and that they are to be refu- sed as incompetent judges , being parties. This brief claufe being of fpeciall uf& inour controverfy, ought not to have bene omitted by M r Dav. II. That which they alledge for appeale unto the body of the Congregation, I doth not overthrow the authority of Synods. This granting one kinde of appeale doth not exclude or deny another. Seeing particular Congregations are fubjeft to errour, and many of them dayly doe erre,why ihould not appeale be granted from, them unto Claffes and Synods , efpeciaily where there is no Magiftrate that can or will judge of fuch err ours ? III. This appeale made unto the body of the Congregation was not ufually permitted, but extraordinarily in cafes of fpeciall necefllty , when the Minifters and Seniors were not able to end the controverfies brought unto them : the!ex- preffe words of the Article are ) in cafe they cannot end them , then afterwards to be re- fl) Difcof ff erred to the whole Congregation. Their ordinary practife was other wife , as appeares troubi in jin other Articles of their Difcipline , where it is plainly ordained, (m^ that the Mi- S c §^ 1 nifters and Seniors jhall have authority to heare and determine, o*_. the behalf of the whole 5 7 , Church all offences (determinable by the Congregation] committed by any per f on in the Con- mj Ibid, - gregation : unleffe thepartie calledbefore them have juftoccajion to take exception to the fayd art '^> Minifters and Seniors j or to appeale fiom them as not competent judges. And afterwards QL againe %tt THE POWER OF (n) Art.63. againe there is another ftri& and fevere decree («) If any perfon doe tmjufily take eMep* tions to any of the Minifters, or appeale fiom the whole minifiery : that then fitch perfons , be- fide the punifhment for the principal! caufe /halt alfo be punifhed m a contemner of the Mini* fiery andadifturberofthe Church. This order , as it ferves to condemne che prattife of the Brownifts , as tending to the disturbance of the Church , while thev give no power of judging and deciding caufes nntothe Elderfhipjfo it ferves for the reproofe both of them and M r Davenp. in denying the authority of Synods : for if the Church may in ordinary cafes commit their authority unto an Elderf hip, & not deprive themfelves of their right, then why may they not doe fo likewife un- to ClalTes and Synods * IIII. This Englif h Church at Franckford did commit and delegate the pow- er of judging controverfies , no: onely to their Elders, but upon occafion even unto other particular and private members of the Church , which had no Eccle» fiafticall office 5 and this in divers degrees , as 1. In cafe fome oftheElderfhip, though thelefler part, were excepted againft as parties: 1. When the greater part were excepted againft: 3. When all the Minifters and Seniors were fufpec- ted,&c. Thus they did ereft as it were three feverall forts of Clafies or Synods within themfelves for the judicature of fuch caufes as could not be ended by the Elderfhip. Thus they ordained in thefe three feverall Articles of their Difci- pline,which follow. (o) Art '*°» „ Of thefirfi fort : (°) Item , if any have juft occafion to take exception to fome „ of the Minifters and Seniors , and not to the more part : that then thofe of the „ Minifters arid Seniors to whom the exception is made , in this cafefhall not be >» judges , but in this cafe for the time removed from the miniftery , and that the „ reft of the Minifters and Seniors to whom no exception fhall be made , with as „ many of the Congregation joyned to them , as they be in number which {hall ,ibe excepted >f hall be arbiters and judges inthefayd caufes : and that the fayd „ perfons fo to be joyned to the Minifters and Seniors , fhall be appoynted by the ,, Congregation > the Minifters and Seniors not excepted , giving their voyces as „ others of the Congregation. (pj Art.61. j> Oftheficondfort : (?) Item , if exception be taken to the more part of the Mi- „nifters and Seniors , that then the Church lhallappoyntfixmoetobe judges ,, with the reft of theMinifters,againft whom exception is not made: the fame reft ,, of the Minifters having their voyces in the election of the fix, as other members „ of the Church. (q) Art.62. . „ Ofthethirdfortite) Item>if all the Minifters and Seniors be fufpe&ed or found r> parties , or if any appeale be made from them , that then fuch appeale be made „ to the body of the Congregation, the Minifters , Seniors and parties excepted. ,> And that the body of the Congregation may appoint fo many of the Congrega- „ tion to heare and determine the fayd matter or matters , as it fhall feerae good to „ the Congregation. Now as in all thefe ComiiTions the Church did not loofe her authority , but did rather exercife the fame herein; this very adt of delegation beingateftimonyof her power: fo in like manner (if the example of this Church alledged againft me may CLASSES AND SYNODS. i*3 may be followed of us) other Churches may alfo fend their Deputies and Dele- gates unto ClalTes & Synods 5 for the judgement & decifion of fuch caufes as can- not be fo well ended among chemfelves. V. Left any (hould objeft that in all thefe Deputations , the judgement of controverfies was referred unto fuch Officers or members of the Church as were within the fame Congregation, and that they did not fubmit their caufes to the determination of any other judges out of themfelves ; it is therefore further to be obferved that there was an order agreed upon by the Englifh Church at Franck- ford, that in the time of their contention (0 the matter fcould be determined by thefe ( r ) ibiJ. p, five notable learned men , which were of other Churches , towete , Calvin, Mufculw > 37.38 .& Martyr , Bullinger & Viret. Tbts agreement wen put in writing. To that all gave their eon- 4 1 " 4 ' fents. This day was joy full. Tbankfis were given to God, brotherly reconciliation followed, &c. Yea the holy communion was upon this happy agreement alfo minifired. This agree- ment is often repeated>& layd downe as a ground of comfort,& as a proof of their equity that did moft conftantly cleave thereunto. Afterwards againe , when more contention was rayfed in that Ghurch , both the oppofite parties were content not onely to heare the counfeil 5c advife of men in other Churches , but to fubmit unto their judgement , as farre as men may fub- mit unto the fentence of any particular Church whatfoever. And for evidence hereof it is recorded how the one part of the Church declared their minde by this CO writing following : (fj P. 100, „ We offer & permit with moft willing mindes (having the licence of the Ma- IQI « $> giftrate as it may well be for this purpofe ) that all our controverfies and conten- 3> tions whatfoever,which have bene fowne and brought in among us fithence the 5? beginning of this breach , and fince the firft day we began to ftrive > untill this i> prefent time and houre : to be debated , decided and determined by Arbiters , :> being none of this ou-r Congregation, and yet from among the brethren, our 3 , countrie men, equally and indifferently , by the parties difagreeing, to be cho- js fen upon this condition , that not onely the election of Minifters and befides all 3, other things done by the order of the fayd difcipline, ftand in fufpence, to be al- 3 , lowed or difallowed by the determination and judgement of the Arbiters to be 33 chofen as is aforefaid. written the 5. of April, Anno 1557. The other part of theChurch did in like manner witneffe their confent,by their writing, the copie whereof was as followeth: 5, We fubmit ourfelves and are contented to commit all manner of controver- 3> lies that have heretofore rifen amongft us in the Church, to fuch Arbiters as the >3 Magiftrate hath appointed,, and to ail fuch as they call unto them to the hea- 33 ring and determining thereof, according to Gods word and good reafon. And 33 thus (imply and plainly without any manner of exception or condition. In wit- » nes whereof we have fubfcribed our names the 5. of April, Anno 1557. Though there were fome differences betwixt thefe parties in other particulars, yet they all agreed in this , to commit authority & power unto fome outof them- felves, whom they would fet upas Judge§ over them. Hereby itdoth appeare that they did not confine and reftraine the judgement of Ecclefiafticali caufes Q^ 1 with- ti4 THE POWER OF within the limits of one particular Congregation onely. And if a particular Church might thus referre their controverfies to the judgement of foure or five perfons out of themfelves, then might they as well or better be referred to the judgemencof many Churches united together in Clalfes and Synods. VI. This Englifh Church which fojourned at Franckford , for foure or five yeares in ^Maries time > was not a fetled and eftablifhed Church : they wanted the opportunity of combining themfelves with other Englifh Churches. It was the mifery of this Church > that they wanted the help of ordinary ClaiTes and Sy- nods : and it is unreafonable to make the fpeciall defect or want of fome one Church , a precedent for other Churches > to deprive them of that mutuall help which they may conveniently enjoy , and which God offers unto them. This (t) Difc.of Englifh Church (0 was exercifed with great troubles and continuall diflentions all EnglCh at tneti roe of their abode at Franckford , to the great grief and offence of many. Franckf.'y. The forme of their Difcipline , and thefe Articles here objected by M r Dav. and a7,&c. M r Gan.were not fully agreed upon : the Paftour and the Elders with fome of the P ' 62 " & 8cc Church difTented from the greater part of the Congregation. And in fuch cafe, (ijs.TheoC as M r Fenner , before mentioned , doth teflify , ( v ) the controverfy ought to have l.7-c.7.p. bene brought to a greater Senate , to a Clatfis or Synod, which he calles a Prefby- 278,&c. tery f m ore Churches > for the deciding thereof. The want of this was the caufe of their woe. VII. The Englifh Church at Franckford in the want ofa Claflis might fa much the rather allow appeales unto the Congregation , becaufe there were in that Church many learned men , able to difcerne and judge of caufes. In that 00 Difc. Church {*) theyfet up an Vniverjity j and chofe feverall men for the reading of He- &c.p,6o. Dre w f Greek , and Divinity lectures. The learned men that repaired unto this Church were alfo as famous for their piety and fincerity, enduring perfecution for the Gofpell of Chrift , chooftng rather to live in baniihmene with their afflicted brethren , then to enjoy the pleafures and promotions of Antichrift , which they v might have had in their owne countrie, if they would have bowed their necks to his yoke. In fuch a Church it was more tolerable to appeale unto the body of the Congregation,then in many other that are farre unlike. And yet if fuch a Church, abounding with fo many Worthies, could not well fubfift alone , in their want of a Claflicail government , but fell into fo great contentions and fcandals ; this may juftly ferve for the warning of other Churches , and teach them to feek the help of neighbour-churches , & tofubmit themfelves mutually unto fuch combinati- ons, as the Lord f hall give opportunity. Laftly, when as afterwards it pleafe'd God to vHit his peop!e,and to reftore the light of the Gofpel and true Religion unto England by that gracious and noble inftrument of his goodnes , Qu* .Elizabeth , of ever blefTed memory, then thefe ex- cellent and eminent lights of his Church returning againe into their country , did give a plaine teftimony unto this traeth > that all Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion is not limited unto a particular Congregation. Some of them being promoted unto chief places of government in England, did by their pra&ife profefle t hat particu- lar Churches may fubmit themfelves unto a fuperiour authority out of their owne Con- ■ CLASSES AND SYNODS. nj Congregation. Some of them became Mi'nifters of the Church of Scotland , & ftood for the maintenance of thatDifcipline , which from the beginning of the Reformation, acknowledged the authorityand jurifdi&ion of Synods. None of them (for ought I ever heard ) that dreamed of the fingle uncompounded policie. Though there were forae differences among them concerning the government of the Church > yet no one of them or of thole other exiles who had fojournedat $trafirough> Bafel, %urickj Arrow % Geneva and other places, in Q_. Maries dayes, that left behinde them any monument of their agreement with M r Dav. & M r Cann. in limiting Ecclefiafticall jurifdiftion unto a particular Church. But of this fto- ry , we have occafion to fpeak further hereafter , (y) where M r Can. againe brings fy)Chap,7 a more objections from thence. Sea.5. Sect. IX. Mr Dav. hit pretence of agreement wtth lunius examined. B Elides the former Allegations , M r Dav. pretendeth his agreement with I«- nim in this queftion : And after his vaine excufe of H, Grotim for flighting the authority of Clafles and Synods, as he did in that treatife which he publiiheda- gainft Sibr. Luhbertm , he fayth , ( z ) thereupon Bogermanntu publifhed his Annotations Cz)Apol.rc- learnedly and fuccinElly penned , in defence ofD. Sibrandtts, wherein , for anfwer of that part p y ' p ' i2J l which concerned the neceffity and authority of Synods , he referred Grotim to what lunim had written againjl Bellarmine de nceeflitate & poteftate Conciliorum, wherein I fully agree with lunim. A n s vv. Had M r Dav. fully agreed with Junius , then hadit bene meet that theihould have brought at leaft fome one pregnant teftimony out of Junius , to have manifefted their agreement , which he hath not done. If he will conftantly and fully abide by this confeifion of his full agreement with Junius in that which he wrote againft Bellarmine concerning the neceility and authority of Sy- nods , then muft he acknowledge that they have jurifdi&ion over particular Churches for the judging of their caufes , and that they are not onely for coun- fell and admonition > &c. becaufe ( a ) Junius is plentifull in witneflmg thus much (a) Anim- of them : as appeareth , advad Bt *f Firft, Bellarmine complayning how the Proteftants by theinfti^ationof Sa- c^ t * de tan , diddeftroy Ecclefiafticall judgements : Junius anfwereth , (ty-We alfo complaine o/conci ' the deceytfull arts of Satan : hut they are not to be deemed to take away Ecclefiafticall judge- (*>) in pr«* rsents , which with Paul, 1 . Cor. \ 4. doeurgtthat the fpirits of the Prophets be fubjeft nota " u to the Prophets : but that do we^ urgt^ efpecialiy of the fir ft Hicene , of the Chalcedon, &c Now it is manifeft in the Hiftories , that in thefe Synods there was not onely a giving of counfeil , but an exercife of Ecclefiafticall jurifdiftion in the cenfure and condem- nation of Here ticks : as is hereafter {hewed at large. Againe , when Bellarmine accufeth the Proteftants > that they defire a Generall Councell, but fuch a c#o as neve* Q_3 wan U6 THE POWER OF (e)N. 3 &. r^ : Junius anfwcrcth,(e)i f «^. Butif we fhoulddefirefuch aCouncellas M r Dav. defcribes > fuch a one as {hould be for counfell and admonition, without jurifdiction; then f hould the Anfwer of Junius be falfe: we (hould defire fuch a Synod as never was. It cannot be (hewed that ever fuch a General! Gouncell was held. When Bellarmine accufeth Melanfthon for requiring fuch conditions of a Synod > that neither the perfons nor caufes of men fhould be condemned,and that fo nothing at all fhould be decreed in the Synod: Junius anfwereth that this is fayned or forged ofhim ;andfhewes further that though it doe not become the Church to uCq a bloody cure, and corporall puni(hments , vet there is a more (fj N.40, wholefome order> and tells what that is , faving> (f) What? &c Junius denyeth not f{) Ibid, in this but fhevves that his enumeration is inefficient , faying, 0) It if to be added , 0- c. 1 5 .n. 2. thers as parties or perfons accufed , whofe caufe k to be handled : for certainly it is inhumane that any jhould becondemned not cited , or not heard : Others againe to be Auditours, feeding their edification by enjoying that communication of holy things. Hereby it is plaine that he acknowledged the jurifdi&ion of Synods, and that they were not onely for counfell i both becaufe he aliowes a diftinftion of them in the Synod which had the CLASSES AND SYNODS. rs? the authority of a determining voyce , from them that did onely difpute or con- fult ; and becaufe he intimates a judicial! proceeding in the Synods , by mentio- ning parties accufed, their citing or calling of them, & the condemning of them* which imports a further matter then onely of admonition or counfell. Whereas Bellarmineaccufeth us that we allow any learned men , though Laicks > to have a determining voyce , let their office be what it will : Junius anfwereth » (m) Thefe ( m > n >4 , things have none ofmfayd or thought, as they are here layd downe. This is that which we fay • fuchare to be taken into the Synod which arefurnifhed with gifts and calling j which for gifts are godly , hone ft , learned - t for their calling , which are either ordinarily appointed to teach , or extraordinarily fent for and brought h)uft authority* Now this neceffity of a calling which he fo C n ) often urgeth and requireth to be in the members of a Synod, doth (n( See e. argue a fpeciall power and authority belonging unto them, by vertue wheteof*|-^ 10 - * they may givefentence in the judgement of caufes;whereas to admoniih orcoun- c ,i 7 .n^ fell'requires no more power then that which every Chriftian hath in another , for his good , as M r D. himfelf confelTeth. To the fame purpofe Junius fhewes a- gainftBellarmine > that the meaning of Theodofius and Valentinian was not to admit Btfhops onely , but that (°) thofe onely might heare, examine , andgive fentence in (°) lb ^ <% a Synod , which being fent ftom the Churches unto the Synod , were reckoned up of the Bijhops , 1 5 ' n ' l5 ' according to their letters of publicl^authority which they were wont to exhibit. Againe he fayth , (p) They which areprefent without the authority of the Church, ofthemfome may one- (p) N,i| » ly heare , as the laicks or common people ; fome may be ufed in confultations , at the lear- ned men , ejfiecially Ecclefiafticatl perfons • but they may not give definitive fent ence. And thus ftill by diftinguiihing thole that gave counfell > from thofe that gave fentence in the Synod , it appeares he acknowledged a power of jurifdi&ion in Synods, and that they were not onely for counfell. So when Bellarmine fayth it was a fault in the Councell of Bafill , that Prefbyters or other learned men befides Bi- ihops,were allowed to have not onely a confulting voyce, but a deciding fuf- frage,& affirmeth that this was againft the cuftome of all antiquity , &c. Junius anfwereth , (q) This we denye :for it was the fir ft inftitution , kAB .15-. and not onely the , . N manner and cuftome. Seeing therefore there wen fuch an inftitution of tht \ Apoftles 2 & in their ajfembly , what need was there to alledge cuftome ? <$c. When Bellarmifie chargeth the Proteftants as holding that a Synod is nothing but an inquifition • and that Chrift alone and his written word hath a determining voyce: Junius fayth , (0 Ittsfalfe. for Synods have both an inquifition of that which is r x \\\^^ - m - true,juft> holy by religious communication ,and alfo a minifteriall giving of fentence. c.i8ji,j. Though he (hew there and in many annotations following , that it is not lawfull for Chriftians to obey them further then they agree with the Scriptures - 3 that their fentence ofitfelfis but a perfuaGon , and not a conftraint; a minifteriall judgement, not of abfolute authority of itfelf,&c. yet he (0 grants the Lord(n Ns g 4 hath commanded that we fhould obey the fentence of a lawfull Synod, affembled together in his name , &c. He fayth \ fr) Synods have true judgements , fofarre as they ,» N( are ofGodaccordingto the tables of hts trueth andcommandement : of themf elves they arenot judgements , but declarations , publications , and minifteriall pronouncings of the trueth and judgements of God. Aod more then this cannot beyeelded to any Ecclefiaftical! ju- i2$ THE POWER OF , judicatory whatfoever. Herein he fully grants as much jurifdi&ion to Synods » as belongs to any particular Congregation or Elder! hip, either apart or joyntly together. When Bellarmine blames the Proteftants for their exception againft the Coun- (v) Ibid.in cell of Trent , Junius 2nfwereth , 00 J* # the ordinary way of right r«-» tvery appeale , c t ii t o.i. that the judgement of Synods, and che exequution of their fentence befufpended and ftayed fo long untiil the matter be againe examined in another more free or greater Aflembly , &c. This anfwer had bene needles and impertinent , unlefle (x) N.7. Synods had more power then of counfell and admonition oneiy. He fayth , 00 Certainly in every jujl Synod , Hereticks being cited, heard, prefent , or willfully hiding them* felves, have bene condemned : &c. When Bellarm. objects that Proteftants will have nothing to be determined in Synods , and fo ftrifes to be never ended j Junius an- (y) K,i3, fwers , (y) that he perverts their meaning , and referres us to his preface, nota 40* where che Ecclefiafticall jurifdidion of Synods is plainely avouched. TUnius proceeding to the examination of his fecond book touching Synods, ■* where Bellarmine repeats , thaiSynods ofBijhops may judge all controversies both of (z) Anim- faith and manners, Junius anfwereth , ft} We have granted it of thofe that are lawfuH Sy- adv.in Bell. nods. When Bellarmine had fayd that nothings greater then a lawfulland approved Ge- c\m^ CX ' nerall CounceU i Junius anfwereth > ( a J It is falfe : for Chrijl » greater , and the Scripture (a) ibid, c. » greater : feeing Chriji andtheScribture aregreat ofthemfelves : the Church is great by them, 4»». *. ey.But this anfwer had bene inlufficient & not direct enough,if my oppofites opi- nion were true. For then according to their opinion , he might more fitly have anfwered : that the authority of a particular Congregation is greater then the au- thority of a General! Synod ; becaufe though the counfell and advife of che Synod was more to be reverenced in refpect of many excellently learned and godly men from many Churches that were in it ; yet feeing Ecclefiafticall junfdi&ion is limi- ted co a particular Congregation, therefore the fame is gteater in the power of cenfuring , and in the ufe of the keyes for binding andloofing ofimpenitent din- ners ; feeing Synods have no jurifdi&ion at all over any other Churches. Againe , when Bellarmine fets downe this infolenc propoficion* that the Pope cannot commit, neither unto a Synod, nor to any man the coactive judgement (b) ibid, in Gver tamfelf, but oneiy thedifcretive: Junius anfwereth , NO Thebropofitionismoft c,i8.n,i. true , he cannot commit : becaufe God hathcommitted it to the^. Synod andlawfull Councell. Wherefore we fay on the contrary', neither can he commit it (for if he be the ftrvant of God , God hath committed the judgement concerning him unto his Church ) neither can he rejeH it ; hut though he be unwilling , yet both the Church ps bound to judge concerning him ,andhet9 undergoe the judgement thereof, difcretive and coaHive , howfoever it pleafe men to call it. I f M c Dav. doe fully agree with Junius, as he profe(Teth,then mult he acknowledge that Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion is not limited to a parcicular Church ; that lawfull , Synods have authority not oneiy to counfell and admonifh the Pope himfelf , and fo other obftinate offendours , but alfo to cenfure the, & to give fentence both of directive & coa&ive judgement againft them,as occafion requires. Junius to make this more plaine, repeats it againe, and fpeaking of the Synods judging the Pope % (£) N,t . jjfcjk ( C ) j mi iy m grant that he cannot appoynt judges in htf omecaufe , becaufe God hath. CLASSES AND SYNODS. 129 already appaynted them by the Apoftle,faying t The fpirits of the Prophets are fubjeft to the Prophets* i.Cor. 14.32. andthathemay appoynt Arbiters : butweaddethis withat, that the judges which God hath ordained s may by no right be rejected or refufed of him. Wnen tfellarmine pretends that divers Popes , as Sixtus the 3 d , Leo the $* , Sy mmachus, and Leo the 4 th being accufed, were willing to have their caufes difcuffed in a Synod of Biihops,&c. Junius fayth » (<*) Andthis ought fotobe done of \d)m.6, them :for they arefubjeBed of God to a Synod of Prophets , by authority of the word. When Bellar, addes that yet the Bifhops durft net judge them , affirming alfo, that they left the whole judgement unto God: Junius anfwers, (e) This ts a falUcy from that (e) N -7« which is not the caufe , ai they call it. For they did not therefore abftainefiomjudgingMcaufe they wanted authority to judge , but partly becaufe they had rather that the Popes beingguilty fliould be firji judged ofthemfelves andtheir owne confeience, partly becaufe they thought it bet* ter to have their caufe examined in another more full Synod , partly alfo becaufe when-, they would examine it* the matter wtunot evident enough,&c. Whereas the Popes thatthus Farre fubmitced [heir caufe to tryall, pretend that by this fact they doe not pre- fenbe a law to their fucceflburs, whereby the> fhouldbeconftrainedtodoethe fame : Junius lavth ,(f) Theimpudency of thefe men is fo much the greater , who afterthey ( f ) !**£• are delivered fiom judgement , doe after this manner mocl^ their judges and fuch as examined their caufe, and will have their ambitious licentioufnes to beefteemedfor a lawfuli order \affcri* bing thelawfull order of judgements in their caufe unto an extraordinary and voluntary difpcn* fation , m they call it. But had Junius bene of my oppofites minde > he f hould have anfwered after another manner, & mould have fayd > The Bilhops in the Synods which durit not judge the caufe 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 advifeand counfell , but have no jurifdi&ion to give fentepce in cenfuring either the Pope or any other: Synods may onely direft particuIarChurch.es to ufe their power aright* but have no power themfelvesto judge other Congregations 1 or any member thereof , &c. How farre was Junius from giving fuch an anfwer i Other examples and inftances alledged to fhew the power of Synods in the Judgement of caufes,are avouched, cleared and maintained by Junius againft Bel- larmines exceptions , as appeares in the caufe of (g) Marcellinus, of the ( h ) Dona- (g) ibid.in- tifts , and of (»J Leo. Had he thought that all Ecclefiafticall jurifdiftion had bene JW»i . {hut up within the bounds of a particular Congregation > he ought to have repre- (i) n, j, hended thofe Synods , rather then to have fpent time in vindicating-their pra&ife from the cavillsof adverfaries. A S in thefe books de Conciliis, alledged by Mr Dav. Junius hath plainely fhew- ed his agreement with us : fo in his difputations againft Bellarmine de Verbo Dei , he hath likewife declared his confent with us touching the authority of Sy- nods. He writes there , that ft) there be two kindes of judgements in the Church: one Pri- (k) Anim- vote , which belongs to all the fahhfull , univerfally and feverally < } the other Public^, depen- f^^ ding upon a publicise ailing and authority : the law and rule of both thefe judgements is the holy verboDeij. Scripture ; the authour andguide is the holy Ghoft, ThepubliclQudgement is either ofapar- 3«c- j.n.9. * tiadar Church, or of many Churches meeting together in to onz^ body , or of all j which body R they i^o THE POWER OF they call a Synod , a Councell , or an ^Affembly, , of government alotted unto them, who have the power of fan&ifying , of loo- ,) fing and binding , who have obtained the keyes of the Church , and not unto „ us which are to be fed , which ftand in need to be fanctifyed , to be bound or (o) Ibid.in loofedfrom binding : Junius anfwereth , (°) We allow this tefiimony of Bafiliut tott- c.7.n.9. ching thelawfull order of Synods , at before. Herein we have the exprefle confeffion of' Junius touching the authority and jurifdiftion of Synods , in the ufe of the keyes> binding and looting. When Bellarmine fends us unto Damafcene, who favth touching the contro- „verfies in the Church, To determine and decree of thefe things, it belongeth ,,notto Kings, but to Synods. For where two or three, faith the Lord, arega- „ thered together in my name , there am I in the midft of them. Chrift hath not ,> given unto Kings the power of binding and loofing , but unto the Apoftles and (p) ibid.in » their fucceflburs , to Paftours and Teachers. Junius anfwereth » (p) Thefe things c.U.n.6. certainly aretrue, and nothing for that famous principality of the UpmaneBiJhap , <$c. We alfoaffirme the fame thing , as before, cap.% . nota<)..\o. Another evident affirmation touching the jurifdittion and power of Synods. , When Bellarmine faith that Prober doth no otherwife proove the Pelagians to be Hereticks , but becaufe they were condemned of the Romane Bifhops, Innocen- (9) N - H. i\ m s Zjtjmus , Bonifacio* & Celeftine: Junius anfwereth , (q) No otherwife f It isfalfe. for Pelagim watfirfi condemned by the Synod of Carthage and ofMilevis : bin when-, hc~ went CLASSES AND SYNODS. ijz went beyondfea to I{pme , where hefo craftily infinuated himfelf , that there wm great feare^. left hejhould infliB a [oarer wound upon the Church at Rome j the ^Africane Bifkops did pru- denth andreligioujly certify Innocentim by two letters ,bothconcemingthe^. fentence of their Synods , and concerning the imminent peril! of the Romanc Church ,unlejfe according to the^, example of them in Africa they did provide for the publickfafety&c. Another example of Synodicall junfdiction allowed by Junius. AGaine , in his difputations againft Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano, Junius doth often allow the authority and jurifdiction of Synods , and fhewes his judge- ment , that Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion is not limited to a particular Congregation. When Bellarminefpeaking of a certaine decree made in a Synod of Africa > men- tioned by Cvprian, fayth > it was ordained thereby 5 that a caufejhouldfirft be judged, where the crime wcu committed, that it did not forbid but that it might be judged againe in ano- ther place : Junius anfwerethi (0 Certainly this U not forbidden : For it k ofcommm right, (0 Anim- But that which is of common equity in cafe ofappeale, to have a caufe judged comrade" againe by another judicatory , is denyedby my oppofices, in allowing no fuch Ec Pont. Rom. clefiafticall jurifdi&ion. Whereas Bellarmine condemneth the Magdeburgenfes» l .c13.11. % as being altogether abfurd and ridiculous for cheir denyall of appeales ; Junius de- nyes the fact ; and faith (0 his reafoning is inconfequent : that all appeales (hould (f) N.y. be altogether forbidden , becaufe the appeales to them beyond the fea were > forbidden. When Caivine alledgeth a certaine Canon of the Synod held at Milevis in A- | frica > to refute the ambitious ufurpation of the Pope , and manifefts thereby the I jurifdiction of Synods in the judgement of caufes> becaufe it was decreed that ap- 1 peales ihould be made to the Africane Synods > and not to the Bifhop of Rome % Junius (t) raaintaines this allegation and vindicates it againft the exceptions of fOH>i condemning that in the Pope which they allow- ed in Svnods. When Bellarmine acknowledged that the Pope is bound to keep the Ecclefi- afticall lawes made by Synods >but quoad diretlionem ,non quoad coaBionem , accor- ding to the diftin&ion of Lawyers touching the Prince ; meaning that the Pope may ufe their direction , but is not under their correction or conftraint ^ which is indeed the fame thing in effect which my oppofites affirme of particular Ghur- R s ches ij* THE POWER OF chcs > that they are bound to ufe the counfell and dire&ion of Synods , but are not (x)ibid.infubjeftto their cenfure, nor under their jurifdi&ion: Junius (*) derives this di- c,27.n.6. ftin&ion. f or though (faith he) we fhould grant that it takeplace in foro folium ci- vill counts , to wit > for the judging of Princes ; yet is it of no force in foro cccliet confcienti that he is therefore rightly calledby the Spirit of God dvopiog , that wicked one or law- lefle perfon , z.Thef. 2. Whereas fome now adayes beginne to fpeak evill of the furifdi&ion of Claffes and Synods , as of an Antichriftian authority , Junius is fo farre oppofite unto them , that he accounts the Pope even in this regard to be An- tichrift and the Man of Sinne , becaufe he refufeth to be fubject unto the authority of Synods in their canons and decrees. Moreover , in comparing of the Civill and Ecclefiafticall eftate , Junius fay th » (•d) Ibid, m (a) KJngs have their authority in Chill matters , l\pm. 1 3 . and the Synod in Ecclefiafticall c.2s>.n.27. mamysa y ove t fa p p 6t M n wai definedin the Councell ofConjlanceand BafeU And their authority isfo certaine t as it is certatne that he which by force repelleth force, is armed with pu- blic^authority. He diftinguilheth their jurifdi&ion in refpeft of the caufes judged (e) N.18. by them , and repeats this their authority againe in the (*)next animadverfion. And though thefe two kindes of government, Civill and Ecclefiafticall , doe ufe a dif- he would have it thought that Junius was of his minde » while he profeiTeth that he doth fully agree with him. Sect* CLASSES AND SYNODS. 133 SECT. X. His pretence of agreement with 'Dr Whitaker examined, Mr Dav. to colour his opinion 9 as if it were no fingular conceit oi Mr Jacob andforae few others , makes mention of the Cemuriatours , as if they were of the fame minde ; yet he alledgeth not their words, to prove the fame. But inftead of others he choofeth out DrWhitakjr,as if he had bene a favourer of this opini- on , which it is likely that he never hc j ard of , and fayth , (g) To thefel may addethofe [f ] A P^'!5" who have handled the controverfies concerningthe necejfity , and authority of Councills , a- z ffi' mongil whom I will inftance in Dr Whitaker , who f peaking of the fullnes of that delegated whit.de power which Chrift bath given to the Church > not to the Pope (which he applyeth to the Keyes Coci^aeft,. in binding and loofing , /hutting and opening , retaining and rzmittingfinnes ) fayth , that this 5 ' r * power belongeth Primarily , principally , and effentially to the Church , but to the fever all B't^ jhops onely accidentally ,fecundarily , and lejfe principally , andexptaineth himfelfby a rule in Philofophy , which is , that when any power is in two , in one neceffarih & effentially, in ano- ther contingently and accidentally, it is more principally in him, in whom it is neceffarily and tffentiaUy , then in him , whofe it is onely contingently and accidentally . As the heat is more principally in the fire then in the water , becaufe it is *"*_, the water by reafon of the fire. So {fayth he) feeing this jurifdiBion and fullnes of power is given to the Church neceftarily and primarily , but to the Pope onely fecundarily , and by the Church it is manifefi that it is mors m the Church , then in the Pope. What that learned wrighter fayth of the Churches power in comparifon with the Pope, holds in all otherfarallell inftances. A N s v v . Firft, had M* Dav. repeated this Argument of D. whitaker fully and juftly as it is fet downe by himfelfjthen might the Reader have feen therein a piaine& evident teftimony for the authority of Synods;but divers things being omitted in the beginning* middle and end of it, thereby the truethisobfeured and hidden from his Readers, In the beginning of it , D. Whitaker propounds it thus , If tht fullnes ofpowerle in the Church , not in the Pope , then it. is evident* that it hath more authority then the Pope : tut the firft is true : therefore thefecondalfo.^ow by the Church in this place, he mea^ neth the Generall Synod orCounceil,as appeares by the title of this Queftion no- ted in the beginning of it , viz. (h) Whether the Synod be above the Pope. : and if he had (hlDeCorr- not fo meant it , this his Argument had bene befide the Queftion. And therefore f^c*" while D. Whitaker here directly concludeth aftdlnes ofpowerm Synods, and as he j£* ? c further calles it in this fame place , that higheft authority and jurifdiBion which Chrisl hath left unto his Church- it is manifeft hereby that he did not hold them to be onely for counfei] & admonition ; and fo was farre from limiting all Ecclefiafticall jurif- di&ion unto a particular Congregation. In the middle , in the confirmation of this Argument, D.Whit; faith , For if all this power were /"*_, the Pope , or in any one man principally and effentially , then he dying it jhoHldperijli , andfo the Church jhoutd altogether loofe it. But it is not loft > though the Popt dye a thoufand times , but it remaineth with the Church , without which the Pope though li- ving could have no part of this authority. Now to argue on this manner againft the au- thority we afTcribe unto Synods, by comparing them with particular -Churches^ as he doth againft the Pope compared with Synods , would be inconfequentsune- quail , and no parallell inftance y becaufe the title of the Church is no where gi- Venunto the Pope > or unto any one perfon, as it is unto an aiTembly of Miniftersy R 3 ©<* *24 THE POWER OF Governours, or Deputies of Churches met together in the name of Chrift in Sy- nods : becaufe though we aflfcribe unto Synods fome jurifdiftion, yet we doe not fay that all power is in them originally , and fo to be derived unto others as is fayd of the Pope ; and confequently becaufe there is no fuch danger that the power of the Church fhould be loft and perifh by the death offuchas are members of the Synod , as might be by the death of the Pope , if all power were primarily and ef- fentially in him alone. And therefore it is a vaine aflertion of M r Dav. touching this argument of D. Whir. viz. What that learned wrigbter fay tb of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope->holds in all other parallell inflames. In the end of this Argument profequueed by D- Whitak. he concludeth thus! Wherefore feeing it is certaine that this power is given unto the Church primarily » and not unto the Pope but fecondarily and by accideht* and feeing the Church is reprefented in tbt Sy* nod : it is ofnecelJity that the Synodmufi be above the Pope. And thus molt evidently he grants unto the Sy nod , as being a reprefentative Church , a power & jurifdi&ion above the Pope , a power which confifts in binding and looting , lhutting & ope- ning i retaining and remitting of finnes , as himfelf here explaines it , and fo is di- rect! v contrary to them which allow no more unto Synods > but counfell and ad- monition. Whvdid M r Davenp. omit and refufe to name the Synod > which D. Whit, fo expreffely mentioneth > applying & yeelding unto the Synod that power which he there pleades for ? Secondly j as for that Gmilitude of fire and water, though it be granted that heat is more principally in the fire then in the water , becaufe it is in the water by reafon of the fire: yet herebv heat is not denyed to be in the water, but on the con- trary acknowledged to be derived into the water; and experience fhewes that by the heat fo comm unicated unto the water many excellent effects are produced for the fervice of man. And fo when Ecclefiafticall authority is by the Church com- mitted and communicated to Ecclefiafticall Officers in calling of them, then doth it belong unto them , though fecondarily and lefie principally, as both D. Whita. confelfeth & M r Dav. himfelf repeateth. THat it may yet further appeare how unjuftly the name of D. Whita\tr is pre- tended and alledged both by M r Dav* here>& by M r Canne hercafter,againft the authority of Synods , I will here fet downe divers pregnant aflertions and ex- prefleteftimonies of his, gathered outoffundryofhis writings forhelpofthe Readers. In them all may fee how fully oppofite he was to my oppofites. To be- ginne with this treatife<& Conciliis, of Councells or Synods , out of which M r D. took this allegation above-mentioned: This book comprehends 6Qijeftions touching Synods ; & in handling every one of thefe Queftions , he fpeakes plainly for the authority &jurifdi&ion of Synods Thefe 6 Queftions are I . Touching the neceffit y and pre fit of Synods, z. By what authority they are t o be affembled* Z . Of what p erfons they confijl, 4. Who is to be Prafident in them, 5. Whether they be ahovethe Pope. 6. Whether they can erre. For CLASSES AND STNODS. 135 For the firft Queftion , couching the nece/fity of Synods : There he brings 8 I. reafons to prove the neceflity and profit of them. I will not infift upon each of them as 1 might but mention onely one or two of them. The third caufe is , fayth „ be , (i) that ivjafy'ci , or good order , and right and lawfull difcipline may both (ijwhitak. „ be appoynted and maintained, and that Canons may be made and confirmed. ^ e c c ?p ? ; ?* „ For the Church hath alwayes had authority of making and enacting Ecclefiafti- ' „ call lawes , and of prefcribing them to others, and of punching thofe which did „ not obferve them. And this authority hath alwayes bene accounted neceflary. This was more then counfelling or admoniihing. (k) The eight and laft,and that ' ' p,ai ' „the chiefeft caufe of Synods is , that even as in Politick andCivill judgements „ malefa&ours upon examination areaccufed and condemned ; fo in the Church 3, Hereticks might be condemned and pronounced anathema by publick judge- „ ment , 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 ac- j, cording to hw : fo here Hereticks , enemies of faith and religion , are not to be „ condemned but according to the publick and Imperiall law , that is> the Scrip- j , ture. For a Synod is as it were a publick Court* or Imperiall Chambers Par- liament, wherein the Judges hearing both fides do give fentence, and decree ,> matters of greateft weight. For although Hereticks may be condemned of fe~ » verall Churches apart : yet when they are condemned as it were of the whole » Church , the fentence is more Iblemne and of greater weight. So Arius was „ condemned firft of Alexander and the Councell at Alexandria , but afterward »> with greater authority by the Synod of Nice , &c. By thefe words of D. Whi- taker we may fee what wrong they doe unto him, which pretend thathelhould deny the jurifdi&ion of Synods. The fecond Queftion is, by whofe authority Synods are to be afiembled. Here \J, D.Whitaker relating how Bellarmine pleads for the Popes authority, 0) repeats (l) DeCoc, his 4th Argument , taken from an ancient Canon wherein ie was concluded , that 9- 2 5-M>. without the minde of the Rjmane Bifhop it was not lawfull to celebrate or hold Synods. D. 42 * c * Whit, anfwers that this Canon mentioned by (m) Socrates, is not rightly tranfla- (m) Lib. 3, ted : he fayth > iKKhqtricig KMOviQw , doth not fignify celebrare Concilia, to bold cap ° 8 ' Synods, as Cadiodorus hath ill tranfiated it , whofe translation they abufe ; nor yet Ecclefiat confecr are, to confecrate Churches, aslllyricus doth amiflTe tranflate it , but leges Ecckfiafticasfancire, et canones EccUfiis prafcribere, to ordaine Ecclefiafiicall lawes, &■ toprefcribes Canonsunto Churches, And being thus tranflated,he fayth, We acknowledge & approve this Canons moftjuft. For reafon itfelfteacheth then it is manifeft hereby that heconfeiTed the jurifBi&ion of Synods , and that they were not onely for counfell & admonition. And in the fame place D. Whitafo (") relates how the Bifhops of the Oriental! (a)?A5^- Chur- i 5 6 THE POWER OF Churches meeting together in a Synod at Antioch,did by common fentence write unto trims the Bif hop of Rome , and by way of rebuke fayd unto him> that they^ were not to bz_- overruled by him, that if they would caft any out of their Cburchtt , utj iiiv KcLVOViQcS-ctl *mf[ dv\S> that fuch ought not to be reftored of him, even asthofc whomhecaft out couldnotbere^oredof them. Although D.Whit, acknowledge the errours and faults of fome that were in that Svnod , yet he approvech this theic writing in reproof of Julius , andfayth > they aUdidgravely rebuke his arrogance & in- folence. Though that Synod abufed their power in cenfunng AthanaGus unjuftlys yet chat they had a power of cenfure, & cafting out of their Churches > is not de- nyed, but maintained againft the Bif hop of Rome. III. The third Queftion istouching the perfons whereof Synods doe confift. Here (o)DeC6ci. D. Whit, (o) firit defcribes the Popifh opinion , and reckons up the fourefortsof Qaj.c.i. perfons, whom they allow to come unto Svnods, namelv, that Some are prefent tu judges , who have a determining voyce : Others , to difoute and examine difficulties , and theft have a confultat'tve voyce: Others, to defend the Synod , and to fee that peace be kept within e$ without : Others, toferve at notaries , watchmen, fervants. Then he (he we s i hat they al- low onely the greater Prelates, that is , all Bifhops and Archbifiops to have the right of a de< ter mining voyce in univerfall and particular Synods ordinarily } but that Cardinals , Abbots v Generalls of Orders though they be not Bifbops,yet by extraordinary priviledge may alfo have a determining fuff rage : at for all others whatfoever they be,they may be profit able,but not have a determining voyce or fuff rage. After this he f hewes the opinion of the Proteftants » that not onely the greater Prelates , but whatfoever learned and godly men are Cent, being chofen by the Churches of feverall Provinces , and judged lit for that bufines , ought to have equall authority in giving f iff rages , and fo to be judges as well as any others. But had D.Whit, bene of mv oppofites minde, he {hould have con- demned each of thefe opinions , both of Papifts and Proteftants, and (hould have fayd that neither one nor other forts of perfons were to be admitted for judges in Synods, but onely for counfellours and admoniihers : that none of them were to have determining voyces or to give definitive fentence , but onely to (hew their advife, & to have a confultative voyce. When Bellarmine alledgeth that the Prelates onely, as being Parlours of the Church are to have definitive voyces ; D. Whit, anfwering his arguments,favth, fo) ibiJ. c. ( p ) Tfo end of Synods is not to feed , viz. by teaching as proper paftours , but to decidi * p%. controverfies , to prescribe Canons , to correB abufes , to order Churches , and to doe other things , which belong unto the peaceable and quiet fiate of the Church. Herein he y eelds unto Synods not onely advife for direction, but jurifdi&ion and power of cor- rection , &c. To prove this authority of Prefbyters or Elders , he alledgeth AB. i6-4.where there is mention of the decrees , ordained by the Apoftles and Elders , and fay th^ (q)Ibid.c. thereupon, (q) Who dare now deny e the Elders to have had a determining fujj rage? They i cHermi 7 " ^ not me b ^JP m or con f u ^ » but &d alfo judge and decree together with the Apoftles. For ned.ordai- theword,* KS7t()ifJt,iva, is equally applyedunto both. Thefe things are fomanifeft that no it)V 102 mvUj c * n g a ' n f a v 'f ' To this end alfo he argucth (0 that a Generall Synod reprsfents 103.' - the CLASSES AND SYNODS. 137- _ theVniver fall Church : ch3t whofoever is fcntof a Church, reprefents theperfo^ of that Church. And finally (0 from ancient hiltories healledgeth the examples of divers (0 P. 103, Synods, as of Chalcedon, Nice, arid Conftantinople , wherein this power & ju- JC 4>S". rifdi&ion was exercifed. A fourth Queftion is about the PrjefidentofSynods.Inthisdifpute,Bellarmine IV. alledging that Conjlantine profefied himfelfto befubjeB unto the Bifhops* and that he ought to be judged of them ^ D. Whitaker allowing and commending that profefTion, an- fweretn andfayth , (0 What then ? This hindereth not but that he mightbc Pnefident. (0 CeCSc, For if a Bijhop had bene Prafident , ought he not to have bene judged of other Bifhops? What ^' 4 c,3,p# godly Prince would not have fay d fo ? Hereby heacknowledgeth, thatjurifdiftion& authority of judgement is no undue power of Synods, and that even the worthieft perfons ought to be fubjeft thereunto. A fift Queftion is whether Synods be above the Pope. Here D. Whitaker ha- V. ving firft (hewed what the Popif h opinion is , he then declares the opinion of the Protectants , and fayth , (v) Sedngthe Pope is the Bijliop onely of one Chuch, he n not one- (v)De C5c 4 ly notfuperiour unto all Bishops affembled together , but not fo much asfuperiour unto any o/9* J,c ' l >B * them apart, therefore we fay that a Synod may alfo decree againft the will of the Pope, jnay ** * takezognition of the Popes caufe, may judge the Pope-, & compellhim unto order ^nay prefcribe latves unto t heP ope , which are to have force againft hit will, and finally may coniemne the Pope and deprive him of his office , if he be worthy offuch a puni/kmem. Now if a Synod have this power to judge, cenfure and depofe the Popes, then hath it as much power to judge and cenfure other Minifters and members of other Churches,un- leflfe it can be {hewed that they have more authority then the Pope, or fome ftrange priviledge to exempt them from that jurifdi&ion of Synods , whereumo others are in fubje&ion. Afterwards U) he brings 10 Arguments to prove the fuperiority of Synods a- (x;ibid,c.3 bove the Pope. And in them there be plenteous evidences touching the autho- rity of Synods. Thofe arguments which prove that the Synods have jurifdi&ion over the Pope and power to cenfure him , doe alwayes prove that Synods have jurifdi&ion and power of cenfure. Otherwife , though the Pope deferved cen- fure , yet it (hould be an ufurpation in the Synod , to doe that for which they had no calling nor warrant : even as in the execution of Civill judgments, it lhould be aprefumptuousandunlawfull ufurpation , if private men being no Magiftrates fhould take upon them topunilhmalefa&ours, though they had juftly deferved the fame. Not to infift upon many other things which out of thofe 10 Arguments might be alledged for our purpofe , I will onely inftance in one example that is there (y) M lb 4 ^ urged by D. Whitaker, and taken out ofSozomen, lib.^.c.i^, or at in fome editions, 19 *' 1 * * c.14. whorecordes that the Synod oiSyrmium made an Aft, whereby Pcelix the Bifhop of Rome was appoynted to admit Liberia to be his fellow in the admini- stration of the Roroane Church. Hence D.Whitak.inferres , Soitfeemedgoodunto the Synod : therefore the Synod was above the Pope and above that Church. Bellarroine an- fwers , The Synod did not command , but onely exhort Fcelix by letters , that he would fujfer Lihmtts to fit with him, D. Whit, reply es againe » Touching Utters of exhortation > So- S %omm 13* THE POWER OF %omm makes no mention of them. Be fayth onely, yp dtyxri Q iXvjitl, Sec. They write unto Fcelix, Sec. And that thefe letters were mandatory it appear es , becaufe otherwifeFce- lix would never haveyeelded. Thus we fee from hence > that Synods have power (ac leaft in the judgement of D.Whit. ) not onely to exhort & admonifh, which every Chriftian may doe , but alfo to prefcribe 8e injoyne that which isequall & juft>and fo that others are to be fubjeft thereunto. yj. The fixt and laft Queftion is , whether Synods can erre. Now left any Ihould take occafion hereby to deny the authority of Synods, it is to be obferved,that D. Whitakerdoth in like manner affirme > that any lawfuli a(Tembly> evenofthofe (z}De Coc, t } iat are met together in the name of Chrift , may erre alfo. He fayth , (a) Though 216,°' 2#P ' CW? be in the midjl of them which are ajfembledin his name , itfoflowes not , that they doe not erre : For all are not pee from errour with whom Qhrift w prefent. And truely two or three which meet in t he name of Chrift , may be deceived , may erre in many things , and may ajkjL- thofe things which are not to be ajlied , andfo be dif appointed of their hope, and yet Clirisl he_ among them. For Chrift doth not alwayes exempt them from errour , with whom he_ is* Wherefore feeing every Ecclefiafticall aflemblvi every Elderfhip, and every parti- cular Church > being fubjeft to errour , and erring often , are not yet deprived of their jurifdi&ion and power in the judgement of caufes : fo though Synods want infallible judgement > and erre fometimes , yet are they not therefore without ju- rifdi&ion and authority. But further he avoucheth plainly that Synods have ju- (a) lbi-1. c. diciall authority , when he fayth , (a) A Synod iifayd to doe lawfully , not onely when it 3 .p.3 iz. condemneth and excommimicateth thofe which are to be condemned & pronounced Anathema, but alfo when it ordaines and maintaines thofe decrees which agree with the Scripture ,6Tc. Had he bene of my oppofites opinion he Ihould have fayd the contraty , viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemne thofe that deferve to be condemned > but onely admonif h them > and fo leave them to others. Yea he pro- (b) Ibid, p. ceeds further > & fayth concerning Generall Synods , that ( b ) In them is afoveraignt 2 7°« power, andthey have the higheft authority in the Church. He doth not onely grant unto them jurifdi&ion,but greater then is in any particular Church> or in any other Ec- clefiafticall judicatory. Moreover > whereas Bellarmine maintaines that Synods cannot erre when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope > and that all their authority depends u- (c) ibid. c. pon him ; hereupon D. Whita. argueth thus againft him : (c) Iftherehefuch weight i .p. 2 1 4. in the Pope, that without him neither Provincial! nor General! Synod have in them any force » it may worthily be demanded, what part the Bijhops have in a Synod, whether they be onely ad' momfhers or counfellours , or whether they be judges ? for if they be counfellours onely , why are none but Bijhops admitted unto Synods f why not others rather who are more learned then^, Bijhops j 5 O'c. He notes it as a poynt of great abfurdity , and as a great ftrait where- unto the Papifts are brought , againft their will & againft their profeflion, that Bi- fhops ihould have no other place in Synods but of admonif hers and counfellours. For indeed what ufe is their of fuffrages , of definitive and determining voyces > if in the end all be determined by the Pope? why might not advifes andcounfels MMbi.c t nave faft^d m f uca ca fe - ? This obfervation D. Whitaker holds to be of fpeciall i p.izi!»i'. ufe ; and worthy to be remembred > and therefore repeats it oft. ( d ) What place (t pray CLASSES AND SYNODS. 139 pray you) doe Bijhops obtaine in Synods ? what doe they ? to what end doe they meet ? Is it i. that they may judge , or is it that they may onely counfell andadmonifc $ xAre they therefore judges , or are they onely admonifliers isf counfellours f Ihvs indeed fome of them thinkejhat they may onely admonijh in Synods , that they may move queflions and difpute , but may not judge. Naclantus Bifliop of Clug (as we taught before ) in his treatife de poteftate Papa & Condliiyfayth , The power of: che Pope is royall > the power of che Synod is confi- Maria , by way of counfell ; che power of the Pope is altogether definitive , che power of che Synod is of ambulacory definition , that is, as I interpret it , wandring iffuncertaine . Bettarmine indeed, and the lefuites that now are, hold that the Biftwps are jud- ges , but doubtles they meane an ambulatory judgement , that is , none at all. For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone. Now chis abfurd opinion which he notes co have bene che conceic of Naclantus, expreffed in plaine words , and of Bellarmine and ocher Papifts by confequence , is even che fame chac is profeffed by M r Jacob, M r Dav.& M r Cann. for chough chey differ in refpeft of che power of che Pope, yec inrefpeft of the power belonging to Synods, chey make the perfons where- of the Synods confift, to be no ocher then admonifhers or counfellours, not ha- ving any jurifdi&ion ac all. D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus, buc fpeakingagaine of che Popes over-ruling of Synods , he doth againe record this obfervation , fay- ing, ( e ) Certainly this is that which we fayd before , that Bijhops affembledin a Synod , are ( e ) IbicI « c; not judges , but onely admonifhers , that the Pope alone is judge of all controverjies , that the * p ' l67# reft have no authority . For if Bifcops were judges, judgement fnould be done according to the greateft number , and thefentence of the moft judges jliould prevail^ . We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a fpeciall providence of God»and directed by his Spi- rit , thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to poynt out and commend to our confideration thisevill confequent of making Synods to be onely admonifhers or counfellours-, that fo wemighthavehiswricingforaTeftimony againft thiser- rour , which within a while after was to be broached & made common by M>" Ja- cob , and fome others ; that which the Brownifts had done before, being neither fo commonly knowne nor regarded. VNto this his writing De Conciliis , we may adde his treatife DePontifice Roma- no , in which controverfy he difcuffeth 8 queftions ; and in the moft of them he gives teftimony for che authority of Synods , againft my oppofites. The Que- ftions be thefe : I. Whether the government of the ChurchbeMonarchkalL z. Whether any Monarchy of the Church wasfetled in Peter . I . Whether Peter was Bijhop of^pme, and dyed there. 4. Whether the Bifliop of Rjmefucceed Peter in a Monarchy ZcclefiaftiedU. 5- . Whether the Pope be *Anlichrift. 6 . Whether the Pope can erre in the faith . 7 . Whether the Pope can make lawes to binde the confcience. 8 . Whether EcclejiafiicalljurifdiBion be given by Chrift to the Pope immediately. T i I In handling the firft Queftion , whereas the Papifts require a Monarch to keep /« D J I infeiiour Officers in order and unity , D. Whitaker fayth , (f) If any withiot doe their loJ.^T.l', wuety , and discharge their office , they are to be admonijhed and rebuked, and except they obey, 2,p. 19. S z ihey t4o THE POWER OF they are at length to he remooved by the judgement of the Church* or the Synod, or the Chrifli- an Magi ftr ate : and there are knotvne meanes enough of keeping Minifters in their duety, and tfo Church in unity, without a Pope. He acknowledged that Synods have not onely power to admonilh, which every Chriftian may doe>but after admonition to cen- fuve 5c remove or depofe the obftinate. When Bellarmine to prove the faperiority of Btihops » objects t .Tim. $-. Thofe ( g) Ibid. p. xhufinne nbuke before all.D. Whit, anfwers, (g) This equalls alfo may doe. So of old, if 43 ' any Elder or Bifliop was accufed , the Bifaops brought the matter unto an Ecclefiafticall Se- nate or Synod , and if he did feeme worthy of it , they condemned him by a publicly judgement, (h) P.48 . that is , they eyther fujpended , or excommunicated , or depofed him. He declares (h) that & 49< the Church hath bene preferved in greateft tempelis and troubles by Synods , and commends them for their ufe of jurifdi&ion in judging of caufes.andfhewes how thofe that would not yeeld unto fuch authority , were removed from their places f (iJP 92. and others amended by their examples. Hefayth, (i) Though one alone could not judge of another , yet a Synod , and as it were a Senate or Seffion ofBifhops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their caufes. He obferveth againe out of Cy pria^ (k) r.93. (k) fl Bijh p cou ld be judge of another : of another (I fay ) not of others , becaufe a Synod of Bifliofs could alwayes judge a Bifhop : therefore the Monarchicall primacy of the Upmane Bi- Jhopts of no divine right. As he doth fully condemne the ufurpation of one Bifhop above another i foby way ofoppofition he doth fully and plentifully avouch the authority of many , meeting together in Synods > not onely for counfell & admo- nition, but for jurifdiftion in judging 8c cenfuring of offendours. II. Afcer this , in the profequution of the fecond Queftion , Bellarmine pleading for the Monarchy and jurifdi&ion of Peter > becaufe he in fpeciall was charged to feedthefheepofGhrift, and among other Paftoralla&s* noting this foronef to (1) DePont. judge controversies: D.Whit, anfwers , (1) JVhatcontroverfies ? Of religion ? But the^. Kom.q. i.e. otb ey Apojlles did that alfo as welleu he: and the Synods of Bifhops and learned men can doe 7V 2Z 9- Ms, even as we read that it hath often bene praBifed in the Churches for many ages, before this principality of the Pope wo* brought into the Church. Furthermore , D. Whitaker ufeth this argument to prove a fuperiority of pow- (m) ibid.p. er in a companv or aflfembly of the Apoftles above one or two of them : (m) The z6 °' Apoftles fend Peter to Samaria : therefore Peter was not the head of the Apo files , but rather w as in fubjeBion unto their authority . AB.S.I+. Hefayth, A finding doth alw ayes and m* ceftarily imply a fibjeBion in him that isfent , if he be fay d properly tobefent. This man- ner of reafouing makes for the authority of Synods , confifting of a company of Miniftersor other Deputies of Churches orderly aflembled, whiles he argueth that a Cplledge or company of the Apoftles had fuperiority of power over fome fmgular perfons among them > though confidered apart they were allequallin (n)P.i6i. power. Hefayth concerning Peter & lohn, (n) We read that both of them were fint by the* CoUedge of the Apoftles: from whence we doejuftly conclude both that theft two Apoftles (o) P. 297, KK^ equally that the authority offending was in the Apoftles. He (hewes alfo (o) that the 29'. decree made in the Synod, AB. 15. was not confirmed by the authority of Peter alone , but bv common confent of the Apoftles & the Church , for the reprefllng offalfeApoitles,&c. In CLASSES AND SYNODS. Hi In the examination of the fourth Queftion, whereas Bellarmine would have IV. a double errour to be obferved : one, of thofe who teach that the Pope maybe judged, punifhed , and depo'fed by the Emperour , if he difcharge not his office a- right ; another, of them that maintaine he may be judged and cenfured by a Synod ofBifhops, though not by a fecuhr Prince : "D. Whitakeranfwereth, \p)JVeac- (p)ibid.qu. knowledge both ofthefe, but we fay there is no errour here. For the Bifcop of I{pme may be de- 4-lM i3» pofed, both by the Emperour, when there is caufe,and by a Synod ofBijbops , and that not one- J 14% ly Generally but Particular of that Province -, wherewato Calvinemoft tritely affirmeth him to befubjeB , and that he may be judged of it : and thofe that per f wade the Pope other wife , we affirme them to be flatterers & parafttes , rebels to God & the Emperour. And many the like after tions he hath in the handling of that queftion, wherein the jurifdiftion of Synods is witnefledby him. , In the fife Queftion concerning Antichrift , (q) he notes it to be an evidence of . * .• Antichriftian pride in the Pope, that he is by the Jefuites affirmed to beabove^ ^.674,'^ the^ Synod. 675. Proceeding to the fixt Queftion , touching the errours of Popes , (0 he avou- VI. cheth the jurifdi&ion of Synods,by alledging many examples and inftances where- < r ) QM-p. in they exercifed this power ; as in the condemning of Pope Honorius , Gregory JiJ|S the 7th , or Hiidebrandus, John the 23 th , Eugenius, &c. Touching the feventh Queftion , about the Popes making of lawes to binde VII. the confeience , though D. Whitaker teach that it belongs to God alone to give lawes unto the confeience: yet he fayth, (0 The Church hath authority of making lawes ^ 7 ' P * concerning decency ,& it is our duety to obey , yet concerning the things themfelves the confeience is alwayesfree, &c. He addes, Whereas the adverfary faith , that aU true lawes have a coac- tive or conftraining/ora: ifhefo underftand it,that they conflraine & burden the confeience^ with refpetl unto the things themfelvesjt isfalfe.for certainely even thefe alfo doe confraine af- ter a fort, to wit, if we have refpeB imto thegenerallrulefo that if there corns contempt or offence orfchifme , the violation of them cannot be excufed. Againe he faich to like purpofe , U) ^ P> g^ 7# Whereas Bellarm. fayth, we can abide no lawes, therein he doth egregioufly jlander: for we allow iff much efleeme of lawes, even Ecclejiajlicall lawes, ,9h authority of Synods is fuperiour unto particular Churches , wherein is expreiTed & contained as much power as we aflcribe unto Synods. But thac it may further appeare how M r Dav. is condemned by his owne wit- nefle , it is to be confidered touching this famous light of Gods Church , that as 0#Ep!ft t he 0) undertook that great work at theappoyntmentand commandofaSynod; Dedicat. as h[ s f onne ^^ Chamierus after his fathers death dedicated that work unto the excellent and favthfull fervants of God, the Paftours and Elders of the French Churches afTembled in a Narionall Synod,comparing them to thethreefcore valiant men of the valianteft in Ifrael , comparing the bed of Salomon , all holding ftvords , expert hi wane , every man with hisfword upon his thigh : becaufe offeare in the night; Sol.fong,c. 3 .7, 3. and as againe fpeaking of the Svnod , he applyes unto them that which is fayd of the Tower of David, where the fhields of the mighty men are hanged up , &c. Sol.fongy 4. 4. fo in the book itfelf there are many ample and pregnant teftimonies touching the authority & jurifdiftion of Synods. And rlrft of all , where he proves that'the government of the Church is Ari- ftocraticall , by many , and not Monarchical! , by one , he makes this diftinetion > (a)Chaniie. ( a ) T/;e government of Churches is either of feverall Churches* or of many together , viz. by Fanftrat. Synods. In both he maintaines an Ariitocracie or jurifdiftion of many. He doth Cath.Tom. not re ft r aine jurifdi&ion to particular Congregations , and allow onely counfell or l " I0,c ' 5 ' advife to Synods: but he ufeth the fame words and phrafes to defcribe the power and government of one fort as well as of the other , to note a like kinde of autho- rity in both, (b (Ibid.c, For the government of many Churches together in a Province , he fayth , (b) 7. For the difpofing Mid directing of publicly aff Aires, Provincial! Synods were appoint ed>th at is, companies ofBifiops in the fame Province, which were affembledfo often as need ($ commodi- ty required. For evidence thereof he alledgeth divers Canons,& commendeth Cy- prian for obferving that order, (c) Ibid.c. Touching the adminiftration of all Churches in the world , he fayth ; ( c ) He *• that denyeth theft to have bene governed by Vniverfall Synods , mufl be either notorioufl]/ im- pudent , or ignorant of all antiquity. For in the very beginnings , when agreat quejlhn was ray fed about the rites ofMofes , andfome would have thofe that were converted from heathe- mfh Idolatry ■» to be fub]ct~led unto them, Luke tejlifyeth that a Synod Wfl4ajfembled,dt~i.i<)* The CLASSES AND SYNODS. 145 The Apoftlesand Elders came together to looke unto this matter. And by the au- thority of this Synod, that queftionwa* compounded • which authority that they might jigm- fy tobe thegreatefl , the decree is conceived in thefe words , It Teemed good unto the ho- ly Ghoft and to us. And that this was an Oecumenical! or Univerfall Synod,he there maintaineth by divers reafos againft loverius, who in regard of the fmallnum- ber that met together, affirmed it to be a particular Synod. It feemes alio that this was the place from whence M r Parker took that which he alledged out o£ Chamierus > becaufe in thefe two chapters , 7. & 8. are contai- ned thofe teftimonies which he citeth. And here it is that he fpeakes oicaufacom* munis, or the common caufe, which Gvprian would have to be judged by a Sy- nod. And here it is that he fpeakes of fome proper caufes , belonging peculiarly to fome Bifhops in their fpeciall charges , viz, c. 7. But thefe things are not one- ly mifquoted by Mr Dav. by putting the 2 d book for the 10 th >but the fenfe is al- tered , while Chamierus comparing Bifhops with Metropolitan«s , reftraines fome things from Metropolitanes to fuch Bifhops as had divers countries under them. And though he fhew how Cyprian brought a common caufe unto the Sy- nod, yet he doth not affirme that onely fuch common caufes were to be brought unto Synods. Chamierus doth not witneffe that the power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters , as M r D. alledgeth him for witneffe thereof. And in c. 8. he brings many evidences to witnefTe the power of Generall Synods in judging the caufes of all Churches. Againe in the Queftion whether the Bifhop of Rome may be judged of any , Chamierus fhewes the opinion of the Proteftants,whom hecalleth Catholicks in opposition to the Papifts , that (&) No Bijhap at allmay by divine right be judged ofano- (d) Ibid .!. ther ; but of many, to wit in a Synod ,fo at it hath mojl often bene done. And when Bel- H& l ?> larmine objected the examples of fome Synods , that refufed to judge the Bifhop of Rome , Chamierus anfwereth > that fome of them were particular Synods, confi- fling onely of fuch as were under the Romane. Therefore they could make no generall decree j hut could onely ordaine that theBijhop ofs\omt jhpuld not be judged of them ajfembledin^ a [particular Synod : which certainely they either did notjpeak. concerning a General! Synod, or Ids they fpokefalfely. A plaine confeffion of the jurifdiction of Synods : for had hefpokenofcounfell or admonition onely, why might not any one particular 1 Bifhop or Synod have admoniihed the Pope upon occafion , and given their ad- ivife touching him i "- In his difpute touching Appeales > he fay th , ( e ) We doe not take away all appeales. ( e j Ibid j Tor they are of common^ equity : and truely without them the Difcipline of the Church could 14. c.a, ' hardly or not at allfubfift. And he fpeakes there of fuch appeales as were made un- to Synods. Afterward , fpeaking of the impofture or coofenage of the Bifhop of Rome in the fixt Councell of Carthage , where appeales denyed to Rome , are yet expreffely allowed to be made Unto the Synods of their owne Province or to a Gene- sail Councell : hereupon Chamierus eryes out , (0 Immane ! quanta™ crucem Wc. O (fjlbid.c.j, how unfpeakable a crojfe is procured unto our Vapifts by the fincere conftancy of thofe good Others ! among whom were thofe great men, Aurelitu of Carthage , and Auguftine of Hippo, ^c. Now look what weight and ftrength the teftimony of thofe African fathers hath ,44 THE POWER OF hath againft the Papifts ; even Co much authority hath it againft fuch as fiand for the lingle» uncompounded policie , which deny the jurifdi&ion and power of Sy- nods, to determine fuch caufes as by appeales are brought unto them. For the jurifdi&ionofSvnods in receiving appeales is in the fame place as plainly confef- fed> asthejurifdiclionofthePope is denyed by their prohibition of appeales to be made unto him. Againe when he proves that the Pope isfubjeft to EccIeGafticall judgement, he doth in the fame queftion with one conclude that there is a fuperioritv of pow- (o) ibid, c er and jurifdi&ion in Synods to judge of him. He inftanceth (g) in HonorimaBi- 1 °' jl Even as particular Synods doe binde all the Bifhops within their ownejurifdiBion,fo Vniverfal Synods have power over all the Bifhops of the whole world. Againe, becaufe particular Synods doe binde allthe Bifhops of their owne Province : therefore the Bijhop of Rome is fubjeft unto the lawes, not onely of an miverfall , but alfo of his owne particular Synod. Moreover he inftanceth in divers particular lawes which the Gxt Synod prefcribed unto the Church of Rome, by name touching the permitflon of marriage , fafting,&c» Moreover when Bellarmine and P. Auratus doe plead for the Popes fuprema- cy > as being neceflary to the unity of faithand the unity of the Church>&c. Cha- (h) Lib.9, mierus anfwereth , (h) Of old , when many herefies fprungup , they never ran unto any one c, 1 3 . man, by whofe authority queflions might be decided. When difputation was ray fed againfl Paul and Barnabas touching Mofaicali ordinances , the Apo flies called a Synod , Aft. 1 ? . which remedy the Church thence-forth ufed mofl diligently , ets often a* either herefies or fchifmes did breahjhe unity thereof. He alledgeth divers examples thereof,in fpeciall of Conftan- tine , and Innocentius in the queftion about Chryfoftome. And fpeaking of fuch Synods as ufed not onely counfell , but jurifdiction in cenfuring the guilty , fuch as was the Councell of Nice , he fheweth thence ,they found no other remedy fit enough to preferve Ecclefiaflicall unity in faith &love> except a Generall Synod. H e fay t h againe , We under fland that the befl and mofl certaine meanes ofnourijhing unity is a Synod, not one Monarch. And among others he alledgeth Algidius ViterbienGs,who dif- puted on this manner ; Paul theglory of the ^Apoflles , when hewouldflnw the chief poyni ofourfalvation , fayth , Without faith we can by no meanes pleafe God : but without Synods faith cannot fland: therefore without a Synod we cannot befafe. And afterwards ; JVhat- foever hath bene done in the Church worthy ofpraife , worthy of honour from the age of Mel\ chiades,eitker to refifl the enimy or to fettle the Commonwealth t that all fprungfrom Synod. And is againe to be referred unto Synods. And many other things he there bringeth to maintame the authority of Synods, without any lhew that he ever light upon thii dream< GLASSES AND SYNODS. 14; dreame, that they were onely for counfell. To conclude* whereas Chamiertu was tranflated out of this life » before he had fully finifhed rhac great work of his Panftratia Catholica ; and therefore for the fi- nHhing of it there is added unto his 4th Tome,a Supplement by Alfiedius; in that Coc. AB. i. + Mat. 1 8. Repeating the caufes wherefore Synods are to be cal led, he doth not limit them to be for counfell onely , but that (k) eu malefaBours in (k) 0^.4, Chill judgements are trycd , accufed& condemned , fo in the Church obflinate Heretkkjart &&> *• hy public judgement to be condemned and excommunicated. H e al lo wes u nto thofe t h at are lawfully called unto Synods, i\)to have right of 'giving definitive fentena , andofds- (I) C.j.f.t, Urmining matters according to the Scriptures. He mamcaines t hat Synods have autho- rity over the Pope , and that (ro) he is hound tofubjeB himfelf untotheir judgement , dif ( m ) c, \ 0t creiiveandcoaBive; not onely to their counfell, but to their cenfure. And ifthefeCu. did not fuffice, there are yet many other cleare teftimonies which Alftedius there gives touching the /urifdiction of Synods. CHAP. VI. KAn anfieer to CMr Cannes Arguments. FRom the Allegations ofMrDav. we come now to the Argumentations of M r Canneand his client , againft the authority of Gaffes and Synods : and here firft wc will examine and confider their Sy llogifraes and Logicall formes of reafoning. ArgvM. I. (*) If t hofe Churches , planted by the Apoftoliquz inftitution , had potter ( A ) chur- fully in themselves immediately from CbriftjopraHife all his ordinances : Then have all Chur- ches plea* ches the liks p QWer notff * But the firft is true : Therefore thefecond. P* 68 e The Propofition w cleare & certaine , by tbefe Scriptures, 1 .Cor. 5 . z, \ . ^AB. 14.2.3. \ . \C0r.\6.z. Col.z.'y.l.Thef.i.iq. The AJfumptionu acknowledged by fundry ofourbeft Divines, &c. Ansvv. I. The firft mame fault in this Argument, common ro many tjhac follow , is, that herein is committed a foule fallacy , ab ignoratiom Elenchi; that is to fay, theCondufion is befide the Queftion. v -This. whole argument being granted , yet the authority of Synods remaines ftill firme%^qdunfhaken thereby. i.When or where did I ever affirme that the Churches now have not the like pow- |er to practife all the ordinances ofChrift, as fully as thofe Churches planted by |Apoftolick inftitution ? The reftimonies oflearned men here alledged by him,to [(prove that the ancientand firft inftitutions are to be preferred before later inventi- ons, I doe willingly aflent unto. But what can he conclude hence? Though Chrift have committed power unto a particular Church,doth it therefore follow -hat if fuch abufe their power and goe aftray > either wholy or the greater part of -, T is* H* THE POWER OF it, there is then no Ecclefiafticall authority above them, to cenfure them or co re- ftraine them from proceeding in evill i This confequence which had bene to the (b)ctup.f . purpofe , he offers not to prove. It was confeflfed (b) before bv Mr Cartwright, fcft.i.p.8 1. one £ h j s owne witnefles here alledged bv him , that if any Church jhould defire or eboofe , orconfent upon by the mo ft part,fome that is unmeet , either for doHrine or manners, then the Minifters and Elders of other Churches round about , Jhould advert if: fir ft , and af- terwards m occafion jhould ferve t fharply istfevereh charged hat they forbearefuch elc8ion,or if it be made , that they confirme it not, byfufftring him to exercife any miniftery. II. A fecond extraordinary and groife errour is to be obferved in hisLogick , while in the profequution of his Argument , he not knowing which is the Major or w hie hist he Minor propofit ion in his owne Syllogifme , that which Ihould be for the proofe of his Minor propofit ion , that he applyes for proofe of the Major; that which (hotild ferve for proofe of his Major, that he brings for confirmation of his Minor. The Scriptures which he alledgeth, hereferres to the proofe of his mif-named Propofetion : the Teftimonies of Authors here alledged > he referres to the proofe of his mif-called *Ajfumption. This errour I doe the rather note, x . Be- cause it is no flip or overGght in him through want of attention in this place > but an ordinary and frequent errour , as appeares in that which followeth. 2. Becaufe ( Q ) chur f; of his infolent and arrogant boafting againft others , (c)for want of art,and want of 5 &iy*Ne- wit> of Lo^ick , &c. Who can relate unto us fuch an example of a maa profef- ceir.of Sep" fing himfelf a Logicall Difputant , with fuch abundance of printed Syllogifmes , p. 1W.189. with fuch contempt of others, and yet to be fo rude , as not to know the plaineft thingsand the a. B.C. in Logick, the difference betwixt the Major 2nd Minor in 2 Syllogifme £ 3. Becaufe of his fpirituall pride , not onely in feparating himfelf from the Churches of Chrift, as other Brownifts doe, but taking upon him to be their Paftour,their guide)their champion for defence of their Separatio againft all men. O miferable men , that follow fo blinde a guide ! ill. A third errour in the profequurion of this Argument is this>that al- though the premiffes of this argument being rig htly underftood,are granted to be true j- yet the Scriptures alledged doe not prove the fame. Though the Chur- ches planted of the Apoftles » had power fully in themfelves immediately from Chrift, to praftife all his ordinances - 3 yet thefe places, t. Cor. $.1.3. ^AB. 14.25. 1. Con 1 6. 2. Co/. z.f.z.Thefi J. 14. doe onely prove their ught for the praclife of fame of his ordinances , that are mentioned and poynted at in them , but not of all other. As for example ; the adminiftrauon of the Sacraments* though a right be* longing to the Church, and ordained in other places of Scripture > yet is not fpe- cifyed in any of thefe allegations. The liberty of appeales in cafe of oppreffion » I :he power offending Deputies unto a Synod for the decifion of difficult & weigh- 1 ty caufes , are ordinances of Chrift, and rights of the Church,as hath bene lhewed before,& yet not fpecifyed in any of thefe Scriptures alledged by him : and there- fore his proof for all ordinances is defective. IV. For the right underftanding of this fentence ; viz. that every Parilh or every particular Church hath full or fujficient authority ttnthtkj itfelf , derived immediately fiorr. Chrijl i for the government of itfelf in all Ecclefiafticall caufes : I defire the Reader to look CLASSES AND SYNODS. 147 look back unto the explication thereof by ( who labouring to Wiffede make the beft interpretation thereof, yet (hcwes that it is not to be admitted with- Gl j b - Ecd ' out divers cautions ,fome whereof I have expreffed * before. He undertakes the *p?ii7, defence hereof againft D.Downam , but no further then it may befo undei flood, n». and fo expounded » as not containing in it any denyall or impeachment of the authority and jurifdi&ion of Gaffes and Synods , judging the caufes of many Churches. And indeed how can any Church be faydtopra&ifealhhe ordi- nances of Chrift , fo long as they refufe and deny the combination of Chur- ches ? or the jurifdi&ion of them being combined , which isfhewed to be one of his ordinances i Ar g vm. II. (e) Jf Chrift in Mat. 1 8. 1 7. where befaytb , Tell the Church; doth ( e ) Chure« meant a particular Congregation : Then hath every particular Congregations imire power ;P lea 'P i6 ^ in* & ofitfelfy to exercifc Ecclejiafticall government , and all other Godsjpirituali ordinan- ces. But the fir ft is true ; Therefore tkefecond. The Propofition is clear e andcertaine, maintained by the moft ludiciom Divines, <&c. The Affumption is proved thus : That Church which Chrifi intendeth in Matt. \ 8. hath abfolute power in, & of itfelf to perform all Gods ordinances : But Chrifi intendeth in Mat. xS.a particular Congregation : Therefore every particular Congregation bath abfolutepow* er, in, and of itfelf to performe all Gods ordinances , (yc. Ansvv. I. Here is the fame fault that was in the former Argument, viz. of concluding befide the queftion. This argument being granted, there arifech hence no prejudice to the authority of Gaffes or Synods. The authority of particular Churches and the authority of Synods may well fubfift together. The arrowes which are fhot by M r Canneare befide the marke of the maine queftion. II. His argument is notonely befide the mark, but as an arrow mot up into the ayre, and Falling downe on his head againe, fo doth his argument returne upon himfelf : for if a particular Church hathintire power, in and of itfelf to performe all Gods ordinances ; then hath it power to unite itfelf with other Churches com- bined in Synods , and to fubmit unto the judgement thereof, according to the di« vine warrant & ordinance. A8.i<;,2&c % Deut.i7.$ y &c. III. As before, fo he blindely ftumbles here againe at the fame ftone, in not difcerning betwixt the Propofition and Affumption of his owne Syllogifme.The Authors which he alledgeth for the maintenance of his Major propofition s ought to have beneapplved to the proofe of his ^Affumption , viz. to (hew that Chris! in { Mat. 18.17. where he faith > Tell the Church , doth meane a particular Congregation : '.' for this is that which he affumes , when he fay th, But th Propofm- ons , and A(Tumptions,he hath brought himfelf into fuch a maze>that he knowes not where he is> what he favthj nor whereof he affirmeth. Let Logicians tell how oft thev have feene the like in print. V. Whether all his Authors doe affirme that by the Church in Mat. 18. Chrift meant a particular Congregation, I will not here examine: I ihall have further oc- cafion in the next chapter to fpeak of many of them. But in the meane time let it be granted , not onely that they have all fo affirmed , but that it is the tru^th : Yet doe they not all jffi me , that onely a particular Congregation was intended by Chrift, Mat. \ 8. For both the Llderf hip of a particular Church , and the Svnod arifing from the combination of many Churches , are (hewed unto us in Matt. ifr. the one for the judgi-g of Iefler caufes, without bringing them to the whole Con- gregation; the other for the deciding of weightier matters, which neither EI- derf hip nor Congregation can fo well end. And this is acknowledged by fundry of his WitnerTes , whofe names he abufeth in this controverfv. M' Parker , tou- (f)Pol.Eccl. chiog Mat. 18. f*5 th , (f) The Church of the favthfull is intended of Chrift , not at it it Uj.c i f .p. fimply confidered (as wefavdbefore) but as it exercifeth Difcipline according to an uArifto* craticall temperament in the Elder/hip. For we doe thinkjhat the Church mentioned in the fir (I place, in thofe words, Tell the Church , doth precifely fignify the Arijhcraticall part>that i5> the Elder flip ; hut that which is mentioned in the latter place , in thefe words , I f h e hearc not the Church , if (as Downameteacheth) it include the^ Church excommunicating fo 4 / contempt , and not onely decreeing or examining , then it doth alfo comprehend the Democra- ticaUpart of the Church for afmuch at the confent of the people u neceffary unto excommunica- te) tbul.p. tbn. And a little before he fay th (g) Almoft all interpreters doe agree , that thofe words J J5« [inverf. 19.] If two or three > doe containe an amplification from the left to the greater* from a lefie company to a greater : fo that it is moft plaint , that under the name of the Church he included as well the greater company , as that which confifls of two or three. How M r (b)SccCh. Parker proved the Synod alfo from Mat. 1 S . is ihe wed ( h ) before; where D.Whi- 3-P- 45-4?» taker> M* Cartwright and others alfo teach the fame thing, (i) Church', ■„ ARGVM. III. (jj JVhatfoeVcr was commanded to the 7 Churches to he^. praBifed by plea,j>7o, each of them 3 apart Jn,andforthemfelves; thatno Church of God muft now omit. ButEc- ckfiapicall government , was commanded to the 7 Churches to bepraElifed by each of them , apart, in,andforthemfdves. Thereforeno Churches of God mufi omit thepraftifeofEc* clefiafiicatl government y apart-, in, and for themfelves. The Proposition cannot be doubted of.- For as Chytrxttt, &c. The ^Affumption^ is proved clearly in chap. z. verf. z, 1 4, 20. <#c. Moreover Mv Perkins , tS'c. Ansvv. I. This Argument for the forme of it, isamidhapenSyllogifme, and that in a double refpeft j both becaufe the Minor terminus is fuperfluoufly put into the Major Proportion y and becaufe the fame terminus is confufedly joyned with the Predicate in the Minor propofition , when it ihould have bene placed with t he SubjtH therein. But this is one of the leaft faults in M«" Cannes reafoning?. II* For the matter of it , this Argument doth alfo come Ihort of the mark> 8c rea« CLASSES AND SYNODS. .149 reacfceth not home to the queftion. And that which he concludes (being well underftood ) may be fafely granted of us. That which M r Canne alledgeth from Chytraeus, Bullinger, Brightman & Perkins > for the proof of his Proposition & Ademption , I doe willingly aflent unto , and it was but an idle labour to bring them for proof ofthat which is not denyed.There be no Churches here among us which refufe to pra&ife Ecclefiafticall government, apart* in & for themfelves. This they practi(e after a double manner; 1, There be many rebukes and cenfures a* gairift (inne adminiftred in them without the knowledge of Claffis or Synod , a- partjin and for themfelves. 2. When as more hard & weighty caules are brought unto the Deputies of other Churches > aflembledin Clarfes> for their advife-and judgement > even then alfo when upon their confideracion matters are cleared, and^ there remaineth no fcruple, they are then remitted againe and referred unto the particular Ghurches>fo that the Elderfhip with confent of the Congregation pro- ceeded! therein as they finde caufe, according to the repentance or-obftinacy of the perfons with whom they have to deale : And fo the fentence is both determi- ned and executed apart, in & for themfelves, without the ClafTis. But if by government to be pra#ifed apart , in and for themfelves y he meane fuch afolitaty and feparate government, as refufeth combination with other neighbour Churches, fuch asadmitteth no liberty of appeale in cafe of greateft wrong, fuch. as excepteth a particular Congregation from the cenfure of all other Churches > though it fhouldeire never fo pemiciouflv, and iifumme,. fuch a government dt/w*,asdenyeth all authority and jurifdiction ofClaflesandSvnods; then is his AfiTumption raoft falfe: and all thac he alledgeth for proofe thereof helpes him nothing, for 1. Though the Angel of che Church of Ephefus be commended for not bearing with the wicked ,.&c and tiie Angel of the Church of Pergamus and Thyatira be reprehended for fuffering divers enormities , Bjv.z.Z. 14.20. by what good confequence can thefe examples overthrow the authority of Synods'? There might be occafion at this day to write unto forne Minifters Handing under the Clafiesand Synods in thefe Reformed Churches , and fome of them might . juftly be commended for their ^e^le in not bearing with the wicked;6thers might juftly be reprehended for their ueghgence in tolerating bffueha^ offend : now M r Canneaccording to this reafoning, might as well conclude, againft experience, & againft the knowne trueth , that chefe Minifters doe not ftand under any Claflicall government. 2. The praife or difpraife which is given to the Angels of feverall Churches apart, doth not Co much ferve to argue an independency or difiinion in government in thefe Churches ; but the very * forme of the vifion , in the union *Rev,i.i& of thefe Starres of the Churches iu Cbrifts right hand , doth rather argue a codfp- |£ ,& 2>Is ciation of them for their mutuall help in the government of his Church. They 3#I " appeare not fcattered in the Firmament , but gathered and drawse together. What is a Claflis or Synod, but as a Conftellation of fo many Starres of the Churches combined together , which by their conjunction together doe yeeld both a grea- ter light of direction, anda ftronger influence of authority , for the confirmation of the trueth and conviction of errour. And as for the ceftimony o£M r Perkins, though he acknowledge, (^God'W^f';' X 3 mmw& !5<> THE POWER OF hath given to every Church power and authority to preach the Word, adminiftertfjeSa* craments, reprejfeevillmen,0'c. yet doth he not thereby exempt thofe Churches from the cenfure of others> if they be found to pervert the word , corrupt the Sa« craments, and judge unrighteonfly. It is nor probable that fuch a conceit did ever enter into M r Perkins head, neither can it be collected from his words. Arcvm. IV. If the Church of Corinth , had power and authority within herfelf • to exercife Ecclejiafticall government ; yea and did it , I meant the Minislery and the reft of the Church tk&rt : Then ought not particular Congregations now , toftand under any other Ecclc* Jiaslicall authority out of themf elves. But the fir f? is true : Therefore the fecond. The fir ft part is unqueftionably certain ; and oft bit judgement was D . Wiliet, &c. An s v v. That which he fo boldly affr: q^f/o«^remainesto be proved. Scripture he alledgeth none at all > and tor thofe eleven Authors mentioned by him , there is not one of them that confirmes his confequence. Why did he not exprefle their words, & apply them to his purpofei & enforce the againft us, if he thought they would have ferved his turne * It is fayd to have bene aftrarageme oftheeves, that to affright men they have taken many hats and fet them upon ftakes afarre of,that pafTengers imagining them to be men, Sc partakers with thofe theeves that came unto them , might the fooner yeeld. Thus doth M r Canne » who fetsdowne the names of many Authors and their writings in his marginal! quotations, as if they were of his minde or partakers of his caufe , when as there is no fuch matter to be found in them. Let us heare how he proceeds. "I. C a N . %Againe whereai the Papifts and Hierarchy do fay (much after Mr Paget t new doctrine ) that the Church of Corinth had notfole*and alone authority ,in itfelfto exercife (1 ) Ref. Ecckftafticall government ^our writers, vi%. (1) Mr Cartwright , ( m ) Mr Parker <3t others Cor "V ' ye f ute th™ wdprove the contrary by many reafons. (m'poLEc- Answ. That which he faith here offole and alone authority, &c. is more then cU.3c.4-p. he propounded in his Syliogifme: I acknowledge that the Church of Corinth did i7,iU»scc. exerc jfe Eccleliafticall government within herfelf; and I affirme as much for our owne and other particular Congregations here : and M r Canne with as good rea- fon might argue that we doe not ftand under Gaffes and Synods, if there were any foundnes in his Syliogifme. My opinion touching the Church of Corinth may be difcernedfufficientlyby that which I noted touching the 7 Churches, in an- fwer to his former argument. And as for M r Cartwright and M r Parker , whom he fpeciallv alledgeth , they help him not at all. I acknowledge M r Parker doth juftly oppofe them that held , the Church of Corinth didnot excommunicate the in* ceftuousperfon, but the Apoftle alone : But I doe more fully affent unto M r Cart- wright, who differing fomething from M r Parker, and refuting the Rhemifts moft effe&ually by many reafons , doth yet withall (hew, that the authority and power both of the Apoftle and of the Church did concurre in this excommunica- tion. Whereas the Rhemifts would have the Corinthians to be onely witneffes > (n)Conf.of Mr Cartwright in his third reafon againftthera, fayth , (n) If the Church were affem- ahem.Hpon ■ ^ m ^ {Q ^ m w \ m ^ t m £ m t0 y vt am fj rity in thif cafe : it followeth that Paules P CLASSES AND SYNODS. 15? (pint was there alfo onely to lookjon andbeare tmtnefje , confidering that the perfindlprtfence of the Church* andthe Apofilesjpirituallprefence , are ajfociated in this affaire of the Church, Thus he joynetlTbotn together: and fo after yvards againe reafoning from thofe words > Do not you judge of thofe that are within? \. nor the file authority of Paul on the other fide did determine this bufines. Againe > had there a dangerous contention rifen in Corinth , which by their fole authority they could not end ; what mould have hindred them from following the example of the Church at Antioch , in feeking help both by counfell and authority of other Churches for the judgement theteof ? I. Can. The latter part isproved before , inthe Minors of the 1 . and $. arguments, Ansvv. It it manifeft that he did not know the Minor from the Major m fome ofhis former Syllogifmes , and fo in this place it appeares he doth not difcerne the firjl from the latter part of his argument. But what he obje&ed before is already anlwered: it is vaine & helples for him to rely upon his former poofes. Ar G V M. V. <°) Such anions the Church may lawfully doe , wherein no Law of God Jg £ hn * c ' is broken. Butthereis no Law ofGodbroken, when par Jcular Congregations doe in, is inefficient .* becaufe it compre- hends not all finne under it, T^here is an originall corruption and depravation of na- kfi THE POWER OF nature, which is Sinncconfidfireddiftinftly apart f befide thoughts > words or deeds. The Law requireth integrity of nature , and all difconformity with that Law is fmne , though not yet come fo farre as thoughts. Deut.6. with i .lohn. $ .4. The faying ofAuguftineis to be taken rather for adiltriburion, then tor a definiti- on : and for a diftnbucion, not (imply ofS'wriCt butonely of Actual 1 (inn es, as they are either thoughts, words, or deeds. Ambrofeis ill joyned with Auftine , feeing in the place alledged he hath not the farae,but another more large definition,con- f$) Tom.4. taking tinder it Originall finne alfo , when he fayth , (0 What psjinnebut apravari- *^_ de ^^- cation again ft the Law of God } (ffc. This prevarication is as well in the nacure and ,cif, difpotmonof man , as ina&uallfinnes. The judgement of Aquinas t andfuch Po- piffi Schoolemen is not to be much efteemed in this poynt, while they teach that originallcorruption in thofe that are baptifed& juftifyedis not properly any finnc at all, & therefore are rejected herein of all Orthodox Divines. AKgvm. VI. lfthe Apoftlegdve commandment unto theElderfbip of Ephefus, for the whole administration of all Ordinances in that Church: Then may the Elderflvp of every particular Congregation adminifter among themfdves all Gods ordinances. But the fir fi is true : Therefore thefecond. The Major ts proved two way es. f. By Scripture, A8.zo.vtrf. 17.1$. s.. BytljeteftU mony ofthelearned Whitaker, &c. The Minor is undenyahle. For as Mr Brightmanfayth, there was one forme &C Ansvv. I. M r Canne here againe wanders from the queftion>& goes about to prove that which I never denyed, viz. that the Elder/hip of every particular Church may adminifter all Gods ordinances among themfelves. Even thofe folem ne atts of com- rhunion with other Churches both in things fpirituall and corporall, being the or- dinances of God, are to be performed by the direction of the Elderfhip. This hinders not but that any Elderfhip or Church ic felf , being found in errour or o- therunfaithfull dealing, may be fubjeft to the cenfure of many Churches united in their Svnods. II. If it belong to the Elderfhip of every particular Church to adminifter all Gods ordinances ;then how can the ordinances of God be duely adminiftred in that Church of the Brownifts whereof M r Canne is Bifhop alone ; where there is no Elderfhip; where there is neither teaching nor ruling Elder befide himfelf i Seeing there is no Ruler in his owne Company but himfeif,& he deoyes all other rule over him by Synods, doth he not make himfelf a kinde of EccleGafticall Mo-\ narch or foleGovernour of the Separation ? III. M r Canne dOth here againe bewray his notorious ignorance of Logick* whereof he profeffeth fo great f kill , in the' framing of fo many Syllogifmes , and yet like the children that know not the right hand from the left , cannot difcerne betwixt the Major 2nd the Minor oi his Syllogifmes. This appeareth here, when he calles that his Major, which he proves by ZAB.20. 17,28. and bv r he teftimony of D. Whitaker, viz. that the *Apo file gave comrnandement unto the Elderfcip ofEphefus* he would never have placed his confi- dence in the fkillof this fimple Logician, nor refted under the fhadow of his Syllogifmes. Argvm. VII. (?) Such Offices and callings , without which the Church of God is (*} chure* gamphte, and perfect, for Government, arefuperfluom andhumane. But the Church of God plea,p, 72/ may he complete , And perfeB , for Government , without Clascal! and Synodicall Offices and tailings, therefore thefe Offices and callings arefuperfluous & humane* Thts Argument the Proteftants have ufedagainjl the Pope : & the Rjformifts againft Bi* fiiops, Arch- Bifhops, Chancellours&c. Now the fame is every -way m firme & good,againft Synods and Clafies; for without them, the Church ofGod,U fully brought to complete perfec- . tion and unity. D. Pulke (x) confidently 4§methfo much. That which D . Whitaker (y) Dtfc E^cct writes of Generall Councills, is hy Mr Parker (z) apply ed { and rightly) unto particular Sy- Gov!p. iol pods* The Church of God (fayth he) can wel fubfift without them , for lhe was j T - fometimes without them: befides we are not bound by any fpeciallcommande-yj 06 ^' ment of God to have them. 2 j. ' " Answ. J. This Argument concludes nothing againft us> neither toucheth (z)Poi.Ecc, itthe Queftion. When did I ever fpeake of any Synodicall offices * Andwhat 1,3 ^ 133 ' are thofe Offices that here he intends ? The members of Gaffes and Synods > are tip other then the ordinary Officers or Deputies of particular Churches , con- iidering together and determining fo as they judge belt for the edification of cheir flockes. II. If he imagine or conceive that the Prxfident which propoundeth matters in Synods , or the Scribe that recordeth them, be diftinct Synodicall Officers; he might as well think , and we might as well fay , that the Brownifts alfo had other diftinft Ecclefiafticall Offices, befides Paftours , Teachers, or Elders, namely Prafidents and Scribes ; becaufe heretofore in the dayes of Mrlohnfon and M' Ainfworth,they with theirEldersdid by courfe propoud matters in their Church. & had alfo a Scribe to write downe their fpeciail bufineffes: & now in M r Cannes time , when they have no Elderfhip , if he alone propound matters and keep re- cord of them in writing, it may then be fayd that he hath two or three Ecclefiafti- call offices, as well as fo many Mechanicall trades. III. If propounding of matters as thePrsefident, and writing them as the Scribe y doe conftitute new offices ; then many other members of the Brownifts Church , may be reputed for Ecclefiafticall Officers ; for Prxfidents and Scribes. ForM r Canne being now their. onely Governour> if it fall out that any among V ' them i; 4 THE POWER OF them f hall make complaint againft his doctrine or pra&ife; then thofe members of the Church that lhall propound the fame to the Church, and moderate the aftion, or keep record thereof in writing, in behalf of the Church (he being unfit to doe it himfelf in his owne caufe) rauft then beaccounted new Officers > Prasfidents & Scribes of the Church. IV". That which hefavth of Claffesand Synods, that without them the Church of God^ fully brought to complete perfection and unity , comparing them to Lordly Pre- lates, Chancellours»&c. it is utterly falfe. Heonelyaffirmesit, and no word of Scripture is alledged orfo much as pretended for it. 'Is this to goe untonhe Law and to the Teftimony i V. The teftimoniesofmen which he alledgeth are falfifved and perverted by him. D. Fulk^ fhewes the fufriciency of thofe offices mentioned by him , viz. of fa) Difc. of j) ft QHrSi Paftours, Governourst&c* but he (a) lhewes withall expreflek now thefe paiijtc exercife authoricy in Synods , as well as in the Elder! hips and particular Congre- gations. Though D. Whhakerznd Mr Parser fav , that the Church of God may fubfift without Synods; yet he corrupts and falfifyes their teftimony, when he makes them to fay , the Church may well fubfift without them. The Church of God may fubfift and be a true Church , though it want fome divine ordinances. Though they be not abfolutely neceflary to the being and fubfiftence of a Church, yet how needful! they are to trie well-being of a Church > both thofe Authors doe f hew and prove from divers grounds of Scripture , noted before. If the want of every ordinance of God Ihould deftroy the fubfiftence of a Church,the that Com- pany of Brownifts under M r Canne, wanting the ordinance of an Lldeilhip fo long a time> muft have perifhed long agoe. Argvm. VIII. Whatfoever Government cannot be found commanded in the written word of God • ought not to have any place in the Church of God. But the Goz crnment of Clajfe sand Synods , over many particular Congregations, cannot be found commanded in~> the written word of God, Therefore it ought not to have any place in the houfe of God, The firfi part is grounded upon thefe Script ures t Efa.S .20. Mat.zS .ult.&c. Likewifc ihvs is the judgement of many learned men ,&c. The fecond part is alfo as manifefl • for if we once gram ( as all learned men have granted) that the Churches of the Apoftolicl^ conftitution , were independent bodies , and exercifed Ec~ clefiafticall government in> and ofthemfelves • then it mufi follow , that Clajjicall Affemblies* Cc. have their rife wholy^from the pleafure and will of man, An s v v. The firlt part of this Argument, being of itfelf plaine enough , nee- ded not fuch ftore of proof as M r Canne brings font. The Reader may obferve • his notable trifling, in alledgingfo many teftimonies of Scripture, and teftimonies of men (though fome of them be carelefly mifalledged) for proof of that which he had no reafon to imagine that it would be denved by me. The fecond part of this Argument is moft falfe , and he knowes it is denved by me, and yet for proof of it he brings here neither word of God, nor word of man* no teftimony, neither Divine nor humane. He fayth indeed, moft untrudv > that all learned men have granted, that the- Churches of Apofiolickconfiitution , were independent bodies - t but he names not one learned man that fo writes. The Scriptures both of the CLASSES AND SYNODS. *$f die Old and New Teftament , which {hew a dependency of Churches in Ecclefi- iAica.ll judgements , have bene noted already , in thofe Arguments brought for the authority of Synods , together with the confent of learned men? fuch late op- pofires excepted as I my felf firft named as parties in this caufe. All other learned Writers doe generally rejeft that independent which he dreames of. -ARGVM. IX. ( b ) That Government which meerly tendethmto the taking awavfiom (bj Char- particular Congregations their due power, is unlaw full. But the Government ofClajfes & ches plea* Synods ( as they now are) doth meerly tend unto thetakrng awayfiom particular Congrega* p ' 73 * pions their due power. Therefore that Government is unlawfull. The Major of this ^Argument may eafily he proved by fundry places of Scripture ; vi%. t . Tbef. 4. 6 . <&c. thedefinition ofjuftice , <2?c. the Etymologie orprecifejignification ofthL~ word, both in Greekjtnd Latin, tyc. An s v v. Here againe he playes the trifler , in ailedging fo many Scriptures & teftimonies of meni to prove that which of itfelf is cleare enough,& more plaine then the proofes that he brings for it. In fpeciali that definition ofjuftice which he brings , is not fufficiently confirmed by the Etymologies which he fpeakes of. The Greek Etymon noted out of Ariftotle , is not fo currant , but that fome lear- ned men refufe the fame, and (c) derive the word from the Hebrew,from whence ( c ) Avenar, the principall Etymologies of that tongue are to be taken. And yet that Etyrao- Le^Ebr* logy which Ariftotle brings of juftice > is not with M r Canne to demonftrate an entire definition ofjuftice , but to {hew in part one erTcft thereof^ and M r Canne o verfpeakes himfelf, when he fay th of the definition,/© much is imported in the Greeks word. The Latine Etymologie, which M r Canne brings, viz, jus ajure,zs he fets it downe in his margine, is more ftrange. It is likely his Authour whom he ailed*- geth ,hath no fuch thing. If M r Canneihouldowneitorapprooveofit,infuch fort as it ftands in his booke ; it would thereby appeare that his f kill in Grammar is like unto his /kill in Logick. Who ever heard fuch an Etymology , that the No- ipinauve fhould be derived of the Ablative ? But admit there Ihould be fuch 3 ridiculous Etymology, how doth he or how can he apply this to confirme his de« finition ofjuftice i How doth this prove the trueth of his Ma/or propofition £ What is that which he faith is importedin this Etymology ! And what is that pre- tifejignification, which he vainely talkes of, but doth not exprefle ? But let us now heare how he feekes to prove his Minor , which is moft falie. I. Can. TJje Minor » as manifefi : 1 . By Mr Pagets owne teftimony inpag. 66 s where he confejfeth , that they have concluded among themf elves in their Synods , that no par- ticular Congregation without the leave and confent of tbeClaJfis ,fhall proceed to the elec- tion of Minifters, excommunication of offendours, and the like, &c. Ansvv. I. He doth roanifeftly change and alter mv words ; for when as I had fayd, that it had bene agreed in Synods , touching election of Minifters , excom m unication, and the like , that the fame (hall not be proceeded in (d) without advife of the CUffis-, ^ A nf«uo infteadofthis M r Canne repeats it, without leave and confent of theCUjfis. Nowac- vv.B.p.^ cording to the State of the Queftion betwixt us, there is difference betwixt doing z thing without advife 3 and without leave $ men afke advife of many ,ofwhomthey alke no leave for doing a thing. 11. Had I fpoken more largely of the allow- V 1 ance i f 6 THE POWER OF ance and confent of the Clafles and Synods, vet would not my teftiraony have proved his Minor , viz. that their government: tends to the taking away from particular Churches their due power: feeing the authority and help of Clafles tends to cheefta- blifhment of their due power , by directing and regulating the fame > and ib pre- venting the undue execution of their power. This order takes not away due power, but hinders and correfts onely the undue exercife of their power. Thus much isconfefied by fuch as M c Canne himfelf hereafter calles for to be his wit- nefles. M r Baynes fpeaking of particular Congregations at Geneva, which doe not proceed in weighty matters without confent of other Churches meeting to- (e) Diocef. gether by their Deputies , fay th , ( e ) They hav^ power of governing themselves , but for tryall.p.n .g natey edification, Voluntarily confederate* not to ufe nor exercifetheir power but with mmua.lt communication* one afkjng thecotmfell and confent of another in that common Prejbytery. And a little after he fay th , Though they were int ire Clmches andhad the power of Churches , yet they needed this fupport inthe exercife of it, &c, M- r Parker alfo , whom M r Canne fo oft alledgeth , and feemes to applaud as being of his opinion , is very exprefle in this poynt , as I have noted before in anfwer to M c D. He Ihewes that the go- vernment of ClaflTes and Synods as they now are, doth not take away the due power of particular Congregations. Touching the Churchesof the Villages in thefe Netherlands , with whom we are united in the fame government , he fay th> (f}Pol.Ecc. (fj The power of excommunication , ordination, and other jurifdiBion, illisillibatarelin- I3.C.23.P. qu{ tuti u fop p uye unto them ifavingonely that communion which ought tobeamongGhur- i4p ' ches : every Church uftth the counfell and confent of her neighbours , at of the Clajps or Pref* bytery in the city , which I fuppofe not to be unmeet even for the moft perfect Churches. He judged the freeft and moA perfect Churches to ftand in need of this government , and chat it was no empeachment of their due power. But M c Canne labours to illuftrate his aflertion with fome inftances* I. C A N . For inftance^fay the Claffes and Synods will not permit , that a Congregate *n Jhall rejeB fome convicted Heretickj * then they mutt (if they will beleeve Mr Paget) let them alone in theh communion , againsl Gods expreffe commandement j Tit. 3 . to. and fo tobey menratherthen God. Againeput cafe, fome Churches doe want M'mifiers, yet not with- standing , if the Claffes and Synods will not give them leave, to choofe any y except unfit and inefficient perfons • then it feemes by thnSynodkall Ganon, theymusltakefuch,or remains defiitute /?/'//. An s v v. 1. Iffuch ftrange cafes , and unheard of ia our time3* ihould fall out, that then fuch oppreffion and tyranny 5 is not to be imputed unto the Clafflcall or Synodall order & government, but to the corruption & perfonall wickednes of fuch men as ihould be members of the Claflls or Synod. Such acci- dentall evills* not fpringing from the nature of an ordinance , are no arguments to prove theunlawfulnes of an ordinance ; when as the ordinance itfelf and in its owne nature ferves tor the preventing or remoovingof fuchevills in particular Churches. 11. All the force of thefe objections 5 and all the feare of danger and inconvenience pretended by thefe irrftances comes as ftrongly , yea & much more heavily upon the heads of thofe that ftandfor a fingle , uncompounded policie, & would have all Ecclefiafticall jurifdiSion limited unto a particular Congregation: for example > put cafe that the greater part of, a particular Congregation* and of the CLASSES AND SYNODS. i*r the Elderfhip therein , will choofean offenfive and infufficient Minifter » or will not permit that an obilinate and convi&ed Heretick among them {hall be rejec- ted • what fhall the other part of the Church doe > which is opprefied and hindred from the due exercife of their power by the unrighteous proceeding of the grea- ter part ? What can follow here according to (g) the do&rine and pra&ife of the (g)H.Ainf, Brownifts, but feparation , & diffipation of the Church ? But by the government Animadv.p. of Synods > if particular Churches be guilty of errour, oppreffion and tyranny > 3^.C6m.of their errour is to be corre&ed by Claffes;if Glaffeserre , Synods may correct £%j££\l them i and one Synod may be corrected by another greater. And fo many great eviils mayberedreiTed>andfcandalsremooved. iii» As for the rejection of Hereticks>commandedT^.^io^ a principall meanes for the accomplifhment thereof, is the help of Gaffes and Synods > by their difcerning > convincing and judging of them. If that help (hould faile > and thofe that have authority ihould negleft or refufe to doe their duety herein^ the godly after teftifying againft evilly are to tolerate that which they cannot amend : even as the Pharifees and Saddu- ces, convi&edHereticks* were toleratedby the godly > that remained in the Church without feparation. Laftly j fuppofe that the power of particular Chur- ches had bene in fomefort wsakned, and not ftrengthned by the government of Claffes and Synods,as they now are; yet is it a groffe falfhood, when he aflumeth, or rather lavithly prefumeth , that their government tends merely, or onely , to the taking away of the Churches due power ; as though there were no other fruit or benefit by them. This he fhall never prove* The fecond proof of his Minor is taken from the pra&ife of the ClaflK W» Beft is (hj there brought in complaining of the authority which they takeover us ^)Charch t and our Elderfhip too : y ea in truth (fay th he) fo much authority as any Lorlc^n^ doe p ea,p ' 74 ' over hU fervant ,&c. But this is a fhameles andimpudent fallhood,without trueth; for no Lords fuffer their fervants to fit with them in judgement , and tohavea voyce for determining matters as well as themfelvesj fo as the Elders or Depu- ties of every Church are allowed in the Glaftis. Befide other manifeft differen- ces , obfervethe unboundedand unmeafurable (lander > in his fpeaking^not one- ly of that authority which Lords doe take » but of that which any Lord can^ dee over his fervant, For what is it whichthe worft Lord cannot doe to his fervant ? That infufficient reafon which he brings for the declaration of this authority* may as well arid more truely , in his words be applyed unto the Democracy of the Brownifts: for Jo long as any member amongthem doth wlm that imperious company wiU have him doe , he v> left alone ^ hut if he meddle with things againsl the others likjng 5 he is immediately commanded toceafi, andfo mufl not proceed further. Yea that Democratic call judicatory is farre more fevere and ready to cenfure thofe that refiftthem>then is any Claflis in thefe lands. Had any member of them fo behaved himfelf againft them > as W. Be. hath done to the Claflis in this fcandalous and reproachful! wri- ting againft them, as well as againft me , he had bene long fince delivered unto Sa- tan : he could not have exfpefied fuch lenity and patiencefrom them, as the Glaf- ps hath ufed towards this W. Be. My anfwqrunto a writing,, touching 4n aBion joymly concluded by them ; as he V 3 - . & th ^ t;g THE POWER OF faith, viz, that it didmthlong unto them^ is deceitfully and imperfe&ly fet downe. The matter being fuch as had bene already brought unto the Claflis, and there fudged and decided again ft them: there was no reafon that it {hould be brought back to an inferiour judicatory ; being fuch as were parties alfo; being fuch parries alio as had bene already cenfured about that controverfy. And fee the dawbing between M r Canne and W.B. The concluGon fpoken of, was not the concluGon of the Congregation ; and M r Canne himfelf allowes not a Confiftory to make any fuch concluGons without the Congregation ; ard by hisprofeflion >it doth not hhng unto a Confiftory ; and yet he helps WB. to exclaime for that , wherein he himlelf is of another minde. Touching the words of the Prophet > abufed and mifapplyed by them to frame their compIaint> Woeunto us , wearejfoyled^ler.^. i $. I anfwer : i. The liberty of appeales unto Gaffes and Synods, is that which preferveth a Church and the members thereof from being fpoyled bv any faction. And by their help, we en- joy our liberty and peace ; and are eftablilhed , and furnif hed with fuch Minifters, as agree with us in the truech > and are endued with fuch gifts as are meet for our edification, i. On the contrary, for want of combination with ClafFes, Mr Can. may juftly take up the complaint, Woeunto m we are fpoyled: Since his comming unto them ( befide former difllpations) their Church is rent in the midft by incu- rable contentions , their people fcartered, he himfelf depofed,and reje&ed by the Elders & people; & they mutually one half abandoning another , & avoyding one anothers companies as excommunicates. Loe here a Spovle. Argvm. X. It is afinneagainft God, to adde any thing, to that forme and manner of ordering Churches , which Chrijt our heavenly Prophet , hath fet forth unto us in-, the New Teftamem. Tofubjeft particular Congregations , under any other Ecclefiafticall autho- yitie , out of themf elves , k to adde unto that forme and manner of ordering Churches , which 4&c. Therefore it k afinne to doe it. The Propofuion cannot be excepted again&- 9 for the Scriptures herein are evident , Deut, 4. % . &c. Many learned men, &c. The Ajfumption cannot for fhame be denyed ; ontly becaufe the weight of the- controverfy leaneth upon it, I willJfeak_furtherofit in the next Seflion. Ansvv. For the Propofirion , 1. If it be well underftood, I doe willingly grant it : And M r Canne doth againe trifle, in alledging fo many Scriptures , An- cient fathers , and other later Writers for the proof thereof. 11. Both the Scrip- tures and other Writers alledged bv him, doe as well condernne fuch as take from the word of God, as thofe that adde unto it. And therefore they ferve to reprove M r Can. that detracts from ir by denving the authority of Synods , taughi in th& forementioned Scriptures , both of the Old and NewTeftament. The Kings coyne is adulterate , as well by clipping and diminilhing the fame, asothe-wife. This crime are they guilty of, that clip the authority of Synods. 111. The Fa- thers here mentioned doe give exprefle teftimony for Svnods by fpeciall & parti- cular allowance of them, and therefore they are doubly abufed, being thus alled- ged againft their meaning. For the AfTumpcion, he incurreth 2 threefold fhame. 1. It is a bold and ihame- CLASSES AND SYNODS. 259 Ihameles aflertion for him to fay, it cannot j 'or fhame be denyed ; when as it is^vident- lyfalfe, and generally denyed by the moft god; v and learned in all ages. n. Ano- ther {name it is, that though he here confeffe , the weight of the controverfy leancth upt it; yet here he brings nothing at all for the condonation thereof. This is his man- ner : where no need of proof is , there he idlie abounds with Scriptures , Fathers » and other Writers ; where the poynt of difference is , on which the weight of the controverfy Ieanetit, there he leaves his Aflfumptions naked and without proo£ in. It is a further {name, to put us off to the nex* Section , and to tell us he will ther ejfeakfurther of it , where he onely aliedgeth :he teftimonies of men. Is thii anfwerable to the profefflon of the Brownifts , that boaft fo much , Tothc^ Law, and to the* Tejlimony ? HAving thus examined his Arguments, which he hath honoured with the or- naments of his Art, bv propounding them in Syllogifticall formes; we will now proceed t o confider another fort of his Reafons 5 to which he doth not vouch- fafe fo much refpecT: , but propounds them more carekflv and nakedly , without fuch complete Logicall artire. Of thefe he favrh* There are yet other reafons to proovt our Aflertion; the which I will here lay downe more briefly . R t a s . I . (i If every Elder/hip have- a like & equall powers Hierome y Cyprian, Bu- (i) church, ter and others affirm* - y then may not the Officers of one Congregation , feeke by authority to flea,p7j, fuppreffe the a&s and decrees concluded in another* Ansvv. i. Theconfequeuceofchisreafonisdenvedby us. Though every Elder! hip be of equall power , yec the Minifters and Elders of one Congregation, being joyned together in a Clalfis or Synod with the Deputies of many Churches, thefe may lawfully feek by their joynt authority , to fuppreffe any unfawfull a&s or decrees of another Congregation. The reafon is , becaufe as D. Whitaker 00 (k)De Ccc> reafonethfrom Matt. 18.20. and M r Parker (l) aliedgeth againefrom him , Vis qu.i.c.3. unitafortior, Power combined is tbeflronger. The concurrence of power from many W Polv£c ^ Churches is the ground of Synodall and Clafficall authority overparticular Chur- ^ ,c " i5 ' * ches , though otherwife in themfelves confidered apart they be all equall. 11. Note here againe the trifling and ihifting of Mr Canne. To prove the equality of Eldeifhips , he aliedgeth the teftimonies of Hierome, Cyprian, Bucer, andothers : though F had before granted it , and (hewed that in the Claffis our Elder! hip had (ra) thefame liberty and power in giving our voyces equally with others , and that our FJ- (m)AhiV, ders (n) have exercifedntmuch authority en any member of the CUffis -,hy giving thdrvoyess toW.Bp. for deciding judging and determining any controverfy , e^c. yee needleftv he brings di- f 6 : lh - , vers Writers for proof of this confeffed and praftifed trueth ; and for the confk- ^ [ p ' mation of his moft falfe confequence he offers not to bring any proof at all* from any word of God or man. R b a s . II. Itis againjl fence , that a Mini tier fkouU undertake thi care of more Chur- ches then one onely ; whoreads tn Scripture of a Reward over many families, afheepheard over- divers flockes, &c. Nature hath ordained (faith h) ^Ariflotle) one unto one, (o) l&.t, Ansvv. 1. We read in Scripture of Jaacob chat was a Ihepherd over divers c « 2 ' flockes, both ofhisowne and of Labans.G?». 30. 36,40. 11. We read in Scrip- ture of the Apoftles thac wereftewards andlhepherds over divers flockes,having she I ?i THE POWER OF the care of all Churches, t.Cor.a,* 1. withi.Gor. 1 1. 28. lob. 10. *sst 6. M r Canne ought at leaft to have excepted extraordinary Shepherds, m. Thoughordina- ry Paftours or Minifters have the peculiar and proper charge of no more then one flock ; yet in regard of a common and joynt care of many Churches combined in Cla(Tes and Synods , we read in Scripture that the Elders and Shepherds of the Church in Ierufalem did undertake the care, and exercife with others authority in judging the caufe of the Church of Antioch. It is againft fenfe, againft nature , againft Scripture , but that the members of the body fhould have care one for ano- ther. 1 .Cor. ix.zi.&c. iv. The ufe of Clafles and Synods for counfell and ad- monition is allowed by my oppofites, and yet the care and labour therein , for tra- velling to meet in fuch aflemblies, for deliberation, for difputing, for convincing fuch as they admonifh. , and their counfell given unto Churches for the rejecting of Hereticks and other obftinate offendours , more or leflTe , is as great in effect as if they fhould give definitive fentence therein. As little diftra&ion arifeth from one work as from the other. To counfell a Church to excommunicate a (inner , is as great a burden and labour foe a Synod , as if they ihould pronounce the fen- tence themfelves. v. It doth leaft of all become Mr Canne to plead and reafon on this manner. If nature have ordained nnao one , as he argueth out of Ariftotle (though in his quotation he forgat to tell where) then muft M r Canne be a man againft nature,above many other,in tranfgreffing the law and ordinance of nature. Kow durft he take the Paftorall charge of a Church upon him , and this alone withouta(fiftanceofanElderihip,andyetinthe meane time undertake the care and charge of divers other trades , as of a Printers work-houfe in one place , of a Brandery or Aqua vitae i hop in another place , and fpecialiy of an Alchymifts labo- ratory in another place ? Is this paragon of the Separation a fit man to be an Ad- vocate or Patron of the Churches, to write a booke and intitle it the Churches plea , whereas if his example were followed , it would bring confufion upon all Chur- £hes and on all the Minifters thereof? What Pluralift or Non-refident is there that will not thinks he hath fome colour tojuftifyhimfelf from this pra&ife of M r Canne $ Reas. III. Is it alike thing, that the Claflicall potter ,/houldbe of Gods approving, andyet he never mention it in his word? This argument the Hierarchy ufe againft Popijh Offices $ and the B^formifts againft theirs. Now let the dtfereet Reader judge, if it proove^ not the point in hand as well. Here I may not omit %wingliw hisjpeech , Jpeakjng of Synods: (p}Zwingl. „ (p) wee willingly beleeve (faythhee) that you are a reprefentative Church ; for £i*.8.expi. ^ a trueChurch you are not.But I pray you fhew usjwhence you fetch this name? » Who hath given you this name^ who hath given you power to make Canons > 5, impofe things on mens fhoulders, grieve their confeiences , Sec. Ansvv. 1. This Reafon is in fubftance the fame with his fift Argument be- &ff & P '*' f° re ' an ^ therefore idly repeated. The grounds of Claflicall power are f he wed (q) ■> }\ *• before from the Scriptures, and the cavillsofM r Canne againft the fame, refuted. 1 1 . Note his errour of fpeech in diftinguifhing the Hierarchy from Popilh Oflu ces , by oppofing them one againft the other; whereas according to the common accepuon of the word > the Hierarchy doth sorjfift in tjiepopifh offices ; and th^ cor- CLASSES AND SYNODS. *6i corruption of offices which he intends , is but a fragment thereof, and therefore ought not to carry the name rather then the whole , when both are fpoken of to* gether. Otherwife in proper fpeech , the true Hierarchy imports the lawfull offi* ces and govern me nt, prefcribed in the Scriptures, m. That which he ailed* geth out of Zwinglius touching a reprefentative Church, is to be underftood of the Romifh Church, and of the Popifh government ; for againft them did Zwinglius then write : and againft them there was juft caufe to complaine fo as he did. 1 v. If any thinkethat by reprefentative Churches he meant all Synods whatfoever , that exercife Ecclefiafticall authority in the judging of caufes ; then againft the tefti- mony of Zwinglius we oppofe the teftimony of all ages , and of the learned Wri- ters therein, old and new , Papifts and Proteftants , that generally are againft him, M r Parker (0 fay th well, All ages have called the Synod a representative Church : & be- (OPoUc* fide many other witneffes he alledgeth D. Whitaker , arguing thus againft the Pa- 3 '|fe^^ pifts , (0 The Church is represented in the Synod - therefore if the Church he above Peter, then \q De chc. * theSynodalfo. M r Parker argues further , Except the Synod did conjift of the D«/>«-q«.y.c.3»p.. tks of Churches, Synods could not reprefent the Churches : and having there brought ma- l69t ny teftimonies of Scripture to (hew the power of Churches in fending their De- puties or Delegates, he concludes in the words of D. Whitaker, (0 Whofoever (t) Qu.^q^ isfent of the Church hereprefents theperfon of the Church. But touching the judgment 3-P- I0 3- of Zwinglius, more hereafter, when he is againe alledged by M r Canne. R E A S . IV. ( v ) Whofoeverjhall deny our aforefayd offer tion , mutl ofneceffity hold, ( v) Church, two diftinEt formes of Church-government; one wherein particular Congregations doe in, and P lea >P7 6 * of themfelves , exercife all Gods ordinances > } the other mere theyftand under another Eccleji- niiicaU authority out of themf elves. Now to hold this, is direBly all one ; as to hold two wayts to heaven ; dislinB. and oppojlte in them/elves 9 which if very fcandalous in B^ligion.and that which cannot fland with truth. An s v v. i . Whatfoever M f Canne here aflirmeth , is but his bare affertion » without Scripture or other proof to confirme his reafon. But M r Can. is not yet come to fuck credit with us, that his ipfe dixit, his bare word may goe for currant. ix. It is falfe which he fay th of holding two diflinH formes of 'Church-government,® 'c. The particular Congregations here in thefe Reformed Churches doe in , and of themfelves , exercife all Gods ordinances,and yet withall ftand under another Ec- clejiafticall authority out of themfelves ; Synbdall authority being one of Gods ordinances. Though in regard of the Iocali and perfonall prefence of all the mem- bers of the Church, this authority is exercifed out of themfelves : yet in regard of their confederation and combination with neighbour Churches , and in regard of their Deputies , Minifters , and Eiders or others that have place andfuffragein chefe Synods , this authority is exercifed in and of themfelves. And though here be another aft of authority, yet is there but one diftinft forme of government. in. It is as falfe which he fay th of holding two wayes to heaven : and this notonely in refpeft of thefe Reformed Churches among themfelves, having the fame go- vernment , both by Elderfhips at home , and by Synods abroad ; but alio in refpecl of divers Churches , having different formes of government. The Church of England and of thefe Countries, though they have a different order of Church- i6t THE POWER OF government* yet holding together the fame fundamental! trueths of the Gofpelf, they both doe hold but one way to heaven, and fo doe both mutually acknow- ledge one another to be in that way. i v. This company of Brownifts whereof M l 'Canne isthefole Governour, was formerly governed by an Elderfhip, and now fince their divifion they have no Elderfhip to rule them. ' Whether it be be- caufe they thinke they have none among them fit to be Elders *, or whether they doe wilfully refufe fuch as thev cannot deny to be fit; or whether there be any other caufe , Heave it to themfelves. Alwayesthis we know that there befome • Churches in remote countries, that want the benefit of Cla/ficall government, be- caufe there be no other neighbour Churches neere unto them , with whom thcv may combine themfelves for their mutuall guidance and edification. But now if the want of an Elderfhip among the Brownifts, fuch as they once had, doe not warrant us to fay , that they hold two diftinct formes of Church-government to be lawfull, one with an Elderfhip , another without an Elderfhip ; & consequent- ly that they hold two wayes unto heaven : then much leffe can the want of a Sy- nod in refpect of the different confideration of the times, places , occafions and o- portunities of feverall Churches, be any warrant for M r Canne to object unto us two formes of government, or two waves to heaven, &c. (xj Whit. R e a s . V. Let it k obferved > that for this reafon (among others ) the Learned (x) &Xhmier. fa >*k e Pope is Antkhrifl • w£ becaufe he will have men to appeale from their owne Chur- 1.6.e6jetf. ches unto him ; and toftand under hisfentence and decree* And doe not the Qlajficall ajfem- *» blies and Synods , take upon them an authority much like to it , in fubjeBing many Congrega- tions to them, requiring appeales to be made to them, and that the Judicatory (as Mr PagetS* * In his * phrafe is ) belongeth to them \ as ij their power were above all Churches. tetter Sec. Ansvv. i. Letit be obferved how M r Canne fpeaking here againft appeales made unto ClalTes and Synods, brings no Scripture > no word of God to con- demne them, but onely the teftimonies of men: he needed not to have referved hereafter a peculiar Section onely for humane teftimonies , when he ufes them fo oft before. 1 1 . Let it be obferved how notably he abufeth even thefe teftimo- ty)DePont. nies alfo againft the meaning of his Authors. D. Whitaker (y) pleads for appealest Kom.qu.4. as being both of divine and natural! right . Chamier (whom M r Canne" doth mif- fcv^nftrat-' quote , without the title of the book alledged) favth , thatappeales (z)areofcom* Catho.tom.' rnm equity : andtruely without them the Church could hardly or not at allfubjift^ fpeaking 2.1.13.0.17 f appeales unto Synods. That which learned and orthodox Writers blame in appeales made unto the Pope, is this , that they are made unto one man , and not unto a Synod ; ascribing unto him infallibility of judgement ', giving him power over Churches that are not combined with the Church of Rome : and in fpeciall for this , that the Pope allowes no appeales to be made from him unto a Synod : This is the Antichriftian pride that they condemne in the Pope. And herein the Church of the Brownifts doth plainly refemble the Pope; feeing their Congre- gation alfo, their Oemocraticall judicatory allowes no appeale to be made from them unto Clafles or Synods, unto any Ecclefiafticall judges befides themfelves. faiBellarm. Xhefearetwoofthemoft monftrous proportions of the Papifts, touching the ^f on £\i' Popes authority , viz. that (a) the Pope if above^ a Genmll Synod , and ackpowkdgeth CLASSES AND SYNODS. 163 no judgment on earth above him : and againe > that the Pope cannot commit the coaBtivc judgement over him, neither unto a Synod, nor unto any man, hut onely the difiretive: & this difcretive judgement they expound to be fuch a kinde of arbitrement, as doth not binde him further then it pleafeth him. Now fo farre as concernes Ecckfiafticali udgement > the Brownifts> and the maintained of the fingle uncompounded po- icie, doe likewife hold that there is no judgement on earth above their particular Congregation ; and that they may tiot commit any controverfy of theirs unto the :enfure and decifion of any Synod. What ftronger reafon could M r C. have pl- edged againft himfelfi to f hew their unlawfull government, then this their deny- ill of appeales ? in. Let it be obferved how foolilhly M r Canne cavills at my peech touching Clafficall aflemblies and Synods , when he relates it thus , iheju* licatory (as Mr Paget* phrafe is J belongeth unto them : for this relation is falfe; that was lot my phrafe ; but I fayd the judicature did belong unto them. It was the fimpli- icy of his informer , or of fome ignorant fcribe that put judicatory for judicature, as nay appeare by the writing I made,which is yet to be feene.Note M r C. his raih- ies in recey ving fuch things. R E A s . VI. What more meet and reasonable , then that every mans cafe he there heard \nd determined, where the fault was committed? So faytbiK ^Cyprian , It is not fit that (b)Cypr.li, hey over whom the Holy Ghoft hath made us overfeers , Ihould goe too & fro. I,E P llt 5« defpeaketh of varying matters away from their owne Church unto other*. Ansvv. i. Though it be meet and reafonable that every mans caufe be firft here heard , where the fault was committed ; yet is it as reafonable > that if either ,n unjuft fentence be there given , the innocent may in the fecond place have li- >erty of appeale from their oppreflburs ; or if the cafe be difficult and weighty , hat the matter be at firft brought unto Claflicall alTemblies , according to the or-. ler of Reformed Churches, n. For confirmation of this reafon he brings no vord of God, but onely the teRimonie of Cyprian , which alfo according to his nanner, he doth moft palpably abufe. For Cyprian doth not Amply blame thofe hat appealed unto Synods,but onely fuch as did inordinately run too and fro,fuch is were not content with the Synods in Africa , but fayled over the fea unto the Church of Rome. Of fuch he there fpeakes. And even in the fame Epiftle Cy- jrian ihewes both the ufe of Synods allowed in the Churches of Africa , and the tuthority of Synods in centering offendours. He there gives (c) inftancesof PW-(<0fib.i.e. mus> condemnedin an afTembly of 99 Bilhops , Q£Pcelix,o£lovinus&Maximus , ;.*•$ ll * l2 (* excluded from the communion of the Church by a Synod, of Bjpoftus alfo , cen- tred in like manner. Their Synods were not onely for counfell , but exercifed a urifdi&ion EccleGafticall. And as they exercifed the power of the keyes in bin- ling obftinate finners, fo alfo in loofing and abfol ving thofe that repented , as ap- >eares in (d) another Epiftle going immediately before this alledged , and written (d) Lib. r , jy the Synodkfelf. In the infcriprion of that Epiftte are prefixed the names of E P- z -§ -• Zyprian, Liberal's, Caldoniu*, Nicomedes , and Qaeilius, &c. as being fpeciall mem- >ers of that Synod, and writing joyntly together that Synodicall Epiiile. (e) Gou- ( e ) ibid.n. artius alfo in his annotations thereon, obferveth that thefe Synods were kept to this end 6 ' hat the purity ofdoSirim and the difcipline of the Church might befreferved entire - } and that X z the . 154 THE POWER OF the difiurbers thereof might be excluded from their communion. And in many other places Cyprian is fo pregnant inthispoynt , that whofoever (hall alledge himagainft the authority of Synods > muft either be a very ignorant reader of Cyprian > or els awilfullabuferofhim. Re A s. VLl. Notethe^ effeSi , ifitflwddbeotherwife- which is that every particular Congregation muft hence necefiarily loofe her owne prober right ingovernment, tstfo of a hAi- flresbecome afervant : inftead of being fuperiour , witjully vajfall and enflave herfelf, which thing is contrary to Gods will revealed in his word. Gal. y.i . i .Cor, 7.2,3 . z.lim. 1 . g 2 • Ht$. 4. 14. Rjv.z.z$. Ansvv. 1. This reafon is the fame for fubftance with his ninth Argument before; and therefore it is here idly repeated. 11. The vaflallage and flavery which he argues from Clafficall government > is upon a falfe confequence. The liberty of innocent perfons oppreffed by wrong judgment in a particular Church > is to appeale unto Clafles and Synods. The Democraticall government that de- nyes this liberty of appeale > is no gracious miftrefie, but a Tyrannicall virago > refembling the RomifhLady, that by denying appeales from the Pope keeps many in bondage. 111. The Scriptures cited by him are all perverted and mif- applyed : for what force of confequence is in thefe reafonings ? viz. Stand fas! in the liberty wherewith Ghrisl hath made us free, (fc. Gal.^. \ . therefore ftand fail againft appeales from particular Congregations . Be not thefervants of men : 1 .Cor. 7. zi , therefore befubjeft to no Ecclefiafticall government , fave onely to the Demo- cracie of a particular Church. Hold f aft the forme of found words , that ClaiTes and Sy- nods are onely for counfell, and not for authority to cenfure and judge. What un- found inferences and applications of Scripture be thefe ? M r Canne in his 9th Ar- (f)Chnr- gument before, (Oalledgedalfo, \.Thef.+.6. s.Ioh.y. Prov.zz.zS. Deut,i?. 14. to- ches pica.p. gether with Gal. 5-. 1 . M r Dav. alfo to like purpofe (g) alledgeth fome of thefe V y \ A , re .places, to wit, Prov.zz. 28. Gal.^.i. ?. loh. 9. But they prove the Queftion aslit- W&*i7< tie as the other: for how vaine are thefe confequences? Thm ft alt not remove the ancient bounds - 3 Prov. zz. z%. therefore all Ecclefiafticall jurifdic"tionislimitedtoa - particular Congregation, and he removes the ancient bounds that allowes the au- thority of Synods. Or, Diotrtphes loved the preeminence ; 3. Ioh. 9. therefore Claf- fes and Synods have no jurifdiftion or power to judge and determine the matters of a particular Congregation. What weight is there in fuch reafonings as thefe ? R k A s . VIII. Seeing the ^Apofths , wherefoever they conftituted any Church , with (h)PoI.Ecc. doftrine, immediately eilaUiflad in it (h) Ecclefiafticall government; for without this (t 1. i.p.io. £>. Ames C^faythJ there could have bene no coupling of the parts and members to- l X \ °C24 p 'gather. It musl needs follow , that the primitive Churches were independent bodies, and 214. itood not under anv other Ecclefiafticall authority out of themfelves. Now how Mr Paget will be able to prove a change off his government , I doe not yet fee : efptcially, confi* dering that the Learnedfm I (hewed before ) doe hold that there is but one certaine, necef- 1 fary & perpecuall forme, & manner of ordering Churches, &c. Ansvv. CLASSES AND SYNODS, 16$ Ansvv. t. The confequence propounded in this reafon is falfe. Though the Apoftles in the constitution of Churches> did immediately eftablifh Ecclefia- fticall government therein ; yet muft it not needes follow , that they were indepen- dent bodies ?• „allthe faithfull are members ofoneMyfticali body of Chrift, which ought to r^,** 1 ' „ have a mutuall care one of another ; layd the foundations of this polkie. For j ,cor. 1 1, »as in the body of one particular Church , every faithfull man compared with ,3 another in the fame , is a member one of another : fo in a more generall body of „a whole Realrae , every particular Church compared with other, is like wife a „ member of them. Therefore as nature teacheth my hand to help the diforder „ which is in another part of my body: fo the Spirit of God out of his word, „ through a fellow-feeling teacheth one Church, to ftretch out her hand, to put ,» away as it can , the evill which it feeth approch unto another. And therefore Rom. 15 . 14 ), when the Scripture willeth that one lhouldadmonifh another, itisnotonelya Heb -3°*3- 9 > commandement to every lingular man, towards his fellow : butalfo to one „ whole company , towards another focietie. Mr Parker ft) alledgeth the fame (I) See be- ground out of Zjpptrus , who from thence deriveth- the authority of Gaffes and f ° re 'F'95> Synods, in cenfunng and judging the caufes of many Churches , and citeth many 9 ' fuch places of Scripture for proof thereof, in. W'hen the Church of Antioch brought her controverfy unto the Synod at Ierufalem, there was no change of go- vernment. They had this right from the firft , though then efpecially it were lrianifeiied unto all for the a&uall exercife thereof, upon Occafion of the difien- |ion. iv. It appeares that the primitive Churches at their firft conftitution by the Apoftles , were not independent bodies , in a fpeciall refpect more then any in our times; becaufethey were then fubject to the extraordinary government' by X 3 Apo- i65 THE POWER OF Apoftles and Evangelifts , who befides that which they did in ordinary courfe of judgement with the Churches concurrence , as i . Cor. 5. had alfo of themfelves extraordinary authority and power granted unto them overall Churches , for the correcting of the wicked therein>asappeareth> 1. Co^.4.21. 2.Como.2>3, 6,8,10. .^#.5.9,10. $.Io/;.io. ( m ) Charcj R E a s . IX. (m) By the titles given-, to all particular Congyegations , it appear es evi- plea.p. 77, dently, that Ecclefiafiicall authority is (or at leaft ought to be J in every one of them , difiind* ly, wholy, intirely j vi^.a Kingdome > Matt. 3. z. a Family , Eph. z. 1 9. a Body > 1 . Cor. \ z. 20. a Queene , Pfal.tf . a body having all parts ty members* tyyet may neither receive in, nor put out without another s leave and confent • manyfuch abfurdities followeth Mr Paget s lately -devifed Tenets. Ansvv. 1. That which feemes fenfeles and abfurd unto thetranfeendene underftanding of M r Can. and fy 7 . Be. is notwithstanding found reafonable in the judgement oifober men. As for Kings and their kingdomes> we fee in the ftory of the new Teftament > that the three King-Herods , and the fourth King Agrip- pa> both they and their kingdomes did iiand under another Politicall govern- ment , under the Romane Empire, under the authority of Csefar to whom they payd tribute. Mat. l.<2 14. <$ ^AB. 12. & 25. is" 16. with Luk. 2.1 . Matt. 22.21. John. 19. 12,15. And in the old Teftament , we read that Zedekias King of Ju- dah ftood under the Politicall government of the King of Babel. lerem. 27. 12. 2. Chron.$6.i$. - And other ftories lhew that this was no ftrange thing. The Kings and Kingdomes of Bohemia and Hungary at this day ftand under the command of theEmperour. As for families and their Oeconomicall government, in regard of that obedience which children owe to their parenrs, by vertue of the life Commandement , Honour thy father and thy mother, Exo. 20. 12. inferiour families owe fubjeftion untofuperiour. Thofe families that defcended from Adam for fix or feven generations together, and thofe families that defcended of Noah > Shem, Arpadhad, Shelah, and Eber , though in their habitations they were divi- ded after the Flood , did yet owe fubje&ion unto thefe fathers and grand- fathers, and in matters of greateft moment and controverfy concerning their families, as about family-worlhip, manages, and the like, they were bound to fubmit unto their cenfure and determinations in the Lord ; thofe five Patriarkes being then all alive in thofe corrupt times, after the confufion of languages. Gen. 11. As for the bodies of men , it is not unreafonable or abfurd to thinke that the members of any mans body fhould not be cut ofFat his owne will , without the confent and approbation offundry experienced and fkillfull Chirurgeons , according to the order appointed by theGovernours of this City , and pra&ifed therein. 11. Thofe Scriptures alledged to lhew the titles given to particular Congregations >doe uoc prove the matter intended. By the kingdome of heaven, Matih.%. z. is not under- ftood (imply a particular Congregation ; but the abundance of grace revealed and exhibited either unto particular perfons , Congregations , or the whole Church of God throughout the world, &c. Thus the kingdome of heaven or the king- dome of God is in every feveraU beleever,and they are all Kings: B^m.1^.17* CLASSES AND SYNODS. 267 Rjw.1.6. & now according to M r Cannes reafoning, not any one of them fhould ftand under any other fpirituall government, under any EccIeGafticall authority out of themfelves, becaufe they are kings themfelves, and have a fpirituall king- dome within them. By the houfliold of God, Ephef.z. 19. may be underftood the whole univerfall Church of God » as well as a particular Congregation ; and fo by the onebody ■> % .Cor. 1 z.2,0. and fo by the Queene : Pfal, 45: . p. And therefore thefe places prove nothing for the reftraint and limitation of all EccIeGafticall jurifdic- don unto a particular Congregation onely ; which is the late-devifed cenent of the Brownifts. R E a s . X. The aBs of the offen- ders ifent mejiengers , and performed all other Church matters among themfelves* Answ. This reafon taken from the a&s ofthe Apoftolick Churches is for fubftance the fame with the firft, third, fourth ,and fixt Svllogifticall argu- ments before , and there anfwered; and here by him idly repeated » to increafe the number of his Reafons. R £ A s . XI . Lasllyjet it be ohferved,that M r Paget in thtt accordeth with the (" ) Pa- ( n) Bellar, pifls ; for they fay [as hee doth) that particular Churches are not independent bodies, de Eccl - l > but ftand under another Ecclefiafticall authority out of themfelves. The which thing* ,c ' u our Writers deny, andproove the contrary. Answ. i. The accord ofPapifts is no fufficient reafon for refutation; fee- ing they accord with us in many poynts of religion, againft Arrians, Anabaptifts> Brownifts, and others, n. See the partiality of M* Canne : in his eight Reafon before, he alledgeth for himfelf how the Papifts doe accord with him ; to this the Papifts ajfent , fayth he; here in this place he alledgeth againft me , their accord & iflfent with me ; prefently after againe , in the fame and following pages , he douks not but to make it manifeR , that the Papifts are with him , &c. Thus when they ac- cord with him it muft ferve for the confirmation of his reafon : when they accord withme,itmuftftillferve for confirmation of his reafon > and for the condem- ning of »ne. Whether it be their aflfent or diffent, it is all one to him : he can >round his arguments upon one as well as the other. Such are his reafonings. in. Mark his falfe allegation of Bellarmine, de Eccl. 1. 5.C. 5. when as there is no fuch lift booke extant, written by Bellarmine. iv. Howfarre we differ from the Papifts, and Popifh Hierarchy , in this controverfy about Synods , hath bene noted Co) at firft , in the State of the Queftion , and may be feene ac (°)Pag. *9» large in manifold pafTages fet downe before out of (p) lunim, and (s) I>. 2°; p i JVhitafyr, their difputes againft Bellarmine, and out of (0 Mr Par- {j tt ' 2S " key his refutation ofthe Hierarchy in this particular ; which to (9JP. 133- repeat> in a cafe fo cleare , were to imitate M r Canne in J+i- his needles and fuperfluous quotations. j c j 4i * l01 " CHAP. i68 THE POWER OF CHAP. VIL The Allegations of Mr Came examined, AFter the former 1 1 Arguments againft the authority ofSynodsjM'Canne failes to flatter himfelf> & rejoyces in himfelf to thinke what the Reader will f» Churc. imagine when he fees his manifold Reafons. ( a ) By this time Ifuppofe ( faith he ) the plea,p.77. ^different Reader pevceiveth , that the Scriptttres, are every way for us , am againft M r Pa- ge t j in this controversy hettvixt us. Now heejhould doe well 1 feeing we difiute about a mat- ter of faith, appertaining to life andfalvation- t to reft in them tu the onely touch ftone for trial! of all truth. But then further, to make way for his new troupes & legions of Hu- mane Teftimonies againft me, and becaufe this doth not well fuit with his profef- fion, that pretends fo much warrant of Scripture, and to rely onely upon it ; there- fore he feeks to take occafion from my words , thereby to excufe his vaine often- tation in alledging fo many Writers , and faith , Notwithftanding confidering he makes fomuch a doe, about the multitude of learned and godlv Miniiiers, being of the fame judgement and pra&ife with him ; (accordingas Feftu* knowing Paul to have appealed unto Ca?far , did reafonably refolve , faying , Unto Caefar lnalt thou goe i fo) 1 am well contented to heare what reverend and judicious Authors doe fay herein : lAndif Vl r Paget will ft and unto their Teflimonies , I doubt not but to make it manif eft, that (ai the Scripture* fo)they are alfo with us y ($c. Hereunto I anfwer, i. In all my former Anfweii I have not alledged againft them the teftimony of any one Author : neither have I framed any argument drawne from their words. The wordsof my writing which he alledgeth, are onely a part of an anfwer unto a flanderous accufation both of me and the Claflls , in a'matter of fact, wherein I {hew how unconfciona- bly and without proof they wrong both me and a multitude of learned and godly MU nihers, being of the fame judgement andpraBife. I defire the Reader to looke upon the (b)Anfw. (b) place and to judge thereof, n. Whereas he thereupon brings forth an Ar* to w.B.p. my f p ap ift s a nd Lutheranes , Ancient fathers and later Writers , Conformifts & Non-conformiftsj&c.though it be with lefle reafon then Feftus fent Paul to Caj- far, feeing I made no fuch appeale , as Paul did unto C^far ; yet I am content to follow him , and to heare what his Authors doe fay, and to fhew both how idlj and needlefly he alledgeth many of :hem , to prove that which is not denyedi and alfo how he perverts and falfifyes the> meanings , alledging them for that whict is contrary both to their words and pratiife. The feverall Bands of that Army , which M r Canne muftereth againft us , an (c) Churc. thefe , as he reckoneth them , (<0 The ^Allegations of the Learned, which I purpofc. |>lea,p,78. fc ret0 fetdotvne, fljall be taken, i. FromPapiils. z. Lutherians. g. Calvinism 4. Englijh Conformifts. <>. The Non-Qonformitts* 6. ^Ancient Writers ; %An\ hfihthi^ Qonfeffion of Reformed Churches . Sec] CLASSES AND SYNODS. 1C9 SlGTlON) I. Touching the TejUmonies ofPapifts. HAving promifed to produce the Teftimonies of Reverend and judicious Authors , as he calles them > he brings in the Papifts and drawes out the Popifh band in the firft place againft me. When Mr Spr. once heretofore had pro- pounded divers Confederations unto them of the Separation > and among other things the teftimony and approbation-given to the Church of England by fundry learned men, as Bucer, Martyr, Pagim, Jfyafco, Kjiox, Calvine, Be%a, &c. M r Ainf- worth anfwers 9 (id.c* ment hath bene ftill retained and pra&ifed ever fince , from the firft age of the pri- mitive Church unto this prefent. The 'Bjjmifis alfo (g) derive the government (g) Rhen3 » which they now ftand for , from the inftitution of Chrift , and praaife of the pri- °" *£ c ; * 8 * raitive Church. And therefore it is untrue which he fayth , viz. that the Pa- coi-.j. ' , pifts acknowledge a difference betwixt the government inftituted at the firft , and that which is now maintained by them. To prove this generall aflertion he at- | ledgeth a particular teftimony ofScultingius. But that which is fayd of one, can- not be affcribed unto all in fuch generall termes as he hath done, fav ing of Romes- Champions, they doe acknowledge chat which Scultingius fayth,whereas we fee that the chief of them avouch the contrary. This teftimony of Scultingius , as it is abfurdly fathered upon the Papifts in ge- nerall \ fo it is unjuftly applyed againft us. Though in the primitive Church of- (ifenders/being impenitent were excommunicated with confent and approbation of 'all, by the Mini for j and chough this teftify the power of the Church , ror which caufe it Y is i 7 o THE POWER OF is alledged by M r Parker (from whom it feemes M r Canne hath taken this tefti- mony at fecond hand > together with his obfervation upon it > touching the force of trueth in aPapiftj yet this proves not that the Church was not fubjeft to the cenfure of afuperiour judicatory,ifthey didabufe their power. M r Parker drawcs nofuch confequence from this teftimony, to exclude the authority of Synods. There is nothing fayd by Scultingius here , but it hath alwayes bene obferved in our Church. Offenders are not excommunicated , as being impenitent > before they have bene denounced (as this Authors phrafe is) or complained of by giving notice of their eftate unto the whole Chiirch ; before whom alfo thefentence of excommunication is pronounced : and cms our manner was allowed by M r Park. (h)P. ioj. beingfometimeoneofus, as I f he wed ( h ) before. As for Saraviaand Schola Parifienfis , whom he alledgeth together in the nexc placcobferve, i . How Iir tie M r Canne underftands what the Authors be whom he alledgeth, not knowing whether they were Papifts or Proteftants , placing Sa- raviain the number of Papifts : fo well is he acquainted with the Authors he al- (>) l'.93. & ledgeth at fecond hand ; fuch injury he doth to his witnefles. So afterward U) **• againe in this fame book he wrongeth Saravia by fetting him among the Popilh Writers , and making him of their profeflion aad religion, by accufingme to make the fame obje&ion and to ufe the fame reafon that Papifts doe, and then giving in- stance in Saravia for one of them. What a blindenes and inconftderatenes is this in Mr Canne ? n . He perverts the meaning both of Saravia and Schola Parijien* fis- for what though they grant that all Ecclefiafiicall authority bdongtth to the Church primarily , t$c* doth it follow hence that the power of Clafllcall and Provinciall Synods is an undue power -, as W.B. and M r C. accufe them ? doth it not rather fol- low that there is a due power , fecondarily and by delegation , in Synods , where (k) Poi.Ec- the Deputies of the Churches meet together in their name ? M r Parker (*0 from d,i.3.p.2 9 , whom he hath both thefe teftimonies , doth not fo alledge them againft the au- 30.8c 42, thority of Synods. He might have feen thefe words in the fame place cited by M r Parker out of Saravia, whereby authority is afTcribed not onely unto the (!) ibid.p. Church but alfo unto Synods, when he is OJ brought in faving , Bijhops & Arch-bi* 4%, ' ' fhopshaveno authority >but what is conferred and beftowed upon them by the Church and Sy- nods, in. He perverts the meaning of Schola Parifienfis , which fpeakes not of particular Congregations, but of the Univerfall Church, and fpecially as it is reprefented in a Generall Councell. This is plaine and evident throughout that whole writing. 1 v. He doth deale deceitfully in his tranflation of that teftimo* ny oiSchol. Parif. for the Do&ours of Sorbon doe there fay that all Ecclefiafticall authority doth belong to the Church primarily, properly , eiTentially , but unto the I{pmane Pope and other Bijhops infirumentally , minijlerially , and for execution onely , &c* inftead of* he P^omane Pope and other Bijhops, he puts in the word Officers onely to blinde the eyes of the Readers , who if thofe words had not bene left out , might eafily have feene that they fpake of fuch traofcendent and ufurped authority as is exercifed by the Pope and his Bif hops &c. Hence it may appeare what is to be judged of that which he inferres from this teftimony , to make it fenre his pur- pofe in oppugning of Synods. As CLASSES AND SYNODS* 171 As for Jfyhonfus de Caslro and Trancifcus ViBoria, i. Itisanerrourtoapprove their teftimony there (») alledged , viz. that all Bifhops doe receive jurifdiBion and (m) €h, pi. power immediately from God: for thenfhould they all have an extraordinary calling P'7 8 »79- fuch as the Apoftles had) Gal. t . i , t $" , 1 6 . whereas all ordinary Ministers have their jurifdi&ion not immediately from God , but mediately by men > and from the Church. Howerroneouflydoe W.B.and M r C. put light for darknes and dark- nesfor light, when they avouch, that thus God ordered thefe wens tongues , togm fvitneffetmto histrueth? n. All the f hew of help which they pretend to have from this teftimony is grounded upon that groundlefe confequence > whereby they in- ferre that Claffes & Synods have no authority over particular Congregations , bc- caufe all Churches , Elderfhips and Officers are equall: This their afifertionre- maines yet to be proved; which we doe exprefTely deny, as I have K {hewed in (n) p. ij?, my anfwer unto his firft Reafon . The teftimonies of the three next Popifh Authors, viz. Cuj 'anus de concord, Cathol. L i .c. 1 1 , neither can the queftion in controverfy be ever concluded from hence againft us. It is a moft falfe confequence>to inferre that becaufe all Bifhops are equall in power , therefore Synods have no power to judge : and as falfe it is to inferre that becaufe the Kes es were given to all the Apoftles, therefore there is no Ecclefiafticall power to judge the anions of a particular Congregation . Infumme, Mr Canne doth moft ignorantly and groflv abufe all thefe Papifts , againft their words, their writings, and their continuail profeffion and pra&ife . For though there be this maine difference betwixt the Papifts, that fome of them doe affcribe the greateft authority unto the Church , that is , unto a Generall Sy- nod, or Couhcell , maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope , & power to depofe the Pope ; others of the aflcribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope, rather then unto the Church or 3 Generall Councell reprefenting the fame : yet doe they all agree in this,thac there is a fuperiour power above particular Congregations to judge the fame . The Univerfity of Pari! , andtheDoftoursofSor£o» have in fpeciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the (p)Oe Eccl. Pope ; they (p) bring many arguments from Scripture and other reafons to prove ScPoiitTor. t he fame. They alledge the fentence of Pope (q) %o%mus conferring himfelf to cdn'.Vtfi 2 ' ^ e inferiour unto the Councell. They avouch that (r) thz^ frequent celebrating of Parif. Synods tsfimply and ahfolutely neceffary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church* (q)lbid, Whereas a certaine Frier, Joannes Sarraqn , had by word and writing under his fr) ibid nancI P re f erre d the authority of the Pope above theSynods, they (0 record at large p. 19. ' and pubiifh in print a moft folemne decree made by the Theologicall faculty of (Q ibid, that Univerfity , whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion*and a forme of P.46--56. recancat ion was prefcribed, according to which he confefled his fault,& acknow- ledged the power of Synods above the Pope. (t) Ads 8c The CO Councell oiConfiance did not onely exercife Ecclefiafticall authority Monum.p. in condemning oflohn Bujfe and Hierome of Prage , but alfo decreeing the autho- An 6 D?4 4 i 7 ' r ^y of Synods and Councelis to be above the Pope , did actually depofe divers &c. " Popes, islohnthe zj^ and BenediB , who was likewife excommunicate by them : (v) An.D. e ven as the Councell held at {*) Brixia had in former time by their fentence con- st m "if* demnedPope HHddrund, and judged him to be depofed. So in like manner did 164 ° n * P ' the Councell held at fr) Bafile , depofe Pope Eugenim, & put another in his place* (x)ibid.p. By all which it is evident what the Papifts then judged of the authority and power *3*.*34. of Synods. Asali thefe, fo the other faction of Papifts, and the Jefuws in fpeciall, that main- taine CLASSES AND SYNODS. i 7 j taine the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods & Gouncells whatfoever i 8c that their decrees are not of force, unlefle they be approved by the Pope; thefe doe evidently teach that the affaires and controverfies of particular Congregations are fubjeft to the judgement of fuperiour judicatories out of themfeives. This is (y)Tom.a. to be obferved in BelUrmine throughout his writings, where he fhewes (y)the Contr.i.de caufes , the neceflity , and the authority of Generail and Provincial! Synods>the (*) ^""oVi* power of elections , and ehe difhnftion of a Bifhop from a Prefbyter. The fame & u, c J i2 / is maintayned by him in his 00 creatife of Pardons or Indigencies, plenary or for &c acertaine number of dayes » for the living or for the dead* And the like is to be ^°™\ Z ' found in (b)fundry other of his writings . r.deCter. And to thefe might be added more then an hundred of other witneffes , of the c. 7 Xs,iq. Romilh Church, acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods &1 4>^c. and of other judges to decide the caufc- & controverfies of particular Churches, comrade Inftead of many other, the Counceil of Trent, called by (c) pope Paulus the third, indui.Vi. continued bv (<0 Pope lulius the third, and confirmed by (ej Pope Pitts the fourth, c.i 1.14. & together with the confederation of many conclusions and decrees made in feverall ('bjxoi?fl Seffions of that Counceil , doe give plenteous teftimony hereof throughout that Comr.j.de whole book of their A&s. Sacr.Ord.l. Onely to conclude this Section , let it be remembred how of old in our owne J£m l ' countricthe like teftimony hath bene given to fhew the authority of Synods. comr.i.de We read ( f j of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore , Archbi- , Verbo Dei, ihop of Canterbury , Anno D. 6 80. where it was ordained that Pro vinciall Synods ^ o ^3> &c « fhould be kept within the Realme at leaft once a yeare. Another Synod (g) was comrade held at Wincbefter, Anno D. 1 070. where Stigandus Archbifhop of Canterbury was Sum j>om. depofed for receyving his pall from BenediB the lift: And another (ty was after I -4' c -*»z»3* held at London , where many decrees were made in the time of Lanfianc^ the fctconcil I Archbilhop , Sec. This being the continuall and univerfall pra&ife of the Pa- Trid.Bui. * I pifts,what fenfe was there in M'Canne to alledge their teftimonies in fuch a poynt J ndia 'P'& wherein they are fo full and pregnant againft him Mt is the fault of Papifts , that St p*5~ they give too much authority unto Synods; and it is asgrolTeafauItofthefe 67. I my oppofites , to pervert their teftimonies , contrary to their meaning & pra&ife, ( e ) m * further then their words will beare . Confirm. p.x43,5cc. (F) Ad.Sc Mon.panz,col.i.art,7, fg) Ibid.p.iyj. (hj F.ij7, Sect. II. Touching the Teslimonks of Lutheranes . N their firft allegation taken from Lurheranes they fay, It is affirmed by the Centuries of Me^ denburg , thatfiom ChriBs afeenfion , unto Trajans time , which n about a \ooy eaves , every particular Church was governed, by the Bilhops , Elders and Deacons of the fame. Cm.i.c.4. Tothislanfwer: This allegation comes jmort of the queftion in hand , and is therefore infufficient and perverted to prove that the Churches then did not ftand under any other Ecclefiafticall 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 thofe times to Y 5 judge I i 7 4 THE POWER OF judge ofthea&ions of Bif hops > Elders » and Deacons, in cafes of controverfy which could not be well ended in particular Churches; but the contrary is ex- (i)Magdeb. preffely taught by the fame (») Authors . Particular Churches among us alfo are Cen d c~* S overnec ^ ^V their owneBifhops, Elders, & Deacons,thoughnotby them alonei col546.Sc efpecially in matters of greater difficulty . Whereas they alledge another place C.7.C0I. on this manner, Cent.6. 7. C0/.99 1. there is a notable abufe therein, for, i.Whac ?*2.3c reafon had they toalledge the hiftory of the fixt Centurie to ihew what was done (k) 2 CoL- in the firft Centurie, from ChriftsAfcenGon to Trajans time? 2. As for the (*) 4.4.SCC, 7 th chapter of that Centurie , there are more then an 100 or 200 teftimonies fhewing the power of Metropolitane Bilhops , and of Archbifhops, which they exercifed in many Churches , Antichrift being almoft come to his height at that time . 3 . As for that place of the fixt Century poynted at by his marginall quo- tation , viz. Col.^i . All that is there fpecifyed at large in the ftory concerning Richaredus a King ofSpaine, converted from Ananifme,& fubmitting himfelf (l; Syn. U nto the (U Synod, then afTembled , is againft them that include all Ecclefiafticall io et.3. 3U chority within one Congregation onelv . If thefe quotations be mifprinted > ic was great negligence in M r Canne to look no better to his work . Againeitisalledgedfrom the Magdeburgenfes i Cent.z.c;.p.i^ i \^';. that from Trajans raigne unto SeveruSyftom the yeare of Chrift 1 00 to \ 9^ , If any read the approved Authors of this age , he frail fee that the order of Government wm popular : for all Churches had equall power, &c. This teftimony is alfo abufed. 1 > There is one fabrication in miftranflating of the words: for they doe not fay that then the government wai popular , as M r Canne fets it downe -, nor yet that it was like unto a popular govern- ment \ but onely this is fayd, that it was almoft like unto a popular government, propemodum Sypoxgcclictg. fimilemfuijfe: And how great is the difference betwixt chefe aflertions t even as much as there is betwixc being a Chriftian , and almoft a Chriftian; fo plainly diftinguifhed , AB.z6.z9. 2. Wh3t though the govern- met of the Church was almoft like a Democracie? Or what though all Churches had equall power then ? Could they not therefore ftand under the authority of Synods? It is a perverted reafoning fo to argue . Even here all the Reformed Churches among us have equall power , and are partly Democraticall , and yet are mutually and equally fubjeft to one another in their Synods. 3. There is another egregious falsification in the alledging of this teftimony, by omitting that which principally concernes the Queftion : for when thefe of Magdeburg fay here, that all Churches had equall power of teaching the Word,adminiftringof Sacramemsyexcommunicacing> ordination and depofition of Minifters,they adde withall in the fame Chapter, and in the very fame fentence & period, in the words immediately following touching this equall power of Churches, that it was for the gathering of Synods and Affemblies > and this not for counfell onely , but for thejud- (m) Col. & n Z and- Abiding of matters doubtfull and controverted. And not onely t his , but after 135. agamein the fame page , Un) this power of Synods in judging and excommunica- (njcent.j*. lxn p f Hereticks, is further declared and repeated , it being the very fcope of that co 9 r^9. OC ' Section to defcribe the power of Synods in the confociation of Churches. And tf oW. further in this fame U) Century , as in others according to their order , they doe rehearfe GLASSES AND SYNODS. m rehearfe divers Synods held in thofetimes>as that at Rome,atCefarea inPaleftine* & others in France, in Pontus, in Achaia » &c. In the next place confounding the order propounded by himfelf , he brings in among his Lutherane witneffes, (°) Mr Brightman, who as he faith , comes downe (o)On£ev. lower>even unto Conftantines time , and is of opinion , that theprimitive purhieofu-u Church government: , wtu not yet defloured with the dregges of mans invention : Neither had Sata brought in Frelaticall pride into thejheepfold of the Lord : but the Vaftours looked every one to the health of his owne flock. Hence it appeares (favch M r Canne ) that for thejpace ef zoo or 3 oo y tares after Chris! , every vifible Church had power to exercifi EcclefiaHicall government^ &c. Now to f he w how vainely this is alledged> i. Obferve how farre it is from the Queftion: for though the Paftours looked every one to the health of his owne flock , this prooves not that the power of ClatTes and Synods is an un- due power. Doth he thinke that either lor anyMinifter ofthefe Reformed Churches will not acknowledge the fame i Yea doe not Paftours then looke the better to the fafety of their flockes, when as in needfull cafes they feek the help of Synods therein ■* i. Let him confider his (p) former witneffes what they fay (p)Magdeb. concerning this third age of the Church* f hewing in what manner Paftours did ^("'j' 0,7, then looke to the health of their flock. If any weighty queflions , diffenfions or Here- & c> ' * pes arofe y they did nothing by their private counfell, neither dursl they , <$c. but calling toge- ther other fellow-Bishops of the fame province , either all or man) , by conferring their judge- ments together , they decided the queslions , compounded the diffenfions , refuted the Herefies , «md excommunicated them that were obfiinate > &c. And this is further ihe wed at large by many inftances and examples in the fame place. And (q) after againe they de- Cqjt&t",?. [cribe divers Synods that were held in thofe times in Afia, Europe and Africa, for j^J e p' n ' :heexercifeofEcclefiafticall jurifdi&ion in deciding of controverfies , &c. 3. j^&c? That M r Brightmans words are perverted and wrefted to a wrong end,againft the jauthority of Synods , contrary to his meaning , it appeareth by the rare and preg- inantteftimony he gives unto them in the (Ofame book, where he teacheth that (OOnRev, he vifion and type of the Angel ftanding at the golden Altar before the throne **3*4." pvith a golden cenfer full of incenfe, was accomplif hed in Cmfiantine the great* ga- :hering together fo many holy men in the Synod or Councell ofN/«for theck* riding of the controverfy about Ar'w> and f hewes that the wholefome conclufion ind happy iffue of that Synod, effefted by the care , labour, diligence and charges rf Confronting , was acceptable to God in Chrift , and as a thick cloud of incenfe fcendmg out of the hand of the Angel in the prefence of God. And thus alfo le (0 interprets a former vifion of another Angel that came up from the riling of (0 OnRev. he Sunne, having the feaie of the living God,to feale the fervants of God in their 7,7 " i% - breheads. This he expounds of Gonftantineznd of the Nicene Synod , he being he principall inftrument to call that Synod. While the Godhead of Ghrift coe- [uall and confubftantiall with the Father was maintained in that Synod , and the rueth fpread abroad by the authority of Gonftantine and of that Synod,and many onfirmedin theprofeflion thereof,thereby they werefealed in their foreheads,& i he name both of the Lamb and of the Father was imprinted on their foreheads 3 , ceording to that in Bjv. 1 4. 1 . In i7<$ THE POWER OF In the expofition of chat myfticall Song of Solomon , where there is mention made oiafountaine of gardens , a well of living waters , andftreamesfiom Lebanon , this fOComenc. M* Brightman doth alfo (0 interpret and particularly apply unto the Synod of in camicc. j^i a : The decrees f t h at § ynod are bv h im avouc hed to be the living waters to 75,76. refref h and make fruitfull the gardens of God, which are the Churches of Chrifh And while he alledgeth fuch divine warrant to prove the fruit and benerit of Sy- nods, how injurious is M r Canne unto him in perverting his teftimony ? yea how injurious to the Church of God in drying up thefe fountaines of comfort , by his impugning the authority of Synods ! Befidesthis, to omit other the like teftimonies of M r Brightman touching (v)OnRev. Synods, even in that (v) very place mentioned by M r Canne, touching the purity 12I « of the primitive Church, Mr Brightm. maketh mention of Vaults Samofatenus & the Synodicall Epiftle concerning him , and fo leadeth us to that ftory , which f hewes the power of Svnods in that primitive age. For there we read that about (x) Enfeb. the yeare of Chrift 280 , there was a (*) Synod held at Antioch, where many Bi- 7x^7, * hops and othcrs met together from many Churches and out of divers Provinces! 28.8c 29/ wno did not onely give counfell about the controverfv , but gave fenrence againft edit. Bafii. J>aulns Samofatenus , and by common confent rejected and excommunicated him ; 161 1. Aurelianus the Emperour ufing his authority to reprefle the infolency of that per- fon when he would have refitted the Synod. The fame ftory is recorded alfo by ( y ) Cent.3, che fy) Magdeburgenfesin their Centuries, (hewing that divers Synods were heldac 206^07. Am ' l0Q k about that bufines before it could be fi: >ifhed. Whereas they doe here in their marginall note fend me to fee what Mr lacoh faith, Necejf. of Reform, p. 57. «yc I have long fince feene what he writes both in that place , and in other of his treatifes publilhed of later time: and though he went too farre in this bufineiTe, yet I finde that he difallowes the pra&ife & judg- ment of the Brownifts , and wonders at their blindenes , and bewailes it. For fpea- (z)Atteftat. king ofMorellius and the popular government which he ftrove for , he fayth , (*) c. 8. p. 249. Some of the Separation 9 1 grant, are too ojfenfive this way: which I am heartily fory for* They take the wordesin Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church , more popularly theu^ there is 1 need 3 or then reafon or good order would. Howbeit in this yet they hold thefubftance ofthz^, j (a) Beza, % Y ue Church -government. They erre butin the circumftance of order, though it be too (a) foule Mat °ii m \7 ^ at *• ^ Wl ^ exam * m dlfandalls, tyc. whatfoever in theprefence and under thejudge- ' mem of the whole multitude perpetually and neceffarily. 1 fay perpetually and necejfarily* Wherein I wonder they fee not the many very ill Confequents , which wiU andmufi enfue many (b) P. x%o, t i m es. And afterwards againe in trie fame (b) chapter, he faith, Butto boldthofepoptt- a ° l ' lar circumftances in every Church perpetuall and neceffary abfoluttly as theSeparation doth it was neither Cyprians meaning nor Chrifts , nor any well advifed Chriflians. Yea upon this his teftimony touching the diforderof theBrownilts 5 he fets this note and mark of his vehement diilike in the margine of that page , Separation Hfelfis no fuel error .as this is. And this ought ferioufly to be confidered of M r Canne and hii client. . ; (c) ch. pi. In the next place Cc) he brings divers allegations of Scriptures and other Au- 1 p. 8 1, thors to proye that we may not change the Apoftolick Government , nor leavl the: GLASSES AND SYNODS. 177 their infiitutions,&c. In all which he be2tes the ayre, and trifles, leaving the queftion that is betwixt us , as I have noted (d) before: feeing they prove not that (*) p - Hu the authority of Synods is againft the Apoftolick inftitution. Come we there- &c * fore unto his teftimonies of Luthefanes , & of fuch as he confufedly mingles with therm viz. of %uinglius t Luther, ChemnitmSiMelanahontSarceriuSyBrentiuSi D. Run- gius, Hunnius, Ofiander, Salneccer, Pelargus, D. Mylius , Hegendorphin , &c. Thefe all are notably perverted by him. for to anfwer lirft in generall : What though thefe teach that the power of excommunication , of calling Minifters , &c. is in the whole Church; doth it therefore follow that Synods may not judge the actions of a whole Congregation if they abufe their power ? If Congregations call a Mi- nifter, though never fo vile or fo unworthy >or if they would excommunicate an innocent perfon ; (hail there be no liberty of appeale unto a fuperiour Eccleliafti- call judicatory for the redreffe of fuch wrongs? Or doe any of his Lutherane wit- nefles condemne fuch an appeale ? This he ought to have concluded from their Teftimonies by fome juft confequence , if he would have fpoken to the purpoie. The infultation of M r C. and W.R. upon thefe teftimonies is moft vzinc, & con- tained! many falfhoods. It is falfe that my opinion is a new opinion as they call it ; It is falfe that thefe Lutheranes are contrary unto me : It is falfe that upon my grounds Officers how vilefoever mufl be left alone, if Minifters of other Churches judge them fit to con * tinue: It is groflely falfe that the power which I leave unto particular Churches is juftnothing: It is an open and foule falihood,that thefe many Authors alledged doe eonfent fully withthemMz. with M r Ganne and W. Belt, But this will more plainly appeare,ifwe take a particular fur vey of the chief of thofe witnefleshereprodu« ced, whofe teftimonies he vouch&feth to let downe. The firft of thefe is %umgUut,who though he was no Lutherane, as M r Canne inotes in his margine , who had promifed to kt downe his allegations taken from iLutheraries, next after the Papifts; yet here he is brought in with Luther. And as !he is mifplaced in refpecl: of the order which M r C. propounded to himfelf, fo his iteftimonies both touching excommunication and calling of Minifters are uniuftly [alledged againft us. In the firft fort of teftimonies touching excommunication", not to fpeake of M r Cannes altering and tranfpofing his Authors words co make them ferve his owne purpofe , fyinglius reprooves the abufes and enormities of the Pope and his Bif hops , undertaking by their fble authority to excommunicate thofe that were none of their Church. His words are thefe, fcj fj private man may (e) Art.3 r. excommunicate , hut the Church wherein he that is to foexcommunimed doth divell , together pith theBiJhop. And in the explication of that Article,having fpoken of other abu- fes about excomunication,he faith, Can theSijbop alone excdmunicatefExcSmunicatton doth not belongunto any one man whofoever hebe, but unto theChurch.By thefe & the like peeches offyinglius it appeares that his teftimonies are not prejudicial! unto our pra&ife , nor unto that authority of Synods which we maintaine : feeing we grant :hatno one perfon alone can by right excommunicate any man by his owne au- thority ; neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate thofe that are noc >n communion with them. The other place cited out of fyingliM touching the calling of Minifters } is fo farre from prooving any thing againft us , that being Z - duely t7* THE POWER OF 4uelv considered it may fitly ferve to blame thofe popularcourfes vvhichM' Can. pleacfes ibr, and to juftifyour pra&ifein not performing this weighty bufinefle without t^advife and approbation of neighbour Miniftersaflembled in theClaf- fis. A^uinglius'm that treatife called Ecclefiafles, having fpoken of the Popilh tyran- ny, bereaving moft Churches of the liberty of election, he reprooves another ex- ( f) EccleC treme , faying , ( f ) If there were any Church unto which eleBion was yet left free , the com- Tom. z.f. mm p eo pi e ra fijly , without all deliberation , and without all counfell of learned , prudent and faithful I men,did chocfe thofe whom they did mo (I favour,^ not fuch as were indued with true vertues btfeem'mg a Bijhop. Therefore there is nothing fo agreeable unt o the Divine ordinanct and ancient inftitution, as that the whole Congregation of a faithful! people, together with fomt learned and godly Bijhops , or other faith full and experienced men , doe makechovfe of a Pa- flour. Thus he plainly difavowes the independency of Churches in fuch cafes, not allowing a Congregation to proceed unto the ele&ion of a Minifter, without the affiftance of the Minifters of other Churches, and to this effe&he explaines himfelf further in the fame place , faying , It is meet that the power of eleBion foould be in the Church being furnifned with thecounfels of faithfull and learned men. For as that mat* ter may not lye in the power of any one man , fo neither may the rude and unlearned multitude take upon them fo great a weight of eleBion,^ ct\x\d, in the fame leafe fpeakmg of Ana- baptifts intruding themfelves into the Churches of their owne accord , he proves that they are no lawfull Minifters becaufe they have not a due calling, thus , Bijhops they are not. for they are not chofen of any Church by lawfull and unanimous confent* the authority of other B : flops cxcellingin faith and prudence, alfo concurring. Obferve how that with the free confent of the people he joyncs not onely the counfell orad- vife, as he had called it before > but the authority of the Officers of other Con- gregations . Moreover that \uinglius did not abfolutely deny the authority ofSynods,though\ hefpeake much againft Popifh Synods, may appeareif weconfider thereafons which he ufeth againft them , viz. becaufe they were not aiTembled in the holy Ghoft, becaufe they did not judge of matters according to the Scriptures,but ac- cording to the ordinances and cuftomes of men, &c. Now this is not to difpute againft the thing itfelf, but againft the abufe of it. And therefore having fpoken againft fuch Councels , of the Pope , Cardinals , and Bif hops , in fuch fort as Mr (g) Ch. pi, Canne had alledged him (g) before , he addes withall , (h; Ijpeake onely ofthefe that f K) Art 8 are f uc k > m y writings Jhall not hurt others, whofet themfelves under the Scripures,mt above cxpl, ' the Scriptures. And that thefe conditions for the want whereof he oppofed thofe Popifh Synods , may yet be found in other Synods which have made decrees for the deciding of controverfies rayfed in the Church , he acknowledgeth in thefe (i) Paramef. words, (i) If the Council! ofGangra were ajfembled in the holy Ghofl (which no good man ad comun . will deny , while he fees that the decrees thereof doe agree with the lawes of the G ojpell and with Helvet. civ. t \ K doBrine of the Apo flies) it was unworthily done of thofe that came after ,that have difanuU ^ ora. i . . ^ ^ £ ecms ijj ereo f t without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures. Againe in another place, fpeaking of the foure Generall Councels , though he juftly blame thofe that accounted them to be of equail authority with the foure Evangelifts 9 teles* t° 1 V > et ne faith , te) Trudy I would not have any Wing to h detraBedfiom them. He was not 237.' ' ' * there- CLASSES AND SYNODS. 179 therefore of M r Cannes minde , who will have all EccieOafticali jurifdi&ion to be detracted or removed from Synods. Befides, Zyinglius doth not oneiy approve of thefe Synods held in former times , but he alfo ihewes himfelf ready to joyne in the like pra&ife, even in the exercife of the fame Ecclefiafticall authority that was ufed in thofe Synods. For when the Magiftrates b£%urfch had affembled to- gether all the Minifters of the Churches both in their city and countrie, and had procured the prefence of divers others,for the folemne vindicating of the do&rine taught in their Churches ; there Faber, Vicar of the Bilhop of Gonftance , having fpokenofaGenerall Councell, that it oneiy had authority to determine thefe things, ^/fwg&tf replyes j ( l ) Wkarm in this ourajfmbly there hefo many right faithfull (I)A not oneiy to confult and 6-i.&c. difpute, but alfo to determine , yea and to make decrees for the removing of con- troversies & fettling peace in the Church>while they did it according to theScrip- tures, which is the fame that we maintaine. The words of Mr Luther, whom he cites in the next place, as they are to no ipurpofe alledged againft us , feeing they touch not the queftion > as I {hewed be- | fore ; fo being compared with other his writings , they make it appeare that thefe two propositions may well ftand together, viz. that the Church hath power to i judge, to call, to depofe, &c. and yet that all Ecclefiafticall jurifdiftion is not con- fined within the bounds of a particular Congregation , but that Synods & Coun- celis have authority to judge of Church affaires and to cenfure offendours : foraf- | much as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other. In the yeare 1 518, having tmderftood that they proceeded againft him in the Popes Court at Rome, and that an unjuft fentence was likely to be pronounced by them? (n) he appealed from the Pope to a Councell or Synod. The compleat forme of (n) Skid. Ihis Appeale is recorded (o) among his workes , wherein he doth plainly acknow- Comment. ledge the Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion of Synods , both by the whole drift and fub- f yrom. 1 . ftance thereof, and when he fait h that a j acred Councell being lawfully affemhhd in the f. 23 1 . edit. holy Ghofl t reprefentingtheholy CatholickChurch, is in caufesconcerningthe faith above the I 54J- (Pope , <2rc. This his Appeale was repeated and further urged in the yeare 1 520 > when the Pope had condemned and excommunicated him. Among other rea- fons which he ufeth to reenforce his Appeale, he alled^eth this, (p) that the Pope fp)Tom.2, \ pronouncethfentence , but wit h thti condition , that it be according t o L aw* i } - 6 1 , , (fc. Thut a Councell condemnes an Hcreticl^not according to their owne opimonMt accor- ding to the Rjyall law-, that n , according to the holy Scripture , m they prof effe, which h the Lawoftbz- holy Church. Speaking of the right and power of Councells> having (r)ibid.f. f hewed (0 that it is not lawfull for them to make new Articles of faith , to corn- er 7,-Scc'. ' mand any new work> to binde mens conferences to new ceremonies, nor tointer- sieidcom, meddle with Civill government; hedeclareth withall that it is their duety to con- demne new doctrines contrary to the Scriptures , and to cenfure the perfons , to remove and condemne new ceremonies that are fuperftitious or unprofitable for the Church , and to examine and judge of thofe things that are controverted as it is prefcribed in the word of God. Moreover demanding what the office or work (fjUbifu- of a Councell is > heanfwers, (0 xAnathematifamm , [we pronounce Anathema] fon pra,f, 2$o, their office called, Anathmatifat Ecdefia , the holy Church condemnes or excora m u n i- cates. SofarrewasLuthiifrom denying the authority of Synods, that heal- lowesthem the power of pronouncing this heavie fentence of ^Anathema or Ex- communication. To proceed unto his other witneiTes , there is nothing in the words alledged out of Chemnitim and Poh carpm Lyferut (who is the Authour of that part of the Harmony , quoted under the name oiChemnitiui) that by any juft confequence can be oppofed unto our doctrine and praetife, touching election, excommunication, examination of fentences , &c. Onely obferve how M r Canne here abufeth his Authour and his Readers by his imperfect allegation , fetting downe this teftimo- ny of Chemnhius in fuch manner , as if that which was fayd with an exprefle condi- tion , had bene uttered (imply and abfolutely without any fuch reftrainr. Chemni- tius fayth indeed that eleBion orcaliingdctbbelongunto the whole Church: but how ?thac M r Canne leaves out > as unfit for his purpofe, which his Authour addes imme- diately in the fame period , faying that it belongs unto the whole Church , certo fjuodammodo , in fuch wife that both the Prejhtery and the people have each their owne foare. (t) Exam, in the choyfe or calling. Chemnitius in that (0 learned difcourfe touching the calling ConCi J r ^ d - of Ministers, intends principally to prove, againft the Councell of Trent, that the cr^m. Ord." confent of the people and of the Chriftian Magiftrate is requifite in elections: but Can.7. ' withail he gives as full and plaine teftimony for the judgement , examination and approbation of the Prefbyterv ; under which he comprehends the Minifters of other Congregations , called Biihops and Clerkes in the places alledged by him. And this kinde of election he ihewes to be agreeable unto the praetife of theApo- ftolick, primitive, ancient, and their owne moderne Churches. Befides Chem- nitius doth fufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods, (v)Exanv wmc h is our maine queftion, in divers pregnant pafTages of that book which he p*?i'.pta£ wroce a S a i n ^ the Councell of Trent, He W alledgeth & commendeth the words- of CLASSES AND SYNODS. 1B1 of Auguftine»faying that mofl wholefomt tithe authority ofCouncels in the ChiYch,while they judge accordingto the rule and fquare of the holy Scripture ,#*. Hefaith fa that ma- fa) Ibid. ny have often wifhed and long waited for a true, lawfull ,free , and Chriftian Exam - °e« Councell, as the right medicine for the curing of thofe manifold errours and abufes Lret - I, ° c 2i that were crept into the Church. He doth frequently alledge and approve the afrs ofEcclefiafticall jurifdi&ion exercifed in former Synods, throughout that whole booke. He faith indeed in one of the places cited by M^ Canne (y) that ^ bic ** the decrees of Councells are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture : but this pnE doth no more empaire that authority of Synods which we aflcribe unto them , then it doth the power of ail Ghurch-asfts and fentences whatfoever , concerning which Chemnitius fafayth the fame thing; and M r Canne cannot deny but that fa Exam. they are to be examined and tryed by the word of God, though they be made in bon^qu. fuch manner as he himfelf farequirech. 2. There is another allegation otQhemnit'ws touching the diftinftion betwixt power- fa ch >P } * and the administration of it > which M r Canne hath taken at all adventures > as it ? ' 95 ' feemes » from My Parker , or rather from the Scribe or Printer , that caufed that quotation [Exam. c. 6.] to (tend fo defectively ( b ) in his booke,- and as he is thus (b)Pol.E c - briefe and obfcure in the quotation , fo he is as fparing in the application of this c U.3.p.i6. teftimony unto his put pole, bidding us onely obferve what is attributed to the Con- gregation , what to theguides thereof * to the firfi power , to the latter the administration of it. For the thing it felt' » ^e grant that there is fuch a diftin&ion alledged out of Lu- ther, and explained bv Chemnitius , teaching (c)that Chrisl hath delivered andcommen- fa Exam. ded the Kjyes, that is > the miniftery of the Word and Sacraments , unto the whole Church • Conc >J tlil hut notfo ,• that everie one rafhly and of his owne accord fcould take unto himfelj 'and exercife eram'\h£. that miniflery without a lawfull calling : but that after immediate callinghath ceafed , Cod Can. 10. .'. fends the Minifters of the Word and Sacraments , by the calling andeleBion of the Church, if it be performed according to the direction of his word- 3 fo that the chiefe power of the. Word and Sacraments is in God- fecondly that the miniftery is in the Church, as by which God doth mediately call, choofe, and fend Mini tiers - 3 thirdly in thofe who arelau fully chofen and cal- led ofGodky the Church, as in the Ministers , to whom is commanded the exercife or admini- stration of the miniTxery of the Word and Sacraments. Not to fpeake of fome difference, which the Reader may eafily perceivcbetwix-t M? Cannes allegation and his Au^ thors words; there is nothing here fayd that doth any way prejudice the jurifdic- tion of Synods , neither can he from hence inferre any thing againft us . Moreo- ver if that diftinctio be confidered according to the meaning oTthe Authors from whence it is taken, it doth flatly contradict the opinion and practife of M r Canne and others of the Separation, who will have not onely the power but alfo the exe- cution or adminiftration of it to be in the people promifcuouOy , when all caufes muftbe brought to the body of the Congregation > there to be heard and deter- mined. Thus Mr Parker ( A) oppofeth this diftin&ion unto the Democratic or (d)Poi.Ec-- popular government of Morellius , whom Mr lacob in this refpecl parallels with ^.p.*^ them of 'the Separation, as was noted fa before. Thefe maintaine that the people {e) p - aretoexercife their power in judging of caufes , which the ia^Authors , both ' yr>i Chemnitius andM r Parker,conceive to be derived into the Ariftocraticall part or Z 3. Gffi* i8i THE POWER OF Officers of the Church, for the ordinary exercife of it; (he ftill retaining herin- tereft therein fo farre that in matters of fpeciall moment nothing be concluded without her knowledge and confent. That moderating and guiding of the acti- on, which M r Canne and thofeof his minde referve onely unto the Officers of the Church , in which refpeft he doth here call them Guides, cannot make that diffe- rence betwixt the judiciall exercifing of power , as it is in the Officers, and the firft recey ving of that power , which isiayd to be in the whole Church by thofe that maintaine that diftin&ion. In a word, they fay that the exercife of this power doth not ordinarily belong unto the people, he faith that it doth. Such is the agreemet betwixt M r Canne and his witnefles. Melanchthon^whom healledgethforthefame purpofe with Chemnitius (as M K (f) ubxfu- Parker had done ( f ) before) hath not any thing in the place mentioned that founds pra,p that way. He fpeakes there [Loc. Thiol, de E^egno Ghrini] onely of the fpirituall kingdome of Chrift, againft the Jewes and fome forts of Anabaptifts, Neverthe- lefle feeing he was one of fpeciall eminency among thofe with whom he is here joyned»itmaybe ufefull toobferve how M r Canne is condemned by thiswit- nefle alfo , whom he hath fought to produce againft us in this controverfy tou- ching the authority of Synods. Among other Articles propounded unto the Proteftants to enfnare them, this being alfo queftioned , Whether the holy Oecume- (g) Refpof. nicall and receyved Synods have erra^Melanchthon anfwers, (g) By this gener all demand ad AmcBa- fay f ee j^ t0 \>j n dle hatred againft us , as ifwefeemed to reprehend all Synods & all things that r 7- ^ avg y^^ ^^ .^ §y no fc t g nt we p ro fejf e openly , that there ought to be judgements in thc~. Church - and we affirme that there have been-, many godly Synods and profitable unto the^ 1 Church \ and we doe greatly wiflt now itiu thefe diffemions that the judgement of the Church might be rightly fettled. If he had bene of M r Cann.minde,hefhould haveanfwered farre otherwlfe , viz. that all thofe Synods erred that exercifed any Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion, that they were to be blamed for the making of all thofe Aftes where- in fuch authority and power was implyed , fuch as were generally all the Attes of the Synods ofAntioch, Nice, Confiantinople, Ephefus, Chalcedon, Gangra, <$c. which as he faith in the fame place, their Churches doe imbrace ; heihould have fayd al- fo according to M r Cannes principles , that though there may and ought to be judgements, that is, Ecclefiafticall fentences and cenfures in particular Congrega- tions , that yet they ought not to be in Synods , or AfiTemblies of Minifters of fe- verall Congregations , that thefe have no fuch power to judge , that no fuch de- terminations are to be defired. But Melanchthon we fee , declares himfelf to be an oppofite unto fuch conceits : and left we fhould thinke that by the judgements of the Church he meant not fuch as are exercifed in Synods , or that by judgements he underftood rather acts of confultation, inquifition & deliberatio>then of determi- nation, and pronouncing of fentences; heare how he explaines himfelf elf where, (h) Eftarr. faying, (h) There are in the Church judgments concerning doBrine, which are called Synods. Tom b ff C And againe , Synods are ordinary judgements , which are pronounced againsl the unwilling, 391. cu they ufe to fay. yAnd the Church is commanded to make a lawfull inquiry , which being done , if [fentence] be rightly pronounced , obedience is to beyeelded. And if any doe not obey, he isjuslhpunifhed. He hath alfo upon other occafions given plaine and pregnant tefti- CLASSES AND SYNODS. i% teftimonies of his judgement in this particular : among the reft j that efpecially is worthy our obfervation, which he writes in a certaine Difputation concerning Synods ; it being one of thofe Difputations which Luther by a preface thereunto prefixed hath commended unto the Readers , for which caufe it feemes > they are alfo inferred among -Lwkw workes , as being in fpeciall manner approoved by- ,, him. (i) There Melanthon intending to fpeak of Synods , reafoneth thus : It is {%) Lathi ,, moft true and moil agreeable unto the nature of men that which Plato fayth , Tom.i^ 9> that the beft ftate of a Common- wealth is that which is the meane betwixt Ty- 444»445 ■ 9, rannie and Democratic , [or popular government.] This is to be framed and j> maintained, as in all government fo efpecially in the Church Both thefe, Ty- )) rannie and Democratic j are to be avoydedand detefted in the Church , as moft >) noyfome plagues. It is Tyrannie to conftraine men to approve of manifeft im- 99 pietiej to obey contrary to the cleare word of God , Sec. Againe Democratic 99 alfo muft be removed from the Church , that is , the common people without 99 difference are not to have licence or power granted unto them to alter doc- 99 trines,or to give fentence concerning do&rines, for the Multitude alfo , as He- 9> rodotus fay ch> is a moft cruell Tyrant. But a middle ftate is to be fought , that 9i isi Anftocratie ought to be eftablilhed > wherein by proportion the authority of 99 the learnedeft and beft men may be the greateft. This Ariftocratie Paul requi- 99 reth 9 i. Cor. 14. Gal. z. and it is moft gravely written unto the Romanes > that 9> every one muft know the meafure of his owne faith. Kjm. 12. Therefore that 99tyrannicallfpeech is to be huTed at , which takes away this proportion in the 99 Church 9 and aflfcribes unto the Pope an unbounded Tyrannie > viz. which af- 99 firmes that greater is the authority of thePope then of the whole Councell be- 99 fide»&c. In the choyfe of judges the beft way is to follow that meane betwixt 99 Tyrannie and Democratic namely to choofe the beft and the learnedeft. When 99 by the confent of both parties good and learned judges are chofen » and matters 9 9 have bene examined in order,it is meet there ihould be an obeving of their judg- 99 ment : for every one ought to know the meafure of his owne faith. Thus Me- lanthon hath fully declared himfelf in this controverfy touching the ground of Synodall government j together with the power and ufe of the fame : yet for fur- ther fatisfa&ion it may be obferved how that in another place he applyesthat which is here fpoken againft Democratic or popular order, unto that part thereof which M r Canne fo much pleades for, concerning election unto Church- offices, 9, when he fayth 9 (k) According to ancientcuftome the Church did choofe,that (k) ibid.?. 9, is, thefe to whom the Church hath committedfthis bufinefie, & the judgement 44 2 - 99 and approbation of the Bifhop ordaining did alfo concurre. Contrary to divine 9, right and to the ancient Church is that Democratic , where the people doe 9,fnatch unto themfelves the election , without the judgement & approbation of Paftours. By PaBourshs meases doubtles the Minifters of other Congregations9 feeing he fpeakes of them in the plurall number,and feeing i: were unreafonable to thinke that in fuch cafes people Ihould negleft the counfell and confent of the Mi- nifters of their owne Church. He doth therefore by this plaine teftirnony juftifye our courfe in the calling o£Minifters9 by how much we doe not proceed therein with- ^4 THE POWER OF without taking along with us the advife and approbation of the Claffls > that is > of the Paftours of neighbour Churches. Forafmuch as we may eafily difcerne from that which hath bene hitherto fayd in this Seftion , what the judgement of the chiefe of the Lutheranes is in this con- troverfy , and what fmall credit is to be given unto M r Cannes allegations andaf- firmations touching the confent of others with him in thefe matters of difference betwixt us; it may fuffice to have examined the teftimonies of thefe Authors, whofe words he hath fet downe ; and for the reft , to judge of them according to the profefllon of their efteeme ofthofe already mentioned, which are of chiefe note among them > and according to the publick Confefllons of their Churches , (I) Sea. 7. of which we are to fpeak ( l ) hereafter , as alfo according to their generall praftife. Concerning this it is teftifyed by fome of them here named (not to fpeak of other evidences) that they are fo farre from including all Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion within the bounds ofa particular Church , that their Churches are governed by JLcckJiatficall Senates , or Confiftories , as they call them , which are gathered out of three rankes ofperfons, Politicall,Ecclefiafiicall, and Popular or OeconomicaU ; that thefe Eccle- fiafticall Confifiories are appointed and directed by the authority oftbechiefMagiftrate*\.\\2X by thefe the Magi fir ate dothexercife EccleJiafticalljurifdiBionaudcall Minifters- } that the election ofa Bijhop or Superintendent which of old was performed by all theBifiops of the Pro- vince, in which a new Bi\hop was to be chrfen , « now in well ordered Churches rightly perfor- med in the Confiftorie, where fome principal! Divines together with Politicall men, doe choofe a Superintendent , who is confirmed by theaffentand approbation of the chiefe Magifirate . Thefe are the aflertions olMylim , B^ungius , Ofiander and others , as they are cited (m) Difc. and approved by (m) Veftringim >one of the fame profefTion. Though thefe Au- Theoi de thors doe not accord with us in divers of the forefaid expreffions ; yet M r Canne X*7*o % haci ie ^ e cau *~ e t0 boaft of tneir con fe nt with nim > feeing they agree in this , that 18 arg'io. 7 ' their particular Churches are not independent bodies , but ftand underEcclefia- &c. ° ' fticall authority out of themfelves , holding that their Churches in this refpeft are well ordered. What trueth is there then in M r Cannes words , when fpeaking of thefe men he faith , they confent with us fully ? As for his jefting at the particular Churches , fuch as all the Reformed Churches are, in giving them a title of noun-adjeElives , that cannot Hand without Claffes and Synods , it may be demanded of him , whether among all the Orthodoxe Churches in Europe at this day , there was ever heard of fuch a ftaggering noun-fubjlantive , rent with fo many fcandalous Schifmes, as is that Anti-Synodall Church of theSeparation, whereof M r Canne calles himfelf the Paftour. Let thofe that are wife confiderof it. Sect. III. Touching the Teftimonies of Calvinifts. THus M r C. and W. B. doe ( though as they fay, for diftinftion fake, yet ) un- juftly call thofe Authours whom here they alledge : as if there were no other fit and convenient fpeech to defcribe Godly andlearned Minifters,o£ whom I fpake, but the name of Calvinifts. Though it be lawfuli to denominate men of their errours and Schifmes wherein they ftand againft the Churches of God, and to call CLASSES AND SYNODS. iS* call fuch Sectaries by names taken from them that have bene their chief ringlea- ders > as the Brownifts of Browne , and the Nicolaitans of Nicholas ; Rev. z. i $-„ y ec is there no warrant fo to ftile thofe whom we doe not charge with the like er- rours and offences. M r Canne (a) after an idle and impertinent declaration of his owne furmife and (a) Chu.pl. imagination) that thefe Authors, as hejs perfwaded,doe not teach the doctrine main- P«* u tamed bv me, and after an unjuft imputation which he implves , as if I ihould fav, that t he wtible Church ( Officers and brethren) wants authority to performe in , and for itfelf* all Churcb'fervices • he comes to name his Authors,and alledges the words of foure of them, and telles that the reft doe agree with them. His Authors are thefe , P. Martyr, Junius, Mufculus, Viret, Bullinger, Danaus, Gmlter , Sybrandus , D. Mcrnaus* Morell, Tilenus, Baftingius, Vrfinus, Pifcator , Calvine, Partus , Kjckerman , Hemmingi- us, Tofianus, Polanus, Hyperius, Pradirius, Munsltr, Oecolompadius, Be%a, Bucer. • / Having cited thefe witnefles to appeare for him, he then beginnes to infult and glory, faying , (b) Andnow M* Paget what thinke you of thefe men r were they not lear- (b) Chu.pl. ned and godly Minifters, Reverend and judicious Divines? Are thy not authentickP- s > witnefTes ? Jf you confejfe it j then markewhatfollowes : vh(.yourpofition that particular Congregations muft ftand under other EccleGafticail authorise out of thera- felves : /f hena condemned^ ajurieofmore then z^men,of your owne choofingfor anerrour and untruth : The reafon is 3 becaufe^. thefe ajfirme (I fay all of them) that every particular Elder jlvp, with the Churches confent , may lawfully proceed among themfelves to the excom- municating of offenders , whenfoevtr there is neceffary andjujl caufe. Neither doe they fay a word- that it ts a Divine inftitution, that the Minijlers of one Congregation } mujlfirjl ajke the leave and confent of other Minijlers , before they can lawfully adminifter this ordinance of Cod. Hereunto I anfwer ; The more Reverend , Godly and learned thefe Au- thors were, the greater is his offence that fhewes fo little reverence unto them, in perverting and abufing their teftimonies. If any Advocate (hould fo farre wrong a lurieot 24 men, as to failify their verdift contrary to their meaning; might it noc J uftly be counted a great forgery , and worthy of exemplary punif hment < Now that this is the fault of M r C. the Advocate and abettour of w. B. it may appeare in the firft place, by the generall confederation of their teftimonies alledged. For though it be generally affirmed by thefe Authors, that matters of great weight, as excommunication, absolution , choofing of Jvlinifters and the like , are not to be adminiftred without the common confent of the Church; yet this proves notthac it is unlawfuil to feek the counfell and help of a Claffis or Synod beforehand for the preventing of wrong, or that it is unlawfuil to appeale unto them in cafe of wrong done. Though particular Congregations have power to judge,it followes not,that they themfelves are therefore fubjeft to no other Ecclefialticall judgment out of themfelves. The errour&abfurdity of this confequence may better appeare by thefe examples: Though fathers & mafters of particular families have immedi- ate authority fromGod,& power to ufe it in a domefticall way,to performe famiiie I dueties,& judge of matters in the family; yet this hinders not but that their famiiie [ exercifes & works may be judged of by other authority in the city>where many fa- milies are cobinei together for their routuall governmet.Though particular cities A a in i8* THE POWER OF in and for themfelves have power to execute Judgement , and to punifh offences committed among them; yet this hinders not but that if thev judge unjuftlyor abufe their authority, that thev themfelves may then be judged of others. To come more particularly unto his Authors alledged , and firft for P. Marty/ whom he makes the foreman of the Iurie } though he writing againft the errour of the Romifh Church , teaching that Councels cannot erre,and preferring them a- bovethe Scriptures , have juft caufe to f hew the errours of fundry Coupcellsand Synods , efpecialh about that time when fo many wicked decrees were made by (c) Loc. the Councell of Trent; vet he addeth , that (c) thefe things were not fpoken , that the Com daff Authority of Councels fliould be wholly caft away. For (faith he) if they repnhend.excom- d^CorfcilJ 1 mtmicate or a tfohe according to the word of God , praying together by the power of the Spirit, (d) ibidc. thefejhallnotbeinvainenor without fruit. And afterwards againe he brings id) divine t>.$ m. warrant to fhew the uiftitution and order of Synods, from the example of the A- poftles, Atl. i $-. By which it may appeare how he held that there was a(uperiour Ecclefiafticall power above particular Congregations , and confequently that his teftimony hath bene perverted bv Mr Canne. The fecond Author alledged againft us is I««/«J,who notwithftanding is a mod pregnant witnefle for us> to f hew the authority of Synods. When Bellarmine ob- jeð againft the Protectants , that they reject Ecciefiafticall judgements* and re- (c) Anim- fufe the authority of Synods • this he (e) Ihewes to be raoft falfe. And further adv.inBsll, (fj he avouchet . both the juft authority and neceifity of Synods , and likewife the deConc'fn divine inftiturion of them , alledging often to that end befides other Scriptures » Prsef.n. i,t, that fentence of the Apoftle> i .Cor. 14.52. Thejpirits of the Prophets arefubjeB to tin 11.iM.13. Prophets. Though no fentence, whether of a particular Congregation, or of any el & 1 *'& ot ^ er J uc *ge> * s t0 ^ e yielded unto and allowed contrary to the word of God ; yec io.n. u%, according to chat word he (g) maintaineth that Synods are not onely to make in- & 1 i.n.i f quifition and to confult, but that they alfo have under Chrift a minifteriall judge- (g) ibid.c. ment touching the controversies either about faith or manners . Junius there- ScU.c! i.n fore is greatly abufed when it is pretended that he hath brought in a contrary ver- i.Scci6.n dift againft us. i.&c.i8.n The third man of the I«m,produced againft us>'is Mufiulus. Andhereitistobe ;' obferved; I. Thatitisuntruely affirmed by him in his words noted before>tou- ching the lurie of more then 24 men , that they are of mine owne^ choofing. For though I have a multitude of witneffes agreeing with me ; yet as none in particu- lar were named by me , fo Mufculus in fpeciall Ihould not have bene a!ledged>con- fidering his different judgement and praftife from other Reformed Churches.For although he confelTe that the power of ele&ion and deposition of Minifters, ex- communication , &c. was exercifed with confent of the people in the primitive (h) Loc. Church and in the Apoftles time : yet he faith , and that (h) often , that this order cdm.de was co De k epc while there were no Chriftian Magiftrates; and that t e order 199I.04.de which was then profitable to the Churches, is not fo at this time ; that it now be* EcclVp.jii longs unto the Magiftrateto appoynt Minifters, either by choofing them him- deMagift.j». felg or confirming fuch as were chofen by others at his commanderaent; that the 63 1 ,63 2,vx ^ u j e tfTtiiwg t fa Qhurch , hUt tb. 1 S. was in force while they were deftiture of *' 3, Chri- CLASSES AND SYNODS. rt 7 Chriftian Magiftrates. II, Though Mufculus differ from other Reformed Churches in this queftion of Church-government; yet he alfo moft evidently (even more then I doe) condemnes the opinion of the Brownifts and of my op- pofites , while he (*) maintaines that particular Congregations are fubjeft to ano- (i) ibi J. d« ther fuperiour power out of themfelvesin matters oiChurch-government; while ^e&Mnu he juftifieth the praftife of the Churches in Berne, where Minifters arechofen i n iir, P' 200, the citie , and by the Senate fent unto the Churches in the country fubjeft unto their juriicli&ion, as they thought beft. If Mufculus had bene of Mr Cannes & W» Befis minde, he fhould have forfaken thofe Churches and feparated from them, as not being a free people , while they wanted excommunication & power of choo- fing their owne Minifters. Who fees not here how notably they pervert the Au- thors alledged by them f Come we to the reft. In the next place he nameth Viret, but it feemes he is miftaken in his Allegati- on > there being no fuch booke of Viret , as he hath quoted in his margine ; he ra- ther feemes to meane Virell in the grounds of Religion : But whether he meane Viret or Virell* neither of them can be juftiy alledged for his witnelfes in :his caufe. For Viret , he is (k) recorded to have bene a fpeciall affiftant unto Calvine in the (k) Beza,in work of the Lord> for the fettling of that forme of Difcipline, by which the pow- ^i^ 1 ^ cr ofan Ecclefiafticall Judicarorie over divers particular Congregations,was efta- pi&^y* blifhedat Geneva. That weed of Ecckfiafiicall government by Clajfes and Synods (as j4»&c. Jvl r Canne here 0) calles it ) was planted by the hand of Vim,zs well as ot Calvine. ( l ) C M? And then what reafon is there tojudgebut thatF/mdidefteemeitaplantofthe^' heavenly Father,not to be rooted out of the garde of his Church,feeing he joyned jmth him in that work ? For Virell , he writes touching the outward calling of Minifters in the (m) place (m)GroMf, alledged, that it is the lawfull choyje of a vifible Church met together in the name of Chrifi ; of Rell 2* b * that there be three things required thereunto ; firfi,that there be^ afearch andtryall\ Q 1 ]^ % tboth of the eonverfation andlearning of him that is to he chofen/Sc Another k this* that men edit, i z. come not to it hy any corruptid of gifts fat that it befteeifo cu they that have the power to chofe* fhould have onely theglory of God-, and the edification of his Church before their eyes. Thirdly* that he which is chofen have a Church appointed unto him for the execution of his office , whofe duety it h to lookeuntoit diligently when we come to fpeak of their ConfeOIon. Touching the Ecclefiafticall power of Synods, Bul- (p)Decad. linger declares his judgement alfo in this fame booke, when (p)fpeakingofthe j.Ser.i. power of the Church in judging of doctrines he gives inftance in the gathering of a Synodi which faith he, the Church of God doth accordingto the power receyved from the Lord , even eu we read in-, the Abies of the Apoflles , that the Apoftles of the Lord (q) Decad. have done , &c. Againe he (m) cites and approves the decree of Juftinian the Era- j.Scrm.io. p erour , f or tne vearely celebrating of Ss nods,where matters arifing might be examined and by due correction healed. He urgeth this decree againft the Bimops , and warnes the Magiftraces to take heed they doe not connive at the others negligence, to tht detfruftion of the whole Church and of all the Minifiers ofChrifi. Behold here the dif- ference betwixt Bullmgerznd Mr Canne; that which the one holds to be the fo- veraigne remedy to preferve the fafety of Churches & of the miniftery , the other (0 ch.pl. rejects as an unprofitable weed > and that which tends to the undoing and (0 fpoy- r-74. ling of Churches. Danaus his teftimony is likewife unjuftly alledged againft us, feeing he fpeakes not in the place mentioned, of the point in controverfy betwixt us,viz.the autho- rity of Claffes & Synods,or the totall excluding of the fame in thole things which (Q In. 1. belong unto elections. Onely he doth there (0 reproove the groffe crrour of thofe Tun. j.". that in regard of fuch popular circumftances as M r Canne feemes mod to plead for, doe bring , as he faith, a very great confuiion into the Church , by aficribing unto the people more then is due unto them: while he fhewes that the elefting and prefenting of the perfon that is to be called unto any Ecclefiafticall office, whereby he underftands the rirft taking notice of himjthe examining of his life & do&rine,andthe publifhing or propounding of him unto the whole Church, that this belongs unto the Prelbytery; and that the approving and accepting of the perfon fo examined and propounded doth belong unto the people , they alfo ha- ving a convenient time allowed unto them, that if there be juftcaufe they may teftify their dimke and bring in their exceptions againft him. Thisisthecourfe there defcribed and maintained by Danceus , and the fame with that which is prac- tifed in our Church : And thus the Witnefles produced againft us,doe ftill declare their confent with us. As for the authority of Synods and the divine right by which it is due unto them, Danaus gives his verdi&,when in the expofition of the fourth commandement , having fpoken of the jurifdi&ion and power of the (r) Ethic. Church, he faith > (0 Herecomes in theQueflion concerning Synods , which if they be right chnft.Lib. ane i i^ep themfelves within^ their owne bounds , their authority is ordained by this Com* z,ca t 1,10, mandement . Gualter in the 00 firft place alledged , having fpoken of the duefuffrages or voi- in a^°i? \ ces °^ c ^ e Church in ekftions,to prevent fuch aconftru&ion as M f Canne feeraes ' to CLASSES AND SYNODS. iS 9 to make of his words, addes prefently , This place doth cUarly teach thatfome parts are committed to the Church in this bufimffe. And againe he faith there , that the eleBion of Minifiers doth infomepart belong to the Church , ts'c. He doth not therefore exclude that part which herein we affcribe unto the Cladis , by proceeding with their ad- vife and confent. In the other (x) place ("for M r Cannes marginall quotation [13. (x) ibid.in 22.] feemes to be mifprinted) he faith that by £€i£o7flV^ may be understood not c ^.-^'* 5 " onely the gathering of voices , but alfo impolicion of hands * and in his opinion the latter acception doth agree beft. Tor , faith he , it is not lihjiy that the ^Apofiles would depart from the fir ft order or courfe which we havefeen to have bene obferved in the elec* tion of Matthias, <$c. And upon AB. i.z6, he labours to prove that this man- ner of choofinj* is ftill to be obferved in the Church , as mofifafe and convenient , whereby certaine men being found that are efteemed meet for the office unto which the ele&ion is to be made) the event of our counf els may be referred unto the judg- ment of God> by catling lots; in fuch fort as Matthias was chofen unto the A- poftlelhip. However , that he doth not deny the matters of particular Congre- gations to be fubjeft unto the judgement of the Minifters of other Churches , af- (embled in a Claflls or Synod > may be gathered from thofe teftimonies which eve 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 Ge- nerall Councell which many then fo much defired, he fay th, (y) To me alfo it feemes (y)lbid. m to be a mofi profitable thing, if a free Synod could be obtained, in which all controverfies might ca Po" •**. he compofed out of the word of God alone : fuch as that Apofiolicall [Synod] was, of which we are tofteahjn chap. 1 5- . and fuch as we l{now thofe of old to have bene , vi% of Nice , Con' Jiantinople, Ephefits, Chalcedon, and the like , &c. And afterwards againe, (*) intrea- (2) Ibid, in ting of Pauls fending from Miletus toEphefus , and calling the Elders of the ca E zo <^ Church, be calles it a Synod : By which example , he faith , as thefaithfulnes and indu* flrie of Paul doth appeare,fo alfo we are admonijhed that the affemblies of Minifiers are alto- gether neceffary, in which Church-affaires may be handled by the common voycis of all. This- makes greatly for the maintaining of Churcb-difcipline , for the retraining of the ambition of Churchgovernours, for the preferring of confent ?&_. true doBrine , and for the repreffing of berefies , which (if Minifiers doe not mofi faithfully joyne their paines together) are wont of- ten to creep in. This he declares againe by the example of that Synod , xAB. \ 5Y and he commends the pietie and prudence of Confiantine the great , for his frequent aflerobling of Synods; as on the other fide he notes the wickednes of Lkinius and of Antickrifi , in refitting and hindring the due exercife of this authority of Synods * How doe thefe things agree with M r Cannes difcourfe, who yet alledgeth this Author, as one of the Jurie, by which he faith my pofition ( as he calles it ) is con- demned, viz. that particular Congregations muft ftand under other Ecclefiafticall authorise out of themfelves ? Touching Sibrandusxhe order of electing Minifters in thefe Churches (*) appro- (a) sibrld. ved by him, is the fame that is ufed in our Church, and approved by me alfo : and L "bt>.Refp. he hath notably perverted it in oppofing of it unto me, For that order hinders ^ pT'"' not but that there mav be another fuperiour Ecckfiafticall authority in a Claffis or ■ ' 59 * Synod, to judge of the elections made in particular Congregations 3 or of other A a 3 con- i 9 o THE POWER OF controverfies . This t rueth is fo often and fo earneftly avouched by Silrandus , thatfcarfely any have bene more vehement in this poynt. And in this very book alledged , he id his firft entrance, in the preface to the Senate otGdderland , com- plaines otGrotius for oppugning this order of Gaffes and Synods j and in the con* clufion of his preface he proferfeth that there was fcarfely any other meanes then aNationallSynodtohealetheevillsofthattime, and deGres them toperfwade (b) P. 140, the calling thereof. Afterward in the (b) book itfelf he (newts at large both from i4i*&c«- t h e Scriptures and praciife of ancient Churches, the ufe> the order,and the autho- rity of Synods j not onely in deliberating , but in judging and deciding of contro- (c) Epift. verfies. In his Difputation with Bertim he (hewes (0 that it is altogether needfull to FideT' dC ^ jav * a Sy m dicalljudgement to heale the wounds of the Church. I a his book againft Vorfti- (i/Deciar. m * a ^ rer * on S difpute > (4) in eonclufion he offerech , yea he provoketh and urgeth Refp.conr. him to referre their controverfy and differences to the judgement of otherChur- Vorffcp. ches, which he there nominates. And in the preface thereof unto the States J4*.i43> Generaliofche United Provinces, he Ihewes from the word of God and exam- ples of the godly, the necefliiv of Svnods, he declares what confufion anddiftrac- tion of Churches enfueth where they are negle&ed , and makes earneft fupplica- tion unto them for the maintenance of this order in government. In another of (eJGomew.his bookes againft Vorfiim , (e) both in the beginning , middle , and end of it, he rescvorft. *fi ar P es u P on cne ^ ame "ring. Kis appeale unto the judgement of other Churches, pref p. 4 j, ' and his willingnes to fubmit unto their judgement , with his deGre of a National! Cora.p.503 Synod , is plainely declared therein. Speaking of the fruit of Svnods , he faich (0 504.& p. £ j, ac t j ie ^Qjcjing f t h em m t h e i r Churches, hathbene next unto God thechieffnew of {f; iblcf. preferving both the true doftrine and tranquillity of the Churches : and that if any man-* ac~ pref.p.34, quainted with their affaires dare deny the fame, he/hall manifeft his impudency or make warn *h with hit owne conference. And thus by the verdift oiSibrandus , if my oppofites un- derstand the Difcipline and ftateof thefe Churches, and deny the fruit of Synods, they muft be held for impudent and unconfcionable perfons. Moreover in his CgJDeCoc. book againft BeUarmine concerning Councells he gives divers teftimonies (g) tou- 6c!u.ca' cmn § tne profitable ufe of Councels for the determining of controverGes , their & 1.5 ,"c!i," Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion , and the exercife of it in making decrees and cenfuring 3'5>*« offendours. By all which it appeares ho w injurious Mr Canne hath bene unto 57- hrandus in producing him as a witneffe againft the authority of Synods, whereas he hath fo often teftifyed his judgement to the contrary. (h) Hiftor. Mornaws in the place ( h ) alledged , hath no fuch thing as for which he is quo- gp-Pv tt*» ted j unleffe he meane that which is noted in one of the following pages , (») that 161I. '" tne Popes of Rome were chofen in publick aflemblies of the Friefis , the Mobility , (i)lb.p.Hj the common people, the Senate, by the voices of all , <$c* which if it be explained and ap- plyed to the queftion in hand , may eaGly be difcerned to fall fhort of proving any thing againft us. But this Author in the fame booke Ihewes plainly his approba- tion of Synods for the judgement of Ecclefiafticall caufes: He alledgeth frequent- ly and maintaines againft Barotitis and BeUarmine the judiciall Acts and fentences of fundry Synods againft the Popes of Rome. He calies thofe decrees of the Coun- (k p.iaiS. cell of Ba file * ( k ;C^oZ^ or univerfallwwfo, whereby it was ena&ed; u that the CLASSES AND SYNODS. i 9 r the power of a Generall Councell , yejwefenting the whole Church # above the Pope and event other perfon. 2. That the Pope cannot diffolve a Generall Couneell without their confem 9 &c. 3. That he that doth obftinately oppofe tbeforefaidtrueths » to be accounted anHeretick* He relates & comends the fpeeches of (I) Marjilius PatavinmM) Petrm de Alliaco> (0 P. ioro, and divers others, ihewing the power of Councels in judging and cenfuring the & p Pope, the neceflity of them, both Provinciall and Generall , for the correcting of gee. ' abufes, and amending of all forts of perfons and things with greater authority. Ke approves and defends (n) the renowned Italian Martyr, Hieronimus Savanor.ola*£or (n)P.i34i. feeking that a Generall Councell might be called for reformation of the Clergie> and degenerate eftate of the Church , &c. Befides this , he being in his time a principall favourer &maintainer of the DifcipIineintheFrenchChurchesswhere thecaufes of particular Congregations were judged and determined by Synods, could therefore be no favourer of the B; ownifts opinion , which count fuch go - vcrnment to be a miferable bondage and flavery of the Churches. Tilenffftzhit is alfo called to be one of their June againft me,doth moft exprefle- ly give his verdict on my fide againft the Brownifts. He teacheth (o) [hat the (o)Symag. fourefold power of the Church is to be exercifed not onely in Prefbyceries,but al- Dii pTheoi. fo in Councels or Synods: that 0) Synods according to the power granted of ^heff/' God unto his Church, may take knowledge of Eccldiafticali caufes, and by their (pjihef.i Judgements conferred together according to the word of God,may define, &c.& (q)giveminifteriallfenrenee ,&c. And" further he fairh, 00 *As it knot to be hoped Kyj^ '*$' for that the body of the Church militant on earth jball be pee from divers difeafa - 3 fo we may not thinkjhat it can want this remedy of Synods , which #e_ therefore affirme to be not onely lawful! but alfo neceffary, BattingM (hewing how Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church , faith no- thing but that which is pra&ifed both in our and other Reformed Churches of thefe countries, efpecially if it be marked how he explaines himfelf in the leafe following , where he addes that (0 EcckJiafitcaUdifcipline and excommunication itfelftf) Expof. ought to be adminifired by them who are ordained thereunto of the Church - 3 fuch as are Mini- Catech .Qu, fiers of the Word> and Elders , the reft of the Church confenting thereunto • yet with this cor- 3 ' region, that the multitude of the people doe not rule the a&ion, hut provide as watchmen , that nothing be done by a few as they lift themfelves. Befides,he being a member & Minifter ; of thefe Churches , and Regent of a Colledge in Leyden , there is no reafon from thefe his words to conclude againft the authority of Synods in judging the caufes of particular Congregations , if they either could not agree among themfeIves,or ihould agree in evill. For then he fhould have condemned his owne eftate and practife, which yet cannot be inferred from this his teftimony. Vrfintts alfo , though he teach that the unrepentant are to be excommunicated by the* tommoxu confent of the Church ,&c. yet doth he not thereby deny or exclude the power of Synods in judging of that which is done in particular Congregations; but doth plainly give teftimony with me . For (<) having fhewed the condiri- (t)Tom.a» ons and neceffity of Synods , he faith of chem , This remedie for the healing of the *^J? b °"5 h £ wounds of the Church is not to be negle&ed , which the holy Ghofi hath fhewed unto us ,by the C ord.*c. u* twnfell and example ofthtApoftles- which all reafon of ' divine mdbfinum right rehires 3 col, 6%'§, ' wbi(b . - ' -*& ■ i9* THE POWER Of which being lawfully ufed experience bath proved to be mofi wholefomefor the Church in many fv) Ibid, mofl grievous confufions of opinions. Neither was this his private opinion, but (v; wriC . Tic.Sc Col, ceri j n tne name of other Divines & Minifters in the jurifdi&ion of Prince Cafimir, 47 * and approved by them. Pifcatorhnh> Excommunication is a decree of the Church, & therefore ought (x) In i. to be done of the Church, [x) or of the Elderjlvp judging in the name of the Church.We Cor.y.Obf. grant as much or more in the praftife of ourCnurch, while the hlderihip never * "'*' exercifeth fuch power alone, without the knowledge andconfentof theChurch J by propounding the fame divers times unto them. But it is a perverting of this tefiimonv , to gather from hence that the actions of the Church or F Iderf hip are not fubie'ft to the judgement of Synods, if they be complained of for wrong. And (y) In Aft. that Pifcator allowerh the authoricv of Sv nods , (y) tojudgethecontrovtrfiesof£{eligi- } * -Obfer. on^ , and to (z) make decrees by gathering of voyces in order , it is evident from other of (zJ'Thef. his writings. Theol. Vol. Calvine requiring the C a ) cognition of the whole Church before any be excom- V L ° C - 2 *: municate , requires no more then is held and pra&ifed by us. And this isnoem- 68.&71,. peach ment to his and our opinion wirh him , that in cafe of doub' or conrroverfy* (a) Inftic.l. ( b ) there is no better nor morecertaine remedte then that a Synod of true Bifhops meet together* 4-c* i f i j . where the controverfy may be difcuffed. For fuch a definition^ (hall have much more weighty 9 >) § b if' C ' w ^ en ^ }e Pa tt° urs of Churches in common doe agree together, &,€. And this ne there con - firmes both by Scripture , and fundry examples of ancient Churches , f hewing that from the beginning it was the ordinary way ofpreferving unitiein the Church, fo often as Satanbegan to attempt any thing. Befides this , not to Ipeak of other tefumonies af- (c) Ch. pi. forded by Calvine to this purpofe , when as M r Canne (c) afterward notes the af- p * 9 ^ fertions of divers pleading for the Hierarchie of Bifhops, and oppugning Ecclefi- afticall government by Clafles and Synods, as a weed of later growth, faying that at Geneva fubjeBing^f Churches firft began. *And before Calvine came there, everie Con- gregation wasfiecin itfelf: If thefe aflertions be true, and that none is able to difprove them, as M r Canne there fuppofeth, how comes it that he thus perverteth Mr Calvines teftimony againft his profeflion and pra&ife? Let the Reader obferve that if thefe a(Tertions were found, M r Canne might as well have written a booke* to prove the miferable bondage and flavery of the Church at Geneva , procured by the tyrannicall government and corrupt do&rine of Mr Calvine, as he wrote the like tide ofanunjuft complaint upon the like ground againft me. Parwuson i. Cor. f. 5-. doth thus interpret the words; Let fuch a onebe delivered to Satan - 3 to wit, by the Church, or by the Patfours and Elders of the Church , which are the Th! C l°ue g ' mmh °f the Church ' For ty thefe the Church Jpeaketh and dealeth. Without this order then av.CoU.9. wou ^ ^ confufion, if in a publicl{aHion every one might Jpeaks and deale ; winch undoubted- DirpXAuc- ly the ^Apofile would not bring in. This we grant, and it is not againft us,but againft wr. 1.&C0. t h e confuted pra&ife of the Brownifts . But for the poynt in hand > that Clafles fr'u-Toli and Synods have power to judge of the anions of particular Congregations , Pa- Difp.a4.th. raem is a plaine witneflfe for us in (J) other of his writings. And againe , fpeaking 9- . . of a lawfull Svnod and the authority thereof in deciding of controverfies in the (extreme. Church % he fafa t j m t h erc i n ( e ) mm rmowmed in regard of their learning , mderfian-r f ' 5# ding ; CLASSES AND SYNODS. in ding and piety , whether they he of the Laity or Clergy , have not onely a voice of deliberation andcounfell, but alfo of judgement and power of defining. And hereunto accordes his ( f y (f) A&.Syn» Epiftle written unto the Nationall Synod holden laftat Dort > wherein excufmg s e a f' ^° his abfence , that he could not come in refpect of his age, as he much defired, vec he thewes his approbation offuch a meeting , as being the ordinary medicine for hea* ling the wounds of the Church , and rejoyceth greatly in the fpirit for the benefit ex- fpe&ed from that Synod , which judged & cenfured the errours of particular men in divers Churches. What reafon then had M r Ganne thus to abufe the words of Paraws againft his meaning and publick profeffion ? KjckermanaKo agreeth with the former witneffes touching the poynt in con- troverfy. For in the book alledged by M r Canne, when as the parts of the govern- ment o'fthe Church are there defcribed; he fhewes that (g) the convocation ofxheof?!S Synods belongeth unto EccleGafticalljurifdiftion, andis contained under the 6.^401,' " fame . 40 *, Hemmingiw, though more found and moderate then other Lutheranes, yet being a difciple and follower of MelanRhon^ , there was no reafon why he ihouid not have bene joyned with his Mafter in the foregoing ranke of Testimonies, if M r Canne had either knowne his Authour , or regarded the order which he had fee downe to himfelf. But for his judgement touching the jurifdi&ion of Synods, he hath witnefTed his confent with the Writers mentioned both in this & the for- mer Se&ion, and teftifyed againft M r Canne in this caufe. For fpeaking of thac partofEccle(iafticallDifcipline> unto which he referres the depofition and ex- communication of Minifters, he commends the order of the ancient Church? where he faith ( h ) the execution of this difcipline was chiefly committed to the Bifhops , who (hjEnchir. therefore fometimes twife, fometimes oftner in the yeare called Provinciall Synods, where the^ ^" e °; CIaf ' piatt er wcu handled, not by the cenfure^ of one Bifhop , but by the fern ence of the whole Clergy 4Jfembled. Toff anus , mentioned in the next place > hath plainely declared himfelf to be of the fame minde with us, in allowing Synodall and Claflicall alTemblies to judge & determine the caufes of particular Churches and perfons. He (*) maintaines againft /jj Paftofo Thyraus that which he had formerly written, in thefe words, lncontrovtrfi.es ofreli-jEvano.p.61 gionweappealefrom Luther, and from the cenfures and judgements of private mev^, unto the edi *' l6 -3. judgement of the Catholicise hurch and of a Synod. He proves this to be found and orthodoxe from the Apoftles referring the decifion of the controverfie concer- ning Iuftification and the Ceremonies of the Law, unco the Councellatlerufakm, *A&. x ?. Speaking of fomewhat that was wanting in moft of the German Chur- ches, about the ordaining of Minifters, he faith that (k) godly Paftours and Overfiers (k) p. 40, doe dayly bewaile thefcarfitie offaithfull labourers , and that the Prejhyferies and well ordered JLcclefiajlicall Senates doe indeavout that both in Synods andyeanly vifitations.and in QUf- ficall meetings the failings of Minifters may be amended according to their power. In w h i c h iwords he hath reference unto the praftife of the Churches in the Palatinate (con- cerning which we are to fpeake (thereafter) where he joyned with them in the fl) Sea. 7. CjSxercife of thefayd government , being faO ztNeuftadt a moderator of the Eccle- £?)° T ° a: ufticall counfels of the ConGftorv , and fometime alfo Prefident of a Synod ; and lta ' p ' 3 * Bb- ■ af- 194 THE POWER OF (n)ib.P 44 .afterwards at Heidelberg (n) a member of the Ecclefiafticall Senate. How un/uftly therefore Sc untruely hath M r Canne dealt with Toftanus and his readers,in recko- (o) ch.pl. mn g him among thofe who, as he faith i (o) have condemned for an errour&un- p ' j * trueth>that pofition touching particular Congregations ftanding under other Ec- clefiafticall authoritie out of themfelves ! As for Polanus , to grant M r Canne , that he was of the fame minde with the former Authours , touching the Churches power in excommunicating , though (p) Synt. fo much can hardly be manifefted out of the (p) place alledged ; yet what is thac Theoii.7. coourqueftion? TheChurches powerin excommunicating doth not exclude the authority of Synods in judging of a particular Congregation. Polanus fpeaking (q)lb.c.i4 ofSvnods, exprelTely confefleth,that (q) the liberty or power of 'thofe Ecclefiafticall af- femblies h a right given of God unto hit Church , &c . that An Ecclefiafticall Synod it avu- blicl^ajjemblie of godly men* lawfully fent and gathered together from divers Churches, aljoof divers Provinces , thatihty may handle anddetermine according to the power that » granted, unto them of God, touching holy affaires , &c. He alledgethTundry Scriptures and ex- amples of the Ancient Churches for declaration hereof. And againe in the fame place, he notes it for a condition of a lawfull Synod , that thofe which are chofen and deputed of the Churches may have a deliberative or confulting , and alfo a deci- ding voyce or giving of fentence , &c. When herequires another condition of a lawfull Synodi that every one may have freeauefte and recefte^ yet he addes this with- all » that whofoevern conviHed ofherefy or any crime , andremaineth obft'mate, (hould un* dtrgoe Ecclefiafticall cenfure, that h, dtpofitionfrom his Ecclefiafticall office fir Sujpenfion* of (r)ib.c.i6. Excommunication. And to like purpofe he writes in CO other places. This being the SylloThef. judgement of Polanus touching the authority of Synods , how uncircumfpett was de concif' X W-Beft 8c his abettour, to call for a lurie of fuch Divines as have given fuch preg- nant fentence and fo peremptory verdift againft them t Hyperim, next alledged>though he deny not the power of particular Congrega- tions , yet in his writings it is evident that he holdes the power of Synods > conft- fting of theDeputies of many Churches,to be a fuperiour power above one parti- cular Church , and that they may judge of the affaires thereof and of the perfons therein, either Minifters or people. This he declares at large in a peculiar treatife (fjDeSyno. couching^4^/yS^y»o^i, (0 wherein after he had (hewed the neceffity and ufe of A T Th°"i Synods by many divine and humane teftimonies > he then defcribes their power , p" 7 68-87o'. noc *° r counfeli onely , as the Brownifts and my oppofites doe > but for the exer- Baf.1570. ' cifeof all kinde of Ecclefiafticall cenfures, as Rebukes of offenders, Sufpenfion> Excommunication, and Depofition or deportment of Officers from their mini- ftery.Of all the men of the lurie before mentioned,there is none that gives a more full and cleare verdift againft M r Canne, then this Hyperiw doth. Oecolompadiw, another of his Authors, hath declared his judgement touching Svnods , and the authority exercifed in them , to be fuch as argues his teftimony alledged by M r Canne to be perverted, while it is produced againft the fame. For ft) Tom.z. in his anfwer to L«//;tr,inferted among the workes of Zuinglius,(t; he doth high- fol.491. ly commend the Councell of Nice, and fpecially for decreeing that none /hould af- terwards attempt to adde any new articles unto that Confeffio of faith which they had CLASSES AND SYNODS. 19* had fet downe. Which Ncftorius being found guilty of , Oecohmpadius approves of chat Aft of the Councell of : Ephefus, whereby he was excommunicated* faying, For which caufe being condemned of the crime of here fie , he wen by common confentjhut out of tht Church , which wasfenfible of peace reftored unto hey by this meanes. H ere by it appea- red! that he acknowledged Ecclefiafticall jurifdifti6 & cenfure to be a power due unto Synods,and that which may lawfully be exercifed by them. Be\a, next ailed ged, upon z.thef. 5.14. though he there call Excommunicati- on , 4/0 Ecclefiafticall judgement , yet doth he not thereby infringe the authority of Claffes and Synods, neither can any fuch thing by any juft confequence be gathe- red from his Annotations on that place. But on the other fide hefhewes M e\C- (v)Epift.8$ where chat Synods have theirEcclefiafticall judgements grounded upon the word ^j^ niftr - of God, and a profitable ufe in the Church of God; and that the fanaticali opini- fl))£l* onoiMorelliui (much like unto the Brownifts) hath bene worthily condemned z4. P .t 7 and many Minifters4nd Elders aflTembled toge- ^°f£$ ther. And therefore if Mr Canne and W. Beft their acCufation of me were found ^\' Zt andjuft,they might as wellcomplaine of5^4,forbringing^the Churches of God into miferable Jlavery and bondage by his t^rannicall government and corrupe doftrine . Bucer, laftalledged, accordes with the foregoing Authors* and his words in commendation of Synods may ferve to ciofe up this kinde of Teftimonies, being an advife unto King Edward the Sixc , for the conftant celebrating ofthem. In his Admonition given to the King for the reftitution of the Kingdome of Chrift m his dominions, amidft other wholefome counfels out of the word of God , he faith , (y) Itjhallbetheduety of theBijhops of each Province tocekbratt two Synods every (y)DeReg- ytare, eu it is ordaimdbyfo many Canons, and Lawes of godly Emperours. ±At which S'y~ no chritti. nods muft beaffembledand heard, not onely the Bifliopsofthe Cities, but alfo inferiour Bifnops Llb -* C • I * , dnd other Prefiyters and Deacons , that are endued with a larger meafureof knowledge and %eale for the kingdome of Chris! : that fo the more ejfeBuatly both the faults crept into the Church may be corrected, and thepietie ofallrepaired.He had alfo fpoken before of other inferiour and more frequent affemblies, like unto our Claries, requiring that ail the Minifters with in the compafle of about 20 Pariihes, {hould often meet toge- ' ther, for their mutuall afliftance in removing offences & advancing the kingdome of Chrift, Touching Synods , he fpeakes alfo in (z) another place to the fame (zjDe vi & purpofe, approving the ancient constitution, whereb vie was ordained that theBi- V fl]S - *?*'!• flops of every Vrovincejhould affemUe together with the Prefbyters and Deacons , at often as 5« JS? the ntedofthe Churches jhouldrequircjut without failetwife in t he yeare; that they might in- f.^k, quire concerning the doBrine and difcipline of Chrift, how it were adminx ] sired anddidflourijh in fever all Churches; that where any default was dif covered they might correB it 5 and where they found things in good tlm^they might confirms and promote the fame. Bv that correc- tion fpoken of here and in the former teftimonie,he underftands not onely counfeU Bb t, and i 9 6 THE POWER OF and admonition) but the judiciall exercife of authority in Ecclefiafticall cenfures: For he doth plainly diftinguiih betwixt admonition and correElion , when in the fol- lowing words concerning Metropolitanes he faith , If any thing were doneamijfeby the Minifters of the Churches, or by the common people, which by their admonitions they could not amend, that then for the correcting of it they jhould call a Synod ofBifliops : for there wm no [power] of judgement allowed unto them, which by their owne authority they might exercife inthe Churches, tsfc. Thus Bucerat alfo, as well as the former, hath condemned M r Cannes pofition , viz. that particular Congregations rauft not ftand under other Ecclefiafticall authorise out of themfelves. And thefe are all the Authors here alledged by M r Canne, except onely Morell, ?r as the two former \ or not fecci to touch this contro verfie in the writings at hand> as the latter. Having now heard what thefe chofenmen of the lurie, all nominated by W. B. his Advocate, have teftifyed concerning ClaflTes or Synods ; let the Reader judge whether they have given verdift for or againft Synods : whether every one of tkcfe Authors alledged had not juft caufe (if they were living) to complaine of great abufe done to them in perverting their tefti monies, and making falfc confe- quences from their words contrary to their meaning. And forafmuch as all thefe witnefles here examined are fo farrefrom teftifying ought againft us, that they have on the other fide witnefTed thetrueth of that which we maintaine againft M R Canne ; hence it is evident that 1 had juft caufe to fay that which he would feeme to difprove by alledging thefe Authors againft me, viz. that there were a multitude of learned and godly Minifters of the fame judgement and praHife with wc . For further proofe whereof it were eafy (if need were) to produce another June of approved Authors , more in number then thofe he hath fpecifyed , and not inferiour for learning and piety unto fome of thofe that he hath named , all which in their feve- rall writings , Common places, Commentaries and other Treatifes , have in like manner as the former, defcribed the ufe,the necefllty and che authority of Synods> not onely for counfell, but for judgement and decision of controverfies ; divers of them alledging not onely examples of ancient Churches, but the holy Scriptures alfo for the warrant of that which they teach, and therefore ihewin'g that they maintaine them lawfully we divino; and that their tenure of them is from the grant that Ciirift hath given unto his Church.But the trueth of that atfertion touching the multitude o[ thofe that confent with me , will moft plainly appeare when we come to fpeak ofthe publick and general! teftimonies of wholeChurches & moft folemne alTemblies of learned & godly men , touching this controverfie. In the raeane while let us follow M r Canne,according to his owne Method. Sect. IV. Touching the Teftimonies of Englijh Conformifts* 7 N the next place they proceed , and in an homely phrafe , they fay , Touchingth **■ Englifh Conformifts , the formableft of them are for us,m this poynt*- And here they alled^e B. Wmgift > D Silfon , Whhak^r, Bell, WilUt, and Taylor, Tai. CLASSES AND SYNODS. ip7 Touching thefe I anfwer : Firft for B. Whhgifa, though he conferTe that in the tApoftles time the flan of the Church was popular , becaufe the Church had intereft almoft m See Def.ag, everything; yet this proves not that he thought particular Congregations to be in- T - c -p»^o. dependent and uncontrolable by the Deputies of other Churches aflembledin ' Synods. The ordinarypra&ife oiB.Whitgifu in judging the caufes of other Con- gregations , (hewed that he was farre from the meaning of the Brownifts in this^ poynt. His words are wrefted by an unjuft confequence to prove independency of Churches, and the undue power of Synods. For D. Bitfon, there is notable wrong done to him , in clipping his words , and defacing his reftimonie , by omitting that which is moft materiall in this conrro- verfy. For w hen D. Biljbn had favd > (*) Though the Prejbyters had more f kill to judge, fa) Perpet. yet the people had as much right to choofe their Paslour j tst if the moil part of them did agree, ^ ° v 6 e J ,c * l ? they did carrie it from the Clergie ; Thus farre M r Canne reciteth his words , but here in the midft of the fentence, before the period be endedi he breakes ofTand leaves out this exception that is added > viz. fo theperfons chofenwere fuch as the Canons did dlow > and the ordainers could not juflly mtflike. In this exception O. B. ackno wled- geth , that there may be juft caufe to difanull the election of the people , if it be found worthy to be mifliked. Andhis meaning is yet more evident by the ftory which in the fentence immediately preceding he alledgeth out of (fa) Socrates ,tou- / b j Lib chingthe election of Proc/a*, who being chofen by the greater number wasyet cap.35. refufed, becaufe the election wasfayd to be againft the Canon of cranflating Bi- ihops , and fo the people were forced to hold their peace. That which is prac- tifed in thefe Reformed Churches> is in this poynt the very fame thing that D. B. teftifies of the Primitive Church: for ClaiTes and Synods doe not ufe to impofe or choofe Minifters. If particular Congregations doe choofe a Minifter , neither Clafles nor Synods can difanull the election , if there be no juft caufe of exception againft the perfon elected. And if upon juft exception the election be hindred yet then alio is the new election of another permitted to the free choyfe of the particular Church ; neither doth the Claffis deprive them of their j uft power and liberty therein. That it may more plainly appeare how unjuftly and unreafonably D.Bilfin is al- ledged as agreeing with my oppGiltes, let it be further obferved > that in his Dif- pute againft Be%a & fuch as approve the Difcipline of thefe Reformed Churches, he doth not as ray adverfaries, complaine of the undue power of Synods , that judge and determine the caufes of particular Congregations. He acknowledgeth that (<0 the necejjity and authority of Synods is not fo much in queflion betwixt t*s , at the perfons (c) Perf et. that fcouldaffemble and moderate thofe meetings, &c. He would have ( d ) Metropolitans ^cvct.c.16 to be the Moderators and rulers of Synods : he would have C e ) lay-Elders thruit / j 7 P °' g> out from aflembling with Ivlinifters in Synods: he complaines (?) of the intolerMe & Cl ' : charges and expences of having frequent "Sy nods, &c, Hereinhe differs from us, (e)¥-tf7> andwefromhim. But that there is a fuperiour EccIeuTafticall authorise in Sy- m' F , i6t nods , to decide the caufes of particular Churches,which is the poynt in queftion 3 \$ff * * herein he agreeth with us . He faich of fuch Synods and their power to judge , as hi fojloweth. (g) Their warrant fo to doe is builded on the maine grounds of all (g) p. 37*. Bb 3 divine 19* THE POWER OF » divine and humane focieties , ftrengthened by the promife of our Saviour , and „ affured unto them by the example of the Apoftles and perpetuall praftife of the (h) p. 374. Church of Chrift. Afterwards he faith of their meetings in Synods ; (h) This yi hath in all Ages > as well before > as Gnce the great Councell of Nice bene ap- > > proved and pra&ifed, as the lawfulleft and fitteft meanes to difcerne trueth from ,, falfhood, to decide doubtsiend ftrifes, and redreffe wrongs in caufes EccIeGafti- >> call ; yea when there were no beleeving Magiftrates to aflift the Church , this ,, was the onely way to cleanfe the houfe of God, as much as might be , from the >, lothfome veffels of dishonour : and after Chrift ian Princes began to profefle Sc » protect the trueth , they never had > nor can have any better or fafer dire&ion » amongft men, then by the Synods of wife and godly Paftours. And many other things to like purpofe are written by hirmcompiayning that the denyall of this or* /j> p ,_5 ( der is (*) an heathenijh, if not an hellijh confufion-, &c. That which they bring out of Scultingiut, a Papift before alledged,is idle & im- pertinent: untill they heare me avouch fuch things as he doth for change of the order of Chrift, let them refraine their fUrmifes and conjeftures of imaginary argu- ments which they gueffe that I will ufe. Having brought fuch Authours againft me,mark how Wil.B. or Io. CaSor him f (k) chn.pl. ^ ot ^ c " um Ph againft me before the viftory • in thefe words, ( k ) To fay that this fu~ f»Jj. ' ' ftriour power of Claffes and Synods y n Jure Divino, I thinks he will not any more doe it : there being in the Scriptures no proof e (yea I may boldly fay J norfliew of any proof e for it. I confeffe indeed it is boldly fpoken of him. for who fo bold als blinde B. ' Buc whether there be at leaft fhewofproofe in the Scriptures, for the fuperiour au- thority of Synods in judging the caufes of particular Congregations) let us fee what his owne witnefle faith. D. Wbitaker that is next alledged by him , doth by many arguments fhew the (l)DeConc. profit and neceflity of Synods ; and to this end he citeth many (l) places of Scrip- *ju.i.c.3-p. ture,both from the old & new Teftament: healledgethatlarge (m) 7 or 8 caufes afc!a D$? *° r wn * cn tne y are profitable, and of great ufe and fruit. He fpeaketh alfo of fuch 5 6. Synods as are not onely for difcufTIng and concl uding of matters by way of coun- (m)P.i 7, fell and advife , but of thofe that have power to («0 judge and condemne obftinate ^ c * | offenders by a publick judgement,and as occafion requires , to anathematife or ex- {nJ ,2 ' elude from the fellowfhip of the Church: he maintaines that thofe which are lawfully called unto Synods , have authority of deciding and determining contro- (o) ibid.qverfiesby (o) definitive fentence or fuffrage: he faith that (p)appeales are of divine 3 ' 6 c '|: p,9y * and naturall right, and cannot bedenved in controversies about Ecclefiafticall (p)DePotif. caufes and perfons. And thus by the ceftimony of their owne witnefle my adver- Rom. qu.4-faries doe offend both againft the law of God , and the law of nature , in denying ^47°. appeales , and in not allowing the anions and judgements of a particular Congre- gation to be j udicially examined by a Synod or Claflis. The feverall teftimonies fqjp^o.sc ofD.Whitaker to this purpofe, are alledged (q) before and applyed at large, to de- 133-141. clare his judgement in this controverfy. (r) De Coc. Though D.Whit, doe ( r ) grant (as is here alledged againft me) that EccUfiajli* q ' 5 * p " 1 7 'call authority rs in the Church principally primarily and effentially&c. he doth not here- CLASSES AND SYNODS. i 99 by contradict himfelf , or deny the power of Synods > where Minifters doe judge by vertue of their calling and deputation from many Churches. The authority of Churches is manifefted in them , and by their fervice therein. The like ceftr- mony alledged from Saravia and Schola Parifienfis is (0 before anfwered. Yea the (Q p. iyo. Schooleof Parti doth fufficiently (0 explaine this matter by a fit fimilitude, ihew- (0 Schoi. ing that Ecclefiafticall authority is in the Church primarily , and inftrumentally in Parlf -P«'« s » the Minifters : as the power of feeing is in man principally , but inftrumentally in the eye : As man fees by his eye » fo the Church exercifeth Ecclefiafticall autho- rity by the Minifters and rulers thereof; and fo judgeth of all crimes and offences. The teftimony of Bell next alledged>is in like manner to be underftood. Where- as from (v) him they object that Excommunication precifely and chiefly pert aineth to the (v) Regim. Church • and that jh that h authority to commit the execution thereof to fome JpeciaU perfons , of church. for that purpofe, and chofen for that end ; this doth no way condemne , but rather illu- a,fca: *4» flrate ourpra&ife agreeable thereunto. And that the meaning of this Authour was not repugnant unto us, it appeareth more plainely by another of his writings, (x) where he evidently declares his minde>that Synods have power to exercife Ec- M . Be J ls clefiafticall authority, and to proceed judicially with delinquents, even to depofeSc ^"oncl txcommunicate, though it were the Pope himfelf, upon due conviction. And to this 3^. end fie alledges the confeflion of many Popifh writers., and farre more truely and uprightly then M r Canne hath done in this controverfie. As for D. Wittet, if he fpeak but to the fame ejfeEl with Bell , as they (ay, then the fame anfwer may ferve. B ut for the place alledged [Synopf. com, 4. ^.4. p.i.] I finde no fuch matter there. They alledge p. 2. when as there is no fecond part of that queftion. But in the fame booke he gives plaine evidence againft them ; he acknowledgeth Synods to be (y) an wholefome meanes for the repreffmg and reforming (y)SynopC Uthoferrours in religion and corruption in manners: healledgeth the confentofanti- fapi.Cot.3. quity to prove that our opinion is grounded upon trueth and Scripture, namely ^ uj «P io 5» :hat thofe which are lawfully called unto Synods , (*) have determining voyces , and ( Z ) Qu.^.p. power to givefentence^ and giveth inftance in the Councell of Antioch, where Pan- 109.1 10. Im Samofatemn was condemned and cut off is an enemie to the trueth, 8cc. heavou* :heth that fej they have authority to judge, examine, fujpend , punijh anddepofe&c. And (3)011.7. p. :hus D. WilletfcWy accordeth with us in this poynt,that there is a fuperiour power 113. to judge the caufes of particular Congregations. D. Taylot next alledged. affords them no help. Whereas hefaith,that (k) Ex- Cb)Com.o» communication is the common aBion of the Church , and not of any privatepsrfon orperfons : Tit - 3« i».p. wealfo affirme the fame thing. Our profeffion andpraftife alwayes hath bene , 7Ii * lever to excommunicate any without common confent of our Church ; but had we done unjuftly at any time therein, we might juftly have bene fubjeft to the zenfure of a Synod or Claflls : and yet then alfo the Minifters and Deputies affem- ?ledin the name of many Churches , couliiwith no reafon be accounted private- wfons. And though we think ourfelves bound to a(k counfell of the Claflls, ac- :ording to the order of thefe Churches , before we proceed to cut offany mem- »er of the Church by excommunication , this proves no deprivation but a direct- ion of our power. Now aoo THE POffER OF Now whether I have juftcaufe to blufofordenyingto the Churches of God that due power which the Learned of all profeffions doe gram unto her, as M r Canne and Will.B- (c) Ch.pl. doe without blufhing (c) charge me,let the judicious Stimpartiall Readers judge. p,86. Sect. V. Touching the Teftimonies ofEnglifa Non-conformists. VNder the title of this kinde of witneffes , they alledge againft me, the J{eplytt to D. Dowmme, Mr Parker, the Authour of the Engltfh Puritanifme , D. %Ames , Mr Bairns, Mr Bates, Mr Tenner, Mr Vdall, the Englifh Church at Franckjord, and Mr pid^&c ' H 00 ^' Thefe are (d) here produced : and in another (ej place , unto which he re- (*e; P,ij .' ferres us for the fame purpofe , he cites alfo the Proteftation of the KJngs Supremaeie , D.Fulke, and our Country-men in New-England. For anfwer hereunto ;Firft» concerning fome of thefe that feeme to be of M r Cannes minde, in denying the authority of Synods in the government of the Church ,obferve how iiiiie and fuperfluoufl v he alledgeth them againft mejwhen as he knowes that I my felf did acknowledge and note fo much before > as namely (f)Anfw.to c hejudgementof(f)iW/'Hoo^>' } rg) D.Ames, andthe Author of the booke enti- te']top?27 ^ ec * Ew £^/k Pwitamfmcby whom alfo the Protestation oft\. Supremaeie is fayd to be written. Thefe i nave confefled to be oppofite unco me in this controverfy, & have long (ince profefled unto them how much I havedifliked their opinions in this poynt . Secondly , though thefe witneflfes have teftifyed their particular judgement,yet did they never deny but that they differed herein from many other godly Mini- fters in Englandi which defired a reformatio of the Church as well as they. When as I expoftulated with D.Ames long fince, touching the publifhing of that treatife o£EngliJh Puritanifme , and complayned of wrong done unto many filenced Mini- fters , who did not hold fuch opinions as are contained in that booke •, his excufe was that they did not affirme thofe to be the opinions of all > but onely of the BJgi* deft fort of thofe that are called Puritanes,znd that fo m uch was fpecifyed in the Title of that book. And againe in the preface of that book, thofe opinions are favd to be the worst that the worH of them hold: and the perfons that doe hold thofe peculiar opi- nions, are there againe diftinguifhed from others by the title and name of Rigid Prefbyterians. Now though thefe exprefllons be not without fome offence , yet from hence it may appeare that the Authors and Publifhers thereof were farre from that flanderoiis difpofition of M* Canne, in charging thofe of different opi- (h) Chu.pl. nion to have changed and altered chei» judgement ; when as he faith , (h) Time wm p.Stf. w ken M r Paget did efteeme them to be a multitude of godly and learned Minijlers - 9 and wot , ( or at leajl madejheiv he wta) of their judgement and praBife. An unconfciouable infi- ll) ib.p.88. nuation againft me . And afterwards againe he faith , (}) Mr Paget hath left the way of Non-conformitie , ycaandjhewes himfelfto it agrtat adverfary , &c. A groflfe (lander, Whereas M r Canne fairh further touching the Protejlaticn of JC Supremacies , that 00 p . *3- this booke was Wfet out under the name of all the unconformable Minijlers in the Realme^ j this is a notable fallhood ; for neither is the word All ufed in the title of that Pro tefia ■ CLASSES AND SYNODS. *oi teftation, made in the name of afflicted Minifters indefinitely; neither can it ever be proved that all thofe Minifters did ever confent unto that opinion there fpecifyed, andalledged by him , viz. We confine andbinde all Ecclefufiicall power within the limits enely of one particular Congregation, tyc. Thirdly, as for Mr Bradjhaw that wrote the forenamed Vroteftation,8c that book of Englijh ?uritanifme,i£he were fuch an one as M r Canne reports him to be now after his death , then were his teftimony and his writing the leffe to be regarded . For he faith of him ., that (l) bu proof es arealtvayes beggerly I fayes » or Ifs , and may ( l ) Neceff. be foes; and doth not in all hts writing, either dirtBhj or b) 'found conference from the Scrip- ofSe par.r. ture.confirme any one thing whereof he fieaketh. He accufet h him there alfo of great by- 11 1% pocrify in pleading for many evilIs,of which his judgement was well knowne to be wholy otherwife. And in the fame place upon an if and a may befo , which he had im- mediately condemned in others , upon a report which he judgeth probable enough , he compares him to Baalams AJfe , &c. What meant Mr Canne to alledge fuch witneffesagamftme, whom he himfelfe( though indeed very unworthily) hath fo deicribed as if they were not worthy to have any credit given unto them? To " ch f n g ■D.Ams, & his judgement in this controverfv,fomewhat differently cxprefied in his feverall writings , I have fpoken at large f«j before , in anfwer to /m > P lnK MrDav. his Allegations. Jin. As for Mr Hooker , his argument (n) annexed to his Teftimony , is of no force ^ <*-*& agamit us, feeing he concludes befide the queftion , which was not of every parti- p ' U * cular Church, but of fuch as ftood already in combination with a Claffis. P.,,l nCe TI th£ C , hmches in Xw-EngUmd , M' Canne faith , (o) Tim may notbe{o)W^ wgotten. Whereat there are many hundreds of our Countrymen in New- England , they bavenot enBed thereany Clafficall Government , but every particular Chur% exercifeth berowne, Ifay.wtthmherfelfwholy -which fs a fur e argument, to proove, that the foreward Honours m England approove not of this kinde of governments Le pleaded for ■ although ,e would fetgne have bts Reader to thinkefo. Hereunto I anfwer : ,. What the g1- ES he Churches in New-England is, and whether they refufe the help of -laiies aixi Synods for the judgement and determination of their controverfies , iccording to the order of Reformed Churches here in Europe; I know nor nei- het can I receive the teftimony of M' Canne & his bare word for a fufficiem evi- mvu T in> ^. thout fome mor ^ authentick witneffe. Divers bookes have bene mblifhed touching the nature of that fovle, the fruits of the countries the man- Se1&^EH 0P ft 1 S bUt tOUC ? i0g th£ Ecdefiafticail government and difci- IS ri a V fe o \ l h2V S as W feene no monument thereof. Jt is probable nough that thofe Separates which hadbeneof^r^/^, company Lre a: .eyden in thcir pfantation would obferve their old order , a.neere aTthey could ut that ZreT^UU "*° m ^ > l h ™ h ™ d ° f chdr i " dination ^ ^ay Ei inn f u M be a § e " era11 a S reement & refolution againft Clafficall Com ■nations, I heare not ; and ought therefore to fufpend mv judgement for the pS- lew Fn C .bnr heir ^k; "• § U PP° fe ^ ^^ Cong S^ enToutlf^ enc out of itfelfe ; yet is this no fure argument to prove that the forward fprofef- C c f ours 20* THE POWER OF fours in England (as M r Canne calles them ) are generally of the fame opinion al. fo ; feeing thefe in England may be ignorant of that which is done fo farre of. Yea, fo farre as lcanheare s evenfuchas have bene diligent to enquire > cannot yer get any certaine information , what order of government is refolved upon in New- England. As for Mr Bates , I can fay nothing touching his aflTent or diflent in this poym , feeing 1 have uotfeene his wiiting alledged agamft us. For the reft, they are all notablv abufed. For the Authour of the Bjply unto D. T>owname, t hough he affirme that theadminijlration of all Church-matters , atfirji was in every Congregation , the rights in the Church , the execution in the Prefbyterie thereof • this doth neither exclude the Claflis in cenfuring of the Prefbyterie lr they abufe their power,nor hinder the Prefbyterie from feeking the help of the Claflis in the exer- cife of their power, in matters of doubt and difficuhie. The teftimonies out of the ixlj.fol Cmuries ' O^Whitgift , Thomas Bell, there (f) alledged by the Keplyer, are anfwered alrtady in the feverall places which Mr Canne hath afligned unto them in his wri- ting ; where it hath bene (hewed that in this controverne they are impertinent, & doe not prooveany thing againft us. Befides M r Canne had thelefle caufe to al- ledge this place in the forefaid Reply , feeing the Authour in the very next page doth approve of that order , which for election of Church-officers is praftifedac (q) IbiJ, p. Geneva, faying {q that it is religioujly and prudently obferved. M r Canne might there i°j. have feen himfelf condemned under the name of Morelliw, even by this lisplyeril- fo, as well as by Be%v feeing it is as true of him 9 as of the other,that which is there fayd > that hehathprefumedby word and writing to reprehend that order , &c . our courfe being in fubftance the fame , and oppofed by M r C. in like manner as theirs was {r)P.io6. by Morellim. Againe, inthe ( r ) next page the fayd Authour doth exprefTely reject and detcft that popular government, pra&ifed among the Brownifts, and pleaded for by M r Canne , when having fayd that the peoples confent is nottobenegle&edir, caufesofgreateft moment , according to that which we teach and pra&ife , he adde; withall, Notwithslandingameere Democracie, wherein all matters are handled of all (a- quato jure ) by an equall right • we doe no lejfe detefl, then that ufurped Monarchie ofLordl) (f)P, 1x3. p relates ; which other reformed Churches have abotijhed. And afterwards (Qwhen heal lowes a preheminence for orders fake, unto fome one to be the mouth of the reft in executing that which was h the whole Prefoytery decreed , and then explainesthat one to be the Prefident of the Prefbyters, that u to fay , in each Congregation the Paslor,andin ♦ Synod or ajfembh of the Paslors and Prejhyters of many Churches , that one which with th confent and choyfe of hit brethren moderates theaHion • there is no reafon why we f houl< not hence conclude his approbation ofSvnods, fuch as are and have bene cele brated in well ordered Churches; even fuch as doe not onely advife^ut alfo deer what is meet , as he had fayd of the Pnfbyterie in generall. As for the other place 6 alledged out ofthis AuthourJ referre the Reader unto that which I have fayd ( 117. H * before touching the fame, in my anfwer to Mr Davenport. Mr Parker, next alledged ,jpeakes downe right in this thing , faith M r Canne. Tb words cited out of Mr Parker, are thefe , Ml Ecclefiajlicall power if alwayts /*_, the. t whole Congregation, from hence itflowes , tttftcm the fountain* , and to the fame it returne CLASSES AND SYNODS. sos m to theSea. Foranfwer hereunto , 1. This Teflimony here alledged by M l G. is not oneiv cited amiflfe, viz. Pol.EccU.^.c.6. inftead of eS.p.zS. and fome words alfo unjuftly added by him unto the teitimony , to make it feeme more full for his purpofe; buc being taken as he fees it downe , it doth not infringe the authority of ClaiTes and Synods. For though all Ecclefiafticall authority be fayd to flow from the Church , as from a fountaine ; this hinders not, but rather (hewes how power may be and is derived unto ClaiTes, when particular Churches as fountaines doe by deputation and delegation fend forth a ftreame of authority and power in Claf- ficall and Synodall AiTemblies , in fuch manner as Mr barker himfelf doth after- ward (v) often (hew unto his Reader. 11. For the dmm-rigbtfytgch of Mr J?ar- (v)Pol.Ec- l{er, wherein M r Canne glorieth , I defire the Readers that underftand, to review £ l c \ c ' \ 5 '. thofepaffages which I have (x) before noted at large out of Mr?ar]yrsbooke> & i^Vc.'* 4 * them that are able, to looke upon thofe places in the booke itfelf, and then to >x]P. 89* judge whether M r Canne be not either very blinde in alledging the teftimonies of " I0 *- learned men, when he knowes not what they fay; or els very impudent and di{- honeft , in corrupting and perverting their teftimonies contrary to their meaning. As for Mr Bairns, he is confufedlv alledged , viz. Diocef. Tryall , Qmduf. 4. for whereas in that booke there is often mention ofConduf.4. who can tell what place hemeanes? Thetruethisthac none of thofe fourth Conciulions in any part of his booke, doe by any word empeach the authority of ClafTes or Synods. But on the contrary, in that his writing he gives plaine and evident teftimonies of his agreement with us, as I have (y) alreadv fufficiently declared. (y)P.in- Come.we now to the teftimony (*j alledged in the name of D.F«%,whom M r :"£, , Canne praifeth to be a man famous and of van learning. Thev objeft unto me that he p%. P * faith (a ) There ought to be in every Church an Elder jhip,which ought to have the hearing,exa- (a)Leai-nea mination and determining of all matters , pertayning to the Difcibline & Government of that Dir "™ riof Congregation. Hereunto f anfwer, that fuch authority is to be exerafed by the El - p E £ ' derihip , yet fo as that the judgement and confent of the Congregation in weigh- ' tier matters be not excluded: and fo alfo that the judgement oftheClaffis or Sy- nod be not refufed or denyed. This Author will have the Elderihip to determine ill matters, if they be able to doe it; & fo he expounds himfelf.fhewing afterward :hat there be divers matters which theElderf hip is not able by themfel ves to finifh ivithout help of a Synod. , And becaufe M' Canne in the margine of his booke fets his marke over againft \m place, definng us to Notethx: fo I defire both him and others to note wel what Ahis Author writes concerning the authoriy, necetfity , and ufe of Synods. I ana ,J»Iad to heare M' C.to give fo great commendation unto this indeed Learned Au- thor , who is fo pregnant a witneffe for me and for Synods againft the Bio wnifts. This is that which he (b) faith : (b) ibii. P , „ Seeing our Saviour Chrift promifed his prefence and authoritie to every 8i,8i * .Church indifferently, A44fM 8.1 9. ao : None mav challenge any fuch prero*a- H , five afore other : but as the Churches are limited out for order and con venien- , .1 cie , fo is every one of them of like authority in itfelf ; but becaufe they make all but one Church , and one body of Chrift , therefore there is but one autho- C c 2 ritv io4 THE POWER OF j) rity in them* to determine of matters concerning them all. By which there ap- » peareth to be a double authority of the Paftor: one with the feverall Congrega- tion, in which he is Paftour, the other with the whole Synod or aflemblyt >, whereof he is a member, and both thefe authorities,we finde fufficiemly autho- „ rifed in the Scripture , &c {c)ibidp. »Agaiw,(c) There is a double authority of the Paftour, theonejoyned with ii i.iii, „ the Elders ofche Church whereof he is Paftour: the other with the Synod or , , holy a(Tembly,whereof he is a member. There arifeth oftentimes in the ,, Church , divers Controverfies , which cannot otherwife be exprelTed , pertay- „ ning to the ftate of the whole Church , then by a generall afTemblie of all the 9 , Pattours of that Church , which is called a Synod or Generall Councell. Alfo » there be divers cafes, wherein the feverall Churches, are driven to pray theayde >, of the Synod , where matters cannot be determined among themfel ves. For this „ caufe the Holy Ghoft hath ordained thefe Holv aflemblies , with promife that 9, they being gathered together in the name of Chrift, he himfelfwill be among ,) them. With the Synod the Paftour hath authority to determine>concerning re- ,, giment of the Church, (d) p. 115. „ Agaim, (d) Let us returne to the authority of the Synod , which confifteth in 116,1 17. „ deciding and determining fuch matters as cannot otherwife in particular Chur- 9, ches be concluded,either becaufe they concerne the common ftate of allChur- 9, ches, or becaufe they lack fufficient authority in fome one Church. Firft there- 9, fore the lawfull Synod hath to confider, if any controverfy of do&rine doe arife* 9, that it be determined by the word of God: &c. Secondly, it hath to determine >, of the ufe of the ceremonies, not of will without reafon or ground of Scripture* 9, but upon neceiTary caufes of avoiding offence and fimilitude of fuperftition , of 9) bearing with the weak , of order and comelinefle and edification. So did the Sy- 9, nod of the Apofties and Elders, command for a time abftinencie from meat of- 3, fered to Idols, otherwife lawfull in it felfe, for offences fake , &c. Alfo for or- 9, der and comelines, and beft edification, the Synod hath to determine, what {hall 9, be obferved in particular charges: as of the time, place , and forme of preaching 9, and praying , and adminiftring of the Sacraments. For who fhould be able to 9, know what order,comelines and edification requireth according toGods word, 9, but they that be teachers and preachers of the fame unto all others? For it is ab 9> furd, that they ihould be taught by fuch in thefe fmall things, as ought to learne (e)P. 118." the truethofthem in all matters, &c. C e ) It is out ofallcontroverfy,that before *,,:here were any Cnriftian Magiftrates (-—) this authority was proper unto the 9, Synod. Which authority we know to be granted to the Church by our Saviour 9 , Chrift: pra&ifed bv his Apofties: continued by their fucceflburs three hundred 9, yeares, before there were any ChriftianEmperours (—) and long time after , , there were Chriftian Emperours , even as long as any puritie continued in reli- ,, gion, untill both Emperours and Synods were thruft out of all lawfull authori- »i tie, which rhev ought to have in the Church, by the tyrannie of Antichrift. (f)P,i22, In zhefamekarned DifcourfeofEccUfiafticall Government, it is further added : (f fcaj.»*4. „ The Synod hath further authority concerning Difcipline> to reforme and re« drefli CLASSES AND SYNODS. so* ») drefle by Ecclefiafticall Cenfure , all fuch defaults and controverts , as cannot 9> be determined in the particular Churches : as for example : If the Paftour him- y, felfe , have need to be feverely punifhed > where there is but one Paftour in 2 » Church : or if Elders , which mould be reformers of others , have notoriously 9» mifgoverned themfelves : or if they have beene led by affection to condense an j, innocent, or to juftifye the ungodly : in thefe and fuch like cafes, all contention 9 , is to be concluded, by the authority of the Synod. Some example we have >, thereof, ji8.\<$. where thofe contentious Schifmatiques, that withfioodTaul 9, and Barnabas at Antiochia, were conftrained to yeeld by authority ofthe^oun- 9, cell, and Paul and Barnabas reftored to their credit. For which caufes Sycodes 9, ought ofrentimesto beaflTembled , though not general! of the whole Real me » 9, but particular of every Province or Shire , as it may be moft conveniently , that 9, fuch things as are to be reformed, may be redrefled with fpeed. Thefe and many other fuch like aiTertions in allowance of Synods and their su- thority,hath this learned Authour, whom yet they have aliedged againft me. Had Will. Befi but had fo much wit or confcience as to have duely looked upon thefe Engliih Authors, being butfmall treatifes , and perufed them diligently,he might caQly have learned hereby what order God requires in the Government of his Church . But taking fo much upon truft , and prefuming blindely upon the fi- delity and fkill of a Brownift , therefore is he runne into Scandal! , having publi- (hed many flanders againft the Churches of Chrift >and wrefted fo many witnefTes againft their meanings, In the next place the Teftimony of Mr Fennev doth fitly offer itfelf to be exa- mined of us : for feeing he tooke upon him the Defence of the former Authour againft Bridges , who impugned that learned Difiourfe ofEcclef. Gov, we have reafon to exfpeft that he alfo will defend the authority of Synods in like manner. As for the two pages which M r Ca, (g) alledgeth,he neither fpecifyeth his words, neither (g) Againft doe I rinde in either of thofe pages any one word againft the ufe of Cla(Tes or Sy- Brid * cS P- nods amogft us, but on the contrary a cleare teftimony which he gives unto them. IJ ' l6 ' For fpeaking there [inpag.16.] of the forme of Difciplineappoynted of God, and ofthe feverallpo/wj thereof particularly fet downt'm thewordofGod, with other he recko- neth up thefe, the joynt cart of Elder/hips and Synods. Afterwards he fpeaketh more fully in praife of this government, and faith , (hj The natureoftlm order hfelf, which /^ o f f f admitteth no Minister but learned, nor any decifion of weight -but by advifeofmany , & with Ecc.Difci. Appointed conferences and Synods of learned men for fuch purpofes: befides the affurancz^ a g- Bri %. of Gods favourable, bleffing of hkovnt^. ordinance, and the experience^ oftheSynodes p * 10 *' of the Reformed Churchej , the comparifon of their judgements , Canons , and other con- stitutions, with the like of 'the other in^ anv part, beanth witneffe , whether the want of 'lear- ning and pietie both , mutt needes be greater in it , then in thz^ other. Wh ereas D . Fulk, had given unto thefe Churches which have a Clafficall and Synodall govern- ment , the title and praife of (v) rightly reformed Churches > 3 when D . Bridges was of- (i) team. fended therewith, Mr Fenner maintaines that praife to be due unto them, and Dircof £«. commends (k) their entire and whole obedience^ which they yeeld to God , i>t_> nceydng Gov P-~' , all thi holy doclrine of our Saviour Chrifi,both concerning things to bebeleeved, andal- Cc 3 Jo io6 THE POWFR OF fo concerning the fffmtuall polkie, Difciplineand order, for guiding of his Church. And fur- ther > in the fame place he repeats in \ undertake s ro defend D. Fulkes words, per- fwading to imbrace that moil beautiful! order of Eccl eft aft i call regiment, which God doth fo manifeftly bleffe and pro/per in our neighbours hands. Herebv it may apptare how fane Mr Fenner was from that erroneous andflandnous fpirit of M r C. and W.B. And here by the example of W, BesJ ail Gmple & ignorant men are to be warned of pu- blilhing fuchfalfe things as he harh done > upon the credit of other men that are ftrangers from the Churches of Chrift. Moreover the judgement of Mr Feme? in approving this ufe of Svnods for the government of Churches and judgement of caufes > may be clearly ken in fundry other teftimonies which he hath given to fJ)P.84-38. this purpofe, and which I have 0) before noted : where among the reft, when ha- ving maintained the right of Synods to be jure divinoy alledgingmany Scriprures for the warrant thereof, he inferreth from hence this commonlaw that other mem- bers of the Church which have no Ecclefialficall office, are to befubjeBto thkgo- vernment , and ought to advance the fame according to their power , tfc. it is thereby evi- dent that he could not like the courfe of W. B. or any fuch other fchifming from the Church for this caufe , and complayning that they were not a free people > if they were fubjeft to ClafTes and Synods. Mr XJdall m the Demonftration^ ofDifcipline t pag. 2.4,25'. in that edition thereof which I have , hath no fuch matter as is alledged before out of that treatife of Ew- glijli Puritanifme , againft the authority of Claffes and Svnods: neither is it to be found in anv part of that Demonstration, that Chrift hath not fubjeEied any Congregati' on unto any other fuperi our Ecclefiafticali jurifditlion , then unto that which is within itfelfy &c. And therefore it is untruelv affirmed of Mr Canne, that there is nothing there fayd, but Mr Vdall with others above mentioned, hath fay d the like. On the con- trary , in that writing aflcribed to Mr Vdall , there be fundry teiiimonies ihewing the authority of Synods to judge the caufes of particular Congregations. As it (m)P. 204. was (ro) before noted out ofD.Fulke that there is a double authority of thePaftour; one with the feverall Congregation in which heisPaftour, the other with the whole Synod or AlTembhe whereof he is a member , and both thefe authorities (n)Demoft. fufficiently authorized in the Scriptures: fo faith Mr Vdall to like purpofe, (n) The of Difdp.c. wor d of God hath defcribed fufficient minifters & minifteries for doftrine , exhor- tation, overfeeing , diftributing , and ordering of every particular Church or general! S y- (o) Ib.c.io nod. Andagaine, hefaithofBifhopsor Paftours, that 0) they are of equall authority in their feverall charges, and in the general! governments of the Church. And in the fame * i Con a chapter he alledgeth the decrees of divers * Councels , ihewing how the caufes Carrh. tom. of one Church or Congregation were judged by many Biffrops of other Congre- 1.C.10.&3 gations meeting together. Infpeciall ,whenfome(p) objected that theie would Conc.tora. g e ^ man y Elderjhipsfto mmy divers ft/bions, feeing onemaynot meddle with another :Here- (p )Oem5ft. unt0 rle anfwers » The Government defired n uniformefcr every Church and admitteth no olDifc.c. 14 change , no not in outward ceremonies , without a Synod of the choyce men-, of fever aH Elder* flvps. 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 Englifh Church at Franckford in Queene Maries dayes , is al- CLASSES AND SYNODS. toy (o alledged as a proofe of the Non-eon formijls diffenting from me; whereufito I an- fwer : 1. Thofe three Articles of their Difcipline obje&ed; the one,thar the Mi- nitters andSeniours,feverally andjoyntly^jl^all have no authority to make am manner of De- crees or Ordinances to bindethe Congregation or any member thereof: But jhall execute fuch ordinances , cu {hall be made by the Congregation , and to them delivered : Another , c hac none jhall be excommunicated, untill the matter befirfl heard by the whole Church : And fur- ther) t hat Mini- ers and Seniours, and every of them, befubjeB to Ecclejiafiicall difcipline , as other private members of the Church be ; thefe doe not ac all concernethe queftion betwixt us. For thefe things being granted* it doth not follow that then the au- thority ofSynods is overthrowne,that they mav not judge of any ordinances made in fuch a Congregation ; or that fuch a Church where thefe Articles are agreed upon, hath thereby denyed and condemned fuch a Glafficall government, as we fubmic ourfelves unto. n. Thefe Articles of their Difcipline are not rightly, and plainly, but darkly and confufedly cited. In the quotation of the firft,the page 1 1 5r. is put for pag. i 27. The two next are alledged without any quotation at all , either of page , or number of Article fpecifyed in the booke ; and both are joined together as if they were but one Article. And in the fecond Article there is o- tnitted that dif junction , which affords an exception touching the Uriel: obfervati- on thereof. For whereas M r Canne alledgeth it limply thus* None fliallbeexcom- municated until! the matter be heard by thewhole Church 5 the (q) booke irfelf admitceth fa) j]j*fc« °^ the libertv of a different praftife by adding this claufe > or by fuch ash (hallfpecially FMnkfS, appoym thereunto. This fabrication is fo much thegreater? in that MrHomeobjec- 129. ting againft this Article , and arguing that thereby CO theauthority of the Paslour and ^ r.^J* Seniors is all mped away - } for every thing is referred to the confufed multitude of the Congre- l 4r gation : Mr PVhitbeadin the fame booke anfwereth him on this manner , Where he faith, all things if referred to theeonfufed multitude , it is manifeftlyfalfe. For it is alwayes added, by fuch as the Congregation (hall appoint thereto : as it k alfo in the 5-4 Article addict in plaim words. Let the Reader obferve this deceitful! allegation, both againft the expreffe words of the Anicle,& againft the plaine explicatio thereof by Mr Whit. in the name of that Englilh Church at Frankford. Whereas M r Canne (0 objefteth further from An.i6.& 67. that in fome cafes CO Cha.pi, the forenamed Englilh Church agreed that appealesjhould be made unto thz_ body of lr& the Congregation - f I anfwer, that in fuch cafes as are there fpecifyed , If the Minifiers and Seniours which have authority to heare & determine, &c. (as it is elf where fpecif\ ed> though not in this Article ) be fuJpeBed or found to be parties , that then they hadrea- fon to appeale rather to the body of the Congregation then that parties fhould be fuffered to be judges in their owne caufe . And no mai veil , confidering what I have noted (0 before touching the ftate of that Church j where the Reader may ( t )P, i si- Tee a further anfwer unto thefe objections. But then he afkes me what I fay to -12^ this, and hopes I will not fay that they were Brownifts : I anfwer, His hope is right in this poynt, I may not fay they were Brownifts > nor their practife the fame with the Brownifts : i. Becaufe they-rrraoTe this agreement through neeeffity > when they wanted a Claflls > whereas the Brownifts wilfully oppugne and refule Clafficall combinations. 2, Becaufe the Brownifts deny authority of judgement imto «>S THE POWER OF (v) Art.y 9 . unco Minifters and Elders, in fuch cafes where they are no parties>*which this fv; 6$. Church at Frankford did not. 3 . Becaufe the Englilh Church at Frankford did not teach the doctrine of Separation , as the Brownifts doe > but when they could (x) Difc of noc 0Dt aine the reformation defired > did W ftill hold one another brethren in the woub.Frak- Lord, though greeved for the defers among them. ford,p.:87- But it is wonder that M r Canne isnotafhamed to alledge the example of this "(y)Difc of Englifh Church at Frankford: for whereas G. lobnfon^ in a peculiar (y)treatife troub.in which he wrote againft his brother Franc.Iohnfon , and that Church of the Brow- thc baniih. nifts whereof he was Paftour,hath compared the troubles of thefe two Churches Churchy co g ecner i in tne && P art of this treatife,which is entitled, The agreement between the Amlterd.p. banifhed Englifh Church at Frankford in Q^Maries dayes , andfome troubks in the banijhed 21-73. EnglifhChurch at Jmfterdam in Q^EU^abtths dayes ;he brings more then an 100 feve- rall mftances to (hew that where any diforder , fcandall or offence was in the En- glifh Church at Frankford , the like evills , fcandals and offences were alfo to be found and obferved in the Englifh Church of the Separatifts in Amfterdam. And 73 --93 P * * n C ^ e f econc * P arc °f tn i s treatife , entitled , ( z ) Differences between the Paftor , Elders, <$ people in the troubles at Frankford inQ^Maries dayes , and the Paflor, Elders and people inthetroubles at Amfterdamin^Eli^abeths dayes ;he brings more then 20 feverallin- ftances to (hew that the Englifh Church of the Separation was worfe then the o- ther, and that where divers good orders and pra&ifes were in the Englifh Church at Frankford , the fame were wanting in the Church of the Brownifts at Amfter- dam. And in particular,let this be obferved, that concerning the Englifh Church (a) r.74. at Frankford G.Iohnfon (a) alledgeth,that there was agreement among them,that themat- terjhouldbe decided by learned men. But concerning thofe at Amsterdam he faith » Thefe dtffer farre fi9m them herein, they will not confent hertmto y they will not be perfuaded, or intreated to let the Reformed Churches heare, try, judge, and end the controverfy between-, them and us. For proof hereof he notes in his margine , This is witneffedby the tefti- mony of the Dutch Preachers, given to the Pajlors father. Now inftead of pleading from the orders of that Church at Frankford, it had bene fitter for M r Canne to have taken warning from thefe unparalleld offences of his predeceflours , not to main, taine the like diforders; or els to haveanfwered thefe parallels and cenfures of G. lohnfon , and fo to have removed (if he could) the fcandall and blame which hath (o long lien upon his fellowes for not anfwering this book. HAving confidered the particular teftimonies of Non-conformifts » and how chey have bene perverted by M r Canne , in applying them againft the autho- rity of Synods ; it f hall not be amifTe to adde yet further a threefold Teftimony, to manifeft this poynt more clearly and fully, and fo to conclude this Se&ion;name- ly by the Petitions of Non-conformifts to Qu. Elizabeth, and to the Parliament; \l the oppofition of the Prelates to the Non-conformifts;& the fcorne of theBrow- ll nifts againft Non-conformifts. 4 Firft, when as the Minifters have made requeft unto Q/Eli%abeth for reformati- (b) retit.to on of things amifTe, f hewing how controverfies may be compounded, they fay,(b) the Q. molt t h 2t a fiee Nationall or Provinciall Counceli at home were much to be wijhed, (sre And in cxceuiaj. a ueatl f e annexec j thereunto , entitled, Opinions of fuch en fue for Reformation, among It ■ other ( CLASSES AND SYNODS. *o<> other things which they hold & fue for, this is one,(<0 That if any dijfention grow or ( c ) ibH. £ taufe of "grievance be given in any particular Churchby theMinifier or Officers, theparti^. fyVfitk grieved might appeale to a particular Synod • from the particular Synod to a Provinciall Sy- nod • from a Provinciall Synod to a Nationall Synod, Which Synods jhould he appointed at: fet times : the more particular the Synod is, the more often : for the time to he moderated byfome fit man changeably by eleBion , that might write , fyeak, and pray in thebihalfe and at the di- reBion of the refi, <$c. And a little after againe, Li) they doe profefie and proteft,that they ( d ) S a i. can and will avow this Reformation which they defire, to be mojl agreeable to the Scriptures, to have the tefkimonie of the befi & mofi learned men that have henefince the and ended 1571. They tf) defcribing the platforme of a Church reformed , and prefenting ^Jf "j their defire to the confideration of the Parliament , doe therein commend the ufe 5 ° z . e d,i5i7 of Conferences, and of Synods Provinciall , Nationall and Generally for determining the weighty caufes which could not be ended in particular Churches. And they re- quire that men fhould ftand unto thefe determinations>unleiTe they can be {hewed to be contrary to the Scriptures. Secondly , fuch as have bene fpeciall maintayners of the Prelacie doe confefTe and teftify that the Minifters which fought for reformation, did therein feek for government of the Church by Cla ffes and Synods 5 and that not for counfell one- ly> but to judge the caufes of particular Churches , and to cettfere fuch perfons as were found guilty. It is by one of them manifefted in a fpeciall (g) Record , that (g)Danoer. when divers Minifters not conforming were caft intoprifon^ andfome of them Pofitio.for wrought into the Starre- Chamber and examined upon their oathes, they declared ^Smu" the earneft endeavours of many Minifters for the obtayning of Clafles. i >3 lC ,z-!?$ And there among fuch as gave pregnant teftimonie in allowance of Clafllcall government, are nominated thefe following; Mr Chark, Mr Traverser Gardiner, Mr Barber, Mr Chefter, Mr Croo^MrEgerton, Mr Field, Mr Wilcox , Mr Standee* Mr Iactyon, Mr Bonham , Mr Crane , Mr SeinBloe , Mr Edwards , Mr Cholmeley , Mr Wright, Mr Gifford, Mr Gelibrand, Mr Weft, Mr Browne, Mr Knewfiubs , Mr Wight, Mr Walker , Mr Canwright , Mr Fen, Mr Oxenbridge, Mr Perkins , Mr ^Allen^ >Mr Dike, MrCulverwell, accor- ding to the order and pra&ife obferved alfo in Scotland & at Geneva > is therefore by the Recorder hereof noted & ftiled over the head of many pages in that books Englijh Gemvatingfor Reformation : And againe , Englijh Scottiqingjor Difciplin^ fy praftife. Even thefe reproaches doe juftly ferve for the reproofe of M r Canne,who denyes that which other oppofites doe willingly acknowledge. Thirdly,the very Brovvnifts themfelves were wont of old to acknowledge that the not-conforming Minifters in England did ftaod for Clafles and Synods . Though with great fkorne & reproach they fpeak of Synods > vet that very fkorne and reproach is a witnefle againft M r Can. and W. B. to fhew the confent of for- mer times with me. Hen. Barotv [peaking ofthe cenfures of evill,and condemning (k) H.Bar, both Conformifts and Non-conformiits together, he faith ; 00 Yea all thePriefts nfcch* M °^ cne ^ an ^» k° tn Pontifical! and E^eformifts agree in this poynt > & conclude that r*i6y. ,f " »> the lav people (as they terme them) ought not to intermeddle either with the „ depofing their Minifter, or reproof Gf his doctrine. The one fort (faith he) j,fendeththem to their Lords thefe Bifhops , the other referreth them over for >, thefe and many other cafes under hand , to a Provinciall or Clafficall Synod or ? , permanent Councell of Priefts , &c. Amongft whom all thefe affaires muft be jj debated , and after they are agreed upon the poynt , then their decrees to be n brought fortbjfolemnly published and pronounced to the people, who muftat- 3 , tend upon, wait, and receave thefe Oracles as moft holy and Canonical!. They 5 , have no remedy if they alfo be contrary to the trueth, but to appeale to a Coun- 9 , cell, &c And this he calleth a devilijbforgerie, &C (l)lbU.p. After that to like purpofe he faith) (l) Thefe Priefts , they will not onelynot l6 °- » fubmir their perfons and doftrine to the cenfure of the Church where they ad- ,, minifter ( for they muft have a Jurie of Clarkes , a Claffis of Priefts to goe upon » them) but they bindc their poore Church to their lippes & build it upon them- „ felves, and with their blazing light ftrike all the reft of'cheir hearers & followers (m) P,i69,,, ftark blinde . Againe , (™)By their Propheticall Conventicles and Clatficall l7 ° f », Synod* they aiTume into their owne hands the key of all knowledgcandf hutting 5, up the Scriptures,yea all Gods graces>even the Holy Ghoft itfelf among them- 3 , feivesin thefe their Schooles of Prophets: as alfo into their ClafTes of feleft ,, Priefts the fcepter of Chrift and abfolute government of all Churches , to „ whom it is left but to receive and execute the reverent decrees of this famous nCltfis of Priefts. In another place , having told hovv the Pontificals have opened their mouthes unto accurfed blafphemyjthcn he returnes unto the i^/br;»//fo > andfpeakes on this iqL ' >» W ^ e > MThe Pharifecs of thefe times > I meane thefe your great learned Prea- chers > CLASSES AND SYNODS. m „ chers» your Goodmrn that figh and grone for Reformation, but their hands with ,t the fluggard denie to worke. Thefe councerfaites would raife up a fecond er- J ,ror> even as a fecond Beaft » by fo much more dangerous by how much it hath ,, more (hew of the truth. Thefe men inftead of this groiTe Antichriftian govern- „ men: which is now manifeft and odious unco all men , would bring in a new a- >, dulterate forged government in {hew , or rather in defpite of Chrifts bleiTed go- „ vernment , which they in the pride , ralhnes , ignorance and fenfualicie of their „ fleihly hearts moft miferably innovate, corrupt and pervert, &c. The thing it- 3> felfe they innovare and corrupt , in that they adde new devifes of their owne; as 3) their Paftorallfujpcnfeon from their Sacraments, their fet continued Synods , chek i, {elect Clajfes of Mmitters, their fetled fupreme Counceil, &c. Tnat which Mrlohnfon and others with him doe require , is more generall and ambiguous, viz. (o) that the Church be notgoverned h Popi/h Canons , Courts , Clajfes , ( ) ApoI.oC Cuftomes , or any humane inventions , but by the lawes and rules which Cbrift hath apposn- Brown. Vec v ted'in his Testament, But that which H.'Barotv writes is more plaine , and moie par- 3 pof.j,.r> ticularly applyed to the Minifters of England, whom he calleth the Rtformifls.Oi 4 ' j, them he faith, (p) Their permanent Svnods & Councels atto which they would (p) Difcov?; 99 erect ( not here to fpeak of their new Dutch Clajfes, for therein is a fecret ) (hould P- ' 9 *« 9 ) oneiy confift of Priefts or Minifters as they terme them ; people of the Chur- ,j ches be {hut out, & neither be made acquainted with the matters debated there* 99 neither have free voyce in thofe Synods and Councels , but muft receave and 99 obey without contradiction whatfoever thofe learned Priefts {"hall decree.Thele ?9 Synods, and Councels {hall have abfolute power over all Churches,doctrines 8c 99 Minifters,to ere£t,ratifie or abrogate9 to excommunicate or depofe at their plea- ii fures : Their decrees are moft holy withoutcontroulement,unle{Te it be by the «> Prince or the high Court of Parliament : Not here to fpeake of their folemne 9>,prders obferved in thefe Councils and Synodes, as their choice by fuffrage a- 99 mongft themfelves of their Archifynagogm ,or Rector Chori, their Prefidenc (as »9 they call him ) propounder or moderator of their Counceil ; about which their 99 predeceftburs have had no fmairftir, untill their holy Father the Pope put an 99 endto the ftrife by getting the chaire.This ftufFe they would bring in againe un- 99 der colour of Reformation, thefe and many more their leavened corrupt wri- 99 tings of Difcipline,and their fupplications unto the Parliament, declare : &c, 9, Againe he faith , (4) Thefe Reformifts , howfoever for falhion fake, they give (^u>.P,i93 9> the people a little libertie to fweeten their mouthes, and make them beleeve 99 that they {hould choofe their owne Minifters (for further right in the cenfuring 99 their Minifters9or in the ordering the affaires of their Churches they allow not* 99 as hath' bene fayd) yet even in this pretended choice doe they coozen & beguile 9, them alfo , leaving them nothing but the fmokv windy title of election onely ; 99 injoyning them to choofe forae Univerfitie Clarke,one of thefe Colledge birds 99 of their owne brood,or els comes a Synode in the necke of them, & annihilates 9, the election whatfoever it be. They have alfo a trick to flop it before it come *9 fo farre; namely in the ordinatio, which muft (forfooth) needs be done by other 99 Priefts; for the Church that choofeth him hath no power to ordaine him : And D d z this *i* THE POWER OF ,, this makes the mother Church of Geneva and the Dutch Claffes ( T dare nor fay 91 the fecret Claffes in England) to make Minifters for us in England And thefe yi Minifters when they are come over, are efteemed & receaved as Angels in helU » and fhine as bright ftarres in thefe fmoky Egyptian fornaces , wherein the mifera- 99 ble people of the land are kept in moft hard fervitude, &c. Thefe (kornfull and reproachfull fpeechesof H. Barowdoe fufficiently teftify what the Brownifts of old thought of the Dutch Claffes and Synods > and what they thought of fuch Minifters in England as defir ed a Reformation , and therein a Clatficall government. Though H.Barow according to his manner doe overlap and utter much falfhood ; yet he is not guilty of fo great falfhood as M r Canne > in denying what the Minifters and forward profeflburs in England (as he callcs the ) did heretofore feek , and fue for. It is certaine and evident that the Non-confor- fr)Demoft, mifts have ( r ) held that unto the juft calling of a Minifter there is required the cal- ofuifcc.z. i ul g f a particular and certaine Church where he is to adminifter : Yeafo much zifif.Sr * s a "° confefed touching them by the 10 Prelatifts , when by them it is recorded Triers of as a decree of the Synodicall Difcipline, that nonejhould take upon him an-, uncertamt Ecc.Difc.p. and vagut mini fiery , though it be offered unto him^ but fuch at be called to the mini fiery by raonropil t om cmaim Church , Qtc . And againe , that none is to be accounted a full Minifie* p. i yledit. "ntillfome particular Congregation hadchofen him , tffe. For though as in thefe Chur- 16 1 7. ches, after due examination & approbation by a Claffis,men are allowed to preach ( of? ang f an ^ t0 exerc ^ e tnen * 6^ ts occafionally, yet are not fuch efteemed Minifter untill Engi'.scoti. tnev ^ e called by fome Church, and confirmed therein. But H.Bar, as in divers c.3.p. 4 6.5c other things foin this 9 fpeakesflanderouflvof the Clafles , and of the Minifters c. 14.P.1 h. approoving them 9 when as he faith 9 CO Both fides , both Bijhops and this nttv CUQis ftV*Difcov ta k? u P on themtomaks Minifters without the people, without any charge 3 place , or office cer- p. 17;! * ***** Though the falfhood of H. Bar. be manifeft herein , yet M r Canne goes*a degree beyond him, when he ihamesnot to deny the approbation which theNon- conformifts have given to the Dutch Claflesand Synods> which H.Bar.could not deny for the faft, though he impugne them as erring therein. Let the Reader now obferve here the palpable untrueth of Mr C. & of W.B.in their Apilh imitation of my words, which they fo falfely apply againft me, faying9 (v) Chu.pl. (v) iAs Herod to kill one infant ftp ared not to^jll a multitude of other infants : fo he , that* hi p.»3,«9. m ight undermine us and blow ut up into the avre, he cared not, norjpared not with the gunpow- der of ~ht* fiery contention and reproaches to blow up with Hi a multitude of Godly and learned Minifters being of the fame judgement with m. I defire the Readers to looke upon my (x) Anfw. former (x) writing, and then to judge whether I had not juftcaufe to complaine eo w.R.p. f their wounding the Claffis through my fides , and of their reproaching the Mi- lc'Jt,'i£ nifters of thefe Reformed Churches under my name 9 in regard of their confent 3c8cc. ' and praftife agreeable to mine. I defire that the teftimonies, confefl!ons,and pe- titions of the ancient Non-cor?formifts above mentioned , in allowance of a Claf- ficail & Synodal! government , may be duely pondered j& then let any indifferent Reader judge , whether I undermine them andblow them up into theayre , ifc . while I confirme their teftimonies both by word and practife. But thefe oppofites , M r Canne and his client have fo little conference of crueth > that they have not cared to CLASSES AND SYNODS. tt S to utter the groffeft fall hood, fo that fhey might but conrradift me. Let them re- member* Lying lips are an abomination tothe Lord.Prov.\z,2,z. Sect. VI. Touching the Teftimomes of \Ancient fathers , Counccls>and Emperours, T He. Advocate of W. B. not contet with the teftimoniesof men in later times, leades us back to the teftimony of Antiquity, and to the Ages long before. And though he (a) confefle he had done it already , in mentioning fome teftimo - (a) Ch.pf, nies of the moft ancient times ; yet notwithstanding to (hew that he ftands not for P«^» an v Novelty , he proferTeth againe , he willjhew that the heft approved Authors > after the jipoftles,aredire8;ly with them, in this thing&c. Thofe which he alledgcth are thefe, Ignatius , Tertullian ,Origen , Cyprian , Eufebius , Athanafim , Epiphanius, Itrome, Am- hrofe, Cyrilly Hilarie t Greg.Na^ian^en^ugusline^hryfoftome.BaJill, Socrates tlfidorm, Bernard, And with thefe he alfo makes mention of fome Qomcells and Christian^ Emperours, box anfwer hereunto, Firft in generall it is to be obferved, that the thing which he here pretends to prove, viz, that everie particular vifible Church of ChritfMth pow- er to exercife Ecclejiaflicall government , and all other Gods jpirituall ordinances , in and for itfelf immediately from Chrifl; this comes ihort of the question betwixt us. For this being granted , it doth not follow hereupon that the power of Claries and Synods is an undue power,or that particular Churches may not therefore ftand under the au- thority ofanotherfuperiourEcclefiamcall judicatory out of themfelves. This their inference will never be made good from fuch a ground . This beggerly conie- quence I have oft (b) refuted before. (b y \p a i 4y , To come more particularly unto the teftimonies of thefe Authours, which he 14^149. promifeth to fet do wne according to the times in which they lived: And to beginne firft &c « with Ignatiw, from him healledgeththatit was then the manner of viGble Chur- ches (c) to come together in oneplace* to worfhip God , having Bifliops , Elders and Deacons ( C ) Ac j ph^ tint their Officers, whom the people freely chofe by voycw, or lifting up of hands. I anfwer : ladelph.ad I. All that is here favd being granted,it foliowes not that they were independent, ^ a ^ ef ' ad and refufed to fubmit their controverfies to the judgement of other Churches af- r ' fembled in Synods. Ignatius being Minifter of the Church of Antiochiain Syria* which had of old fubmitted their controverfy to theSynod held at lerufalem,^^. t ?. what reafon is there to thinke they forgoc their old pra&ife, approved by the Apoitles themfelves? 11. Though it be probable, and we in judgement of cha- rity are bound to thinke that the Officers, Biihops , Elders , and Deacons of this Church were chofen with the free confent of the people, according to the direc- tion of the Apoftles ; yet is not fo much fpecifyed in any of thofe three Epiftles here mentioned in the margine, and therefore are they vainely alledged for the proof thereof, m. Ignatim labouring for the peace and eftablifhment of the Church of Antiochia arter his death, defired the Church of Philadelphia ( d ) to (&)*p&M choofea Bifaop y which being fent thither as an Embaffadourin the Emba^age ofGod,it might ^^difpa- fa granted unto ibtm toglorify God in* thw meeting together. He fpeakes there not of rff.fj Jj. ** Dd 1 choo- H4 THE POWER OP chooling a Bif hop to minifter in their owne Church , but of choofing one to be their Deputy , to travell unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for fettling of order in that Church. And in the fame place to moove them the more, he {hew- eth what was the pra&ife of the Primitive Churches in fuch cafes,viz.that alwayts the neighbour Churches didfend Bi(hops , andfome of them Elders and Deacons. Againe» (e)Epift.ad writing upon the fame occafion unto Polycarpus , Bifhop of Smyrna, he faith ( e lu volyc.p.97, wm meet to gather a Synod comely in the Lord , and choofe fome dearly beloved and diligent* 9 : perfon, which might be- caUed Theodromos , [or one that {hould runne for Godj J who might travell into Syria , and thereby celebrate their diligent love to the praife of God. And ufing many arguments to commend that bufinefie unto him as the work of God » he intreatetb Polycarptu that he would write unco other Churches, that they would doe che fame thing •, that thev which were able would fend men to travell on foot , that others would fend their letters to be conveyed bv fuch as Polycarpus (f)Pol.Ecc. (hould/end thither. From thefe tcftimonies of lgnatiut t M r Parker (0 concludes '•3» c - 2 4-p. jfoat fa thofe times, according to the pra&ife of the Reformed Churches with us > neighbour Churches were combined together a* it were CUjfically,for themutuallcvmmunica* (g) Perpet. t hn of offices. And whereas D. Bilfon(s) confelfeth that it was the manner of that Gov.c.7. t j me? jj any church wa S cofled with waves of difcord , that neighbour Churches round about did fend a Bilhop , Elder or Deacon for appealing that tempeft : M* Parker mEencs juftly thereupon , Jf neighbour Churches hadrightox authority in com* pounding offtrifes, why not alfo in moderating of elections & His conclufion in the fame place is , Let thts very right in compounding ftrife be afufficient authorisation for ourClajfes* Thus then it isapparant that Ignatius was not dire&ly with M r Canne , as he boa- fteth, but his meaning hath bene manifeftly perverted contrarv to his words. Tertullian, that is next alledgcd (though mifalledged, c. i9.being put for c. j$ J (kjApol.c. relating the manner of Chriftian aflembhes in his time, faith in efTeft, 00 They 39. cape together into the Congregation [it is not fayd into one Congregation, as M r C.al- ledgeth it] for to pray unto God, for to rehearfe the DivineScriptures , andwith holy words yo nourijb faith, ft irr.e up hope, and f often confidence. And they ufed exhortations , reproof es and divine Cen fur e. Ianfwer: 1. Though particular Churches met together for fuch end, this hinders not but that the Deputies of thofe fame Churches might meet together in Synods, for t heir mutuall affiftance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult caufes. Itfoliowesnot becaufe feverall Congregations have their due power, that therefore the power of ClaflTes is an undue power. 11. , That Tenullum himfelf intended no fuch thing , it appeares evidently by the great (i)Dejeju- approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods, in faying, (OTfo nUs adverf. appoynted Synods are kept through the countries of Gr acta in-, cert aine places out-* of all the p yc i.e. 13 ci mrc ij eSi w fa re by both the deeper or more difficult matters are handled in common, (? by that reprefentation of the whole Chriftian floc^they are celebrated with great reverence* (k) in Jof. He alledgeth the words of Origen y writing much to the fame purpofe , (k) Such Horn. 7. M wen brought in the third place, for finne unto the Congregation ; if they flood obftinate, by the judgement of the whole Church were excommunicated from the body, the Elders of the (1) ch.pl.p. Church pronouncing thefentence . And then in his owne words he fayth , 0) Obfervt 9°' here , he faith not that the matter was carted to a Claffis , and there fir ft determined , &c . but namei CLASSES AND SYNODS. aiy names ontly the Congregation , and Elders thereof-, notwithfianding had there lent any fuch (iiperiour judicatorie Affembly , it is likely he would have omitted it , and mentioned a fubordinateandinferiourone. An s v v. i. The words which they alledge in ano- ther letter in Origens name, as if they had bene his fpeech verbatim defcnbed j are not his words. He neither fpeakes of men brought unto theChurch , nor of the judg- mentofthe Church>nor of Elders pronouncingthefentence:he ihewes how all the peo- ple might be polluted by the finne of one man, when the Priefis which rule the people being unmindefull ofpriefilyfeverity doe not rebuke , nor take a way eyill from them , nor make him as a Publicane and Heathen which hath defpifed the admonition of the Church; but not in fuch words and forme of fpeech as M r Canne faineth. iu All that Origen there fpeakes is not repugnant to Claflicall government : all that he there requireth is dayly performed by the Churches among us,which ftand ur- der the government ofCIafles and Synods. Obftinate offenders having their names and offences divers times published before the whole Congregation , are with the confent thereof excommunicated, by the judgement of the Elderfhip going before, in. If Origen in his writings had expreiTely denyed the authority of Synods, it had bene of no great weight againft the generall judgement of other ancient Fathers; the rather, feeing his writings are rejected and condemned by fo many , efpecially by Epiphanius and Hierome , the Authours hereafter alledged by M r Canne. And fee how vaine manv ofhisglofles were even touching this poyat. Speaking of the keyes of the kjngdome of heaven. Mat. 1 6 . he there telles us o f many keyes to open feverall gates in heavenjthat (*»] Temperance ?s one key to open the (m)Ong m Gate of Temperance in heaven^ that lufiice is another kpy to open another Gate , andfo for all Mat - ! 6 - ether vermes. And afterwards expounding the promife made Matt. 18.18. tou- ching binding and looting in heaven, & comparing it with the promife made un- to Peter Mat. 16.19. becaufe a word of the plurall number is ufed in the promife to Peter, w rotg xqctvoi? y /« cc?te, and to others a word of the lingular number, hras^yea^nccelo^ Origen from thence (") teacheth us this Do&rine, that (oJMfeiri in Peter did bmde and loofe in all heavens, whereas fomeothersdid bpt binde and Mat ' iS ' loofe in one heaven. And therefore he concludeth, LooP^how much better he is that hindetk, byfo much is he that is bound, bound in more then one heaven : and by how much better he is that loofeth , by fo much the more bleffed u he that is loofed , becaufe he js loofed in all the heavens. Such are many of the interpretations of Origen. iy. As M r Canne mifalledgeth Origen to impugne the authority ofClalTes and Synods; fo other more learned & judicious Waters alledge him on the contrary for proof thereof. D.TVhitaker to vindicate the authority of Synods againft the Pspifts, and to prove their power above the Pope, argueth (oj'from the greater affiihnce of the Holy (ojDec^c. Ghoft, and of Chrift governing his Church, to wk, in Svnods: and for declara' c i 11 ^ ?•%. tion hereof brings the teftimony of Origen , noting upon i\om. \ $-. that itisfaydto none of 'the ^Apofiles Jingularly, and to none of the faithful! , I will be with thee $ but unto a multitude of Churches phrally J will be with you. And M f Parker (p) from him repea- (pVPol%9>9°. vers^ Cen ^.. is6 THE POWER OF vers Synods in Arabia, for the conviction of fundry herefies. fr) Lib.$. Cyprianis in like manner perverted : for when as he ( r ) reprooving thofe Elders Epift. 14.& that without confent either of the people, or of their Paftour, had rafhly receaved " 10 * unto the Communion againefuch as were fallen and become Apoftates, before their due confefllon of fault , doth 1 hew that fuch things ought not to be conclu- (f)L.i.ep.4ded without common confent of the Church; and confeflethalfo that (0 the peo- ple chiefly have power to choofe worthy Minifters,and to rtfufe unworthy ones; this we alfo a(Tent unto , while that power is ufed aright. But in the fame place he gives a cleare tefumony for the warrant of Svnods in deciding of weightier caules, when in that Synodall Epiftle written by Cyprian* Cheilitis, Primus, Poly* carpus, andmany others, in the name of the Svnod then aflembled together,it is favd, (t) Art. 6,7, t hat ( t) it is to be obferved and held by divine Ordinance and ApoftclicaU obfervation,whicb it alfo kept among us, and almoji through all the Provinces, that for the right performing of or- dination, all the next Bifltops of that Province are to affemble^ together unto that people^ to which an Overfeer is ordained, 1$c. And of this pra&ife he there gives an inltance in the ordination ofSabmus , and in the deposition oiBafdides , and The wes the reafon thereof, that by thefuffrages of the whole brotherhood, and by the judgement of thofe BiJhops 9 which wereprefently affembled together, the office of a Bifhop might be conferred upon him,and that hands might bel ay d upon himinfleadofBaJilides. And bt!idesthis> we rindc there (?) CyprX. many (vj other pregnant evidences of the ufe,necefllty and authority of Synods in 1 ; ep.».& y chofe times. From thence S. Goulartiw in his anfwers to Pamelius his annotations Cy^Ep.7j. on CyP rian > doth 00 confirme the liberty of Churches in maintayning yearely p.z3*6. ' ' their Provincial! Synods > &c. From thence alfo Mr Parker con firmes the ufe of (x) P.z4}. Clafllcall government in thefe Reformed Churches , and concludes , (y) Why doe (vS°Ecc 4 * $ m< ^ ttmc ' Were h nothing more evident to him that « acquainted with the ancient mo- I.3«.i4, de numentsof hiftory , then that neighbours f even bejides the Synod) did eftfoone meet together Claffib.p. for deciding offlrifes, for ordinations, for diffolving of doubts, and im-fumme,for every weigh- 3 J 6 * 5 )" 7* ty bufineffe. Of which afiemblies the Epijlles of C y prian are full. And thefe ajfemblies what are they els but Clafjicall ajfemblies r And againe in the fame place ; Hereof wt_ have examples every where in the Epijlles of Cyprian. A little after , Who fees not here the lively portraitureof our Claffes ? And » Oh how doth the Hierarchy offend which hath ba- nijhed this mofipleafant combination of Claffes ? Hereby the Reader may j udge whe- ther it be not an abfurd and fenfeles boafting of M r Canne , who oppugning this Clalficall government, is not afhamedtofay ofCvprians teftimony in thefe E- piftles, What can be more full and abfoluteto our pur pofe then this? With what judgment doth this man read the writings of the Fathers ? fa) Ch pi i* is kyd U1 1 ne ^ next ^ ace * Eufebius teflifyeth that the Churches of the mofifa* p^o. * ntous Cities were in their conslitutionfirfl, but one ordinary conjlant Congregation^ Jer u - (b)Euf.i.3. falem (b) , Ephefus (c) , Alexandria W) , Hierapolis (e) , Corinth (f; , Sardis te) , y • „ &c. This being] o, then it followes, that primitively the) 'were independent • and jloodnot (Sj 3*?3? ' under any other Ecclefi a fticall authority , out ofthemfelves '. In the allegation of thefe (e) 4> 1. teftimonies out of Eufebius, there be divers miftakingsand faylings of memory or (f) 3.3a. attem ion ; Hierapolis with reference to L. 4. 1. where it is not mentioned, but in (gM-"' l # 5 j u Q Q rintb with reference to L. 5.32. where it is not found, but after in L 4.2a CLASSES AND SYNODS. i»7 4. 2i. Sard* alledged with reference to L. 4. n. where there is no mention at ail thereof> but there is fuch a mention ofAthnszs is intended for Sardu, Thefe flips of memory are to be noted for help of the Reader that would examine the places, but may well be excufed in fuch a rrumber of quotations. To leave them and to come unto the great abufes here to be obferved ; i . In all the places here alled- ged* Bufebius doth not teftify that the Churches of thefe Cities > were in their conftU Mion firft, hut one ordinary conftant Congregation • he hath no fuch words. He gives unto them the name and title of a Parifh • but it is not proved that in every Parifh there was but one ordinary conftant Congregation. Whether they were fo or not, this title of Parifh proves is not. 11. The eonfequcnce made from hence is more evidently falfe : for to admit thefe Churches were at the firft but one ordinary con- ftant Congregation, yet doth it not at all follow that therefore primitively they were independent , and flood not under any other Ecclefiafticali authority out of themfelves . Both our Englifh Church here , and generally other Reformed Churches in thefe countries were in their firft eonftitution , sad for the moft pare ftill are but one ordinary Congregariomand yet from the firft ftood under the Ec- clefiafticall authority of Claffes and Synods, in which they were combined. 111. Suppofefome of the Churches either in Eufebiu* time or in later times , did not ac their firft eonftitution ftand under the authority of Synods, when Churches being fo few], and fo farre diftant > they wanted opportunity of combining themfelves together for their mutuailaffiftances this hinders not but that upon the encreafe of neighbourChurch.es they might afterwards fubm it themfelves unto this order, 1 v.Thac the Primitive Churches whereof Eufebm writes in his hiftory, did ftand under another Ecclefiafticall authority out of themfelves , and were fubjeft unto their cenfures, he makes it evident by fundry inftances. He (*0 records how the (ty Hcd. errour oiMontanus was judged and condemned by many Synods in Afia : how CO *f x "> c - Movants and the Catharifis were excommunicated by a Synod holden at Rome i $' L 6 e Al confifting of 60 Bifhops, with many Elders and Deacons: how (k> PaulusSamofa-(k) L.7.C. terms was depofed and excommunicated by a Synod holden at Antioch . He de- % 9> clares 0) at large and celebrates the piety ofConftmine , the great friend & main- /» De vita tainer of Chriftian religion, for afTembling the Nicene Synod , wherein Anus was Confute. condemned. And in like manner hefhewes the fa) impiety of the Emperour Ii-6.7,&c. mitts 9 the enemy of God, who by a mifchievous devife fought to ruinate the^ 1 !^' 1 ' Churches of God by depriving them of their liberty in meeting together in Sy- nods, for deciding of their controverfies. So expreflely and clearely doth Eufebius give teftimony unto Synods. That which is collected out of Athanapus , viz* that ele&ions , excommunications , C*. according to the Apoftles precept , ought to be done in the public}^ Congregation by the^ Miniflersjbey taking firft thepeoples voyceorconfent - is fuch as I doe willingly affenc unto. Neither was there ever aay election , either of Minifter , Elder , or Dea- con, nor any excommunicati5 of any offender among us , but that the matter was firft folemnely communicated with the Church, and declared fe veralhimes in the publick Congregation , & theconfent of the people required & obtained before any fuch aft was confirmed & finifhed among us.iut what is this to the purpofe f E e Ma* n8 THE POWER OF Athanafius notwithstanding this doth witnefle unto us,that the caufes and contro- verts of particular Churches, were in his time fubmitted to the cenfure of other i Churches , and to another fuperiour Ecclefiafticall authority out of themfelves. This Athanafius i hewes in thefe very places here alledged aga'inft me : And in the (n)Tom.i. tirftofthem, having H made a lamentable narration of the miferies procured to *£ ift ;* r d the Church of Alexandria by the intrufion and cruelty of an Arian Bi(hop,he then thodoxos. m °ft vehemently fupplicates unto thofe that were members of the fame 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; fo they having greater occafion to vindicate the Church of God from newevills> would VncLm TctiptiQifrcurS'otj^ by their fujf rages condemne , and reject the Authors of fuch mif- (o)Epift ad chietcs. And more plainely in the 2<* place, he declares (o) at length that in the a2enVs. am S vnoc * holden at Sardica* where Hofius was Prefident, and whither the accufers of Athamfws were cited , the caufe being heard , the Synod did not onely advife and counfell what was meet to be done , but did give fentence touching the matters of controverfy , abfolved ^Athanafius ,and depofed the Bilhops that were found guiltv, fach as Stephanus, Menophantus>Acacius> Georgius, Vrfacius, Valens,Theodoyus* Narcijlus. As for the third allegation [Eptfi. com. Nica. c. 9. Bet. Hijl.] it feemes to be mifquoted: I rlnde no fuch Title in all the works of Athanafius . Inftead thereof therefore, let us fee another teftimonie of his , wherein he teacheth what the government of the Church was in thofe times > namely ruled by authoritie o£ (p)Tom.i. Synods, where the weightier caufes were judged & decided. Of this he (p) gives Rufinian. ^ n ^ ances * n tne Synods of Alexandria , Greece , and Spaine , where Ett^oius , Eudo* xius, and fuch principall offenders were depofed from their offices,and other upon their repentance retained. And the like Ecclefiafticall authority is in many other places throughout his writings by him commended unto us. Let us heare how M r C. proceeds. I.C. To thefe we mill adde Epiphanius , le romt , ^Amlr%fe , Cyrill , Hillarie and Greg. Naqan^cn ; writers in noeage. Touching Ecclefiafticall Govern ment , thefe to this purpofi Jpeakj: Particular Churches may lawfully ordaine their owne Bilhops, without o- therPreibytersaTifting them ;£/>//?&. cow*. H 73. he doth but catch at a lhadow, and pervert the words of Epiphanius ; andfalfi- fy them, by changing fbme and adding other, and omitting other that might give light unto thequefhon. His words upon occafion of Meletius his confefllon and fuffering for the trueth,are thefe; There are many people of this order of this Synod 3 which fetting Bifrops over themfelves, doe make a marvellous confeffion touching the faiths doe not rcjeB the word Coeflentiall. Yea and fay they are ready, if there were aperfeB Synod , to con* feffe o" not to deny fY.Here is no mention of particular Churches orCongregationsjnor oUawfully ordayning , nor of doing this without other Prejhyters affifting them .But that which is recorded touching the acknowledgement of alawfull ox perf eft Synod* that GLASSES AND SYNODS. «* that is omitted, Thus he varyeth from the Latine translation of Epiphanius : the Originall Greek in divers Copies is further from the matter; havfnjj-this betide other differences , 01 S7rirK07nis iav\%s Kcti$djr*ws , which made themfdves io be Bifoops, inftezd of lawfully ordaining their owne JBifhops. Such are the Alle- gations of M r Canne. n. Suppofe the words ofEpiphanfm had bene the fame that M r C. relates, yet had not the authority of Synods bene any thing diminiihed thereby. Is it not the common and ordinary pra&ife in thefe Reformed Chur- ches, that where two or more Minifters are in one Congregationjthere the newly elected Minifters are ordained and confirmed without any other Prelbyters from other Churches to aflift them ? Yet this is no good argument to prove they want Clafles and Synods . And though alfo they doe among themfeives excommu- nicate offendersiyet this hinders not but that Claflfes or Synods may exercife their authority in judging or cenfuring fuch as have unjuftly excommunicated any > or proceeded contrary to their advffe therein . in. That Epiphanius did approve the authority and jurifdiftion of Synods > it is manifeft by his prattife. It is (q) re- ^ s °™. corded of him that he being Bifhop of Salamis or Conjtantia in Cyprus, procured \l,'' c ^' a Synod to be called in that Iland,wherein the bookes of Origan were condemned} & a decree made that none fhould read his bookes. i v. Epiphanius did not one- ly approve the lawfull authority of Synods; but he went further and did maintaine the unlawfull authorise of particular perfons over divers Churches. This appea- reth in his (0 condemning ofA'erius of herefie, that held Bif hops & Prelbyters to (0 "Epiph. be the fame by divine inftitution ; whom D.Whitakcr ft) doth juftly defend againft ^H' ontt Bellarmim and others, and fhewes that Bierome and other ancient Fathers were of Rom . M .i. p ; the fame minde with ^A'erius therein; and fayth that we are not to regard the ab- 104, 105. furd men that doe foioften objecT^mw unto us: he fayth Epiphanius doth foolilh- Io6 - ly and childilhly anfwerthe teftimonies produced by Aerius, and wonders that fuch a Divine that tooke upon him to refute all Heretickes , did not fee his owne foule errour. Yea it is further (t) recorded of Epiphanius , that he diforderly in- (t)Soc.Hift, truded himfelf into the charge of Chryfojlome , contrary to the EccIefiafticallCa- EccU - 6 ' c * nonsobferved in thofe times, by celebrating the Lords fupper& ordaining a Dea- 11 ' 13 ' con in the Church at Conftantinople. And thus we fee M c Cannes witnedes are in extremity oppofite unto himfelf. Another of his witneiTes is lerome , from whom he alledgeth , that 0) In-> every [^J erad Congregation there ought tobeaSenate or ajfembly of Elders. To this lanfwer, 1. This aq ' is nothing againft the authority of Synods . The Reformed Churches have in every Congregation fuch a Senate of Elders: and yet this hinders not but that they have & ought to have Claflfes & Synods alfo,both for direction and correction of Elderihips , and for decifion of the controversies arifing in particular Churches . 11. Though every Congregation ought to have a Senate of Elders ; yet lerome^ doth not avouch fo much in the place alledged. His words are falfifyed'.for in the place which they mifquote (adGaUinftezd of ad Jig. ) the words of Jerome are thefe,(x) How great the traditions of the Pbarifees are 9 which at this day they call }g J/ga&j'- @&¥ ^ T€i$ , 4nd what old Wives fables, I cannot Wpnffe. Tor neither doth the greatnes of the- g Ee 2 book? tto THE POWER OF bookf permit : and many of them are fo filthy y that I blujh to tell. And yet (faith he ) I will tell one of them, to the ignominy of that envy out nation. They have R tilers in their S ynago- gues , of their wifzfl men , deputed unto a filthy wor]^ , &c. What this filthy work was* chough Jerome exprefle it , yet 1 thinke it 1 name to publifh. And this which he faith in deteftacion of the Jewes, without approbation of their order, is all that he there faith for an aflembly of Elders. So vaine and inefficient are the Allegations ofM r Canne. in. That Hierome allowed the authority of Synods above par* (y)Ad Eua-ticular Churches , it may appeare bv that hefayth , (y) Si authority qutritur, orbi$ grm.Ep.8j. ma j or effurbe. Ifwefeekjot authority, greater is the world then the city ; that is,as D.Whi- (z)DePont. taker expounds the fame, the Churches difperfed through the world: he fayth,(z) Kom.qu.i. iAll the authority of the Church of Rome, is not^fo great as is the authority of all Churches f-9*>99- everywhere. And thereby he acknowledged the authority of Synods anting from the deputation of many Churches , to be greater then the (ingle authority of any one particular Church. Befides , whereas Damafus , Bif hop of Rome > was a zea- lous oppofite to the Arian, Macedonian, and other herefies, and in divers Synods furthered the cenfure and condemnation of fuch as perfifted in thofe errours , and wrote divers Synodicall Epiftles which witnefie the exercife of that authority by (a) Ad Ge- Synods , Hierome (*) confefleth that in the writing of thofe Synodall letters he did rontiam. affift and help Damafus, which he could not with good confeience have done, un- le(Te he had allowed the authority of Synods. Laftly, i( Hierome wrote that in every particular Congregation there ought to be a Senate or aiTembly of Elders ; then is M r Canne and his Congregation condemned by H/'mww^becaufe they have now for many yeares had no Senate nor aflembly of Elders, to governe them; M r Canne being fole governour of rhem, without an Elderlhip. In the next place, touching . nis aflembly of Elders, he addes , that The power of m ai csft c k°°fi n g them is in the people. Andfor this he alledgeth three Authours together,^) Auguft.cyr. Hierome, Hilarie , Cyrill. I anfwer : For Hierome , ad littfiicum - } there is nothing at all inioh.zo. fpoken touching the matter, but he is falfely alledged. Fox Hilary , i. Heisalfo **• falfely alledged : he fayth nothing touching the Senate or aflembly of Elders , of which M r C.fpeakes. n. Though he entreat Conflamitu the Arian Emperour» who had banifhedmany worthy Bifhops , that he would permit the people to hearethoft Teachers and Minivers of the Sacraments, whom they would , whom they thought good , and whom they had chofen , thit they might offer, up prayers for hisfafety and felicity ^ yet doth he not hereby prejudice the authority and jurifdi&ion of Synods . This hinders not but that Synods might cenfure and judge of the elections made by the people, (c)Cent. and of other controversies of particular Churches, m. Hilary alfo (c) wrote 2 Magdeb. peculiar booke touching Synods , exftant among his workes , which he had tran- jo cot C fluted out of Greek into Latine , wherein the Acts and decrees of divers Synods nj4,i'i35. that cenfured and condemned the Arian herefy , are recorded. Had he thought with my oppofites , that this jurifdi&ion of Synods had bene an ufurped and un- lawful! "power -, he ought not to have given fo much approbation of them , in al- ledging their authority for defenfe of his opinion , without fome teftirlcation a- gainft their power. Befides , what colour of reafon hath M r C. to fhew that Hi* iariw fhould vary from the judgement of Orthodox Bifhops* who in that age or- CLASSES AND SYNODS. *** (i) ordinarilv ufed to meet together in Synods for the exercife of Ecclefiafticall (d)ib.cen?, jurifdi&ior ? 4.C.7.C0I. For Cyrillinlohio.z t. whom he alfa brings to prove that the Senate or a(Tem- yp.fcjxS bly of Elders , ought to be chofen by the people, he is in like manner abufed and falfely alledged by him. For 1. Cyrill upon thofe words of Chrift, As the Fa- ther hath fent me,fofend I you : fayth that Chrift in thofe words ordained tbc~ Teachers of the world, and Minifters of the divine myfleries, &c. That therefore Paul is true, faying, No man takes this honour unto himfelf &ct Heb. 7. &c. He Ihewes how Chrift called his jDifciples, but hath not a word » neither touching an affembly of Elders, nor of their choofing by the people. Such falf hood and forgery there is in the Allega- tions of M r C. And yet if he had fpoken as much as is here pretended,it had bene no empeachment unto the authority of Synods,as was fhewed before. 1 1 . That this Cy/7'//,Bifhop of Alexandria , did acknowledge the ufe of Synods , not onely for counfell and admonition , but for cenfure and judgement of caufes , it appea- reth evidently by his prac~tife*while in the (e) Synod holden at Ephefus, in the time ( e ) Enagr. ofTheodofius, he being a principal! member of that Synod, did together with o- Hift.Eccl.l, thers give fentence againft Nesloritu , and depofed him from his office , for his ob« I,c ^* ftinacy in refufing to appeare before them , and for his herefy whereof he had bene convicted. The next witnefle abufed by him is Amhrofe, who is alledged to fhew what the Senate or aflfembly of Elders is to doe , viz. v) Thefe with Jpirituali bridles order men , (fVAmb. <$c Ianfwer; 1. In the place alledged, there is not a word to be found, either ,ljCI touching a Senate of Elders, or touching fpirituall bridles , or any thing to like purpofe. 1 1. Ifa Senate of Elders be fpirituall bridles, then the Brownifis with M r C. that now want fuch a Senate , are an unbridled company , wanting order, &c. in. What though an aflfembly of Elders order men with fpirituall bridles ? Is there therefore no other fpirituall bridle in the authority of Synods? Wh2t confe- quence is this i iv. That ^Ambrofe did allow the authority and jurifdi&ion of Synods , it appeares , both by his practife , he (g) himfelf being prefent with Da- (g) ffieodi tnafus,Britto, Valerian and other Biihops at the Synodholden at .Rowefor the c&n- H »M«U* fureof Apollinaru and Timotheus his difciple ; and by his (h) exhortation given un- (h) Arab. to Theophilus and others, to judge the caufe oiEuagrius and Flavianus, being depu- Tom.^epi. ted thereunto by the Synod of Capua ; andagaine by his (i) exhortation given un« 1>IO £P- 7 *- to Theophilus Sc Anyfiustthat they being chofen by the fameSynod of Caj>ua,would %?&*& give fentence touching Bonofusand his accufers, forafmuch as the Synod had give 79. adThe-' this authority unto them,and they did now fupply the place thereof. opb. & With Ambroie he joynes (k) Na^ian^en, to teftify alfo that a Senate or aifembly ?£& orat> of Elders doe with fpirituall bridles order men. But in the place alledged I finde fun.de patr', no fuch teftimonv as is mentioned : a»d therefore the three firft anfwers made be- fore unto t he teftimonv from Ambrofe , may alfo fervefor Na%ian%en. And fur- ther that Gregory Naqan^en did not limit all Ecclefiafticall power and jurifdiction (i^ocffift unto a particular Congregation onely, it may appeare, if we obferve, 1 . How 0) ECC.1.4.C. ' he himfelf was made Bifhop of Constantinople, by the fufFrages of many Bifhops *i. Sozom. m§ttogether 3 which is g farther degree of Eccleliafticall authority then that 6 H ^ 7 Ecc,!j E e z which * ' 7 ' hi THE POWER OF which is exercifed in the ClafTes or Synods of thefe countries. 1 1 . How he plea (m)Nazian, deth (m) from a Synodall law, couching the recey ving of thofe that were fallen Epift.i.ad III# How healloweththeorderofconvocating andaflembling neighbour Bi- fn) Epi.30. Shops about the creating of a new Bifhop , affirming thus to be (") rights and accor- ad Caefarie! ding to the Ecclefiaflicalllafv . 1 v 4 . How he in his counfell and exhortation unto (°) Thcod ' the Synod at Conrtantinople , (o) ascribes unto them authority and power for his ? c!g owne dimiflion and tranflation , for the fetting of another unblameable Bilhop in his placcand thereby withall for the deposition and abdication of Maximus which was accordingly performed. That which might with more colour be objected out ofNaqantyn againft the ufe of Synods, and which is alfoalledged both by M r Canneandby M l Davenp. though not direftly againft the authority ofSynods,is yet fo brought in by the way as might caufe a fimple Reader to ftumble thereat. The words of Na%ianqen , as (p) Ch.pl. M r Canne (p) alledgeth them , are thefe , ( that M r Canne ihould miftake that which fome more learned have done before. Groflfer faults are more common with him. 11. Asfortheteftimony of Na%i- (f) De Coc. an^en, the anfwer of D. JVhitaker may give fufficientfatiffa&ion ; who fayth > (0 Ic qu. 1 .c.3 .p. „ m ay feeme ftrange that Naqan^en denyes he had feene a good iiTue of anySynod. l l> 14'iJ"' „ For in thofe two Synods , [ viz. of Nice and Constantinople , which had beene j , mentioned before > ] trueth got the victory , and herefy was put downe. And » though ic be certaine » chat Arianifme was encreafed and grew ftrong and trou- ,> bled the Church after the Synod of Nice , more then before , yet that is not to 3 , be imputed to the Synod? but to the contention and ambition of men. For as ,, our corrupt nature doth more vehemently refift the knowne law of God > and „ rulheth headlong unto finne : fo falfhood oppofed itfelf more boldly unto the , j trueth then explained and openly defended> whereupon after that Synod, which ,> none excelled, greater incomodiiies did arife from the wickednes of men > &c. , , When Na~ian%. law fo wicked difpofitions of men, he was wholly turned from n Councels. Although without doubt he difallowed not the thing itfelf > but ,, the wicked indeavours of men. Now if any will reafon after this manner, The „ [flue of Synods is not good , or more evils follow thence ; therefore Synods are s, tobeavoyded: chat man (hall difpuce deceitfully from a wrong caufe,from acci- , > dent , and from the fallacy of confecjuenc. But Naqan^en was to be pardoned , ,, becaufe he lived in the worft and moft curbulent times of the Church, when by ,, meanes 'of Valens the Emperourt ha: degenerated from theCatholick faith, He- reticks did more prevayle , &c. Againe he oppofeth Augufline unto Na%ian%ene, 5, and fayth, It is moft true which Auguflinefasth,Epij1;. 1 1 3. that the authority ofSy- „ nods in the Church cfCod is m&ft wholefome? which certainly he would not have j)favd;if he had bene of the fame minde with Na%an*en. 'And further he op- po. : CLASSES AND SYNODS. hi pofeth unto the fpeech ofNa#an%. the teftimony of Chrift, faving , Chrift him- ,,felfpronouncethandpromifeth , Matt.\$,2.o* Whentwo or three art affembledto- „getherin his name , there he willbeinihe midft of them. In which words he fignifyech „ that the aflemblies and Synods of godly and religious men , undertaken and ap- „ poynted for godly caufes, are not difpleafing unto him. in. The teftimony ofNaqianqin is as much againft the opinion of M r Can and M r Dav.as againft that which we hold touching GlafTes and Synods. For feeing they allow fuch mee- tings for counfell and admonition, chough not for exercifeof any jurifdietion; and feeing the teftimony of Napa, dorh extend itfelf to all kinde of affemblies of Bi- lhops,[^ dvJetff-v^Xoyov t7rtcnco7ru)v2 whether for counfell or cenfure , with- out exception of one fort more then another : therefore he no more condemned our Synods,then thofe which my oppofites allow. Auguftine,his next witneiTe,is in like manner perverted as the former. Though he in the place ( c ) objected, doe write that the keyes were given to the Church; yet doth (ODeDoft. he not thereby exclude Synods gathered together in the name of Chrift, from ha- chr.i.Lc, ving a keye of power in the judgement of Ecclefiafticall caufes. Had he proved 7 * that the title of the Church belongs onely to a particular Congregation in the full afTembly thereof, and not at all unto a Synod , then had it bene foroething to the purpofe; in the meane time > nothing. And that the minde of Auguftine was other- wife, it appeares by the great approbation which he (v) gives unto the ufe and au- (v)Epift.ad thority of Synods, as being moftwhokfome in the Churches of God. D. Whit afar Ian x ua £: E P* (*) alledgeth often the pretence of ^Auguftinezx. divers Synods. And it is recorded jw.cont. in the A&softhe third Councell of Carthage , where Auguftine was both prefent, Don.u.c.3 and fubfcribed with the reft unto the decrees which were then agreed upon, (y; (x)pePonc. that there fhould be kept a yearelySynod,unto which they were to repaire out of J^^'^j divers Provinces ; that thofe which having controverfies with others , being cal- (yjMagdeb. led unto the yearely Synod, did refufe to come, fhould be held guilty , and be ex- cenc.^.c.p. eluded from the communion , or excommunicated. And it is (z) noted further T Z ^^J that the like decrees were made at another Synod held at Hippo, the place where g 70 ,&e. Auguftine lived, and that the fame decrees were againe confirmed by another Sy- nod at Carthage. Hence it appeares that Auguftinezs well as others in his time , did hold that the caufesof particular Congregations were to be judged & decided by another Ecclefiafticall authority out of themfelves. 1 After Auguftine he alledgeth Chryfoftome,whofe name is alfo abufed for confir- mation of this opinion. For, x. Chryfoftome in the £k££jallgdge4rr^. DeSa- cerdd.^x.^. fpeakes of no fuch matter as he pretends. In that whole third book I finde no one word againft the authority of Synods. And for the fourth chapter , which M r C. alledgeth, there is in the beft editions of Chryfoftome no fuch chap- ter- they are not at all diftinguif hed into any Chapters : and where there is a divi- lion of Chapters found, yet there is no fuch matter to be found in that fourth Chapter. M r Canncitfeemes, never read rhe Authours he alledgeth:for would le then have fo falfely cited them ? 1 1 . Chryfoftome is plaine for the authority of Synods. For fpeaking of the honour due unto the Deputies or mefiengers of the , , In ^ "hurdles in Synods, he faich the Apoftle* 00 makfth his jjwch mon wribk .faying in cor.Sa*. " - the it 4. THE POWER OF the fight of the Churches. He fait i for thegloy of the Churches Jor their honour.Top if ye honour them , ye frail honour the Church's which fent them , &e. And then he con- cluded, Thisfoall be no fmall mutter* fir great k the power of a Synod.that ti } ofthe Chur- ches, in. When as a wrongfull fenrc 1 ce had bene given againftChrvfoftome, (b)Tom.j. being unjuftby procured bv Tkophilus, Bilhop of Alexandria) he then (b) appealed Epift.ad unt0 a Synod of many Bifoops , bot h before and after the fentence was pronounced. Innocent, y^ e f umme f his defence afterward was this,that he was willing to be judged by a Synod. ' And he complaines that his adverfaries dealt with him > contrary to the Ecclefiafiiiall Canons. In thofe Canons ic had bene oft decreed , that there fhould be liberty ofappeale unto Synods . i v. When Bellarmine pleading for the Popes authority, alledged the requeft of C hryfofiome unto Innecemius , Bifhop ofRomei deliting him to write for him » that thole things which were unjuftly done againft him, might not prevavle > &c. Chamierus expounding the words o£C hryfofiome, (c) Tanftra. ( c ) diftinguifheth b?rwixt admonition and giving of fentence • and fhewes that Chry- Cath.Tom. foftomedefiredan^raorw/oHlnouId be given by Innocentius\ but that heexfpe&ed *' mi * tC ' zi fentencehom a Synod. Cbamierfoych, this is confirmed to be his meaning, becaufe he appealed to the Synod &c. 'And hereby heexprefTely and diftinftly confef- feth that Synods have jurifdi&ion u> give fentence , and not onely a liberty of ad- (d)Socr. monilhing. v. When after this -,C hryfofiome (d) having bene both depofed from Hift.Ecci. his place, and banifhed out of the citv, \\ as ye: called back by the Emperour from . .c 14. ^is banilhment , and was bs t;^e people defired to enter upon his miniftery againe, he profeflfed he might not dr>e it, untill his caufe was further examined, & he pro- RS EJ h' 8r ' Vec * * nnocent by greater judges , or in a greater judicatory , ( e ; \v (Mifyvt SiKU^tj^ia^ tf.c.TI. ' ' wherein he acknowledged a power of Svnods , not onely above a particular Con- gregation , but alfo of one Synod above another , as of a Generall Synod above a Nationalior Provincial!* &c. vi. The minde of Chryfoftome touching Ghurch- (f)In Maw. government, may further beknownetoubbythis, that he (0 will have thofe *&• words > Tell the Church , to be underftood of the Prefidents or Governours of the Church. Andagaine,fpeakingof Priefts or Bifhops, the MiniftersoftheGo- (g) De Sa- fp e ^ > ne thus defcribeth their fpeciall power , (g) It is granted unto themto dif- cerd.l.j. j, penfe the things that are in heaven : power is given unto them, which God Fd- f ° ri " wou ^ not nave t0 k e §* ven either unto Angels or Arch-angels : For it was not Edit.Bafil. ^ ^ av( j untQ t j iem ^ jvhatfoever yebinde on earth Jhall be bound in heaven; andtvbatfoever „ yeloofe on earth fliall be loofed in heaven. Earthly Princes have alfothe power of ,, binding , but of the bodies onely . But that binding by the Priefts whereof I ,, fpeake, remaineth unto the foule, & commeth up to the heavens:fo that what- j, foever the Priefts doe below,that God ratifyeth above , & the Lord confirmeth 1, the fentence of his fervants. What els can you fay this to be , but that all power ,, of heavenly things is granted unto them of God ? For he fayth , JVhofefinnesye 11 retaine, they are retayned. What power, I pray you> can be greater then this one ? The next perverted witneffe is Bafil* touching whom obferve, 1 . Their three- fold falfe allegation, in citing three feverall bookes of his; viz. C0nfiit.M0nach.L4* ' 1 4.^ 6.z. <$ 7.C.1 f. whereas Bafil wrote onely one booke with fuch a title'.and as for the 4 th > 6* > & 7 th > here mentioned bv M r C.there be none fuch. What grofle - dealing CLASSES AND SYNODS. tif dealing is this ? 11. Suppofe it was the Printers fault that thefe bookes were thus mifalledged, and that it was but M r Cannes overfight to let them pafTe with- out correction; yet even for that one book o£Monafticallconftitutions , which Bafil did write, therein alfo is nothing to be found againit the authority it feemes muft owne the quotation [Lib. dt 00.] which by the mar- ginall note is afiigned to Socratts ■ he having written two bookes concerning Ecde* fiafticall Officts. Thefe M r Canne cites at large without fpecifying either book or chapter. But in thofe bookes oUfidorus, as there be many things* which Mr C. would not be bound to appro ve;fo there is nothing that with any (hew of rea- fon can be applyed againft the authority of Clafles and Synods. On the contrary, we may juftly inferre that he did not there reftraine all Ecclefiafticall power unto a particular Congregation, as from many other,fo efpeciallv from thefe his words , 146,147. were he was Bilhop > and as fome relate > of two other at Toledo , wherein appeare cin!?? col" divers S( ^ es of Ecclefiafticall jurifdi&ion , in the exercife whereof he joyned with 261--287. others , after the manner of Synodali proceedings. & 513, Bernard is in like manner mifalledged through want of attentio & diligence'.not onely by a wrong note of reference>but by a defective mention of his writing,-^ Eugen. For Bernard having written 5 bookes of Confideration , Ad Eugen. and be- sides them more then $0 Epiftles ^d Eugen. he doth not fpecify which of thefe bookes > or which of thefe Epiftles he meanes. But whether we confider thofe bookes> or Epiftles , we finde Bernard in extremity oppofite to Mr Canne , giving power not onely unto Synods> as the Ancient Fathers before mentioned»but even to the Pope himfelf> to judge the caufes of all Churches. For living in a time of great blindenes, and height of Poperie, when the fmoke of the bottomlefle pic had darkned the Sunne and the ayre , he was led afide through ignorance to exalt Antichrift; and writing unto Pope Eugenius that had bene his difciplejhe gives him (t^ De Cell, thefe moft ambitious titles, and Kj calles him the great Priefl, thefupreme High Prieft, ad Eogen.l. t y p r j nce ofBiflwps, the heire of the Apoftles, Abel in primacy , Noah in government, A- braham in Patriarkfivp , Melchifedek in order, Aaron in dignity , Moles in authority , Samuel in judgement, Peter /wf>o«w,Chrift in unB.ion, yet not without ( V )whk.decaufeishe(v)taxed for blafphemy in thefe unrighteous titles given to the man pom. Rom. f finne. More particularly, in his firft Epiftle which he wrote unto Eugenius. af- 4i6. P 425 ' ter ne was created Pope, upon occafion of the controverfy that was betwixt the Archbifhop of York>Sc the Archbiihop of Canterbury, he puts this Pope in minde (x) Remar. t hat he (x) hath authority to judge the controverfies that arife in other Churches , Epift 1 ^'. and wi ^ ieth nim t0 ute tne fame,and to give unto them according to their worksi (y)Ep. 238 that they might know there is a Prophet in Ifrael. And writing againe (y) of the fame matter, he calles the Archbiihop of York , that Idol of York, in regard of his intiufion (he might better have entitled Eugenius the IdollofUpme) & provokes the Pope, as having the fullnes of power, to caft his dart, to give peremptory fen- tence of depofidon againft the ArchB. and as the phrafe of Bernard is, to lighten or jlrike with the tJmderfolt of his power. The like exercife of power over thofe in (z) Ad in- ther Congregations is often elfwhere (*) allowed by him. And hereby k may Sq,& P iqo a PP eare now groffely Mr Canne hath alledged thefe ancient Writers , quite con- ' trary to their meaning , zndBernardin fpeciall , that fubjefts Congregations not onely to Councels and Synods , as the Fathers before alledged have juftly done, but doth unjuftly fubjeft them to one perfon, even to the man of finne. With thefe teftimonies ofancienc Fathers M r Canne alledgeth for his opini- on, CLASSES AND SYNODS. 227 en, that/owe Councels have- granted fo much, and Chriftian^ Emperours by their Lawes- confirmed it. Two of thefcviz.the Counceli of Nice&c Conflantinople,\\Q alledgeth ac large, and fpecifves no Canon which he intendeth for this purpofe. And as forth* ? 3d Counceli oiCarthage, whereat Auguftine was prefent , I have (hewed * before * a )tia"c?ek that it makes dire&ly for us. That 22 th Canon which he aliedgeth > viz. (a) that cer.tXc.p.. no Clerk.be ordained without examination by Bifaop , and tefiimony ofthepeople , empea- coU$8, cheth not the authority of Clafifes and Synods , but confirmeth the order eftabli- t hed by them. And that Chriftian Emperours have by their lawes confirmed the authority ofSynods, it is plaine and undenyable. The (b) Counceli of Nice that (b)Sufp.Se. condemned Arius> was authorifed by Conftantine the Great . The (c) Counceli of J^jr*'* 2 Conftantinople that condemned Macedonius\ was authorifed by the Emperour The- [£(> cimin, odofius the Elder. The (JJ Counceli of Ephefus that condemned Neftorius,v>- as au- ex sieyd.p.* thorifed by Theodofuts the younger. The (e) Counceli oiChalcedon that condem- j 6 ^ ned Eutyches, was authorifed by the Emperour Martianus. And as it was in thefe \J f,i7o" firft Generall Councels, fo may it be,obferved in many other. Inftead of the reft, lee the (f) book of Canons fuffice, confirmed bs Iufiinian the Emperour; there (f)Codex being contained in that book many Canons, which ordaine that the caufes of par- urliv^Ifc?' ticular Churches fhould be (g) judged by Synods, and fo decided by another fu- chrift.juft. periour Ecclefiafticall authority out of themfel ves. At the end of thefe Canons (g) Can.j. there is added the fan&ion or decree oiluftinian^ , (h) by which he doth not onely 8 °^3»8j* allow them,and give force of lawes unto them,but with an exceflive & farre grea- ^'Jgliow ter honour then is due unto them, would have the foure Oecumenicall Coun- 144*18 7W eels to be receaved even as the holy Scriptures. Now though he offended greatly in (h ) ^°^ this his efteeme of them, yet this may ferve to ihewwhat little vetfon Mr Canntimpt;^ had to alledge the decrees of Councels for his opinion. Sect. VII- Touching thz Tefiimonies of Reformed Churches. FRom ancient times thev come back to the later times of Reformation, and fay h) Touching Reformed Churches $ if we may take the Confejfton of their faith, for Ca) Ch.pt tefiimony, thenfurely we have their confent alfo with us. The Churches confencing with p ' 91, them ( as they vainely imagine ) are thefe, according to their order in ailedging of them:The Bohemian Churches,Churches under the Palfgravejhe Helvetian Chut- ches, the French Churches, Churches of the Aujpurge Confejfion, of the Low-conn- tries >o£NafoVia. But the trueth is, both thefe and other Reformed Churches,doe condemne my oppifites j in allowing ofSynods to judge the caufes of particular Congregations. The Confejfion of theBohemian Churches (fay they) hath thefe words ,(b) T£c fe*J fb) Harm. (that is, Ecclefiafticall Government) are given in trufl ,' and granted to the Paftours , and to Conf.c.14. each feverallEcclefiafticallfociety , (that is, ordinary Congregation) whether they be, fmall or great. lanfwer; 1. This teftimony is clipped by Mr Canne, who leaves out the words of order > which f hew their opinion touching the originall and de- rivation of this power ; The words of this Bohemian Confeffion , are that the- Ff z kjyes 12 8 THE POWER OF foyes of the Lord t oy this adm'miftration and power of the keyes ts granted and delivered firft unto the Governours and Minifters of the Church , and then unto every Chriftian Congrega* tion, &c. Therein they doe not confent with M r Canne , but with the opinion of (c) P. 1 1/}, MrBaines, noted (c) before. And they doe there alfo apply thefe words unto*&- j 17. folution given by the Prieft of the Church, as they call him. To this end they al- ledge thofe places, Ioh. 20. 2,3 . e? Luk- 10.16. Their meaning is declared more (d)Harmo. fully before, where they ( d ) teach that thepccnitent are to come unto the Prieft , and to C T f |> r ' Art " confefie their jinnes unto Godbefore him&c. and to defire abfolution of him by the keyesofthe £'24 1 .edit,' Church , that they may cbtaine remijfion of fumes byfuch a miniftery , fo instituted of ChriR, 16 ii. This order feemes to agree with that forme ofabfolution defcribed and appointed in the Englifhbooke of Common prayer, at the vifitation of the fick. n» It is acknowledged by the Minifters of the Church of the Picards (fo called) in Bohemia (e) P. 2ip. and Moravia,in the 0) preface to the forementioned Confeflion of their fayth,th2C their fathers had appealed unto a Synod &c. where if any thing (houldbefound difibnant from the Scriptures , they were willing from the heart and lovingly to befubjetl and obedient to the cenfure and appointment of the Synod in all things. This I he wes their duTent from M r Canne and his people, in. The Combination of the Chriftian and Orthodox Churches in Bohemia and Moravia , called by themfelves, The Vnitie ofthebrethrcninBohemiaAoth giveacleare teftimony unco the trueth touching the authority of Synods, for the government of particular Churches , and judgement of their caufes by a fuperiour Ecclefiafticall authority out of themfelves, as appea- (f ) Ratio reth in the booke of their Difcipline; where they (f) profeffe that for weighty cau- Difdp.or- f es> j n providing for the neceflicies of the whole Vnitie , or fome Dioceffe therein , iilumtaw' tne y ufe t0 hoId Synods , either Generall or Particular , &c They alledge thefe frat.Bohem. 5 ends : To confirme brotherly love and concord : To ftrengthen them in the C.2.P.33. work of the Lord : To preferve the vigour of Difcipline: To exclude fcandalous 'te)ib p!ii. P er ^ ons ouc of ^e number of their Minifters, &c. To ordaine Minifters,&c. and ' for the (g) examination of Minifters before they be confirmed. The exercife of (h) lb. cap. this authority is aifo declared in their (h) Visitations of the Churches which are in 6.p. % 7 ,n, che j r pfiifieoi confociation. This example of thefe brethren of the Vnitie ; is fo much the more to be regarded of us in refpeft of the lingular providence & blef- fing of God , in preferving them to this day , in the midft of fo many perfections as they have endured, being more ancient then other Reformed Churches , ha- ving continued from the dayes of lohn Hujfe , and being holpen by the Waldenfes (i) ib.pref. tnac were fcattered into thofepartsjfo that chey £*) were increafed to almoft 200 lit- p,2,j. ' tleCongregations in Bohemia & Moravia, about the yeare I5oo,before the time of Luther. Their piety, love, concord, and zeale of religion, notwithftanding fome imperfections , appeares by their orders to be very great ; in fpeciall , their care of fan&ifying the Sabbath, beftowing it wholly in divine and religious exercifes, re- (k) ib.cap. forting (k) foure times a day to the publick a(Temblies of Gods worfhip , even in 3-P-54.& tn e Winter time , and in Summer , five times a day , &c. The bond of that per- 7 ' feftion which they feek for, and have in fome meafure attained unto , feemes to be their combination in Synods, and that unity therein whereupon they are denomi- nate. Their government and the fruits thereof have bene fuch , that many of the fpe* CLASSES AND SYNODS. %i 9 fpcciall lights of Chriftendome> fince the time of Reformation) have admired and commended the fame,and fundry of them have wif hed for the like Difcipline and order in the Ghurches where they lived; as appeares by the teftimonies of Luther, hielan&hen&ucer, Pet. Paulus Vergerius>Be%a, %anchius t Olevian, Vr(inus,ChytrPet. Martyr, Calvin, Polams , Buchokerus, which teftimonies are tf) affixed unto the end (ij p. l0 $. M of that book of their Difcipline. Yea the printing of this book of their Difcipline -l^^. (according to their comon order in fuch cafes) was not done without the (m) au- C") p f ef -p» thority of aSy nod>& namely of that which was celebrated at Lefina in Polanckanno ' l ' \6$ fc.they being by the prefent troubles difperfed abroad into thofe parts. Unto that which he had alledged out of the Bohemian Confefflon , M r Canne faith the Churches underthe Palfgrave Ukewifeconfented: and to this end he citeth their PublickCatechifmeintheendofpart2. For anfwer hereunto ; i. If thefe Ghurches confentunto that whichthe Bohemian Churches have profeffed, then they doe not agree with M r Can. as appeares by what hath bene. fay d in the foregoing An- fwers. 1 1. The place here alledged hath nothing touching the perfons to whom the Keyes are given , which is the thing for which it is produced ; it fpeakes oneiy oftheufeoftheKeyes, and the ordinary exercife of Difcipline in the Church , without reftraining the fame unto the fole jurifdiftion of a particular Congregati- on or excluding the authority of Claffes and Synods , either for advife & confenc beforehand) or for the correcting of abufes committed in the adminiftrationof it. And that the power of a fuperiour EccleGafticall judicatorie> exercifed in fuch ca- fes , is agreeable unto the doctrine and pra&ife of the Churches in the Palatinate , may appeare from the teftimonies ( n ) before noted out oiVrfinm, Toffanns, 8c Pa- (n)v. igx» ^ (o) concerning Ecclefiafticall difcipline > that offenders after ( ) o^,. other admonitions perfifting in their errors and wickedness are to be made knowm unto the Churchy left this (hould be underftood of the whole multitude > it is added prefently , or to them that are appoynted for that matter and purpofe of the Church: and if neither then they obey their admonition , are of the fame metu, , by forbidding them the Sacra- ments >JhHt outfromthe affembly of the Church>&c. The meaning is, as it is explained (P) by Vrjinus ( who alio yeelded fpeciall help for the compiling of that Catechif- (?) ExpHc, me ) that when any is to be excommunicated, the matter be ffrfl heard) tryed,and Q ate g chad judged by the whole Prejbyterie , and that their judgement be approved by the Church; that J * it be not undertaken by the private autboritie of one alone , or of the Minifiers alone. This ferves to juftirie what we teach and praftife, and to condemne both the tyrannical! and popular courfes of others, iv. Moreover for the judgement and pra&ife of the Churches in the Palatinate > concerning the authority of Claffes & Synods » whichis the poynt in controverfy, it is tobeobferved,thatall theMinifters which, according to order are there confirmed in the Minifterie, are as a Jurie of fo many fworne menj bearing witneffe againft the Independencie of Churches. For at their ordination they doe not onely teftify and promife by fubfcription and giving ptfa) c&srF of the hand, but withall they doe binde themfelves by a folemne oathj among the p? a itz Kit- reft, (q) toobey the Political andEccleJiafticall Lawes , the Officers and InJpeBors , there chendi, be- appointed? &c. to refem orfubmp Church-affaires unto the Ecclefiafticall hnate fit- over ?J?' j> unfti f f 3 them, ' ' i 3 e THE POWER OF them , <&c. and alfo according to the appointment of their In/peElor , to jyeqnent the Clajjicall afiemblies , in whatsoever place or quarter they are held ■ willingly and freely to fubjeB them- selves unto thecenfure of their brethren, t o dcale faithfully, uprightly , and quietly in their cen- fures <$ votes, to doe nothing neither for feare nor favour of any, but what they judge to be pro- fitable for the edification of the Churches and Schooles. The Confedlon of the Churches ofStvitferlandov Helvetia , is notably falfifyed [0 ' Confcf. by MrC. They confefle in the place (r)alledgedby him, that the power of the 16.17? "' Keyes ought to be committed unto feleft andfit perfons> either by divine or by certaine and required fuffrage of the Church > or by the fentence of thofe to whom thz^ C hurch bath delegated tbts office- in which latter dil junction (omitted by M r C ) they acknowledge another Eccldiafticall authority befides that of a particularCongre- (0 Art. ig. gation , about the election of Minifters. And a little after (0 this is further de- clared, when they acknowledge that the faulty are to be admonifhed » reprehen- ded, retrained, arid thofe thac goe further aftrav, by a godly agreement offuch m be cho- fen out of the Miniflers and Magistrates, to be excluded by Difcipline , or punijlud byfome o- ther convenient meanes , fo long untill they may repent and befaved. Such an fcctlcfiafti- call Senate , it feemes , was among them for the government of particular Chur- ches. And further , the authority of Synods for fuch purpofe , is likewife fpeci- (t) Cap.iB. fyed and juftifyed in the larger (0 Helvetian Confeflion. Befides this , we have a P- 6 i« particular ftory hereof related by JVaUus out of Be^a , who recordes that (v) when derKeSV a controverfy arofe at heme, betwixt Huberus and *Abrah. Mufculus , the fonne of dien.p.zi4 Wolfg. Mufadus, touching the doctrine of Prxdeftination, the Rulers of Bernejol- cut of Bez. lowing the order of the Apoftles,didappoynt a Synod out of all the ClalTes with- Tufti'fex in their l uri ^ic^ion, who together with the help of other excellent Teachers, cal- fbia fije.p. led from \urich, Bafel, Schafhuyfen, and Geneva > did take cognition of the differen- x6j,8cc. ces , and after due triall according to the word of God made a conclufion ; fo thac thereby the Churches were brought unto their former peace, (x) Art. ao ^at w ^ c ^ * s next alledged by M r C. from the Confeffionofthe French W Chut- ' ches , \iz. the equality of all true Minifters and Churches , fo thac none may arro- gate dominion over another , is not at all hindred by that authority which is exer- ts ^Oordeel Cl ^ m Synods ; feeing all the particular Churches united in Synods y are in like eniiyifpra! manner and equally fubjeft unto one another , and unto that which is concluded ke.mct den by all. Yea this equality is confirmed by the Synodicali decree in this very Ar- Eedvl Ap : t j c i e# Whereas there be many evidences of the Reformed Churches in France* het sinode whichlhew what their judgement and practife is touching the fubjection of parti- Nadon. der cular Congregations unto a fuperiour Ecclefiafticall power; yetinfteadofmany, Gereform. one f or t h e re ft ma y faffice , which is from the (y) National! Synod of Ales , tranfla- Vwncrijck! tec * anc * publifhed in divers languages, containing a molt pregnant teftimony cou- gehoude tot ching this poynt of our controverfie. Mr C. and W. B.doe falfely tell me of a I«- Aies in de r k of more then 2,4 men , which condemne my pofition for an errour and untrueth : beC^cK but as we have ^ eene be f° re in ths Minifters of the Palatinate , fo loe here againe gearrefteert a Jurie indeed of more then twife 24 men , and of the moft choyfe Minifters and den o. Oct. Elders of all the French Churches , and ail fworne to fubmit unto therefolution U) Z ?\ 4 anc * f entence concluded by authority of that Synod. After a proportion ( z ) made CLASSES AND SYNODS. 23? in this Synod by MonfrTurmin, touching fomemeanes to hinder the Arminiari Errours :&c. the Affembly liking wel of that motion, and much com mending 9> the Synod of Don, as aneflfe&uall remedie to purge the Church ,andto root out 99 the herefies touching the poynt of pr^deRination , Sec. after invocation of the i> name of God they agreed that the Canons of the forenarned Synod of Don {hould ?, be read in their full alTembly: which being done? and every Article fericufly 99 weighed, they werethen by univerfall confent approved , as agreeable to Gods 9> word,&c. Hereupon all the Minifters and Elders deputed unto this AITembly, » did each of them feverally fweare and proteft, that they confented and accorded » with this doctrine > and that they (hould maintaine and defend it with all their 99 might unto the Iaft breath. And to ( a ) make this concordant agreement the (a}P.$.y. »more authentick , and to binde all the Provinces thereunto , the AfTembly or- j,dained that this prefent Article {hould be printed and joyned with the Canons ,, of the mentioned Synod> and that the fame mould be read in the Provinciall Sy- ?, nods , and in the Univerfities , that there it might be appro ved,fworne and fub- >, fcribed unto by the Minifters, Elders and Profeffburs of the Univerfities, as al- 3, fo by thofe that defired to be admitted unto the holy Miniftery , or unto any A- 99 cademicall profeflion. And if (b) any man 1 hould reject, either in whole or in (b)P.j, 9> part, the doftrine contavned in the forefaid Synod , and defined by the Canons „ thereof, or fhould refufe to take the Oath of confent and approbation , the Af- „ fembly ordained that the fame {hould not be receaved unto any miniftery in the 9> Church,or unto any office of Schoolemaifter. The forme of oath taken firft in the Nationall Synod,& afterward to be taken in the Provinciall Synods, was fcj this, (c) p. 6, j) I N. fweare and proteft before God and this holy Affembly , that I receave, 99 approve , and embrace the whole do&rine taught and decided in the Synod of s, Don: , as being wholy conformed unto the word of God and the Confeffion of » our Churches. I fweare and promife during my life to continue in the profef- 99 fion of this do&rine, and to defend the fame according to my utmoft power , & 9) that I neither in preaching nor teaching in the fchooles, nor in writing will ever 91 depart from this Rule . I declare alfo and proteft that Itejeft and condemne »thedo&rineofthe Arminians, feeing it doth hang the election of God upon *> the will of man, diminilheth and difannulleth the grace of God , exalts man and %9 the ftrength of his free will to caft him downe from above, brings in againe Pe- »> lagianifme, excufeth Popery, andoverthrowes the certainty offalvation. So jjtruelyletGodhelpmeandbe mercifull unto me , as I doe before him fweare » that which is aforefayd , without any equivocation , or evafionj or inward men- S 9 tall refervation. After this folio wes the W fubfeription of the names of the principall lights 5c m ) P 7 ? ftarres of the French Churches, the Minifters and Elders deputed and fentunto 9,10/1/, ' that Nationall Synod from the Churches in the feverall Provinces of France , as o£Picardie, Champagne, the French Hand, Normandie, Bmagne, Dauphine , Burgundy r Languedoc , Guienne , Po/8o« , Anion , and many others. Hereby the Reader may perceave what power and authority is exertsfed in the Reformed Churches of France^ tj» THE POWER OF France ; that they doe not obferve their Synods for to conclude matters by way o£ advife andcounfellonely, but by their decrees and ordinances doe binde men to fubmit unto their fentence and judgement, excluding thofe from the minittery,& profeflions in Universities or Schooles, thatrefufe to confentand yeeld unto their refolutions. Hereby it appeares how vainely M r Ganne aliedgeth their Confefli- ons,& perverteth them quite contrary to their meanings. That which is alledged out of the Confeflion ofAujburgh, comes not neere the (e)£onfef. queftion betwixt us. For what though it be there affirmed ( e ) that no man ought f Auguft.Art. ted€ fj puUickly in the Church , or to administer the Sacraments , unleffe he be lawfully called * This proves not that calling to be unlawful! , which is directed by an EccleGafti- call authority out of a particular Congregation ; or that Gaffes and Synods have no right to hinder the difordred callings of unfit perfons , when particular Chur- ches doe offend therein. And that the Authors of that Confeflion did approve of the authority of Synods, for the judgement of Ecclefiafticall caufes ,it appea- (f) Symag. reth both by (ty their Appeale unto a generall , free , Chriftian Councell , which Confef.par. they humbly requeft and feek in their preface unto the Emperour, Charles thefift: ,,p ' 7 * and afterwards againefpeakingofrhemeanes to purge the Chu'.ch nomabufes , (g)lb.p.i8. they fay that (g)now long agoe all good men in all nations doe defireaSvnod : Andfur- ^•' Confer. c her , thu n the ufuall and law full way to end di ffenfions , namely , to referre Ecclefiafticall a iigu , Art. comro verfies unto Synods . This manner the Church hath obferved even from the ^4po files. And the moft excellent Emperours, Conftantine and Theodofius , even m matters nou Very obfeure , and in abfurd opinions , would yet ordaine nothing without a Synod , thau they might preferve the liberty of the Church in the judgements of doctrines . ^Anditismosl ho- nourable for the Emperour to imitate the example of thofe the beft Princes, Wc And there- fore as in the times of 'Conftantine and Theodofius, particular Churches were fubjeft unto another fuperiour Ecclefiafticall power , that judged their caufes and cenfu- red offendours; fo they of the iAu(hurg Confeflion , defired the like of Charles the- fifa. The public\prderfet forth in thefe Lowcoimtries, is in the next place alledged againft (h) Att.31. me. But the (h) Article of the Belgick Confeflion which ispoyntedat, hath nothing that ferves their turne againft me, neither doe they Ihew whatclaufe therein they intend for their purpofe. And what feemes moft to accord with their former allegations, I haue anfwered before. But for the Synods of thefe Coun- i'\) Cb.pl. tr i es > whereas M r C. faith , (i) Whatthofe Synods were of whom Mr Paget Jpeaketh in-, p.9 ,92. pag.66 . who decreed that particular Congregations fhould notpratlife among tkemfelves , all Gods ordinances ; I doe not yet know : but this I know , that no Reformed Church hath made this an Article of their faith. And therefore it is certaine, if fuch a thingbe > it was onelythe invention offome particular men. It is here to be obferved , 1 . T hat Mr Carme falfi- (k) Aitfw.to fyeth my words: that which I fayd , was this , ( k ) When thebufines isfo weighty , thai W.B.p.66. by former generaflconfent of Churches, teftifyedby their Deputies, meetingtogether intheir Sy- nods , it hathbem agreed , that the fame [ball not be proceeded in without advife of the Claffis , fuch (u k the eleBion ofMinifters, the excommunication^ of offenders , and thelikf : that in fuch cafes ordinarily matters are brought unto the Claffis , (?c. Now this voluntary a- greement, not to proceed without advife of the Claflis,before matters of fo great weight CLASSES AND SYNODS. *3$ weight were determined, was not to hinder particular Congregations from the praftife of all Gods ordinances among them ; but onely to prevent and reftraine a- bufes in themanner of doing,and to direct them for the better performance there- of among themfelves. 1 1 . What thofe Synods were, wherein fuch agreements were made , it had bene eafy for M r C. to have knowne , if he had ufed diligence in enquiry and fearch for them. To help him herein , let him confider thefe 0) (J^ngS plaine evidences recorded in divers Synods; viz. that men fhall not proceed to derGerefo. election or depofition of Minifters, or excommunication of offenders, without Nederilifc. theadvifeand judgement of a Clafficall aflemtyy. Andbefidesthe decrees of t ^f s e ;^" thefe Nationall Synods , the like agreements and refoiutions have bene made in tot E ro bde! fundry M Provinciall Synods: fo that from time to time, after ripe deliberation & An.1571. ' long experience, thefe Acts of their Synods have ftill bene renewed and confir- ^ rt ! 3**4. med, from the beginning of their Reformation even unto this day. Na?iynJ«« Dordr.An. 15 78. Art 4,8.8c 99,100. Nat.Syn, totMiddeib. An ij8i.Art.3,4.& 62,63. Nat.Syn in 'sGraven-Hag.An, 1586^,3,4,5.36,47,69.70,7!. Nat.Syn.tot Dordr. An.i6i8,6c 1619. Arc.3, 4,11, 12,76,77.79. (m) Provinc. Syn.totDordr.An.i)74. Art,i2. Prov.Syn.tot Middelb. An, 1591. Art. 3 ,4,9,5 8,68,69, in. Befides thefe generall acts and agreements of feverall Synods , we have their practife alfo for confirmation hereof , to declare that the caufes of particular Churches were judged by another Ecclefiafticall authorise out of themfelves. ThusitiswitnefTed, (nhhat Cajpar Coolhaes was excommunicated by the Pro- (n)Trigild. vinciall Synod of Holland , holden at Haerlem , Anno 1582, that the caufe of Her- jan de mo- mannus Herberts wasjudged, and he fufpended from his Miniftery by a particular 57 r .' p ' 5< Synod of South-Holland, holden in the Haghe, Anno 15 91. Novemb. 6. that Cornelius Wiggertfo. was alfo judged and excommunicated by a particular Synod of North-Holland, by reafon of the errours holden by him : that (<>) Nicolaus Gre- ^vold*' vincbovius, Minifter at Rotterdam, was removed from his miniftery by thefentence An .' l6l s. r ' of the South-Holland Svnod holden at Delph :that (p) Adolphus Venator , Minifter Sef.22. at Alcmaer, that loannes Valejius, Joannes I{pdingenus,andlfaacus JVelfingius,? aftouts (P) Ib -P ref - of the Church at Home, were fufpended from their miniftery by the North- Hoi - land Synod, and that divers others in Gelderland, were in like manner cenfured bv the Synods holden in that Province at Arnhem , is alfo recorded in that hiftoricali preface, prefixed before the Acts of the laft Nationall Synod at Don. And in the (q) booke itfelf it is likewife teftifyed, that Simon Goulartius , Minifter of the Gallo- (q) Sef, u, BeIgick,or Walloens Church at Amjlerdam, was removed from his place by the * 5 ' Gallo-Belgick Synod. By thefe and fundry other like acts and fentences that might be noted , it is evident that the Synods held in thefe Reformed Churches , are not onely for counfell and admonition , but for the exercife of jurifdiction in cenfuring offenders , & judging of controversies ; & that their meaning is perver- ted, when their Confeffion of faith is objected againft me. That which M r Canne (0 alledgeth from the Synod of MiddelburgfcAn. ijSi. (r) Ch.pl. isalfo miftaken by him; there being no fuch thing found in that Synod as he men- P-9 1 - tioneth, touching election done by voyces publicity in the Temple. And if it had bene there , yet ihould not that prejudice the authority of Synods or ClaiTes ; in ailo- G g wing M 4 THE POWER OF wing or cenfuring fuch elections* either before or aft er they were made. Againe ic is objected. TfoS)W of Tilleburgh in Nafovia, determined the //J^, m & hath many a time bene done, as well of other good men , as alfo of many Catholic}^ Bifbops* that is, to remedie our Churches by a Provinciall Synod. And befides other ex- (b)Synug. amples , there is a (ty fpeciall monument recording the A&s and Articles agreed ?° n f &n6 u P on m cne Sy n °d holden at London, Anno D. 1562. and againe of another Sy- li5 ' nod>Anno 1 571. confirming the Articles of theformer Synod; ratifyed by the approbation of Qu.Eli%abeth , to be obferved through the whole Kingdome, &c* Now howfoever there be great difference in divers Churches, touching the manner of celebrating thefe Synods; yet herein (which is the poynt of our pre- fent controverfy) they doe all agree > viz. that there is a fuperiour Ecclefiafticall au- CLASSES AND SYNODS. 235 authority of Synods, to judge and determine the affaires of particular Con- gregations. "* The teftimonyofthe Church of Scotland for the authority of Prefbyteries and Synods in judging the caufes of particular Congregations is moft cleare, In the ■} admiffion of Minifters to their offices there was (c) required not onely the confent gO Firft of the people and Church whereunto they f hould be appoynted , but alio appro- J^g-Jr*: ■ Nation of the learned Mnijltrs Appointed for their examination. Touching all forts of i9 .ed. ifoi „ Synods among them it was concluded ^that (<*) they have power to execute (J)?ec.b. », EccleGafticall difcipline and punifhment upon all tranfgrefTours and proud con- jKjJfc, „ temners of the good order and policie of the Kirke,andfo the whole Difcipline ,, is in their hands. Touching Provinciall Synods > which they call the Iawfull conventions of the Paftors , Doctors, and other Elders of a Province , gathered for the common af- faires of the Kirkes thereof, &c. they (e) fay, (e)lb.p-.&i« „ Thir affemblies are inftitute for weightie matters, to be intreated by mutual! j) confent and atflftance of the brethren within that Province, as need requires. » This Aflembly hath power to handle, order, and redreffe all things commit- >, ted or done amifle in the particular aflemblies. „ It hath power to depofe t he office-bearers of that Province for good and juft ?> caufes deferving deprivation. „ And generally thir AfTemblies have the whole power of the particular El- }> derfhips whereof they are collected. Befides thefe Canons and rules of their Difcipline,there be alfo divers A£es of their Generall Aflemblies prefixed before the forefavd Firft and Second bookes oftheirDifcipline>whichbymany inftances doe fhew how that power of Sy- nods was exercifed and put w pra&ife in the Church of Scotland. For example ; we read ( f ; that there was an Excommunication direBed againft V atrik^c ailed B ofMur- y^i/hil ray, to U executed by M . Robert Pont Q ommijponer their, with the affiftance of the Minifitrs y ,\ 5 70 „ cf Edinburgh. We finde there in another Aflembly , (g) that Alexander Gordoun, (g) P. 1 f. B. of Galloway, being accufed of divers offences , it was concluded, that heftould^ dinbhn ^ rnakepublickjepentancc in Sackcloth three fever all 3undaies, firft in the Kjrkjof 'Edinburgh- ' ! 5 73 * fecondly, in Halyrudhous- thirdly , in the Queenes Qolledge ,under the paine of 'Excommuni- cation. We rinde in another Aflembly ,(h) r hat the B. ofDunkell was ordained to (h)P.itf. confejfe his fault publicity in the Kjrkof DunkelUfor not executing thefentence of the KJrk, ^mb.Mar. againft the Earle of Athol. • f X3 • For the confirmation of thisSynodall authority , there is added in the fame place an Aft of Parliament, (*) prefixed alfo before the fayd bookes of their Difci- (i)P. 19.*°. pline, having this Title* Ratification of the liberty ofthetrueKjrk; of generall and Syno- ? c | Th | lz dall Affemblies lofPrefiyteries; of Diftiplme,&c. " dtobjun" The Confefllon of fay th made by the Church of Scotland , both for the Doc- 5.159a. ' trine and for the Difcipline thereof , is yet further confirmed unto us both bv ge- neral Subscription , and by a moft Solemne Oath . The formall words of that Subfcription and Oath , are thus tecorded unto us : 0<) JVebeleeve with our hearts , Cfe)Syntag. confejfe with our mouth, fubfcribe with our hands, &a promifing andfwearing by that great f°^f Q *' Gg z name t?6 THE POWER OF name of the Lord our God, that we will continue in the DoSlrine <$ Difcipline of this Church and that we will defend the fame according to our calling and power , all the da»es of our life* under paine of all thecurfes contained in the law t there is ftill ob- ferved this fubftantiall and mainepoyntof Difcipline,namely a power in Synodall alTemblies to judge the controversies that doe arife in particular Congregations. Here M r CanneinfteadofaI//mof 24 men to condemne my pofirion foraner- 0) ch.pl. rour an( j untrueth , as he 0) fpeakes > may fee a lurie of more then thrice 24 Con- gregations in Scotland , maintaining my pofition, and condemning his errour by their example. (m) Kerc- The Reformed Churches in Savoy , as that of Geneva , (m) and the Churches in derSme=' ^ vl ^ a S es thereabout, ftanding under the jurifdiction of the Magiftrates in Ge- re van Ge- neva > were combined together for their mutuall guidance , and the Minifters of neven.p.c;, thofe Churches meeting weekly together were fubjeft to the cenfure of fuch Ec- iu.&c clefiafticall aflemblies, and the affaires of thofe Churches judged therein. The knowledge of this , is fo common a thing , that in appearance hereupon grew the (n) ch.pl. reproach , reported by M r Canne himfelf, that ( n ) at Geneva fub jetting of Churches P-94. to tlm order firfl began.' TheEvangelicall Churches in the greater and \tffzx Poland, in Lithuania, Ryjfia and Samognia have likewife Ihewed their confent wich us in this poyntor fubjec- ting particular Churches under the Ecclefiafticall authority of Synods , and have (o; Syntag. witnefied the fame in divers folemne aflemblies. They profeiTe (o) that when con- ahawj*' trover f ies af if e which cannot be compounded among themfelves , the judgement Syn. Fofna. and decree of a generall Synod of all their Churches is then to be required, and to j J70. An.19 be fubmitted unto. They agreed fp) that diver«s kindes of Synods were to be held Cp)Uj#-5°° among them, fome greater & fome lefte; that their Synodicall constitutions were Crlc." xanf. to be put in execution ; that the violatours thereof were to be fubject unto the wlodffl. cenfures of depofirion and excommunication, &c. They ordained (q) that every (q i\^- Evangelicall Minifter was not onely to have and to read the Canons of their Sy- Tora i*Df no ^ s > Duc alfo to carrie himfelf, and to governe the Church committed unto him An.2,3,7, according to the prefcript thereof, and that under paine of Ecclefiafticall cenfure: ] 4»i7. that the cenfure ofexcomunication was to be adminiftred publickly , either in the Congregation, or in the Sy nod, &c. Moreover it is worthy to be remembredrlio w the Churches of the Netherlands, even at that time when they were fcattered abroad in High-dutchland , and Eaft- friefland,in that time of moft bloody perfecution , under the government of Duke d'lAlv.i, did then in their banilhment, and with danger of their lives at home* combine themfelves in Clafles for their mutuall guidance, and fubmitted them- (r) Synod, felves unto the judgement of fuch aflemblies. I he distribution ofthefeChur- bn.bd. An. cries into feverall Clafles is (0 recorded publicklyyas followeth. 1. Claflls: The \l 7 .ii Ar *> tvvo Churches at Franckford , the Church at Schoinau^t Heyddberghji Franckendael, ac CLASSES AND SYNODS. 237 IX $. Lambert. II. ClafT. The two Churches at Collen, the 2 Churches at Aken, the Church at Maeftricht, at Limburgb, at N«yj> in Gulickjland. in. Cla(T. The Church oiWefel, ofEmbrickj offices, c ^Goc^ of Gennep, and other in Ckveland.iv. ClaflT. The Church ofEmbden , with ftrangers of Brabant , Holland , Weft-Friefland. v. ClaflT. The a Churches at Antwerp > the Church at 'sHertogben-bofib , at J5rafa, at Bruffehwd others in Brabant, v I. ClafT. The Church at Grf;tf , at B^nfen, at Oudenard, at Cornea., , and others in E^/l and Weft -Flanders . vii. Claff. The Church ofDoornick* otRjjfel, ofAtrecht, of lArmemiers, of galena enne , and other Churches of JValloens. vni. ClafT. The Church of *Amfterdam, of Delpb>o- ther Churches of Holland, of Over-YJfel, of WesJ-Friejland. The faithfull Mini- fters and people of thefe primitive Reformed Churches, the Martyrs & witnefTes of Chrift , like the woman that fled into the wildernes from the rage of the Dra- gon, have given fpeciall teftimony unto this Claflicall government, whereunto they fubmitted themfelves even in thofe hard times , when it was difficult & dan- gerous for them to meet together. As the DutchChurches pradfrfed among themfelves of old)fo they in the fore- mentioned Synod by common advife agreed (0 to exhort the Englifli that they (f)S>Tod. would combine their Churches into a Clatfrs. And accordingly this order of go- Embd ' apc « vernment was approved bv them , as appeares in that booke of their Difcipline , framed for the ufe of rhe Englifh Cburchesin thefe countries; where it is fayd in the end. ( c ) Tbit maybe fufficknt for particular Congregations: fortbevifitatiotz-, wbereofand {*) F ° r nie decifion ofcaufes which cannot be ended among them, and fuch like; Meetings, Conferences & ^3™°™"*. Synods of Ministers and Elders, chofen by particular Churches and meetings .are to be held, as miniftr.&c, the Minifiersfor time and place and other circumftances frail think, meet , Wi t h ( v ) con - P r !"^ d , * fent and allowance of thefe Minifters of fuch Claflfes or Conferences , together f 6 ^ t ^ e with confent of the Elderfhip,were the Paftours and Teachers of particular Con- 4 . e di t / gregations to be elected : and then the names of fuch being fignifyed to the Con- W) ibH p. gregation , for inquiry after their fitnes , warning was given that if within twenty jj* £ £.& dayes no juft exception were taken , then their (iience fhould be accounted as tho. F3.V ° free confent of the Congregation 5 &c, To conclude , befide the teftimony of Reformed Churches fe verally & apart , it (hall not be amide to behold the Harmony oftheirjoynt confent in the Depu- ties of the fayd Churches, aflTembled together in the Natiooall Synod of Doit, then which it is rightly judged, that (*) there hath not bene for many ages pafl, anyi*) MoKh; Synod more venowmed , or more holy , or more profitable to the Church . When as the Re- ^jjgfc monfirants upon pretence of partiality & fchifme in their judges , fought to decline a 3.' the Authority &fentence of this Synod; the Divines of other nations , deputed from feverall Churches, have giveo fuch judgment thereof, asfhewesaplaine condemnation of mv oppofites opinion . The judgement of the Divines of Great Brittaine, who alledged the^perpetuall |>^ ^ practife of all Churches, was this, that (y) the bigbefi power of ' determining controverfies pordr.^" in every Church is in the NationaU Synod lawfully called together & framed &Tc. Seff. 29. The judgement of Divines out of the Talatinate , was like unto the former : P- 97- They (z) alledge the pra&ife of the Church both in the old & new Teihment , ££ lL ' p * C g 3 for 13$ The power of for confirmation thereof; and fhew t heir ownepraftife to have bene fuch, that fome authors of novelties being admonijhedfirft of their Claflis , and then of the Ecclefi- afticaUSenate,andbeingrefraBory were then difmijftd,ihat is>depofed from their places. The Divines of Hafpa agree with the former,and upon the like grounds. They (a) ibid. p. ( a ) fhew the practife of their owne Churches; that for therepreffingoftheerrour too* o£ the Vbiquitarians , divers Nationall Synods had bene held by authority of the foure bretnren> Princes of Haffia ; and that fince againe the Prince Maurice, Land- grave afHafia , had called another generall Synod of Haflia » wherein the former Synodicall decrees were confirmed>& fentence pronounced againft fuch as main- tained contrary errours . fb) ibid. p. The Divines of Switzerland or Helvetia, confent hereunto , and (b) alledge the 102. perpetuall praftife of ancient & later Churches , together with the pra&ife of thofe in Berne, in the caufe oiHuberus , in their owne countrey ; and teftify that by fuch meanes peace was obtained . (c) tbid. p. The Divines of Geneva alfo (<0 avouch> that in the Church>the fupreme power ioz. 103 . of judgement is in a Synod lawfully called , &c. That God hath eftablif hed this order & fan&ifyed it by the example of the A poftles and all ages of the Church, according to the faying of Chrift , Tell the Church, &c. (d) ibid. p. The Divines of Br erne (d) maintaine the fame thing, and hold that if this order 10 4- of Synods may be refufed by fuch as deferve Ecclefiafticall cenfures, that then a dourefc.ould be opened to all herefies &fetts, & all the judgements of the Church whereuntb Chrift fendeth us ,fhould be fub\>trted , <9c (e) ibid. p. The Divines ofEmbden (e) accord with the reft , and befides other reafons for 107. confirmation of Synodail Authority in the judgement of Ecclefiafticall caufes , they alledge that very place of Scripture, Act. 10. 28. which my oppofites per- vert to a contrary end againft me . Neither have they onely in generall fhewed what the authority of Synods is, and alfo what this Synod may doe; but the Synod goes further,and proceeds unto the exercife of this power > and pronounceth fentence againft thofe that perllfted (f)A^.Syn. in their errours . In the Copieofthat Sentence (f) there be divers a&s of their Nat. Dor Jr, power to be obferved in the feverall expreflions & formes of fpeech ufed therein : p C Tso 38 * n as ^ or exam P* e > This Synod of Dort doth feriouflv » inftantly , and according ,> to the authority which it hath by the word ofGod over all the members of their ,> Churches , in the name of Chrift require , exhort > admonifh , & enjoyne all & , » every one of the Paftours in the Churches of the United Provinces , Do&ours, s j Re&ours , Matters in the Univerfities & Schooles* &c. The Synod > after in* ,> vocation of the holy name of God > being in confidence well aflured of their 9 > authority from the word of God 1 following the fteps of Ancient & lateSy- (g) P. 28 1 , » n °d s > & c - (%) Doth interdict the perfons cited unto this Synod , from all Ec- ,) clefiafticall charge , and depofeth them from their offices,and alfo judgeth them „ unworthy of Academicall functions , untill by earneft repentance , &c. For the ,» reft » whofe cognition is not come to this Nationall Synod, it committeth unto » Provinciall Synods , Claries & Prefbyteries , according to the order receaved, „ that with all care they procure, &c. That they diligently take heed unto 1 „ them- CLASSES AND SYNODS. n$ „ thsmfelves , that they admit not any man to the holy miniftery , which refufeth ,, to fubfcribe unto the do&rine declared in thefe Synodicall conftitutions , and to „ teach the fame : that they alfo retaine no man by whofe manifeft diOenfion,&c. This judgement & Sentence of the Synod was afterward in moft full & ample manner (h) approved & confirmed by the Uluftrious Lords, the States Generally IhicJ - P. of the United Provinces , acknowledging alfo the buGneffeofthisSynodtobe agreat & holy wor^fuch as heretofore the Reformed Churches never Jaw , <#c. Befides this Sentence pronounced againft thofe twelve or thirteen of the Re- monftrants , that by authority of the Synod were (*) cited to appeare before themj (5 * biJ ' *> there is alfo another fpeciallfentence, ( k ) of fufpenfion from their function, con- (^p 7 ' ao4 eluded & pronounced againft EverhardusVofculiusiandlohamesSchotlerius, Mini- 205.* fters at Campen, becaufe of their contumacy in not appearing before , the Synod , being lawfully cited thereunto. Moreover it is memorable, that the members of this Synod, the Deputies of feverall Churches , did all & every one of them take a moft folemne oath, in tefti- mony of the good confeience which they had in the exercife of this authority : The forme of the Oath was (0 as folioweth ; (l) Aa.Syn. n I doe promife before God, whom I beleeve and reverence as the prefent seff « p »fearcherof the reines and hearts, that inthis whole Svnodallaclion, wherein eu » fhalbe undertaken an examination , judgement & decifion , both touching the » five knowne Articles and the difficulties thence arifing, and alfo touching all „ other matters of do&rine , I will not take any humane writings , but onely the » word of God for the certaine & undoubted rule of faith ; and that in this whole ,, caufe I (hall propound nothing to my felf , but the glory of God , the peace of 99 his Church , and in fpeciall the confervation of the purity of doctrine . So lee » my Saviour Jefus Chrift be mercifull unto me, whom I moft earneftly befeech ,» that he would continually affift me in this purpofe with the grace of his Spirit. This oath being firft taken by the Prefident of the Synod , all the other Profef- fours , Paftours & Elders of the Netherlands , deputed unto the Synod , and then all the Divines of other nations, ftanding up in order, did with a loud voyce every one of them declare, that they did holily promife and fweare before God the fame thing:and teftifyed that they came with inch minde unto the Synod> had hitherto fit downe therein ; and would hereafter by the grace of God continue . Having now fuch a cloud of witnefTes confenting with me, I have reaibn in this place againe to putM r Canne in minde of his vaine boafting (mj touching (mjch.pi a lurk of more then 24. men condemning me of errour . Here may he fee a Jurie of P- *i« more then thrice 24. fworne men , and of the moft excellent fervants of God in fo many Reformed Churches and Univerlities , the lights of Chriftendome > the flower of the Churches, and thefeleft crowne of learned men , as they of Geneva doe («) ftile them, all teftifyingboth by word and prac- (nj a#. tifc againft him > and againft the opinion of Mr Day* Dordfseff touching the Jurifdi&ion of Synods. 3°p.i». ' i 4 o THE POWER OF k^A Supplement , annexed by the Publifher,for anfwer unto that which follow eth indMr Cannes booke. THus farre , good Reader , the Authour hath travelled through thofe tedious waves , which M r C. though with leiTe trouble > yet with more prejudice to his owne caufe , hath firft opened unto him . The fumme of all is , that wading through thofe ftreames of Arguments and Reafons wich M r C. had let out upon him>he hath found fuch as were of any depth} to runne another way; & the other too (hallow to hinder the paflage of trueth in thiscontroverfie. And marching through thofe feverali rankes & files of learned Authours,wh ch M r C.had mutte- red } & brought into the field for his defence and affiftance in this conflict, he hath found them all ( excepting thofe that were to be excepted; to be friends inftead of enemies, teftifying plainely in their owne words, & in the words of fundrv others with them, that againft their wills they were forced to appeare under his banners. And therefore in the fame order that he marrhalled them againft the Authority of Synods, they now ftand in aray againft the Independency of Churches. There remained yet one part of M r Can.oppofition in this caufe to be encountred, wherein he pre- tends to difappoint and conquer fuch forces as might feeme to be ufed in defence ofthacClafllcall and Synodal! government which he hath hitherto oppugned. (*) Chin-. To this end he (») undertakes to anfwer certaine Reafons or Objections , picked Fb) a Aniw 1,0Ut of divers P a ^ a § es m tne Authours (*>) firft booke , fuppofingby this meanes to to w.B,&c na ve fully acquitted himfelf in this Difpute. Now though there be nothing in thefehis Anfwers, for which an intelligent Reader might not eafily fatiffyhim- felf from what hath beenefayd already in the foregoing Treatife: yet left M r C. ihould plead there was ought left untouched , that with any fhew of reafon re- quired an anfwer ; & for their help to whom fuch directions may be ufefull > I have here briefly noted what he hath fayd , and to what purpofe . The Reafons or Objections which in this latter part of his booke he aflayeth to anfwer, are i. Concerning the evili confequents of Independency: 2. The ancient exercife of the power ufed in Synodal! combinations: g. The liberty & freedome hence arifing unto Churches & the members thereof: 4. The deter- minations of Synods , and confent of Reformed Churches in this matter : 5 . The Authours alledging the former practife ofthe Church where he was Minifter. (c)Chorch. In thefixt place hementioneth fome objections , of which he (<0 faith he will nop pl.p.ico. ftand to maly any particular anfwer thereto^utxefareth us ingenerallto thewritings of others , which whofoever fhall compare with the Authours words againft which they areapplyed, and duely weigh the feverali circumftances on both fides , may eafily difcerne that this his generall anfwer needs no reply . In the end left we fhould doubt with what affection all the reft was written, he graceth his booke with this Conclulion>and difireth it may benoted, when out ofthe abundance of his charity he faith, Mr Paget would faine have the Clajftcall Discipline advanced , that heeby it might have worldly credit alfo; Thefeare his laft words, ulhered with others GLASSES AND SYNODS. , 241 others o^the fame ftamp; that kecfeekstv difgraceChrifls government > <$ to have his rwne honoured & embraced , &c. A vile flan der * & not worthy to ht an{ "wered . For the or her objections which M r Canne pretends to anfwer, it is to be ob- ferved that the Authour in his former writing hath not famed any Reafons for proofe of this poynt in conrroverfie,as he hath often («*J before noted in this Trea- (d)Vag-4o* tife . It was not his purpofe at that time to propound any Argument: fcrft or lafts 75> l6 ^ # but being the Defendant or partieaccufed, to wait for the Arguments of his Ac- cufers it And fo much was alfo fignifyed in his te) other bcoke , which M l C. ( e ) An|». had read > and from whence thofe Reafons or pretences , as he calies them , are l°j^§ t ' p ' -taken, unto which herehefhapes hisAnfWers. Yet notwithstanding he will ' take no notice ofthis,butrunnes into two contrary extremes: before he affirmed that he brought no proofes, becaufe he had none to bring; intimating (f that . (f)ch«r.pl, he hath not left this point unprooved y out of forgetfulnes • but rather of metre poverty ,asnot^' l)il ' having any authenticall records , &i. Here againe he makes him to bring Reafons & Arguments, when as he profefiedthat at that time he intended to bring none : not out of forgetfulnes, or want of abilitv ; for he had fayd in the place before mentio- ned , that he had to this purpofe in his Sermons divers times alhdgedfundry evidences^ grounds of holy Scripture , &c. And M r G. knew that he was able to produce fuch evidences , by the occafionall mentioning of thofe two places, Deut. 1 7. & -48. t f, which he hath alfo undertaken to anfwer, Come we now to the particulars. *T^He firft pretended Reafon is fet downe by M r C. in thefe words *. If particular I. A Congregations fhould not fiand under any other EccUJiafticall authoritie out of them- J 'elves 3 manifold diforders , confufion and diffipation of Churches would follow . Thus he perverts the Authours words, which were not Ctt downe by way of Argument , but meerly as a declaration of his judgement touching the benefit of Gaffes and Synods, againft the contrary accufation of his oppoGtes. His words are thefe, (g) That Jingle uncompounied policie (asMrlacobcaUesit) whereby particular Congrega- (g) Anfw, tions are made to be independent , notftanding under any other EccUfiafticali authority out of j£ ^. B » themfelves , that I conceivs.t firing with At manifold diif orders , confufion and difjip'aiion of Churches . That which the Authour thus fet downe as his owne opinion , which he held concerning thefafety of this government > for the maintaining of order & fetled peace in Churches : , that M r C. tranfformes into an Argument > & calies ithis firft reafon. The Authour had juftcaufe to mention that consideration in fuchnaannerashedid, toiaew the importance of this point in controverfie , by which he there alfo hoped that .others would be warned , to take heed what new formes of Churches and Church-government they frame unto themfelves, or commend unto others. Experience hath taught, not ohce,(iof twice,thaiin the matter of framing Churches 3 for want of taking fuch advice, fome have become like Vtopian Commonwealthsmen ; going to work accordingto their owne Idaas, they have begun a work which they were not able to finiih •, not unlike unto that builder of whom our Saviour fpeakes, L«^. 14. sS, 2,9, 30. And therefore,, as before more. briefly, fonow («) at his entrance into a more full and profefled handling of this.( F O pa S , * a ' queftion, the Authour hath hereby declared of what importance this controverfy 33 ' is> and given inftance in the diforders, cpnfufions and diffipations which have hap- H h pened i 4 * THE POWER OF pencd unto that Church of the Brownifts at Amfterdam > the rather becaufe of their neglect and contempt of fuch remedies , as from Clatficall and Svnodall go- vernment might have been afforded unto them . if thofe that pretend fuchaccu- rate exercife of Discipline , have fallen into fo great and manifold fcandals , fuch rafh and offenfive excommunications i fchifmes, & depositions, as are there men- tioned; how can it be expected that others, in outward appearance more unable to mannage fuch a kinde of government » fhould be free from running into the like or greater offences < Iffome few Gngle Churches, within a few yeares,have bewrayed to their lofle and fhame, the great want of a combined government, for the eftablifhment of peace and order among them •, how many inftances and ex- amples of the fame kinde might we looke for inproceffe of time, where many Churches together fhould be erected according to this modell of Independent politie t To this purpofe the Authour hath applyed that obfervation touching; thefe evill confequents of Independency, not by way of argument,as M r C. hath fet it downe . If he had intended to propound an Argument, he would have fra- med it after another mannerjfor the aggravation of their errour ; as thus for exam* pie : That independency of Churches , which not being preferred of God , doth occafion mani- fold diforders, and Kingdomes, for their mutuall peace and fafety in the way of government . The fubordination of Courts in Civill government , while they are framed according to an Ariftocraticall temper 1 is not repugnant unto the nature of EccleGafticall politie . Thefe things thus premifed , and applyed unto Ciafficall and Synodall combinations, it may hereby appeare how M r C. hath played the trifler in fo ma* ny idle and impertinent anfwers which he hath made unto his owne frame of rea- fon obtruded upon the Defendant, Bur for further fatiffaction » behold the fub- ftance of his Anfwers. I.C. A n s v v « I • *Ww God bath ejlabltjhed an order for the admmijlrathn of hit own* CLASSES AND SYNODS. M3 vwnchoufe, what pnfumption of man dares change it? Thinkes he that he is wiftr then the tAlmighty ? &c. Rlpl. x. This anfwer faith nothing to any part of the pro- pofed argument > even as he himfelf hath framed it ; uniefle it be a denyall of the Conclufion . For of changing an order that God hath eftablifhed » there was no mention, nor colour of any fuch meaning, in the Authors words which he under- takes to refute. Onely the queftion is whether Independency be that forme of ad- miniftration which God hath appointed unto his Churches : This M* C. with vehement afleverations affirmes , and complainesof them that deny it. If this rea- foning were good , he might eafily beat downe all objections that are made againft his Tenet, n. Obferve with what infolent language he inveigheth againft thofe that oppofe his opinion, as if they didfet themfelves poynt blanck againft that which they faw to be the ordinance of God. Did he thinke the Authour or others of his minde , meant to plead in fuch manner for their judgement & practife tou- ching Gaffes and Synods ? Sure M r C. knew it to be otherwife ; at leaft by thofe places of Scripture , which he faw mentioned in their defence . But herein alfo hefhewes himfelf to be a difciple and follower of H. Barrow, who for the fame thing reproaching the Rjformifts, fayth (*0 they would bringin a new adulterate forged ( k ) Dlf co*. government in jliew, or r at her in de /pit e ofChrifts bleJJedgovernment,wbichtheyinthepride, p ' 9> 9 °* rajlmes, ignorance, and fenfualitie of their fleflily hearts, moji miferably innovate, corrupt and pervert % &c. M r C.doth here in like manner multiply words to the fame purpofe . I. G. A N s v V. II. Beit well confidered, that Godalwayes ahhorreth all good in* tentes of men, that are contrary to the goodpleafure of his will, revealed in his word, &c. Re PL. i.Thereis no mention made otzny internes in the fuppofed Reafon : it is onely fayd that Independency will be attended with difonders and confulion , &c. M r C. therefore difputes with his owne intentes in thefe his impertinent anfwers. it. How can God be fayd to abhorre good intentes ? Or how can thofe be fayd to be good intentes , that are contrary to the revealed willofGod? m. Intention notes the purpofe of the will , with reference both unto the end at which it aimes , and the meanes by which it endeavours to attaine that end . If both thefe be good & lawfull, the intention alfo is abfolutely good. Yetiftheendbegood, though the meanes be unwarrantable , the intention is not prefently abhorred , but fome- time commended of God himfelf; as in David, when he purpofed to build an houfe for the Name of the Lord , t . King- 8. 1 8. with z. Sam. 7. 7. But in this cafe , on their part that maintaine Claflicall and Synodall combinations, not onely the-endtheyaimeat, to wit, peace, order, and the eftablifhment of Churches; but the meanes alfo , or the pra&ife of fuch combinations > is allowed by the word of God : neither doth M r C. proove ought to the contrary. I. C. A N s v v. III. This objection taken up hereby Mr Paget, is the very fame which the Papifts, and thofe that way ajfefted ufe ,<&c. R e p l . i. If Papifts ufe the 1*7/4^ objeaion,that is, if from the fame PremiiTes they make the fame Conclu- fion, rejecting Independency & Anti-Synodall courfes , becaufe of the confufions and diforders which doe follow the fame ; then herein they are no Papifts , foraf- much as Proceftants have reafoned in like manner , as may be feen in fundry Tefti- H h % monies 144 THE POWER OF (l) Ch. 7. monies before C 1 ) alledged . n. When Papifts difpute againft any lawfull forme Sea. 2-7. of government, with the fame argument which vveufeagainft that which is un- lawful! ; this can no more prejudice our reafoning then it doth M r Cannes, while both he & they reafon againft lawfull Svnods, as taking away that right and power which they pretend to be due unto others ; he aflcribing that to the body of the (m)Bellar. Congregation, which thev doe (m) to the Pope, viz. thefupreme Ecclefiafticall de Rom. judge-ment of all controverGes ; and both, pleading from the fame grounds of oT&de Scripture, Math.i6,&-\$,&c .Men may ufe the like arguments, & yet their verb. Dei. concluGons be fane unlike & contradictory . 1.3-c.J. I.C. Ansvv. IV. If particular Congregations mufiloofe their right andpowerl becaufe of the offences, which fome men have committed in the exercife thereof. Thenfurely by the fame reifon (if Mr Pagets reafoning be worth any thing) ought Clafles and Synods , to lay downe that fuperiaur authority , which they have t akpi over many Churches • becaufe tlm in many things , many times have offended, in andabout tbeexecution . R k P L. I. The reafon here mentioned by M r C. is a meere fiction and forgei ie of his owne. The Author never reafoned on rhis manner : he never fas d , never thought to fay , that particularCongiegations muflloofe their right tsf power ,brc. There is no fhadow of any fuch thing in thofe words which M r C.hath here fet downe for himfelf to anfwer. 11. Particular Congregations doe ftiLl retaine their due right & power, even while they are fubordinate unto the fuperiour authority of Chiles and Synods, as hath (n) Pag. been often lhewed (^j before, in. if he would have fpoken to the purpofe, he 156, 15 7. { hould have lhewed , that particular Congregations , ftanding undc/no other Ec- 5cc. 164, c ie(iauicall authority out of themfelves , are not thereby expofed to manifold dif- orders, confuGon, and diflipation : Or if he would have retorted this argument upon the Defendant, he ought to haveprooved that ClaiTicall and Synodall go- vernment , of its owne nature , brings with it manifold diforders , confufion., and diflipation of Churches . But inftead of this , he mentioneth onelv the ofFertces which in many things, many times have been obferved ., in <2 about the execution. And behold what he faith for proofe hereof. I. C ^And this I amfitre no good Chriflian will deny , I could give divers inflames for (o) Bpift h ; but it needs not : Oneh it is not amifle to fet downe Nazianzens (°) words • who was an 4i.ad Fi oc. Elder or Bifliop : lam minded, faythhee 3 tofhunne allaflembliesofBifhops, be- caufe i never faw anv good event in any Councell* &c. Whither things arebmer ca- ryed now , then they were in his time , I will not , nor am able to)udge . A n s v v . L. If he will not nor cannot judge wnether the fame abufes be now committed which Nayanyn complained of j it followes that he ought not to have the will nor abi- lity to conclude that this government f hould how be remooved, as it feemes he would inferre from fuch a reafon as vvasufed by Naqianqen for his diflike of the Synods of his time. 11. This teftimony ofNaqianqm hath been fufficientlyanfwe- (p)P.iiz, red(p) before out of D.Whitakt*> where ft hath been alfo lhewed, that it makes 22 3- as much againft thofe AtTemblies ol Bifhops which M r C. himfelf allowes, as againft any other. But to makeitappeare that this is no new objection, &thac we need not feek any further anfwer unto it, loehere what others have fayd tou- ching the fame teftimony, $e%4 t among ochcr counfels to the Emperour & States of GLASSES AND SYNODS. 24.J of Germany, for the fettling of the peace of Chriilian Churches , doth fpecially give advice for the celebrating of a Synod : & feeing he doth not onely anfwer the forefayd exception , but withall notably declare the iawfull , ancient, and profita- ble ufe of Synodal! authority , I have here fet downe his words at large, as wort hie j, our obfervation for this purpofe . Churches, (3) faith he , cannot be rightly (3) Conflf. „ governed by their Paftours , unlefle befide the fowing of good feed , they do?, $£&*?; >,alfobythe wordofGod, as with a fickle cut downe evillherbes, yea & root Tra£t.The- 3) them out according to their power. But becaufe that cannot oftentimes be per- oi. voU.p. 3, formed by the authorityofone or a few,neither happily were it meet: therefore n1, I12 ° „ fince Churches began to be fettled , the Brihops of the Provinces did meet to- 5, gether as often as there was need: and that according to the example of the 9, Apofiks , left any ihould think this hath been the device of man . The Synod 3, of the Church of Jerufalem and Antiochia, celebrated in the Aftes of the 3, Apoftles , is well knowne . Afterwards followed that firft Oecumenicall Sy- „ nod of Nice , where Ecclefiafticall Provinces being more accurately then hap- j»pily divided? this alfo was ordained , that every yeare two Provincial! Synods 5, fhould be gathered by the Metropolitanes: which cuftome if ic had bene dili- 5> gently obferved , certainly it is likely that many and moft great calamities of the ,> Church might have bene prevented . But here fome doe object unto us , that 3 ) for the moft part diflenfions have been rather kindled then quenched by thefe 3 > Synods , infomuch that the famous Biihop Natfanqme by a certaine fentence of ,> his hath as it were 3 condemned allthofeaiFemblies. But we make no doubt » to oppofe unto this opinion, partly that Apoftolicall example, and partly alfo 3 > the hiftorie oft higgs done . Indeed the Nicene Synod hath not quite allayed 3, the furiesof Anus , no nor fome that followed after . But who {hall therefore 9> judge that there hath been no fruit of that Synod , which even at this very time 3,wedoeabundantlyreap I Yea that Apoftolicall Synod hath not altogether re- 3, ftrained Cerinthus and thofe obftinate maintainers of Circumcifion . But who 99 would therefore deny that it was neceflary for the Church'; Therefore every 9, one fees that that fentence of Naqanqme doth not cqncerne Synods rightly or- 9, dered, unlefle we thinke that he would detract from the Synod of Nice : which 93 indeed is very abfurd, feeing it is well knowne how great a defender he hath 9., been thereof. Ifneverthelefle Arians ceafed not to rage through the world* 93 how much the more may we thinke that they would have done it, if the autho- rity of that holy Svnod agreeing whith the word of God, lb often objected 9, againft them, had not repreflfed their renewed endeavours? The fame we avouch- 3, concerning the Macedonians , Neftorians , Eutychians , and their i(Tue, whom 3,asmanyOecumenicalISynods» if not with one wound, yet with reiterated 9, blowes have by the word of God ftricken downe, infomuch that they doe 3> afford us armes againft the fame, fpringing up againe in this our age. Yet when 3, we fay thefe things , we doe not hold that the Church is grounded upon the au- 33thorityoffuch Aflemblies, or that all Conventicles, by whatfoever name they 3> be called, are to be accounted Synods: but this one thing we fay , thatGodis 3j to be intreated by us in thefe calamities of the Church? that we may duel y and; H h 3 wholiiy ttf THE POWER OF j, holily ufe thefe remedies alfo which are given unto us of God. Thus farre Beqa . The fame obje&ion out of Na%ian%ene is to like purpofe anfwered by Vrfi- (t) Admon. i> nus , when he faith > ( r ) The complaint of Naqanqine, that he faw no good iffue de lib con- }J f anv Synod > we make no generall rule ; unlefle we would condemne the Or- op't'o^ 12 ^ ,, thodoxe'OecumenicallCouncels of the ancient Church* to have hadanevill col, 6W. >> event ; which N^wa^ewdoth not fay > who fpeakes of the Synods of his time > j, whereof fome were Arian [Synods ,] fome perhaps confufedly undertaken & governed . Sibrandus Lubbertus fpeaks in like manner touching the fame tcfti- Ci)DeCon-» mony of Naqanyne, faying, (0 This unhappines of the events muft not be cil.i.i.c.i, „a(Tcribed unto the Gouncelsthemfelves; but to the ambition & defire of com- „ mand in thofe that aflemble , as the fame Naqumspne doth alfo teftify . 0) m« ii. ' ^' A N s v v. V. if the infirmities of the people, be a goodreafon to take away 26. ' their liberty , infraBiJing among themfelves all Gods ordinances : then the contrary venues , Art. ^ . %6. which oftentimes have bene found in them (as in flaying the rageofthe Scribes <$ PharifiesW; (v) Zezom. jnpref erring fincere Chriflians before Arrians (v) • (? beingthemfelves found in the faith (x); (xjtheod. tvhen their Miniflers have bene Her etickes :) is a good reafon to maintaine their liberty flill, *.*. cap. 7. R e p l. i.Thisanfwerisbefidethequeftion, which is not here touching the (76 Pag ' peoples liberty , as they are diftinguif hed from their Minifters ; but concerning (2) Protoc. particular Congregations and their fubje&ion toEcclefiafticall authority out of Embd. Aft. themfelves . Though Mr C. and fome others that now ftrive for the Indcpen- I0 -'cicl ^ enciQ Churches, doe alfo affeft a popular way of government in the Church; Bekent.'p. ' oppofing notonely the power of Clafllcall Prefbyteries, but alfo of particular El- ai8. clop- dcdhips ; yet Popularity doth not neceffarily follow upon Independency, neither kwdfwe" ^ ave t * ie ^ a ^ wa > es ^ ot ^ tne f amc Patrons . Mr Jacob , though he pleaded for a der-doopf" Gngle uncompoundedpolicie , in oppofition to Synodall authority •, yet he utter- ly 53?. ' lydifliked thofe popular circumftances held by the Separation, as hath been noted (a)Faukei. (>) before. Againe, the Anabaptifls , though they maintaine and pra&ife thofe Weder. ef popular wayes of judging caufes among them , and 00 oppofe the Elderfhips of doop. pag. the Reformed Ghurches;as exercifing an undue power, in deciding matters apart 166, 167 , from the Congregation; yet they allow and practife divers things, contrary to the (Sprotoc. nature of Independencie , fo as M r C. pleades for it: feeing, i.They have Embd. Ad. fa) their Bifhops , as they call them , diftinft from their other Preachers,by them 78. n. 4. & termed Vermaendtrs , that is , Admonifhers ; and by fome of them (b) held to be MGtfrec beacons: thefe acknowledge themfelves 00 to be inferiour to their Bifhops in totZierSSz. the miniftery . The Bifhops belong to fome more eminent Congregations of p. 11. thatSeft, doeatcertaine times vifit the other leflTer Congregations , andadmi- E^bd Aft' ni ^ er c ^ e Sacraments among them . 2. The Anabaptifts (J) ufe to excommuni- 99! n. \. ' cate wn °l e Congregations at once,when having been of the fame profeflion with Fauk.Wbei them , they witnefle their diflentfrom them in fuch matters as for which particu- der we. j ar perfons are excommunicated by them . 3 . The caufes that cannot be deter- &p.' ti *! mined in their particular Congregations , are by them fometimes ( e ) referred to (c) Babel' the judgement of Arbiters, men of feverall Congregations, chofen by both par- der weder- ties,with promife to ftand to their fentence> & fometimes alio to the meetings of o5 C b *' the Officers offundry Churches, This (hewes that though they plead for Popula- ' ' ritie, CLASSES AND SYNODS* t 47 ritie, yetthey doe not fimply allow of Independence, u. Suppofe that confi- deration had been alledged by the Authour againft Popular government alfo, as juftly it might , in regard of the manifold dij orders ,confufion , anddi(Jipatkn of Chur- ches, which it is knowne to bring with it; yet this anfwer cannot prooveittobe inefficient , becaufe it runnes upon a twofold falfefuppofition ; i . That this ap- pertaines to the due liberty of the people > to have their judgement fought unto for the determining of all controverfies that arife in the Church : i. That this li- berty is acknowledged to have been taken from them , as if they had been once in full poffeffion of it ; or that this is the maine reafon for denying that pretended li- berty to the people , becaufe of their infirmities ormifcarriagesintheufeofit. Thefe things as they are untrue in themfclves, fo they are unjuftly obtruded upon the Defendant , who had given no occafion to fuch pretences . We maintaine on the other fide > that this is no part of the peoples priviledge , becaufe it is not due unto them by any cjivine warrant: and herein we are further confirmed, feeing fuch an order is in outward appearance, and according to undenyable experience* in the Anabaptifts , Brownifts , & others , attended with manifold diforders , con- fufion & difllpation of Churches, in. Though it were granted that the people have beene oftentimes wifer in their choyce, & founder in the faith then their Minifters (which yet three of thofe places (0 here alledged doe not proove>there (£) a&. 5. being nothing in them to that purpofe for which they are cited;) yet that is not **• Zozo ' enough to difprove the forefaid arfertion > unlefle he could fhew that ordinarily Jheodlz. they are fo qualifyed , & indued with fuch abilities as are requifite for the orderly c. 7. exercife of judiciary power in the Congregation # This is not onely contrary to experience, but alfo to the revealed will & wifedomeofGod, in difpenfing his gifts feverally unto the members of the myfticall body of his Churchjappoynting tome to be of meaner ufe , and in fubje&ion to others. i.Cor. 1 2.-1 4-3 1 . Heb. \ 3 . 1 7. We muft either ftraiten the limits of the Church , further then Chrift himfelf hath allowed us, bylhutting the weak & feeble out of his fold; or elfe acknow- ledge that all the members are not fit to be ufed in the judiciall trying & determi- ning of caufes . THe next thing that M r C. (g) pretends to anfwer , is touching the Antiquity II. ofCladicall and Synodall government, from thofe words of the Authour, (g)chur. that the power which the Claflis exercifeth is ancient , &c, that he names it the old Beaten P 1 - P- 94- *xh , (fc. The Authour indeed had ufed thefe words , upon juft occafion ; not as any reafon or argument, tojuftifythe lawfulnes of this power, as M v C. feemes ro infinuate ; but to declare the trueth in the matter of facl , rather then in the con- troverfie of right : and this may eafily appeare to thofe that looke upon the places ( h ) alledged out of the Authours book. When an unjuft complaint was made, (h) Pag, that hehadfubjetled the Church under an undue power of the Claflis, that he brought it un- 7*.& ior# der , &c. he anfwereth, That power which the Claflis exercifeth is ancient ; the fame power which they hadlong before I either knew them or they me ; &c. Againe when there was mention made oi thofe of his fids ■, he anfwered, For my part I abhorre thisfiding * y I de» fire to wal){in the old beaten path of that difcipline and government , pra&ifed by thefe R^for- med Churches • & of thofe with which it is combined ; concerning which M r C. him- felf cannot denv but that he hath fpoken the trueth. But fuppofe it were uttered ingenerall, with reference unto the joynt confent of the Churches in all ages > giving teftimonv unto the exercife of this power ; might not this be a weight v & profitable conflagration, to be commended unto the ferious thoughts of thofe that orfer tooppofe it i Let us heare what M r C. faith to this . I.C Ansvv. I . Sundry err ours are as ancient as the Apo files time, &c. R t P L . 1« This doth not prejudice the conltant pra&ife of this or any other trueth, nor the regard that is to be given unto the cuflome of the Churches of God, according to the direction of the Apoftle , i.Cor. 1 1 . \6. To what end elfe are thofe manifold proofes and Allegations, which M r C. hath taken from Authours of all times, (i) ch. pi. to fhew i as he (i I pretends , their confent with him, and that his opinion may not he p. 77«s i- thought a Noveltier n. The due power of Clafles & Synods is not grounded upon 89. 5cc. t j ie anc i ent exercife of it • neither is this made an argument to prove the lawfulces thereof: It is onelvalledgedtoihew that others alfo, profeflmg fubjeclion unto the Ordinances of Chrift, have in like manner underftood the divine warrant for the exercife of fuch government in the Church . The Antiquitie whereupon the lawfulnes of this combined politic doth reft, is that which itclaimethfrom (fc) Ch. 2, tne L avv and the Gofpel , as hath beenlhewed (M before . 3»4- I.C. Ansvv. IJ. Howfoever Mr Paget for the credit of his caufe, names it the old &? ancient Difiipline • \etfure I am , toproove itfo , he never will nor can . There are many ( and I thinl^hee knowes it ) which doe affirm* that the Ecclejiaflicall government by Claffes (b Bilfon and Synods , is a weed that grew many yeares after the *Apoftles , Alatedevife (I), and perp.gov. thatinaliantiquitie there doth not appeare any one ftep thereof ( m ) ; Alfothac (mjsutcfif. at Geneva , fubjefting of Churches to this order firft began (n). And before Cal- Difcipi.c.s' vin came there, everie Congregation was free in itfelf \°). Repl. i. Thefe p. 138. teftimonies doe not fpeak oi Synods , and the Ecclefiafticall authority exercifed by {n)Bancroft t h em . What trueth is there then in Mr Cannes words when he fay th , they afjfirme p,ayay ' that the Ecclefiafticall government exercifed by Claffes and Synods is a wud, &c. Comp.'ch. 11. The diftinction which thefe Authours make betwixt Claffes and Synods, as it is P-!M» 93» ungrounded and inefficient to prove the one leffe lawfull or ancient then the foj Hook. ot ^ er » f° 1C can l ea ft °f a ^ ^ erve M r Cannes purpofe : feeing the chief caufe why Ecc Poiit. they difallow Claffes , is becaufe they exclude Hierarchicall authority - not {imply I'ref. becaufe they exercife Ecclefiafticall ;urifdi&i6,which is the maine ground where- upon M r C. dothoppofe them. m. The place quoted out of D. Bilfon, where he objec~teth untofome their owne device, is not properly directed againft Claflicaii government; andhefeemes to intend it principally againft Lay -Elders, as they (p) Perpet. call them , as appeares by that which followeth (p) in his book. But to {hew how Gov.p. 388 £ arre ^ was £ rom utter j n g any t hing , that might either difprove the ancient ufe of Synods, or favour independent Church-government, and the pretended anti- (q) ibid. p. » quity thereof, mark what he faith elfwhere ; (q) There is no Chriftian Realme 37^. „ nor Age > wherein the ufe of Synods hath not bene thought needfull > &c. as appea- CLASSES AND SYNODS. 249 9, appeareth by the Councils that have bene kept in all kingdomes and countries 9, fince the Apoftles times, when any matter of moment came in queftion, which ?> are extant to this day ; a n ^ likewife by the Synodes that every Nation and Pro- » vince did yearely celebrate , according to the rules of the great Nicene & Chal- 9, cedon Councils , which cannot be numbi ed , & were not recorded , &c. And » unlefle you give the Paftor and Prefbyters of every Parifh full & free power to n profelTe what religion they beft like, to oiFer what wrongs they will, toufe >, what impiety and tyrannie they themfelves lift, without any reftraint or redreiTe, »» which were an heathenifh , if not an helliih confufion ; you muft where there is j» no Chriftian Magiftrate,&c. yeeld that libertie to the Church of Chrift,which j>everyhumanefocietyhathby the principles of nature, to wit that the whole >, may guide each part , & the greater number overrule the IelTer , which without >, aflfembling in Synode cannot be done. Againe he profelTeth his judgement touching the danger and noveltie of Independence, when he faith, (0 In que- (r) ibid, p* >, ftions of faith, matters of faction, offers of wrong>breach of all order & equitie, 37^. „ f hall each place & Prefby terie be free to teach & doe what they pleafe , without ,, depending on or fo muchas conferring with the reft of their brethren? Call you ji that the Difcipline of Chrifts Church , & not rather the diflfolution of all peace, »andfubverfion of all trueth in the houfeof God? I thinke you be not fo farre 99 befide yourfelves , that you ftrive for this peftilent kinde of anarchie to be 9, brought into the world . Our age is giddie enough without this frenfie to put 9> them forward . Howbeit we feek not what new courfe you can devife after 9> fifteen hundred yeares to governe the Church; but what meanes^the ancienc 9, and primitive Church of Chrift had, before Princes embraced the trueth 9 ta 9, affemble Synodes & pacifie controverfies, as well touching Religion as Eccle- 9> iiafticall regiment, Sec. iv.The words cited by M r C. out of D.Sutdijfe, againft Glafles, areexprelTely anfwered by Mr Parker, when having fet downe the obje&ion here mentioned , viz. that in all antiquitk there doth not appeare onefiep 99 of tbefe Clafficall ajftmblies , he faych, (0 What, notfomuchas aftep? there isa (QDePo- 99 ftep at Ieaft extant in the Canonicall law throughout , but fpecially ( that we be ^- Ecd. 1, 1, not altogether bknt)Decret.par.z.cap. 1 1 .^.3 .C.4.& in theCouncils every where, 3 - c * H» P f 99 in that of Sardica, Can. 17. of Africa, C. 12,7. of Laodicea , C 12. whence 35 *' 9>it appeareth that according to ancient cuftome neighbour Bifhops were 9, aiwayes wont to come together , in all forts of difficult cafes : which the Pref- >vbytersac Rome judged to be fo neceflaryjthat a firme decree could not be 9,madeintht farre-fpread caufe of thofe that were fallen, without the alTem- „blingof thofethat wereneer unto them . Cypy.L.z.Epift.3. which courfe a Cyprian himfelf alfo followed, L. \.Ep. 8. & Cornelius Romanus, L. $. „ Epifl. % i . Why doe I fpend time i There is nothing more evident to him that is j, acquainted with the ancient monuments of hiftory , then that neighbours 9> (even betides the Synod) did eftfoone meet together for deciding of ftrifes » 9, fbd ordinations, for diiloiving of doubts , & infumme, for every weighty bu- 9vfineiTe. Of which alTemblies the Epiftles of Cyprian are full. And thefe alTem- 9> blies what are they els but ClafllcaliaflTemblies i The exceptions that might be I i made 150 THE POWER OF made againft thefe things are further anfwered by Mr Parker in the fame place • • It had behooved M r C. to have refuted M' P. herein, if he would have us give credit to this affertion of D. Sutcl. f v. The teftimonies next alledged touching Geneva , as they are untrue in regard of the ftate of thofe Churches, fo they are un- juftly applyed againft Claffes and Synods ; feeing as Mr Par. fayth,andacknow- (t) lbi.1. p. ledgeth with D. Sutcl. that (0 Geneva bath neither Claffes nor Synods , becaufe their ter* 361,361. ritorie is fofmali that it is not capable of them. Yet that they of Geneva doe allow the ufe of Clafles and Synods , Mr Party hath there manifefted from their writings 1 and the confeflions of their adverfaries ; and it doth alfo appeare by their practife > while their joynt Prefbyterie doth not greatly differ from a Claflis. But to fpeake properly , it is not a Claflls , and to fpeak truely , they are not the firft that .have ap- proved and pra&ifed fuch kinde of combined government. But left M r C. fhould feemeto urge us with the teftimonies of thefe Authours , behold what proofes he addes to this purpofe . I. C Touching thefe Affertions : I cannot fee how Mr Paget* or any other is able to dif- proovethem . It is acknowledged , on all fides , that in the firfl hundred yeares after thi xApo files , Minifters and Brethren offundry Congregations , met fometimes , to conferre mu- tually together of common Church-affaires - } yetfo as every particular Congregation , hadal* (v) Cent, tvayes (as the Centuries M write) power and authority in themfelves , to chufe their Officers t \.x. c. 4. p. rejeft Hereticty , excommunicate offenders , and the like . Ansvv. I. There is no- * 9 ' • thing here fayd to proove the forefaid aflertions, but what is grounded upon a falfe (x) Pag.30. fuppofition , which the Authour hath before (*) often difcovered ; viz. that par- 156, [j7, ticular Congregations have not ftill their power & authority in elections and cen- 1^4, &c. f ures t vvhen they are combined with others , & fubject to the power belonging to fuch combinations , for their direction, & correction, in cafe they offend . M r C. leaving this without proofe , the affertions which he offers to maintaine , are in like manner left without defence , for ought he hath here fayd . 1 1. The Magdt- hurgenfes never underftood that the confociation of Churches , in fuch fort as it is maintained by the Defendant , is inconGftent with that power which they have in ,; V )P. 173. themfelves; as hath been Ihewed(y) before out of other places of the fame Au- 174. 175. thours,according to which the place here quoted muft be explained; where they fpeak onely of the Apoftles times , and of particular Congregations confidered in themfelves , without excluding their confederacy with others , for their mutuail help in judging and deciding of caufes . (z) L. 3. c. I. C. So againe,for a hundredyeares next after ; we read inEufebius (*) , lra*ncus (a) , 22. L. 5 . c. Nicephorus (b) , and others , that neighbour Miniflers came often together* whtn then was \ * • 5 ' c * any dangerous errour broched , or weighty points to be determined , fervingfor gener all good : (a) L. 3 . c. but this they didof liberty* not ofduety - Partly to preferve mutuail fociety ; as Zippcrus ; 2 - 3- (c) fayth) &r partly that they might hereby be the more able* to rejifi adverfaries as , M r Par- y ' 4 ' c ' ker (i) fayth . A n s v v. His quotations here , as they ufe to be, are either mif- (cj l. 3 . c. printed or impertinent : howbeit the things themfelves for which they are alled- 7- ged, may eafily be granted. Butthequeftionis, whether the Synods or mee- Pol p°3 iQ. " n § s °*" Minifters > he ld m that age did not exercife Ecclefiafticall jurifdiction in 35a ' ' determining of weighty points a and deciding of controversies , If fo be they did, CLASSES AND SYNODS. *5x did, which cannot be denyed, feeing (as hath been C e ) noted sgainft the Armini- (e) Prof. aos ) fuch a deciding of Etclejiafticall controversies was ufed in all the Synods cf the ancient ^ e >'^ c * n ; Orthodox Church : then it mutt needs follow that chofe times have given tetiimo- Re moniirV ny untofuch Synods as are here maintained. But to avoyd this Condufion , p r ef. $ 14. M r C. puts in this (hifc , which we muft take upon his owne credit , faying j this y*; del - ^ e they didof liberty , not ofduety . But to what purpote is this evafion ? 1. The oppo- ^jj J" (ing of dangerous errours, the prefervingofmutuallfociety, and feeking help for c .6.p.i85. the remitting of adverfaries , the things here fpoken of, are necefiary dueties; and therefore to be done ofduety? and not of liberty . Men are bound to the perfor- * e L * mance itfelf , though there may be liberty ufed in the choyce of the circumfian- p * ces. 11. M r Parker faith expreflely in the very place here cited by Mr C.that ■(*) the (f) nePoi. ground of the combination of Churches is theduety ofmaimaimngmutuallfociety&c, E cdl - 3« and that bond ofmutuall help which Mofes mentioneth Num. 32.6. where the Reubeni- p> 3 z9 ' tes and Gadites are urged to their duety , not left to their liberty . In the next place he telles us his opinion touching the limits of Synodall a&i- ons , to wit , that (g) Ecclefiafticall Officers may conclude what they judge meet &good t '&*?' r but not m ake a Church-atl qrfentence , unleffe the Church firft know it > & give their free confentuntoit . As if co any efTeft uall purpofe weighty points could be determi- ned > mutuall fociety preferved, and adverfaries refitted* when dangerous er- rours are broched (which are the reafons he hirafelfhath allowed for aflembling in Synods , ) while every Church is left free to itfelf, to approve or reject what is fo concluded. His reafon is , becaufe thepower e? authorise to make Church-atls is in the tody of the Congregation. The proofe hereof, as it is understood & applyed by him* is yet to be expefted . Comming downe to the next hundred yeares , he feemes to acknowledge the pra&ife of thofe times to be againft him : but to ex- cufe the matter, he alledgeth Cafaubon , D. Whitaker, Mornaus, Brightman , yea and Cyprian , Eufebius, and Ambrofe, teftifying that in thofe times menbeganto devife anew crder and manner of governing Churches', buc that their confent was ftill required; that this Synodall decree was occafioned by the peoples abufingtheir right unto tumults , J "editions and diverfe confufions . 2. By a like inference he might conclude that other erroneous opinions and difordered practifes, condemned in the Councils and Synods of thofetimes> were before al- lowed and ufed in the Church . III. *Tr*Hat which he pretends toanfwerin the third place, is taken from this ex- A pretfion which the Authour ufed in his Preface , faying, That which fome will have to be the flavery & bondage of a Church , that I efleeme to be the liberty , fafety and prefervation of Churches . That which they count a Tyrannicall government, that 1 be- C°) Pa g-S3» leevetobe aSanBuary againft Txranny . and afterwards in the book itfelf, (^ If I flwdd in doHrine oppugne , and inpra&ife denv unto the members of this Church , this liberty of appeals unto the Clafjis, as they doe herecondemne it in me , then might theyyuflly complaint of tyrannicall government and corrupt doEirine , then had they caufe to bewayle their flaVe- ry andbondage. Thus he declared his judgement touching the benefit of this kinde of government in oppoficion to the Title prefixed unto the printed Complaints > which M r C. knew beft who framed^ The matter of Argument couched in thefe (p>£.36~ words is fufficiently explained and vindicated (pj before , where the libertie of 41 • Appeaies , fuitable to common equity , and inftituted in the Law , is prooved to be agreeable unto the do&rine of the Gofpel . I.C. A N s v v . I. It is ajlrange courfe , when there arifeth a controverfy touching two contrary opinons, which of them is true,<$ to be embraced-, to draw therefolution hereof, to the consideration of the ufefulnes of the opinions , orpratlifes queflioned . As if because a thing is ufefull> therefore it is to be concluded it is true:<3>c. R t P L . 1 . 1 1 is ftrange M r C. did not difcerne>that there is no other courfe of reafoning in the Authours holding Clafll- eall government to be a SanEtuary againft Tyranny ,& the denyall of Appeaies a mat- ter of flavery & bondage; then in M r Cannes & others, accounting Independency to be the libertie O'jreedome of a Church,Sc fubjeftion to Clascal! government flavery & (4) ch. pi. bondage. What is here fayd unto the one , may as fitly be applyed againft the other. ^■7i.5c76. if his anfwerbe found>he doth plainely overthrow his owne (q) Arguments, built 1^7 y P on tne f amc foundation which here he feeks to deftroyt There was no ufefulnes CLASSES AND SYNODS. 253 ufefulws mentioned in the Authours words , nor any other to beunderftood, then fuch as is implyed in the fayd & other the like expreffions and reafonings of M r C. II. Though it be certaifle that every, trueth of God is ufefull, & to be ufed with- out gainfaying, when it appeareth to be.fuch; ^et when this truech is denyed, and the point controverted » itisnoftrange courfe to proove it to be law by the agreement which it hath with that which is confeiTed to be law . This the Au- thour hath done in the place above mentioned . And befides , feeing according to that * law of lawes commonly received , the fafetie of the people is the highefk law 1 * Satns po« and that Appeales are (r)for the relief oft be opprefcd , and a remedy againft wrongs & £ uli , fupr {[" injuries ; why may we not conclude that fuch a government where they are in due ( r * Luth.°* manner admitted, is a SanBuarie againft Tyranny , and in this refpect rather to beTom.i.f, embraced then Independency , where the fame are denyed ? 2 3 l - I.C. An S v v. II. The Papifts and Hierarchiefor their Difciplinegive the very fame reafon - t vi%. that there may he no Tyranny andopprejfion among brethren iffc. R £ p L . And fo doth M r C. for independence » (0 that a particular Congregation may not of 4(f) Ch,pl, JSdifires become afervam? inftead of being afuperiour wilfully vaffall iff enflave herfelf.iffc. ■., P-7&. I.G.Ansvv.III.I^o* deny that this government by Clafies iff Synods ferves better for the Churches welfarejhen that which the Apofiles injlituted,iffc. Rep l. And fo wil we>when he hath prooved that Independency is the government inftituted by the Apoftles. I. C. Ansvv. IV. Ifitfliould be granted that particular Congregations by this kjndz cf government , final! have peace, profit , credit iff other worldly refpeBs ; yet this isno fuffici- em reafon t iff c. Repl. The Defendant never ufed fuch a reafon; this is a fkarre- crqw of his owne fetting up, and therefore vye muft give him leave to pleafe him- felf in that fivefold (hot which he makes at it . THe fourth reafon which he fuppofeth he hath found in the Authours book ». IW is the mention which he made of the determinations of National! Synods concer- ning the power exercifed by the Claflls , and the confent of all Reformed Churches . Hereunto he anfwers , I. Councils may erre.iffc, 1 1. Thefe tefiimonies are all. humaine.iffc, III. Thisteafmis the farm which thePapiftsufa&c.KnYh.i.ThQ Decrees of Synods were notaileb!ged to proove the lawfulnes of this government, but to ihew the eftablifhed exercife of it before the Author either knew the Claflls.or they him, 8c that therefore he hath not fubj'e&ed the Church to this power. 11. Though Cou- cils may erre,yet it doth not therfore follow that they do alwayes erre & that they may not make decrees for the deciding of controverfies, as Vedelius (0 fheweth a- (0 D e Ar- gainft the Arminians. 1 1 1. Though the decrees ofSynods have no abfoluteauthori-" n -^ rmini ty, yet being framed according to the word of God, they doe fpeciaily binde the lts',ii\\ Churches that are in combination with rhem : as when a Church-aft or fentence is made fo as M r C. would have it , he will not deny but that the Congregation is bound to obferve it . The other exceptions here added are already anfwered . IN the next place he undertakes to anfwer what was objected touching the long y r continuance of that which fome of later times onely did complaine of. Here . Mr C. brings in W.B. pretending ignorance of the former ftate of that Cogrega- tion, yet in fuch termes as might hide the point in queftion from the inconfiderate Reader , Buc not to fpeak of what hath been frequently noted before , the colour I i 3 givea t)4 , THE POWER OF given to this pretece,which W.B. probably never dreamed of til! it was fuggeftrd by M r *C. is when he makes him fay , The thing Jpeci ally, which induced me fo to thinly was his oibne words , written to Mr ^Ainfworth 3 reportinghow he wasfirfl made our Mbii- (v) Arrow fltr : hee faith , (v) The Dutch Elderfhip in this City being defired , both r r cheir ag. separ. counfell & help in his ordination; deputed three of their brethren to affift us in this P «Note. bufineflTej&e. this they did not as affuming authorise* to themfelves over us : but in our name , 5c by our requeft , &c. If the Clafjis afiumed not then any authority unto themfelves events, how comes it to pafe that they doe it now ? Or how will it hang toge- ther y that their power is ancient • and yet zo or 3 o yeares paft , */; or combination of more Churches or Elder- 3°* & W f hips, fending their Deputies thither, to whom is affcribed the power of determi- ning the matters of particular Congregations, And this is fo evident that if M* C. had but confulted hereabout with W. B. in whofe name he pleades on this man- ner , he might have been fufficiently informed of this trueth. Yea he might eafily have learnt it out of the Authours former book,where he faith of the fame Dutch (y ) Anfw, Confiftory, (y ) Though they had no power to judge & determine the matter by their fentence, no w. B. p. yet they refufed not to give their counfell &c. II. Though it had been fpoke of the Claf- 70*71. (is j which was fay dof the Dutch Confiftory, yec there had been no contradiclion in the Authors words, faying that they affumd no authority to thtmfdvcs over them in bis Ordination ,& yet avouching that the power which they exercifed of later times,is the fame which they had &pra&ifed long before.for 1. The power which the Claflls exercifeth, is not by them afiumtd, but given unto them & acknowled- ged to be their due by theCongregations that either at firft or afterwards enter in- to this confederacy for the fubmitting of themfelves unto fuch an affembly in all requifite-cafes . 1. The orders according to which the Chffes doe here exercife (s)XerckS- their authority , (2) doe not in ordinary cafes require the manifeftation thereof in Orden.Nat. the Ordination of Minifters ; which being onely (a) thefolemne introduction of the Syn.Dordr. Minifler already chofm into the freetxercifttf his funBion > theCIaflis doth leave it to (a) AneC. * ne Congregation itfelf, after they have confented to the choyce of the Minifter. Medul.l. 1. 3. When a Congregation deftituteoffitmen for the folemnifing of an Ordination c39.th.34. doth feek unto a neighbour ClaiTis , Confiftory , or Minifter , for their counfel & help herein; thoy that in fuch cafes doe yeeld unto their defire, doe not exercife authority over chat Congregation where the Minifter is ordained; feeing they per- CLASSES AND SYNODS. 155 performe that work in the name & at the requeft of the fayd Congregatio. What- foever power & authoritie is therein exercifed by a neighbour Mwifter, is not by him affumed, but received from the dejire of thofe that feehjbis help, for the performance of this fervice unto them in a time Of need, astheAurhour had before explai- . tied himfelf in the (b) fame book. And therefore he hath herein no way contradic- (b) Arrow ted himfelf>neither can this excufeW.B. from that which was objected unto him. a S- Se K ar - But by theconclufion of this pleaitfeemes M r C.didnot fo much intend there- JA"- 1 " - by the defence of his client, as the cafting of fomedifgrace upon the Authours book > called %An Arrow again ft the Separation of th Brownifts , which he loves to have a fling at upon -all occaiions : but his beating of the aire is apparent to thofe that obferve his blowes , & mark where they light . From what is now faid it is manifeft how vainely he hath here applyedagainft the faid book, what the Au- thor had fayd touching Mr Bgbinfons lujlification of Separation, viz. that it wasjie^ vfKjng lehorams incur •able difeafe, <$c. which M r C. himfelf hath fcj elfvvhere in his C<0 Stay a< wonted language, acknowledged to be true . But to haften to an end 3 & to op- fS?p ft ™J" pofefomewhat unto this cenforious & the forementioned flanderous conclufion of M r C. that the Reader may partly underftand what entertainment that Arrow a- gainftthe Separation hath had among the godly learned , & what they have judged of the Authors paines therein ; I have here fet downe the teftimony of that wor- thy fervant of Chrift, MrHy. ask was written by himfelf to the Authourinthefe FroBunb, words . I than^eyoufor the Arrow of your owne Quiver, which now of I ate I have receaved , IuI - 8 • l6 1 9* according to your letter . You have fafkioned & feathered itfo well, headed & poynted it withfuch diligence tycare, dratvne it up to the head withfuchftrength , Hire&ed & difcharged it with fuch (ffofure ay me tyjkill , that it hath pierced , not onely the head , but the heart of the Brownifts caufe , & B^abbines fancy es & forgeries ; wherein Iprofejfeyou have given me better fatiffa&ionboth oj your owne fu$ciency for polemical imployment in the Lords fervice (whereof notwithftanding I ever held a very good opinion) & of the weakneffety vanity of all their forces & fortrefies , raifed & advanced againft either Gods Church, or Gods word , then hitherto I ever had , or could ever by. any thing that I havtheardrorfeene, at tame unto . Which if I mi^ot notfpea^e as truely,as freely; or did not thinly as unfainedty, as I write it willingly > I jhouldfeare this might favour of fomejficevf flattery, which I hate ,&(l know) youneither love, nor lookefor at my hand. The fubftance of this his ju- dicious & unpartiall approbation \ hath been confirmed by fundry others, in like manner eminent for learning & piety, & (hall doubt- les be further verify ed hereafter > according to His gracious dik pofing , who hath fayd , * The memory of the jufi is bleffed: [ *Frov. 10. £nd>The righteous jkall be in evsrlajlingremembrance . 7. tfAi. ^k* *^j ?^u fw The The Contentes of THE FIRS T PART, Touching a Particular Eldetfhip. Chap. Pag. I . Theoccafion of this writing , and the State- of the Quefiion . % . II. ^Arguments to prove the power of the Elder jhip in judging , and ending fome caufes tvitkut the knowledge of the Congregation. 2. III. A Refutation offundry Err ours, whereupo Mr Ainfworth grounds their Popular Government. y t IV. Whether the people he bound to beprefent at the proceedings againft ojfendours . J taken from the words ofChrift , Matth. 1 8 . 1 f --2,0 < 42. IV. The third Argument, take from thepraBife of the primitive Churches,in the Apojlles times* 6 i . Mr Dav. his Exceptions touching Afi .15;. anfwered . . 6 6* M r Cannes Exceptions touching Att.15. anfwered . 6 S t V. An Anfwer to the Allegations of Mr Davenport , touching the Authority of Synods • S £ C T . I . His Allegation of Mr Cmwright anfwered . S I « \ 1 . Hi {^Allegation of Mr Femer examined . S 4. in. His Allegation of Mr Parker examined* **>'$• IV. His Allegation of Dr Ames examined. . 106. V* His Allegationof Mr Baynes examined . * ' 1 i v I . His Allegation of the Reply er upon Dr Downam examined . * J 6 • VII. His 'Alienation of DrVoetius examined . £1 Si •VIII. Touching the EnglifliChtlrch at Francford in £KMariesttme* 111. IX. Mr Day. his pret ence ofagrwnent with lunius examined . 125-. X. His pretence of agreement with Dr Whit aker examined* . lj$. XI. His Allegation of 'Chamicrus examined* 14** VI. An Anfwer to Mr Cannes lArguments . 1 45*. \ 11. The Allegations [of Mr Canne examined , l6%< S £ C T . I . Touclringthe Tefiimonies of Papifis ♦ tf>9* \l.TheTeftiniomestfLutheranes. \7h III. TheTeftimonies of Calvinifi s. 184, IV. The Testimonies ofEnglijl^ Conformifis . ' ?6. V. TheTeftimoniesofEnglifhNQn-Gonformifts. -00J V I . The Testimonies of ancient Fat her s j C ouncels , and Emperours . . 2 1 3 . VII. Tk Ttpmonies of Reformed Churches . 227. iA Supplement, for anfwer unto that which followeth ins Mr Cannes book., touching the eVdl confequents of lndepttfdency , the ^Antiquity of C la pes and Synods , e^c. *4°- FINIS. \ ■a ... r II 111 ^ 111