SECT. I.
His Allegation of Mr Cartwright answered.

FOr Mr Cartwright; His owne words undivided are these:T. C. [...] Reply, p. 49 2 edit. ‘And if it should happē (which may come to passe) that any Church should desire or choose, or consent upon by the most part, some that is unmeet, either for doctrine or manners, then the Ministers and Elders of the other Churches round about, should advertise first, and afterward as occasion should serve, sharply & severely charge, that they forbeare such election, or if it be made, that they confirme it not, by suffering him to exercise any ministerie. And if either the Churches round about doe faile of this duety, or the Church which is admonished, rest not in their Admonition, then to bring it to the next Synode, and if it rest not [Page 82]therein, then the Prince or Magistrate, which must see that nothing in the Churches be disorderly and wickedly done, ought to drive that Church from that election to another which is convenient.’ Now upon these words M^r Dav. without any just explication or further declaration thereof, makes this bold and unreasonable conclusion.Apol. re­ply, p. 47. Thus Mr Cartwright. So that in his judgement, other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election, but by admonition, which power every Christian hath in another, for his good. But that Mr Cartw. giveth more power unto the Churches and Synod, then that which every Christian hath, & more then the power of admonition onely, it appeareth thus:

I. He doth in this place manifestly distinguish betwixt admonition, & a charge or commandement, which implyes a greater power and authority; when as he sayth of the Classis, or of the Ministers and Elders of the Churches round about, that they should advertise first, which notes their admonition, and afterward sharply & severely charge, which implyes a commandement and authority therein. There­fore in Scripture one and the same [...]. word is usually and indifferently translated ei­ther to charge or command, Matt. 10.5. Luk. 8.29. Act. 1.4. & 4.18. & 5.28. 1. Tim. 4.11. with Luk. 5.14. & 8.56. 1. Tim. 1.18. & 5.7. & 6.13, 17. thereby to expresse a speciall authoritie of such as use the same. And the propriety of this word is thus declared by Mr Cartwr. himself, when expounding those words of Paul, 1. Tim. 6.13. he saith,T. C. 1 Rep. p. 177. It is to be noted that he saith [I denounce or I charge] he doth not say [I exhort or give counsell] leaving it to the liberty of Timothie, And thus here we are in like manner to understand him, when he tells how a Clas­sis of Ministers and Elders were sharply and severely to charge a Church, that they used an authority more then of exhorting or admonishing and counselling, so that the matter was not left in the liberty of them that were so charged.

II. He proceeds further, and after both admonition and a severe charge or prohibition, he shewes that the Classis hath yet more to doe in this busines, if their charge be not regarded, in respect of the unlawfull election, viz. that they confirme it not by suffering him to exercise any ministery. Whereas ordinarily Ministers newly e­lected are confirmed and ordained by imposition of hands by some Ministers of 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 esteemed a kinde of censure, in some sort proportionable to the deposition of a Minister already confirmed; seeing keeping out or casting out from the Ministery, are actions of like nature. And this is that which Mr Fenner, who was well acquainted with the meaning of Mr Cartwr. in these things, poynteth at, when speaking of a con­troversy rising in a Church about the calling of a Minister, he saith;S. Theol. l. 7. c. 2. p. 244. that the cause is to be referred unto the judges whom it concerneth, (and who are after mentioned) that they may eyther ratify the election or make it frustrate. Now in the Ecclesiasticall poli­tie these judges are no other then Classes or Synods, whereof he afterward speakes; and this their abrogating and making voyd an unlawfull election, is a power more then simple admonition.

III. Whereas Mr Cartwr. here saith, that if either the Churches round about doe faile of this duety, or the Church which is admonished, rest not therein, then to bring it to the [Page 83]next Synod, &c. hereuponDef. of Answ. to Admon. p. 173. D. Whitgift calles for proof of Scripture, comman­dement or example to justify this order. Mr Cartw. in his second Reply having first shewed other warrant for admonition by Churches, proceeds further and saith,T.C. 2 Reply. p. 231, 232. That from the admonition of the Churches, it is meet to come to Synods, if the judge­ment of the Churches be contemned; may be shewed by proportion from the place of our Saviour Christ in S. Matthew, ch. 18. for as when one brother is not mooved with the admonition of two or three, the matter must be referred unto the Church, to see whether the majestie of it will moove him, whom the authority of two or three would not: even so it is meet that the Church, that maketh light of the judgement of two or three Churches, should be pressed with the judge­ments of the Diocesse or Province, as shall be in that behalf advised. From this proportion, seeing the rule, Matt. 18. was not onely a rule of admonition, but also a rule for the exercise of authority in censuring, it followes hence in like manner, that many Churches combined in a Synod, have power to censure as well as to admonish.

IV. Mr Cartwr. doth further declare his meaning in the same place, when he alledgeth the example of the Reformed Churches in this matter: If I were in this poynt (saithIbid. p. 232. he) destitute of the word of God: yet the naked examples of the Reformed Churches ought to weigh downe a Popish custome. Now it is undenyable, that the Re­formed Churches doe allow the use of Classes and Synods, not onely for counsell or admonition, but also for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall authority and jurisdiction in judging of causes & censuring of offendours.

V. Mr Cartwr. speaking of the utmost that can be done by a Classis, or by Mi­nisters and Elders of neighbour Churches in time of persecution, wanting a Chri­stian Magistrate, against an obstinate Church that refuseth to be admonished, saith,T.C. 1 Repl. p. 52. If they excommunicate the whole Church, it is a hard matter, and yet if they may doe that; there is all they can doe. To excommunicate a whole Church together, is indeed a hard thing, and such a thing as I never heard of in the practise of the Reformed Chur­ches: yet this intimates that he thought they had a power of excommunicating at least some, if not all, upon a just occasion. And when D. Whitg. Def. of Answ. to Adm. p. 675 answering to a testimony of Cyprian alledged by Mr Cartwr. saith, Who ever denyed but that the Sy­nods might excommunicate? Mr C. Rest of 2 Rep. p. 89 replying againe unto him, yet shewes no dislike at all or difference from his Opposite herein, which yet he ought to have done, if he had thought it an undue power, & to have reproved him for giving this power of the greatest censure, even of excommunication unto Synods. Hence it appeares that he was farre from limiting all jurisdictiō unto a particular Church; that he allowed Synods more power then of counselling or admonishing.

VI. Mr Parker speaking of this very place in Mr Cartw. and vindicating it from the opposition of D. Whitg. shewes that he agrees with me in the interpreta­tion thereof, and not with Mr Dav. He sayth,Pol. Ecc. lib. 3. c. 24. p. 353. Cum pressisset Thomas Cartwrightus Ecclesiarum Reformatarum morem, &c. When T. C. had urged the manner of the Refor­med Churches in correcting the faulty election of Ministers, first by a Classis; if that prevay­led not by a Synod; if that fayled also, by the Magistrate, &c. For if the example, custome and practise of the Reformed Churches be urged herein, then doth he not speak of hindring an unlawfull election by admonition or counsell onely; then doth he acknowledge a further authority of judgement & censure in the Classes.

VII. The judgement of Mr Cartwr. touching the authority of Synods is manifest by that right which he asscribeth unto them for the decision of causes, and not for counsell onely, as was shewedPag. 47. 48. before: and this may further be seen by that blame which is imputed unto him for Scottizing and Genevating, declaredChap. 7. sect. 5. hereafter. Had he bene of this new opinion, he could not have defended the cause of Reformation so as he did, but should have opened the mouth of his ad­versaries against him otherwise then he hath done.

SECT. II.
His Allegation of Mr Fenner examined.

FOr Mr Fenner, in the allegation of his Testimony Mr Dav. hath made himself guilty of a threefold unfaithfulnes; 1. in the omission of such things as snew his minde fully touching Synods: 2. in the mistranslation of his words: 3. in the misinterpretation and false collections that he maketh from them.

I. For his omissions: I. He omitteth that definition of Ecclesiasticall politie, set downe in theS. The­ol. l. 7. c. 1. p. 241. beginning of that tractate, viz. that it is a divine politie, so farre as it is instituted of Christ, for the government of particular Churches, joyntly and severally. This definition being admitted, overthrowes that single uncompounded policie, main­tained by Mr Iacob; as also the assertion of Mr Dav. for jurisdiction limited to particu­lar Churches: because herein he allowes a compounded policie, not onely for coun­sell, but for the government of Churches, as well joyntly as severally. Herein Ec­clesiasticall policie and jurisdiction is extended further then the limits of one par­ticular Church, even unto a Synod or Classis; because there is no joynt govern­ment of Churches perfectly found but in such assemblies. The Scriptures also which Mr Fenner alledgeth for confirmation of this definition, being many of them taken from the old Testament, doe undenyably lead us unto such a joynt & compound government of the Church. II. He omitteth the definition of aIbidē. particular Church, which M^r Fen. applyes as well to the Churches and Syna­gogues under the old Testament, as unto any since. This appeares in divers of the Scriptures and instances which he bringeth to confirme his definition, as namely, 1. Sam. 10.5. Psa. 107.32. & 111.1. Luk. 5.17. Mat. 4.23. Hereby it may appeare how farre different and contrary he is to M^r Iacob and those of his opinion,Divine beg. & in­stit. of Chr. vis. Church. A 1. A 2. A 4. C 8. &c. teaching that the Churches of the old and new Testament and their government, doe differ one from the other in the very kinde, nature and forme; by a specificall and essentiall difference, &c. Then could not both have had one and the same definition, in such sort as M^r F. gives it unto them, comprehending also under it such assem­blies as stood under a compound policie, and were subject to an Ecclesiasticall ju­dicatorie out of themselves. III. He omitteth that which M^r Fenner writes touching the election of a Minister, where the controversy of the Church, upon the peoples objecting against the same, is to be referred unto such judges, who (as is before noted) may eitherS. The­ol. l. 7. p. 243, 244. confirme or make voyd the Election: A plaine acknow­ledgmēt of a lawfull power out of a particular Church to judge the cause thereof. IV. He omitteth that which M^r F. writes in the descriptionIbid. p. 245, 246. both of the El­ders office in generall, and of the Ruling Elders in particular, where the warrant and authority of their office is derived from the Elders in Israel, and from the go­vernment of the Jewish Church, as appeares in those testimonies of Scripture [Page 85]which he alledgeth for proof thereof, as namely these, beside other, Lev. 4.13, 14, 15.2. Kin. 6.32. Ier. 19.1. Ezek. 8.1. Neh. 8.5.8.10. Act. 4.5. & 6.12. & 5.21. Now seeing he derives their offices from that forme of government, which is confessed not to have bene a single, uncompounded policie; this is an evidence, that he al­so did not hold jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Church. V. He omit­teth that which M^r F. writes in distinguishing the Presbytery or Eldership of ma­ny ChurchesIbid. p. 281. into a Synod or a Generall Councill. And not to speak of other things, he omitteth that description of a Generall or Vniversall Councill, viz. that it is a Presbyterie consisting of the deputies of many Synods, to determine and compound those things that may be profitable for the whole Church or for the greatest part thereof. The word which he useth to expresse the authority exercised therein, when he saith, ad ea statuenda, t.i. to determine, to make a statute or decree, imports more then a bare admo­nition, or counsell: and therefore it is manifest from hence that M^r F. did not al­low of this new Discipline, which denyes the authority of Synods.

II. His unfaithfull translation of Mr Fenner is also to be observed in divers points. I. When speaking of the Eldership of one particular Church,Apol. re­ply, p. 238. he tells how M^r F. saith, it is properly called [...]. The words of M^r F. are, that it isS. The­ol. l. 7. p. 279. proprio nomine sie dictum, so called with the proper name: His meaning is, that in common use of speech it had the proper name given unto it; even as it comes to passe oft times that a part is called by the proper name of the whole, and one species or one sort receives the proper name of the whole kinde, as when in speaking commonly of the Ministers and Elders of a Church, the ruling Elders are so called with a proper name that belongs to the whole kinde, seeing Mini­sters of the word are Elders as well as they: 1. Tim. 5.17. so when the ruling El­ders are called with the proper name of Governours, 1. Cor. 12.28. though Mini­sters of the word are governours also as well as they. And unlesse we thus under­stand M^r Fen. there should be no trueth in his words; for as he himself saith,Ibid. p. 245. there is a Synecdoche in the name of Elders when it is given to Ecclesiasticall Go­vernours: and therefore there must be a double improper or figurative speech, a double Synecdoche, when the assembly of some Officers in a particular Church is called with the proper name of the Eldership, whereas but some of them are el­derly or aged men, and whereas the assembly of such men in a Synod is an Elder­ship as well as the other. II. It is a notable falsification of M^r Fenners testimo­ny, when as he distinguishing the Ecclesiasticall Eldership into the Eldership of a particular Church and into the Eldership of many Churches, and giving before­hand in the first place a generall definition of the Eldership, common to both those kindes, M^r Dav. comes and restraines that generall definition to one kinde, and brings in M^r F. speaking on this manner, The Eldership of the first sort, he sayth, is a compound office wherein all the Elders doe, in the name of the whole Church, administer all the businesses &c. But this M^r F. hath not sayd: I desire the Reader to look on theS. The­ol. l. 7. p. 276. place, as also on that which followes in hisPag. 279. transition, from the generall unto the species and severall sorts of the Eldership, and there to behold how grosly M^r D. corrupteth the words of M^r F. and abuseth the reader, and that in a point of maine consequence touching our question: for while M^r F. gives the same gene­rall [Page 86]definition to the Eldership of many Churches, viz. to Classes and Synods, which he gives unto the Eldership of a particular Church, thereby the same autho­rity and jurisdiction which he gives herein unto a particular Church is also given by him unto a Synod, the Eldership of many Churches: and then are not Synods for counsell onely or admonition, but they are to exercise a jurisdiction and power as well as particular Churches. III. Another instance of his unfaithfull transla­tion, is to be observed from those words of M^r F.Ibid. p. 278. postea autem auditis & assenti­entibus, decernenda & pro decretis Ecclesiis proponenda sunt; which he translates thus,Apol. re­ply. p. 239. and afterwards, the opinions and assent of all being declared, matters are to be concluded. Those last words should have bene translated thus; matters are to be decreed and to be propounded unto the Churches for decrees: and being thus translated they import an act of authority, and a power of jurisdiction, in making decrees, which are more then counsell or admonition, especially when those matters so decreed are pro­pounded unto the Churches for decrees. But the word of concluding which M^r D. useth is ambiguous, and is applyed sometimes to the reasonings of men, either in private or publick, where there is no authority to give definitive sentence, or to make decrees for the Churches. Mr Canne himself, though he condemne the Classes and Synods of the Reformed Churches, yet doth he allow Ministers and brethren of divers Churches to come together,Chur­ches plea, p. 95. to conferre of things, yea and to conclude (if they can) what they judge meet &c. This use of the word conclude serves to elude and frustrate this pregnant testimony of their power. IV. Another mis­translation is, when in the same page, those words of M^r F. leges maximi momenti constituendae, are thus translated by him, orders also of the greatest moment to be made. This I doe therefore note the rather, because M^r D. keeps so great a quoile a­bout the strict difference betwixt orders and lawes, and saithApol. rep. p. 257. 258. that orders & lawes are ill confounded by me, and is large in declaring his minde therein. His friend al­so that made the Alphabeticall Table for him, and prefixed it before his book, notes this as a remarkable matter therein,Letter L. Lawes and orders differ. Now if these things be so, then hath he done very ill in confounding lawes and orders, by trans­lating the word leges, orders, when he should have translated it lawes, according to the right and proper signification thereof. If he had disliked M^r F. for using the word leges, or lawes, and would correct it by putting in the word orders; this was more then an exact and faithfull Translatour might doe. He should rather have translated the word truely, according to the right signification, and then have gi­ven warning to the Reader touching the fault of M^r Fenner in the ill confounding of lawes and orders, and putting one for the other. After these unfaithfull omis­sions and mistranslations, Mr Dav. hath not bene afraid to say confidently of him­self; Thus have I faithfully translated the words of this eminent light in his time, Mr Dud­ley Fenner, who was joyned with Mr Cartwright, &c. To his commendation of him I doe willingly assent: he was indeed an eminent light: and why then hath M^r Dav. gone about to obscure his light, by depraving his testimony, and labouring to put this bright-burning candle under a bushell, that men should not see his light? Whether he make strongly for him or against me, let others judge.

III. Moreover after these omissions and mistranslations, come we to consi­der [Page 87]his miscollections from him, which without any just deduction or inference, upon the lame and imperfect recitall of his words, he thus propoundeth:Ibidē. The Reader may see how he leaveth the wholl power of jurisdiction in the particular Church, &c. How untrue this is it may appeare, I. By M^r F. his alledging thoseS. Theo. l. 7. p. 276. Scrip­tures, Deut. 17.9. with 2. Chron. 19.8, 11. Matt. 18.18. 1. Tim. 4.14. to shew what authority there is in a Classis or Synod, comprehended by him under that gene­rall definition of a Presbyterie, as well as the Eldership of a particular Church: thereby he confesseth, that there is a power of judgement, censure and jurisdiction in Synods; because those testimonies of Scripture speak of such jurisdiction and judgement, of binding and loosing of imposition of hands or ordination, &c. II. Though M^r F. speaking of excommunication and absolution from it, sayth that they are to be done in the assembly, by the authority of the whole Church, which last words M^r D. for speciall observation causeth to be printed in great capitall letters; yet this doth not prove that he left the whole power of jurisdiction in the particular Church: seeing in the samePa. 277 place speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements admi­nistred by the Synod or Presbytery in deciding of doubts, he saith also, etsi autho­ritas communis sit, ministris tamen & sententiam dicendi & eam exponendi maxima facien­da potestas: that is, though the authority be common, yet the greatest power of giving sentence and declaring it is to be yeelded unto the Ministers. Therefore did he not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church. III. M^r F. a little after a­gaine speaking of Ecclesiasticall judgements and censures, and still of admini­string them by the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Presbytery, which contained the Sy­nod as well as a particular Eldership, he sayth of them,Ibidē. In quibus, per omnes Ec­clesias summa Ecclesiastica potestas Presbyterio demandata est: that is, In which throughout all Churches the highest or chiefest Ecclesiasticall authority is committed to the Presbytery. And hereby also it appeares that he did not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church. But these passages M^r D. omitted, when he translated other parts of the same periods: He thought it not to be for his advantage to have his Reader take knowledge of them. IV. Whereas M^r F. requireth, that in matters of greatest moment, after the [...] or fore-consultation of the Presbytery, comprehending both Classis and particular Eldership, their counsels be told unto the Church; that thing ordinarily is thus performed in these Refor­med Churches, viz. after that in the Classicall assembly of Ministers and Elders it hath bene found just and requisite, that any persons should be excommunicated or any Ministers called, these censures and elections are then first solemnely pro­pounded unto the particular Church, whom these things specially concerne, and so accomplished with their consent, and not otherwise: if the greater part of the Church dissent and allow not the excommunication or election; then for the a­voyding of strife, the matter is againe referred ad majorem Senatum, unto a greater Ecclesiastical Senate, Classis or Synod, to judge thereof and to compose the dissention. V. M^r F. in the same chapter,Pag. 278 279. shewes from the Scriptures that in these Presbyteriall assemblies there ought to be a mutuall office performed in the same in speciall manner towards one another, not onely for counsels, but also for the censures of such as are members of those assemblies. And this is also agree­able [Page 88]to the order prescribed both in theKerc­ken-Orde­ninge, Art. 43. Nationall Synod at Dort, and in divers others; for the censure of such faults as are committed in those meetings, or by contempt of the admonitions of inferiour assemblies. Hereby also it appeares that he allowed an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in Synods and Classes, and did not limit all jurisdiction unto a particular Church. VI. After M^r F. had spoken in generall both of the Presbytery of one and of many Churches joyntly together, then he comes to speak of each of them severally: and there againe speaking of the Presbytery of many Churches, that is, of Classes and Synods, he saith,S. Theol. l. 7. p. 280. Hic autem leges Ecclesiasticae condendae sunt, Here are Ecclesiasticall lawes to be made. This was a power of jurisdiction, more then of admonition or counsell. This M^r D. passeth over also; it was no pollicy for him to draw collections from such testimo­nies. VII. That one testimony of Scripture which M^r F. oftIbid. p. 280, 281. alledgeth, 2. Cor. 8.19, 23. (not to speak of others alledged with it) is an evidence of the authority of Synods. It is there specifyed that the brother who was chosen to be a messenger of the Churches, was [...] elected by saffrages: now this election was an act of authority, exercised by sundry Churches in one businesse, touching one person; and hence it appeareth, that a combination of Churches may exercise jurisdiction together touching such as are no peculiar members of one particular Church. And if such election may be made by many Churches, then may cen­sures be decreed by many Churches together as occasion requires. Lastly, M^r F. having spoken of the first part of Ecclesiasticall politie, touching such as ad­minister the same both by a simple and compound office in the Presbytery, both of one or more Churches, in Synods or Generall Councils, he comes at last to speak of the duety of the Saints, other members of the Church, which are not promoted unto any Ecclesiasticall office, andIbid. p. 242 with p. 282. sets this downe for a common law unto them all, that they be subject in all those things aforesayd, and further the same according to their power, with their gifts, labour, and whatsoever way they are able. Hebr. 13.17. This peculiar bond of speciall obedience and submission unto such Officers, even in Synods as well as in other ordinances, is an argument, that he thought them to have speciall authority, more then of admonition & counsell.

The judgement of Mr Fenner, this worthy Writer being thus cleared and vin­dicated from those unfaithfull omissions, mistranslations and miscollections of M^r D. his demand is hereby answered, and hereby he may see why I referred him to this book. As for those matters of fact which he addes, the untrueth thereof is elswhere to be declared. We will now proceed to M^r Dav. his third allegation.

SECT. III.
His Allegation of Mr Parker examined.

IO. DAV.Apol. re­ply. p. 240, 241. For Mr Parker. He largely and strongly proveth this position, De Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 1 Po­testas Ecclesiastica essentialiter & primariò in ipsâ Ecclesiâ, tanquam in subjecto proprio, residet. The power Ecclesiasticall doth essentially and primarily reside in the Church itself, as in its proper subject. The sense wherein he thus spake, to pre­vent all suspicion of his pleading for popular confusion, he declareth out of Zanchy, who saith, toti Ecclesiae dedisse Christum claves,Zanch. in praecept. 4. qu. 3. sed ita ut in Ecclesiâ certi essent, qui clavi­bus utantur ad salutem Ecclesiae, honoremque Dei. That Christ gave the keyes to the wholl Church, but so, that there should be certaine men that should use [Page 89]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 useth five Arguments; in the 6. & 7. chapters, and then in the 8. chapter, he commeth to speak of the exercise and ordinary exe­cution of this power, which is, he sayth, in the Church-officers or rulers, yet with this modera­tion, that this dispensation of the Churches power in the Officers be according to a well tem­pered forme, partly Aristocraticall, partly Democraticall, the Church committing those things to the Presbytery, which it cannot commodiously performe by it selfe, and retaining that exercise of power which belongs to the dignity, authority, and liberty which it hath received from Christ. Thus he wholy destroyeth that Democraty, or popular Anarchy, which Beza justly condemneth in Morellius, and is by some unjustly imputed to those that plead for a due reformation of Churches, according to the rules of the word, and the primitive patternes. Of the first sort of things, which the Church committeth to the Rulers, because it cannot commo­diously performe them by it selfe, he speaketh in cap. 9.10.11. ANSVV. M^r Dav. pro­fessed and promised touching Mr Parker and these other Writers, that he would shew them to be strongly against me: but though he make a long discourse of his wri­ting, and doe alledge in grosse eleven chapters at once out of M^r Parker; yet doe I not finde that he applyes any thing to the question against me. for I. Suppose it be granted (which yet some godly and learned men deny) that all power Eccle­siasticall is essentially and primarily in the Church, as the proper subject thereof, and from thence derived and communicated to other, either particular persons, or assemblies of Classes and Synods; what is this to our question? doth it follow from hence that Synods have no power to judge Ecclesiasticall causes, or that they are onely for counsell or admonition? This is the poynt of our question; but this neither Mr Parker affirmes, neither doth M^r D. offer to conclude it by any just consequence from his words: and so all that he alledgeth is not to the purpose. II. This very derivation of power from particular Churches unto Classes 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 consult or to admonish onely? M^r D. confesseth thatApol. re­ply. p. 47. every Christian hath power of admonition in another for his good. And shall Synods have no more power then particular and private persons? III. Whereas Mr Parker distinguisheth betwixt the power of the Church and the exercise of that power, and acknowledgeth that the execution of this power in the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in the whole Church, but in some speciall persons appoynted thereunto; it followeth hence that in some things the Ministers and Governours of a Church have a power which the Church cannot exercise without them; and therefore in some respect a greater authority then the whole Church beside them. This is confessed in the practise of the Brownists themselves, who keep their children sometimes unbap­tised for many yeares together, while they want Ministers that have authority to baptise. IV. The Authors alledged by M^r Parker, to shew that Ecclesiasticall power is originally in the Church, did never draw any such consequence from thence, that therefore there is no power of jurisdiction in Synods, but made the contrary conclusion, that therefore there was a power of jurisdiction in them. And this conclusion was made, not onely by the Councell of Constance and Basill, [Page 90]Ioh. Gerson & Schola Parisiensis, but by D. Whitaker also, whom M^r Dav.Ibid. p. 237. 238. alled­geth as if he made for him, who yet reasons strongly against him, saying,De Cōc. qu. 5. p. 170. If a particular Church have greater authority in judgements then Peter, or any particular man, then much more the universall Church, which is represented in a generall Councell or Synod. V. For Mr Parker himself, though he be very large touching the originall power of particular Churches, and the derivation thereof unto Ministers & Synods; yet he never concludeth from hence a want of jurisdiction in Synods, but declares the contrary in manyPol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. & 23, 24. &c. places, as is to be shewed hereafter. In the meane time let us consider how M^r Dav. proceeds in alledging Mr Parker.

I. DAV. Of the second sort of things, which the Church retaineth in it self, because it can commodiously exercise them by it selfe, he speaketh in cap. 12. Wherein by 22 Argu­ments, he proveth the Churches superiority over her Pastors and rulers, in 3 respects, 1. of the end, the power which they have being given them for her aedification, 2. in respect of the application of it to the persons, 3. in respect of regulating the use of it, if it be abused. ANSVV. I. If those 22 Arguments of M^r Park. be good and effectuall to prove the Churches superiority over her Rulers; then have we so many sound Argu­ments to prove the authority of Classes and Synods. This is evident, because M^r P. applyes those 22 Arguments to prove the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches. His affirmation isPoli. Ec­cl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 77. that the superiorit of jurisdiction is retai­ned in every Church, so that neither the Pastour in the Prime Church, nor the Praesident in the Combined Church, nor yet any Bishop is above the Church, but under the power of every Church. This distinction of the Church is more plainly declared by him after­ward, where he saith,Ibid. c. 13. p. 117. Est itaque visibilis Ecclesia duplex, Prima et Orta, Prima, est col­lectio singulorum fidelium in unam Congregationem, et generali nomine Ecclesia dicitur. Or­ta, est collectio & combinatio Ecclesiarum primarum plurium in unum coetum, & appellatur Synodus. that is, The visible Church is of two sorts, The Prime and the Combined Church. The Prime Church is a collection of severall faithfull persons into one Congregation, and is called by a generall name, the Church. The Combined Church is a collection of more prime Churches into one company, & is called a Synod. Now the jurisdiction which he speakes of, he makes common to both, and expressely applyes it to both, to the com­bined Church or Synod, as well as to the particular or prime Church. And fur­ther that in the 12. chapter he spake generally of both these kindes of Churches, he manifests in the first words of the 13. chapter, where he begins thus,Ibidē. Hither­to we have spoken of the Church in generall, so farre as it is the subject of Ecclesiasticall poli­tie, now let us come to the divers kindes thereof. II. Notwithstanding the superiority of the Church, yet M^r Par.Ibid. p. 77. acknowledgeth the authority of the Pastour to be very great, as having it immediately from Christ, and not onely the authority, but also the exercise of the same authority and jurisdiction; in which respect he saith he is superiour not to men onely, but to the Angels themselves, Gal. 1.8. as being in Christs stead, 2. Cor. 5.19, 20. so long as he useth this authority lawfully. And repeating the same againe, he proceeds further when he saith, that if he doe not lawfully exercise his authority in the administration of the Word and Sacraments, then he ceaseth to be a Pastour,Ibid. p. 88. quo casu solo, eum suae Ecclesiae subjectum esse dicimus: in which case alone we say that he is subject unto his Church. If in this case alone (which [Page 91]I durst not have sayd) then in other cases, the authority of many Pastours & El­ders, especially meeting together in a Synod, may exercise an authority superiour unto one particular Church.

I. DAV. And in cap. 18.13. making a comparison between a particular Church, and Churches combined in Synods and Classes, he affirmeth that the difference between them is, not in the intensive consideration of their power (which the Congregation hath, in reference to the Keyes, within it selfe) but in the extensive power onely, wherein the Synod hath a power ex­tended to more objects, viz. to many Churches (in things common) whereas the power of a particular Church is confined, and limited within its owne compasse. ANSVV. In this 13. chap. (for that number of 18. seemes to be mistaken) Mr Parker doth againe give divers pregnant testimonies for the authority and jurisdiction of Synods. I. In the place alledged his words are these:Pol. Ec­cl. l. 2. c. 13. p. 121. I distinguish touching the power of the keyes, which is intensive or extensive. No prime Church, no not the least of them doth want the intensive power; but it wants that extensive which a Synod hath, seeing the power thereof is extended to many Churches; whereas the power of the prime or particular Church is not extended beyond her owne bounds. The power of the keyes is a power of jurisdiction, an Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing; whether intensive or extensive: this power he confesseth to be in a Synod; and therefore the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition, but for jurisdiction also in the judgement of causes. Whereas according to M^r D. his allegation, the difference betwixt the power of a particular Church and of a Synod is in the extensive power onely; there­fore the Synod is also of greater power and jurisdiction in extension unto many Churches. II. In comparing the power of a particular Church with a Synod, he sayth expressely,Ibid. p. 129. Major quidem potestas est Synodi, quam unius alicujus Ecclesiae primae & parochialis. Greater is the power of a Synod, then of any one prime or parishionall Church. But if Synods could onely counsell and admonish, & a particular Church besides that, could censure and use Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, then should a parti­cular Church have greater power then a Synod: and not onely greater intensive power, but as great extensive; seeing a particular Church, yea or a particular per­son may give counsell or admonition, either to a Synod, or to many Churches, as occasion shall require. It is true indeed which M^r P. saith, that all the parishio­nall Churches are greater then their Synods, seeing by a new Synod they may ab­rogate that which was ordained amisse by their Deputies, without their consent, sentence and will. This he proves by many arguments, and this we willingly consent unto; this is the practise of all the Reformed Churches. But this is suf­ficient for the question in hand, that a Synod hath the power of the keyes, and jurisdiction, and greater authority then any one Church. III. This is another conclusion of M^r Parkers.Ibid. p. 120. We say there is one forme of government instituted of Christ in all Churches, both prime and combined: so that we may not dreame there is in the prime 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 the prime Church is governed. If this assertion be true, then M^r Dav. and those of his minde do dreame, when they imagine so different a forme of government to be instituted in the particular Churches and Synods, which he calles the combined Churches, [Page 92]that one sort of them should onely give counsell & admonition, & the other exer­cise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction & censure.

I. DAV.Apol. re­ply. p. 241.242. The same authour, in the 20 chapter, speaking of the summity, or supre­macy of the power of particular Congregations, propoundeth the due limits of it, wherein, he conceiveth, it is to be understood, and bounded, as that the power of particular Churches is chief. 1. in its owne matters, not in things common to many Churches. 2. in case it be able to transact its owne matters within it selfe: as, if a doubt or controversy arise, the Church hath power to terminate it, if it can: as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves, and laboured to compose the difference within themselves, but finding (not a want of right to end it among themselves, but) need of more helpe, they sent to Ierusalem freely for the help of their counsell, in this matter. 3. In case of right and lawfull administration. 4. In case of no evill administration presumed by those, who, finding themselves wronged by an unjust sen­tence, appeale to the judgement of the Synod. In which 3 last limitations, other Churches (to whose judgement, or advice, persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeale) doe concurr, in way of counsail, & declaratiō of their judgement, to helpe particular Churches to exercise their power aright, P. 47. P. 239. in their owne matters, as was before noated out of Mr Cartwr. & Mr Fen. & out of the Authour himselfe in the foregoing passages. which being so understood, doeth not justifie any un­due power of jurisdiction, if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases & manner complained of by the Subscribers: & how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section, will appeare to the indifferent Reader, whē he shall have compared both together. ANSVV. The judgment of M^r P. is very partially & corruptly described by M^r D. in this place. for whereas M^r P. here describes 4 bridles of restraint, or 4 limitations by which the supremacie of power in particular Congregations is to be moderated and kept within bounds, lest it should seem to be absolute; by every one of these it is manifest, that he acknowledged this authority, power and jurisdiction of Synods, and that they were not onely for counsell and admo­nition. He sayth,Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301, 302.

The first limitation is ad rem propriam, unto their proper businesse, for in a com­mon matter the Synod is chief, that is, the authority of Churches joyntly gathered together, is the chiefest. Hence it is confessed that Synods have power of jurisdiction over Churches: for 1. In judging these common causes particular Churches, though differing one from an other are overswayed by the most voyces; and each Con­gregation is subject to the sentence of the Synod. 2. Let any Scripture be alled­ged by M^r Dav. to shew the summity or soveraignty of Synods in these common causes, and he shall finde thereby the use of Synods proved to be for jurisdiction in one Ecclesiasticall cause as well as in another being lawfully brought unto them. for, what reason is there, why the counsell and admonition of a Synod, may not suffice for the help of particular Churches in a common controversy as well as in other speciall businesses, leaving the sentence and decision unto the prime Churches?

The second limitation is also in a proper businesse; to wit ad casum sufficient is potesta­tis, in the case of sufficient ability: for if any Church be found unable to end their owne businesse: vvho doubts but that it is bound to require the help of fellow-Churches? In this case M^r P. acknowledgeth the superiority or soveraignty of power and authority [Page 93]in Synods: but if Synods were onely for counsell & admonition, what needed a supremacy of power; seeing inferiours may give counsell unto their superiours, & admonish them also of their duety? M^r P. shewes well that in case of impoten­cie, or weaknes, the Church of Antioch sent to Ierusalem, &c. Act. 15. But this M^r D. seeks to pervert by his glosse, when he saith, they sent to Ierusalem for the help of their counsell, as though they did not as well desire help by their autho­rity and sentence in determining the controversy. If counsell onely had bene sought, why did not the Synod at Ierusalem content themselves to give counsell and advise? why did they also make a decree, and this not onely by authority of the Apostles, but also by common authority of Elders and others that were in the Synod? Act. 15.23. & 16.4.

The third limitation is in a proper busines, and ability also, to wit in the case of right and lawfull administration. for vve are to think the same of the Church, as of every Pa­stour of the Church: now vve have shewed before out of Gerson, touching the rectour, that he in case of right administration is subject to none, yet in case of aberration is subject: so the Church which in case of right administration is subject to none, yet in case of aberration doth now beginne to be subject. Even as therefore the Pastour erring and offending is subject to no one of his fellowes, as to a Bishop, but onely to many of his Church: so also the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church, as to a Diocesan, but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod. Hence it is evident that M^r P. asscribed unto Synods more autho­rity, then a bare counsell or admonition onely: for 1. He often useth the word of subjection, which implyes an authority and jurisdiction in those to whom in re­gard of their calling men be subject. This is passed by as unseen or unregarded in M^r D. his allegation. 2. He speakes of being subject so as the Pastour erring and offending is subject to many of the Church, that is to their jurisdiction and cen­sure. 3. He speakes of such subjection as is distinguished from receyving of coun­sell and admonition: otherwise it should not be true which he sayth of the Pa­stours and Churches subjection; seeing every Pastour erring and offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one of his fellowes; and the Church erring & offending is bound to receyve counsell or admonition from any one par­ticular Church, though it be not subject to the jurisdiction of any one in speciall, but onely to many in a lawfull Synod.

The fourth limitation is in case of right administration, when no evill administration is presumed [or imagined.] for although the Church administer aright, yet if any man thinking himself wronged, do appeale from it, the same is now become obnoxious [or subject unto the censure of] her fellowes and sisters, so that judgement may be given in a Synod touching her administration. That M^r P. here also speakes of subjection unto the jurisdiction of Synods, it is evident, while for the allowance of appeales he alled­ges in the same place the testimonies of the Synod of Sardica, of the University of Paris, and of D. Whitaker, who doe all speak of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction for the correction and redresse of unrighteous sentences and proceedings by inferiour judges. Againe in the same chapter, he sayth,Pa. 31 [...] Christ would have every man to be judged of his owne Church, Matt. 18. or if the judgement of his owne Church displease him, yet alwayes of the Church, that is, of a Synod of many Churches. Againe in the same [Page 94]page, We certainly finde Mat. 18. that causes are to be ended by the Synods of the Churches and not by one man, if any doe appeale from the judgement of his Church. Thus we see, 1. that he makes Mat. 18. a common ground for the jurisdiction of Synods, as well as of particular Churches. 2. The very phrase of terminating or ending contro­versies, shewes that he spake of jurisdiction; because counsell alone is not suffici­ent to end controversies, unlesse there be authority and jurisdiction exercised with­all. And further, whereas D. Bilson had sayd, that Synods have had more power then Elderships, M^r Parker assenteth, saying,Pa. 303 So truely it ought to have bene done, that they should onely have more: but this more serveth not your purpose, but contradicteth it: for if they have had onely more, it followeth that the Elderships alwayes ought to have had some power, though lesse. Thus expressely he acknowledgeth a power of jurisdic­tion in Synods, as well as in Elderships: and many the like assertions (if need were) might further be noted out of the same chapter.

Hereby it appeares how vaine it is which M^r D. saith, that in the 3 last limita­tions other Churches doe concurr, in way of counsell and declaration of their judgment, as if that were all they did; as if the Synod consisting of those Churches did not give definitive sentence of causes brought unto them. And hereby it may withall appeare, how the judgement of M^r Parker doth agree with the practise of the Re­formed Churches, which doe exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in their Synods, according to those 4 limitations specifyed by him. There is no matter determined by them and judged in their Synods, but it may be reduced to one of these 4 heads; it is either a common cause, or a case of impotency, where there is need of help, or an unlawfull administration in some, or at least a presumption of evill dealing.

I. DAV.Apol. re­ply. p. 242. Thus have we examined his owne witnesses, and finde them to be wholly for us in this cause. ANSVV. Whether the forenamed witnesses, Mr Cartwr. Mr Fenner, and Mr Parker, be wholly for M^r Dav. and those of his opinion, let the Reader judge. His examination of M^r Par. inspeciall, is done by the halves; but before we come to speak of other pregnant testimonies which M^r P. hath given touching the authority and power of Synods, omitted by M^r D. we will first exa­mine another allegation which he had set downe before,Ibid. p. 226.227. where he labours to prove that the lawfull combination of particular Churches in Classes & Synods, is by way of counsell or brotherly direction, and not otherwise.

I. DAV. The reasons whereby it may be proved, are weighty. Mr Parker hath saved me the labour of this taske, by laying downe six Arguments, for the proofe of this, in those his learned and elaborate treatises, concerning Ecclesiasticall policy, as 1. From the ground of this combination of Churches, De Eccl. pol. l. 3. c. 2 [...]. p. 329. which is love, not obedience. 2. From the forme of it, which is communion and consociation, &c. 3. From the matter of it, which are Chur­ches, who are aequall among themselves, as members in the body, which have a vicissitude of offices mutually to be performed, among themselves. 4. From the object of it, which is res communis, that which concerneth all the Churches in common. 5. From the outward manner of proceeding, which is collatione consiliorum, by conference and communica­tion of counsells. 6. From the end of this combination, which is, not to receive the mandates of other Churches, but their consent, counsell and approbation. ANSVV. In generall, it [Page 95]is to be observed, 1. That the scope of M^r Parker in this chapter is to shew in what manner many Churches are combined together in Synods, namely as equals in a mutuall fellowship, and not with subjection to any one Church above the rest. This he propounds in the beginning, as the state of the question; when he savth,Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 22. p. 327. The Hierarchy will have this combination to be subordinate and joyned with sub­jection unto their Hierarchy: against the common opinion of all Protestants, which affirme no consociation to be lawfull, but that which is mutuall, such as is wont to be among equalls. He thought not therefore of this new found out combination, by such as maintaine the single uncompounded policie, but of such as is commonly received by all Pro­testants. His arguments are all directed against the Popish and Hierarchicall com­bination, which we also disallow with him. This he repeats againe for conclusi­on after his six arguments, saying,Ibid. p. 336. By all which it is plenteously demonstrated, that the combination of Churches is not Hierarchicall, with subjection unto any one among the rest, but rather Aristocraticall, wherein equalls are joyned together. Neither could he call the government of Churches by Synods, Aristocraticall, if they did onely direct by way of counsell; seeing an Aristocracy is such a government as exerci­seth jurisdiction in the judgement of causes. II. If M^r Parkers meaning had bene otherwise, viz. that Classicall and Synodall combinations had no authority nor jurisdiction, or that no Churches ought to be subject unto the same; then had all his 6 arguments bene of no force, neither could they proove any such matter. We may see 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 of it be communion; though the matter of it be brethren, which are equall among themselves; though the object 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 consent of many: yet doth it not follow hence, but that such a Church and society hath power of censure and jurisdiction, and that the members thereof are to be subject unto such a combination. And thus also may particular Churches submit themselves to many, combined together in a Synod. III. If M^r Parker did not meane thus, but simply denyed all jurisdic­tion of Synods & subjection of Churches unto them; then should he be contradic­tory to himself, in that which he had so expressely and so often 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 that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan, but to many assembled together in a lawfull Synod.

Moreover, to come more particularly to each of his 6 Arguments, there is something to be observed in his reasoning in every one of them, that may shew un­to us how he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods.

I. The first Argument,P. 329. taken from the ground of love and mutuall help, is that which (he saith) is proved by Zepperus, l. 3. c. 7. (mistaken for c. 8.) who in the same chapter, pag. 715. describes the authority of Synods in the exercise of Discipline and the greatest censures thereof, even unto excommunication, & there­fore not for counsell onely. Againe, all those places of Scripture, Num. 32.6, 17. Eccl. 4.9. Rom. 12.13. Phil. 2.4. 1. Thes. 5.11, 14. Heb. 10.24. & 13.3. 1. Cor. 10.33. [Page 96]which he together with Zepperus doth alledge for the warrant of this combi­nation of Churches in Synods for their mutuall help, they are all of them such as doe equally, yea and primarily concerne the communion and society of severall persons and members in a particular Church, where it is confessed by our oppo­sites that there is jurisdiction as well as counsell. If these places would have re­moved jurisdiction from Synods, and condemned the subjection of Churches unto a Synod; then would they also have done the like for particular Churches, and have condemned the subjection of members thereunto. Seeing they doe not the one, therefore not the other also.

II. In prosequuting his 2^d Argument,P. 330.331. taken from the forme of combina­tion, which is consociation consisting in a mutuall obligation, he confirmeth it by the testimony of D. Whitaker, alledging that Calvine sayd well, that by brotherly charity, Cont. 4. qu. 4. p. 448. not by naked authority, but by letters and admonitions and other such meanes Here­ticks were deposed in the time of Cyprian. Deposition of Hereticks was an act of juris­diction in Synods. And againe, alledging Mat. 18. as the fountaine of this com­bination, he sayth, Many Churches are combined after the same manner, that the prime Churches grow together into one body in their members: and therefore it must be con­fessed, that as Mat. 18. is a ground of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in particular Chur­ches, so is it also for Synods.

III. M^r Parker for confirmation of his 3^d Argument,P. 331.332. taken from the mat­ter of this combination, which are the severall Churches, equall members of one body, alledgeth the example of the Reubenites, who when they would expresse their combination with the Tribes on this side Iordan, do call it their part in the Lord, which was not unequall because of the distance of place. Ios. 22.24, 25- 28. And from hence then it may appeare, that as the Tribes of Israel equally combined together were not subject to any one Tribe apart, and yet were each of them subject to the whole society and body of Israel: so the particular Churches having each of them equall part in the Ecclesiasticall consociation of Classes and Synods, though they be not subject to any one Church apart, that is exalted above the rest, yet may be subject to the whole society of many Churches concurring together in Synods.

IV. In the explication of his 4^th Argument,P. 332, 333. taken from the object, which is a common matter, concerning all or many Churches, he alledgeth a distinc­tionConf. with Hart. c. 8. d. 5. maintained by D. Rainolds, betwixt questions of the Church, requiring knowledge onely, and causes of the Church, requiring jurisdiction also for the judging of them. Questions of the Church were sent unto them that had no juris­diction over those that propounded them: but the causes of the Church, not so: They in Africa wereConcil. Carthag. Graec. c. 2 [...] & Milevita. c. 22. forbidden to appeale unto them beyond sea; viz, for the decision of their personall causes, which yet were to be judged by the Synods in Africa: whereby it is acknowledged that Synods have a power of jurisdiction, which is more then counsell. Whereas M^r P. addeth, The first combination of Churches is in matters of faith, &c. The second combination of Churches is in personall cau­ses, yet by accident onely▪ for these properly belong unto each severall Church, as they are proper: yet when they become publick by accident, then Churches are combined indeed. but [Page 97]without subjection, as it fell out in Cyprians time in causa lapsorum, in the cause of them that fell [in time of persecution] which thereupon became publick, because the offence was com­mon in many Churches: Lest any should stumble at these his words, it is to be consi­dered, that as personall causes and offences are by accident the object of Classicall and Synodall judgements; so by like kinde of accident they are the object of that judgement and jurisdiction which is exercised by particular Churches. In that maine ground of Ecclesiasticall discipline, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. all the degrees of admonition and censure are ordained to be used according to those 4 acciden­tall ifs; If thy brother sinne; If he will not heare thee; If he will not heare the witnesses; If he will not heare the Church: And so in like manner, those 4 limitations before noted by M^r Parker, are 4 accidentall cases, wherein the power of Synods is to be exercised, and wherein it is greater then the authority of particular Churches, viz. if it be a common cause; if the Church be unable; if the Church administer unlawfully. if it be so presumed. Such kindes of accidents are properly the lawfull and just object of Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction, by proportion from the same rule, Matt. 18. If one member sinne or suffer, it becomes a common cause so farre as it is knowne, all the members suffer with it and take care for the redresse of it, in a particular Church: 1. Cor. 12.25, 26. And if one Church sinne & be in danger, it becomes a common cause; all the Churches that are members of the same bo­dy, especially those that are united by covenant in a Classical and Synodall go­vernment are to take care for it, and to seek help according to the quality of the danger. Thus the community of cause inferreth combination. And further, for that which he repeats againe, that this combination of Churches by accident, is without subjection, it is still to be remembred that his meaning is, without subjection to any one above the rest: for so he againe largely explaines himself in the same place, giving instance in the Church of Carthage and in Cyprian the Bishop thereof, maintayning against D. Downam, that Cyprian was no Metropolitane, that the province was others as well as his, that in the Synod there held there was a parity, that the Churches were equally combined without subjection to any one, that Bi­shops & Elders had equall power in giving their suffrages.

V. In setting downe the 5^t Argument,P. 334. taken from the outward manner of proceeding, which was by conference and communication of counsels, he shewes withall, that therein there was an exercise of jurisdiction, when as in the words of Cyprian he shewes the end of those counsels, ut communi consens [...] figerentur sententiae; that by common consent firme decrees might be made. And the authority of these judiciall sentences and decrees touching those that were fallen, is further declared by Cy­prian, when he shewes, that they wereCypriā. L. 1. Ep. 8. tempered with discipline and mercy; where­by it is evident that there was an exercise of discipline or Ecclesiasticall jurisdic­tion therein: and that Epistle of Cyprian containes in it sundry other sentences, which shew that he spake of the administration of censure, and not of coun­sell onely.

VI. In his last Argument,P. 335. taken from the end of this combination, which was not to receive mandates, but for consent, counsell and approbation; he sayth it follow­eth hence that no one Church was superiour unto others, but all were equall among them­selves. [Page 98]This he declares by instance in the Church of Rome, which though in an­cient time it was of great estimation and dignity, yet had it no speciall authority and jurisdiction above other Churches, as he shewes by the testimonies of D. Rain. Whitak. and Iunius. But he doth not collect thence, that many Churches concurring together in Synods doe want authority to judge, and to give defini­tive sentences in the causes brought unto them. Yea the contrary is manifest: for whereas Bellarmine perverting the testimony of the Magdeburgenses, who had sayd that the unity of faith might be preserved by the consociation of Churches which mutually were to help one another, objecteth,DeRom. Pon. l. 1. c. 9 Non sat est confilium: imperium requiritur; Counsell is not sufficient, but authority is required: M^r Parker in thisP. 327. same chapter alledgeth, alloweth and commendeth the answer which D. Whitaker DeRom. Pont. Cont. 4. qu 1. p. 49 giveth unto Bellarmine, viz. Consensum multorum non minus habere imperii quam unius voluntatem. Sicolim Haeretici per Synodos refutati, et alii in eorum locum suffecti. Quid am­plius postulas? aut quae melior ratio excogitari potest conservandae pacis? &c. that is, The consent of many, hath no lesse authority then the will of one. Thus have Hereticks bene refu­ted of old time, and others put into their places. What doe you require more? or what better way of preserving peace can be thought upon? &c. Or what plainer testimony can M^r Dav. require for the jurisdiction of Synods? They doe not answer Bellarmine that counsell alone is sufficient, but plead for authority and power, arising from the consent of many. Iunius also answereth this objection of Bellarmine in like manner, and sayth concerning the power of Synods,Anim. adv. in Bel­larm Con­tr. 3. l. 1. c. 9. u. 74. Et est revera imperium Christi: qui primum jubet per Apostolum, ut spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subji­ciantur; deinde vero remedium adhibet, 1. Cor. 11.16. quod si cui contentiosum esse videtur, nos ejusmodi consuetudinem non habemus, neque Ecclesiae Dei. There is indeed the power of Christ, who first commands by the Apostle, that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets; and then addeth the remedy, 1. Cor. 11.16. that if any list to be contentious, we have no such custome, nor the Churches of God. And M^r Parker in the same place, reasoning in like manner, confirmeth his answer and enforceth it, saying, What, I pray you, can be answered to this last reason? for the Apostle Paul referreth us from the contentions of any one Church unto many; whose example if it prevaile much, how much more their sentence, when they are assembled together in a Synod?

HAving answered these Allegations of M^r Dav. we may now see what wrong he hath done to Mr Parker, in perverting his words and meaning, and ma­king him a Patrone of this erroneous opinion that is so prejudiciall to the Church of God in the government thereof by Synods: and yet for the further clearing of the trueth and vindicating of Mr Parker, and for the help of the Reader, that he may better understand his meaning touching Classes and Synods, (for many have not his booke, and many understand it not, being written in Latine) I will set downe his judgement more particularly, touching the divers kindes and degrees of consociation of Churches, with the speciall questions touching Synods, and shew withall how he applyes the same to the practise of the Reformed Chur­ches for the defence thereof, in all which the jurisdiction of Synods is main­tained. And

I First, comming to speak of the kindes of conjunction, or consociation, and shewingPoli. Ec­cl. l. 3. c. 22. p. 336. that some are more imperfect by way of Communication, & some more perfect by way of Combination; The Combinations (he sayth) are of two sorts: for some communicate among themselves by Letters onely, and some both by letters & messengers, or Delegates. These communicatory letters were called in old time Pacificall & Synodall letters, and Formatae. And heP. 337. alledgeth divers examples both from the Scripture and from the primitive Church, touching this kinde of communi­cation by letters. And howsoever he notes from the Magdeburgenses, that this communication by letters did not proceed from dominion and subjection, &c. yet this is to be understood, touching the subjection of any one Church to ano­ther, and not of subjection to many Churches: for so he expounds himself tou­ching this particular of communication by letters, as he had often done before in generall. For whereas it is objected, If all Congregations be equall, what shall be done in case of Schisme and Heresy, when there is no Synod nor Christian Magistrate? He answers,Ibid. c. 21. p. 324. The time scarsely falles out, when no Synods can be had: or if Synods be wanting, yet Churches may communicate together by letters: and although there be no authority in one Church above another; yet many Churches joyned together, either in a Synod, or by letters, have authority over one Church offending. And in the next pageP. 325. againe, alwayes every one Church is subject to many Churches. And thus he expresse­ly avoucheth a jurisdiction of many Churches over one, even in their commu­nication by letters. And yet more particularly he applyes this to the present prac­tise of the Reformed Churches, & highly commendeth the same, saying,Ibid. c. [...]2. p. 337. And now in the Reformed Churches the necessary use of Elderships is acknowledged, ubi commu­nicatio per literas primaeva purissime floret; where the primitive communication by letters doth flourish in greatest purity.

II Againe, M^r Parker proceedeth in describing the consociation of Churches, and sayth,Ibid. p. 338. The second communication of Churches followeth, when some deale with others concerning any Ecclesiasticall busines, not by letters onely, but by messengers also. This con­sideration is of great moment: for unto whomsoever this handling of Ecclesiasticall businesses doth belong, to them also of necessity doth belong the rest of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction. This he often repeateth, but most fully, when speaking of the authority of sending messengers or Delegates, he saith,P. 342. The power of sending Delegates in Ecclesiasticall affaires was not in any one Bishop, but in the Church it self, and therefore all the other juris­diction. Now it is evident that the Synod at Ierusalem did send Delegates in an Ecclesiasticall businesse, Act. 15.25, 26, 27. and therefore according to M^r Par­ker, did not onely consult & admonish, but also exercised jurisdiction therein, and had the power of all other jurisdiction. Thus the Reformed Churches doe day­ly practise: their Classes and Synods doe upon occasion send their Deputies un­to particular Churches to judge, compound and decide the controversies that arise in the same; and according to M^r Parker doe exercise a lawfull juris­diction herein.

III From this Communication of Churches, he commeth to speakIbid. c. 23. p. 345. 340. of their Com­bination, from whence ariseth a combined Church, derived from other Churches. This combination he notes to consist either of two, or more Churches. An in­stance [Page 100]of this combination of two, he gives in the Synod at Ierusalem, Act. 15. and sayth. It was a Councell and Synod, and that properly, and that of two Churches, to wit, of Antioch and Ierusalem, for the Messengers sent from Antioch were present, which re­presented the Church of Antioch, as is usuall in Councels. And notwithstanding an ob­jection made against the Church of Antioch, yet he sayth that Church was also judge in that Councell, because their Messengers brought the judgement of the same with them. Hereupon he reproveth two Spirits of errour, the one of Grotius, who [...] sayd to reject the use of Synods altogether: for who would write this (saith M^r Par [...] [...] be that is bewitched with errour? seeing the Church of God hath alwayes held, that S [...] are here instituted of God to endure for ever, &c. The second spirit of errour wi [...] [...]he reproves is that of the Hierarchy, P. 347. because they condemne the Reformed Synods, as if they were degenerate, quae tamen ad hunc typum accuratissime efformantur; which are notwithstanding most exactly framed according to this patterne. Hence it appeareth that M^r Parker held the Synods of divine institution to be not onely for counsell and admonition, but for jurisdiction also: for otherwise he could not have sayd with truth, that the Reformed Synods, all which exercise jurisdiction, doe an­swer exactly thereunto; otherwise he might rather have sayd, that the Synods of the Reformed Churches, swarving from the primitive patterne, were indeed a­dulterare and degenerate, usurping authority and jurisdiction which did not be­long unto them.

IV The combination of more Churches, M^r Par. describes in divers kindes or de­grees also:Ibidē. and first that which is of many Churches into one Eldership. The reason of this is, because some little Churches knowing their owne weaknes, doe joyne themselves unto the neighbour Churches, and so make but one Eldership onely among themselves. He gives an instance of this in those small Churches about Geneva, which not being sufficient for themselves, doe joyne themselves unto the Church in the next City, so that they come together weekly into the neighbour-Consistory of the City. This combination of lesser Churches into one Eldership or Consistory, M^r Parker approves and justifyes, and declares his judgement touching this kinde of consociation. 1. He sayth, It is grounded upon the communion of Churches, and derived from the wisedome of the Spirit; and complaines of the Hierarchy that doe so virulently impugne the same. 2.P. 348. Whereas no­thing is more objected against the Reformation in England, then that many Chur­ches or Parishes are unable for it, wanting fit men to governe and to exercise dis­cipline in Elderships: M^r Parker answereth hereunto; If it be so, let them joyne them­selves unto the next Eldership; or erect a common Eldership among themselves; and so from common counsell and help let them seek remedy for their weaknes. Now it is recordedCalvin. Epist. 167. that in the Discipline at Geneva, the right of Excommunication is in the power of this Consistory or common Eldership: and hereby then it appeares that all Ec­clesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church onely; and that M^r Parker allowing of this government at Geneva, is not against the jurisdiction 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 opposites complaine, that Chur­ches [Page 101]are brought into bondage, and loose their liberty, when they may not ex­communicate without the consent of others; M^r Parkers answer is,P. 349. that the power of Excommunication, ordination, and other jurisdiction remaines pure in them, saving that communion which ought to be among Churches; every Church in greater matters useth the consent and counsell of her neighbours, as of the Classis or Eldership in the City, quod ego Ecclesiis vel perfectissimis non indig [...]um reor, which I judge (saith he) not to be un­meet even for the most perfect Churches. Thus he requires not onely counsell, but con­sent of other Churches in weightier matters; which is that we stand for. This doth not, as he saith,P. 390. import any Hierarchicall subjection in the parishes at Ge­neva, unlesse happily any can be subjected unto himself; for these parishes, each for their part, and that equally, are this very Eldership. What subjection is it, where all as well City-churches as the Country-churches are equall? for the country-churches are no more sub­ject unto this Eldership, then are the city-churches.

V The next combination of many Churches, which M^r Parker speaks of,Ibid. c. 24. p. 353. &c. is when they are united into one Classis. And of these he giveth instance in the Churches of the Netherlands; and in Scotland, where the 52 Presbyteries, so cal­led by them, were nothing els but so many Classes. For the warrant of these he bringeth both divers grounds of holy Scripture, and the example of antiquity. He there answereth 10 Objections made by the Hierarchy against these Classes. And it is to be observed that he doth not simply speak of Classes in generall, but of these Classes of the Reformed Churches in these Countries, of our Classes, as he useth to call them, not onely for that he approved them, but because together with us, he was a member of this communion, and lived under the jurisdiction of the Classis with us. If he had not allowed their jurisdiction, which he knew and saw to be exercised by them, how could he with good conscience have praised them as he doth? Speaking of the ancient Discipline used in the Primitive Chur­ches, he saith,P. 357. Omnia his in politeia nostra & in Classibus nostris similia. O quantum peccat Hierarchia, quae hanc suavissimam Ecclesiarum combinationem eliminavit! that is, All things in our government and in our Classes are like unto these. O how much doth the Hierarchy offend, which hath banished this most sweet combination of Churches! And as well might we cry out, O how much doe the authours of the single, uncom­pounded policie offend, who likewise seek to banish and overthrow this combi­nation of Churches in Classes; while they allow them onely for counsell, and re­gard not their consent; but allow the Churches in combination to proceed in the weightiest affaires, without or against the consent of Classes! Whereas it is objected not onely by my opposites, but by some of the Hierarchy themselves, that these Classes doe take unto themselves that jurisdiction which they seeme to condemne in the Hierarchy; M^r Parker in his answer shewes the contrary: He saith,P. 358. 359. The superiour power that is in Classes, ariseth from the Churches, that are combined in Classes, &c. No Church hath dominion or preheminence over another. He sayth that in the Me­tropoliticall or Episcopall jurisdiction, Churches have not their owne government, but are spoy­led of their Elderships and subjected to the power of one, and to an externall Church, namely the Cathedrall. All which things are contrary in our Classes. Every Church injoyeth her owne government by her owne Eldership: the Classis, is no externall Church, much lesse an exter­nall [Page 102]Court: for it consisteth of these Churches that are combined: so that here is no authority over many; the parishes doe joyne their authority together, and that equally.

VI After the combination of many Churches into one Eldership and one Classis, M^r Parker proceedsPol. Eco. lib. 3. c. 25. p. 362. to speak of that combination of many Churches in many Classes, which is into one Synod, and that either Provinciall, Nationall, or Ge­nerall; the Nationall containing under it the Churches of sundry Provinces, and the Generall comprehending the Churches of many Nations. Touching Synods, he speaketh of the 7 controversies about them, and first of the Necessity of Synods. He sayth, he never knew any in the Reformed Churches to deny the necessity of Synods, before Hugo Grotius, that was the great friend of Arminius. He shew­eth from Bogerman, that the Reformed doe stand for the necessity of Synods more then any other. Whereas D. Sutlive condemneth such as would have status Synodos, Synods kept at certaine set times, and not onely extraordinary, as he saith that Synod of the Apostles was, Act. 15.P. 364. 365. M^r Parker refureth him, and argueth thus from that place, This example of the Apostles sheweth that Synods are to be called, as the necessity and edification of the Church requireth: but there fall out so many abuses, errours, controversies, scandals and other such things; that set and frequent Synods are necessary: for the neglect whereof the English Hierarchy doth sinne grievously, which contenting it self with an extraordinary Synod onely, doth not call a Synod after the example of the Apostles, so of­ten as abuses, errours, controversies, and scandals doe arise, but contrary to the example of the Apostles, committeth all these things to the care of one Bishop alone. And whereas he ad­deth further in the same place, that the Hierarchy is crept in in place of the Synod, ta­king violently unto it self those things which by divine right doe belong unto Synods: he doth herein acknowledge the authority of Synods to be of divine right; for what els or what more doth the Hierarchy snatch unto themselves, then authority of cen­sure, and jurisdiction in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes?

VII Touching the second controversy about Synods, viz. the authority and power of them,Ibid. c. 26. p 367. he notes that as there is an Aristocraticall government in Elderships: so there is an Aristocraticall government by Synods; and from this his assertion it fol­lowes, that as the Consistories or Elderships have a jurisdiction and power of go­vernment in them, and are not onely for counsell, so the Synods in like manner. When as he saith further,P. 368. that the Synods borrow that authority which they have from the prime Churches, this argues that he confesseth they have some authority; els how could they be said to borrow it? To like purpose he argues there againe,P. 370. It appeares by the very obligation that Synods have their authority from the prime Churches: for otherwise Synods should not binde the prime Churches, unlesse by sending their Delegates they did avow their consent; unlesse they have just cause afterwards of dissenting. Thus he acknowledgeth a bond of authority and an obligatory power in Synods: & as for the exception which he addeth, it is as well to be added unto any judicatory, ei­ther Civill or Ecclesiasticall whatsoever; for there is no jurisdiction nor authority of the highest Governours on earth, that ought to binde us unto the obedience of their decrees, if we have just cause of dissenting.

VIII For the Convocation of Synods, which is the third controversy,Ibid. c. 27. p. 371. M^r Parker doth maintaine and much commend the practise and order observed in these Re­formed [Page 103]Churches, and declares at large what their manner is from divers acts of their Synods. He sayth, it is cum sapientissime tum saluberrime instituta; a most wise & most wholesome institution. He shewes, that the Church hath power of calling Sy­nods; but where there is a Christian Magistrate,P. 372. this power is regulated of the Ma­gistrate. He bringsP. 373. &c. 10 Arguments to prove that this power of calling Synods is not in a Metropolitane Bishop. He sayth touching Ecclesiasticall persons,P. 375. The power of convocating is in no one, but in many; therefore Synods are not to be called by one, nor by the authority of one, but by the Synods themselves, by the precedent assembly it­self, as is usuall in the Reformed Churches. And speaking of Act. 15.6. he sayth, Doth not this example binde all ages, that the meeting in Synods be by common consent, even as the Acts in the Synod are by common consent decreed? This decree of calling together is an act of jurisdiction, more then counsell or admonition onely.

IX The fourth controversy about Synods is concerning the Persons Ibid. c. 28. p. 379. &c. whereof the Synods consist. Whereas Bellarmine distinguisheth betwixt the greater & lesser Clerkes, and alloweth unto Hierarchicall Bishops to have a deciding voyce, and to the inferiour sort to have onely a consulting voyce, M^r Parker shewes at large that whosoever is lawfully deputed and sent, whether Ministers, Elders, Deacons, or any of the people, have a deciding voyce, and may give definitive sentence in Sy­nods; and thereby he acknowledgeth the jurisdiction exercised in them. He saith,P. 387. As the materiall foundation of Synodall right, is the excellency of inward gifts, not the dignity of any office: so the formall foundation thereof is delegation from the Church, from which whosoever they be that have receyved authority (and therefore Elders also) they have power of decreeing and judging in Synods. And many other testimonies thereof he gives in that chapter.

X A fift controversy is about the Praesident or Moderatour in Synods.Ibid. c. 29. M^r Parker labours to prove that this presidency doth not belong to an Hierarchicall Bishop or Arch-bishop, but maintaines the practise and order of the Reformed Churches, where the President of the Synods is elected or chosen by the Synods themselves.P. 402. We argue first, sayth he, from the authority of the Church. for in Matt. 18. Ecclesiasticall authority is given primarily, and originally unto the prime Church: so that no rectour without the election and designation thereof, may challenge any authority unto him­self. The Synod is a combined or secondary Church, which receiveth authority from the prime Churches: & that under the like condition, to wit that no rectour or Praesident be made without election of the Churches, which are combined in that Assembly. This he declares at large and refutes the contrary arguments. Now this Election of a Praesident is an act of Ecclesiasticall authority, a part of the Churches power; and seeing this is con­fessed to be in Synods, it appeareth hence also that Synods are not onely for coun­sell & admonition, but also for the exercise of jurisdiction.

XI A sixt controversy about Synods concernes the Execution of the Synodall Canons. Ibid. l. 3 c. 30. M^r Park. holds that this belongs not unto any one Bishop or Arch-bishop, but unto particular Churches and their Elderships. He argues on this manner,P. 428. The execution of Canons, of what kinde soever, whether they be those which are published of Christ, in the Scriptures, or whether they be ordained in Synods according to the Scriptures, is a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, a part of the exercise of the Keyes, as the Parisians call it. But [Page 104]the Keyes and Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction are not given to one Bishop, but are promised to the Church and Eldership, Mat. 16. and given unto them, Matt. 18. Therefore the execution of Canons, belongeth not unto one Bishop, but unto the Church which importeth many. Now if the execution of Synodall Canons by an Eldership or particular Church be a part of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, and of the Keyes, then much more is the ma­king of these Canons in the Synod: and then Synods have not onely liberty of gi­ving counsell and admonition, but power of jurisdiction also, which M^r Daven. denyeth. This conclusion and inference is afterward noted by M^r Parker himself also; when as he addeth,P. 432. Why should not he be judge in the execution of Canons, who hath power of judging in the sanction or decreeing of the Canons? &c. And againe, If it be not lawfull for them to execute the Canons, neither will it be lawfull to ordaine them: on the other side, if they have authority of making Canons, then have they authority to execute them; and that much more.

XII The seventh controversy about Synods, is concerning the Conditions Ibid. c. 31. there­of. And among other conditions, M^r ParkerP. 452. requires this for one, that there be a common consent, or a community of suffrages: and he complaines of it as a great corruption when there is in Synods a negative voyce allowed unto Bishops or Arch­bishops. He notesP. 454. that to be not without reason called an Oligarchicall Synod, when things are not done by common consent, but one maketh frustrate the consent of the rest. Now if it be a violation of the Synods right and authority, when the generall consent of the greatest part is made frustrate by the dissenting of one or of a few; then much more is the authority thereof violated, when as notwithstanding the universall and entire consent of the whole Synod, both of the Praesident, & of all the Deputies of all the Churches there assembled, yet by receiving this erroneous opinion of my opposites, the definitive sentence of them all is made frustrate and disannulled; as if they had no jurisdiction nor power of censure, but were one­ly to counsell or admonish.

AS that which M^r Parker hath written particularly touching the combination of Churches in Classes and Synods, doth sufficiently shew his minde tou­ching this controversy, and that M^r Dav doth in vaine seek to shrowd himself un­der his shadow: so that which he writes more generally in defence of the Di­scipline practised in the Reformed Churches, where the authority and juris­diction of Synods is maintained, doth serve for a more full declaration thereof. He laboureth to prove (q) by 10 Arguments,Pol. Ecc. lib. 1. c. 29. p. 84. that the Church of England is bound to imitate the Reformed Churches in their Discipline; which yet, (if M^r Dav. his opinion were true, they ought not to doe, but rather to avoyd it & flee from it, as being an usurpation of unlawfull power, whereby their people are kept in bondage under the undue power of Classes and Synods. In speciall, M^r Parker following M^r Brightman in his exposition of the Revelation,Ibid. p. 84.85, 86. saith that in Philadelphia, which is the type of the Reformed Churches, nothing is reprehended, but all things are commended, and among the rest, the discipline which is noted by the key of David, Rev. 3.7. He saith, that the Angel of the Reformed Churches stands in the Sunne, Rev. 19.17. as being the naturall sonne of the woman clothed with the Sunne. Rev. 12.1. that the Reformed Churches are as the beautifull mountaine, the mountaine of Christs delights, [Page 105]Rev. 16.16. & the hill of precious fruits. He saith againe, that the Philadelphian Church is the type of the Reformed Churches; that it is commanded to hold fast her crowne. Rev. 3.11. Now if M^r Parker did judge this rare and high commendation to be due unto the Reformed Churches, and that by divine warrant, by the testimony of the holy Ghost foretelling their estate and the purity of the Discipline observed by them; then was he not of M^r D. his minde. for then he should have judged them not to be a free people, while the causes of particular Congregations are judged and de­termined by another superiour authority in Synods: Then should he rather have judged that their Churches wanted the key of David, and were deprived of their lawfull and proper priviledges and prerogatives, being subject to an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the assembly of the combined Churches. And in summe, then should he (according to M^r D. his opinion) have judged them to carry a yoke of servitude and subjection, to be cast off with all speed, rather then a crowne of law­full liberty, to be held fast by them: then should he with Mr Canne Chur­ches plea. p. 74. have taught them to complaine in the misapplyed words of the Prophet, Ier. 4.13. Woe unto us, we are spoyled; viz. by the authority of Classes & Synods.

TO conclude, for the judgement of M^r Parker in this controversy, there are few that did better know, or at least had more meanes to know his minde, then I. The trueth is, when he came from Leyden, where he and M^r Iacob had sojourned some while together, he professed at his first comming to Amsterdam, that the use of Synods was for counsell and advise onely, but had not authority to give definitive sentence in the judging of causes. But after much conference with him, when he had more seriously and ripely considered of this question, he plainly changed his opinion, and professed so much not onely unto me, but unto sundry others upon occasion; so that some of M^r Iacobs minde were offended with him, and expostulated not onely with him, but with me also, as being an occasion of altering his judgment. I had meanes to understand his minde aright, and better then those that doe so many wayes pervert his meaning, he being not onely a member of the same Church, but a member of the same family & living under the same roofe with me; where we had continuall and daily occasion to talk of these things, and at that time when M^r Iacob published his unsound wri­tings touching this question. He being afterwards also a member of the same El­dership, and by office sitting with us dayly to heate and judge the causes of our Church, and so becomming a member of our Classicall combination, yet did he never testify against the unduepower of the Classis, or complaine that we were not a free people, though the Classis exercised the same authority then, as now it doth. Yea he being also for that time the Scribe of our Consistory, the Acts of our El­dership and Church being recorded with his owne hand, are extant to shew his agreement with us in the government of this Church. And it appeares hereby that he was of another spirit and judgement, then M^r Davenp. who hath publi­shed so many vaine cavills against the government and discipline of these Refor­med Churches, and this under the cloake & pretence of his agreement with 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 these Churches, hath [Page 106]bene a speciall help unto him in the writing of those learned treatises of Ecclesi­asticall policie, which for the substance and maine are as a lively Table wherein the government of these Reformed Churches is plainely pourtrayed before our eyes; his discourse being as it were a narration and defence of their practise; which discourse might yet have bene more perfect, had he lived to finish the same.

SECT. IV.
His Allegation of D. Ames examined.

IO. DAV. To these I might adde D. Ames in that which he wrote, in his latter time, wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set downe his judgement more warily, in this matter, Casus cōsc. l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. &c. 25. qu. 5. then formerly. See his Cases of Conscience, the 4. Booke, where he speaketh clearly of this power, as essentially belonging to particular Churches. ANSVV. Thus instead of Arguments from the Scripture for the confirmation of his cause, M^r D. still leads us from one mans testimony to another, & thither I am forced to follow him. And for D. Ames,

1. I may justly testify that I have found him wavering in his opinion, tou­ching the authority of Synods. For through the inward familiarity which I had with him a long time, for more then 20 yeares together, while he lived in these countries, having oftentimes had earnest conference with him touching this question, and much complayning of the wrong done to many Ministers by that booke entitled English Puritanisme, which he had translated into Latine, where­in there is such a peremptory restraint of all Ecclesiasticall authority unto particu­lar Congregations; though he did never plainely retract that which he published, yet he shewed himselfe divers times enclining to a change of his judgement, yea & sometimes acknowledged that Synods had power to judge of causes, and by their sentence to decree the excommunication of such as had deserved the same.

II. For his writings; D. Ames when hePreface to Mr Par. book de Pol. Eccl. anno 1616. gave so great approbation of Mr Parkers work which he wrote of Ecclesiasticall policie, wherein he doth so largely maintaine the power of Classes and Synods, might cause the Readers to think that he was of the same judgement with him, seeing he gives such gene­rall allowance and commendation thereof, without any exception about this question.

III. It is to be observed that in none of his latter writings he doth use that peremptory phrase, in limiting Synods, or Churches combined in Classes or Synods, onely to counsell or advise, in such manner as was done in thatEngl. Purit. c. 2. first writing.

IV. And more particularly, in his Treatise of Divinity, he writes thus of par­ticular Churches,Medull. SS. Theol. l. 1. c. 39. th. 27. that as their cōmunion requires, the light of nature, & equity of rules and examples of Scripture doe teach, they may and also ought frequently to enter into a mutuall confederation and consociation among themselves in Classes and Synods, that they may use common consent and mutuall help as much as commodiously may be done, in those things especi­ally which are of greater moment. Now as in particular Congregations the greatest acts of power and jurisdiction which are exercised therein, receive their strength from common consent, and doe consist therein: so if in matters of greater weight the common consent of Synods is to be used, then is a power and authority asscribed un­to them; then ought not particular Churches to proceed without and against the [Page 107]authority of common consent in Synods. And that mutuall help of other Churches is then most effectuall, whē there is not onely advise, but authority also to cōfirme the same. Though D.A. adde in the same place, that this combination doth neither con­stitute a new forme of the Church, neither ought by any meanes to destroy or empaire that liberty & power which Christ hath left unto his Church, for the directing & furthering whereof it onely serveth: this we also willingly grant. When a particular Congregation is hindred & stayed frō the exercise of their authority in an unlawfull businesse, in an unjust ex­cōmunication or electiō their liberty & power is not hereby destroyed or taken a­way, but rectifyed and preserved. Here is to be remembred that which M^r Par. (as was noted before) sayth upon like occasion: when some objected that the Chur­ches of the villages in the Netherlands wanted the power of excommunication, he replyes,Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 349. Imo potestas excommunicandi, ordinandi, & jurisdictionis caeterae illis illi­bata relinquitur, &c. The power of excommunication, ordination and other jurisdiction, remaines unto them uncorrupted, &c. though they doe not proceed thereunto but with common consent of the Classis.

V. After this, D. Ames in his Disputation against Bellarmine touching Sy­nods or Councels, doth sundry times acknowledge that they have more autho­rity then onely to counsell and advise. This is to be observed in divers povnts: as first in the Question whether the greater Prelates onely have jus suffragii decisivi, the right or authority of a determining or definitive suffrage; or whether the same belong unto the Elders also, or inferiour Officers, to whom Bellarmine allowes a consulting voyce, but not a definitive. Here D. Ames according to the recey­ved opinion of the Protestants,Bellarm. enerv. Tom. 2. l. 1. de Conc. c. 2. allowes unto them also the right and authority of suffrages, when they are deputed and sent as the Delegates of their Churches unto Synods. This he oft repeateth. And although he sayIbid. th. 8. that in matters of faith there is no judgement belongs unto men, but of inquisition, discretion & consultation, and that therefore that whole distinction betwixt persons defining and consulting is vaine: yet it is manifest and undenyable that in the censuring of Hereticks that erre in matters of faith, there is an Ecclesiasticall judgement belonging unto men, and a definitive sentence to be pronounced against such. The matters of faith are as little to be subjected or submitted unto the judgement of a particular Congregation, as unto the judgement of Synods: and yet Hereticks are not to be exempted from the judgement and censure of either of them. D. Am. himself in the same place doth plainly acknowledge this distinction betwixt consultation and definitive suffrage; when he saithIbidē. Bene consulere, majoris est virtutis, quam ex aliorum consilio bene definire, quamvis hoc sit majoris potestatis. To consult well is a matter of greater vertue, then from other mens counsell to define well, although this be a matter of greater authority. Seeing therefore he confesseth that to have a definitive voyce is a matter of greater au­thority, then to counsell and advise; and seeing withall that this power of suffra­ges and definitive voyces belongs unto the Deputies of Churches in Synods, and that by his confession; it is evident that herein he asscribes more power unto Sy­nods then he did in that book of English Puritanisme.

Againe, in the question whether a Generall Councell be above the Pope, or the Pope above the Councell; although D. Am. in handling the same, doth not so [Page 108]fully and directly speak against Bellarmine, as D. Whitaker, D. Rainolds, Iunius, Sibrandus Lubbertus, Chamierus, and other of our Divines, which maintaine that the Pope may be justly condemned, deposed and Excommunicated by a Ge­nerall Synod; yet doth heIbid. de Conc. c. 7. acknowledge the Councell or Synod to be above the Pope, in the very proposition of the question, and after takes upon him the defence of the Arguments commonly used by Protestant Divines for the proofe thereof. Would he have spoken plainly, according to the positions set downe in that booke of Engl. Puritan. & according to M^r Dav. his opinion, that limiteth all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely; he should then have sayd, that as the Pope hath no power over a Generall Councell, so nei­ther hath the Synod any authority over the Pope, either to depose, excommuni­cate, or any way to censure him, but might onely counsell and advise him &c. & he should as well have refuted the Protestants, for giving too much power to the Synod, as the Papists for giving too much power to the Pope. Now this he hath not done, but hath set down his minde in such manner, that neither the Pa­pists against whom he disputed, nor the Protestants whose receyved opinion he seemed to maintaine, could easily observe any difference in him from our com­mon tenent.

VI. In another booke after this, he acknowledgethCas. Consc. l. 4. c. 29. q 9. th. 23. that it belongeth unto Classes and Synods, when any difficulty is, to declare by common counsell and to decree, who ought to be excommunicated. Now to decree an excommunication is an act of power, whereby judiciall sentences are determined, and in all propriety of speech, doth containe more in it, then a bare counsell or admonition: and therefore herein he doth apparantly give unto Synods more authority, then onely to counsell and ad­vise. And thus D. Burges had reason to understand this speech of D. Am. which he alledgeth and approveth, and agreeably thereunto professeth; that God hath esta­blished the use of Ecclesiasticall Synods for Church affaires as well as the gathering of Chur­ches. Rejoyn. p. 206. D. A. did either acknowledge the authority of Synods in this sentence, or els was too blame for deceyving his Reader with ambiguity of speech.

VII. In hisFresh suit ag. Ce­rem. p. 90.91. last booke which he wrote immediately before his death, when he speakes of representative Churches, though he dissalow that kinde of Synod or Convocation, which is sometimes kept in England, in respect of Hierarchi­call Officers, and in respect of their imposing humane ceremonies; yet doth he not condemne the Synodall assemblies of Scotland, before Perth, nor the Refor­med Churches of France, which have their association and combination without any Hierarchy. And yet it is undenyable & most certaine that those Synods of Scotland and France have used Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in censuring of notori­ous offendours, and were not onely for counsell and advise, as is further mani­fested hereafter. Had he dealt plainly and answered his opposite fully, he should have condemned the Assemblies of Scotland for that jurisdiction which (accor­ding to M^r Dav. his opinion and that booke of Engl. Purit.) they unjustly usur­ped. Yea further he doth justify those Synods; for when as D. BurgesRejoyn. p. 206. had spoken of such Ecclesiasticall Synods, as have jurisdiction and authority of cen­sure, as appeares by his opposing of them unto other Synods, which the Separa­tists [Page 109]and M^r Iacob doe allow, which have no power to controle but by way of bro­therly admonition; D. Am. in his reply unto that place, confesseth that D. Burges did speak ofFresh suit, p. 183. right Ecclesiasticall Synods, and for the other Synods of M^r Iacob & the Separatists, the same that M^r Dav. allowes, he passeth away from them, and sayth not a word in their defence, which yet had bene most pertinent unto the question.

VIII. As for those places in particular which M^r Dav. alledgeth out of D. Ames his Cases of Conscience: for theCas. cōsc. l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. first of them, though it be sayd there, that the power of remooving scandals and excluding the wicked, for the right thereof, and in respect of the first act, cannot be separated from a true Church, because it flowes immediately & necessarily from the essence thereof, &c. this is not against us. for 1. When Synods judge the causes of particular Churches, they doe not take away their power, but onely restraine and correct the abuse of their power; the authority of particular Churches is not separated from them, but the corruption or fault that appeareth in the exercise of their authority. They are still permitted to use their authority and judgement in censures, elections, &c. when the Synod perceives that they doe not goe astray therein. 2. Though there be a streame of authority flowing immediately from the prime Churches, this hinders not, but helps and furthers the authority of Synods, unto which that power by delegation is immediately derived. And therefore as there is a fountaine of authority springing out of a par­ticular Congregation; so there is a Sea of authority in the Synod, where the wa­ters of so many fountaines, and the authority of so many Churches doth concurre and meet together. As for that other place, Cas. Consc. l. 4. c. 25. it is answered hereafter in the Allegation that is taken from D. Voetius.

Lastly, for thatCas. consc. l. 4. c. 29. place which M^r Canne objecteth out of D. Ames, I ac­knowledge that there is something more found against the authority of Synods, then in any thing that M^r Dav. hath alledged out of him. But all that D. Ames there writes is not easily to be admitted. For in that chap. the Question being made,Ibid. qu. 11. Whether whole Churches or members of another Church, may be excommunica­ted? He answereth, They cannot properly be excommunicated. He bringeth 3 Rea­sons. 1. Because every Church hath communion in it self, out of which it can no more be cast, then out of it self. But this reason is insufficient, 1. Because, though every Church hath communion in it self, yet not onely in it self, and with it self, but with other Churches also: Eph. 4.4, 5, 6. 1. Cor. 12.13. and by excommunication it may be deprived and cut off from that comfortable fellowship, to the great grief, terrour and shame thereof, for their humiliation thereby, and for the warning of others. 2. Because an obstinate and rebellious Church, by a sentence of excommunica­tion may be cast out of it self, and deprived of communion in it self either in the dissolution of that unlawfull society, while the Magistrate helpes to execute the sentence; or otherwise in making their communion abhominable even unto their owne consciences, by the hand of God working with his owne ordinance, in de­livering them to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, and depriving them of in­ward rest, notwithstanding any pretended security of the obstinate.

His 2^d reason is: Because the power of excommunicating flowes from some superiority; [Page 110]but all Churches are constituted of Christ with an authority altogether equall. This is also a weak reason for 1. Though all Churches be equall, and no one above ano­ther, yet many meeting together in a Synod, are superiour to one, as was shewed before by M^r Parker;Pol. Ec­cles. 3. p. 129. Greater is the power of a Synod, then of any one prime and pa­rishionall Church. 2. When two Churches onely are by speciall covenant united together, as it may fall out necessarily upon occasion, though this combination be more imperfect, yet is thisIbid. p. 345. 346. reputed for a Synod: and though these Churches be in themselves equall, yet when one of them falles into errour & offence, then it becomes subject to the other, and the other hath authority over it to rebuke & censure the same. This is to be observed by proportion of two brethren, mem­bers of one Church: though both of them be in their estate equall; yet he that offendeth becomes subject to the other, who thereupon hath power over him, in a degree of binding and loosing, a power of loosing and forgiving him, if he repent, a power of retaining his sinne and binding him over to further proceeding, if he doe not repent. Luk. 17.3, 4. with Matt. 18. On this manner that generall com­mandement of mutuall subjection to one another (1. Pet. 5.5.) ought to take place in two Churches as well as in two persons.

His 3^d reason is, Because the members of one Church, are neither subject to the govern­ment of another, neither doe they belong immediately unto the communion of other Churches, but by the communion of their owne Church comming betwixt. The first part of this rea­son touching subjection, is answered before: and for the second part of it, there is no weight therein; for those that belong unto the communion of other Churches but mediately, are not therefore exempted from the jurisdiction and authority of them. And againe, the covenant of communion made at the first confederation of Churches for their mutuall government by a Synod, remaineth firme for the continuance and exercise of authority, either for or against some particular members of any one Church in that combination, although that Church unjustly violating their covenant, should refuse to consent or communicate with the Sy­nod in their acts of Ecclesiasticall judgement and censure of some scandalous per­sons among them.

Moreover, that which D. Ames writes in the same chapter, may justly lead us to acknowledge the necessity of Synods, and their authority in the censure of offendours.

1. He addes in his answer to the same question, touching whole Churches & members of another Church, that though they may not properly be excommu­nicated,Cas. cōs. l 4. c 29. q. 11. th. 26. yet for manifest heresies or great faults, they may be condemned, forsaken, rejec­ted, which is proportionable to excommunication. If he grant this authority unto Sy­nods, thus to condemne whole Churches, then he confesseth that they have more power then onely to counsell or admonish. If he grant this authority unto any other Ecclesiasticall persons, and not to Classes or Synods, the warrant from Scripture ought to be shewed. A censure proportionable to excommunication, requires an authority proportionable to theirs, that may excommunicate, for the exequution thereof.

II. In the same chapter, propounding this case of conscience,Ibid. q. 10. What is to [Page 111]be done of the Pastour, where a fit Eldership is wanting, or where the people doe not consent unto ajust excommunication? His resolution is, The solemne proceeding may be omitted: yet a good Pastour ought to give all diligence hereunto with the rest of the faythfull members, that the substance of the matter be so farre preserved, that holy things be not given unto dogs & swine, Mat. 7.6. and that all publick scandals be publickly reprooved. But by this direc­tion, neither is the peace of the Ministers conscience provided for, nor yet the safety of the Church. For by what warrant may a Pastour by his sole authority, determine and reject some members as dogs, and exclude them from the holy things, from the Sacraments, and this not onely without allowance of the El­dership, but against the consent of the people and body of the Congregation, or the greatest part of it? This is in effect an excommunication, or as he calles it, the essence or substance of the matter: for excommunication, greater or lesse, is the onely Ecclesiasticall judgement appointed of God to keep holy things from being given unto dogs. To permit this authority unto the Pastour alone, is to open a dore for tyranny, and oppression of the Church; and is condemned by those 4 reasons which he gives for confirmation of his answer unto the 9^th question immediately going before. It is the denyall of Synods, that drives unto such extremities.

III. That which he here saith of publick reproving all publick scandals, is againe empeached by that which was sayd before,Ibid. q. 4. th. 12, 13. that in those Churches which through want of discipline are troubled with confusion, it is not alway necessary for the person offended to admonish the offendour, because he should oftentimes in vaine beginne that which he had no power to finish: that the commandement of solemne admonishing of a brother offending, doth then onely binde, when there is some hope that the same will prevaile to take away the offence, either immediately or mediately. for a meanes is so farre good, as it makes to the obtaining of his end. As though God did not blesse his owne ordinance above our hope and reason, above all that we can thinke: or as though we were not to use his meanes and leave the successe unto him. He that begins a good work and proceeds so farre till he be stopped by others, is accepted of God as if he had finished it.

SECT. V.
His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined.

IO. DAV.Apol. re­ply, p. 242. Dioc. tryal. p. 13. & [...]. To him I may adde Mr Paul Baynes, a man of singular noate for lear­ning and piety, in Cambridge, where he succeeded Mr Perkins, who freely expresseth his judgment for the right of particular Churches, and their independence, in this sense, in his Diocesans tryall. ANSVV. As M^r Baynes was a man of singular note for lear­ning and piety, so is his testimony of singular note to shew the right use & power of Synods, not onely for counsell, but for authority to censure and judge Eccle­siasticall causes; so that particular Churches may not doe within themselves, what they would without their consent.

1. After he had set downe 4 conclusions, wherein we agree with the oppo­sites, he comes to speak of the poynt of difference, and sayth,Dioces. tryall, p. 13. That wherein we contradict one another, is, we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually, but that all Churches were singular congregations, equall, independent each of other in regard of subjection. Secondly, we say, were there a Diocesan granted, yet will it not follow, that Parish-Churches should be without their government within themselves, but [Page 112]onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases. As it was with the Synagogues & that Nationall Church of the Iewes, and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches. This doe I willingly assent unto: And this is no other thing then that which is practised in these Reformed Churches, with whom we are united. Here is no one head-Church, that hath more authority then another, all Congregations are equall, independent each of other: here is no subjection to any one Diocesan: all are equally and mutually subject to the Synod consisting of many: their dependen­cy is not upon one more then another, but it is onely in regard of many com­bined; notwithstanding which combination they have their government within themselves: being subject to the Synod onely in some more weighty and diffi­cult cases.

II. As for that other place; when some had pleaded from the example of the Reformed Churches, as if they had not bene distinct Churches, &c. M^r Bayes so explaineth their estate and practise (as M^r ParkerPol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 348, 349. &c. more largely had done be­fore) that therein he doth not at all prejudice their subjection to Synods. for spea­king of the 24 Churches at Geneva and of their combination and subjection unto one Presbytery, he sayth,Dioc. tryal. p. 21. They have power of governing themselves, but for greater edification, voluntarily confederate, not to use nor exercise their power, but with mutuall com­munication, one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbyterie. Se­condly, it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory, wherein they shall have no power of suffrage: Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherein themselves are members and judges with others. After that againe, he addeth, Geneva made this consociation, not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect, and to make one Church by this union: but because though they were intire Churches, and had the power of Churches, yet they needed this support in exercising of it, and that by this meanes the Mini­sters and Seniors of it might have communion. Thus he notes not onely the counsell, but the consent of others required. And as at Geneva a particular Church pro­ceeded not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in a common Presbytery: so in these Low-countries in weightier af­faires they proceed not without or against the consent of many Churches concur­ring in their Classis.

III. M^r Baynes having shewed how every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body, and having Governours every way equall, there is yet no feare of confu­sion, seeing Aristocracie, especially when God ordaines it, is a forme of govern­ment sufficient to preserve order; hereupon he propounds this objection,Dioc. tr. p. 68. But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it self. And hereunto he answers thus, Not so neither; for it is subject to the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled, and to the Civill Magistrate, who in case of delinquencie, hath directive and corrective power over it. And thus we have his expresse testimony and confession, that Synods have authority not onely to counsell and advise, but to censure; that particular Chur­ches are subject to the censure of other Churches; that consequently there is a double Ec­clesiasticall Aristocracie, one in particular Churches severally, another in many Churches Synodically assembled; that if a particular Church erre in matters of faith and religion, that it is subject, not to the power of the Magistrate alone, but [Page 113]both to him and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall jusridiction, arising from the combination of many Churches, contrary to that assertion in the English Puri­tanisme, chap. 2.

IV. Speaking of Presbyters, that is of Ministers and Elders, and of their go­vernment, he saith,Ibid. p. 67. There is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo, but the Scripture doth asscribe it to them, power of suffrage in Councell, Act. 15. power of excommunication, which is manifest to have bene in the Church of Corinth, &c. While he alledgeth Act. 15. for an evidence of the Presbyters power in Synods or Councels, he doth hereby acknowledge that in Synods there is a lawfull exer­cise of jurisdiction and of the power of the keyes; and that therefore they are not onely for counsell and advise. To like purpose he saith afterwards againe,P. 82. The Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question, Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbyterie with them. Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered, but be­cause it was a thing to be determined by many; all who had receyved power of the keyes, doing it ex officio, and others from discretion and duety of confessing the trueth. And a little af­ter, he there addeth, It is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts, that Presbyters had right of suffrage, not onely in their owne Presbyteries, but in Provinciall Synods, and therefore in Oecumenicall Synods, which doth arise from a combination of the other, to which their mindes went in the instruction of Bishops receyved from their Churches.

V. Whereas one errour useth to accompany another, and commonly those that deny the authority of Synods, doe also in part deny the authority of particular Elderships, as we see in the Brownists, and therefore after private admonitions doe in a popular order referre the judgement even of lesser matters unto the pu­blick examination and decision of the whole Church assembled together, not per­mitting the same to the judgement of the Eldership; M^r Baynes doth also im­pugne this practise. For he speaking of the rule of Discipline, Matt. 18. where Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many, yet after some other observations touching the meaning of the word Church, he further explaineth himself, when he addeth these notes and sayth,Dioces. tryall. p. 80. Thirdly, as Christ doth speak it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly, so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the Congregation. For then Christ should give not some, but all the members of the Church to be governours of it. Fourthly, Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderlie complaine: now this we cannot to the whole multitude. Fiftly, this Church he speaketh of, he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all dis­cipline and censure. But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie, as all but Morelli­us and such Democraticall spirits doe affirme. And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church, doth shew that often the number of it is but small: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, &c. whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie ta­ken for teachers and people are incomparably great. Againe, shewing on the other side that Christ by the Church doth not meane the chief Pastour, who is virtual­ly as the whole Church; and that the word Church doth ever signify a company, and never is found to note out one person; after other reasons he pleades from the example and practise in the old Testament, saying,Ibid. p. 81. The Church in the old Testa­ment never noteth the high Priest virtuallie, but an assembly of Priests sitting together, as [Page 114]judges in the causes of God. Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particu­lar Church: So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie, and joynt execution of a representative Church, a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours. And thus he concludes from Mat. 18. that there is a representative Church of one particular Congregation; as before from Act. 15. he acknowledged a representative Church in the Synod, for many Churches.

VI. Whereas Mr Dav. alledgeth out of Mr Parker, that the power Ecclesiasti­call do the essentially and primarily reside in the Church it self, as in its proper subject: al­though this be no ground for the refutation of that power and jurisdiction belon­ging to Synods, as I have shewedP. 89.90 before; yet even this ground also is denyed by Mr Baynes, who goes not so farre as Mr Parker Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 8. p. 28. &c. touching the derivation of all Ecclesiasticall authority from a particular Church as from the fountaine, but doth (in some part) oppose that opinion, especially in respect of that influence of au­thority per intuitum, viz. that which is in Ministers called immediately of Christ, as the Apostles were, yet in respect of the end and the whole, is sayd to be from the Church mediately, &c. And therefore though Mr Parker was farre from the o­pinion of Mr Dav. yet was Mr Baynes farre further from it. His judgement here­in, as being worthy the consideration of the Readers, I have thought meet to set downe the more fully. And first, speaking by occasion of the power of jurisdic­tion in the Church, he sayth,Dioc. tryal. p. 69. Christ hath committed it originaliter & exercita­tive to the representative Church, that they might Aristocratically administer it. And af­terwards coming to intreat of the third maine question in his booke,Ibid. p. 98. Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall, and the exercise of it, to any one singular person, or to a united multitude of Presbyters, he there sets downe his judg­ment more largely, in divers conclusionsP. 83.84 on this manner.

‘Conclus. 3. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof, was not given to the communitie of the Church, or to the whole multitude of the faithfull, so that they were the immediate and first receptacle, receiving it from Christ, and virtually deriving it to others. This I set downe against the Divines of Con­stance; our prime Divines, as Luther and Melancthon, and the Sorbonists, who doe maintaine it at this day. Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians errour; for in his booke depudicitia, he maketh Christ to haue left all Christians with like power, but the Church for her honour, did dispose it as we see. The pro­portion of a politick body, and naturall, deceived them, while they will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body, not remembring that analogon is not in omni simile, for then should it be the same with the analogatum. True it is, all civill power is in the body politick, the collections of subjects, then in a King from them: And all the power of hearing, seeing, they are in the whole man, which doth produce them effectually, though formally and instrumen­tally they are in the eare and eye. But the reason of this is, because these pow­ers are naturall, and what ever is naturall, doth first agree to the communitie or totum, and afterward to a particular person and part, but all that is in this body, cannot hold in Christs mysticall body. In a politick body, power is first in the communitie, in the King from them, but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our [Page 115]King before any in the Church from him. But to whom should he first com­mit this power, but to his Queene? Answ. Considering this power is not any Lordly power, but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake: therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons, and not to the whole communitie, which are the Queen of Christ. For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herself properly: but to have per­sons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her. Second­ly, in naturall bodies, the power of seeing is first immediately in the man, from the man in the eye and particular members: In the mysticall body, the faith of a beleever is not first immediately in all, then in the beleever, but first of all and immediately in the personall beleever, for whose good it serveth more proper­ly then for the whole, every man being to live by his owne faith. The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel, so derived to the Priest: but immediately from Christ seated in Aaron and his sonnes. Object. Yea they were given the Church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis & totius. Answ. I but this is not enough, that power may be sayd to be immediately received by the Church as the first receptacle of it, and from it derived to others, as the power of seeing is not onely given intuitu hominis as the end of it, and the totum to whom it agreeth, but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye. But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the Church. For as all are sayd not to have been Apostles, so not to have been Doctors. But if the power of ordinarie teaching had been given to every beleever, all should have been made Doctors, though not to continue so in exercising the power. Secondly, were the power in the Church, the Church, should not onely call them, but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe: then should the Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers. Besides, there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly, as women and children. This conclusion in my judgement Victoria, Soto and others deny, with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained.’

‘Conclus. 4. Fourthly, ordinary power of ministeriall government is commit­ted with the execution of it, to the Senat or Presbyterie of the Church. If any faile in any office, the Church hath not power of supplying that, but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have pow­er of office given him in the place vacant.’

‘Conclus. 5. Lastly, though the community have not power given her, yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her, that all power is to be executed in such manner, as standeth with respect to her excellencie. Hence it is, that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them. Not that they have joynt power of the keyes with them, but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ, and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with, without open dishonour in such things, which belong in common to the whole congregation.’

Afterwards againe,P. 88. speaking of some derivation of power from the Church, in taking in Officers, he shewes that the Church doth this onely as an instrument, [Page 116]in taking that person whom Christ describeth and would have to be placed in this or that office: but hath not this power in herself either formally or virtually. And from this Stewardlike power of the Church, he declares that Officers in the Church are not to administer in the name of the Church, but in the name of Christ: As a Butler taken in by a servant, doth execute his office, not in master Stewards name, but in his masters, who onely out of power did conferre it on him. By these & sun­dry other assertions, it is apparant that Mr Baynes was of a farre different opinion from Mr Dav. touching the state of particular Churches, & the authority of Sy­nods. Let us heare his next Author.

SECT. VI.
His Allegation of the Replyer upon D. Downam examined.

IO. DAV."(r)" Apol. re­ply. p. 242. Part. 2. l. 2. p. 104, 105. &c. (i) With whom I might joyne the Replyer upon Dr Downams defence, who, not onely declareth his owne judgement herein concurring with the above mentioned, but also joyneth with them the suffrages of divers others, at the Centurists, Illyricus, D. Andrewes Bishop of Winchester, Dr Fulke, Willet, Thom: Bell, Cyprian, Augustine, Gerson, Fe­rus. ANSVV. I. If this Authour did in his judgement concurre with the above mentioned, and in speciall with M^r Baynes next above mentioned, as M^r Dav. affirmes, then did he allow the jurisdiction and authority of Synods for the cen­sure of things done in particular Churches; then did he judge each Congregation to be subject unto the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled.

II. This testimony of the Refuter of D. Downa. is alledged also, and more plainly by M^r Canne, who expresseth his words, and saythChur­ches plea, p. 86. he often affirmeth, Lib 2. par. 2. p. 104 that the administration of all Church-matters, at first was in every Congregation, the right in the Church, the execution in the Presbytery thereof. And besides this, he alledgeth ano­ther place, where he sayth, For this purpose he instanceth Cenchrea Lib. 1. part. 2. p. 22, 23., howsoever it was the Port of Corinth, and not farre from it, as Radcliffe or Lime-house to London, yet is was a distinct Church, from that of Corinth, and alike indued with full power of Ecclesiasticall government. But in all this, the jurisdiction of Synods is not denyed; as is manifest by a like instance here in these Reformed Churches. The villages of Diemen and Sloten, this on the one side and that on the other side of Amsterdam, and not farre from it, and in all apperance farre lesse in comparison of Amsterdam, then Cen­chrea was in respect of Corinth, yet are these small Congregations, distinct Chur­ches from that of Amsterdam, & alike endued with full power of all Ecclesiasti­call government. That which M^r Canne by a Note in the margine would have specially to be marked, may as well be observed touching these and many other little Churches hereabout, that they have in themselves the administration of all Church-matters, and the execution thereof by their Presbyteries, as fully and as amply as the Church of Amsterdam, or any other of the greatest Churches in these countries, being alike combined together in the Classis, and equally subject to one another in the Lord for their mutuall guidance.

III. Even this Replyer upon D. Downam, M^r S. who now resteth in the Lord, hath bene very carefull not to prejudice the authority of Synods, as may appeare further if we consider what he answereth concerning those whom D. D. calleth the late Disciplinarians, such as were of M^r Iacobs opinion. First, he saith,Reply. par. 1. l. 2. p. 106. As for Synods, if they be lawfully called, well ordered, and their constitutions by royall [Page 117]authority ratified; the Doctour can give neither more honour nor obedience to them, then they doe, as their Protestation sheweth, Art. 8.12, 13, 14. Now as for the present Synods, such as are in these Reformed Churches, they are such as he mentioneth here, called and assembled by authority of the Magistrates, and their Acts approved, confirmed and ratifyed by them. This may be seen in the Records of that Natio­nall Synod holden at Dort, Anno 1618. and 1619. whereAct. Sy­nod. Dordr. Ses. 138. the Decree of the States Generall, which are the soveraigne and supreme Magistrates in these coun­tries, is inserted among the Acts of the Synod, for the ratification thereof. And this is not onely observed in Nationall Synods, but in the Provinciall Synods al­so, held every yeare, where the States have also their Deputies, Civill Magi­strates, which ordinarily are present in those Assemblies, to see that all things be well ordered therein. Thus farre therefore, according to his relation, there is an obedience and subjection due unto Synods. Againe whereas he proceedeth to describe their opinion, on this manner; If they want Regall authority to assemble or to ratify them; they thinke that by Divine or Apostolicall ordinance, their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches, without their particular and free consents: It is here to be observed how he notes onely what they thinke, without approbation there­of; he declares their opinion, but doth not acknowledge it to be his owne judge­ment. Neither had he reason so to judge: for in the primitive Church, when there were no Christian Magistrates, there was then a lawfull use of Synods, and that by Divine and Apostolicall ordinance, as hath bene shewed before. And as for particular consents: if any Church walked disorderly and offensively, there is no reason to think that the censures and decrees of Synods against such Churches should be differed untill they did consent unto the censuring of themselves. It was sufficient that at their first combination there was a generall and free consent, to submit themselves in the Lord mutually unto other Churches Synodically as­sembled. And yet more plainely, in the same place he professeth that he diffe­reth in judgement from them, when he concludes, Thus much shall suffice to be spo­ken in defence of those later Disciplinarians, from whom although in somethings I confesse I dissent, yet I cannot consent to the D. taking away of their innocency. Though in some things D^r D. did unjustly charge them, yet M^r S. the Refuter of D. D. did also judge that in some things there was just cause to dissent from them.

IV. Besides the foresayd Refuter of D. Down. there is also another learned man, who besides his great learning having also as great experience in the disci­pline and government of the Church according to the practise of the Reformed Churches, hath of later time written a compleat and large refutation of D. Dow­nam. And in this refutation he hath dealt more plainly and circumspectly in this poynt, then M^r S. hath done. For whereas D. D. relating the opinion of these later Disciplinarians, as new and false, sets downe their assertion in these words,Sermon at Lambeth, p. 4. That every parish by right hath sufficient authority within it selfe immediately derived from Christ, for the government of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall; this assertion is not ad­mitted but with sundry cautions. To omit the rest, these are the two last, where­in the authority of Synods is evidently acknowledge; viz.Gersom Bucer. Dis­sert. de Gub. Eccl p. 14. The fourth caution is, that the authority given to a particular Church, is not sufficient for the handling of all Eccle­siasticall [Page 118]causes by their owne judgement, but for those onely which are so particular, that they may be deemed altogether proper unto it. For whatsoever case falles out belonging unto the common order of neighbour Churches, we judge that the same is to be brought unto a more ge­nerall assembly, wherein these Churches doe joyntly meet together. The last caution is, that both the institution and observation of all things, especially if they seeme to procure any discom­modity or not to make for aedification, be subjected unto the judgement of the next Churches meeting together in one. For we doe not permit, that the Governours of parishes should dis­patch all things as they list, but will have them to submit themselves to the inspection of the Churches. For we think that of Augustine ought by all meanes to be observed: Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. in Donat. ca. 9. Semper universum partibus jure optimo praeponi; that by good right the whole is alwayes to be preferred above the parts, &c. Thus expressely hath this Authour given warning, that the whole combination of many Churches united in Synods is of greater au­thority then any part; that particular Churches owe a subjection unto the same.

Lastly, as for those many other Authours, the Centurists, Illyricus, D. An­drewes B. of Winch. D. Fulk, Willet, Thom: Bell, Cyprian, Augustine, Ger­son, Ferus, whose names are here alledged by M^r Dav. without specifying their words, they are all of them, except one or two, alledged by M^r Canne, and in answer unto himChap. 7. sect. 1.2.4.6. hereafter, it is shewed that all & every one of them are against M^r Davenp. his opinion, all giving a cleare and plaine testimony for the jurisdic­tion of Synods.

SECT. VII.
His Allegation of D. Voetius examined.

IO. DAV.Apol. re­ply, p. 242, 243. Desp. caus. Pap. lib. 2. sect. 2. cap. 11. p. 186. To the same purpose, hath a worthy and learned wrighter of these coun­tries, Voetius, Professour of Divinity in Vtrecht, whose words I thus translate. ‘The Church is the spouse of Christ, which is the proper and adaequate subject of that power, to whom Christ hath committed that delegate right, reserving the chiefe to himself. Which ought to be and to remaine so proper to the Church, that it, neither may be snatched away by the authority of others, nor lost by their voluntary concession, nor committed to the trust of any other; although divers acts belonging to the calling of a Minister may & ought to be performed by certaine members of the Church.’ ANSVV. All that is here affirmed by this worthy Writer, being granted of us, yet is not M^r Dav. his opinion justifyed, nor the authority and jurisdiction of Synods overthrowne hereby. for,

I. Christ was the Bridegroome of his Church, and the Church was the Spouse of Christ, and honoured with this title under the old Testament, as well as under the new: Sol. song. ch. 1. & 2. &c. Esa. 50.1. Ezek. 16.8. Hos. 1. & 2. & 3. 1. &c. And yet it is confessed by my opposites that under the old Testament, before Christs comming in the flesh, particular Congregations and Synagogues were subject unto the Synedrion, and that all jurisdiction was not limited unto the severall villages or cities in Israel, or to the Synagogues therein. And there­fore this title of Spouse and Bridegroome doth not inferre any restraint of jurisdiction in the new Testament more then in the old.

II. As when the Church of Antioch sent their Delegates or Deputies unto Ierusalem, and the controversy raised in their Church was decided and determi­ned by the definitive sentence and decree of the Synod, Act. 15. they did not [Page 119]thereby loose their power, but it still remained with them, for the judgement of their causes; so those Churches that now submit their causes to the judgement of Classes and Synods, are not thereby spoyled of their power: yea it is their owne authority and power which by their Delegates is [...]rcised in those Assemblies. Moreover the Churches are herein so farre fro [...] [...]oosing their power, that on the contrary they might be sayd to loose their liberty, right and power, if they had not authority for their owne help and others thus to send their messengers unto such assemblies.

III. It is to be observed how M^r Dav. doth mistranslate the words of D. Voe­tius, by omitting a word of speciall importance, which both he and D. Ames alsoCas. cōs. l. 4 c. 25. q. 5. th. 26. using the like speech, have expressely mentioned: for whereas their words touching the power of the Church and the propriety thereof, are these, ut alienae fidei planè committi non possit, that it may not altogether be committed to the trust of others; he omitting this word planè, which signifyes altogether, utterly, or quite and cleane, doth hereby corrupt the testimony which he alledgeth. For though the Church may not utterly or quite and cleane commit her power to the trust of others; yet in some kinde and in some measure it may and ought to be done: For the kindes, D. Voetius gives instance in divers acts, belonging to the calling of a Minister, which may and ought to be performed by some certaine members thereof; and the same is to be consi­dered for divers other acts of like nature: And for the measure, so (as he also no­tes) that Christ the Bridegroome, reserve the supreme authority unto himself; which is then acknowledged by his people, when they doe not receive nor follow the au­thority or sentence of any man or Officer, of any particular Congregation, or of any Synod, further then they in their consciences finde it to agree with the sen­tence of Christ revealed in his word. As the Lord himself by an immediate call committed power and authority unto the trust of his servants, whose faithfulnes is thereupon commended: 1. Tim. 1.11, 12. 1. Cor. 9.17. Gal. 2.7. so doth the Church also, both in the ordinary calling of men unto office, and in the occasio­nall sending of them about particular workes and affaires of the Church; Phil. 2.25. 2. Cor. 8.19, 23. 1. Cor. 16.3. & especially in communicating their power un­to them, to give sentence in Synods.

IV. That D. Voetius doth allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, we have many testimonies our of this very book of his, which M^r D. alledgeth. I. Though he shew that Ecclesiasticall power of judgement is first and immediately in particular Churches, yet he notes withall,Desp. caus. Pa. l. 2. s. 1. c. 5. p. 96. that this power arising thence is by a certaine fit proportion applyed unto many Churches united in some kingdome or kingdomes, or in the whole world. This is done in Nationall & Generall Synods. II. Speaking of a publick Reformation, which he calles authoritative, he shewesIbid. p. 62. how it (being u­niversall) may be done either in an universall Synod, or without a Synod. Speaking of Reformation made by instruction, exhortation, or invitation, he sayth it may be done of any one Preacher, yea and in some sort of any one Christian: but for the Reformation wherein there is an actuall change of publick worship, he saith, it is ne­cessary that the help and consent of many, and those not of one order, doe con­curre; and that one or a few are not sufficient, unlesse it fall out that the authority and parts [Page 120]of those many who are interested therein, be devolved unto them. Thus he alloweth the ju­risdiction of Synods, while he acknowledgeth that the authority of many may be derived and communicated unto a few; which is the very thing wherein the juris­diction of Synods doth consist. III. He defendsP. 79. Luther appealing from the sentence of excommunication given out by Pope Leo the tenth, unto a lawfull Generall Synod: he allowes the like appeale made by the Arch-bishop of Colen, and the appeale of the King of Navarre, and the Prince of Conde, the forme whereof was affixed or set up at Rome; in all which the authority of Synods is acknowledged. IV. He allowesP. 85. the example of those Churches, which determined matters by a publick, and Nationall or Provinciall judgement. Speaking of the Reformers of Religion, he sayth,P. 169. Luther had the right of suffrage, and used the same in the University of Wittebergh, as one of the Professours; in the Church, as one of the Pastours; in the neighbour-churches of Saxony, as a member of them, in the name and by commission from the Church of Witteberg, and not further. So did Zuinglius, Farell, Viret, Calvin, and all the rest. A just patterne of the Classicall and Synodall jurisdiction exercised in the Reformed Churches in these countries at this day. V. He avoucheth and maintainethP. 201. that a lawfull Synod or Church by their sentence and authority may and ought to depose Ministers that are Idolatrous, Hereti­call and the like. An expresse testimony, that Synods have not onely right of coun­sell and admonition, but also of exercising Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the cen­suring of offenders. He addeth there, that the Westerne Churches ought to remove such Clerkes 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 that M^r D. alledgeth,P. 186. D. Voetius alledging the example of the Synod at Ieru­salem, Act. 15.3.4, 22, 23. to shew that Ecclesiasticall power is given to many in the Church, doth thereby acknowledge the authority of Synods. If he had thought they might onely counsell and admonish, then had this place alledged bene insuf­ficient to prove the thing propounded by him, nor suitable to the other places al­ledged together in the same place, viz. Matt. 18.17. 2. Cor. 2.6. with 1. Cor. 5.4. which are to be understood of the jurisdiction and authority of the Church in cen­suring. This power is also againeP. 187. & 189. poynted at by him in the same chapter.

Lastly, to come from his words unto his practise; Whereas this learned Mini­ster of Christ was deputed and sentAct. Sy. nod. Nat. Dordr. sess. 2. with others unto the last famous Nationall Synod at Dort, & was reckoned among those Worthies whose praise is so great in the Gospell, being the messengers of the Churches and the glory of Christ; when as he there among the rest did exercise the authority of suffrage for the decision of divers controversies, and gave sentence with others in theIbid. ses. 138. censure and deposi­tion of divers both Ministers and Elders, it appeareth hereby that he did not thinke all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Congregation. If Sy­nods might goe no further then to counsell and admonish, then had D. Voetius with the rest bene an usurper of unlawfull power. Besides, this order of Classi­call and Synodall assemblies, together with their jurisdiction and authority, in such sort as it was before, and is still practised in these Reformed Churches, was con­firmed and establishedRerckē ­orden. Nat. Syn. Dordr. Art, 22.52. in that same Nationall Synod, where D. Voetius appeared [Page 121]as a member thereof, and according to which he was bound to practise both while he was Minister at Heusden, and since also at Vtrecht, being not onely Professour in the University, but also Pastour of the Church in the sayd city. So that there is no cause to doubt but that his judgement touching this controversy is the same with that which I have here noted out of his writings, and for the substance of the matter, no other then that which I maintaine throughout this discourse.

SECT. VIII.
Touching the English Church at Franckford in Q. Maries time.

IO. DAV.Apol. re­ply. p. 243. A discourse of the trou­bles in the Engl. Chur. at Franckf. Art. 62. Art. 67. And to conclude, thus it was ordered in the English Church at Franckford, among the exiles in those Marian dayes, that if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected, or found parties; if any appeale be made from them, that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation, &c. and that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to heare and determine the said matter, or matters, as it shall seeme good to the Congregation. Againe, If any controversy be about the doubtfull meaning of any word or words in the Discipline, that first it be referred to the Ministers, or Seniors: and if they cannot agree thereupon, then the thing be referred to the whole Congregation.

ANSVV. I. It is to be observed, that these two Articles of Discipline being alledged against me byChur­ches plea, p. 36. M^r Canne as well as by M^r Dav. there is this difference betwixt them, that M^r Canne addes more words then he should, and M^r Daven. omits some words that should have been added. That which M^r Canne addes, is against himselfe, and serves to condemne the practise of the Brownists, when he faith of the Ministers and Seniors, that they have authority to heare & determine, &c. That which M^r Dav. omits, and refuseth to expresse, serveth to reproove such as complaine unjustly of excepting against the Elders judgement. For when that 62^d Article speakes of appeale to be made unto the body of the Congregation, the Ministers, Seniors, & parties excepted; this latter clause shewes there is just cause of excepting against the Elders judgement sometimes; and that they are to be refu­sed as incompetent judges, being parties. This brief clause being of speciall use in our controversy, ought not to have bene omitted by M^r Dav.

II. That which they alledge for appeale unto the body of the Congregation, doth not overthrow the authority of Synods. This granting one kinde of appeale doth not exclude or deny another. Seeing particular Congregations are subject to errour, and many of them dayly doe erre, why should not appeale be granted from them unto Classes and Synods, especially where there is no Magistrate that can or will judge of such errours?

III. This appeale made unto the body of the Congregation was not usually permitted, but extraordinarily in cases of speciall necessity, when the Ministers and Seniors were not able to end the controversies brought unto them: the ex­presse words of the Article are [...]isc▪ of troubl in Engl Ch. at Franckf. art. 57. in case they cannot end them, then afterwards to be re­ferred to the whole Congregation. Their ordinary practise was otherwise, as appeares in other Articles of their Discipline, where it is plainly ordained,Ibid. art. 59. that the Mi­nisters and Seniors shall have authority to heare and determine, on the behalf of the whole Church all offences (determinable by the Congregation) committed by any person in the Con­gregation: unlesse the partie called before them have just occasion to take exception to the sayd Ministers and Seniors; or to appeale from them as not competent judges. And afterwards [Page 122]againe there is another strict and severe decreeArt. 63. If any person doe unjustly take excep­tions to any of the Ministers, or appeale from the whole ministery: that then such persons, be­side the punishment for the principall cause shall also be punished as a contemner of the Mini­stery and a disturber of the Church. This order, as it serves to condemne the practise of the Brownists, as tending to the disturbance of the Church, while they give no power of judging and deciding causes unto the Eldership; so it serves for the reproofe both of them and M^r Davenp. in denying the authority of Synods: for if the Church may in ordinary cases commit their authority unto an Eldership, & not deprive themselves of their right, then why may they not doe so likewise un­to Classes and Synods?

IIII. This English Church at Franckford did commit and delegate the pow­er of judging controversies, not onely to their Elders, but upon occasion even unto other particular and private members of the Church, which had no Eccle­siasticall office; and this in divers degrees, as 1. In case some of the Eldership, though the lesser part, were excepted against as parties: 2. When the greater part were excepted against: 3. When all the Ministers and Seniors were suspec­ted, &c. Thus they did erect as it were three severall sorts of Classes or Synods within themselves for the judicature of such causes as could not be ended by the Eldership. Thus they ordained in these three severall Articles of their Disci­pline, which follow.

‘Of the first sort: Art. 60. Item, if any have just occasion to take exception to some of the Ministers and Seniors, and not to the more part: that then those of the Ministers and Seniors to whom the exception is made, in this case shall not be judges, but in this case for the time removed from the ministery, and that the rest of the Ministers and Seniors to whom no exception shall be made, with as many of the Congregation joyned to them, as they be in number which shall be excepted, shall be arbiters and judges in the sayd causes: and that the sayd persons so to be joyned to the Ministers and Seniors, shall be appoynted by the Congregation, the Ministers and Seniors not excepted, giving their voyces as others of the Congregation.’

‘Of the second sort: Art. 61. Item, if exception be taken to the more part of the Mi­nisters and Seniors, that then the Church shall appoynt six moe to be judges with the rest of the Ministers, against whom exception is not made: the same rest of the Ministers having their voyces in the election of the six, as other members of the Church.’

‘Of the third sort: Art. 62. Item, if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected or found parties, or if any appeale be made from them, that then such appeale be made to the body of the Congregation, the Ministers, Seniors and parties excepted. And that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congrega­tion to heare and determine the sayd matter or matters, as it shall seeme good to the Congregation.’

Now as in all these Cōmissions the Church did not loose her authority, but did rather exercise the same herein; this very act of delegation being a testimony of her power: so in like manner (if the example of this Church alledged against me [Page 123]may be followed of us) other Churches may also send their Deputies and Dele­gates unto Classes & Synods, for the judgement & decision of such causes as can­not be so well ended among themselves.

V. Lest any should object that in all these Deputations, the judgement of controversies was referred unto such Officers or members of the Church as were within the same Congregation, and that they did not submit their causes to the determination of any other judges out of themselves; it is therefore further to be observed that there was an order agreed upon by the English Church at Franck­ford, that in the time of their contentionIbid. p. 37.38. & 41.48. the matter should be determined by these five notable learned men, which were of other Churches, to wete, Calvin, Musculus, Martyr, Bullinger & Viret. This agreement was put in writing. To that all gave their con­sents. This day was joyfull. Thankes were given to God, brotherly reconciliation followed, &c. Yea the holy communion was upon this happy agreement also ministred. This agree­ment is often repeated, & layd downe as a ground of comfort, & as a proof of their equity that did most constantly cleave thereunto.

Afterwards againe, when more contention was raysed in that Church, both the opposite parties were content not onely to heare the counsell & advise of men in other Churches, but to submit unto their judgement, as farre as men may sub­mit unto the sentence of any particular Church whatsoever. And for evidence hereof it is recorded how the one part of the Church declared their minde by thisP. 100.101. writing following:

‘We offer & permit with most willing mindes (having the licence of the Ma­gistrate as it may well be for this purpose) that all our controversies and conten­tions whatsoever, which have bene sowne and brought in among us sithence the beginning of this breach, and since the first day we began to strive, untill this present time and houre: to be debated, decided and determined by Arbiters, being none of this our Congregation, and yet from among the brethren, our countrie men, equally and indifferently, by the parties disagreeing, to be cho­sen upon this condition, that not onely the election of Ministers and besides all other things done by the order of the sayd discipline, stand in suspence, to be al­lowed or disallowed by the determination and judgement of the Arbiters to be chosen as is aforesaid. written the 5. of April, Anno 1557.’

The other part of the Church did in like manner witnesse their consent, by their writing, the copie whereof was as followeth:

‘We submit ourselves and are contented to commit all manner of controver­sies that have heretofore risen amongst us in the Church, to such Arbiters as the Magistrate hath appointed, and to all such as they call unto them to the hea­ring and determining thereof, according to Gods word and good reason. And thus simply and plainly without any manner of exception or condition. In wit­nes whereof we have subscribed our names the 5. of April, Anno 1557.’

Though there were some differences betwixt these parties in other particulars, yet they all agreed in this, to commit authority & power unto some out of them­selves, whom they would set up as Judges over them. Hereby it doth appeare that they did not confine and restraine the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes [Page 124]within the limits of one particular Congregation onely. And if a particular Church might thus referre their controversies to the judgement of foure or five persons out of themselves, then might they as well or better be referred to the judgement of many Churches united together in Classes and Synods.

VI. This English Church which sojourned at Franckford, for foure or five yeares in Q. Maries time, was not a setled and established Church: they wanted the opportunity of combining themselves with other English Churches. It was the misery of this Church, that they wanted the help of ordinary Classes and Sy­nods: and it is unreasonable to make the speciall defect or want of some 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 English ChurchDisc. of troubl. in Engl. Ch. at Franckf. p. 27, &c. p. 62, &c. p. 135, &c. was exercised with great troubles and continuall dissentions all the time of their abode at Franckford, to the great grief and offence of many. The forme of their Discipline, and these Articles here objected by M^r Dav. and M^r Can. were not fully agreed upon: the Pastour and the Elders with some of the Church dissented from the greater part of the Congregation. And in such case, as M^r Fenner, before mentioned, doth testify,S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 278, &c. the controversy ought to have bene brought to a greater Senate, to a Classis or Synod, which he calles a Presby­tery of more Churches, for the deciding thereof. The want of this was the cause of their woe.

VII. The English Church at Franckford in the want of a Classis might so much the rather allow appeales unto the Congregation, because there were in that Church many learned men, able to discerne and judge of causes. In that ChurchDisc. &c p. 60. they set up an Vniversity, and chose severall men for the reading of He­brew, Greek, and Divinity lectures. The learned men that repaired unto this Church were also as famous for their piety and sincerity, enduring persecution for the Gospell of Christ, choosing rather to live in banishment with their afflicted brethren, then to enjoy the pleasures and promotions of Antichrist, which they might have had in their owne countrie, if they would have bowed their necks to his yoke. In such 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 such a Church, abounding with so many Worthies, could not well subsist alone, in their want of a Classicall government, but fell into so great contentions and scandals; this may justly serve for the warning of other Churches, and teach them to seek the help of neighbour-churches, & to submit themselves mutually unto such combinati­ons, as the Lord shall give opportunity.

Lastly, when as afterwards it pleased God to visit his people, and to restore the light of the Gospel and true Religion unto England by that gracious and noble instrument of his goodnes, Qu. Elizabeth, of ever blessed memory, then these ex­cellent and eminent lights of his Church returning againe into their country, did give a plaine testimony unto this trueth, that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Congregation. Some of them being promoted unto chief places of government in England, did by their practise professe that particu­lar Churches may submit themselves unto a superiour authority out of their owne [Page 125]Congregation. Some of them became Ministers of the Church of Scotland, & stood for the maintenance of that Discipline, which from the beginning of the Reformation, acknowledged the authority and jurisdiction of Synods. None of them (for ought I ever heard) that dreamed of the single uncompounded policie. Though there were some differences among them concerning the government of the Church, yet no one of them or of those other exiles who had sojourned at Strasbrough, Basel, Zurick, Arrow, Geneva and other places, in Q. Maries dayes, that left behinde them any monument of their agreement with M^r Dav. & M^r Cann. in limiting Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Church. But of this sto­ry, we have occasion to speak further hereafter,Chap. 7. Sect. 5. where M^r Can. againe brings more objections from thence.

SECT. IX.
Mr Dav. his pretence of agreement with Iunius examined.

BEsides the former Allegations, M^r Dav. pretendeth his agreement with Iu­nius in this question: And after his vaine excuse of H. Grotius for slighting the authority of Classes and Synods, as he did in that treatise which he published a­gainst Sibr. Lubbertus, he sayth,Apol. re­ply, p. 225. thereupon Bogermannus published his Annotations learnedly and succinctly penned, in defence of D. Sibrandus, wherein, for answer of that part which concerned the necessity and authority of Synods, he referred Grotius to what Iunius had written against Bellarmine de nceessitate & potestate Conciliorum, wherein I fully agree with Iunius. ANSVV. Had M^r Dav. fully agreed with Junius, then had it bene meet that the should have brought at least some one pregnant testimony out of Junius, to have manifested their agreement, which he hath not done. If he will constantly and fully abide by this confession of his full agreement with Junius in that which he wrote against Bellarmine concerning the necessity and authority of Sy­nods, then must he acknowledge that they have jurisdiction over particular Churches for the judging of their causes, and that they are not onely for coun­sell and admonition, &c. becauseAnim­adv. ad Bel­larm. Contr. 4. de Concil. Junius is plentifull in witnessing thus much of them: as appeareth,

First, Bellarmine complayning how the Protestants by the instigation of Sa­tan, did destroy Ecclesiasticall judgements: Junius answereth,In proe­fat. nota. 1. We also complaine of the deceytfull arts of Satan: but they are not to be deemed to take away Ecclesiasticall judge­ments, which with Paul, 1. Gor. 14. doe urge that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets: but that do we urge, &c. Junius applying this to Synods, doth thereby confesse that they are for censure and judgement of causes and persons, & not for counsell onely. He acknowledgeth the Protestants justly desired such a Councell,Not. 11. in quo cognosci, decerni & confici omnia posse confiderent, that is, wherein they hoped that all things might be examined, decreed and dispatched. This was more then counselling, and implyed jurisdiction and power of judgement. More plainely, he saith, we desire a Councell, &c.N. 13. after such a manner as we see to have bene done of old, in the examples of Synods, especially of the first Nicene, of the Chalcedon, &c. Now it is manifest in the Histories, that in these Synods there was not onely a giving of counsell, but an exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in the censure and condem­nation of Hereticks: as is hereafter shewed at large. Againe, when Bellarmine accuseth the Protestants, that they desire a Generall Councell, but such a one as never [Page 126]was: Junius answereth,N. 38. It is false. But if we should desire such a Councell as M^r Dav. describes, such a one as should be for counsell and admonition, without jurisdiction; then should the Answer of Junius be false: we should desire such a Synod as never was. It cannot be shewed that ever such a Generall Councell was held. When Bellarmine accuseth Melancthon for requiring such conditions of a Synod, that neither the persons nor causes of men should be condemned, and that so nothing at all should be decreed in the Synod: Junius answereth that this is fayned or forged of him; and shewes further that though it doe not become the Church to use a bloody cure, and corporall punishments, yet there is a more wholesome order, and tells what that is, saying,N. 40. What? Arius being overcome:— and convinced, how was he punished of the Synod? How was Macedonius, Nestorius, Eu­tyches, in those renowned Synods? Silence was injoyned them, and their office taken away: no­thing more. A most expresse testimony of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in the deposing of evill Ministers. This was more then counsell onely.

After the Preface, when in the book it self Bellarmine complaines of Here­ticks, that they devise a new forme of Synods, and then give almost no authority unto them: Junius answereth,Anim­adv. in Cōtr. 4. de Cōcil. l. 1. c. 1. n. 1. As for us, we deny both; and will (God willing) confute the first affirmation in the first book, and the latter in the second. But M^r Dav. cannot justly de­ny eyther of those assertions: for first, the single uncompounded policie doth ne­cessarily inferre a new forme of Synods: if it be not so, let him shew when and where such a forme was ever used of old. And for the second, it is granted by M^r D. his owne confession, when he alledgethApol. re­ply. p. 47. that other Churches have no pow­er of hindring a faulty election, but by admonition, which power every Christian hath in ano­ther, for his good. Is not this to give almost no power to Synods? Bellarmine to shew the divine originall of Synods alledgeth Matt. 18. there am I in the midst of them. Iunius assenting to him, saythIn cap. 3. l. 1. de Conc, n. 1. It is also demonstrated in these words of the A­postle Paul, 1, Cor. 14.32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. Both places import an authority whereunto subjection is required. When Bellarmine sayth of Bishops in Synods, that they are not Counsellours but Judges; Junius no­tethN. 2. that they are neither Counsellours nor Iudges, but declarers & ministers of the judge­ment of God in the holy Scripture: in which words he asscribeth as much power and jurisdiction unto Synods as he doth unto particular Churches. His meaning for both (according to his use of speech) is that they are not absolute but ministeri­all judges.

Whereas Bellarmine reckoneth up sundry sorts of persons that may be present at Synods, some as judges, which have a deciding or determining voyce; some for disputation, which have a consulting voyce; some as servitours or attendants; some for the defence of the Synod, to maintaine peace, &c. Junius denyeth not this but shewes that his enumeration is insufficient, saying,Ibid. in c. 15. n. 2. It is to be added, o­thers as parties or persons accused, whose cause is to be handled: for certainly it is inhumane that any should be condemned not cited, or not heard: Others againe to be Auditours, seeking their edification by enjoying that communication of holy things. Hereby it is plaine that he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods, and that they were not onely for counsell; both because he allowes a distinction of them in the Synod which had [Page 127]the authority of a determining voyce, from them that did onely dispute or con­sult; and because he intimates a judiciall proceeding in the Synods, by mentio­ning parties accused, their citing or calling of them, & the condemning of them, which imports a further matter then onely of admonition or counsell. Whereas Bellarmine accuseth us that we allow any learned men, though Laicks, to have a determining voyce, let their office be what it will: Junius answereth,N. 4. These things have none of us sayd or thought, as they are here layd downe. This is that which we say; such are to be taken into the Synod which are furnished with gifts and calling; which for gifts are godly, honest, learned; for their calling, which are either ordinarily appointed to teach, or extraordinarily sent for and brought by just authority. Now this necessity of a calling which he soSee c. 16. n. 10. & 18. & 20. &c. 17. n. 1. often urgeth and requireth to be in the members of a Synod, doth argue a speciall power and authority belonging unto them, by vertue whereof they may give sentence in the judgement of causes; whereas to admonish or coun­sell requires no more power then that which every Christian hath in another, for his good, as M^r D. himself confesseth. To the same purpose Junius shewes a­gainst Bellarmine, that the meaning of Theodosius and Valentinian was not to admit Bishops onely, but thatIbid. c▪ 15. n. 13. those onely might heare, examine, and give sentence in a Synod, which being sent from the Churches unto the Synod, were reckoned up of the Bishops, according to their letters of publick authority which they were wont to exhibit. Againe he sayth,N. 15. They which are present without the authority of the Church, of them some may one­ly heare, as the laicks or common people: some may be used in consultations, as the lear­ned men, especially Ecclesiasticall persons; but they may not give definitive sentence. And thus still by distinguishing those that gave counsell, from those that gave sentence in the Synod, it appeares he acknowledged a power of jurisdiction in Synods, and that they were not onely for counsell. So when Bellarmine sayth it was a fault in the Councell of Basill, that Presbyters or other learned men besides Bi­shops, were allowed to have not onely a consulting voyce, but a deciding suf­frage, & affirmeth that this was against the custome of all antiquity, &c. Junius answereth,N. 19. This we denye: for it was the first institution, Act. 15. and not onely the manner and custome. Seeing therefore there was such an institution of the Apostles, & in their assembly, what need was there to alledge custome? &c.

When Bellarmine chargeth the Protestants as holding that a Synod is nothing but an inquisition; and that Christ alone and his written word hath a determining voyce: Junius sayth,Ibid. in c. 18. n. [...]. It is false. for Synods have both an inquisition of that which is true, just, holy by religious communication, and also a ministeriall giving of sentence. Though he shew there and in many annotations following, that it is not lawfull for Christians to obey them further then they agree with the Scriptures; that their sentence of it self is but a persuasion, and not a constraint; a ministeriall judgement, not of absolute authority of itself, &c. yet heN. 3. grants the Lord hath commanded that we should obey the sentence of a lawfull Synod, assembled together in his name, &c. He sayth,N. 14. Synods have true judgements, so farre as they are of God according to the tables of his trueth and commandement: of themselves they are not judgements, but declarations, publications, and ministeriall pronouncings of the trueth and judgements of God. And more then this cannot be yeelded to any Ecclesiasticall [Page 128]judicatory whatsoever. Herein he fully grants as much jurisdiction to Synods, as belongs to any particular Congregation or Eldership, either apart or joyntly together.

When Bellarmine blames the Protestants for their exception against the Coun­cell of Trent, Junius answereth,Ibid. in c. 21. n. 1. It is the ordinary way of right in every appeale, that the judgement of Synods, and the exequution of their sentence be suspended and stayed so long untill the matter be againe examined in another more free or greater Assembly, &c. This answer had bene needles and impertinent, unlesse Synods had more power then of counsell and admonition onely. He sayth,N. 7. Certainly in every just Synod, Hereticks being cited, heard, present, or willfully hiding them­selves, have bene condemned: &c. When Bellarm. objects that Protestants will have nothing to be determined in Synods, and so strifes to be never ended; Junius an­swers,N. 23. that he perverts their meaning, and referres us to his preface, nota 40. where the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods is plainely avouched.

IUnius proceeding to the examination of his second book touching Synods, where Bellarmine repeats, that Synods of Bishops may judge all controversies both of faith and manners, Junius answereth,Anim­adv. in Bell. l. 2. deCōcl. c. 1. n. 1. We have granted it of those that are lawfull Sy­nods. When Bellarmine had sayd that nothing is greater then a lawfull and approved Ge­nerall Councell; Junius answereth,Ibid. c. 4. n. 2. It is false: for Christ is greater, and the Scripture is greater: seeing Christ and the Scripture are great of themselves: the Church is great by them, &c. But this answer had bene insufficient & not direct enough, if my opposites opi­nion were true. For then according to their opinion, he might more fitly have answered: that the authority of a particular Congregation is greater then the au­thority of a Generall Synod; because though the counsell and advise of the Synod was more to be reverenced in respect of many excellently learned and godly men from many Churches that were in it; yet seeing Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limi­ted to a particular Congregation, therefore the same is greater in the power of censuring, and in the use of the keyes for binding and loosing of impenitent sin­ners; seeing Synods have no jurisdiction at all over any other Churches.

Againe, when Bellarmine sets downe this insolent proposition, that the Pope cannot commit, neither unto a Synod, nor to any man the coactive judgement over himself, but onely the discretive: Iunius answereth,Ibid. in c. 18. n. 1. The proposition is most true, he cannot commit: because God hath committed it to the Synod and lawfull Councell. Wherefore we say on the contrary, neither can he commit it (for if he be the servant of God, God hath committed the judgement concerning him unto his Church) neither can he reject it: but though he be unwilling, yet both the Church is bound to judge concerning him, and he to undergoe the judgement thereof, discretive and coactive, howsoever it please men to call it. If M^r Dav. doe fully agree with Junius, as he professeth, then must he acknowledge that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Church; that lawfull Synods have authority not onely to counsell and admonish the Pope himself, and so other obstinate offendours, but also to censure thē, & to give sentence both of directive & coactive judgement against them, as occasion requires. Junius to make this more plaine, repeats it againe, and speaking of the Synods judging the Pope, saith,N. 2. Truely we grant that he cannot appoynt judges in his owne cause, because God hath [Page 129]already appoynted them by the Apostle, saying, The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, 1. Cor. 14.32. and that he may appoynt Arbiters: but we adde this withall, that the judges which God hath ordained, may by no right be rejected or refused of him.

When Bellarmine pretends that divers Popes, as Sixtus the 3^d, Leo the 3^d, Symmachus, and Leo the 4^th being accused, were willing to have their causes discussed in a Synod of Bishops, &c. Junius sayth,N. 6. And this ought so to be done of them: for they are subjected of God to a Synod of Prophets, by authority of the word. When Bellar. addes that yet the Bishops durst not judge them, affirming also, that they left the whole judgement unto God: Junius answers,N. 7. This is a fallacy from that which is not the cause, as they call it. For they did not therefore abstaine from judging, because they wanted authority to judge, but partly because they had rather that the Popes being guilty should be first judged of themselves and their owne conscience, partly because they thought it bet­ter to have their cause examined in another more full Synod, partly also because when they would examine it, the matter was not evident enough, &c. Whereas the Popes that thus farre submitted their cause to tryall, pretend that by this fact they doe not pre­scribe a law to their successours, whereby they should be constrained to doe the same: Junius sayth,Ibidē. The impudency of these men is so much the greater, who after they are delivered from judgement, doe after this manner mock their judges and such as examined their cause, and will have their ambitious licentiousnes to be esteemed for a lawfull order, asscri­bing the lawfull order of judgements in their cause unto an extraordinary and voluntary dispen­sation, as they call it. But had Junius bene of my opposites minde, he should have answered after another manner, & should have sayd, The Bishops in the Synods which durst not judge the cause of the Popes, but left the whole judgement unto God did well therein if they had knowne what they did, and the right ground thereof; for they did indeed want authority to judge: Synods might advise and counsell, but have no jurisdiction to give sentence in censuring either the Pope or any other: Synods may onely direct particular Churches to use their power aright, but have no power themselves to judge other Congregations, or any member thereof, &c. How farre was Junius from giving such an answer?

Other examples and instances alledged to shew the power of Synods in the judgement of causes, are avouched, cleared and maintained by Junius against Bel­larmines exceptions, as appeares in the cause ofIbid. in c. 19. n. 1. Marcellinus, of theN. 3. Dona­tists, and ofN. 5. Leo. Had he thought that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction had bene shut up within the bounds of a particular Congregation, he ought to have repre­hended those Synods, rather then to have spent time in vindicating their practise from the cavills of adversaries.

AS in these books de Conciliis, alledged by M^r Dav. Junius hath plainely shew­ed his agreement with us: so in his disputations against Bellarmine de Verbo Dei, he hath likewise declared his consent with us touching the authority of Sy­nods. He writes there, thatAnim­adv. in Bell. contr. 1. [...] Verbo Dei▪ l. 3. c. 3. n. 9. there be two kindes of judgements in the Church: one Pri­vate, which belongs to all the faithfull, universally and severally; the other Publick, depen­ding upon a publick calling and authority: the law and rule of both these judgements is the holy Scripture; the authour and guide is the holy Ghost, The publick judgement is either of a par­ticular Church, or of many Churches meeting together into one body, or of all; which body [Page 130]they call a Synod, a Councell, or an Assembly, &c. Seeing the Praesident and judge of the private judgement (whereof the publick is compact) is the Spirit of God, and the Scripture the law, there can be no other judge or law appoynted in the publick judgement of Synods, with­out most hainous blasphemy against God, and reproach to his Church. And the Praesidents which are given to Synods, have not the dominion and arbritement of the busines, but the pro­curing of order committed unto them, to determine matters by that one judge according to his law. It is here to be observed that under the publick judgement of the Church, he doth in like manner comprehend the authority of particular Churches, and of Synods consisting of many Churches: he speakes no otherwise of one then of the other, as touching the kinde of power that they have: he doth not attribute ju­risdiction to one & counsell to the other: he notes both to depend upon a publick calling and authority, for a ground of their proceeding. And though in both the Spirit of God be the principall judge; yet (as heIbid. in c. 5. n. 3.5.28. afterwards notes more plain­ly) he acknowledgeth a ministeriall judgment committed to them, for the de­nouncing of his judgement against such as are guilty according to his word.

Afterward, JuniusIbid. in c. 6. n. 3. shewing how unlike the Councell of Trent was to the Nicene Councell, where the Arian Bishops being present were heard, convicted by the authority of Gods word, and being convicted were condemned: though he avoucheth the Bishops of Trent to have bene the enemies of the Gospel, yet he sayth,N. 4. Otherwise as for lawfull Bishops or Elders and Deacons lawfully called into a Synod, & holding the same lawfully, we acknowledge all these things.

When Bellarmine alledgeth Basilius Emperour, who speaking of the judg­ment of Ecclesiasticall causes in a Synod, sayd, ‘To try and search out these things, it belongeth unto Patriarkes, Bishops, and Priests who have an office of government alotted unto them, who have the power of sanctifying, of loo­sing and binding, who have obtained the keyes of the Church, and not unto us which are to be fed, which stand in need to be sanctifyed, to be bound or loosed from binding:’ Junius answereth,Ibid. in c. 7. n. 9. We allow this testimony of Basilius tou­ching the lawfull order of Synods, as before. Herein we have the expresse confession of Junius touching the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, in the use of the keyes, binding and loosing.

When Bellarmine sends us unto Damascene; who sayth touching the contro­versies in the Church, ‘To determine and decree of these things, it belongeth not to Kings, but to Synods. For where two or three, saith the Lord, are ga­thered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Christ hath not given unto Kings the power of binding and loosing, but unto the Apostles and their successours, to Pastours and Teachers.’ Junius answereth,Ibid. in c. 8. n. 6. These things certainly are true, and nothing for that famous principality of the Romane Bishop, &c. We also affirme the same thing, as before, cap. 3. nota 9. &c. 10. Another evident affirmation touching the jurisdiction and power of Synods.

When Bellarmine saith that Prosper doth no otherwise proove the Pelagians to be Hereticks, but because they were condemned of the Romane Bishops, Innocen­tius, Zozimus, Bonifacius & Celestine: Junius answereth,N. 14. No otherwise? It is false. for Pelagius was first condemned by the Synod of Carthage and of Milevis: but when he [Page 131]went beyond sea to Rome, where he so craftily infinuated himself, that there was great feare lest he should inflict a soarer wound upon the Church at Rome; the Africane Bishops did pru­dently and religiously certify Innocentius by two letters, both concerning the sentence of their Synods, and concerning the imminent perill of the Romane Church, unlesse according to the example of them in Africa they did provide for the publick safety, &c. Another example of Synodicall jurisdiction allowed by Junius.

AGaine, in his disputations against Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano, Junius doth often allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, and shewes his judge­ment, that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Congregation. When Bellarmine speaking of a certaine decree made in a Synod of Africa, men­tioned by Cyprian, sayth, it was ordained thereby, that a cause should first be judged, where the crime was committed, that it did not forbid but that it might be judged againe in ano­ther place: Junius answereth,Anim­adv. in Bell. contr. 3. de Pont. Rom. l. [...]. c. 23. n. 3. Certainly this is not forbidden: For it is of common right. But that which is of common equity in case of appeale, to have a cause judged againe by another judicatory, is denyed by my opposites, in allowing no such Ec­clesiasticall jurisdiction. Whereas Bellarmine condemneth the Magdeburgenses, as being altogether absurd and ridiculous for their denyall of appeales; Junius de­nyes the fact; and saithN. 5. his reasoning is inconsequent: that all appeales should be altogether forbidden, because the appeales to them beyond the sea were forbidden.

When Calvine alledgeth a certaine Canon of the Synod held at Milevis in A­frica, to refute the ambitious usurpation of the Pope, and manifests thereby the jurisdiction of Synods in the judgement of causes, because it was decreed that ap­peales should be made to the Africane Synods, and not to the Bishop of Rome: JuniusIbid. in c. 24. n 2. &c. maintaines this allegation and vindicates it against the exceptions of Bellarmine. And heN. 11. alledgeth further to this purpose the epistle which the Councell of Africa wrote unto Pope Celestine in these words: After due saluta­tion officiously premised, we earnestly desire that hereafter you would not admit unto your au­dience those that come from hence, and that you would not receive into your communion those that are excommunicated of us, &c. This request Junius calles a modest and brotherly prohibition, to wit, that the Pope should not receive appeales from them: But if there were no superiour Ecclesiasticall power to judge the controversies of a par­ticular Congregation, then might these Africane Synods have bene accused of usurpation over particular Churches, as transgressing the bounds of modesty and of their calling, for exercising the power of the keyes in excommunicating some, as well as the Pope for his usurped authority of the keyes in receiving appeales from the Synods. Then had both the allegation of Calvine and the defence of Junius, bene partiall and unjust, condemning that in the Pope which they allow­ed in Synods.

When Bellarmine acknowledgeth that the Pope is bound to keep the Ecclesi­asticall lawes made by Synods, but quoad directionem, non quoad coactionem, accor­ding to the distinction of Lawyers touching the Prince; meaning that the Pope may use their direction, but is not under their correction or constraint; which is indeed the same thing in effect which my opposites affirme of particular Chur­ches, [Page 132]that they are bound to use the counsell and direction of Synods, but are not subject to their censure, nor under their jurisdiction: JuniusIbid. in c. 27. n. 6. denyes this di­stinction. for though (saith he) we should grant that it take place in foro soli, in ci­vill courts, to wit, for the judging of Princes; yet is it of no force in foro coeli et conscientiae, in Ecclesiasticall judicatories, because the reason of them is not alike, &c. And in the next animadversionN. 7. speaking still of those lawes & canons made by Synods, he affirmeth, that as every other Bishop, so the Pope also is subject un­to them, according to the order of the Church.

When Bellarmine sayth, the Councell or Synod of the Greekes could not make a law for the Latines, &c. JuniusN. 16. See also n. 33. denyes the same, and gives a reason, because that Synod was Oecumenicall, or universall. Therein he acknowledgeth that they had a greater authority then onely to admonish or counsell. Againe, when Bellar­mine answering the argument of Nilus saith that the Pope is not subject to Canōs, viz. of Synods, &c. that he is subject to Christ & not to the Fathers, that he doth not contemne the Fathers nor their Canons, but useth them for direction, though he cannot be compelled by them, &c. JuniusN. 40. opposeth him further, & saith,N. 42. that he ought to be subject both to Christ, and to the fathers by Christ, who hath so prescri­bed, 1. Cor. 14.29, 32. and addeth further,N. 46. If he cannot be compelled by the Canons, that he is therefore rightly called by the Spirit of God [...], that wicked one or law­lesse person, 2. Thes. 2. Whereas some now adayes beginne to speak evill of the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods, as of an Antichristian authority, Junius is so farre opposite unto them, that he accounts the Pope even in this regard to be An­tichrist and the Man of Sinne, because he refuseth to be subject unto the authority of Synods in their canons and decrees.

Moreover, in comparing of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall estate, Junius sayth,Ibid. in c. 29. n. 27. Kings have their authority in Civill matters, Rom. 13. and the Synod in Ecclesiasticall matters above the Pope, as it was defined in the Councell of Constance and Basel. And their authority is so certaine, as it is certaine that he which by force repelleth force, is armed with pu­blick authority. He distinguisheth their jurisdiction in respect of the causes judged by them, and repeats this their authority againe in theN. 28. next animadversion. And though these two kindes of government, Civill and Ecclesiasticall, doe use a dif­ferent manner of compulsion, he sayth,N. 29. Nihil refert: nos de rei substantia agimus: coactionem uterque habet; sed hic spiritualem, ille temporalem, &c. It skilleth not: we in­treat of the substance of the matter: both of them have a coactive power, or a compulsion: but the one spirituall, the other temporall, &c. A most evident assertion of Synodall ju­risdiction, and that they are not to direct onely by way of counsell, but to correct also by way of censure.

To these I might adde many other testimonies of Iunius: but these evidences al­ready cited may be sufficient to shew that he was not of this strange opinion, tou­ching the independency of Churches; and that M^r Daven. therefore hath abused his Readers, and sought to blinde their eyes, when for the credit of his cause, he would have it thought that Iunius was of his minde, while he professeth that he doth fully agree with him.

SECT. X.
His pretence of agreement with Dr Whitaker examined,

M^R Dav. to colour his opinion, as if it were no singular conceit of Mr Iacob and some few others, makes mention of the Centuriatours, as if they were of the same minde; yet he alledgeth not their words, to prove the same. But instead of others he chooseth out Dr Whitaker, as if he had bene a favourer of this opini­on, which it is likely that he never heard of, and sayth,Apol. re­ply, p. 237. 238. Whit. de Cōci. quest. 5. Argum. To these I may adde those who have handled the controversies concerning the necessity, and authority of Councills, a­mongst whom I will instance in Dr Whitaker, who speaking of the fullnes of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church, not to the Pope (which he applyeth to the Keyes in binding and loosing, shutting and opening, retaining and remitting finnes) sayth, that this power belongeth primarily, principally, and essentially to the Church, but to the severall Bi­shops onely accidentally, secundarily, and lesse principally, and explaineth himself by a rule in Philosophy, which is, that when any power is in two, in one necessarily & essentially, in ano­ther contingently and accidentally, it is more principally in him, in whom it is necessarily and essentially, then in him, whose it is onely contingently and accidentally. As the heat is more principally in the fire then in the water, because it is in the water by reason of the fire. So (sayth he) seeing this jurisdiction and fullnes of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily, but to the Pope onely secundarily, and by the Church it is manifest that it is more in the Church, then in the Pope. What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope, holds in all other parallell instances. ANSVV. First, had M^r Dav. repeated this Argument of D. Whitaker fully and justly as it is set downe by himself, then might the Reader have seen therein a plaine & evident testimony for the authority of Synods; but divers things being omitted in the beginning, middle and end of it, thereby the trueth is obscured and hidden from his Readers.

In the beginning of it, D. Whitaker propounds it thus, If the fullnes of power be in the Church, not in the Pope, then it is evident, that it hath more authority then the Pope: but the first is true: therefore the second also. Now by the Church in this place, he mea­neth the Generall Synod or Councell, as appeares by the title of this Question no­ted in the beginning of it, viz.DeCon­cil. Qu. 5. c. 1. with c. 3. Arg. 5. Whether the Synod be above the Pope: and if he had not so meant it, this his Argument had bene beside the Question. And therefore while D. Whitaker here directly concludeth a fullnes of power in Synods, and as he further calles it in this same place, that highest authority and jurisdiction which Christ hath left unto his Church; it is manifest hereby that he did not hold them to be onely for counsell & admonition; and so was farre from limiting all Ecclesiasticall juris­diction unto a particular Congregation.

In the middle, in the confirmation of this Argument, D. Whit. saith, For if all this power were in the Pope, or in any one man principally and essentially, then he dying it should perish, and so the Church should altogether loose it. But it is not lost, though the Pope dye a thousand times, but it remaineth with the Church, without which the Pope though li­ving could have no part of this authority. Now to argue on this manner against the au­thority we asscribe unto Synods, by comparing them with particular Churches, as he doth against the Pope compared with Synods, would be inconsequent, une­quall, and no parallel instance; because the title of the Church is no where gi­ven unto the Pope, or unto any one person, as it is unto an assembly of Ministers, [Page 134]Governours, or Deputies of Churches met together in the name of Christ in Sy­nods: because though we asscribe unto Synods some jurisdiction, yet we doe not say that all power is in them originally, and so to be derived unto others as is sayd of the Pope; and consequently because there is no such danger that the power of the Church should be lost and perish by the death of such as are members of the Synod, as might be by the death of the Pope, if all power were primarily and es­sentially in him alone. And therefore it is a vaine assertion of M^r Dav. touching this argument of D. Whit. viz What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope, holds in all other parallell instances.

In the end of this Argument prosequuted by D. Whitak. he concludeth thus: Wherefore seeing it is certaine that this power is given unto the Church primarily, and not unto the Pope but secondarily and by accident, and seeing the Church is represented in the Sy­nod: it is of necessity that the Synod must be above the Pope. And thus most evidently he grants unto the Synod, as being a representative Church, a power & jurisdiction above the Pope, a power which consists in binding and loosing, shutting & ope­ning, retaining and remitting of sinnes, as himself here explaines it, and so is di­rectly contrary to them which allow no more unto Synods, but counsell and ad­monition. Why did M^r Davenp. omit and refuse to name the Synod, which D. Whit. so expressely mentioneth, applying & yeelding unto the Synod that power which he there pleades for?

Secondly, as for that similitude of fire and water, though it be granted that heat is more principally in the fire then in the water, because it is in the water by reason of the fire: yet hereby heat is not denyed to be in the water, but on the con­trary acknowledged to be derived into the water; and experience shewes that by the heat so communicated unto the water many excellent effects are produced for the service of man. And so when Ecclesiasticall authority is by the Church com­mitted and communicated to Ecclesiasticall Officers in calling of them, then doth it belong unto them, though secondarily and lesse principally, as both D. Whita. confesseth & M^r Dav. himself repeateth.

THat it may yet further appeare how unjustly the name of D. Whitaker is pre­tended and alledged both by M^r Dav. here, & by M^r Canne hereafter, against the authority of Synods, I will here set downe divers pregnant assertions and ex­presse testimonies of his, gathered out of sundry of his writings for help of the Readers. In them all may see how fully opposite he was to my opposites. To be­ginne with this treatise de Conciliis, of Councells or Synods, out of which M^r D. took this allegation above-mentioned: This book comprehends 6 Questions touching Synods; & in handling every one of these Questions, he speakes plainly for the authority & jurisdiction of Synods. These 6 Questions are

• 1. Touching the necessity and profit of Synods.
• 2. By what authority they are to be assembled.
• 3. Of what persons they consist.
• 4. Who is to be Praesident in them.
• 5. Whether they be above the Pope.
• 6. Whether they can erre.

I For the first Question, touching the necessity of Synods: There he brings 8 reasons to prove the necessity and profit of them. I will not insist upon each of them as I might, but mention onely one or two of them. ‘The third cause is, sayth he, Whitak. de Conc. q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. that [...], or good order, and right and lawfull discipline may both be appoynted and maintained, and that Canons may be made and confirmed. For the Church hath alwayes had authority of making and enacting Ecclesiasti­call lawes, and of prescribing them to others, and of punishing those which did not observe them.’ And this authority hath alwayes bene accounted necessary. This was more then counselling or admonishing.P. 21. ‘The eight and last, and that the chiefest cause of Synods is, that even as in Politick and Civill judgements malefactours upon examination are accused and condemned; so in the Church Hereticks might be condemned and pronounced anathema by publick judge­ment, and that the trueth might be vindicated from their calumnies. But as there, judgement is not to be given according to the will of the judge, but ac­cording to law: so here Hereticks, enemies of faith and religion, are not to be condemned but according to the publick and Imperiall law, that is, the Scrip­ture. For a Synod is as it were a publick Court, or Imperiall Chamber, or Par­liament, wherein the Judges hearing both sides do give sentence, and decree matters of greatest weight. For although Hereticks may be condemned of se­verall Churches apart: yet when they are condemned as it were of the whole Church, the sentence is more solemne and of greater weight. So Arius was condemned first of Alexander and the Councell at Alexandria, but afterward with greater authority by the Synod of Nice, &c.’ By these words of D. Whi­taker we may see what wrong they doe unto him, which pretend that he should deny the jurisdiction of Synods.

II The second Question is, by whose authority Synods are to be assembled. Here D. Whitaker relating how Bellarmine pleads for the Popes authority,De Cōc. q. 2 c. 2. p. 42, &c. repeats his 4^th Argument, taken from an ancient Canon wherein it was concluded, that without the minde of the Romane Bishop it was not lawfull to celebrate or hold Synods. D. Whit. answers that this Canon mentioned byLib. 2. cap. 8. Socrates, is not rightly transla­ted: he sayth, [...], doth not signify celebrare Concilia, to hold Synods, as Cassiodorus hath ill translated it, whose translation they abuse; nor yet Ecclesias consecrare, to consecrate Churches, as Illyricus doth amisse translate it, but leges Ecclesiasticas sancire, et canones Ecclesiis praescribere, to ordaine Ecclesiasticall lawes, & to prescribes Canons unto Churches. And being thus translated, he sayth, We acknowledge & approve this Canon, as most just. For reason itself teacheth & telleth, that that which con­cerneth all, ought to be approved of all. Therefore it was meet that those Canons which should be generall, should be approved also of the Bishop of Rome, who was one of the chief Bishops. Now if D. Whita. allow that Canon to be most just, which grants unto Synods an authority of making Ecclesiasticall lawes and enjoyning the Churches to keep them, then it is manifest hereby that he confessed the jurisdiction of Synods, and that they were not onely for counsell & admonition.

And in the same place D. Whitak.P. 45, 46 relates how the Bishops of the Orientall [Page 136]Churches meeting together in a Synod at Antioch, did by common sentence write unto Iulius the Bishop of Rome, and by way of rebuke sayd unto him, that they were not to be overruled by him, that if they would cast any out of their Churches, [...], that such ought not to be restored of him, even as those whom he cast out could not be restored of them. Although D. Whit. acknowledge the errours and faults of some that were in that Synod, yet he approveth this their writing in reproof of Julius, and sayth, they all did gravely rebuke his arrogance & in­solence. Though that Synod abused their power in censuring Athanasius unjustly, yet that they had a power of censure, & casting out of their Churches, is not de­nyed, but maintained against the Bishop of Rome.

III The third Question is touching the persons whereof Synods doe consist. Here D. Whit.De Cōci. Qu. 3. c. 1. first describes the Popish opinion, and reckons up the foure sorts of persons, whom they allow to come unto Synods, namely, that Some are present as judges, who have a determining voyce: Others, to dispute and examine difficulties, and these have a consultative voyce: Others, to defend the Synod, and to see that peace be kept within & without: Others, to serve as notaries, watchmen, servants. Then he shewes that they al­low onely the greater Prelates, that is, all Bishops and Archbishops to have the right of a de­termining voyce in universall and particular Synods ordinarily, but that Cardinals, Abbots, Generalls of Orders, though they be not Bishops, yet by extraordinary priviledge may also have a determining suffrage: as for all others whatsoever they be, they may be profitable, but not have a determining voyce or suffrage. After this he shewes the opinion of the Protestants, that not onely the greater Prelates, but whatsoever learned and godly men are sent, being chosen by the Churches of severall Provinces, and judged fit for that busines, ought to have equall authority in giving suffrages, and so to be judges as well as any others. But had D. Whit. bene of my opposites minde, he should have con­demned each of these opinions, both of Papists and Protestants, and should have sayd that neither one nor other sorts of persons were to be admitted for judges in Synods, but onely for counsellours and admonishers: that none of them were to have determining voyces or to give definitive sentence, but onely to shew their advise, & to have a consultative voyce.

When Bellarmine alledgeth that the Prelates onely, as being Pastours of the Church are to have definitive voyces; D. Whit. answering his arguments, sayth,Ibid. c. [...] p. 85. The end of Synods is not to feed, viz. by teaching as proper pastours, but to decide controversies, to prescribe Canons, to correct abuses, to order Churches, and to doe other things, which belong unto the peaceable and quiet state of the Church. Herein he yeelds unto Synods not onely advise for direction, but jurisdiction and power of cor­rection, &c.

To prove this authority of Presbyters or Elders, he alledgeth Act. 16.4. where there is mention of the decrees, ordained by the Apostles and Elders, and sayth thereupon,Ibid. c. 3. p. 96. 97. Who dare now denye the Elders to have had a determining suffrage? They did not onely dispute or consult, but did also judge and decree together with the Apostles. For the word, determi­ned, ordai­ned. [...] is equally applyed unto both. These things are so manifest that no man can gainsay it, To this end also he arguethP. 102. 103. that a Generall Synod represents [Page 137]the Vniversall Church: that whosoever is sent of a Church, represents the person of that Church. And finallyP. 103, 104, &c. from ancient histories he alledgeth the examples of divers Synods, as of Chalcedon, Nice, and Constantinople, wherein this power & ju­risdiction was exercised.

IV A fourth Question is about the Praesident of Synods. In this dispute, Bellarmine alledging that Constantine professed himself to be subject unto the Bishops, and that he ought to be judged of them; D. Whitaker allowing and commending that profession, an­swereth and sayth,De Cōc. q. 4. c. 3. p. 132. What then? This hindereth not but that he might be Praesident. For if a Bishop had bene Praesident, ought be not to have bene judged of other Bishops? What godly Prince would not have sayd so? Hereby he acknowledgeth, that jurisdiction & authority of judgement is no undue power of Synods, and that even the worthiest persons ought to be subject thereunto.

V A fift Question is whether Synods be above the Pope. Here D. Whitaker ha­ving first shewed what the Popish opinion is, he then declares the opinion of the Protestants, and sayth,De Cōc. q. 5. c. 1. p. 146. Seeing the Pope is the Bishop onely of one Church, he is not one­ly not superiour unto all Bishops assembled together, but not so much as superiour unto any of them apart. Therefore we say that a Synod may also decree against the will of the Pope, may take cognition of the Popes cause, may judge the Pope, & compell him unto order, may prescribe lawes unto the Pope, which are to have force against his will, and finally may condemne the Pope and deprive him of his office, if he be worthy of such a punishment. Now if a Synod have this power to judge, censure and depose the Popes, then hath it as much power to judge and censure other Ministers and members of other Churches, un­lesse it can be shewed that they have more authority then the Pope, or some strange priviledge to exempt them from that jurisdiction of Synods, whereunto others are in subjection.

AfterwardsIbid. c. 3 he brings 10 Arguments to prove the superiority of Synods a­bove the Pope. And in them there be plenteous evidences touching the autho­rity of Synods. Those arguments which prove that the Synods have jurisdiction over the Pope and power to censure him, doe alwayes prove that Synods have jurisdiction and power of censure. Otherwise, though the Pope deserved cen­sure, yet it should be an usurpation in the Synod, to doe that for which they had no calling nor warrant: even as in the execution of Civill judgments, it should be a presumptuous and unlawfull usurpation, if private men being no Magistrates should take upon them to punish malefactours, though they had justly deserved the same.

Not to insist upon many other things which out of those 10 Arguments might be alledged for our purpose, I will onely instance in one example that is thereIbid. p. 195. 196. urged by D. Whitaker, and taken out of Sozomen, lib. 4. c. 15, or as in some editions, c. 14. who recordes that the Synod of Syrmium made an Act, whereby Foelix the Bishop of Rome was appoynted to admit Liberius to be his fellow in the admini­stration of the Romane Church. Hence D. Whitak. inferres, So it seemed good unto the Synod: therefore the Synod was above the Pope and above that Church. Bellarmine an­swers, The Synod did not command, but onely exhort Foelix by letters, that he would suffer Liberius to sit with him. D. Whit. replyes againe, Touching letters of exhortation, So­zomen [Page 138]makes no mention of them. He sayth onely, [...], &c. They write unto Foelix, &c. And that these letters were mandatory it appeares, because otherwise Foe­lix would never have yeelded. Thus we see from hence, that Synods have power (at least in the judgement of D. Whit.) not onely to exhort & admonish, which every Christian may doe, but also to prescribe & injoyne that which is equall & just, and so that others are to be subject thereunto.

VI The sixt and last Question is, whether Synods can erre. Now lest any should take occasion hereby to deny the authority of Synods, it is to be observed, that D. Whitaker doth in like manner affirme, that any lawfull assembly, even of those that are met together in the name of Christ,(z) De Cōc. q. 6. c. 2. p. 216. may erre also. He sayth, (a) Though Christ be in the midst of them which are assembled in his name, it followes not, that they doe not erre: For all are not free from errour with whom Christ is present. And truely two or three which meet in the name of Christ, may be deceived, may erre in many things, and may aske those things which are not to be asked, and so be disappointed of their hope, and yet Christ be among them. For Christ doth not alwayes exempt them from errour, with whom he is. Wherefore seeing every Ecclesiasticall assembly, every Eldership, and every parti­cular Church, being subject to errour, and erring often, are not yet deprived of their jurisdiction and power in the judgement of causes: so though Synods want infallible judgement, and erre sometimes, yet are they not therefore without ju­risdiction and authority. But further he avoucheth plainly that Synods have ju­diciall authority, when he sayth,Ibid. c. 3. p. 322. A Synod is sayd to doe lawfully, not onely when it condemneth and excommunicateth those which are to be condemned & pronounced Anathema, but also when it ordaines and maintaines those decrees which agree with the Scripture, &c. Had he bene of my opposites opinion he should have sayd the contraty, viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemne those that deserve to be condemned, but onely admonish them, and so leave them to others. Yea he pro­ceeds further, & sayth concerning Generall Synods, thatIbid. p. 270. In them is a soveraigne power, and they have the highest authority in the Church. He doth not onely grant unto them jurisdiction, but greater then is in any particular Church, or in any other Ec­clesiasticall judicatory.

Moreover, whereas Bellarmine maintaines that Synods cannot erre when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope, and that all their authority depends u­pon him; hereupon D. Whita. argueth thus against him:Ibid. c. 1. p. 214. If there be such weight in the Pope, that without him neither Provinciall nor Generall Synod have in them any force, it may worthily be demanded, what part the Bishops have in a Synod, whether they be onely ad­monishers or counsellours, or whether they be judges? for if they be counsellours onely, why are none but Bishops admitted unto Synods? why not others rather who are more learned then Bishops? &c. He notes it as a poynt of great absurdity, and as a great strait where­unto the Papists are brought, against their will & against their profession, that Bi­shops should have no other place in Synods but of admonishers and counsellours. For indeed what use is their of suffrages, of definitive and determining voyces, if in the end all be determined by the Pope? why might not advises and counsels have sufficed in such case? This observation D. Whitaker holds to be of speciall use, and worthy to be remembred, and therefore repeats it oft.Ibi. c. 2. p. 221, 222. What place (I [Page 139]pray you) doe Bishops obtaine in Synods? what doe they? to wh [...] end doe they meet? Is it that they may judge, or is it that they may onely counsell and admonish? Are they therefore judges, or are they onely admonishers & counsellours? This indeed some of them thinke, that they may onely admonish in Synods, that they may move questions and dispute, but may not judge. Naclantus Bishop of Clug (as we taught before) in his treatise de potestate Papae & Concilii, sayth. The power of the Pope is royall, the power of the Synod is consi­liaria, by way of counsell; the power of the Pope is altogether definitive, the power of the Synod is of ambulatory definition, that is, as I interpret it, wandring & uncertaine. Bellarmine indeed, and the Iesuites that now are, hold that the Bishops are jud­ges, but doubtles they meane an ambulatory judgement, that is, none at all. For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone. Now this absurd opinion which he notes to have bene the conceit of Naclantus, expressed in plaine words, and of Bellarmine and other Papists by consequence, is even the same that is professed by M^r Jacob, M^r Dav. & M^r Cann. for though they differ in respect of the power of the Pope, yet in respect of the power belonging to Synods, they make the persons where­of the Synods consist, to be no other then admonishers or counsellours, not ha­ving any jurisdiction at all. D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus, but speaking againe of the Popes over-ruling of Synods, he doth againe record this observation, say­ing,Ibid. c. 3. p. 267. Certainly this is that which we sayd before, that Bishops assembled in a Synod, are not judges, but onely admonishers, that the Pope alone is judge of all controversies, that the rest have no authority. For if Bishops were judges, judgement should be done according to the greatest number, and the sentence of the most judges should prevaile. We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a speciall providence of God, and directed by his Spi­rit, thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to poynt out and commend to our consideration this evill consequent of making Synods to be onely admonishers or counsellours; that so we might have his writing for a Testimony against this er­rour, which within a while after was to be broached & made common by M^r Ja­cob, and some others; that which the Brownists had done before, being neither so commonly knowne nor regarded.

VNto this his writing De Conciliis, we may adde his treatise De Pontifice Roma­no, in which controversy he discusseth 8 questions; and in the most of them he gives testimony for the authority of Synods, against my opposites. The Que­stions be these:

• 1. Whether the government of the Church be Monarchicall.
• 2. Whether any Monarchy of the Church was setled in Peter.
• 3. Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome, and dyed there.
• 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in a Monarchy Ecclesiasticall.
• 5. Whether the Pope be Antichrist.
• 6. Whether the Pope can erre in the faith.
• 7. Whether the Pope can make lawes to binde the conscience.
• 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be given by Christ to the Pope immediately.

In handling the first Question, whereas the Papists require a Monarch to keep inferiour Officers in order and unity, D. Whitaker sayth,De Pont. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 19. If any will not doe their duety, and discharge their office, they are to be admonished and rebuked, and except they obey, [Page 140]they are at length to be remooved by the judgement of the Church, or the Synod, or the Christi­an Magistrate: and there are knowne meanes enough of keeping Ministers in their duety, and the Church in unity, without a Pope. He acknowledgeth that Synods have not onely power to admonish, which every Christian may doe, but after admonition to cen­sure & remove or depose the obstinate.

When Bellarmine to prove the superiority of Bishops, objects 1. Tim. 5. Those that sinne rebuke before all. D. Whit. answers,Ibid p. 43. This equalls also may doe. So of old, if any Elder or Bishop was accused, the Bishops brought the matter unto an Ecclesiasticall Se­nate or Synod, and if he did seeme worthy of it, they condemned him by a publick judgement, that is, they eyther suspended, or excommunicated, or deposed him. He declaresP. 48. & 49. that the Church hath bene preserved in greatest tempests and troubles by Synods, and commends them for their use of jurisdiction in judging of causes, and shewes how those that would not yeeld unto such authority, were removed from their places, and others amended by their examples. He sayth,P 92. Though one alone could not judge of another, yet a Synod, and as it were a Senate or Session of Bishops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their causes. He observeth againe out of Cyprian,P. 93. No Bishop could be judge of another: of another (I say) not of others, because a Synod of Bishops could alwayes judge a Bishop: therefore the Monarchicall primacy of the Romane Bi­shop is of no divine right. As he doth fully condemne the usurpation of one Bishop above another, so by way of opposition he doth fully and plentifully avouch the authority of many, meeting together in Synods, not onely for counsell & admo­nition, but for jurisdiction in judging & censuring of offendours.

II After this, in the prosequution of the second Question, Bellarmine pleading for the Monarchy and jurisdiction of Peter, because he in speciall was charged to feed the sheep of Christ, and among other Pastorall acts, noting this for one, to judge controversies: D. Whit. answers,De Pont. Rom. q. 2. c. 7. p. 229. What controversies? Of religion? But the other Apostles did that also as well as he: and the Synods of Bishops and learned men can doe this, even as we read that it hath often bene practised in the Churches for many ages, before this principality of the Pope was brought into the Church.

Furthermore, D. Whitaker useth this argument to prove a superiority of pow­er in a company or assembly of the Apostles above one or two of them:Ibid. p. 260. The Apostles send Peter to Samaria: therefore Peter was not the head of the Apostles, but rather was in subjection unto their authority. Act. 8.14. He sayth, A sending doth alwayes and ne­cessarily imply a subjection in him that is sent, if he be sayd properly to be sent. This man­ner of reasoning makes for the authority of Synods, consisting of a company of Ministers or other Deputies of Churches orderly assembled, whiles he argueth that a Colledge or company of the Apostles had superiority of power over some singular persons among them, though considered apart they were all equall in power. He sayth concerning Peter & Iohn,P. 261. We read that both of them were sent by the Colledge of the Apostles: from whence we doe justly conclude both that these two Apostles were equall, & that the authority of sending was in the Apostles. He shewes alsoP. 297, 297. that the decree made in the Synod, Act. 15. was not confirmed by the authority of Peter alone, but by common consent of the Apostles & the Church, for the repressing of false Apostles, &c.

IV In the examination of the fourth Question, whereas Bellarmine would have a double errour to be observed: one, of those who teach that the Pope may be judged, punished, and deposed by the Emperour, if he discharge not his office a­right; another, of them that maintaine he may be judged and censured by a Synod of Bishops, though not by a secular Prince: D. Whitaker answereth,Ibid. qu. 4. p. 513, 514. We ac­knowledge both of these, but we say there is no errour here. For the Bishop of Rome may be de­posed, both by the Emperour, when there is cause, and by a Synod of Bishops, and that not one­ly Generall, but Particular of that Province; whereunto Calvine most truely affirmeth him to be subject, and that he may be judged of it: and those that perswade the Pope otherwise, we affirme them to be flatterers & parasites, rebels to God & the Emperour. And many the like assertions he hath in the handling of that question, wherein the jurisdiction of Synods is witnessed by him.

V In the fift Question concerning Antichrist,Ibid. q. 5. p. 674, 675. he notes it to be an evidence of Antichristian pride in the Pope, that he is by the Jesuites affirmed to be above the Synod.

VI Proceeding to the sixt Question, touching the errours of Popes,Qu. 6. p. 797.805.812, 813. he avou­cheth the jurisdiction of Synods, by alledging many examples and instances where­in they exercised this power; as in the condemning of Pope Honorius, Gregory the 7^th, or Hildebrandus, John the 23^th, Eugenius, &c.

VII Touching the seventh Question, about the Popes making of lawes to binde the conscience, though D. Whitaker teach that it belongs to God alone to give lawes unto the conscience: yet he sayth,Qu. 7. p. 853. The Church hath authority of making lawes concerning decency, & it is our duety to obey, yet concerning the things themselves the conscience is alwayes free, &c. He addes, Whereas the adversary saith, that all true lawes have a coac­tive or constraining force: if he so understand it, that they constraine & burden the conscience, with respect unto the things themselves, it is false: for certainely even these also doe constraine af­ter a sort, to wit, if we have respect unto the generall rule, so that if there come contempt or offence or schisme, the violation of them cannot be excused. Againe he saith to like purpose,P. 867. Whereas Bellarm. sayth, we can abide no lawes, therein he doth egregiously slander: for we allow & much esteeme of lawes, even Ecclesiasticall lawes, & do teach that they are to be obeyed, & do subject ourselves unto them: but we will not that our consciences be bound or ensnared, nor the li­berty which Christ hath givē, to be taken from us. How the Church exerciseth this pow­er of making lawes, he explainethDe Cōc. q. 1. c. 3. p. 18. elswhere, namely in Synods. And seeing here he teacheth obedience and subjection unto them, it is plaine that he allowes unto Synods a greater authority then onely of admonishing or counselling. This he ex­presseth more plainly, even in this Question also, when he sayth,De Pont. Rom. q. 7. p. 849. It is lawfull for Synods, both Generall & Provinciall, to make lawes and to ordaine certaine rites which belong unto good order and the outward policie of the Church; and they are to be deposed which doe not keep the same: but our consciences are not bound with those lawes, except contempt & scandall be added, as was sayd before.

SECT. XI.
His Allegation of Chamierus examined.

BEsides these Allegations set downe in his Apologeticall Reply, there remaineth yet to be considered of us the testimony of Daniel Chamierus, another learned man, whom M^r Dav. had cited before any of these, to wit, in his letter which [Page 142]he sent to the Classis, printed by W. B. saving,Book of compl. p. 2. The power of every particular Church, is chief in its owne particular matters, (or in things which are proper to it self) as a Synod hath the chief power, in things that are common to many Churches, witnesse Chamier­cont. Bell. lib. 2.

ANSVV. The quotation of this Testimony is imperfectly described, so that men cannot finde the same, by the direction he gives, there being many second bookes in those 4 Tomes of that great work, each of them contayning many chapters, and none of them specifyed by him. It seemes he took this testimony from M^r Parker, who hath also imperfectly cited the same: for though he menti­on not onely the second book, but also pag. 193. yet is not that testimony there to be found. But wheresoever it is, he might haveSee be­fore, pag. 92, 93. found in M^r Parker suffi­cient answer and satisfaction for it, while he addeth three other causes wherein the authority of Synods is superiour unto particular Churches, wherein is expressed & contained as much power as we asscribe unto Synods.

But that it may further appeare how M^r Dav. is condemned by his owne wit­nesse, it is to be considered touching this famous light of Gods Church, that as heEpist. Dedicat. undertook that great work at the appoyntment and command of a Synod; as his sonne Adr. Chamierus after his fathers death dedicated that work unto the excellent and faythfull servants of God, the Pastours and Elders of the French Churches assembled in a Nationall Synod, comparing them to the threescore valiant men of the valiantest in Israel, compassing the bed of Salomon, all holding swords, expert in warre, every man with his sword upon his thigh: because of feare in the night; Sol. song, c. 3.7, 8. and as againe speaking of the Synod, he applyes unto them that which is sayd of the Tower of David, where the shields of the mighty men are hanged up, &c. Sol. song, 4.4. so in the book itself there are many ample and pregnant testimonies touching the authority & jurisdiction of Synods.

And first of all, where he proves that the government of the Church is Ari­stocraticall, by many, and not Monarchicall, by one, he makes this distinction,Chamie. Panstrat. Cath. Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 5. The government of Churches is either of severall Churches, or of many together, viz. by Synods. In both he maintaines an Aristocracie or jurisdiction of many. He doth not restraine jurisdiction to particular Congregations, and allow onely counsell or advise to Synods: but he useth the same words and phrases to describe the power and government of one sort as well as of the other, to note a like kinde of autho­rity in both.

For the government of many Churches together in a Province, he savth,Ibid. c. 7. For the disposing and directing of publick affaires, Provinciall Synods were appointed, that is, companies of Bishops in the same Province, which were assembled so often as need & commodi­ty required. For evidence thereof he alledgeth divers Canons, & commendeth Cy­prian for observing that order.

Touching the administration of all Churches in the world, he sayth;Ibid. c. 8. He that denyeth these to have bene governed by Vniversall Synods, must be either notoriously im­pudent, or ignorant of all antiquity. For in the very beginnings, when a great question was raysed about the rites of Moses, and some would have those that were converted from heathe­nish Idolatry, to be subjected unto them, Luke testifyeth that a Synod was assembled, Act. 15. [Page 143]The Apostles and Elders came together to looke unto this matter. And by the au­thority of this Synod, that question was compounded; which authority that they might signi­fy to be the greatest, the decree is conceived in these words, It seemed good unto the ho­ly Ghost and to us. And that this was an Oecumenicall or Universall Synod, he there maintaineth by divers reasōs against Ioverius, who in regard of the small num­ber that met together, affirmed it to be a particular Synod.

It seemes also that this was the place from whence M^r Parker took that which he alledged out of Chamierus, because in these two chapters, 7. & 8. are contai­ned those testimonies which he citeth. And here it is that he speakes of causa com­munis, or the common cause, which Cyprian would have to be judged by a Sy­nod. And here it is that he speakes of some proper causes, belonging peculiarly to some Bishops in their speciall charges, viz. c. 7. But these things are not one­ly misquoted by Mr Dav. by putting the 2^d book for the 10^th, but the sense is al­tered, while Chamierus comparing Bishops with Metropolitanes, restraines some things from Metropolitanes to such Bishops as had divers countries under them. And though he shew how Cyprian brought a common cause unto the Sy­nod, yet he doth not affirme that onely such common causes were to be brought unto Synods. Chamierus doth not witnesse that the power of every particular Church is chief in its owne particular matters, as M^r D. alledgeth him for witnesse thereof. And in c. 8. he brings many evidences to witnesse the power of Generall Synods in judging the causes of all Churches.

Againe in the Question whether the Bishop of Rome may be judged of any, Chamierus shewes the opinion of the Protestants, whom he calleth Catholicks in opposition to the Papists, thatIbid. l. 13. c. 17. No Bishop at all may by divine right be judged of ano­ther; but of many, to wit in a Synod, so as it hath most often bene done. And when Bel­larmine objected the examples of some Synods, that refused to judge the Bishop of Rome, Chamierus answereth, that some of them were particular Synods, consi­sting onely of such as were under the Romane. Therefore they could make no generall decree; but could onely ordaine that the Bishop of Rome should not be judged of them assembled in a particular Synod: which certainely they either did not speak concerning a Generall Synod, or els they spoke falsely. A plaine confession of the jurisdiction of Synods: for had he spoken of counsell or admonition onely, why might not any one particular Bishop or Synod have admonished the Pope upon occasion, and given their ad­vise touching him?

In his dispute touching Appeales, he sayth,Ibid. l. 14. c. 2. We doe not take away all appeales. For they are of common equity: and truely without them the Discipline of the Church could hardly or not at all subsist. And he speakes there of such appeales as were made un­to Synods. Afterward, speaking of the imposture or coosenage of the Bishop of Rome in the sixt Councell of Carthage, where appeales denyed to Rome, are yet expressely allowed to be made unto the Synods of their owne Province or to a Gene­rall Councell: hereupon Chamierus cryes out,Ibid. c. 3. Immane! quantam crucem &c. O how unspeakable a crosse is procured unto our Papists by the sincere constancy of those good fathers! among whom were those great men, Aurelius of Carthage, and Augustine of Hippo, &c. Now look what weight and strength the testimony of those African fathers [Page 144]hath against the Papists; even so much authority hath it against such as stand for the single, uncompounded policie, which deny the jurisdiction and power of Sy­nods, to determine such causes as by appeales are brought unto them. For the jurisdiction of Synods in receiving appeales is in the same place as plainly confes­sed, as the jurisdiction of the Pope is denyed by their prohibition of appeales to be made unto him.

Againe when he proves that the Pope is subject to Ecclesiasticall judgement, he doth in the same question with one conclude that there is a superiority of pow­er and jurisdiction in Synods to judge of him. He instancethIbid. c. 10. in Honorius a Bi­shop of Rome, who by the sixt Synod was not onely judged, but condemned as a Monothelite. This was more then counsell or admonition. He shewes in the same place that many lawes were made concerning Bishops, both of the Apostles and of Synods, which doe cer­tainly binde all Bishops. When Bellarmine answereth that the Pope is bound by Ec­clesiasticall lawes in respect of direction, not of coaction (which distinction is in effect the same which our opposites use now, viz. that Synods may binde or be respec­ted for their counsell, not for their jurisdiction) Chamierus replyeth againe and pleades that the Bishop of Rome is subject unto those lawes, not onely for their direction but for their coaction or constraint, viz. in regard of Ecclesiasticall censures. He sayth further, Even as particular Synods doe binde all the Bishops within their owne jurisdiction, so Vniversal Synods have power over all the Bishops of the whole world. Againe, because particular Synods doe binde all the Bishops of their owne Province: therefore the Bishop of Rome is subject unto the lawes, not onely of an universall, but also of his owne particular Synod. Moreover he instanceth in divers particular lawes which the sixt Synod prescribed unto the Church of Rome, by name touching the permission of marriage, fasting, &c.

Moreover when Bellarmine and P. Auratus doe plead for the Popes suprema­cy, as being necessary to the unity of faith and the unity of the Church, &c. Cha­mierus answereth,Lib. 9. c. 13. Of old, when many heresies sprung up, they never ran unto any one man, by whose authority questions might be decided. When disputation was raysed against Paul and Barnabas touching Mosaicall ordinances, the Apostles called a Synod, Act. 15. which remedy the Church thence-forth used most diligently, as often as either heresies or schismes did break the unity thereof. He alledgeth divers examples thereof, in speciall of Constan­tine, and Innocentius in the question about Chrysostome. And speaking of such Synods as used not onely counsell, but jurisdiction in censuring the guilty, such as was the Councell of Nice, he sheweth thence, they found no other remedy fit enough to preserve Ecclesiasticall unity in faith & love, except a Generall Synod. He sayth againe, We understand that the best and most certaine meanes of nourishing unity is a Synod, not one Monarch. And among others he alledgeth Aegidius Viterbiensis, who dis­puted on this manner; Paul the glory of the Apostles, when he would shew the chief poynt of our salvation, sayth, Without faith we can by no meanes please God: but without Synods faith cannot stand: therefore without a Synod we cannot be safe. And afterwards; What­soever hath bene done in the Church worthy of praise, worthy of honour from the age of Mel­chiades, either to resist the enimy or to settle the Commonwealth, that all sprung from Synods and is againe to be referred unto Synods. And many other things he there bringeth to maintaine the authority of Synods, without any shew that he ever light upon this [Page 145]dreame, that they were onely for counsell.

To conclude, whereas Chamierus was translated out of this life, before he had fully finished that great work of his Panstratia Catholica; and therefore for the fi­nishing of it there is added unto his 4^th Tome, a Supplement by Alstedius; in that Supplement there is also a plaine confession touching the authority of Synods. Therein Alstedius treading in the steps of Junius and D. Whitaker,De Cōc. c. 1. sect. 6. doth ac­knowledge that the originall of Synods is from divine right, alledging Deut. 17. Act. 1. & ch. 15. Mat. 18. Repeating the causes wherefore Synods are to be cal­led, he doth not limit them to be for counsell onely, but thatCap. 4. sect. 2. as malefactours in Civill judgements are tryed, accused & condemned, so in the Church obstinate Hereticks are by publick judgement to be condemned and excommunicated. He allowes unto those that are lawfully called unto Synods,C. 5. s. 2. to have right of giving definitive sentence, and of de­termining matters according to the Scriptures. He maintaines that Synods have autho­rity over the Pope, and thatC. 10. s. 21. he is bound to subject himself unto their judgement, dis­cretive and coactive: not onely to their counsell, but to their censure. And if these did not suffice, there are yet many other cleare testimonies which Alstedius there gives touching the jurisdiction of Synods.

SECTION, I.
Touching the Testimonies of Papists.

HAving promised to produce the Testimonies of Reverend and judicious Authors, as he calles them, he brings in the Papists and drawes out the Popish band in the first place against me. When Mr Spr. once heretofore had pro­pounded divers Confiderations unto them of the Separation, and among other things the testimony and approbation given to the Church of England by sundry learned men, as Bucer, Martyr, Fagius, Alasco, Knox, Calvine, Beza, &c. M^r Ains­worth answers,Coun­terp. p. 19. Though you come against us with horsmen and charets; yet we will remember the name of the Lord our God, &c. That which David speakes of his refuge against the forces of the Heathenish Princes, Psal. 20.7. he applyes against these Worthies, which were indeed the horsemen and charets of Israel: 2. King. 2.12. & 13.14. But that might I much more justly apply unto M^r Canne, that alledgeth against me, and so unjustly, such a company of Romanists, the horsmen and charets of Antichrist, the Locusts like horses prepared unto the battell. Rev. 9.7.

And here first of all let it be considered what open wrong he doth unto the Pa­pists, Bellarmine, the Rhemists, &c. in faining that they will not allow that go­vernment now, which they acknowledge to have bene used of old; while he saith, Howsoever Romes-Champions will have none now to meddle with Church-government, but Priests, Bishops, Prelates, &c. yet they doe acknowledge that in the primitive Church, accor­ding to the precept of Christ, in Mat. 18. offenders, after the first and second admonition, were brought to the whole Congregation, &c. This which he faineth to be granted by them, touching a diversity of Government in respect of times, cannot be justly affirmed. For Bellarmine in the placeDeVer­bo Dei, l. 3. c. 5. alledged by him, pleads for the same Government to be used now, which he shewes to have bene ordained and con­firmed by Christ and his Apostles, and to that end he alledgeth 8 or 9 places of Scripture out of the new Testament, as grounds of the same Government. And in theIbid. c. 5 Chapter following he laboureth to prove that the same Govern­ment hath bene still retained and practised ever since, from the first age of the pri­mitive Church unto this present. The Rhemists alsoRhem. on Mat. 18.17. & 1. Cor. 5. derive the government which they now stand for, from the institution of Christ, and practise of the pri­mitive Church. And therefore it is untrue which he sayth, viz. that the Pa­pists acknowledge a difference betwixt the government instituted at the first, and that which is now maintained by them. To prove this generall assertion he al­ledgeth a particular testimony of Scultingius. But that which is sayd of one, can­not be asscribed unto all in such generall termes as he hath done, saying of Romes-Champions, they doe acknowledge that which Scultingius sayth, whereas we see that the chief of them avouch the contrary.

This testimony of Scultingius, as it is absurdly fathered upon the Papists in ge­nerall; so it is unjustly applyed against us. Though in the primitive Church of­fenders being impenitent were excommunicated with consent and approbation of all, by the Minister; and though this testify the power of the Church, for which cause it [Page 170]is alledged by M^r Parker (from whom it seemes M^r Canne hath taken this testi­mony at second hand, together with his observation upon it, touching the force of trueth in a Papist) yet this proves not that the Church was not subject to the censure of a superiour judicatory, if they did abuse their power. M^r Parker drawes no such consequence from this testimony, to exclude the authority of Synods. There is nothing sayd by Scultingius here, but it hath alwayes bene observed in our Church. Offenders are not excommunicated, as being impenitent, before they have bene denounced (as this Authors phrase is) or complained of by giving notice of their estate unto the whole Church; before whom also the sentence of excommunication is pronounced: and this our manner was allowed by M^r Park. being sometime one of us, as I shewedP. 105. before.

As for Saravia and Schola Parisiensis, whom he alledgeth together in the next place, observe, 1. How little M^r Canne understands what the Authors be whom he alledgeth, not knowing whether they were Papists or Protestants, placing Sa­ravia in the number of Papists: so well is he acquainted with the Authors he al­ledgeth at second hand; such injury he doth to his witnesses. So afterwardP. 93, & 98. againe in this same book he wrongeth Saravia by setting him among the Popish Writers, and making him of their profession and religion, by accusing me to make the same objection and to use the same reason that Papists doe, and then giving in­stance in Saravia for one of them. What a blindenes and inconsideratenes is this in M^r Canne? 11. He perverts the meaning both of Saravia and Schola Parisien­sis; for what though they grant that all Ecclesiasticall authority belongeth to the Church primarily, &c. doth it follow hence that the power of Classicall and Provinciall Synods is an und [...] power, as W.B. and M^r C. accuse them? doth it not rather fol­low that there is a due power, secondarily and by delegation, in Synods, where the Deputies of the Churches meet together in their name? M^r ParkerPol. Ec­cl. l. 3. p. 29.30. & 42. from whom he hath both these testimonies, doth not so alledge them against the au­thority of Synods. He might have seen these words in the same place cited by M^r Parker out of Saravia, whereby authority is asscribed not onely unto the Church but also unto Synods, when he isIbid. p. 42. brought in saying, Bishops & Arch-bi­shops have no authority, but what is conferred and bestowed upon them by the Church and Sy­nods. III. He perverts the meaning of Schola Parisiensis, which speakes not of particular Congregations, but of the Universall Church, and specially as it is represented in a Generall Councell. This is plaine and evident throughout that whole writing. IV. He doth deale deceitfully in his translation of that testimo­ny of Schol. Paris. for the Doctours of Sorbon doe there say that all Ecclesiasticall authority doth belong to the Church primarily, properly, essentially, but unto the Romane Pope and other Bishops instrumentally, ministerially, and for execution onely, &c. instead of the Romane Pope and other Bishops, he puts in the word Officers onely to blinde the eyes of the Readers, who if those words had not bene left out, might easily have seene that they spake of such transcendent and usurped authority as is exercised by the Pope and his Bishops &c. Hence it may appeare what is to be judged of that which he inferres from this testimony, to make it serve his pur­pose in oppugning of Synods.

As for Alphonsus de Castro and Franciscus Victoria, 1. It is an errour to approve their testimony thereCh. pl. p. 78.79. alledged, viz. that all Bishops doe receive jurisdiction and power immediately from God: for then should they all have an extraordinary calling, such as the Apostles had, Gal. 1.1, 15, 16. whereas all ordinary Ministers have their jurisdiction not immediately from God, but mediately by men, and from the Church. How erroneously doe W.B. and M^r C. put light for darknes and dark­nes for light, when they avouch, that thus God ordered these mens tongues, to give witnesse unto his trueth? 11. All the shew of help which they pretend to have from this testimony is grounded upon that groundlesse consequence, whereby they in­ferre that Classes & Synods have no authority over particular Congregations, be­cause all Churches, Elderships and Officers are equall: This their assertion re­maines yet to be proved; which we doe expressely deny, as I haveP. 159. shewed in my answer unto his first Reason.

The testimonies of the three next Popish Authors, viz. Cusanus de concord. Cathol. l. 1. c. 11, &c. Sanders de visib. Mon. l. 1. c. 6. Scultingius, Hierarch. Anarch. l. 4. pag. 103. are all of them before alledged byPol. Ec­cl. l. 3. c. 1. p. 2. &c. 3. p. 11. M^r Parker, from whence it seemes M^r Canne hath taken them, but without judgement, not applying them aright. for 1. When they affirme that Christs promise of giving the keyes unto Peter, must be referred unto the whole Church; as also that Peter in person presented the body of the Church: though these speeches shew the power of binding and loosing to be in the Church, yet can it not hence be inferred that a particular Congrega­tion ought not to be subject unto the censure of Classes and Synods, or to stand under the authority of any Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of itself, when that Con­gregation is complained of for errour or wrong doing. It is a perverting of these speeches, and a false consequence which is drawne from hence, that because a Congregation hath power to judge the members thereof, therefore no other have power to judge of it. 11. When M^r Canne inferreth hence that the power of electing Ministers is not in Classes or Synods, he beates the ayre, & erres from the Question. When did I ever affirme any such matter? or when did the Classis ever offer to obtrude a Minister upon us? III. These testimonies touching the Keyes given unto the Church, shew what power is in the Church originally and primarily; but yet they doe not import that the execution and exercise of this power is in the whole Church. Preaching and administration of the Sacraments are a part of that Ecclesiasticall authority comprehended in the power of the Keyes; and yet the exercise thereof is not permitted to the whole Church, by the confession of the Brownists themselves.

For his next witnesse, having alledged the words of Ferus upon Act. 11. that the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers, but also depose them, and reject them altogether if they be not fit, &c. he insulteth hereupon and gloryeth, saying, What can be more for us then this? I answer, This might have bene more for you, if he had sayd, that when a Congregation hath deposed their Minister, there is no other Ecclesiasticall judicatory that may judge whether they have done well or ill. This had bene to the purpose: then had he absolutely granted you the thing which the Brownists stand for: but this he doth not. When M^r Canne was depo­sed [Page 172]from his ministery by them of the Separation, and when they rejected him altogether, and left both his ministery and the fellowship of all that took part with him; was it not his & their misery that there was none to judge betwixt thē?

When he alledgeth the names of Gratian, Gregorie, P. Aeneas Sylvius, Pope Ana­cletus, Sixtus Senensis. Thomas of Aquine, Alexander of Ales, Iohn Scot, &c. some of them affirming that the greatest authority is in the Church, that the keyes were given to all the Apostles; others that all Bishops are equall in power, and the like: these and the like speeches being alledged to prove the undue power of Classes and Synods, they are all perverted, neither can the question in controversy be ever concluded from hence against us. It is a most false consequence, to inferre that because all Bishops are equall in power, therefore Synods have no power to judge: and as false it is to inferre that because the Keyes were given to all the Apostles, therefore there is no Ecclesiasticall power to judge the actions of a particular Congregation.

In summe, M^r Canne doth most ignorantly and grosly abuse all these Papists, against their words, their writings, and their continuall profession and practise. For though there be this maine difference betwixt the Papists, that some of them doe asscribe the greatest authority unto the Church, that is, unto a Generall Sy­nod, or Councell, maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope, & power to depose the Pope; others of thē asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope, rather then unto the Church or a Generall Councell representing the same: yet doe they all agree in this, that there is a superiour power above particular Congregations to judge the same.

The University of Paris, and the Doctours of Sorbon have in speciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the Pope; theyDe Eccl. & Polit. Pot. pag. 1. &c. edit. 1612. Paris. bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same. They alledge the sentence of PopeIbid. p. 16. Zozimus confessing himself to be inferiour unto the Councell. They avouch thatIbid. p. 19. the frequent edebrating of Synods is simply and absolutely necessary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church. Whereas a certaine Frier, Ioannes Sarrazin, had by word and writing under his hand preferred the authority of the Pope above the Synods, theyIbid. p. 46-56. record at large and publish in print a most solemne decree made by the Theologicall faculty of that University, whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion, and a forme of recantation was prescribed, according to which he confessed his fault, & acknow­ledged the power of Synods above the Pope.

TheActs & Monum. p. 546, & 547. An. D. 1414. &c. Councell of Constance did not onely exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in condemning of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage, but also decreeing the autho­rity of Synods and Councells to be above the Pope, did actually depose divers Popes, as Iohn the 23^th and Benedict, who was likewise excommunicate by them: even as the Councell held atAn. D. 1083. Act. & Mon. p. 164. Brixia had in former time by their sentence con­demned Pope Hildebrand, and judged him to be deposed. So in like manner did the Clouncell held atIbid. p. 632.634. Bafile, depose Pope Eugenius, & put another in his place. By all which it is evident what the Papists then judged of the authority and power of Synods.

As all these, so the other faction of Papists, and the Iesuites in speciall, that main­taine [Page 173]the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods & Councells whatsoever, & that their decrees are not of force, unlesse they be approved by the Pope; these doe evidently teach that the affaires and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superiour judicatories out of themselves. This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings, where he shewesTom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 9, 10, 11. & l. 2. c. 2. &c. the causes, the necessity, and the authority of Generall and Provinciall Synods, theTom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7, 8, 9, 10. & 14. &c. power of elections, and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter. The same is maintayned by him in hisTom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14. & l. 2. c. 1, &c. treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies, plenary or for a certaine number of dayes, for the living or for the dead. And the like is to be found inTom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei, l. 3. c. 3, &c. Tom, 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1, 2, 3, &c. sundry other of his writings.

And to these might be added more then an hundred of other witnesses, of the Romish Church, acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes & controversies of particular Churches. Instead of many other, the Councell of Trent, called byConcil. Trid. Bul. Indict. p. 8. Pope Paulus the third, continued byBul. Re­sumpr. p. 66.67. Pope Iulius the third, and confirmed byBul. Confirm. p. 243, &c. Pope Pius the fourth, together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in severall Sessions of that Councell, doe give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts.

Onely to conclude this Section, let it be remembred how of old in our owne countrie, the like testimony hath bene given to shew the authority of Synods. We readAct. & Mon. p. 112. col. 2. art. 7. of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore, Archbi­shop of Canterbury, Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provinciall Synods should be kept within the Realme at least once a yeare. Another SynodIbid. p. 155. was held at Winchester, Anno D. 1070. where Stigandus Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed for receyving his pall from Benedict the fift: And anotherP. 157. was after held at London, where many decrees were made in the time of Lanfranck, the Archbishop, &c. This being the continuall and universall practise of the Pa­pists, what sense was there in M^r Canne to alledge their testimonies in such a poynt wherein they are so full and pregnant against him? It is the fault of Papists, that they give too much authority unto Synods; and it is as grosse a fault of these my opposites, to pervert their testimonies, contrary to their meaning & practise, further then their words will beare.

SECT. II.
Touching the Testimonies of Lutheranes.

IN their first allegation taken from Lutheranes they say, It is affirmed by the Centuries of Meydenburg, that from Christs ascension, unto Trajans time, which is about a 100 yeares, every particular Church was governed, by the Bishops, Elders and Deacons of the same. Cent. 1. c. 4. To this I answer: This allegation comes short of the question in hand, and is therefore insufficient and perverted to prove that the Churches then did not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority: for it is not affirmed by them of Meydenburgh in their Centuries, that the Churches were governed by them alone, or that there were no Synods in those times to [Page 172] [...] [Page 173] [...] [Page 174]judge of the actions of Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, in cases of controversy which could not be well ended in particular Churches; but the contrary is ex­pressely taught by the sameMagdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. de Cōc. col. 5 46. &c. 7. col. 522. & 542. Authors. Particular Churches among us also are governed by their owne Bishops, Elders, & Deacons, though not by them alone, especially in matters of greater difficulty. Whereas they alledge another place on this manner, Cent. 6.7. col. 591. there is a notable abuse therein. for, 1. What reason had they to alledge the history of the sixt Centurie to shew what was done in the first Centurie, from Christs Ascension to Trajans time? 2. As for theCol. 4 [...]4. &c. 7^th chapter of that Centurie, there are more then an 100 or 200 testimonies shewing the power of Metropolitane Bishops, and of Archbishops, which they exercised in many Churches, Antichrist being almost come to his height at that time. 3. As for that place of the sixt Century poynted at by his marginall quo­tation, viz. Col. 591. All that is there specifyed at large in the story concerning Richaredus a King of Spaine, converted from Arianisme, & submitting himself unto theSyn. Tolet. 3. Synod then assembled, is against them that include all Ecclesiasticall authority within one Congregation onely. If these quotations be misprinted, it was great negligence in M^r Canne to look no better to his work.

Againe it is alledged from the Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 7. p. 134, 135. that from Trajans raigne unto Serverus, from the yeare of Christ 100 to 195, If any read the approved Authors of this age, he shall see that the order of Government was popular: for all Churches had equall power, &c. This testimony is also abused. 1. There is one falsification in mistranslating of the words: for they doe not say that then the government was popular, as M^r Canne sets it downe; nor yet that it was like unto a popular govern­ment; but onely this is sayd, that it was almost like unto a popular government, propemodum [...] similem fuisse: And how great is the difference betwixt these assertions? even as much as there is betwixt being a Christian, and almost a Christian; so plainly distinguished, Act. 26.29. 2. What though the govern­mēt of the Church was almost like a Democracie? Or what though all Churches had equall power then? Could they not therefore stand under the authority of Synods? It is a perverted reasoning so to argue. Even here all the Reformed Churches among us have equall power, and are partly Democraticall, and yet are mutually and equally subject to one another in their Synods. 3. There is another egregious falsification in the alledging of this testimony, by omitting that which principally concernes the Question: for when these of Magdeburg say here, that all Churches had equall power of teaching the Word, administring of Sacraments, excommunicating, ordination and deposition of Ministers, they adde withall in the same Chapter, and in the very same sentence & period, in the words immediately following touching this equall power of Churches, that it was for the gathering of Synods and Assemblies, and this not for counsell onely, but for the jud­ging and deciding of matters doubtfull and controverted. And not onely this, but after againe in the same page,Col. 135. this power of Synods in judging and excommunica­ting of Hereticks, is further declared and repeated, it being the very scope of that Section to describe the power of Synods in the consociation of Churches. And further in this sameCent. 2. c. 9. de Cōc. col. 159.160, &c. Century, as in others according to their order, they doe [Page 175]rehearse divers Synods held in those times, as that at Rome, at Cesarea in Palestine, & others in France, in Pontus, in Achaia, &c.

In the next place confounding the order propounded by himself, he brings in among his Lutherane witnesses,OnRev. 12.1. Mr Brightman, who as he saith, comes downe lower, even unto Constantines time, and is of opinion, that the primitive puritie of Church government, was not yet defloured with the dregges of mans invention: Neither had Satā brought in Prelaticall pride into the sheepfold of the Lord: but the Pastours looked every one to the health of his owne flock. Hence it appeares (sayth M^r Canne) that for the space of 200 or 300 yeares after Christ, every visible Church had power to exercise Ecclesiasticall government, &c. Now to shew how vainely this is alledged, 1. Observe how farre it is from the Question: for though the Pastours looked every one to the health of his owne flock, this prooves not that the power of Classes and Synods is an un­due power. Doth he thinke that either I or any Minister of these Reformed Churches will not acknowledge the same? Yea doe not Pastours then looke the better to the safety of their flockes, when as in needfull cases they seek the help of Synods therein? 2. Let him consider hisMagdeb. Cent. 3. c. 7. col. 161. &c. former witnesses what they say concerning this third age of the Church, shewing in what manner Pastours did then looke to the health of their flock. If any weighty questions, dissensions or Here­fies arose, they did nothing by their private counsell, neither durst they, &c. but calling toge­ther other fellow-Bishops of the same Province, either all or many, by conferring their judge­ments together, they decided the questions, compounded the dissensions, refuted the Heresies, and excommunicated them that were obstinate, &c. And this is further shewed at large by many instances and examples in the same place. AndCent. 3. c. 9. de Syn. col. 192, 193, &c. after againe they de­scribe divers Synods that were held in those times in Asia, Europe and Africa, for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in deciding of controversies, &c. 3. That M^r Brightmans words are perverted and wrested to a wrong end, against the authority of Synods, contrary to his meaning, it appeareth by the rare and preg­nant testimony he gives unto them in theOn Rev. 8.3, 4. same book, where he teacheth that the vision and type of the Angel standing at the golden Altar before the throne with a golden censer full of incense, was accomplished in Constantine the great, ga­thering together so many holy men in the Synod or Councell of Nice for the de­ciding of the controversy about Arius, and shewes that the wholesome conclusion and happy issue of that Synod, effected by the care, labour, diligence and charges of Constantine, was acceptable to God in Christ, and as a thick cloud of incense ascending out of the hand of the Angel in the presence of God. And thus also heOnRev. 7.2, 3. interprets a former vision of another Angel that came up from the rising of the Sunne, having the seale of the living God, to seale the servants of God in their foreheads. This he expounds of Constantine and of the Nicene Synod, he being the principall instrument to call that Synod. While the Godhead of Christ coe­quall and consubstantiall with the Father was maintained in that Synod, and the trueth spread abroad by the authority of Constantine and of that Synod, and many confirmed in the profession thereof, thereby they were sealed in their foreheads, & the name both of the Lamb and of the Father was imprinted on their foreheads, according to that in Rev. 14.1.

In the exposition of that mysticall Song of Solomon, where there is mention made of a fountaine of gardens, a well of living waters, and streames from Lebanon, this M^r Brightman doth alsoCōment. in Cantic. c. 4. V. 15. p. 75.76. interpret and particularly apply unto the Synod of Nice: The decrees of that Synod are by him avouched to be the living waters to refresh and make fruitfull the gardens of God, which are the Churches of Christ. And while he alledgeth such divine warrant to prove the fruit and benefit of Sy­nods, how injurious is M^r Canne unto him in perverting his testimony? yea how injurious to the Church of God in drying up these fountaines of comfort, by his impugning the authority of Synods?

Besides this, to omit other the like testimonies of M^r Brightman touching Synods, even in thatOnRev. 12.1. very place mentioned by M^r Canne, touching the purity of the primitive Church, M^r Brightm. maketh mention of Paulus Samosatenus & the Synodicall Epistle concerning him, and so leadeth us to that story, which shewes the power of Synods in that primitive age. For there we read that about the yeare of Christ 280, there was aEuseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 26, 27.28. & 29. edit. Basil. 1611. Synod held at Antioch, where many Bi­shops and others met together from many Churches and out of divers Provinces, who did not onely give counsell about the controversy, but gave sentence against Paulus Samosatenus, and by common consent rejected and excommunicated him; Aurelianus the Emperour using his authority to represse the insolency of that per­son when he would have resisted the Synod. The same story is recorded also by theCent. 3. c. 9. col. 206.207. Magdeburgenses in their Centuries, shewing that divers Synods were held at Antioch about that busines before it could be finished.

Whereas they doe here in their marginall note send me to see what Mr Iacob saith, Necess. of Reform. p. 57. &c. I have long since seene what he writes both in that place, and in other of his treatises published of later time: and though he went too farre in this businesse, yet I finde that he disallowes the practise & judg­ment of the Brownists, and wonders at their blindenes, and bewailes it. For spea­king of Morellius and the popular government which he strove for, he sayth,Attestat. c. 8. p. 249. Some of the Separation, I grant, are too offensive this way: which I am heartily sory for. They take the wordes in Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church, more popularly then there is need, or then reason or good order would. Howbeit in this yet they hold the substance of the true Church-government. They erre but in the circumstance of order, though it be too Beza, Annot. in Mat. 18.17. foule That is, they will examine all scandalls, &c. whatsoever in the presence and under the judge­ment of the whole multitude perpetually and necessarily. I say perpetually and necessarily. Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents, which will and must ensue many times. And afterwards againe in the sameP. 280, 281. chapter, he saith, But to hold those popu­lar circumstances in every Church perpetuall and necessary absolutely as the Separation doth, it was neither Cyprians meaning nor Christs, nor any well advised Christians. Yea upon this his testimony touching the disorder of the Brownists, he sets this note and mark of his vehement dislike in the margine of that page, Separation itself is no such error, as this is. And this ought seriously to be considered of M^r Canne and his client.

In the next placeCh. pl. p. 81. he brings divers allegations of Scriptures and other Au­thors to prove that we may not change the Apostolick Government, nor leave [Page 177]their institutions, &c. In all which he beates the ayre, and trifles, leaving the question that is betwixt us, as I have notedP. 145. &c. before: seeing they prove not that the authority of Synods is against the Apostolick institution. Come we there­fore unto his testimonies of Lutheranes, & of such as he confusedly mingles with them, viz. of Zuinglius, Luther, Chemnitius, Melancthon, Sarcerius, Brentius, D. Run­gius, Hunnius, Osiander, Salneccer, Pelargus, D. Mylius, Hegendorphin, &c. These all are notably perverted by him. for to answer first in generall: What though these teach that the power of excommunication, of calling Ministers, &c. is in the whole Church; doth it therefore follow that Synods may not judge the actions of a whole Congregation if they abuse their power? If Congregations call a Mi­nister, though never so vile or so unworthy, or if they would excommunicate an innocent person; shall there be no liberty of appeale unto a superiour Ecclesiasti­call judicatory for the redresse of such wrongs? Or doe any of his Lutherane wit­nesses condemne such an appeale? This he ought to have concluded from their Testimonies by some just consequence, if he would have spoken to the purpose. The insultation of M^r C. and W. B. upon these testimonies is most vaine, & con­taineth many falshoods. It is false that my opinion is a new opinion as they call it: It is false that these Lutheranes are contrary unto me: It is false that upon my grounds Officers how vile soever must be left alone, if Ministers of other Churches judge them fit to con­tinue: It is grossely false that the power which I leave unto particular Churches is just nothing: It is an open and foule falshood, that these many Authors alledged doe consent fully with them, viz. with M^r Canne and W. Best. But this will more plainly appeare, if we take a particular survey of the chief of those witnesses here produ­ced, whose testimonies he vouchsafeth to set downe.

The first of these is Zuinglius, who though he was no Lutherane, as M^r Canne notes in his margine, who had promised to set downe his allegations taken from Lutheranes, next after the Papists; yet here he is brought in with Luther. And as he is misplaced in respect of the order which M^r C. propounded to himself, so his testimonies both touching excommunication and calling of Ministers are unjustly alledged against us. In the first sort of testimonies touching excommunication, not to speake of M^r Cannes altering and transposing his Authors words to make them serve his owne purpose, Zuinglius reprooves the abuses and enormities of the Pope and his Bishops, undertaking by their sole authority to excommunicate those that were none of their Church. His words are these,Art. 31. No private man may excommunicate, but the Church wherein he that is to be excommunicated doth dwell, together with the Bishop. And in the explication of that Article, having spoken of other abu­ses about excōmunication, he saith, Can the Bishop alone excōmunicate: Excōmunication doth not belong unto any one man whosoever he be, but unto the Church. By these & the like speeches of Zuinglius it appeares that his testimonies are not prejudiciall unto our practise, nor unto that authority of Synods which we maintaine: seeing we grant that no one person alone can by right excommunicate any man by his owne au­thority; neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate those that are not in communion with them. The other place cited out of Zuinglius, touching the calling of Ministers, is so farre from prooving any thing against us, that being [Page 178]duely considered it may fitly serve to blame those popular courses which M^r Can. pleades for, and to justify our practise in not performing this weighty businesse without the advise and approbation of neighbour Ministers assembled in the Clas­sis, Zuinglius in that treatise called Ecclesiastes, having spoken of the Popish tyran­ny, bereaving most Churches of the liberty of election, he reprooves another ex­treme, saving,Eccles. Tom. 2. f. 54. If there were any Church unto which election was yet left free, the com­mon people rashly, without all deliberation, and without all counsell of learned, prudent and faithfull men, did choose those whom they did most favour, & not such as were indued with true vertues beseeming a Bishop. Therefore there is nothing so agreeable unto the Divine ordinance and ancient institution, as that the whole Congregation of a faithfull people, together with some learned and godly Bishops, or other faithfull and experienced men, doe make choyse of a Pa­stour. Thus he plainly disavowes the independency of Churches in such cases, not allowing a Congregation to proceed unto the election of a Minister, without the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches, and to this effect he explaines himself further in the same place, saying, It is meet that the power of election should be in the Church being furnished with the counsels of faithfull and learned men. For as that mat­ter may not lye in the power of any one man, so neither may the rude and unlearned multitude take upon them so great a weight of election, &c. And in the same leafe speaking of Ana­baptists intruding themselves into the Churches of their owne accord, he proves that they are no lawfull Ministers because they have not a due calling, thus, Bishops they are not. for they are not chosen of any Church by lawfull and unanimous consent, the authority of other Bishops excelling in faith and prudence, also concurring. Observe how that with the free consent of the people he joynes not onely the counsell or ad­vise, as he had called it before, but the authority of the Officers of other Con­gregations.

Moreover that Zuinglius did not absolutely deny the authority of Synods, though he speake much against Popish Synods, may appeare if we consider the reasons which he useth against them, viz. because they were not assembled in the holy Ghost, because they did not judge of matters according to the Scriptures, but ac­cording to the ordinances and customes of men, &c. Now this is not to dispute against the thing itself, but against the abuse of it. And therefore having spoken against such Councels, of the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops, in such sort as Mr Canne had alledged himCh. pl. p. 75. before, he addes withall,Art. 8. expl. I speake onely of these that are such; my writings shall not hurt others, who set themselves under the Scriptures, not above the Scriptures. And that these conditions for the want whereof he opposed those Popish Synods, may yet be found in other Synods which have made decrees for the deciding of controversies raysed in the Church, he acknowledgeth in these words,Paraenes. ad cōmun. Helvet. civ. Tom. 1. f. 116. If the Councill of Gangra were assembled in the holy Ghost (which no good man will deny, while he sees that the decrees thereof doe agree with the lawes of the Gospell and with the doctrine of the Apostles) it was unworthily done of those that came after, that have disanul­led the decrees thereof, without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures. Againe in another place, speaking of the foure Generall Councels, though he justly blame those that accounted them to be of equall authority with the foure Evangelists, yet he saith,Arche­teles, T. 1. f. 137. Truely I would not have any thing to be detracted from them. He was not [Page 179]therefore of M^r Cannes minde, who will have all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to be detracted or removed from Synods. Besides, Zuinglius doth not onely approve of these Synods held in former times, but he also shewes himself ready to joyne in the like practise, even in the exercise of the same Ecclesiasticall authority that was used in those Synods. For when the Magistrates of Zurich had assembled to­gether all the Ministers of the Churches both in their city and countrie, and had procured the presence of divers others, for the solemne vindicating of the doctrine taught in their Churches; there Faber, Vicar of the Bishop of Constance, having spoken of a Generall Councell, that it onely had authority to determine these things, Zuinglius replyes,Act. Disp. 1. Tom. 2. f. [...]10. Whereas in this our assembly there be so many right faithfull men, both of our owne countrey and strangers, and furthermore seeing here be so many godly & learned Bishops present, who doubtles have a desire not onely to heare and understand, but also to advance divine trueth: verily I see nothing to hinder even in this place, whereby it should not be lawfull for us, according to the Vicars meaning, to dispute of these things, and to decree what trueth teacheth. But other nations (he sayth) will never consent unto these our decrees: &c. By these and the likeIbid. f. 621. &c. passages it is evident that Zuinglius did allow the Mini­sters of severall Congregations, assembled in a Synod; not onely to consult and dispute, but also to determine, yea and to make decrees for the removing of con­troversies & settling peace in the Church, while they did it according to the Scrip­tures, which is the same that we maintaine.

The words of Mr Luther, whom he cites in the next place, as they are to no purpose alledged against us, seeing they touch not the question, as I shewed be­fore; so being compared with other his writings, they make it appeare that these two propositions may well stand together, viz. that the Church hath power to judge, to call, to depose, &c. and yet that all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not con­fined within the bounds of a particular Congregation, but that Synods & Coun­cells have authority to judge of Church affaires and to censure offendours: foras­much as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other. In the yeare 1518, having understood that they proceeded against him in the Popes Court at Rome, and that an unjust sentence was likely to be pronounced by them,Sleid. Comment. lib. 1. he appealed from the Pope to a Councell or Synod. The compleat forme of his Appeale is recordedTom. 1. f. 231. edit. 1545. among his workes, wherein he doth plainly acknow­ledge the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods, both by the whole drift and sub­stance thereof, and when he saith that a sacred Councell being lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost, representing the holy Catholick Church, is in causes concerning the faith above the Pope, &c. This his Appeale was repeated and further urged in the yeare 1520, when the Pope had condemned and excommunicated him. Among other rea­sons which he useth to reenforce his Appeale, he alledgeth this,Tom. 2. f. 52. Sleid. Cōm. l. 2. that the Pope most wickedly preferred his owne tyranny above the power of the Councell, &c. and there­fore he beseecheth the Emperour and other Magistrates that for the glory of God, and for the maintaining of the liberty of a Councell, they would admit of his Appeale, and re­presse the others tyranny, &c. In the yeare 1539, he wrote a booke in the German tongue de Conciliis, concerning Councels or Synods, where though he inveigh se­verely, and not without cause, against the Pope for his frustrating the desires of [Page 180]those that sought a Generall Councell, & admitting of none but where he might sway all by his owne authority and command; yet he doth fully approve of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had bene formerly exercised in Synods & Coun­cells lawfully assembled and rightly ordered. A Councell (saithOper. German. Tom. 7. f. 260. edit. 1562. he) is nothing els but a Consistory, a Court of justice, an Imperiall Chamber, or the like, where the Iudge having heard the parties, pronounceth sentence, but with this condition, that it be according to Law▪ &c. Thus a Councell condemnes an Heretick, not according to their owne opinion, but accor­ding to the Royall law, that is, according to the holy Scripture, as they professe, which is the Law of the holy Church. Speaking of the right and power of Councells, having shewedIbid. f. 257. &c. Sleid. Cōm. l. 12. that it is not lawfull for them to make new Articles of faith, to com­mand any new work, to binde mens consciences to new ceremonies, nor to inter­meddle with Civill government; he declareth withall that it is their duety to con­demne new doctrines contrary to the Scriptures, and to censure the persons, to remove and condemne new ceremonies that are superstitious or unprofitable for the Church, and to examine and judge of those things that are controverted as it is prescribed in the word of God. Moreover demanding what the office or work of a Councell is, he answe [...]s,Ubi su­pra. f. 260. Anathematisamus, [we pronounce Anathema] so is their office called. Anathematisat Ecclesia, the holy Church condemnes or excommuni­cates. So farre was Luther from denying the authority of Synods, that he al­lowes them the power of pronouncing this heavie sentence of Anathema or Ex­communication.

To proceed unto his other witnesses, there is nothing in the words alledged out of Chemnitius and Polycarpus Lyserus (who is the Authour of that part of the Harmony, quoted under the name of Chemnitius) that by any just consequence can be opposed unto our doctrine and practise, touching election, excommunication, examination of sentences, &c. Onely observe how M^r Canne here abuseth his Authour and his Readers by his imperfect allegation, setting downe this testimo­ny of Chemnitius in such manner, as if that which was sayd with an expresse condi­tion, had bene uttered simply and absolutely without any such restraint. Chemni­tius sayth indeed that election or calling doth belong unto the whole Church: but how? that M^r Canne leaves out, as unfit for his purpose, which his Authour addes imme­diately in the same period, saying that it belongs unto the whole Church, certo quodam modo, in such wise that both the Presbytery and the people have each their owne share in the choyse or calling. Chemnitius in thatExam. Conc. Trid. par. 2. de Sa­cram. Ord. Can. 7. learned discourse touching the calling of Ministers, intends principally to prove, against the Councell of Trent, that the consent of the people and of the Christian Magistrate is requisite in elections: but withall he gives as full and plaine testimony for the judgement, examination and approbation of the Presbytery; under which he comprehends the Ministers of other Congregations, called Bishops and Clerkes in the places alledged by him. And this kinde of election he shewes to be agreeable unto the practise of the Apo­stolick, primitive, ancient, and their owne moderne Churches. Besides Chem­nitius doth sufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods, which is our maine question, in divers pregnant passages of that book which he wrote against the Councell of Trent. HeExam. Conc. Trid, par. 1. praef. alledgeth & commendeth the words [Page 181]of Augustine, saying that most wholesome is the authority of Councels in the Church, while they judge according to the rule and square of the holy Scripture, &c. He saithIbid. Exam. De­cret. 1. & 2. that ma­ny have often wished and long waited for a true, lawfull, free, and Christian Councell, as the right medicine for the curing of those manifold errours and abuses that were crept into the Church. He doth frequently alledge and approve the acts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction exercised in former Synods, throughout that whole booke. He saith indeed in one of the places cited by M^r CanneIbid. praef. that the decrees of Councells are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture: but this doth no more empaire that authority of Synods which we asscribe unto them, then it doth the power of all Church-acts and sentences whatsoever, concerning which ChemnitiusExam. par. 1. de bon. op. qu. 2. sayth the same thing; and M^r Canne cannot deny but that they are to be examined and tryed by the word of God, though they be made in such manner as he himselfCh. pl. p. 95. requireth.

There is another allegation of Chemnitius touching the distinction betwixt power and the administration of it, which M^r Canne hath taken at all adventures, as it seemes, from Mr Parker, or rather from the Scribe or Printer, that caused that quotation [Exam. c. 6.] to stand so defectivelyPol. Ec­cl. l. 3. p. 26. in his booke; and as he is thus briefe and obscure in the quotation, so he is as sparing in the application of this testimony unto his purpose, bidding us onely observe what is attributed to the Con­gregation, what to the guides thereof; to the first power, to the latter the administration of it. For the thing it self, we grant that there is such a distinction alledged out of Lu­ther, and explained by Chemnitius, teachingExam. Conc. Trid. par. 2. de Sa­cram. in gē. Can. 10. that Christ hath delivered and commen­ded the Keyes, that is, the ministery of the Word and Sacraments, unto the whole Church; but not so, that everie one rashly and of his owne accord should take unto himself and exercise that ministery without a lawfull calling: but that after immediate calling hath ceased, God sends the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, by the calling and election of the Church, if it be performed according to the direction of his word; so that the chiefe power of the Word and Sacraments is in God; secondly that the ministery is in the Church, as by which God doth mediately call, choose, and send Ministers; thirdly in those who are lawfully chosen and cal­led of God by the Church, as in the Ministers, to whom is commanded the exercise or admini­stration of the ministery of the Word and Sacraments. Not to speake of some difference, which the Reader may easily perceive, betwixt M^r Cannes allegation and his Au­thors words; there is nothing here sayd that doth any way prejudice the jurisdic­tion of Synods, neither can he from hence inferre any thing against us. Moreo­ver if that distinctiō be considered according to the meaning of the Authors from whence it is taken, it doth flatly contradict the opinion and practise of M^r Canne and others of the Separation, who will have not onely the power but also the exe­cution or administration of it to be in the people promiscuously, when all causes must be brought to the body of the Congregation, there to be heard and deter­mined. Thus Mr Parker Pol. Ec­cl. l. 3. p. 26. opposeth this distinction unto the Democratie or popular government of Morellius, whom Mr Iacob in this respect parallels with them of the Separation, as was notedP. 176. before. These maintaine that the people are to exercise their power in judging of causes, which the sayd Authors, both Chemnitius and M^r Parker, conceive to be derived into the Aristocraticall part or [Page 182]Officers of the Church, for the ordinary exercise of it; she still retaining her in­terest therein so farre that in matters of speciall moment nothing be concluded without her knowledge and consent. That moderating and guiding of the acti­on, which M^r Canne and those of his minde reserve onely unto the Officers of the Church, in which respect he doth here call them Guides, cannot make that diffe­rence betwixt the judiciall exercising of power, as it is in the Officers, and the first receyving of that power, which is sayd to be in the whole Church by those that maintaine that distinction. In a word, they say that the exercise of this power doth not ordinarily belong unto the people, he saith that it doth. Such is the agreemēt betwixt M^r Canne and his witnesses.

Melanchthon, whom he alledgeth for the same purpose with Chemnitius (as M^r Parker had doneUbi su­pra, p. 26. before) hath not any thing in the place mentioned that sounds that way. He speakes there [Loc. Theol. de Regno Christi] onely of the spirituall kingdome of Christ, against the Jewes and some sorts of Anabaptists. Neverthe­lesse seeing he was one of speciall eminency among those with whom he is here joyned, it may be usefull to observe how M^r Canne is condemned by this wit­nesse also, whom he hath sought to produce against us in this controversy tou­ching the authority of Synods. Among other Articles propounded unto the Protestants to ensnare them, this being also questioned, Whether the holy Oecume­nicall and receyved Synods have erred, Melanchthon answers,Respōs. ad Artic. Ba­var. Art. 7. By this generall demand they seek to kindle hatred against us, as if we seemed to reprehend all Synods & all things that have been acted in Synods. But we professe openly, that there ought to be judgements in the Church; and we affirme that there have been many godly Synods and profitable unto the Church; and we doe greatly wish now in these dissentions that the judgement of the Church might be rightly settled. If he had bene of M^r Cann. minde, he should have answered farre otherwise, viz. that all those Synods erred that exercised any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, that they were to be blamed for the making of all those Actes where­in such authority and power was implyed, such as were generally all the Actes of the Synods of Antioch, Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Gangra, &c. which as he saith in the same place, their Churches doe imbrace; he should have sayd al­so according to M^r Cannes principles, that though there may and ought to be judgements, that is, Ecclesiasticall sentences and censures in particular Congrega­tions, that yet they ought not to be in Synods, or Assemblies of Ministers of se­verall Congregations, that these have no such power to judge, that no such de­terminations are to be desired. But Melanchthon we see, declares himself to be an opposite unto such conceits: and lest we should thinke that by the judgements of the Church he meant not such as are exercised in Synods, or that by judgements he understood rather acts of consultation, inquisition & deliberatiō, then of determi­nation, and pronouncing of sentences; heare how he explaines himself elswhere, saying,Enarr. Symb. Nic. Tom. 1. f. 391. There are in the Church judgements concerning doctrine, which are called Synods. And againe, Synods are ordinary judgements, which are pronounced against the unwilling, as they use to say. And the Church is commanded to make a lawfull inquiry, which being done, if [sentence] be rightly pronounced, obedience is to be yeelded. And if any doe not obey, he is justly punished. He hath also upon other occasions given plaine and pregnant [Page 183]testimonies of his judgement in this particular: among the rest, that especially is worthy our observation, which he writes in a certaine Disputation concerning Synods; it being one of those Disputations which Luther by a preface thereunto prefixed hath commended unto the Readers, for which cause it seemes, they are also inserted among Luthers workes, as being in speciall manner approoved by him.Luth. Tom. 1. f. 444, 445. ‘There Melanthon intending to speak of Synods, reasoneth thus: It is most true and most agreeable unto the nature of men that which Plato sayth, that the best state of a Common-wealth is that which is the meane betwixt Ty­rannie and Democratie, [or popular government.] This is to be framed and maintained, as in all government so especially in the Church▪ Both these, Ty­rannie and Democratie, are to be avoyded and detested in the Church, as most noysome plagues. It is Tyrannie to constraine men to approve of manifest im­pietie, to obey contrary to the cleare word of God, &c. Againe Democratie also must be removed from the Church, that is, the common people without difference are not to have licence or power granted unto them to alter doc­trines, or to give sentence concerning doctrines, for the Multitude also, as He­rodotus sayth, is a most cruell Tyrant. But a middle state is to be sought, that is, Aristocratie ought to be established, wherein by proportion the authority of the learnedest and best men may be the greatest. This Aristocratie Paul requi­reth, 1. Cor. 14. Gal. 2. and it is most gravely written unto the Romanes, that every one must know the measure of his owne faith. Rom. 12. Therefore that tyrannicall speech is to be hissed at, which takes away this proportion in the Church, and asscribes unto the Pope an unbounded Tyrannie, viz. which af­firmes that greater is the authority of the Pope then of the whole Councell be­side, &c. In the choyse of judges the best way is to follow that meane betwixt Tyrannie and Democratie, namely to choose the best and the learnedest. When by the consent of both parties good and learned judges are chosen, and matters have bene examined in order, it is meet there should be an obeying of their judg­ment: for every one ought to know the measure of his owne faith.’ Thus Me­lanthon hath fully declared himself in this controversy touching the ground of Synodall government, together with the power and use of the same: yet for fur­ther satisfaction it may be observed how that in another place he applyes that which is here spoken against Democratie or popular order, unto that part thereof which M^r Canne so much pleades for, concerning election unto Church-offices, when he sayth,Ibid. f. 442. ‘According to ancient custome the Church did choose, that is, these to whom the Church hath committed this businesse, & the judgement and approbation of the Bishop ordaining did also concurre. Contrary to divine right and to the ancient Church is that Democratie, where the people doe snatch unto themselves the election, without the judgement & approbation of Pastours.’ By Pastours he meanes doubtles the Ministers of other Congregations, seeing he speakes of them in the plurall number, and seeing it were unreasonable to thinke that in such cases people should neglect the counsell and consent of the Mi­nisters of their owne Church. He doth therefore by this plaine testimony justifye our course in the calling of Ministers, by how much we doe not proceed therein [Page 184]without taking along with us the advise and approbation of the Classis, that is, of the Pastours of neighbour Churches.

Forasmuch as we may easily discerne from that which hath bene hitherto sayd in this Section, what the judgement of the chiefe of the Lutheranes is in this con­troversy, and what small credit is to be given unto M^r Cannes allegations and af­firmations touching the consent of others with him in these matters of difference betwixt us; it may suffice to have examined the testimonies of these Authors, whose words he hath set downe; and for the rest, to judge of them according to the profession of their esteeme of those already mentioned, which are of chiefe note among them, and according to the publick Confessions of their Churches, of which we are to speakSect. 7. hereafter, as also according to their generall practise. Concerning this it is testifyed by some of them here named (not to speak of other evidences) that they are so farre from including all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Church, that their Churches are governed by Ecclesiasticall Senates, or Consistories, as they call them, which are gathered out of three rankes of persons, Poluticall, Ecclesiasticall, and Popular or Oeconomicall; that these Eccle­siasticall Consistories are appointed and directed by the authority of the chief Magistrate; that by these the Magistrat [...] doth exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and call Ministers; that the election of a Bishop or Superintendent which of old was performed by all the Bishops of the Pro­vince, in which a new Bishop was to be chosen, is now in well ordered Churches rightly perfor­med in the Consistorie, where some principall Divines together with Politicall men, doe choose a Superintendent, who is confirmed by the assent and approbation of the chiefe Magistrate. These are the assertions of Mylius, Rungius, Osiander and others, as they are cited and approved byDise. Theol. de Potest. Ecc. th. 7.10.17.18. arg. 10. &c. Vestringius, one of the same profession. Though these Au­thors doe not accord with us in divers of the foresaid expressions; yet M^r Canne had lesse cause to boast of their consent with him, seeing they agree in this, that their particular Churches are not independent bodies, but stand under Ecclesia­sticall authority out of themselves, holding that their Churches in this respect are well ordered. What trueth is there then in M^r Cannes words, when speaking of these men he saith, they consent with us fully? As for his jesting at the particular Churches, such as all the Reformed Churches are, in giving them a title of noun-adjectives, that cannot stand without Classes and Synods, it may be demanded of him, whether among all the Orthodoxe Churches in Europe at this day, there was ever heard of such a staggering noun-substantive, rent with so many scandalous Schismes, as is that Anti-Synodall Church of the Separation, whereof M^r Canne calles himself the Pastour. Let those that are wise consider of it.

SECT. III.
Touching the Testimonies of Calvinists.

THus M^r C. and W.B. doe (though as they say, for distinction sake, yet) un­justly call those Authours whom here they alledge: as if there were no other fit and convenient speech to describe Godly and learned Ministers, of whom I spake, but the name of Calvinists. Though it be lawfull to denominate men of their errours and Schismes wherein they stand against the Churches of God, and to [Page 185]call such Sectaries by names taken from them that have bene their chief ringlea­ders, as the Brownists of Browne, and the Nicolaitans of Nicholas; Rev. 2.15. yet is there no warrant so to stile those whom we doe not charge with the like er­rours and offences.

M^r CanneChu. pl. p. 81. after an idle and impertinent declaration of his owne surmise and imagination, that these Authors, as he is perswaded, doe not teach the doctrine main­tained by me, and after an unjust imputation which he implyes, as if I should say, that the whole Church (Officers and brethren) wants authority to performe in, and for it self, all Church-services; he comes to name his Authors, and alledges the words of foure of them, and telles that the rest doe agree with them. His Authors are these, P. Martyr, Iunius, Musculus, Viret, Bullinger, Danaeus, Gualter, Sybrandus, D. Mornaeus, Morell, Tilenus, Bastingius, Vrsinus, Piscator, Calvine, Paraeus, Keckerman, Hemmingi­us, Tossanus, Polanus, Hyperius, Praedirius, Munster, Oecolompadius, Beza, Bucer.

Having cited these witnesses to appeare for him, he then beginnes to insult and glory, saying,Chu. pl. p. 83. And now M^r Paget what thinke you of these men? were they not lear­ned and godly Ministers, Reverend and judicious Divines? Are they not authentick witnesses? If you confesse it; then marke what followes: viz. your position that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of them­selves, is hence condemned, by a jurie of more then 24 men, of your owne choosing, for an errour and untruth: The reason is; because these affirme (I say all of them) that every particular Eldership, with the Churches consent, may lawfully proceed among themselves to the excom­municating of offenders, whensoever there is necessary and just cause. Neither doe they say a word; that it is a Divine institution, that the Ministers of one Congregation, must first aske the leave and consent of other Ministers, before they can lawfully administer this ordinance of God. Hereunto I answer; The more Reverend, Godly and learned these Au­thors were, the greater is his offence that shewes so little reverence unto them, in perverting and abusing their testimonies. If any Advocate should so farre wrong a Iurie of 24 men, as to falsify their verdict contrary to their meaning; might it not justly be counted a great forgery, and worthy of exemplary punishment? Now that this is the fault of M^r C. the Advocate and abettour of W. B. it may appeare in the first place, by the generall consideration of their testimonies alledged. For though it be generally affirmed by these Authors, that matters of great weight, as excommunication, absolution, choosing of Ministers and the like, are not to be administred without the common consent of the Church; yet this proves not that it is unlawfull to seek the counsell and help of a Classis or Synod beforehand for the preventing of wrong, or that it is unlawfull to appeale unto them in case of wrong done. Though particular Congregations have power to judge, it followes not, that they themselves are therefore subject to no other Ecclesiasticall judgment out of themselves. The errour & absurdity of this consequence may better appeare by these examples: Though fathers & masters of particular families have immedi­ate authority from God, & power to use it in a domesticall way, to performe familie dueties, & judge of matters in the family; yet this hinders not but that their familie exercises & works may be judged of by other authority in the city, where many fa­milies are cōbined together for their mutuall governmēt. Though particular cities [Page 186]in and for themselves have power to execute judgement, and to punish offences committed among them; yet this hinders not but that if they judge unjustly or abuse their authority, that they themselves may then be judged of others.

To come more particularly unto his Authors alledged, and first for P. Martyr whom he makes the foreman of the Iurie; though he writing against the errour of the Romish Church, teaching that Councels cannot erre, and preferring them a­bove the Scriptures, have just cause to shew the errours of sundry Councells and Synods, especially about that time when so many wicked decrees were made by the Councell of Trent; vet he addeth, thatLoc. Cōm. Class. 4. c. 4. § 11 de Cōncill these things were not spoken, that the Authority of Councels should be wholly cast away. For (saith he) if they reprehend, excom­municate or absolve according to the word of God, praying together by the power of the Spirit, these shall not be in vaine nor without fruit. And afterwards againe he bringsIbid. c. 6. § 18. divine warrant to shew the institution and order of Synods, from the example of the A­postles, Act. 15. By which it may appeare how he held that there was a superiour Ecclesiasticall power above particular Congregations, and consequently that his testimony hath bene perverted by Mr Canne.

The second Author alledged against us is Iunius, who notwithstanding is a most pregnant witnesse for us, to shew the authority of Synods. When Bellarmine ob­jecteth against the Protestants, that they reject Ecclesiasticall judgements, and re­fuse the authority of Synods; this heAnim­adv. in Bell. Controv. 4. de Conc. in Praef. n. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13. shewes to be most false. And furtherIbid. l. 1 c. 1. & 3. & 10. n. 1, 2. & 11. n. 1. he avoucheth both the just authority and necessity of Synods, and likewise the divine institution of them, alledging often to that end besides other Scriptures, that sentence of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 14.32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. Though no sentence, whether of a particular Congregation, or of any other judge, is to be yeelded unto and allowed contrary to the word of God; yet according to that word heIbid. c. 18. n. 1.8. & l, 2. c. 1. n 1. &c. 16. n 1. &c. 18. n 1, 2, 6. maintaineth that Synods are not onely to make in­quisition and to consult, but that they also have under Christ a ministeriall judge­ment touching the controversies either about faith or manners. Iunius there­fore is greatly abused when it is pretended that he hath brought in a contrary ver­dict against us.

The third man of the Iurie, produced against us, is Musculus. And here it is to be observed; I. That it is untruely affirmed by him in his words noted before, tou­ching the Iurie of more then 24 men, that they are of mine owne choosing. For though I have a multitude of witnesses agreeing with me; yet as none in particu­lar were named by me, so Musculus in speciall should not have bene alledged, con­sidering his different judgement and practise from other Reformed Churches. For although he confesse that the power of election and deposition of Ministers, ex­communication, &c. was exercised with consent of the people in the primitive Church and in the Apostles time; yet he saith, and thatLoc. Cōm. de Minist. p. 199, 204. de Eccl. p. 311 de Magist. p. 631. 632. & 633. often, that this order was to be kept while there were no Christian Magistrates; and that the order which was then profitable to the Churches, is not so at this time; that it now be­longs unto the Magistrate to appoynt Ministers, either by choosing them him­self, or confirming such as were chosen by others at his commandement; that the Rule of Telling the Church, Matth. 18. was in force while they were destitute of [Page 187]Christian Magistrates. II. Though Musculus differ from other Reformed Churches in this question of Church-government; yet he also most evidently (even more then I doe) condemnes the opinion of the Brownists and of my op­posites, while heIbid. de elect. Mini­str. p. 200. maintaines that particular Congregations are subject to ano­ther superiour power out of themselves in matters of Church-government; while he justifieth the practise of the Churches in Berne, where Ministers are chosen in the citie, and by the Senate sent unto the Churches in the country subject unto their jurisdiction, as they thought best. If Musculus had bene of Mr Cannes & W. Bests minde, he should have forsaken those Churches and separated from them, as not being a free people, while they wanted excommunication & power of choo­sing their owne Ministers. Who sees not here how notably they pervert the Au­thors alledged by them? Come we to the rest.

In the next place he nameth Viret, but it seemes he is mistaken in his Allegati­on, there being no such booke of Viret, as he hath quoted in his margine; he ra­ther seemes to meane Virell in the grounds of Religion: But whether he meane Viret or Virell, neither of them can be justly alledged for his witnesses in this cause.

For Viret, he isBeza, in vita Calv. & Calv. E­pist. 25, 39.54, &.c recorded to have bene a speciall assistant unto Calvine in the work of the Lord, for the settling of that forme of Discipline, by which the pow­er of an Ecclesiasticall Judicatorie over divers particular Congregations, was esta­blished at Geneva. That weed of Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods (as M^r Canne hereCh. pl. p. 94. calles it) was planted by the hand of Viret, as well as of Calvine. And then what reason is there to judge but that Viret did esteeme it a plant of the heavenly Father, not to be rooted out of the gardē of his Church, seeing he joyned with him in that work?

For Virell, he writes touching the outward calling of Ministers in theGroūds of Relig. b. 3. c. 1. p. 2. 7, 708, edit. 12. place alledged, that it is the lawfull choyse of a visible Church met together in the name of Christ; that there be three things required thereunto; first, that there be a search and tryall both of the conversation and learning of him that is to be chosen, &c. Another is this, that men come not to it by any corruptiō of gifts; but that it be free: so as they that have the power to chose, should have onely the glory of God, and the edification of his Church before their eyes. Thirdly, that he which is chosen have a Church appointed unto him for the execution of his office, whose duety it is to looke unto it diligently & carefully. And more then this he saith not that can with any colour be thought to looke towards this cōtroversy. And in all this, what one word hath he against the authority of Synods? Nay it is the work of Classes and Synods to see that all things here required, be accordingly performed in particular Churches; and if any of these be omitted, to correct and reforme the same.

Bullinger, next alledged, though he say that the Church hath power to elect & ordaine fit Ministers, yet he was not of M^r Cannes minde, to thinke that the Church looseth her right, and is bereaved of her due power, when it is not exer­cised by herself alone, or in that popular way which he requireth: for even in the placeDecad. 5. Ser. 4. which M^r Canne hath cited, he saith, It skilleth not much whether fit Mini­sters be ordained by grave men chosen by the Church, or by the whole Church itself, and that either by votes or by lots, or in any other convenient and holy manner. For godlinesse doth not [Page 188]contend about these things, so that all be done holily and according to order. And afterwards againe he speakes to the same purpose: It is well knowne that true Churches have the right of ordaining Pastours, whether it be done by the votes of the whole Church, or by the lawfull judgement of them that be chosen by the Church. It appeares by these & the fol­lowing words that he alludes unto the practise of the Helvetian Churches, con­cerning which we are to make further mentionSect. 7. hereafter, when we come to speak of their Confession. Touching the Ecclesiasticall power of Synods, Bul­linger declares his judgement also in this same booke, whenDecad. 5. Ser. 1. speaking of the power of the Church in judging of doctrines he gives instance in the gathering of a Synod, which saith he, the Church of God doth according to the power receyved from the Lord, even as we read in the Actes of the Apostles, that the Apostles of the Lord have done, &c. Againe heDecad. 5. Serm. 10. cites and approves the decree of Justinian the Em­perour, for the yearely celebrating of Synods, where matters arising might be examined and by due correction healed. He urgeth this decree against the Bishops, and warnes the Magistrates to take heed they doe not connive at the others negligence, to the destruction of the whole Church and of all the Ministers of Christ. Behold here the dif­ference betwixt Bullinger and Mr Canne; that which the one holds to be the so­veraigne remedy to preserve the safety of Churches & of the ministery, the other rejects as an unprofitable weed, and that which tends to the undoing andCh. pl. p. 74. spoy­ling of Churches.

Danaeus his testimony is likewise unjustly alledged against us, seeing he speakes not in the palce mentioned, of the point in controversy betwixt us, viz. the autho­rity of Classes & Synods, or the totall excluding of the same in those things which belong unto elections. Onely he doth thereIn. 1. Tim. 5.22. reproove the grosse errour of those that in regard of such popular circumstances as M^r Canne seemes most to plead for, doe bring, as he saith, a very great confusion into the Church, by asscribing unto the people more then is due unto them: while he shewes that the electing and presenting of the person that is to be called unto any Ecclesiasticall office, whereby he understands the first taking notice of him, the examining of his life & doctrine, and the publishing or propounding of him unto the whole Church, that this belongs unto the Presbytery; and that the approving and accepting of the person so examined and propounded doth belong unto the people, they also ha­ving a convenient time allowed unto them, that if there be just cause they may testify their dislike and bring in their exceptions against him. This is the course there described and maintained by Danaeus, and the same with that which is prac­tised in our Church: And thus the Witnesses produced against us, doe still declare their consent with us. As for the authority of Synods and the divine right by which it is due unto them, Danaeus gives his verdict, when in the exposition of the fourth commandement, having spoken of the jurisdiction and power of the Church, he saith,Ethic. Christ. Lib. 2. cap. 10. Here comes in the Question concerning Synods, which if they be right and keep themselves within their owne bounds, their authority is ordained by this Com­mandement.

Gualter in theHomil. in Act. 13.2 first place alledged, having spoken of the due suffrages or voi­ces of the Church in elections, to prevent such a construction as M^r Canne seemes [Page 189]to make of his words, addes presently, This place doth clearly teach that some parts are committed to the Church in this businesse. And againe he saith there, that the election of Ministers doth in some part belong to the Church, &c. He doth not therefore exclude that part which herein we asscribe unto the Classis, by proceeding with their ad­vise and consent. In the otherIbid. in cap. 14.23. place (for M^r Cannes marginall quotation [13.22.] seemes to be misprinted) he saith that by [...] may be understood not onely the gathering of voices, but also imposition of hands, and in his opinion the latter acception doth agree best. For, saith he, it is not likely that the Apostles would depart from the first order or course which we have seen to have bene observed in the elec­tion of Matthias, &c. And upon Act. 1.26. he labours to prove that this man­ner of choosing is still to be observed in the Church, as most safe and convenient, whereby certaine men being found that are esteemed meet for the office unto which the election is to be made, the event of our counsels may be referred unto the judg­ment of God, by casting lots; in such sort as Matthias was chosen unto the A­postleship. However, that he doth not deny the matters of particular Congre­gations to be subject unto the judgement of the Ministers of other Churches, as­sembled in a Classis or Synod, may be gathered from those testimonies which evē in this booke here alledged, he gives concerning the authority of Synods, and the Divine warrant upon which it is grounded. Speaking of the authority of a Ge­nerall Councell which many then so much desired, he sayth,Ibid. in cap. 5.21. To me also it seemes to be a most profitable thing, if a free Synod could be obtained, in which all controversies might be composed out of the word of God alone: such as that Apostolicall [Synod] was, of which we are to speak in chap. 15. and such as we know those of old to have bene, viz. of Nice, con­stantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, &c. And afterwards againe,Ibid. in cap. 20.17. intrea­ting of Pauls sending from Miletus to Ephesus, and calling the Elders of the Church, he calles it a Synod: By which example, he saith, as the faithfulnes and indu­strie of Paul doth appeare, so also we are admonished that the assemblies of Ministers are alto­gether necessary, in which Church-affaires may be handled by the common voyces of all. This makes greatly for the maintaining of Church-discipline, for the restraining of the ambition of Church-governours, for the preserving of consent in true doctrine, and for the repressing of heresies, which (if Ministers doe not most faithfully joyne their paines together) are wont of­ten to creep in. This he declares againe by the example of that Synod, Act. 15. and he commends the pietie and prudence of Constantine the great, for his frequent assembling of Synods; as on the other side he notes the wickednes of Licinius and of Antichrist, in resisting and hindring the due exercise of this authority of Synods. How doe these things agree with M^r Cannes discourse, who yet alledgeth this Author, as one of the Jurie, by which he saith my position (as he calles it) is con­demned, viz. that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves?

Touching Sibrandus, the order of electing Ministers in these ChurchesSibrād. Lubb. Resp. ad Piet. H. Gr. p. 159. appro­ved by him, is the same that is used in our Church, and approved by me also: and he hath notably perverted it in opposing of it unto me. For that order hinders not but that there may be another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority in a Classis or Synod, to judge of the elections made in particular Congregations, or of other [Page 190]controversies. This trueth is so often and so earnestly avouched by Sibrandus, that scarsely any have bene more vehement in this poynt. And in this very book alledged, he in his first entrance, in the preface to the Senate of Gelderland, com­plaines of Grotius for oppugning this order of Classes and Synods; and in the con­clusion of his preface he professeth that there was scarsely any other meanes then a Nationall Synod to heale the evills of that time, and desires them to perswade the calling thereof. Afterward in theP. 140. 141, &c. book itself he shewes at large both from the Scriptures and practise of ancient Churches, the use, the order, and the autho­rity of Synods; not onely in deliberating, but in judging and deciding of contro­versies. In his Disputation with Bertius he shewesEpist. Discept. de Fide. p. 3. that it is altogether needfull to have a Synodicall judgement to heale the wounds of the Church. In his book against Vorsti­us, after long dispute,Declar. Resp. Conr. Vorst. p. 142, 143.144. in conclusion he offereth, yea he provoketh and urgeth him to referre their controversy and differences to the judgement of other Chur­ches, which he there nominates. And in the preface thereof unto the States Generall of the United Provinces, he shewes from the word of God and exam­ples of the godly, the necessity of Synods, he declares what confusion and distrac­tion of Churches ensueth where they are neglected, and makes earnest supplica­tion unto them for the maintenance of this order in government. In another of his bookes against Vorstius, Cōment. ad 99 Erro­tes C. Vorst. pref. p. 45, Cōm. p. 503 504. & p. 841. both in the beginning, middle, and end of it, he harpes upon the same string. His appeale unto the judgement of other Churches, and his willingnes to submit unto their judgement, with his desire of a Nationall Synod, is plainely declared therein. Speaking of the fruit of Synods, he saithIbid. pref. p. 34. 35. that the holding of them in their Churches, hath bene next unto God the chief sinew of preserving both the true doctrine and tranquillity of the Churches: and that if any man ac­quainted with their affaires dare deny the same, he shall manifest his impudency or make warre with his owne conscience. And thus by the verdict of Sibrandus, if my opposites un­derstand the Discipline and state of these Churches, and deny the fruit of Synods, they must be held for impudent and unconscionable persons. Moreover in his book against Bellarmine concerning Councells he gives divers testimoniesDeCōc. Lib. 1. c. 1. & l. 2. c. 3. & l. 5. c. 1, 3, 5, 8. tou­ching the profitable use of Councels for the determining of controversies, their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, and the exercise of it in making decrees and censuring offendours. By all which it appeares how injurious Mr Canne hath bene unto Si­brandus in producing him as a witnesse against the authority of Synods, whereas he hath so often testifyed his judgement to the contrary.

Mornaeus in the placeHistor. Pap. p. 542, &c. edit. 1612. alledged, hath no such thing as for which he is quo­ted; unlesse he meane that which is noted in one of the following pages,Ib. p. 545 that the Popes of Rome were chosen in publick assemblies of the Priests, the Nobility, the common people, the Senate, by the voices of all, &c. which if it be explained and ap­plyed to the question in hand, may easily be discerned to fall short of proving any thing against us. But this Author in the same booke shewes plainly his approba­tion of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes: He alledgeth frequent­ly and maintaines against Baronius and Bellarmine the judiciall Acts and sentences of sundry Synods against the Popes of Rome. He calles those decrees of the Coun­cell of Basile,P. 1218. Catholick or universall trueths, whereby it was enacted; 1. That [Page 191]the power of a Generall Councell, representing the whole Church is above the Pope and everie other person. 2. That the Pope cannot dissolve a Generall Councell without their consent, &c. 3. That he that doth obstinately oppose the foresaid trueths is to be accounted an Heretick. He relates & cōmends the speeches ofP. 1010. &c. Marsilius Patavinus, P. 1232 &c. Petrus de Alliaco, and divers others, shewing the power of Councels in judging and censuring the Pope, the necessity of them, both Provinciall and Generall, for the correcting of abuses, and amending of all sorts of persons and things with greater authority. He approves and defendsP. 1341. the renowned Italian Martyr, Hieronimus Savanorola, for seeking that a Generall Councell might be called for reformation of the Clergie, and degenerate estate of the Church, &c. Besides this, he being in his time a principall favourer & maintainer of the Discipline in the French Churches, where the causes of particular Congregations were judged and determined by Synods, could therefore be no favourer of the Brownists opinion, which count such go­vernment to be a miserable bondage and slavery of the Churches.

Tilenus, that is also called to be one of their Jurie against me, doth most expresse­ly give his verdict on my side against the Brownists. He teachethSyntag. Disp. Theol. par. 2. Disp. [...]0. thes. 1. that the fourefold power of the Church is to be exercised not onely in Presbyteries, but al­so in Councels or Synods: thatThes. 4. Synods according to the power granted of God unto his Church, may take knowledge of Ecclesiasticall causes, and by their judgements conferred together according to the word of God, may define, &c. &Th. 19. give ministeriall sentence, &c. And further he saith,Th. 38. As it is not to be hoped for that the body of the Church militant on earth shall be free from divers diseases; so we may not think that it can want this remedy of Synods, which we therefore affirme to be not onely lawfull but also necessary.

Bastingius shewing how Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church, saith no­thing but that which is practised both in our and other Reformed Churches of these countries, especially if it be marked how he explaines himself in the leafe following, where he addes thatExpos. Catech. Qu. 85. Ecclesiasticall discipline and excommunication itself ought to be administred by them who are ordained thereunto of the Church; such as are Mini­sters of the Word, and Elders, the rest of the Church consenting thereunto; yet with this cor­rection, that the multitude of the people doe not rule the action, but provide as watchmen, that nothing be done by a few as they list themselves. Besides, he being a member & Minister of these Churches, and Regent of a Colledge in Leyden, there is no reason from these his words to conclude against the authority of Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations, if they either could not agree among themselves, or should agree in evill. For then he should have condemned his owne estate and practise, which yet cannot be inferred from this his testimony.

Vrfinus also, though he teach that the unrepentant are to be excommunicated by the common consent 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 testimony with me. ForTom. 2. Admo. Chr. de lib. Con­cord. c. 12. col. 686. having shewed the conditi­ons and necessity of Synods, he saith of them, This remedie for the healing of the wounds of the Church is not to be neglected, which the holy Ghost hath shewed unto us, by the counsell and example of the Apostles; which all reason of divine and humane right requires; [Page 192]which being lawfully used experience hath proved to be most wholesome for the Church in many most grievous confusions of opinions. Neither was this his private opinion, butIbid. Tit. & Col. 478. writ­ten in the name of other Divines & Ministers in the jurisdiction of Prince Casimir, and approved by them.

Piscator saith, Excommunication is a decree of the Church, & therefore ought to be done of the Church,In 1. Cor. 5. Obs. 1. Art. 3. or of the Eldership judging in the name of the Church. We grant as much or more in the practise of our Church, while the Eldership never exerciseth such power alone, without the knowledge and consent of the Church, by propounding the same divers times unto them. But it is a perverting of this testimony, to gather from hence that the actions of the Church or Eldership are not subject to the judgement of Synods, if they be complained of for wrong. And that Piscator alloweth the authority of Synods,In Act. 15. Obser. in V. 6. to judge the controversies of Religi­on, and to Thes. Theol. Vol. 1. Loc. 23. de Eccl. th. 68. & 72. make decrees by gathering of voyces in order, it is evident from other of his writings.

Calvine requiring theInstit. l. 4. c. 1. sec; 15. cognition of the whole Church before any be excom­municate, requires no more then is held and practised by us. And this is no em­peachment to his and our opinion with him, that in case of doubt or controversy,Ibid. c. 9. sec; 13. there is no better nor more certaine remedie then that a Synod of true Bishops meet together, where the controversy may be discussed. For such a definition shall have much more weight, where the Pastours of Churches in common doe agree together, &c. And this he there con­firmes both by Scripture, and sundry examples of ancient Churches, shewing that from the beginning it was the ordinary way of preserving unitie in the Church, so often as Satan began to attempt any thing. Besides this, not to speak of other testimonies af­forded by Calvine to this purpose, when as M^r CanneCh. pl. p. 94. afterward notes the as­sertions of divers pleading for the Hierarchie of Bishops, and oppugning Ecclesi­asticall government by Classes and Synods, as a weed of later growth, saying that at Geneva subjecting of Churches first began. And before Calvine came there, everie Con­gregation was free in itself: If these assertions be true, and that none is able to disprove them, as M^r Canne there supposeth, how comes it that he thus perverteth Mr Calvines testimony against his profession and practise? Let the Reader observe that if these assetions were sound, M^r Canne might as well have written a booke, to prove the miserable bondage and slavery of the Church at Geneva, procured by the tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine of Mr Calvine, as he wrote the like title of an unjust complaint upon the like ground against me.

Paraeus on 1. Cor. 5.5. doth thus interpret the words; Let such a one be delivered to Satan; to wit, by the Church, or by the Pastours and Elders of the Church, which are the mouth of the Church. For by these the Church speaketh and dealeth. Without this order there would be confusion, if in a publick action every one might speake and deale: which undoubted­ly the Apostle would not bring in. This we grant, and it is not against us, but against the confused practise of the Brownists. But for the poynt in hand, that Classes and Synods have power to judge of the actions of particular Congregations, Pa­raeus is a plaine witnesse for us inColleg. Theol. De­cur. Coll. 9. Disp. 8. Auc­car. 1. & Co. 10. Disp. 22. th. 1-10. & Disp. 24. th. 9. other of his writings. And againe, speaking of a lawfull Synod and the authority thereof in deciding of controversies in the Church, he saith that thereinEirenic. cap. 5. men renowmed in regard of their learning, understan­ding [Page 193]and piety, whether they be of the Laity or Clergy, have not onely a voice of delibertion and counsell, but also of judgement and power of defining. And hereunto accordes hisAct. Sym. Nar. Dordr. Ses. 98. Epistle written unto the Nationall Synod holden last at Dort, wherein excusing his absence, that he could not come in respect of his age, as he much desired, yet he shewes his approbation of such a meeting, as being the ordinary medicine for hea­ling the wounds of the Church, and rejoyceth greatly in the spirit for the benefit ex­spected from that Synod, which judged & censured the errours of particular men in divers Churches. What reason then had M^r Canne thus to abuse the words of Paraeus against his meaning and publick profession?

Keckerman also agreeth with the former witnesses touching the poynt in con­troversy. For in the book alledged by M^r Canne, when as the parts of the govern­ment of the Church are there described; he shewes thatSystem. Theo. l. 3. c. 6. p. 401.402. the convocation of Synods belongeth unto Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, and is contained under the same.

Hemmingius, though more sound and moderate then other Lutheranes, yet being a disciple and follower of Melancthon, there was no reason why he should not have bene joyned with his Master in the foregoing ranke of Testimonies, if M^r Canne had either knowne his Authour, or regarded the order which he had set downe to himself. But for his judgement touching the jurisdiction of Synods, he hath witnessed his consent with the Writers mentioned both in this & the for­mer Section, and testifyed against M^r Canne in this cause. For speaking of that part of Ecclesiasticall Discipline, unto which he referres the deposition and ex­communication of Ministers, he commends the order of the ancient Church, where he saithEnchir. Theo. Clas. 3. c. 11. the execution of this discipline was chiefly committed to the Bishops, who therefore sometimes twise, sometimes oftner in the yeare called Provinciall Synods, where the matter was handled, not by the censure of one Bishop, but by the sentence of the whole Clergy assembled.

Tossanus, mentioned in the next place, hath plainely declared himself to be of the same minde with us, in allowing Synodall and Classicall assemblies to judge & determine the causes of particular Churches and persons. HePastor. Evang. p. 61 edit. 1603. maintaines against Thyraeus that which he had formerly written, in these words, In controversies of reli­gion we appeale from Luther, and from the censures and judgements of private men, unto the judgement of the Catholick Church and of a Synod. He proves this to be sound and orthodoxe from the Apostles referring the decision of the controversie concer­ning Iustification and the Ceremonies of the Law, unto the Councell at Ierusalem, Act. 15. Speaking of somewhat that was wanting in most of the German Chur­ches, about the ordaining of Ministers, he saith thatP. 40. godly Pastours and Overseers doe dayly bewaile the scarsitie of faithfull labourers, and that the Presbyteries and well ordered Ecclesiasticall Senates doe indeavour that both in Synods and yearely visitations, and in Clas­sicall meetings the failings of Ministers may be amended according to their power. In which words he hath reference unto the practise of the Churches in the Palatinate (con­cerning which we are to speakeSect. 7. hereafter) where he joyned with them in the exercise of the sayd government, beingD. Toss. Vita, p. 38. at Neustadt a moderator of the Eccle­siasticall counsels of the Consistory, and sometime also President of a Synod; and [Page 194]afterwards at Heidelberg Ib. P. 44. a member of the Ecclesiasticall Senate. How unjustly therefore & untruely hath M^r Canne dealt with Tossanus and his readers, in recko­ning him among those who, as he saith,Ch. pl. p. 83. have condemned for an errour & un­trueth, that position touching particular Congregations standing under other Ec­clesiasticall authoritie out of themselves!

As for Polanus, to grant M^r Canne, that he was of the same minde with the former Authours, touching the Churches power in excommunicating, though so much can hardly be manifested out of theSynt. Theol. l. 7. c. 18. place alledged; yet what is that to our question? The Churches power in excommuncating doth not exclude the authority of Synods in judging of a particular Congregation. Polanus speaking of Synods, expressely confesseth, thatIb. c. 14 the liberty or power of those Ecclesiasticall as­semblies is a right given of God unto his Church, &c. that An Ecclesiasticall Synod is a pu­blick assemblie of godly men, lawfully sent and gathered together from divers Churches, also of divers Provinces, that they may handle and determine according to the power that is granted unto them of God, touching holy affaires, &c. He alledgeth sundry Scriptures and ex­amples of the Ancient Churches for declaration hereof. And againe in the same place, he notes it for a condition of a lawfull Synod, that those which are chosen and deputed of the Churches may have a deliberative or consulting, and also a deci­ding voyce or giving of sentence, &c. When he requires another condition of a lawfull Synod, that every one may have free accesse and recesse; yet he addes this with­all, that whosoever is convicted of heresy or any crime, and remaineth obstinate, should un­dergoe Ecclesiasticall censure, that is, deposition from his Ecclesiasticall office, or Suspension, or Excommunication. And to like purpose he writes inIb. c. 16. Syllo. Thes. Theol. par. 1 de Concil. other places. This being the judgement of Polanus touching the authority of Synods, how uncircumspect was W. Best & his abettour, to call for a Iurie of such Divines as have given such preg­nant sentence and so peremptory verdict against them?

Hyperius, next alledged, though he deny not the power of particular Congrega­tions, yet in his writings it is evident that he holdes the power of Synods, consi­sting of the Deputies of many Churches, to be a superiour power above one parti­cular Church, and that they may judge of the affaires thereof and of the persons therein, either Ministers or people. This he declares at large in a peculiar treatise touching yearely Synods, DeSyno. Annuis O­pusc. Theol. p. 768-870. Bas. 1570. wherein after he had shewed the necessity and use of Synods by many divine and humane testimonies, he then describes their power, not for counsell onely, as the Brownists and my opposites doe, but for the exer­cise of all kinde of Ecclesiasticall censures, as Rebukes of offenders, Suspension, Excommunication, and Deposition or deportment of Officers from their mini­stery. Of all the men of the Iurie before mentioned, there is none that gives a more full and cleare verdict against M^r Canne, then this Hyperius doth.

Oecolompadius, another of his Authors, hath declared his judgement touching Synods, and the authority exercised in them, to be such as argues his thstimony alledged by M^r Canne to be perverted, while it is produced against the same. For in his answer to Luther, inserted among the workes of Zuinglius,Tom. 2. fol. 491. he doth high­ly commend the Councell of Nice, and specially for decreeing that none should af­terwards attempt to adde any new articles unto that Confessiō of faith which they [Page 195]had set downe. Which Nestorius being found guilty of, Oecolompadius approves of that Act of the Councell of Ephesus, whereby he was excommunicated, saying, For which cause being condemned of the crime of heresie, he was by common consent shut out of the Church, which was sensible of peace restored unto her by this meanes. Hereby it appea­reth that the acknowledged Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō & censure to be a power due unto Synods, and that which may lawfully be exercised by them.

Beza. next alledged, upon 2. Thes. 3.14. though he there call Excommunicati­on, an. Ecclesiasticall judgement, yet doth he not thereby infringe the authority of Classes and Synods, neither can any such thing by any just consequence be gathe­red from his Annotations on that place. But on the other side he shewesEpist. 83. De Ministr. gradib. c. 23 p. 155. &c. 24. p. 176. 177. els­where that Synods have their Ecclesiasticall judgements grounded upon the word of God, and a profitable use in the Church of God; and that the fanaticall opini­on of Morellius (much like unto the Brownists) hath bene worthily condemned in many Synods. And according to his writing, so was his practise; both at Ge­neva, where he was one of them that had their voyce in the government of that Church by a joynt Presbytery or Classis; and in France, where he himself was President of that famousHarmo. Confes. p. 112. edit. 1612. Synod at Rochell, where the Confession of their faith was subscribed by divers Princes, and many Ministers and Elders assembled toge­ther. And therefore if M^r Canne and W. Best their accusation of me were sound and just, they might as well complaine of Beza, for bringing the Churches of God into miserable slavery and bondage by his tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine.

Bucer, last alledged, accordes with the foregoing Authors, and his words in commendation of Synods may serve to close up this kinde of Testimonies, being an advise unto King Edward the Sixt, for the constant celebrating of them. In his Admonition given to the King for the restitution of the Kingdome of Christ in his dominions, amidst other wholesome counsels out of the word of God, he saith,De Reg­no Christi. Lib. 2. c. 12. It shall be the duety of the Bishops of each Province to celebrate two Synods every yeare, as it is ordained by so many Canons, and Lawes of godly Emperours. At which Sy­nods must be assembled and heard, not onely the Bishops of the Cities, but also inferiour Bishops and other Presbyters and Deacons, that are endued with a larger measure of knowledge and zeale for the kingdome of Christ: that so the more effectually both the faults crept into the Church may becorrected, and the pietie of all repaired. He had also spoken before of other inferiour and more frequent assemblies, like unto our Classes, requiring that all the Ministers within the compasse of about 20 Parishes, should often meet toge­ther, for their mutuall assistance in removing offences & advancing the kingdome of Christ. Touching Synods, he speakes also inDe vi & usu S. Min. tit. de Disci. Cler. Opuse. f. 582. another place to the same purpose, approving the ancient constitution, whereby it was ordained that the Bi­shops of every Province should assemble together with the Presbyters and Deacons, as often as the need of the Churches should require, but without faile twise in the yeare; that they might in­quire concerning the doctrine and discipline of Christ, how it were administred and did flourish in severall Churches; that where any default was discovered they might correct it; and where they found things in good state, they might confirme and promote the same. By that correc­tion spoken of here and in the former testimonie, he understands not onely counsell [Page 196]and admonition, but the judiciall exercise of authority in Ecclesiasticall censures: For he doth plainly distinguish betwixt admonition and correction, when in the fol­lowing words concerning Metropolitanes he saith, If any thing were done amisse by the Ministers of the Churches, or by the common people, which by their admonitions they could not amend, that then for the correcting of it they should call a Synod of Bishops: for there was no [power] of judgement allowed unto them, which by their owne authority they might exercise in the Churches, &c. Thus Bucerus also, as well as the former, hath condemned M^r Cannes position, viz. that particular Congregations must not stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves.

And these are all the Authors here alledged by M^r Canne, except onely Morell, Praedirius and Munster, either not seen at all, nor to be procured for the present, as the two former; or not seen to touch this controversie in the writings at hand, as the latter.

Having now heard what these chosen men of the Iurie, all nominated by W. B. his Advocate, have testifyed concerning Classes or Synods; let the Reader judge whether they have given verdict for or against Synods: whether every one of these Authors alledged had not just cause (if they were living) to complaine of great abuse done to them in perverting their testimonies, and making false conse­quences from their words contrary to their meaning. And forasmuch as all these witnesses here examined are so farre from testifying ought against us, that they have on the other side witnessed the trueth of that which we maintained against M^r Canne; hence it is evident that I had just cause to say that which he would seeme to disprove by alledging these Authors against me, viz. that there were a multitude of learned and godly Ministers of the same judgement and practise with me. For further proofe whereof it were easy (if need were) to produce another Iurie of approved Authors, more in number then those he hath specifyed, and not inferiour for learning and piety unto some of those that he hath named, all which in their seve­rall writings, Common places, Commentaries and other Treatises, have in like manner as the former, described the use, the necessity and the authority of Synods, not onely for counsell, but for judgement and decision of controversies; divers of them alledging not onely examples of ancient Churches, but the holy Scriptures also for the warrant of that which they teach, and therefore shewing that they maintaine them lawfull jure divino; and that their tenure of them is from the grant that Christ hath given unto his Church. But the trueth of that assertion touching the multitude of those that consent with me, will most plainly appeare when we come to speak of the publick and generall testimonies of whole Churches & most solemne assemblies of learned & godly men, touching this controversie. In the meane while let us follow M^r Canne, according to his owne Method.

SECT. IV.
Touching the Testimonies of English Conformists.

IN the next place they proceed, and in an homely phrase, they say, Touching the English Conformist, the formablest of them are for us, in this poynt. And here they alledge B. Whitgift, D. Bilson, Whitaker, Bell, Willet, and Taylor.

Touching these I answer: First for B. Whitgift, though he confesse that in the Apostles time the state of the Church was popular, See Def. ag. T. C. p. 180. 182. because the Church had interest almost in every thing; yet this proves not that he thought particular Congregations to be in­dependent and uncontrolable by the Deputies of other Churches assembled in Synods. The ordinary practise of B. Whitgift, in judging the causes of other Con­gregations, shewed that he was farre from the meaning of the Brownists in this poynt. His words are wrested by an unjust consequence to prove independency of Churches, and the undue power of Synods.

For D. Bilson, there is notable wrong done to him, in clipping his words, and defacing his testimonie, by omitting that which is most materiall in this contro­versy. For when D. Bilson had sayd,Perpet. Gover. c. 15 p. 360. Though the Presbyters had more skill to judge, yet the people had as much right to choose their Pastour; & if the most part of them did agree, they did carrie it from the Clergie; Thus farre M^r Canne reciteth his words, but here in the midst of the sentence, before the period be ended, he breakes off and leaves out this exception that is added, viz. so the persons chosen were such as the Canons did allow, and the ordainers could not justly mislike. In this exception D. B. acknowled­geth, that there may be just cause to disanull the election of the people, if it be found worthy to be misliked. And his meaning is yet more evident by the story which in the sentence immediately preceding he alledgeth out ofLib. 7. cap. 35. Socrates, tou­ching the election of Proclus, who being chosen by the greater number was yet refused, because the election was sayd to be against the Canon of translating Bi­shops, and so the people were forced to hold their peace. That which is prac­tised in these Reformed Churches, is in this poynt the very same thing that D. B. testifies of the Primitive Church: for Classes and Synods doe not use to impose or choose Ministers. If particular Congregations doe choose a Minister, neither Classes nor Synods can disanull the election, if there be no just cause of exception against the person elected. And if upon just exception the election be hindred yet then also is the new election of another permitted to the free choyse of the particular Church; neither doth the Classis deprive them of their just power and liberty therein.

That it may more plainly appeare how unjustly and unreasonably D. Bilson is al­ledged as agreeing with my opposites, let it be further observed, that in his Dis­pute against Beza & such as approve the Discipline of these Reformed Churches, he doth not as my adversaries, complaine of the undue power of Synods, that judge and determine the causes of particular Congregations. He acknowledgeth thatPerpet. Gover. c. 16 p. 370. the necessity and authority of Synods is not so much in question betwixt us, as the persons that should assemble and moderate those meetings, &c. He would haveP. 378, &c. Metropolitanes to be the Moderatours and rulers of Synods: he would haveP. 387, &c. lay-Elders thrust out from assembling with Ministers in Synods: he complainesP. 386, 387. of the intolerable charges and expences of having frequent Synods, &c. Herein he differs from us, and we from him. But that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall authoritie in Sy­nods, to decide the causes of particular Churches, which is the poynt in question, herein he agreeth with us. He saith of such Synods and their power to judge, as followeth.P. 372. ‘Their warrant so to doe is builded on the maine grounds of all [Page 198]divine and humane societies, strengthened by the promise of our Saviour, and assured unto them by the example of the Apostles and perpetuall practise of the Church of Christ.’ Afterwards he saith of their meetings in Synods;P. 374. ‘This hath in all Ages, as well before, as since the great Councell of Nice bene ap­proved and practised, as the lawfullest and fittest meanes to discerne trueth from falshood, to decide doubts, end strifes, and redresse wrongs in causes Ecclesiasti­call; yea when there were no beleeving Magistrates to assist the Church, this was the onely way to cleanse the house of God, as much as might be, from the lothsome vessels of dishonour: and after Christian Princes began to professe & protect the trueth, they never had, nor can have any better or safer direction amongst men, then by the Synods of wise and godly Pastours.’ And many other things to like purpose are written by him, complayning that the denyall of this or­der isP. 376. an heathenish, if not an hellish confusion, &c.

That which they bring out of Scultingius, a Papist before alledged, is idle & im­pertinent: untill they heare me avouch such things as he doth for change of the order of Christ, let them refraine their surmises and conjectures of imaginary argu­ments which they guesse that I will use.

Having brought such Authours against me, mark how Wil. B. or Io. Ca. for him, doth triumph against me before the victory; in these words,Chu. pl. p. 85. To say that this su­periour power of Classes and Synods, is Jure Divino, I thinke he will not any more doe it: there being in the Scriptures no proofe (yea I may boldly say) nor shew of any proofe for it. I confesse indeed it is boldly spoken of him. for who so bold als blinde B.? But whether there be at least shew of proofe in the Scriptures, for the superiour au­thority of Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations, let us see what his owne witnesse saith.

D. Whitaker that is next alledged by him, doth by many arguments shew the profit and necessity of Synods; and to this end he citeth manyDeConc. qu. 1. c. 3. p. 15.16. & q. 2. c. 3. p. 55, 56. places of Scrip­ture, both from the old & new Testament: he alledgeth at largeP. 17. &c. 7 or 8 causes for which they are profitable, and of great use and fruit. He speaketh also of such Synods as are not onely for discussing and concluding of matters by way of coun­sell and advise, but of those that have power toP. 21. judge and condemne obstinate offenders by a publick judgement, and as occasion requires, to anathematise or ex­clude from the fellowship of the Church: he maintaines that those which are lawfully called unto Synods, have authority of deciding and determining contro­versies byIbid. q. 3. c. 3. p. 95.96. &c. definitive sentence or suffrage: he saith thatDePōtif. Rom. qu. 4. p. 470. appeales are of divine and naturall right, and cannot be denyed in controversies about Ecclesiasticall causes and persons. And thus by the testimony of their owne witnesse my adver­saries doe offend both against the law of God, and the law of nature, in denying appeales, and in not allowing the actions and judgements of a particular Congre­gation to be judicially examined by a Synod or Classis. The severall testimonies of D. Whitaker to this purpose, are alledgedP. 39. & 133-141. before and applyed at large, to de­clare his judgement in this controversy.

Though D. Whit. doeDeCōc. q. 5. p. 178. grant (as is here alledged against me) that Ecclesiasti­call authority is in the Church principally, primarily and essentially, &c. he doth not here­by [Page 199]contradict himself, or deny the power of Synods, where Ministers doe judge by vertue of their calling and deputation from many Churches. The authority of Churches is manifested in them, and by their service therein. The like testi­mony alledged from Saravia and Schola Parisienfis isP. 170. before answered. Yea the Schoole of Paris doth sufficientlySchol. Paris. p. 1, 2. explaine this matter by a fit similitude, shew­ing that Ecclesiasticall authority is in the Church primarily, and instrumentally in the Ministers: as the power of seeing is in man principally, but instrumentally in the eye: As man sees by his eye, so the Church exerciseth Ecclesiasticall autho­rity by the Ministers and rulers thereof; and so judgeth of all crimes and offences.

The testimony of Bell next alledged, is in like manner to be understood. Where­as fromRegim. of Chur. ch. 2. sect. 4. him they object that Excommunication precisely and chiefly pertaineth to the Church; and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof to some speciall persons, for that purpose, and chosen for that end: this doth no way condemne, but rather illu­strate our practise agreeable thereunto. And that the meaning of this Authour was not repugnant unto us, it appeareth more plainely by another of his writings,Bells motiv. l. 2. c. 4. concl. 3. &c. where he evidently declares his minde, that Synods have power to exercise Ec­clesiasticall authority, and to proceed judicially with delinquents, even to depose & excommunicate, though it were the Pope himself, upon due conviction. And to this end he alledges the confession of many Popish writers, and farre more truely and uprightly then M^r Canne hath done in this controversie.

As for D. Willet, if he speak but to the same effect with Bell, as they say, then the same answer may serve. But for the place alledged [Synops. cont. 4. qu. 4. p. 2.] I finde no such matter there. They alledge p. 2. when as there is no second part of that question. But in the same booke he gives plaine evidence against them; he acknowledgeth Synods to beSynops. Papi. Cōt. 3. qu. 1, p. 105. an wholesome meanes for the repressing and reforming both of errours in religion and corruption in manners: he alledgeth the consent of anti­quity to prove that our opinion is grounded upon trueth and Scripture, namely that those which are lawfully called unto Synods,Qu. 3. p. 109.110. have determining voyces, and power to give sentence; and giveth instance in the Councell of Antioch, where Pau­lus Samosatenus was condemned and cut off as an enemie to the trueth, &c. he avou­cheth thatQu. 7. p. 123. they have authority to judge, examine, suspend, punish and depose, &c. And thus D. Willet fully accordeth with us in this poynt, that there is a superiour power to judge the causes of particular Congregations.

D. Taylor next alledged, affords them no help. Whereas he saith, thatCom. on Tit. 3.10. p. 712. Ex­communication is the common action of the Church, and not of any private person or persons: we also affirme the same thing. Our profession and practise alwayes hath bene, never to excommunicate any without common consent of our Church; but had we done unjustly at any time therein, we might justly have bene subject to the censure of a Synod or Classis: and yet then also the Ministers and Deputies assem­bled in the name of many Churches, could with no reason be accounted private persons. And though we think ourselves bound to ask counsell of the Classis, ac­cording to the order of these Churches, before we proceed to cut off any mem­ber of the Church by excommunication, this proves no deprivation but a direc­tion of our power.

Now whether I have just cause to blush for denying to the Churches of God that due power which the Learned of all professions doe grant unto her, as M^r Canne and Will. B­doe without blushingCh. pl. p. 86. charge me, let the judicious & impartiall Readers judge.

SECT. V.
Touching the Testimonies of English Non-conformists.

VNder the title of this kinde of witnesses, they alledge against me, the Replyer to D. Downame, Mr Parker, the Authour of the English Puritanisme, D. Ames, Mr Baines, Mr Bates, Mr Fenner, Mr Udall, the English Church at Franck ford, and Mr Hooker. These areCh. pl. p. 86, &c. here produced: and in anotherP. 23. place, unto which he re­ferres us for the same purpose, he cites also the Protestation of the Kings Supremacic, D. Fulke, and our Country-men in New-England.

For answer hereunto; First, concerning some of these that seeme to be of M^r Cannes minde, in denying the authority of Synods in the government of the Church, observe how idlie and superfluously he alledgeth them against me; when as he knowes that I my self did acknowledge and note so much before, as namely the judgement ofAnsw. to W. B. p. 74. Mr Hooker, Ib. p. 27 D. Ames, and the Author of the booke enti­tled English Puritanisme, by whom also the Protestation of K. Supremacie is sayd to be written. These I have confessed to be opposite unto me in this controversy, & have long since professed unto them how much I have disliked their opinions in this poynt.

Secondly, though these witnesses have testifyed their particular judgement, yet did they never deny but that they differed herein from many other godly Mini­sters in England, which desired a reformatiō of the Church as well as they. When as I expostulated with D. Ames long since, touching the publishing of that treatise of English Puritanisme, and complayned of wrong done unto many silenced Mini­sters, who did not hold such opinions as are contained in that booke; his excuse was that they did not assirme those to be the opinions of all, but onely of the Rigi­dest sort of those that are called Puritanes, and that so much was specifyed in the Title of that book. And againe in the preface of that book, those opinions are sayd to be the worst that the worst of them hold: and the persons that doe hold those peculiar opi­nions, are there againe distinguished from others by the title and name of Rigid Presbyterians. Now though these expressions be not without some offence, yet from hence it may appeare that the Authors and Publishers thereof were farre from that slanderous disposition of M^r Canne, in charging those of different opi­nion to have changed and altered their judgement; when as he saith,Chu. pl. p. 86. Time was when M^r Paget did esteeme them to be a multitude of godly and learned Ministers; and was (or at least made shew he was) of their judgement and practise. An unconscionable insi­nuation against me. And afterwards againe he saith,Ib. p. 88. Mr Paget hath left the way of Non-conformitie, yea and shewes himself to it a great adversary, &c. A grosse slander. Whereas M^r Canne saith further touching the Protestation of K. Supremacic, that this booke wasP. 23. set out under the name of all the unconformable Ministers in the Realme; this is a notable falshood: for neither is the word All used in the title of that Pro­testation, [Page 201]made in the name of afflicted Ministers indefinitely; neither can it ever be proved that all those Ministers did ever consent unto that opinion there specifyed, and alledged by him, viz. We confine and binde all Ecclesiasticall power within the limits onely of one particular Congregation, &c.

Thirdly, as for Mr Bradshaw that wrote the forenamed Protestation, & that book of English Puritanisme, if he were such an one as M^r Canne reports him to be now after his death, then were his testimony and his writing the lesse to be regarded. For he saith of him, thatNecess. of Separ. p. 217. his proofes are alwayes beggerly I sayes, or Ifs, and may be soes; and doth not in all his writing, either directly or by sound consequence from the Scrip­ture, confirme any one thing whereof he speaketh. He accuseth him there also of great hy­pocrisy in pleading for many evills, of which his judgement was well knowne to be wholy otherwise. And in the same place upon an if and a may be so, which he had im­mediately condemned in others, upon a report which he judgeth probable enough, he compares him to Baalams Asse, &c. What meant M^r Canne to alledge such witnesses against me, whom he himselfe (though indeed very unworthily) hath so described as if they were not worthy to have any credit given unto them?

Touching D. Ames, & his judgement in this controversy, somewhat differently expressed in his severall writings, I have spoken at largeP. 106-111. before, in answer to Mr Dav. his Allegations.

As for Mr Hooker, his argumentCh. pl. p. 88. annexed to his Testimony, is of no force against us, seeing he concludes beside the question, which was not of every parti­cular Church, but of such as stood already in combination with a Classis.

Concerning the Churches in New-England, M^r Canne saith,Ib. P. 23. This may not be forgotten. Whereas there are many hundreds of our Country-men in New-England, they have not erected there any Classicall Government, but every particular Church exerciseth her owne, I say, within herself wholy; which is a sure argument to proove, that the foreward professours in England approove not of this kinde of government here pleaded for; although he would feigne have his Reader to thinke so. Hereunto I answer: 1. What the Go­vernment of the Churches in New-England is, and whether they refuse the help of Classes and Synods for the judgement and determination of their controversies, according to the order of Reformed Churches here in Europe; I know not: nei­ther can I receive the testimony of M^r Canne & his bare word for a sufficient evi­dence herein, without some more authentick witnesse. Divers bookes have bene published touching the nature of that soyle, the fruits of the countrie, & the man­ners of the wilde people: but touching the Ecclesiasticall government and disci­pline there practised, I have as yet seene no monument thereof. It is probable enough that those Separatists which had bene of Mr Robinsons company here at Leyden, in their plantation would observe their old order, as neere as they could: and for some particular persons beside, I have heard of their inclination that way; but that there should be a generall agreement & resolution against Classicall Com­binations, I heare not; and ought therefore to suspend my judgement for the pre­sent, touching their practise. 11. Suppose every particular Congregation in New-England were independent, and subject to no other Ecclesiasticall govern­ment out of itselfe; yet is this no sure argument to prove that the forward profes­sours [Page 202]in England (as M^r Canne calles them) are generally of the same opinion al­so; seeing these in England may be ignorant of that which is done so farre of. Yea, so farre as I can heare, even such as have bene diligent to enquire, cannot yet get any certaine information, what order of government is resolved upon in New-England.

As for Mr Bates, I can say nothing touching his assent or dissent in this poynt, seeing I have not seene his writing alledged against us.

For the rest, they are all notably abused. For the Authour of the Reply unto D. Downame, though he affirme that the administration of all Church-matters, at first was in every Congregation, the right in the Church, the execution in the Presbyterie thereof; this doth neither exclude the Classis in censuring of the Presbyterie if they abuse their power, nor hinder the Presbyterie from seeking the help of the Classis in the exer­cise of their power, in matters of doubt and difficultie. The testimonies out of the Centuries, D. Whitgift, Thomas Bell, thereRepl. par 2. l. 2. p. 104 alledged by the Replyer, are answered already in the severall places which M^r Canne hath assigned unto them in his wri­ting; where it hath bene shewed that in this controversie they are impertinent, & doe not proove any thing against us. Besides M^r Canne had the lesse cause to al­ledge this place in the foresaid Reply, seeing the Authour in the very next page doth approve of that order, which for election of Church-officers is practised at Geneva, sayingIbid. p. 105. that it is religiously and prudently observed. M^r Canne might there have seen himself condemned under the name of Morellius, even by this Replyer al­so, as well as by Beza; seeing it is as true of him, as of the other, that which is there sayd, that he hath presumed by word and writing to reprehend that order, &c. our course being in substance the same, and opposed by M^r C. in like manner as theirs was by Morellius. Againe, in theP. 106. next page the sayd Authour doth expressely reject and detest that popular government, practised among the Brownists, and pleaded for by M^r Canne, when having sayd that the peoples consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment, according to that which we teach and practise, he addes withall, Notwithstanding a meere Democracie, wherein all matters are handled of all (ae­quato jure) by an equall right; we doe no lesse detest, then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates, which other reformed Churches have abolished. And afterwardsP. 113. when he al­lowes a preheminence for orders sake, unto some one to be the mouth of the rest, in executing that which was by the whole Presbytery decreed, and then explaines that one to be the President of the Presbyters, that is to say, in each Congregation the Pastor, and in a Synod or assembly of the Pastors and Presbyters of many Churches, that one which with the consent and choyse of his brethren moderates the action; there is no reason why we should not hence conclude his approbation of Synods, such as are and have bene cele­brated in well ordered Churches; even such as doe not onely advise, but also decree what is meet, as he had sayd of the Presbyterie in generall. As for the other places alledged out of this Authour, I referre the Reader unto that which I have saydP. 116.117. before touching the same, in my answer to Mr Davenport.

Mr Parker, next alledged, speakes downe right in this thing, saith M^r Canne. The words cited out of Mr Parker, are these, All Ecclesiasticall power is alwayes in the whole Congregation, from hence it flowes, as from the fountaine, and to the same it returneth [Page 203]as to the Sea. For answer hereunto, 1. This Testimony here alledged by M^r C. is not onely cited amisse, viz. Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 6. instead of c. 8. p. 28. and some words also unjustly added by him unto the testimony, to make it seeme more full for his purpose; but being taken as he sets it downe, it doth not infringe the authority of Classes and Synods. For though all Ecclesiasticall authority be sayd to flow from the Church, as from a fountaine; this hinders not, but rather shewes how power may be and is derived unto Classes, when particular Churches as fountaines doe by deputation and delegation send forth a streame of authority and power in Clas­sicall and Synodall Assemblies, in such manner as Mr Parker himself doth after­wardPol. Ec­cl. l. 3 c. 13. &c. 23, 24, 25, &c. often shew unto his Reader. II. For the downe-right speech of Mr Par­ker, wherein M^r Canne glorieth, I desire the Readers that understand, to review those passages which I haveP. 89-105. before noted at large out of Mr Parkers booke, & them that are able, to looke upon those places in the booke itself, and then to judge whether M^r Canne be not either very blinde in alledging the testimonies of learned men, when he knowes not what they say; or els very impudent and dis­honest, in corrupting and perverting their testimonies contrary to their meaning.

As for Mr Baines, he is confusedly alledged, viz. Dioces. Tryall, Conclus. 4. for whereas in that booke there is often mention of Conclus. 4. who can tell what place he meanes? The trueth is that none of those fourth Conclusions in any part of his booke, doe by any word empeach the authority of Classes or Synods. But on the contrary, in that his writing he gives plaine and evident testimonies of his agreement with us, as I haveP. 111-116. already sufficiently declared.

Come we now to the testimonyChu. pl. p. 23. alledged in the name of D. Fulke, whom M^r Canne praiseth to be a man famous and of rare learning. They object unto me that he saithLearned Discours. of Eccl. Gov. p. 84. There ought to be in every Church an Eldership, which ought to have the hearing, exa­mination and determining of all matters, pertayning to the Discipline & Government of that Congregation. Hereunto I answer, that such authority is to be exercised by the El­dership, yet so as that the judgement and consent of the Congregation in weigh­tier matters be not excluded: and so also that the judgement of the Classis or Sy­nod be not refused or denyed. This Author will have the Eldership to determine all matters, if they be able to doe it; & so he expounds himself, shewing afterward that there be divers matters which the Eldership is not able by themselves to finish without help of a Synod.

And because M^r Canne in the margine of his booke sets his marke over against this place, desiring us to Note this: so I desire both him and others to note wel what this Author writes concerning the authoriy, necessity, and use of Synods. I am glad to heare M^r C. to give so great commendation unto this indeed Learned Au­thor, who is so pregnant a witnesse for me and for Synods against the Brownists. This is that which heIbid. p. 82.83. saith:

‘Seeing our Saviour Christ promised his presence and authoritie to every Church indifferently, Matt. 18.19.20: None may challenge any such preroga­tive afore other: but as the Churches are limited out for order and convenien­cie, so is every one of them of like authority in itself: but because they make all but one Church, and one body of Christ, therefore there is but one autho­rity [Page 204]in them, to determine of matters concerning them all. By which there ap­peareth to be a double authority of the Pastor: one with the severall Congrega­tion, in which he is Pastour, the other with the whole Synod or assembly, whereof he is a member, and both these authorities, we finde sufficiently autho­rised in the Scripture, &c.’

‘Againe, Ibid. p. 111. 112. There is a double authority of the Pastour, the one joyned with the Elders of the Church whereof he is Pastour: the other with the Synod or holy assembly, whereof he is a member. There ariseth oftentimes in the Church, divers Controversies, which cannot otherwise be expressed, pertay­ning to the state of the whole Church, then by a generall assemblie of all the Pastours of that Church, which is called a Synod or Generall Councell. Also there be divers cases, wherein the severall Churches, are driven to pray the ayde of the Synod, where matters cannot be determined among themselves. For this cause the Holy Ghost hath ordained these Holy assemblies, with promise that they being gathered together in the name of Christ, he himself will be among them. With the Synod the Pastour hath authority to determine, concerning re­giment of the Church.’

‘Againe, P. 115, 116. 117. Let us returne to the authority of the Synod, which consisteth in deciding and determining such matters as cannot otherwise in particular Chur­ches be concluded, either because they concerne the common state of all Chur­ches, or because they lack sufficient authority in some one Church. First there­fore the lawfull Synod hath to consider, if any controversy of doctrine doe arise, that it be determined by the word of God: &c. Secondly, it hath to determine of the use of the ceremonies, not of will without reason or ground of Scripture, but upon necessary causes of avoiding offence and similitude of superstition, of bearing with the weak, of order and comelinesse and edification. So did the Sy­nod of the Apostles and Elders, command for a time abstinencie from meat of­fered to Idols, otherwise lawfull in it selfe, for offences sake, &c. Also for or­der and comelines, and best edification, the Synod hath to determine, what shall be observed in particular charges: as of the time, place, and forme of preaching and praying, and administring of the Sacraments. For who should be able to know what order, comelines and edification requireth according to Gods word, but they that be teachers and preachers of the same unto all others? For it is ab­surd, that they should be taught by such in these small things, as ought to learne the trueth of them in all matters, &c.P. 118. It is out of all controversy, that before there were any Christian Magistrates (—) this authority was proper unto the Synod. Which authority we know to be granted to the Church by our Saviour Christ: practised by his Apostles: continued by their successours three hundred yeares, before there were any Christian Emperours (—) and long time after there were Christian Emperours, even as long as any puritie continued in reli­gion, untill both Emperours and Synods were thrust out of all lawfull authori­tie, which they ought to have in the Church, by the tyrannie of Antichrist.’

In the same learned Discourse of Ecclesiasticall Government, it is further added:P. 122. 123. 124. ‘The Synod hath further authority concerning Discipline, to reforme and re­dresse [Page 205]by Ecclesiasticall Censure, all such defaults and controversies, as cannot be determined in the particular Churches: as for example: If the Pastour him­selfe, have need to be severely punished, where there is but one Pastour in a Church: or if Elders, which should be reformers of others, have notoriously misgoverned themselves: or if they have beene led by affection to condemne an innocent, or to justifye the ungodly: in these and such like cases, all contention is to be concluded, by the authority of the Synod. Some example we have thereof, Act. 15. where those contentious Schismatiques, that withstood Paul and Barnabas at Antiochia, were constrained to yeeld by authority of the Coun­cell, and Paul and Barnabas restored to their credit. For which causes Synodes ought oftentimes to be assembled, though not generall of the whole Realme, but particular of every Province or Shire, as it may be most conveniently, that such things as are to be reformed, may be redressed with speed.’

These and many other such like assertions in allowance of Synods and their au­thority, hath this learned Authour, whom yet they have alledged against me. Had Will. Best but had so much wit or conscience as to have duely looked upon these English Authors, being but small treatises, and perused them diligently, he might easily have learned hereby what order God requires in the Government of his Church. But taking so much upon trust, and presuming blindely upon the fi­delity and skill of a Brownist, therefore is he runne into Scandall, having publi­shed many slanders against the Churches of Christ, and wrested so many witnesses against their meanings.

In the next place the Testimony of Mr Fenner doth fitly offer itself to be exa­mined of us: for seeing he tooke upon him the Defence of the former Authour against Bridges, who impugned that learned Discourse of Eccles. Gov. we have reason to exspect that he also will defend the authority of Synods in like manner. As for the two pages which M^r Ca.Against Bridges p. 15, 16. alledgeth, he neither specifyeth his words, neither doe I finde in either of those pages any one word against the use of Classes or Sy­nods amōgst us, but on the contrary a cleare testimony which he gives unto them. For speaking there [in pag. 16.] of the forme of Discipline appoynted of God, and of the severall points thereof particularly set downe in the word of God, with other he recko­neth up these, the joynt care of Elderships and Synods. Afterwards he speaketh more fully in praise of this government, and saith,Def. of Ecc. Disci. ag. Bridg. p. 105. The nature of this order itself, which admitteth no Minister but learned, nor any decision of weight, but by advise of many, & with appointed conferences and Synods of learned men for such purposes: besides the assurance of Gods favourable blessing of his owne ordinance, and the experience of the Synodes of the Reformed Churches, the comparison of their judgements, Canons, and other con­stitutions, with the like of the other in any part, beareth witnesse, whether the want of lear­ning and pietie both, must needes be greater in it, then in the other. Whereas D. Fulk had given unto these Churches which have a Classicall and Synodall govern­ment, the title and praise ofLearn. Disc. of Ecc. Gov. p. 7. rightly reformed Churches; when D. Bridges was of­fended therewith, Mr Fenner maintaines that praise to be due unto them, and commends (k) their entire and whole obedience which they yeeld to God, in receyving all the holy doctrine of our Saviour Christ, both concerning things to be beleeved, and al­so [Page 206]concerning the spirituall policie, Discipline and order, for guiding of his Church. And fur­ther, in the same place he repeats and undertakes to defend D. Fulkes words, per­swading to imbrace that most beautifull order of Ecclesiasticall regiment, which God doth so manifestly blesse and prosper in our neighbours hands. Hereby it may appeare how farre Mr Fenner was from that erroneous and slanderous spirit of M^r C. and W.B. And here by the example of W. Best all simple & ignorant men are to be warned of pu­blishing such false things as he hath done, upon the credit of other men that are strangers from the Churches of Christ. Moreover, the judgement of Mr Fenner in approving this use of Synods for the government of Churches and judgement of causes, may be clearly seen in sundry other testimonies which he hath given to this purpose, and which I haveP. 84-88. before noted: where among the rest, when ha­ving maintained the right of Synods to be jure divino, alledging many Scriptures for the warrant thereof, he inferreth from hence this common law that other mem­bers of the Church which have no Ecclesiasticall office, are to be subject to this go­vernment, and ought to advance the same according to their power, &c. it is thereby evi­dent that he could not like the course of W. B. or any such other schisming from the Church for this cause, and complayning that they were not a free people, if they were subject to Classes and Synods.

Mr Udall in the Demonstration of Discipline, pag. 24, 25. in that edition thereof which I have, hath no such matter as is alledged before out of that treatise of En­glish Puritanisme, against the authority of Classes and Synods: neither is it to be found in any part of that Demonstration, that Christ hath not subjected any Congregati­on unto any other superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, then unto that which is within itself, &c. And therefore it is untruely affirmed of M^r Canne, that there is nothing there sayd, but Mr Vdall with others above mentioned, hath sayd the like. On the con­trary, in that writing asscribed to Mr Vdall, there be sundry testimonies shewing the authority of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations. As it wasP. 204. before noted out of D. Fulke that there is a double authority of the Pastour; one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour, the other with the whole Synod or Assemblie whereof he is a member, and both these authorities sufficiently authorized in the Scriptures: so saith Mr Vdall to like purpose,Demōst. of Discip. c. 1. The word of God hath described sufficient ministers & ministeries for doctrine, exhor­tation, overseeing, distributing, and ordering of every particular Church or generall Sy­nod. And againe, he saith of Bishops or Pastours, thatIb. c. 10 they are of equall authority in their severall charges, and in the generall government of the Church. And in the same chapter he alledgeth the decrees of divers2. Concil. Carth. tom. 1. c. 10. & 3 Conc. tom. 1. cap. [...]. Councels, shewing how the causes of one Church or Congregation were judged by many Bishops of other Congre­gations meeting together. In speciall, when someDemōst. of Disc. c. 14 objected that there would be so many Elderships, so many divers fashions, seeing one may not meddle with another: Here­unto he answers, The Government desired is uniforme for every Church and admitteth no change, no not in outward ceremonies, without a Synod of the choyce men of severall Elder­ships. Hereby he plainely declares his meaning, what he judged concerning the power of Synods, for alterations to be made in particular Churches.

The Agreement of the English Church at Franckford in Queene Maries dayes, is al­so [Page 207]alledged as a proofe of the Non-conformists dissenting from me; whereunto I an­swer: I. Those three Articles of their Discipline objected; the one, that the Mi­nisters and Seniours, severally and joyntly, shall have no authority to make any manner of De­crees or Ordinances to binde the Congregation or any member thereof: But shall execute such ordinances, as shall be made by the Congregation, and to them delivered: Another, that none shall be excommunicated, untill the matter be first heard by the whole Church: And fur­ther, that Ministers and Seniours, and every of them, be subject to Ecclesiasticall discipline, as other priváe members of the Church be; these doe not at all concerne the question betwixt us. For these things being granted, it doth not follow that then the au­thority of Synods is overthrowne, that they may not judge of any ordinances made in such a Congregation; or that such a Church where these Articles are agreed upon, hath thereby denyed and condemned such a Classicall government, as we submit ourselves unto. II. These Articles of their Discipline are not rightly, and plainly, but darkly and confusedly cited. In the quotation of the first, the page 115. is put for pag. 125. The two next are alledged without any quotation at all, either of page, or number of Article specifyed in the booke; and both are joined together as if they were but one Article. And in the second Article there is o­mitted that disjunction, which affords an exception touching the strict observati­on thereof. For whereas M^r Canne alledgeth it simply thus, None shall be excom­municated untill the matter be heard by the whole Church; theDisc. of troubl. at Frankf. p. 129. booke itself admitteth the liberty of a different practise by adding this clause, or by such as it shall specially appoynt thereunto. This falsification is so much the greater, in that Mr Horne objec­ting against this Article, and arguing that therebyP. 163, 164. the authority of the Pastour and Seniors is all wiped away; for every thing is referred to the confused multitude of the Congre­gation: Mr Whithead in the same booke answereth him on this manner, Where he saith, all things is referred to the confused multitude, it is manifestly false. For it is alwayes added, by such as the Congregation shall appoint thereto: as it is also in the 54 Article added in plaine words. Let the Reader observe this deceitfull allegation, both against the expresse words of the Article, & against the plaine explicatiō thereof by Mr Whit. in the name of that English Church at Frankford.

Whereas M^r CanneChu. pl. p. 36. objecteth further from Art. 26. & 67. that in some cases the forenamed English Church agreed that appeales should be made unto the body of the Congregation; I answer, that in such cases as are there specifyed, If the Ministers and Seniours which have authority to heare & determine, &c. (as it is elswhere specifyed, though not in this Article) be suspected or found to be parties, that then they had rea­son to appeale rather to the body of the Congregation, then that parties should be suffered to be judges in their owne cause. And no marvell, considering what I have notedP. 121-125. before touching the state of that Church; where the Reader may see a further answer unto these objections. But then he askes me what I say to this, and hopes I will not say that they were Brownists: I answer, His hope is right in this poynt, I may not say they were Brownists, nor their practise the same with the Brownists: 1. Because they made this agreement through necessity, when they wanted a Classis, whereas the Brownists wilfully oppugne and refuse Classicall combinations. 2. Because the Brownists deny authority of judgement [Page 208]unto Ministers and Elders, in such cases where they are no parties, which thisArt. 59.63. Church at Frankford did not. 3. Because the English Church at Frankford did not teach the doctrine of Separation, as the Brownists doe, but when they could not obtaine the reformation desired, didDisc. of troub. Frāk­ford, p. 187-191. still hold one another brethren in the Lord, though greeved for the defects among them.

But it is wonder that M^r Canne is not ashamed to alledge the example of this English Church at Frankford: for whereas G. Iohnson in a peculiarDisc of troub. in the banish. English Church at Amsterd. p. 21-73. treatise which he wrote against his brother Franc. Iohnson, and that Church of the Brow­nists whereof he was Pastour, hath compared the troubles of these two Churches together; in the first part of this treatise, which is entitled, The agreement between the banished English Church at Frankford in Q. Maries dayes, and some troubles in the banished English Church at Amsterdam in Q. Elizabeths dayes; he brings more then an 100 seve­rall instances to shew that where any disorder, scandall or offence was in the En­glish Church at Frankford, the like evills, scandals and offences were also to be found and observed in the English Church of the Separatists in Amsterdam. And in the second part of this treatise, entitled,Ibid. p. 73-93. Differences between the Pastor, Elders & people in the troubles at Frankford in Q. Maries dayes, and the Pastor, Elders and people in the troubles at Amsterdam in Q. Elizabeths dayes; he brings more then 20 severall in­stances to shew that the English Church of the Separation was worse then the o­ther, and that where divers good orders and practises were in the English Church at Frankford, the same were wanting in the Church of the Brownists at Amster­dam. And in particular, let this be observed, that concerning the English Church at Frankford G. Iohnson P. 74. alledgeth, that there was agreement among them, that the mat­ter should be decided by learned men. But concerning those at Amsterdam he saith, These differ farre from them herein, they will not consent hereunto, they will not be persuaded, or intreated to let the Reformed Churches heare, try, judge, and end the controversy between them and us. For proof hereof he notes in his margine, This is witnessed by the testi­mony of the Dutch Preachers, given to the Pastors father. Now instead of pleading from the orders of that Church at Frankford, it had bene fitter for M^r Canne to have taken warning from these unparalleld offences of his predecessours, not to main­taine the like disorders; or els to have answered these parallels and censures of G. Iohnson, and so to have removed (if he could) the scandall and blame which hath so long lien upon his fellowes for not answering this book.

HAving considered the particular testimonies of Non-conformists, and how they have bene perverted by M^r Canne, in applying them against the autho­rity of Synods; it shall not be amisse to adde yet further a threefold Testimony, to manifest this poynt more clearly and fully, and so to conclude this Section: name­ly by the Petitions of Non-conformists to Qu. Elizabeth, and to the Parliament; the opposition of the Prelates to the Non-conformists; & the scorne of the Brow­nists against Non-conformists.

First, when as the Ministers have made request unto Q. Elizabeth for reformati­on of things amisse, shewing how controversies may be compounded, they say,Petit. to the Q. most excel. Maj. p. 3. that a free Nationall or Provinciall Councell at home were much to be wished, &c. And in a treatise annexed thereunto, entitled, Opinions of such as sue for Reformation, among [Page 209]other things which they hold & sue for, this is one,Ibid. § 19. p 57. That if any dissention grow or cause of grievance be given in any particular Church by the Minister or Officers, the partie grieved might appeale to a particular Synod; from the particular Synod to a Provinciall Sy­nod; from a Provinciall Synod to a Nationall Synod. Which Synods should be appointed at set times: the more particular the Synod is, the more often: for the time to be moderated by some fit man changeably by election, that might write, speak. and pray in the behalfe and at the di­rection of the rest, &c. And a little after againe,§ 21. they doe professe and protest, that they can and will avow this Reformation which they desire, to be most agreeable to the Scriptures, to have the testimonie of the best & most learned men that have bene since the Apostles, &c. If M^r Ca. will not winke with his eyes, he may here see what reformation hath bene sought and held needfull, and that Iure Divino.

In like manner Mr Travers testifieth of these conferences, or Classes & Synods,Eccles. Disc. p. 98. with p 103. 104. reprin. 1617. that nothing could be more profitable then these Assemblies, being so used as they are ap­pointed to be used by the word of God, and used by other purer and better reformed Churches, &c. and concludes that his treatise of Discipline with an humble supplication un­to Qu. Elizabeth of happy memory, for the establishing of such a Discipline in her dominions.

To like purpose doe they write which were the Authours of the Admonition to the Parliament, holden in the 13. year of Q. Eliz. begun Anno 1570, and ended 1571. TheyAdmon. to Parl. p. 51 52. ed. 1617 describing the platforme of 2 Church reformed, and presenting their desire to the consideration of the Parliament, doe therein commend the use of Conferences, and of Synods Provinciall, Nationall and Generall, for determining the weighty causes which could not be ended in particular Churches. And they re­quire that men should stand unto these determinations, unlesse they can be shewed to be contrary to the Scriptures.

Secondly, such as have bene speciall maintayners of the Prelacie doe confesse and testify that the Ministers which sought for reformation, did therein seek for government of the Church by Classes and Synods; and that not for counsell one­ly, but to judge the causes of particular Churches, and to censure such persons as were found guilty. It is by one of them manifested in a speciallDanger. Positio. for Presbyteri. Governm. l. 3. c. 2-15 Record, that when divers Ministers not conforming were cast into prison, and some of them brought into the Starre-Chamber and examined upon their oathes, they declared the earnest endeavours of many Ministers for the obtayning of Classes.

And there among such as gave pregnant testimonie in allowance of Classicall government, are nominated these following; Mr Chark, Mr Travers, Mr Gardiner, Mr Barber, Mr Chester, Mr Crook, Mr Egerton, Mr Field, Mr Wilcox, Mr Standen, Mr Iackson, Mr Bonham, Mr Crane, Mr S [...]inctloe, Mr Edwards, Mr Cholmeley, Mr Wright, Mr Gifford, Mr Gelibrand, Mr West, Mr Browne, Mr Knewstubs, Mr Wight, Mr Walker, Mr Cartwright, Mr Fen, Mr Oxenbridge, Mr Perkins, Mr Allen, Mr Dike, Mr Culverwell, &c. And about Northampton-shire alone areIb. p. 77 recorded more then 20 of this minde. About Northampton; Mr Snape, Mr Penrie, Mr Sibthorp, Mr Edwards, Mr Litl [...]ton, Mr Bradshaw, Mr Larke, Mr Fleshware, Mr Spicer, &c. About Daventrie; Mr Barbon, Mr Rogers, Mr King, Mr Smart, Mr Sharp, Mr Promdlos, Mr Elliston, &c. About Kettring; Mr Stone, Mr William­son, [Page 210]Mr Fawsbrook, Mr Patinson, Mr Massey, &c.

The lawes, rules and order, both in Classes and in Synods, described in thatIbid. p. 109, 110, &c. book, and approved by these Ministers, are most of them and generally the very same that are observed in the Classes and Synods of the Reformed Churches in these United Provinces of the Netherlands where we live, and where our English Church is combined with them in the same Ecclesiasticall government. The agreement and consent of these men in their desire of Classes and Synods, accor­ding to the order and practise observed also in Scotland & at Geneva, is therefore by the Recorder thereof noted & stiled over the head of many pages in that book, English Genevating for Reformation: And againe, English Scottizing for Discipline by practise. Even these reproaches doe justly serve for the reproofe of M^r Canne, who denyes that which other opposites doe willingly acknowledge.

Thirdly, the very Brownists themselves were wont of old to acknowledge that the not-conforming Ministers in England did stand for Classes and Synods. Though with great skorne & reproach they speak of Synods, yet that very skorne and reproach is a witnesse against M^r Can. and W. B. to shew the consent of for­mer times with me. Hen. Barow speaking of the censures of evill, and condemning both Conformists and Non-conformists together, he saith;H. Bar. Discov. of False Chur. p. 165. ‘Yea all the Priests of the land, both Pontificall and Reformists agree in this poynt, & conclude that the lay people (as they terme them) ought not to intermeddle either with the deposing their Minister, or reproof of his doctrine. The one sort (saith he) sendeth them to their Lords these Bishops, the other referreth them over for these and many other cases under hand, to a Provinciall or Classicall Synod or permanent Councell of Priests, &c. Amongst whom all these affaires must be debated, and after they are agreed upon the poynt, then their decrees to be brought forth, solemnly published and pronounced to the people, who must at­tend upon, wait, and receave these Oracles as most holy and Canonicall. They have no remedy if they also be contrary to the trueth, but to appeale to a Coun­cell, &c.’ And this he calleth a devilish forgerie, &c.

After that to like purpose he saith,Ibid. p. 169. ‘These Priests, they will not onely not submit their persons and doctrine to the censure of the Church where they ad­minister (for they must have a Jurie of Clarkes, a Classis of Priests to goe upon them) but they binde their poore Church to their lippes & build it upon them­selves, and with their blazing light strike all the rest of their hearers & followers stark blinde. Againe,P. 169, 170. By their Propheticall Conventicles and Classicall Synods they assume into their owne hands the key of all knowledge, and shutting up the Scriptures, yea all Gods graces, even the Holy Ghost itself among them­selves in these their Schooles of Prophets: as also into their Classes of select Priests the scepter of Christ and absolute government of all Churches, to whom it is left but to receive and execute the reverent decrees of this famous Classis of Priests.’

In another place, having told how the Pontificals have opened their mouthes unto accursed blasphemy, then he returnes unto the Reformists, and speakes on this wise,P. 189, 190. ‘The Pharisees of these times, I meane these your great learned Prea­chers, [Page 211]your Good men that sigh and grone for Reformation, but their hands with the sluggard denie to worke. These counterfaites would raise up a second er­ror, even as a second Beast, by so much more dangerous by how much it hath more shew of the truth. These men instead of this grosse Antichristian govern­ment which is now manifest and odious unto all men, would bring in a new a­dulterate forged government in shew, or rather in despite of Christs blessed go­vernment, which they in the pride, rashnes, ignorance and sensualitie of their fleshly hearts most miserably innovate, corrupt and pervert, &c. The thing it­selfe they innovate and corrupt, in that they adde new devises of their owne; as their Pastorall suspension from their Sacraments, their set continued Synods, their select Classes of Ministers, their setled supreme Councell, &c.’

That which Mr Iohnson and others with him doe require, is more generall and ambiguous, viz.Apol. of Brown. Pet. 3 pos. 9. p. 64. that the Church be not governed by Popish Canons, Courts, Classes, Customes, or any humane inventions, but by the lawes and rules which Christ hath appoyn­ted in his Testament. But that which H. Barow writes is more plaine, and more par­ticularly applyed to the Ministers of England, whom he calleth the Reformists. Of them he saith,Discov. p. 191. ‘Their permanent Synods & Councels also which they would erect (not here to speak of their new Dutch Classes, for therein is a secret) should onely consist of Priests or Ministers as they terme them; people of the Chur­ches be shut out, & neither be made acquainted with the matters debated there, neither have free voyce in those Synods and Councels, but must receave and obey without contradiction whatsoever those learned Priests shall decree. These Synods, and Councels shall have absolute power over all Churches, doctrines & Ministers, to erect, ratifie or abrogate, to excommunicate or depose at their plea­sures: Their decrees are most holy without controulement, unlesse it be by the Prince or the high Court of Parliament: Not here to speake of their solemne orders observed in these Councils and Synodes, as their choice by suffrage a­mongst themselves of their Archisynagogon, or Rector Chori, their President (as they call him) propounder or moderator of their Councell; about which their predecessours have had no small stir, untill their holy Father the Pope put an end to the strife by getting the chaire. This stuffe they would bring in againe un­der colour of Reformation, these and many more their leavened corrupt wri­tings of Discipline, and their supplications unto the Parliament, declare: &c.’

Againe he saith,Ib. P. 193 ‘These Reformists, howsoever for fashion sake they give the people a little libertie to sweeten their mouthes, and make them beleeve that they should choose their owne Ministers (for further right in the censuring their Ministers, or in the ordering the affaires of their Churches they allow not, as hath bene sayd) yet even in this pretended choice doe they coozen & beguile them also, leaving them nothing but the smoky windy title of election onely; injoyning them to choose some Universitie Clarke, one of these Colledge birds of their owne brood, or els comes a Synode in the necke of them, & annihilates the election whatsoever it be. They have also a trick to stop it before it come so farre; namely in the ordinatiō, which must (forsooth) needs be done by other Priests: for the Church that chooseth him hath no power to ordaine him: And [Page 212]this makes the mother Church of Geneva and the Dutch Classes (I dare not say the secret Classes in England) to make Ministers for us in England. And these Ministers when they are come over, are esteemed & receaved as Angels in hell, and shine as bright starres in these smoky Egyptian fornaces, wherein the misera­ble people of the land are kept in most hard servitude, &c.’

These skornfull and reproachfull speeches of H. Barow doe sufficiently testify what the Brownists of old thought of the Dutch Classes and Synods, and what they thought of such Ministers in England as desired a Reformation, and therein a Classicall government. Though H. Barow according to his manner doe overlash, and utter much falshood; yet he is not guilty of so great fallhood as M^r Canne, in denying what the Ministers and forward professours in England (as he calles thē) did heretofore seek, and sue for. It is certaine and evident that the Non-confor­mists haveDemōst. of Disc. c. [...]. pr. 3. & p. 24, 25. Mr Travers of Ecc. Disc. p. 19. 20. Ad­mon. to Parl. p. 15. edit. 1617. held that unto the just calling of a Minister there is required the cal­ling of a particular and certaine Church where he is to administer: Yea so much is also confessed touching them by theDang. pos. l. 3. of Engl. Scoti. c. 3. p. 46. &c. 14. p. 114. 115. Prelatists, when by them it is recorded as a decree of the Synodicall Discipline, that none should take upon him an uncertaine and vague ministery, though it be offered unto him; but such as be called to the ministery by some certaine Church, &c. And againe, that none is to be accounted a full Minister untill some particular Congregation had chosen him, &c. For though as in these Chur­ches, after due examination & approbation by a Classis, men are allowed to preach and to exercise their gifts occasionally, yet are not such esteemed Ministers, untill they be called by some Church, and confirmed therein. But H. Bar. as in divers other things so in this, speakes slanderously of the Classes, and of the Ministers approoving them, when as he saith,Discov. p 175. Both sides, both Bishops and this new Classis take upon them to make Ministers without the people, without any charge, place, or office cer­taine. Though the falshood of H. Bar. be manifest herein, yet M^r Canne goes a degree beyond him, when he shames not to deny the approbation which the Non­conformists have given to the Dutch Classes and Synods, which H. Bar. could not deny for the fact, though he impugne them as erring therein.

Let the Reader now observe here the palpable untrueth of M^r C. & of W.B. in their Apish imitation of my words, which they so falsely apply against me, saying,Chu. pl. p. 88, 89. As Herod to kill one infant spared not to kill a multitude of other infants: so he, that he might undermine us and blow us up into the ayre, he cared not, nor spared not with the gunpow­der of his fiery contention and reproaches to blow up with us a multitude of Godly and learned Ministers being of the same judgement with us. I desire the Readers to looke upon my formerAnsw. to W.B. p. 71, 72, 73. & 18, 29.30, &c. writing, and then to judge whether I had not just cause to complaine of their wounding the Classis through my sides, and of their reproaching the Mi­nisters of these Reformed Churches under my name, in regard of their consent and practise agreeable to mine. I desire that the testimonies, confessions, and pe­titions of the ancient Non-conformists above mentioned, in allowance of a Clas­sicall & Synodall government, may be duely pondered; & then let any indifferent Reader judge, whether I undermine them and blow them up into the ayre, &c. while I confirme their testimonies both by word and practise. But these opposites, M^r Canne and his client have so little conscience of trueth, that they have not cared [Page 213]to utter the grossest falshood, so that they might but contradict me. Let them re­member, Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 12.22.

SECT. VI.
Touching the Testimonies of Ancient fathers, Councels, and Emperours.

THe Advocate of W.B. not contēt with the testimonies of men in later times, leades us back to the testimony of Antiquity, and to the Ages long before. And though heCh. pl. p. 89. confesse he had done it already, in mentioning some testimo­nies of the most ancient times; yet notwithstanding to shew that he stands not for any Novelty, he professeth againe, he will shew that the best approved Authors, after the Apostles, are directly with them, in this thing, &c. Those which he alledgeth are these, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ierome, Am­brose, Cyrill, Hilarie, Greg. Nazianzen, Augustine, Chrysostome, Basill, Socrates, Isidorus, Bernard. And with these he also makes mention of some Councells and Christian Emperours.

For answer hereunto, First in generall it is to be observed, that the thing which he here pretends to prove, viz. that everie particular visible Church of Christ, hath pow­er to exercise Ecclesiasticall government, and all other Gods spirituall ordinances, in and for itself immediately from Christ; this comes short of the question betwixt us. For this being granted, it doth not follow hereupon that the power of Classes and Synods is an undue power, or that particular Churches may not therefore stand under the au­thority of another superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of themselves. This their inference will never be made good from such a ground. This beggerly conse­quence I have oftP. 145, 146, 149. &c. refuted before.

To come more particularly unto the testimonies of these Authours, which he promiseth to set downe according to the times in which they lived: And to beginne first with Ignatius; from him he alledgeth that it was then the manner of visible Chur­chesAd Phi­ladelph. ad Magnes. ad Trall. to come together in one place, to worship God▪ having Bishops, Elders and Deacons unto their Officers, whom the people freely chose by voyces, or lifting up of hands. I answer: 1. All that is here sayd being granted, it followes not that they were independent, and refused to submit their controversies to the judgement of other Churches as­sembled in Synods. Ignatius being Minister of the Church of Antiochia in Syria, which had of old submitted their controversy to the Synod held at Ierusalem, Act. 15. what reason is there to thinke they forgot their old practise, approved by the Apostles themselves? 11. Though it be probable, and we injudgement of cha­rity are bound to thinke that the Officers, Bishops, Elders, and Deacons of this Church were chosen with the free consent of the people, according to the direc­tion of the Apostles; yet is not so much specifyed in any of those three Epistles here mentioned in the margine, and therefore are they vainely alledged for the proof thereof. III. Ignatius labouring for the peace and establishment of the Church of Antiochia after his death, desired the Church of PhiladelphiaEpist. ad Philadel. p. 76. edit. Pa­ris. 1562. to choose a Bishop, which being sent thither as an Embassadour in the Embassage of God, it might be granted unto them to glorify God in their meeting together. He speakes there not of [Page 214]choosing a Bishop to minister in their owne Church, but of choosing one to be their Deputy, to travell unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for settling of order in that Church. And in the same place to moove them the more, he shew­eth what was the practise of the Primitive Churches in such cases, viz. that alwayes the neighbour Churches did send Bishops, and some of them Elders and Deacons. Againe, writing upon the same occasion unto Polycarpus, Bishop of Smyrna, he saithEpist. ad Polyc. p. 97▪ 98. It was meet to gather a Synod comely in the Lord, and choose some dearly beloved and diligent person, which might be called Theodromos, [or one that should runne for God,] who might travell into Syria, and thereby celebrate their diligent love to the praise of God. And using many arguments to commend that businesse unto him as the work of God, he intreateth Polycarpus that he would write unto other Churches, that they would doe the same thing; that they which were able would send men to travell on foot, that others would send their letters to be conveyed by such as Polycarpus should send thither. From these testimonies of Ignatius, M^r ParkerPol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. p. 356. concludes that in those times, according to the practise of the Reformed Churches with us, neighbour Churches were combined together as it were Classically, for the mutuall communica­tion of offices. And whereas D. Bilson Perpet. Gov. c. 7. confesseth that it was the manner of that time, if any Church was tossed with waves of discord, that neighbour Churches round about did send a Bishop, Elder or Deacon for appeasing that tempest: Mr Parker inferres justly thereupon, If neighbour Churches had right or authority in com­pounding of strifes, why not also in moderating of elections? His conclusion in the same place is, Let this very right in compounding strife be a sufficient authorization for our Classes. Thus then it is apparant that Ignatius was not directly with M^r Canne, as he boa­steth, but his meaning hath bene manifestly perverted contrary to his words.

Tertullian, that is next alledged (though misalledged, c. 29. being put for c. 39.) relating the manner of Christian assemblies in his time, saith in effect,Apol. c. 39. They came together into the Congregation [it is not sayd into one Congregation, as M^r C. al­ledgeth it] for to pray unto God, for to rehearse the Divine Scriptures, and with holy words yo nourish faith, stirre up hope, and fasten confidence. And they used exhortations, reproofes and divine Censure. I answer: I. Though particular Churches met together for such end, this hinders not but that the Deputies of those same Churches might meet together in Synods, for their mutuall assistance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult causes. It followes not because severall Congregations have their due power, that therefore the power of Classes is an undue power. II. that Tertullian himself intended no such thing, it appeares evidently by the great approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods, in saying,De Jeju­nüs advers. Psychi. c. 13 The appoynted Synods are kept through the countries of Graecia in certaine places out of all the Churches, whereby both the deeper or more difficult matters are handled in common, & by that representation of the whole Christian flock they are celebrated with great reverence.

He alledgeth the words of Origen, writing much to the same purpose,In Jos. Hom. 7. Such as were brought in the third place, for sinne unto the Congregation; if they stood obstinate, by the judgement of the whole Church were excommunication from the body, the Elders of the Church pronouncing the sentence. And then in his owne words he sayth,Ch. pl. p. 90. Observe here, he saith not that the matter was caried to a Classis, and there first determined, &c. but [Page 215]names onely the Congregation, and Elders thereof; notwithstanding had there bene any such superiour judicatorie Assembly, it is likely he would have omitted it, and mentioned a subordinate and inferiour one. ANSVV. I. The words which they alledge in ano­ther letter in Origens name, as if they had bene his speech verbatim described, are not his words. He neither speakes of men brought unto the Church, nor of the judg­ment of the Church, nor of Elders pronouncing the sentence: he shewes how all the peo­ple might be polluted by the sinne of one man, when the Briefts which rule the people being unmindefull of priestly severity doe not rebuke, nor take away evill from them, nor make him as a Publicane and Heathen which hath despised the admonition of the Church; but not in such words and forme of speech as M^r Canne faineth. II. All that Origen there speakes is not repugnant to Classicall government: all that he there requireth is dayly performed by the Churches among us, which stand un­der the government of Classes and Synods. Obstinate offenders having their names and offences divers times published before the whole Congregation, are with the consent thereof excommunicated, by the judgement of the Eldership going before. III. If Origen in his writings had expressely denyed the authority of Synods, it had bene of no great weight against the generall judgement of other ancient Fathers; the rather, seeing his writings are rejected and condemned by so many, especially by Epiphanius and Hieronie, the Authours hereafter alledged by M^r Canne. And see how vaine many of his glosses were even touching this poynt. Speaking of the keyes of the kingdome of heaven, Mat. 16. he there telles us of many keyes to open severall gates in heaven [...] thatOrig in Mat. 16. Tempérance is one key to open the Gate of Temperance in heaven; that Iustice is another key to open another Gate, and so for all other vertues. And afterwards expounding the promise made Matt. 18.18. tou­ching binding and loosing in heaven, & comparing it with the promise made un­to Peter Mat. 16.19. because a word of the plurall number is used in the promise to Peter, [...], in coelis, and to others a word of the singular number, [...], in coelo; Origen from thenceIdem in Mat. 18. teacheth us this Doctrine, that Peter did binde and loose in all heavens, whereas some others did but binde and loose in one heaven. And therefore he concludeth, Look how much better he is that bindeth, by so much is he that is bound, bound in more then one heaven: and by how much better he is that looseth, by so much the more blessed is he that is loosed, because he is loosed in all the heavens. Such are many of the interpretations of Origen. IV. As M^r Canne misalledgeth Origen to impugne the authority of Classes and Synods; so other more learned & judicious Writers alledge him on the contrary for proof thereof. D. Whitaker to vindicate the authority of Synods against the Papists, and to prove their power above the Pope, arguethDe Cōc. qu. 5. p. 183. from the greater assistance of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ governing his Church, to wit, in Synods: and for declara­tion hereof brings the testimony of Origen, noting upon Rom. 15. that it is sayd to none of the Apostles singularly, and to none of the faithfull, I will be with thee; but unto a multitude of Churches plurally, I will be wish you. And M^r ParkerPol. Ec­cl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 89, 90. from him repea­teth againe the same Argument, taken from the testimony of Origen. And besides this it is noted by theCent. 3. c. 9. Magdeburgenses how Origen himself was employed in di­vers [Page 216]Synods in Arabia, for the conviction of sundry heresies.

Cyprian is in like manner perverted: for when as heLib. 3. Epist. 14. & 10. reprooving those Elders that without consent either of the people, or of their Pastour, had rashly receaved unto the Communion againe such as were fallen and become Apostates, before their due confession of fault, doth shew that such things ought not to be conclu­ded without common consent of the Church; and confesseth also thatL. 1. ep. 4 the peo­ple chiefly have power to choose worthy Ministers, and to refuse unworthy ones; this we also assent unto, while that power is used aright. But in the same place he gives a cleare testimony for the warrant of Synods in deciding of weightier causes, when in that Synodall Epistle written by Cyprian. Caecilius. Primus. Poly­carpus, and many others, in the name of the Synod then assembled together, it is sayd, thatArt. 6, 7. it is to be observed and held by divine Ordinance and Apostolicall observation, which is also kept among us, and almost through all the Provinces, that for the right performing of or­dination, all the next Bishops of that Province are to assemble together unto that people to which an Overseer is ordained, &c. And of this practise he there gives an instance in the ordination of Sabri [...], and in the deposition of Basilides, and shewes the reason thereof, that by the suffrages of the whole b [...]therhood, and by the judgement of those Bishops, which were presently assembled together, the office of a Bishop might be conferred upon him, and that hands might belayd upon him instead of Basilides. And besides this, we finde there manyCypt. L. 1. ep. 2. & 5 Firmil. ad Cyp. Ep. 75. p. 236. other pregnant evidences of the use, necessity and authority of Synods in those times. From thence S. Go [...]tius in his answers to Pa [...]dius his annotations on Cyprian, dothP. 243. ad annot. 14 confirme the liberty of Churches in maintayning yearely their Provinciall Synods, &c. From thence also Mr Parker confirmes the use of Classicall government in these Reformed Churches, and concludes,Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. de Classib. p. 356, 357. Why doe I spend time? There is nothing more evident to him that is acquainted with the ancient mo­numents of history, then that neighbours (even besides the Synod) did eftsoone meet together for deciding of strifes, for ordinations, for dissolving of doubts, and in summe, for every meigh­ty businesse. Of which assemblies the Epistles of Cyprian are full. And these assemblies what are they els but Classicall assemblies? And againe in the same place; Hereof we have examples every where in the Epistles of Cyprian. A little after, Who sees not here the lively portraiture of our Classes? And, Oh how doth the Hierarchy offend which hath ba­nished this most pleasant combination of Classes? Hereby the Reader may judge whe­ther it be not an absurd and senseles boasting of M^r Canne, who oppugning this Classicall government, is not ashamed to say of Cyprians testimony in these E­pistles, What can be more full and absolute to our purpose then this? With what judgment doth this man read the writings of the Fathers?

It is sayd in theCh. pl. p. 90. next place, Eusebius testifyeth that the Churches of the most fa­mous Cities were in their constitution first, but one ordinary constant Congregation, as Jeru­salemEus. l. 3.11., EphesusL. 3.28., Alexandria3.13., Hierapolis4.1., Corinth3.32., Sardis4.22., &c. This being so, then it followes, that primitively they were independent; and stood not under any other Ecclestasticall authority, out of themselves. In the allegation of these testimonies out of Eusebius, there be divers mistakings and faylings of memory or attention; Hierapolis with reference to L. 4.1. where it is not mentioned, but in L. 3.32. Corinth with reference to L. 3.32. where it is not found, but after in L. [Page 217]4.22. Sardis alledged with reference to L. 4.22. where there is no mention at all thereof, but there is such a mention of Athens as is intended for Sardis. These slips of memory are to be noted for help of the Reader that would examine the places, but may well be excused in such a number of quotations. To leave them and to come unto the great abuses here to be observed; I. In all the places here alled­ged, Eusebius doth not testify that the Churches of these Cities, were in their consti­tution first, but one ordinary constant Congregation; he hath no such words. He gives unto them the name and title of a Parish; but it is not proved that in every Parish there was but one ordinary constant Congregation. Whether they were so or not, this title of Parish proves is not. II. The consequence made from hence is more evidently false: for to admit these Churches were at the first but one ordinary con­stant Congregation, yet doth it not at all follow that therefore primitively they were independent, and stood not under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves. Both our English Church here, and generally other Reformed Churches in these countries were in their first constitution, and for the most part still are but one ordinary Congregation; and yet from the first stood under the Ec­clesiasticall authority of Classes and Synods, in which they were combined. III. Suppose some of the Churches either in Eusebius time or in later times, did not at their first constitution stand under the authority of Synods, when Churches being so few, and so farre distant, they wanted opportunity of combining themselves together for their mutuall assistance; this hinders not but that upon the encrease of neighbour Churches they might afterwards submit themselves unto this order. IV. That the Primitive Churches whereof Eusebius writes in his history, did stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves, and were subject unto their censures, he makes it evident by sundry instances. HeEccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 14. records how the errour of Montanus was judged and condemned by many Synods in Asia: howL. 6. c. 42. Novatus and the Catharists were excommunicated by a Synod holden at Rome, consisting of 60 Bishops, with many Elders and Deacons: howL. 7. c. 29. Paulus Samosa­tenus was deposed and excommunicated by a Synod holden at Antioch. He de­claresDe vita Const. l. 3. c. 6, 7, &c. at large and celebrates the piety of Constantine, the great friend & main­tainer of Christian religion, for assembling the Nicene Synod, wherein Arius was condemned. And in like manner he shewes theIbid. l. 1. c. 44. impiety of the Emperour Li­cinius, the enemy of God, who by a mischievous devise sought to ruinate the Churches of God by depriving them of their liberty in meeting together in Sy­nods, for deciding of their controversies. So expressely and clearely doth Eusebius give testimony unto Synods.

That which is collected out of Athanasius, viz. that elections, excommunications, &c. according to the Apostles precept, ought to be done in the publick Congregation by the Ministers, they taking first the peoples voyce or consent; is such as I doe willingly assent unto. Neither was there ever any election, either of Minister, Elder, or Dea­con, nor any excommunicatiō of any offender among us, but that the matter was first solemnely communicated with the Church, and declared severall times in the publick Congregation, & the consent of the people required & obtained before any such act was confirmed & finished among us. But what is this to the purpose? [Page 218] Athanasius notwithstanding this doth witnesse unto us, that the causes and contro­versies of particular Churches, were in his time submitted to the censure of other Churches, and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves. This Athanasius shewes in these very places here alledged against me: And in the first of them, havingTom. 1. Epist. ad ubiq. Or­thodoxos. made a lamentable narration of the miseries procured to the Church of Alexandria by the intrusion and cruelty of an Arian Bishop, he then most vehemently supplicates unto those that were members of the same body with them in other Churches, that as the former yeare their brethren at Rome were willing to have called a Synod, but that they were hindred; so they having greater occasion to vindicate the Church of God from new evills, would [ [...]] by their suffrages condemne, and reject the Authors of such mis­chiefes. And more plainely in the 2^d place, he declaresEpist. ad Solit. vitam agentes. at length that in the Synod holden at Sardica, where Hosius was President, and whither the accusers of Athanasius were cited, the cause being heard, the Synod did not onely advise and counsell what was meet to be done, but did give sentence touching the matters of controversy, absolved Athanasius, and deposed the Bishops that were found guilty, such as Stephanus, Menophantus, Acacius, Georgius, Vrsacius, Valens, Theodorus, Narcissus. As for the third allegation [Epist. cont. Nicae. c. 9. Ecc. Hist.] it seemes to be misquoted: I finde no such Title in all the works of Athanasius. Instead thereof therefore, let us see another testimonie of his, wherein he teacheth what the government of the Church was in those times, namely ruled by authoritie of Synods, where the weightier causes were judged & decided. Of this heTom. 2. Epist. ad Rusinian. gives instances in the Synods of Alexandria, Greece, and Spaine, where Euzoius, Eudo­xius, and such principall offenders were deposed from their offices, and other upon their repentance retained. And the like Ecclesiasticall authority is in many other places throughout his writings by him commended unto us. Let us heare how M^r C. proceeds.

I. C. To these we will adde Epiphanius, Ierome, Ambrose, Cyrill, Hillarie and Greg. Nazianzen; writers in noe age. Touching Ecclesiasticall Government, these to this purpose speake: Particular Churches may lawfully ordaine their owne Bishops, without o­ther Presbyters assisting them; Epiph. cont. Haer. 73. and among themselves ex­communicate offenders. Id. l. 1. Haeres. 30. Tom. 2. Haer. 5. ANSVV. I. Here be three places at once misalledged: In the two latter, viz. Haer. 30. and Haer. 5. there is nothing at all spoken touching this poynt. In the first of them, viz. Haer. 73. he doth but catch at a shadow, and pervert the words of Epiphanius, and falsi­fy them, by changing some and adding other, and omitting other that might give light unto the question. His words upon occasion of Meletius his confession and suffering for the trueth, are these; There are many people of this order of this Synod, which setting Bishops over themselves, doe make a marvellous confession touching the faith, & doe not reject the word Coessentiall. Yea and say they are ready, if there were a perfect Synod, to con­fesse & not to deny it. Here is no mention of particular Churches or Congregations; nor of lawfully ordayning, nor of doing this without other Presbyters assisting them. But that which is recorded touching the acknowledgement of a lawfull or perfect Synod, [Page 219]that is omitted. Thus he varyeth from the Latine translation of Epiphanius: the Originall Greek in divers Copies is further from the matter; having this beside other differences, [...], which made themselves to be Bishops, instead of lawfully ordaining their owne Bishops. Such are the Alle­gations of M^r Canne. II. Suppose the words Epiphanius had bene the same that M^r C. relates, yet had not the authority of Synods bene any thing diminished thereby. Is it not the common and ordinary practise in these Reformed Chur­ches, that where two or more Ministers are in one Congregation, there the newly elected Ministers are ordained and confirmed without any other Presbyters from other Churches to assist them? Yet this is no good argument to prove they want Classes and Synods. And though also they doe among themselves excommu­nicate offenders; yet this hinders not but that Classes or Synods may exercise their authority in judging or censuring such as have unjustly excommunicated any, or proceeded contrary to their advise therein. III. That Epiphanius did approve the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, it is manifest by his practise. It isSocrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 9. re­corded of him that he being Bishop of Salamis or Constantia in Cyprus, procured a Synod to be called in that Iland, wherein the bookes of Origen were condemned, & a decree made that none should read his bookes. IV. Epiphanius did not one­ly approve the lawfull authority of Synods; but he went further and did maintaine the unlawfull authoritie of particular persons over divers Churches. This appea­reth in hisEpiph. Haer. 75. condemning of Aërius of heresie, that held Bishops & Presbyters to be the same by divine institution; whom D. Whitaker De Pont. Rom. q. 1. p. 104, 105, 106. doth justly defend against Bellarmine and others, and shewes that Hierome and other ancient Fathers were of the same minde with Aërius therein; and sayth that we are not to regard the ab­surd men that doe so often object Aërius unto us: he sayth Epiphanius doth foolish­ly and childishly answer the testimonies produced by Aërius, and wonders that such a Divine that tooke upon him to refute all Heretickes, did not see his owne foule errour. Yea it is furtherSoc. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 11.13. recorded of Epiphanius, that he disorderly in­truded himself into the charge of Chrysostome, contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Ca­nons observed in those times, by celebrating the Lords supper & ordaining a Dea­con in the Church at Constantinople. And thus we see M^r Cannes witnesses are in extremity opposite unto himself.

Another of his witnesses is Ierome, from whom he alledgeth, thatJer. ad. Gal. q. 10. In every Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders. To this I answer, I. This is nothing against the authority of Synods. The Reformed Churches have in every Congregation such a Senate of Elders: and yet this hinders not but that they have & ought to have Classes & Synods also, both for direction and correction of Elderships, and for decision of the controversies arising in particular Churches. II. Though every Congregation ought to have a Senate of Elders; yet Ierome doth not avouch so much in the place alledged. His words are falsifyed: for in the place which they misquote (ad Gal. instead of ad Alg.) the words of Jerome are these,Ad Al­gas. qu. 10. How great the traditions of the Pharisees are, which at this day they call [...], and what old wives fables, I cannot expresse. For neither doth the greatnes of the [Page 220]booke permit: and many of them are so filthy, that I blush to tell. And yet (saith he) I will tell one of them, to the ignominy of that envyous nation. They have Rulers in their Synago­gues, of their wisest men, deputed unto a filthy work, &c. What this filthy work was, though Jerome expresse it, yet I thinke it shame to publish. And this which he saith in detestation of the Jewes, without approbation of their order, is all that he there saith for an assembly of Elders. So vaine and insufficient are the Allegations of M^r Canne. III. That Hierome allowed the authority of Synods above par­ticular Churches, it may appeare by that he sayth,Ad Eua­griu ep. 85. Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. If we seek for authority, greater is the world then the city; that is, as D. Whi­taker expounds the same, the Churches dispersed through the world: he sayth,De Pont. Rom. qu. [...]. p. 9 [...], 99. All the authority of the Church of Rome, is not so great as is the authority of all Churches every where. And thereby he acknowledgeth the authority of Synods arising from the deputation of many Churches, to be greater then the single authority of any one particular Church. Besides, whereas Damasus, Bishop of Rome, was a zea­lous opposite to the Arian, Macedonian, and other heresies, and in divers Synods furthered the censure and condemnation of such as persisted in those errours, and wrote divers Synodicall Epistles which witnesse the exercise of that authority by Synods, Hierome Ad Ge­rontiam. confesseth that in the writing of those Synodall letters he did assist and help Damasus, which he could not with good conscience have done, un­lesse he had allowed the authority of Synods. Lastly, if Hierome wrote that in every particular Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders; then is M^r Canne and his Congregation condemned by Hierome, because they have now for many yeares had no Senate nor assembly of Elders, to governe them; M^r Canne being sole governour of them, without an Eldership.

In the next place, touching this assembly of Elders, he addes, that The power of choosing them is in the people. And for this he alledgeth three Authours together,Ad Rust. Hil. ad Cōst. August. Cyr. in Ioh. 20.21. Hierome, Hilarie, Cyrill. I answer: For Hierome, ad Rusticum; there is nothing at all spoken touching the matter, but he is falsely alledged. For Hilary, I. He is also falsely alledged: he sayth nothing touching the Senate or assembly of Elders, of which M^r C. speakes. II. Though he entreat Constantius the Arian Emperour, who had banished many worthy Bishops, that he would permit the people to heare those Teachers and Ministers of the Sacraments, whom they would, whom they thought good, and whom they had chosen, that they might offer up prayers for his safety and felicity; yet doth he not hereby prejudice the authority and jurisdiction of Synods. This hinders not but that Synods might censure and judge of the elections made by the people, and of other controversies of particular Churches. III. Hilary alsoCent. Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 10 col. 1134, 1135. wrote a peculiar booke touching Synods, exstant among his workes, which he had tran­slated out of Greek into Latine, wherein the Acts and decrees of divers Synods that censured and condemned the Arian heresy, are recorded. Had he thought with my opposites, that this jurisdiction of Synods had bene an usurped and un­lawfull power; he ought not to have given so much approbation of them, in al­ledging their authority for defense of his opinion, without some testification a­gainst their power. Besides, what colour of reason hath M^r C. to shew that Hi­larius should vary from the judgement of Orthodox Bishops, who in that age [Page 221] Ib. Cent. 4. c. 7. col. 519. & 528 &c. ordinarily used to meet together in Synods for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction?

For Cyrill in Ioh. 20.21. whom he also brings to prove that the Senate or assem­bly of Elders, ought to be chosen by the people, he is in like manner abused and falsely alledged by him. For I. Cyrill upon those words of Christ, As the Fa­ther hath sent me, so send I you: sayth that Christ in those words ordained the Teachers of the world, and Ministers of the divine mysteries, &c. That therefore Paul is true, saying, No man takes this honour unto himself, &c. Heb. 5. &c. He shewes how Christ called his Disciples, but hath not a word, neither touching an assembly of Elders, nor of their choosing by the people. Such falshood and forgery there is in the Allega­tions of M^r C. And yet if he had spoken as much as is here pretended, it had bene no empeachment unto the authority of Synods, as was shewed before. II. That this Cyrill, Bishop of Alexandria, did acknowledge the use of Synods, not onely for counsell and admonition, but for censure and judgement of causes, it appea­reth evidently by his practise, while in theEuagr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 4. Synod holden at Ephesus, in the time of Theodosius, he being a principall member of that Synod, did together with o­thers give sentence against Nestorius, and deposed him from his office, for his ob­stinacy in refusing to appeare before them, and for his heresy whereof he had bene convicted.

The next witnesse abused by him is Ambrose, who is alledged to shew what the Senate or assembly of Elders is to doe, viz.Amb. Offi. l. 1. c. 1 These with spirituall bridles order men, &c. I answer: I. In the place alledged, there is not a word to be found, either touching a Senate of Elders, or touching spirituall bridles, or any thing to like purpose. II. If a Senate of Elders be spirituall bridles, then the Brownists with M^r C. that now want such a Senate, are an unbridled company, wanting order, &c. III. What though an assembly of Elders order men with spirituall bridles? Is there therefore no other spirituall bridle in the authority of Synods? What conse­quence is this? IV. That Ambrose did allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, it appeares, both by his practise, heTheod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9. himself being present with Da­masus, Britto, Valerian and other Bishops at the Synod holden at Rome for the cen­sure of Apollinaris and Timotheus his disciple; and by hisAmb. Tom. 3. epi. l. 10. ep. 78. ad Theoph. exhortation given un­to Theophilus and others, to judge the cause of Euagrius and Flavianus, being depu­ted thereunto by the Synod of Capua: and againe by hisIb. Epi. 79. ad The­oph. & Anys. exhortation given un­to Theophilus & Anysius, that they being chosen by the same Synod of Capua, would give sentence touching Bonosus and his accusers, forasmuch as the Synod had givē this authority unto them, and they did now supply the place thereof.

With Ambrose he joynesIn orat. fun. de patr. Nazianzen, to testify also that a Senate or assembly of Elders doe with spirituall bridles order men. But in the place alledged I finde no such testimony as is mentioned: and therefore the three first answers made be­fore unto the testimony from Ambrose, may also serve for Nazianzen. And fur­ther that Gregory Nazianzen did not limit all Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely, it may appeare, if we observe, I. HowSoc. Hist. Ecc. l. 4. c. 21. Sozom. Hist. Ecc. l. 6. c. 17. he himself was made Bishop of Constantinople, by the suffrages of many Bishops met together, which is a further degree of Ecclesiasticall authority then that [Page 222]which is exercised in the Classes or Synods of these countries. II. How he plea­dethNazian. Epist. 1. ad Clidon. from a Synodall law, touching the receyving of those that were fallen. III. How he alloweth the order of convocating and assembling neighbour Bi­shops about the creating of a new Bishop, affirming this to beEpi. 30. ad Caesariē. right and accor­ding to the Ecclesiasticall law. IV. How he in his counsell and exhortation unto the Synod at Constantinope,Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 8. asscribes unto them authority and power for his owne dimission and translation, for the setting of another unblameable Bishop in his place, and thereby withall for the deposition and abdication of Maximus, which was accordingly performed.

That which might with more colour be objected out of Nazianzen against the use of Synods, and which is also alledged both by M^r Canne and by M^r Davenp. though not directly against the authority of Synods, is yet so brought in by the way as might cause a simple Reader to stumble thereat. The words of Nazianzen, as M^r CanneCh. pl. p. 93. alledgeth them, are these,Ep. 42. ad Procop. I am minded (saith he) to shunne all as­semblies of Bishops, because I never saw any good event in any Councell, that did not rather in­crease then diminish our evills: Their contention and ambition passeth my speech. ANSVV. I. Observe how M^r C. mistranslateth those words of Nazianzē, [...], which he rendreth, as signifying, passeth my speech; whereas they signify: prevayled more then reason, asApo. tep. p. 225. M^r Dav. doth rightly translate them. But it is no wonder that M^r Canne should mistake that which some more learned have done before. Grosser faults are more common with him. II. As for the testimony of Nazi­anzen, the answer of D. Whitaker may give sufficient satisfaction; who sayth,De Cōc. qu. 1. c. 3. p. 13.14, 15. ‘It may seeme strange that Nazianzen denyes he had seene a good issue of any Synod. For in those two Synods, [viz. of Nice and Constantinople, which had beene mentioned before,] trueth got the victory, and heresy was put downe. And though it be certaine, that Arianisme was encreased and grew strong and trou­bled the Church after the Synod of Nice, more then before, yet that is not to be imputed to the Synod, but to the contention and ambition of men. For as our corrupt nature doth more vehemently resist the knowne law of God, and rusheth headlong unto sinne: so falshood opposed itself more boldly unto the trueth then explained and openly defended, whereupon after that Synod, which none excelled, greater incōmodities did arise from the wickedness of men, &c. When Nazianz. saw so wicked dispositions of men, he was wholly turned from Councels. Although without doubt he disallowed not the thing itself, but the wicked indeavours of men. Now if any will reason after this manner, The issue of Synods is not good, or more evils follow thence; therefore Synods are to be avoyded: that man shall dispute deceitfully from a wrong cause, from acci­dent, and from the fallacy of consequent. But Nazianzen was to be pardoned, because he lived in the worst and most turbulent times of the Church, when by meanes of Valens the Emperour that degenerated from the Catholick faith, He­reticks did more prevayle, &c.’ Againe he opposeth Augustine unto Nazianzene, and sayth, ‘It is most true which Augustine sayth, Epist. 118. that the authority of Sy­nods in the Church of God is most wholesome, which certainly he would not have sayd, if he had bene of the same minde with Nazianzen.’ And further he op­poseth [Page 223]unto the speech of Nazianz. the testimony of Christ, saying, ‘Christ him­self pronounceth and promiseth, Matt. 18.20. Where two or three are assembled to­gether in his name, there he will be in the midst of them. In which words he signifyeth that the assemblies and Synods of godly and religious men, undertaken and ap­poynted for godly causes, are not displeasing unto him.’ III. The testimony of Nazianzen is as much against the opinion of M^r Can and M^r Dav. as against that which we hold touching Classes and Synods. For seeing they allow such mee­tings for counsell and admonition, though not for exercise of any jurisdiction; and seeing the testimony of Naziā. doth extend itself to all kinde of assemblies of Bi­shops, [ [...]] whether for counsell or censure, with­out exception of one sort more then another: therefore he no more condemneth our Synods, then those which my opposites allow.

Augustine, his next witnesse, is in like manner perverted as the former. Though he in the placeDeDoct. Chr. l. 1. c. 17. objected, doe write that the keyes were given to the Church; yet doth he not thereby exclude Synods gathered together in the name of Christ, from ha­ving a keye of power in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes. Had he proved that the title of the Church belongs onely to a particular Congregation in the full assembly thereof, and not at all unto a Synod, then had it bene something to the purpose; in the meane time, nothing. And that the minde of Augustine was other­wise, it appeares by the great approbation which heEpist. ad Ianuar. Ep. 118. De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 2. c. 3. gives unto the use and au­thority of Synods, as being most wholesome in the Churches of God. D. Whitaker DePont. Rom. q. 4. p. 484. & 497 alledgeth often the presence of Augustine at divers Synods. And it is recorded in the Acts of the third Councell of Carthage, where Augustine was both present, and subscribed with the rest unto the decrees which were then agreed upon,Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. co. 866, 867. that there should be kept a yearely Synod, unto which they were to repaire out of divers Provinces; that those which having controversies with others, being cal­led unto the yearely Synod, did refuse to come, should be held guilty, and be ex­cluded from the communion, or excommunicated. And it isIb. Col. 870, &c. noted further that the like decrees were made at another Synod held at Hippo, the place where Augustine lived, and that the same decrees were againe confirmed by another Sy­nod at Carthage. Hence it appeares that Augustine as well as others in his time, did hold that the causes of particular Congregations were to be judged & decided by another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves.

After Augustine he alledgeth Chrysostome, whose name is also abused for confir­mation of this opinion. For, I. Chrysostome in the place alledged, viz. De Sa­cerd. l. 3. c. 4. speakes of no such matter as he pretends. In that whole third book I finde no one word against the authority of Synods. And for the fourth chapter, which M^r C. alledgeth, there is in the best editions of Chrysostome no such chap­ter; they are not at all distinguished into any Chapters: and where there is a divi­sion of Chapters found, yet there is no such matter to be found in that fourth Chapter. M^r Canne, it seemes, never read the Authours he alledgeth: for would he then have so falsely cited them? II. Chrysostome is plaine for the authority of Synods. For speaking of the honour due unto the Deputies or messengers of the Churches in Synods, he saith the Apostle,In 2. Cor. 8.24. maketh his speech more terrible, saying in [Page 224]the sight of the Churches. He saith it for the glory of the Churches, for their honour. For if ye honour them, ye shall honour the Churches which sent them, &c. And then he con­cludeth, This shall be no small matter, for great is the power of a Synod, that is, of the Chur­ches. III. When as a wrongfull sentence had bene given against Chrysostome, being unjustly procured by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, he thenTom. 5. Epist. ad Innocent. appealed unto a Synod of many Bishops, both before and after the sentence was pronounced. The summe of his defence afterward was this, that he was willing to be judged by a Synod. And he complaines that his adversaries dealt with him, contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons. In those Canons it had bene oft decreed, that there should be liberty of appeale unto Synods. IV. When Bellarmine pleading for the Popes authority, alledged the request of Chrysostome unto Innocentius, Bishop of Rome, desiring him to write for him, that those things which were unjustly done against him, might not prevayle, &c. Chamierus expounding the words of Chrysostome, Panstra. Cath. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 23 distinguisheth betwixt admonition and giving of sentence; and shewes that Chry­sostome desired an admonition should be given by Innocentius, but that he exspected sentence from a Synod. Chamier sayth, this is confirmed to be his meaning, because he appealed to the Synod, &c. And hereby he expressly and distinctly confes­seth that Synods have jurisdiction to give sentence, and not onely a liberty of ad­monishing. V. When after this, Chrysostome Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. having bene both deposed from his place, and banished out of the city, was yet called back by the Emperour from his banishment, and was by the people desired to enter upon his ministery againe, he professed he might not doe it, untill his cause was further examined, & he pro­ved innocent by greater judges, or in a greater judicatory, Edit. gr. R. Steph. l. 6. c. 16. [...]; wherein he acknowledged a power of Synods, not onely above a particular Con­gregation, but also of one Synod above another, as of a Generall Synod above a Nationall or Provinciall, &c. VI. The minde of Chrysostome touching Church-government, may further be knowne to us by this, that heIn Matt. 18. will have those words, Tell the Church, to be understood of the Presidents or Governours of the Church. And againe, speaking of Priests or Bishops, the Ministers of the Go­spell, he thus describeth their speciall power,De Sa­cerd. l. 3. Col. 508. Edit. Basil. ‘It is granted unto them to dis­pense the things that are in heaven: power is given unto them, which God would not have to be given either unto Angels or Arch-angels: For it was not sayd unto them, Whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Earthly Princes have also the power of binding, but of the bodies onely. But that binding by the Priests whereof I speake, remaineth unto the soule, & commeth up to the heavens: so that what­soever the Priests doe below, that God ratifyeth above, & the Lord confirmeth the sentence of his servants. What els can you say this to be, but that all power of heavenly things is granted unto them of God? For the sayth, Whose sinnes ye retaine, they are retayned.’ What power, I pray you, can be greater then this one? The next perverted witnesse is Basil, touching whom observe, I. Their three­fold false allegation, in citing three severall bookes of his; viz. Constit. Monach. l. 4. 14. & 6.2. & 7. c. 35. whereas Basil wrote onely one booke with such a title: and as for the 4^th, 6^t, & 7^th, here mentioned by M^r C. there be none such. What grosse [Page 225]dealing is this? II. Suppose it was the Printers fault that these bookes were thus misalledged, and that it was but M^r Cannes oversight to let them passe with­out correction: yet even for that one book of Monasticall constitutions, which Basil did write, therein also is nothing to be found against the authority of Synods, nor any such matter as M^r C. pretends. It is a great forgery and abuse of the ancient Fathers, thus to pretend the vaile of their authority for covering of errour, when as the places pretended have not a word sounding to such purpose. III. That Basil allowed the authority of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes, it appeareth both by the praise which heBasil. Magn. Epi. 60. & 78. gives unto the Nicene Synod, & that for the censuring of Hereticks, which was an act of jurisdiction, and not of admo­nition or counsell onely: and againe in that he complaineth unto his great friend Nazianzen, touching the intermission of Synodall assemblies, and saith,Ep. 33. If we had yearely met oftner together, both according to the ancient Canons, and according to that care and solicitude which we owe unto the Churches, certainely we had never opened a doore unto slanderers. And againe, writing unto Athanasius touching such meetings, he cal­leth them,E [...]. 48. the way of help for troubled Churches. Thus also doe the CenturistsCent. 4. c. 7. col. 522 understand him, and alledge his testimony to shew the consociation of many Churches in Synods, in that age.

The Author next objected, is also misalledged: The letter of reference in the line, leades us unto a book in the margine which was not written by Socrates: and what place he therefore intends in Socrates, he must tell us another time. In the meane time, let it be remembred that this Ecclesiasticall Historiographer doth plainely and plentifully record against my opposites, that the causes and contro­versies arising in particular Churches were judged by another superiour Ecclesi­asticall authority out of themselves, to wit, by the authority of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in Synods. This he shewes in theHist. Ecc. l. 1. c. 5 condemnati­on of Arius by the Councell of Nice; in theL. 2. c. 24. deprivation of Photinus by the Sy­nod of Si [...]mium; in theL. 7. c. 33. deposition of Nestorius by the Councell held at Ephesus; and in many other the like instances. If happily he intended those places misap­plyed unto Basil in the former quotation; he is not thereby excused: seeing in the first place, viz. l. 4. c. 14. there is nothing at all spoken of this matter; and in the two latter, viz. l. 6. 2. & 7. 35. Socrates againe declares the authority of Synods in those times.

Isidorus, it seemes must owne the quotation [Lib. de Offic.] which by the mar­ginall note is assigned to Socrates; he having written two bookes concerning Eccle­siasticall Offices. These M^r Canne cites at large without specifying either book or chapter. But in those bookes of Isidorus, as there be many things, which M^r C. would not be bound to approve; so there is nothing that with any shew of rea­son can be applyed against the authority of Classes and Synods. On the contrary, we may justly inferre that he did not there restraine all Ecclesiasticall power unto a particular Congregation, as from many other, so especially from these his words,De Offi. Ecc. l. 2. c. 6 Moreover that a Bishop is not ordained of one, but of all the Bishops of the Provinces, this is acknowledged to be appointed because of heresies; lest by the tyrannicall authority of some one ordaining, they should attempt any thing against the faith of the Church. Therefore they all [Page 226]concurring, he is confirmed, and no lesse then three being present, the rest consenting by the te­stimony of their letters. Againe, for other of his writings, to shew his judgement in this poynt, this Isidorus isCus. de Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 3. &c. sayd to have made a collection of all the Synods that were before his time; which booke isConcil. Tom. 2. p. 146, 147. alledged in a Synodall Epistle of the Councell of Basil, to prove the authority of Councels above the Pope. For his practise, he isMagdeb. Cent. [...]. col. 261-287. & 513. recorded to have bene President of a Synod at Sevill in Spaine, were he was Bishop, and as some relate, of two other at Toledo, wherein appeare divers actes of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, in the exercise whereof he joyned with others, after the manner of Synodall proceedings.

Bernard is in like manner misalledged through want of attentiō & diligence: not onely by a wrong note of reference, but by a defective mention of his writing, Ad Eugen. For Bernard having written 5 bookes of Consideration. Ad Eugen. and be­sides them more then 30 Epistles Ad Eugen. he doth not specify which of these bookes, or which of these Epistles he meanes. But whether we consider those bookes, or Epistles, we finde Bernard in extremity opposite to Mr Canne, giving power not onely unto Synods, as the Ancient Fathers before mentioned, but even to the Pope himself, to judge the causes of all Churches. For living in a time of great blindenes, and height of Poperie, when the smoke of the bottomlesse pit had darkned the Sunne and the ayre, he was led aside through ignorance to exalt Antichrist; and writing unto Pope Eugenius that had bene his disciple, he gives him these most ambitious titles, andDe Cōsi. ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 8. calles him the great Priest, the supreme High Priest, the Prince of Bishops, the heire of the Apostles, Abel in primacy, Noah in government, A­braham in Patriarkship, Melchisedek in order, Aaron in dignity, Moses in authority, Samuel in judgement, Peter in power, Christ in unction, &c. the onely Pastour of all flockes and of all Pastours themselves, &c. the Vicar of Christ, &c. And though otherwise he gave many lively testimonies of a godly minde that was in him, yet not without cause is heWhit. de Pont. Rom. q. 4. p. 425.426. taxed for blasphemy in these unrighteous titles given to the man of sinne. More particularly, in his first Epistle which he wrote unto Eugenius, af­ter he was created Pope, upon occasion of the controversy that was betwixt the Archbishop of York, & the Archbishop of Canterbury, he puts this Pope in minde that heBernar. ad Eugen. Epist. 237. hath authority to judge the controversies that arise in other Churches, and wisheth him to use the same, and to give unto them according to their works, that they might know there is a Prophet in Israel. And writing againeEp. 238 of the same matter, he calles the Archbishop of York, that Idol of York, in regard of his intrusion (he might better have entitled Eugenius the Idoll of Rome)▪ & provokes the Pope, as having the fullnes of power, to cast his dart, to give peremptory sen­tence of deposition against the Arch B. and as the phrase of Bernard is, to lighten or strike with the thunderbolt of his power. The like exercise of power over those in other Congregations is often elswhereAd In­noc. Epist. 189, &. 190. allowed by him. And hereby it may appeare how grossely M^r Canne hath alledged these ancient Writers, quite con­trary to their meaning, and Bernard in speciall, that subjects Congregations not onely to Councels and Synods, as the Fathers before alledged have justly done, but doth unjustly subject them to one person, even to the man of sinne.

With these testimonies of ancient Fathers M^r Canne alledgeth for his opini­on, [Page 227]that some Councels have granted so much, and Christian Emperours by their Lawes confirmed it. Two of these, viz. the Councell of Nice & Constantinople, he alledgeth at large, and specifyes no Canon which he intendeth for this purpose. And as for the 3^d Councell of Carthage, whereat Augustine was present, I have shewedPa. 223. before that it makes directly for us. That 22^th Canon which he alledgeth, viz.Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. col. 868. that no Clerk be or dained without examination by Bishops, and testimony of the people, empea­cheth not the authority of Classes and Synods, but confirmeth the order establi­shed by them. And that Christian Emperours have by their lawes confirmed the authority of Synods, it is plaine and undenyable. TheSulp. Se. v S. Hist. l. 2 Councell of Nice that condemned Arius, was authorised by Constantine the Great. TheSulp. S. Hist. con [...]in. ex Sleyd. p. 162. Councell of Constantinople that condemned Macedonius, was authorised by the Emperour The­odosius the Elder. TheP. 164. Councell of Ephesus that condemned Nestorius, was au­thorised by Theodosius the younger. TheP. 170. Councell of Chalcedon that condem­ned Eutyches, was authorised by the Emperour Martianus. And as it was in these first Generall Councels, so may it be observed in many other. Instead of the rest, let theCodex Canon. Ecc. Univ. edit. Christ. Just. book of Canons suffice, confirmed by Iustinian the Emperour; there being contained in that book many Canons, which ordaine that the causes of par­ticular Churches should beCan. 5▪ 80, 83, 85. judged by Synods, and so decided by another su­periour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves. At the end of these Canons there is added the sanction or decree of Iustinian, Novella consti. Just. Imper. 131. by which he doth not onely allow them, and give force of lawes unto them, but with an excessive & farre grea­ter honour then is due unto them, would have the foure Oecumenicall Coun­cels to be receaved even as the holy Scriptures. Now though he offended greatly in this his esteeme of them, yet this may serve to shew what little reason Mr Canne had to alledge the decrees of Councels for his opinion.

SECT. VII.
Touching the Testimonies of Reformed Churches.

FRom ancient times they come back to the later times of Reformation, and sayCh. pl. p. 91. Touching Reformed Churches; if we may take the Confession of their faith, for testimony, then surely we have their consent also with us. The Churches consenting with them (as they vainely imagine) are these, according to their order in alledging of them: The Bohemian Churches, Churches under the Palsgrave, the Helvetian Chur­ches, the French Churches, Churches of the Auspurge Confession, of the Low-coun­tries, of Nasovia. But the trueth is, both these and other Reformed Churches, doe condemne my oppisites, in allowing of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations.

The Confession of the Bohemian Churches (say they) hath these words, Harm. Conf. c. 14. The keyes (that is, Ecclesiasticall Government) are given in trust, and granted to the Pastours, and to each severall Ecclesiasticall society, (that is, ordinary Congregation) whether they be small or great. I answer: I. This testimony is clipped by M^r Canne, who leaves out the words of order, which shew their opinion touching the originall and de­rivation of this power: The words of this Bohemian Confession, are that the [Page 228]keyes of the Lord, or this administration and power of the keyes is granted and delivered first unto the Governours and Ministers of the Church, and then unto every Christian Congrega­tion, &c. Therein they doe not consent with M^r Canne, but with the opinion of Mr Baines, notedP. 114, 115. before. And they doe there also apply these words unto ab­solution given by the Priest of the Church, as they call him. To this end they al­ledge those places, Ioh. 20.23. & Luk. 10.16. Their meaning is declared more fully before, where theyHarmo. Confes. Art. 5. de Poenit. p. 241. edit. 1612. teach that the poenitent are to come unto the Priest, and to confesse their sinnes unto God before him, &c. and to desire absolution of him by the keyes of the Church, that they may obtaine remission of sinnes by such a ministery, so instituted of Christ. This order seemes to agree with that forme of absolution described and appointed in the English booke of Common prayer, at the visitation of the sick. 11. It is acknowledged by the Ministers of the Church of the Picards (so called) in Bohemia and Moravia, in theP. 219. preface to the forementioned Confession of their fayth, that their fathers had appealed unto a Synod &c. where if any thing should be found dissonant from the Scriptures, they were willing from the heart and lovingly to be subject and obedient to the censure and appointment of the Synod in all things. This shewes their dissent from M^r Canne and his people. III. The Combination of the Christian and Orthodox Churches in Bohemia and Moravia, called by themselves, The Vnitie of the brethren in Bohemie, doth give a cleare testimony unto the trueth touching the authority of Synods, for the government of particular Churches, and judgement of their causes by a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves, as appea­reth in the booke of their Discipline; where theyRatio Discip. or­dinisq. Ecc. in Unitate frat. Bohem. c. 2. p. 33.34, & 38. professe that for weighty cau­ses, in providing for the necessities of the whole Vnitie, or some Diocesse therein, they use to hold Synods, either Generall or Particular, &c. They alledge these 5 ends: To confirme brotherly love and concord: To strengthen them in the work of the Lord: To preserve the vigour of Discipline: To exclude scandalous persons out of the number of their Ministers, &c. To ordaine Ministers, &c. and for theIb. p. 41. examination of Ministers before they be confirmed. The exercise of this authority is also declared in theirIb. cap. 6. p. 87, 88. &c. Visitations of the Churches which are in their Vnitie or consociation. This example of these brethren of the Vnitie, is so much the more to be regarded of us in respect of the singular providence & bles­sing of God, in preserving them to this day, in the midst of so many persecutions as they have endured, being more ancient then other Reformed Churches, ha­ving continued from the dayes of Iohn Husse, and being holpen by the Waldenses that were scattered into those parts; so that theyIb. pref. p. 2, 3. were increased to almost 200 lit­tle Congregations in Bohemia & Moravia, about the yeare 1500, before the time of Luther. Their piety, love, concord, and zeale of religion, notwithstanding some imperfections, appeares by their orders to be very great; in speciall, their care of sanctifying the Sabbath, bestowing it wholly in divine and religious exercises, re­sortingIb. cap. 3. p. 54. & 72, 73. foure times a day to the publick assemblies of Gods worship, even in the Winter time, and in Summer, five times a day, &c. The bond of that per­fection which they seek for, and have in some measure attained unto, seemes to be their combination in Synods, and that unity therein whereupon they are denomi­nate. Their government and the fruits thereof have bene such, that many of the [Page 229]speciall lights of Christendome, since the time of Reformation, have admited and commended the same, and sundry of them have wished for the like Discipline and order in the Churches where they lived; as appeares by the testimonies of Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Pet. Paulus Vergerius, Beza, Zanchius, Olevian, Vrsinus, Chytraeus, Pet. Martyr, Calvin, Polanus, Bucholcerus, which testimonies areP. 106-122. affixed unto the end of that book of their Discipline. Yea the printing of this book of their Discipline (according to their cōmon order in such cases) was not done without thePref. p. 8. & 16. au­thority of a Synod, & namely of that which was celebrated at Lessna in Poland, anno 1632. they being by the present troubles dispersed abroad into those parts.

Unto that which he had alledged out of the Bohemian Confession, M^r Canne saith the Churches under the Palsgrave likewise consented: and to this end he citeth their Publick Catechisme in the end of part 2. For answer hereunto; 1. If these Churches consent unto that which the Bohemian Churches have professed, then they doe not agree with M^r Can. as appeares by what hath bene sayd in the foregoing An­swers. 11. The place here alledged hath nothing touching the persons to whom the Keyes are given, which is the thing for which it is produced; it speakes onely of the use of the Keyes, and the ordinary exercise of Discipline in the Church, without restraining the same unto the sole jurisdiction of a particular Congregati­on, or excluding the authority of Classes and Synods, either for advise & consent before hand, or for the correcting of abuses committed in the administration of it. And that the power of a superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatorie, exercised in such ca­ses, is agreeable unto the doctrine and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate, may appeare from the testimoniesP. 191.192.193. before noted out of Vrsinus, Tossanus, & Pa­raeus, Divines of speciall eminencie in those Churches. III. Whereas it is sayd in this Catechisme,Qu. 85. concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline, that offenders after other admonitions persisting in their errors and wickednes, are to be made knowne unto the Church; lest this should be understood of the whole multitude, it is added presently, or to them that are appoynted for that matter and purpose of the Church: and if neither then they obey their admonition, are of the same men, by forbidding them the Sacra­ments, shut out from the assembly of the Church, &c. The meaning is, as it is explainedExplic. Catech. ad Qu. 85. by Vrsinus (who also yeelded speciall help for the compiling of that Catechis­me) that when any is to be excommunicated, the matter be first heard, tryed, and judged by the whole Presbyterie, and that their judgement be approved by the Church; that it be not undertaken by the private authoritie of one alone, or of the Ministers alone. This serves to justifie what we teach and practise, and to condemne both the tyrannicall and popular courses of others. IV. Moreover for the judgement and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate, concerning the authority of Classes & Synods, which is the poynt in controversy, it is to be observed, that all the Ministers which according to order are there confirmed in the Ministerie, are as a Jurie of so many sworne men, bearing witnesse against the Independencie of Churches. For at their ordination they doe not onely testify and promise by subscription and giving of of the hand, but withall they doe binde themselves by a solemne oath, among the rest,Churf. Psaltz Kir­chendi. be­stall. punct. Art. 16. to obey the Politicall and Ecclesiasticall Lawes, the Officers and Inspectors, there appointed, &c. to referre or submit Church-affaires unto the Ecclesiasticall Senate set over [Page 230]them, &c. and also according to the appointment of their Inspector, to frequent the Classicall assemblies, in whatsoever place or quarter they are held; willingly and freely to subject them­selves unto the censure of their brethren, to deale faithfully, uprightly, and quietly in their cen­sures & votes, to doe nothing neither for feare nor favour of any, but what they judge to be pro­fitable for the edification of the Churches and Schooles.

The Confession of the Churches of Switserland or Helvetia, is notably falsifyed by M^r C. They confesse in the placeConfes. Helvet. Art. 16.17. alledged by him, that the power of the Keyes ought to be committed unto select and fit persons, either by divine or by certaine and required suffrage of the Church, or by the sentence of those to whom the Church hath delegated this office; in which latter disjunction (omitted by M^r C.) they acknowledge another Ecclesiasticall authority besides that of a particular Congre­gation, about the election of Ministers. And a little afterArt. 19. this is further de­clared, when they acknowledge that the faulty are to be admonished, reprehen­ded, restrained, and those that goe further astray, by a godly agreement of such as be cho­sen out of the Ministers and Magistrates, to be excluded by Discipline, or punished by some o­ther convenient meanes, so long untill they may repent and be saved. Such an Ecclesiasti­call Senate, it seemes, was among them for the government of particular Chur­ches. And further, the authority of Synods for such purpose, is likewise speci­fyed and justifyed in the largerCap. 18. p. 63. Helvetian Confession. Besides this, we have a particular story hereof related by Walaeus out of Beza, who recordes thatAmpt der Kerckē ­dien. p. 214 out of Bez. Apol. pro Justif. ex sola fide. p. 263. &c. when a controversy arose at Berne, betwixt Huberus and Abrah. Musculus, the sonne of Wolfg. Musculus, touching the doctrine of Praedestination, the Rulers of Berne, fol­lowing the order of the Apostles, did appoynt a Synod out of all the Classes with­in their jurisdiction, who together with the help of other excellent Teachers, cal­led from Zurich, Basel, Schaphuysen, and Geneva, did take cognition of the differen­ces, and after due triall according to the word of God made a conclusion; so that thereby the Churches were brought unto their former peace.

That which is next alledged by M^r C. from the Confession of the French Art. 30. Chur­ches, viz. the equality of all true Ministers and Churches, so that none may arro­gate dominion over another, is not at all hindred by that authority which is exer­cised in Synods; seeing all the particular Churches united in Synods, are in like manner and equally subject unto one another, and unto that which is concluded by all. Yea this equality is confirmed by the Synodicall decree in this very Ar­ticle. Whereas there be many evidences of the Reformed Churches in France, which shew what their judgement and practise is touching the subjection of parti­cular Congregations unto a superiour Ecclesiasticall power; yet instead of many, one for the rest may suffice, which is from theOordeel en uyrspra­ke, met den Eed vā Ap­probatie vā het Synode Nation. der Gereform. Kerckē van Vrancrijck, gehoudē tot Ales in de Cevennes, besloten en̄ gearresteert den 6. Oct. 1620. Nationall Synod of Ales, transla­ted and published in divers languages, containing a most pregnant testimony tou­ching this poynt of our controversie. M^r C. and W. B. doe falsely tell me of a Iu­rie of more then 24 men, which condemne my position for an errour and untrueth: but as we have seene before in the Ministers of the Palatinate, so loe here againe a Jurie indeed of more then twise 24 men, and of the most choyse Ministers and Elders of all the French Churches, and all sworne to submit unto the resolution and sentence concluded by authority of that Synod. After a propositionP. 3. [...]. made [Page 231]in this Synod by Monsr Turretin, touching some meanes to hinder the Arminian Errours: &c. the Assembly liking wel of that motion, and much commending ‘the Synod of Dort, as an effectuall remedie to purge the Church, and to root out the heresies touching the poynt of praedestination, &c. after invocation of the name of God they agreed that the Canons of the forenamed Synod of Dort should be read in their full assembly: which being done, and every Article seriously weighed, they were then by universall consent approved, as agreeable to Gods word, &c. Hereupon all the Ministers and Elders deputed unto this Assembly, did each of them severally sweare and protest, that they consented and accorded with this doctrine, and that they should maintaine and defend it with all their might unto the last breath. And toP. 4.5. make this concordant agreement the more authentick, and to binde all the Provinces thereunto, the Assembly or­dained that this present Article should be printed and joyned with the Canons of the mentioned Synod, and that the same should be read in the Provinciall Sy­nods, and in the Universities, that there it might be approved, sworne and sub­scribed unto by the Ministers, Elders and Professours of the Universities, as al­so by those that desired to be admitted unto the holy Ministery, or unto any A­cademicall profession. And ifP. 5. any man should reject, either in whole or in part, the doctrine contayned in the foresaid Synod, and defined by the Canons thereof, or should refuse to take the Oath of consent and approbation, the As­sembly ordained that the same should not be receaved unto any ministery in the Church, or unto any office of Schoolemaister.’

The forme of oath taken first in the Nationall Synod, & afterward to be taken in the Provinciall Synods, wasP. 6. this,

‘I N. sweare and protest before God and this holy Assembly, that I receave, approve, and embrace the whole doctrine taught and decided in the Synod of Dort, as being wholy conformed unto the word of God and the Confession of our Churches. I sweare and promise during my life to continue in the profes­sion of this doctrine, and to defend the same according to my utmost power, & that I neither in preaching nor teaching in the schooles, nor in writing will ever depart from this Rule. I declare also and protest that I reject and condemne the doctrine of the Arminians, seeing it doth hang the election of God upon the will of man, diminisheth and disannulleth the grace of God, exalts man and the strength of his free will to cast him downe from above, brings in againe Pe­lagianisme, excuseth Popery, and overthrowes the certainty of salvation. So truely let God help me and be mercifull unto me, as I doe before him sweare that which is aforesayd, without any equivocation, or evasion, or inward men­tall reservation.’

After this followes theP. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. subscription of the names of the principall lights & starres of the French Churches, the Ministers and Elders deputed and sent unto that Nationall Synod from the Churches in the severall Provinces of France, as of Picardie, Champagne, the French Iland, Normandie, Bretagne, Dauphine, Burgundie, Languedoc, Guienne, Poictou, Aniou, and many others. Hereby the Reader may perceave what power and authority is exercised in the Reformed Churches of [Page 232]France; that they doe not observe their Synods for to conclude matters by way of advise and counsell onely, but by their decrees and ordinances doe binde men to submit unto their sentence and judgement, excluding those from the ministery, & professions in Universities or Schooles, that refuse to consent and yeeld unto their resolutions. Hereby it appeares how vainely M^r Canne alledgeth their Confessi­ons, & perverteth them quite contrary to their meanings.

That which is alledged out of the Confession of Ausburgh, comes not neere the question betwixt us. For what though it be there affirmedConfes. August. Art. 14. that no man ought to teach publickly in the Church, or to administer the Sacraments, unlesse he be lawfully called? This proves not that calling to be unlawfull, which is directed by an Ecclesiasti­call authority out of a particular Congregation; or that Classes and Synods have no right to hinder the disordred callings of unfit persons, when particular Chur­ches doe offend therein. And that the Authors of that Confession did approve of the authority of Synods, for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes, it appea­reth both bySyntag. Confes. par. 2. p. 7. their Appeale unto a generall, free, Christian Councell, which they humbly request and seek in their preface unto the Emperour, Charles the fift: and afterwards againe, speaking of the meanes to purge the Church from abuses, they say thatIb. p. 28.29. Confes. August. Art. 21. now long agoe all good men in all nations doe desire a Synod: And fur­ther, This is the usuall and lawfull way to end dissensions, namely, to referre Ecclesiasticall controversies unto Synods. This manner the Church hath observed even from the Apostles. And the most excellent Emperours, Constantine and Theodosius, even in matters not very obscure, and in absurd opinions, would yet ordaine nothing without a Synod, that they might preserve the liberty of the Church in the judgements of doctrines. And it is most ho­nourable for the Emperour to imitate the example of those the best Princes, &c. And there­fore as in the times of Constantine and Theodosius, particular Churches were subject unto another superiour Ecclesiasticall power, that judged their causes and censu­red offendours; so they of the Ausburg Confession, desired the like of Charles the fift.

The publick order set forth in these Low countries, is in the next place alledged against me. But theArt. 31. Article of the Belgick Confession which is poynted at, hath nothing that serves their turne against me, neither doe they shew what clause therein they intend for their purpose. And what seemes most to accord with their former allegations, I haue answered before. But for the Synods of these Coun­tries, whereas M^r C. saith,Ch. pl. p. 91.92. What those Synods were of whom Mr Paget speaketh in pag. 66. who decreed that particular Congregations should not practise among themselves, 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 such a thing be, it was onely the invention of some particular men. It is here to be observed, 1. That Mr Canne falsi­fyeth my words: that which I sayd, was this,Answ. to W.B. p. 66. When the busines is so weighty, that by former generall consent of Churches, testifyed by their Deputies, meeting together in their Sy­nods, it hath bene agreed, that the same shall not be proceeded in without advise of the Classis, such as is the election of Ministers, the excommunication of offenders, and the like: that in such cases ordinarily matters are brought unto the Classis, &c. Now this voluntary a­greement, not to proceed without advise of the Classis, before matters of so great [Page 233]weight were determined, was not to hinder particular Congregations from the practise of all Gods ordinances among them; but onely to prevent and restraine a­buses in the manner of doing, and to direct them for the better performance there­of among themselves. 11. What those Synods were, wherein such agreements were made, it had bene easy for M^r C. to have knowne, if he had used diligence in enquiry and search for them. To help him herein, let him consider theseKerckē-Ordeningē der Gerefo. Nederlātsc. Kerckē, Na­tion. Syno. tot Embdē. An. 1571. Art. 13, 14. & 33, 34. Nat. Syn. tot. Dordr. An. 1578. Art. 4.8. & 99.100. Nat. Syn. tot Middelb. An. 1581. Art. 3.4. & 62.63. Nat. Syn. in's Graven-Hag. An. 1586. Art, 3.4.5.36, 47.69.70.72. Nat. Syn. tot Dordr. An. 1618, & 1619. Art. 3, 4, 11, 12, 76, 77, 79. plaine evidences recorded in divers Synods; viz. that men shall not proceed to election or deposition of Ministers, or excommunication of offenders, without the advise and judgement of a Classicall assembly. And besides the decrees of these Nationall Synods, the like agreements and resolutions have bene made in sundryProvinc. Syn. tot Dordr. An. 1574. Art. 12. Prov. Syn. tot Middelb. An. 1591. Art. 3, 4, 9, 58, 68, 69. Provinciall Synods: so that from time to time, after ripe deliberation & long experience, these Acts of their Synods have still bene renewed and confir­med, from the beginning of their Reformation even unto this day.

III. Besides these generall acts and agreements of severall Synods, we have their practise also for confirmation hereof, to declare that the causes of particular Churches were judged by another Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves. Thus it is witnessed,Triglād. van de Mo­der. p. 56.57. that Caspar Coolhaes was excommunicated by the Pro­vinciall Synod of Holland, holden at Haerlem, Anno 1582. that the cause of Her­mannus Herberts was judged, and he suspended from his Ministery by a particular Synod of South-Holland, holden in the Haghe. Anno 1591. Novemb. 6. that Cornelius Wiggertsz. was also judged and excommunicated by a particular Synod of North-Holland, by reason of the errours holden by him: thatAct. Syn. Nat. Dordr. An. 1618. Ses. 22. Nicolaus Gre­vinchovius, Minister at Rotterdam, was removed from his ministery by the sentence of the South-Holland Synod holden at Delph: thatIb. pref. Adolphus Venator, Minister at Alcmaer, that Ioannes Valesius, Ioannes Rodingenus, and Isaacus Welsingius, Pastours of the Church at Horne, were suspended from their ministery by the North-Hol­land Synod. and that divers others in Gelderland, were in like manner censured by the Synods holden in that Province at Arnhem, is also recorded in that historicall preface, prefixed before the Acts of the last Nationall Synod at Dort. And in theSes. 22, 23. booke itself it is likewise testifyed, that Simon Goulartius, Minister of the Gallo-Belgick, or Walloens Church at Amsterdam, was removed from his place by the Gallo-Belgick Synod. By these and sundry other like acts and sentences that might be noted, it is evident that the Synods held in these Reformed Churches, are not onely for counsell and admonition, but for the exercise of jurisdiction in censuring offenders, & judging of controversies; & that their meaning is perver­ted, when their Confession of faith is objected against me.

That which M^r CanneCh. pl. p. 91. alledgeth from the Synod of Middelburgh, An. 1581. is also mistaken by him; there being no such thing found in that Synod as he men­tioneth, touching election done by voyces publickly in the Temple. And if it had bene there, yet should not that prejudice the authority of Synods or Classes, in allo­wing [Page 234]or censuring such elections, either before or after they were made.

Againe it is objected, The Synod of Tilleburgh in Nasovia, determined the like, as Zep­perusPol. Ecc. p. 831. writeth. ANSVV. The determinations of this Synod being like unto those before mentioned, are therefore directly against my opposites, as the former were. Zepperus in his preface to the Articles agreed upon in this Synod, telles us how the Earle of Nassau having seene the Articles of the Synod held in Middel­burgh, Anno 1581. he took such liking thereof, that in the yeare following he cal­led the speciall Ministers of his country together unto a Synod in Tilleburgh, requi­ring that the agreements of the aforesayd Synod might be applyed unto the use of the Churches under his dominion, so farre as they well could. Hereupon the principall conclusions thereof were receaved and confirmed among them, and so farre as doth shew their full consent in the poynt of our controversy, viz. that par­ticular Congregations are to be subject unto an Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods and Classes. Therefore it was agreed,Ib. p. 833 Art. 4. that the calling of Ministers should be made by the judgement of the Classis, &c. ThatP. 834. where divers examined of the Church, or of it & the Classicall assembly together, were judged to be fit, then the election was to be in the power of the Church, and to be done by suffrages pu­blickly in the temple: and if they were equall, then to use lots, &c. This seemeth to be the Article which M^r C. stumbled at before, as if it had bene so written in the Synod of Middelb. 1581. which yet doth not exclude the precedent allow­ance of the Classis in such elections. Moreover it was there agreed,P. 837. Art. 23. that if any complaine of wrong done in a lesser assembly or Synod, he may referre the matter by appeale unto a superiour Synod:P. 843. Art. 61. that no man be excommunicated without the consent of a Classicall assembly:Art. 63. that the deposition of Ministers be done by the judgement of a Classicall assembly, and consent of the Magistrate. These and the like Articles there concluded, doe shew how farre the Nassovian Chur­ches were from that opinion of the Brownists, and some other, in denying the subjection of particular Congregations unto any Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves. Where could Mr C. finde more pregnant testimony against himself, then in such resolutions of Reformed Churches as these be?

With the former Reformed Churches alledged by M^r Canne, doe agree all the other, so farre as I can learne by any enquiry. For the Church of England, B. Jewell testifveth,Def. of Apol. of Ch. of Engl. par. 6. c. 17. div. 1. & 2. that we have had ere now in England Provinciall Synods, and have go­verned our Churches by home made lawes: and he maintaineth that without wayting for a Generall Councell, it was rather thought good to doe that which both rightly might be done, and hath many a time bene done, as well of other good men, as also of many Catholick Bishops, that is, to remedie our Churches by a Provinciall Synod. And besides other ex­amples, there is aSyntag. Confes. p. 125, & 136 speciall monument recording the Acts and Articles agreed upon in the Synod holden at London, Anno D. 1562. and againe of another Sy­nod, Anno 1571. confirming the Articles of the former Synod; ratifyed by the approbation of Qu. Elizabeth, to be observed through the whole Kingdome, &c, Now howsoever there be great difference in divers Churches, touching the manner of celebrating these Synods; yet herein (which is the poynt of our pre­sent controversy) they doe all agree, viz. that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall [Page 235]authority of Synods, to judge and determine the affaires of particular Con­gregations.

The testimony of the Church of Scotland for the authority of Presbyteries and Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations is most cleare. In the admission of Ministers to their offices there wasFirst book of Dis­cipline, p. 29. ed. 1621 required not onely the consent of the people and Church whereunto they should be appoynted, but also appro­bation of the learned Ministers appointed for their examination. ‘Touching all sorts of Synods among them it was concluded, thatSec. b. of Discip. ch. 7. p. 80. they have power to execute Ecclesiasticall discipline and punishment upon all transgressours and proud con­temners of the good order and policie of the Kirke, and so the whole Discipline is in their hands.’

Touching Provinciall Synods, which they call the lawfull conventions of the Pastors, Doctors, and other Elders of a Province, gathered for the common af­faires of the Kirkes thereof, &c. theyIb. p. 81. say,

Besides these Canons and rules of their Discipline, there be also divers Actes of their Generall Assemblies prefixed before the foresayd First and Second bookes of their Discipline, which by many instances doe shew how that power of Sy­nods was exercised and put in practise in the Church of Scotland. For example; we readP. 14. Edinb. Iul. 5. 1570. that there was an Excommunication directed against Patrik, called B of Mur­ray, to be executed by M. Robert Pont Commissioner their, with the assistance of the Ministers of Edinburgh. We finde there in another Assembly,P. 15. Edinb. Aug. 6. 1573. that Alexander Gordoun, B. of Galloway, being accused of divers offences, it was concluded, that he should make publick repentance in Sackcloth three severall Sundaies, first in the Kirk of Edinburgh; secondly, in Halyrudhous; thirdly, in the Queenes Colledge, under the paine of Excommuni­cation. We finde in another Assembly,P. 16. Edinb. Mar. 6. 1573. that the B. of Dunkell was ordained to confesse his fault publickly in the Kirk of Dunkell, for not exequuting the sentence of the Kirk against the Earle of Athol.

For the confirmation of this Synodall authority, there is added in the same place an Act of Parliament,P. 19. 20, &c. The 12 Parl. at E­dinb. Iun. 5. 1592. prefixed also before the sayd bookes of their Disci­pline, having this Title, Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk: of generall and Syno­dall Assemblies: of Presbyteries; of Discipline, &c.

The Confession of fayth made by the Church of Scotland, both for the Doc­trine and for the Discipline thereof, is yet further confirmed unto us both by ge­nerall Subscription, and by a most Solemne Oath. The formall words of that Subscription and Oath, are thus recorded unto us:Syntag. Confes. p. 158, 160. We beleeve with our hearts, confesse with our mouth, subscribe with our hands, &c. promising and swearing by that great [Page 236]name of the Lord our God, that we will continue in the Doctrine & Discipline of this Church, and that we will defend the same according to our calling and power, all the dayes of our life, under paine of all the curses contained in the law▪ & danger of body and soule in the day of that dreadfull judgement of God. Hereunto is annexed in the same place the Mandate of the Kings Majestie, whereby he enjoyneth all Commissioners and Ministers of the Word throughout his kingdome, that they require this confession of all their Pa­rishioners, &c. And so farre as I can learne, even unto this day, there is still ob­served this substantiall and maine poynt of Discipline, namely a power in Synodall assemblies to judge the controversies that doe arise in particular Congregations. Here M^r Canne instead of a Iurie of 24 men to condemne my position for an er­rour and untrueth, as heCh. pl. p. 83. speakes, may see a Iurie of more then thrice 24 Con­gregations in Scotland, maintayning my position, and condemning his errour by their example.

The Reformed Churches in Savoy, as that of Geneva, Kerc­kel, Ordon, der gemeē ­te van Ge­neven, p. 9, 10▪ &c. and the Churches in the villages thereabout, standing under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in Ge­neva, were combined together for their mutuall guidance, and the Ministers of those Churches meeting weekly together were subject to the censure of such Ec­clesiasticall assemblies, and the affaires of those Churches judged therein. The knowledge of this, is so common a thing, that in appearance hereupon grew the reproach, reported by M^r Canne himself, thatCh. pl. p. 94. at Geneva subjecting of Churches to this order first began.

The Evangelicall Churches in the greater and lesser Poland, in Lithuania, Russia and Samogitia have likewise shewed their consent with us in this poynt of subjec­ting particular Churches under the Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods, and have witnessed the same in divers solemne assemblies. They professeSyntag. Confes. par. 2. p. 294. Syn. Posna. 1570. Art. 19 that when con­troversies arise which cannot be compounded among themselves, the judgement and decree of a generall Synod of all their Churches is then to be required, and to be submitted unto. They agreedIb. p. 300 303. Syn. Crac. Xans. Wlodisl. that divers kindes of Synods were to be held among them, some greater & some lesse; that their Synodicall constitutions were to be put in execution; that the violatours thereof were to be subject unto the censures of deposition and excommunication, &c. They ordainedP. 320-326. Syn. Toru 1591 Art. 2▪3▪7.14▪17. that every Evangelicall Minister was not onely to have and to read the Canons of their Sy­nods, but also to carrie himself, and to governe the Church committed unto him according to the prescript thereof, and that under paine of Ecclesiasticall censure: that the censure of excōm [...]ation was to be administred publickly, either in the Congregation, or in the Synod, &c.

Moreover it is worthy to be remembred, how the Churches of the Netherlands, even at that time when they were scattered abroad in High-dutchland, and East­friestand, in that time of most bloody persecution, under the government of Duke d' Alva, did then in their banishment, and with danger of their lives at home, combine themselves in Classes for their mutuall guidance, and submitted them­selves unto the judgement of such assemblies. The distribution of these Chur­ches into severall ClassesSynod. Embd. An. 1571. Art. 10.11. recorded publickly, as followeth. I. Classis: The two Churches at Franckford, the Church at Schoenau, at Heydelbergh, at Franckendael, [Page 237]at S. Lambert. II. Class. The two Churches at Collen, the 2 Churches at Aken, the Church at Maestricht, at Limburgh, at Nuys, in Gulick-land. III. Class. The Church of Wesel, of Embrick, of Rees, of Goch, of Gennep, and other in Cleveland. IV. Class. The Church of Embden, with strangers of Brabant, Holland, West-Friestland. V. Class. The 2 Churches at Antwerp, the Church at 'sHertoghen-bosch, at Breda, at Brussel, and others in Brabant. VI. Class. The Church at Gant, at Ronsen, at Oudenard, at Comen, and others in East and West-Flanders. VII. Class. The Church of Doornick, of Ryssel, of Atrecht, of Armentiers, of Valencienne, and other Churches of Walloens. VIII. Class. The Church of Amsterdam, of Delph, o­ther Churches of Holland, of Over-Yssel, of West-Friesland. The faithfull Mini­sters and people of these primitive Reformed Churches, the Martyrs & witnesses of Christ, like the woman that fled into the wildernes from the rage of the Dra­gon, have given speciall testimony unto this Classicall government, whereunto they submitted themselves even in those hard times, when it was difficult & dan­gerous for them to meet together.

As the Dutch Churches practised among themselves of old, so they in the fore-mentioned Synod by common advise agreedSynod. Embd. art. 12. to exhort the English that they would combine their Churches into a Classis. And accordingly this order of go­vernment was approved by them, as appeares in that booke of their Discipline, framed for the use of the English Churches in these countries; where it is sayd in the end,Forme of Comm. prayer, Ad­ministr. &c. printed at Middleb. 1602, the 4. edit. This may be sufficient for particular Congregations: for the visitation whereof and decision of causes which cannot be ended among them, and such like; Meetings, Conferences & Synods of Minister and Elders, chosen by particular Churches and meetings, are to be held, as the Ministers for time and place and other circumstances shall think meet. WithIbid. p. D 7. b. & 8. a, b. & F 3. a. con­sent and allowance of these Ministers of such Classes or Conferences, together with consent of the Eldership, were the Pastours and Teachers of particular Con­gregations to be elected: and then the names of such being signifyed to the Con­gregation, for inquiry after their fitnes, warning was given that if within twenty dayes no just exception were taken, then their silence should be accounted as the free consent of the Congregation, &c.

To conclude, beside the testimony of Reformed Churches severally & apart, it shall not be amisse to behold the Harmony of their joynt consent in the Depu­ties of the sayd Churches, assembled together in the Nationall Synod of Dort, then which it is rightly judged, thatMolin. Anat. Ar­min. praef. A 3. there hath not bene for many ages past, any Synod more renowmed, or more holy, or more profitable to the Church. When as the Re­monstrants upon pretence of partiality & schisme in their judges, sought to decline the Authority & sentence of this Synod; the Divines of other nations, deputed from severall Churches, have given such judgment thereof, as shewes a plaine condemnation of my opposites opinion.

The judgement of the Divines of Great Brittaine, who alledged the perpetuall practise of all Churches, was this, thatAct. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 29. p. 97. the highest power of determining controversies in every Church is in the Nationall Synod lawfully called together & framed &c.

The judgement of Divines out of the Palatinate, was like unto the former: TheyIbid. p. 98. alledge the practise of the Church both in the old & new Testament, [Page 238]for confirmation thereof; and shew their owne practise to have bene such, that some authors of novelties being admonished first of their Classis, and then of the Ecclesi­asticall Senate, and being refractory were then dismissed, that is, deposed from their places.

The Divines of Hassia agree with the former, and upon the like grounds. TheyIbid. p. 100. shew the practise of their owne Churches; that for the repressing of the errour of the Vbiquitarians, divers Nationall Synods had bene held by authority of the foure brethren, Princes of Hassia; and that since againe the Prince Maurice, Land­grave af Hassia, had called another generall Synod of Hassia, wherein the former Synodicall decrees were confirmed, & sentence pronounced against such as main­tained contrary errours.

The Divines of Switzerland or Helvetia, consent hereunto, andIbid. p. 102. alledge the perpetuall practise of ancient & later Churches, together with the practise of those in Berne, in the cause of Huberus, in their owne countrey; and testify that by such meanes peace was obtained.

The Divines of Geneva alsoIbid. p. 102. 103. avouch, that in the Church, the supreme power of judgement is in a Synod lawfully called, &c. That God hath established this order & sanctifyed it by the example of the Apostles and all ages of the Church, according to the saying of Christ, Tell the Church, &c.

The Divines of Breme Ibid. p. 104. maintaine the same thing, and hold that if his order of Synods may be refused by such as deserve Ecclesiasticall censures, that then a doore should be opened to all heresies & sects, & all the judgements of the Church whereunto Christ sendeth us, should be subverted, &c.

The Divines of Embden Ibid. p. 1 [...]7. accord with the rest, and besides other reasons for confirmation of Synodall Authority in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes, they alledge that very place of Scripture, Act. 20.28. which my opposites per­vert to a contrary end against me.

Neither have they onely in generall shewed what the authority of Synods is, and also what this Synod may doe; but the Synod goes further, and proceeds unto the exercise of this power, and pronounceth sentence against those that persisted in their errours. In the Copie of that SentenceAct. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 138. p. 280. there be divers acts of their power to be observed in the severall expressions & formes of speech used therein: as for example; ‘This Synod of Dort doth seriously, instantly, and according to the authority which it hath by the word of God over all the members of their Churches, in the name of Christ require, exhort, admonish, & enjoyne all & every one of the Pastours in the Churches of the United Provinces, Doctours, Rectours, Masters in the Universities & Schooles, &c. The Synod, after in­vocation of the holy name of God, being in conscience well assured of their authority from the word of God, following the steps of Ancient & late Sy­nods, &c.P. 281. Doth interdict the persons cited unto this Synod, from all Ec­clesiasticall charge, and deposeth them from their offices, and also judgeth them unworthy of Academicall functions, untill by earnest repentance, &c. For the rest, whose cognition is not come to this Nationall Synod, it committeth unto Provinciall Synods, Classes & Presbyteries, according to the order receaved, that with all care they procure, &c. That they diligently take heed unto [Page 239]themselves, that they admit not any man to the holy ministery, which refuseth to subscribe unto the doctrine declared in these Synodicall constitutions, and to teach the same: that they also retaine no man by whose manifest dissension, &c.’

This judgement & Sentence of the Synod was afterward in most full & ample mannerIbid. p. 282. approved & confirmed by the Illustrious Lords, the States Generall of the United Provinces, acknowledging also the businesse of this Synod to be agreat & holy work, such as heretofore the Reformed Churches never saw, &c.

Besides this Sentence pronounced against those twelve or thirteen of the Re­monstrants, that by authority of the Synod wereIbid. p. 16, 17. cited to appeare before them; there is also another speciall sentence,P. 204, 205. of suspension from their function, con­cluded & pronounced against Everhardus Vosculius, and Iohannes Schotlerius, Mini­sters at Campen, because 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 severall Churches, did all & every one of them take a most solemne oath, in testi­mony of the good conscience which they had in the exercise of this authority: The forme of the Oath wasAct. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 23. p. 61. as followeth;

‘I doe promise before God, whom I beleeve and reverence as the present searcher of the reines and hearts, that in this whole Synodall action, wherein shalbe undertaken an examination, judgement & decision, both touching the five knowne Articles and the difficulties thence arising, and also touching all other matters of doctrine, 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 cause I shall propound nothing to my self, but the glory of God, the peace of his Church, and in speciall the conservation of the purity of doctrine. So let my Saviour Jesus Christ be mercifull unto me, whom I most earnestly beseech that he would continually assist me in this purpose with the grace of his Spirit.’

This oath being first taken by the President of the Synod, all the other Profes­sours, Pastours & Elders of the Netherlands, deputed unto the Synod, and then all the Divines of other nations, standing up in order, did with a loud voyce every one of them declare, that they did holily promise and sweare before God the same thing: and testifyed that they came with such minde unto the Synod; had hitherto sit downe therein; and would hereafter by the grace of God continue.

Having now such a cloud of witnesses consenting with me, I have reason in this place againe to put M^r Canne in minde of his vaine boastingCh. pl. p. 83. touching a Iurie of more then 24. men condemning me of errour. Here may he see a Jurie of more then thrice 24 sworne men, and of the most excellent servants of God in so many Reformed Churches and Universities, the lights of Christendome, the flower of the Churches, and the select crowne of learned men, as they of Geneva doeAct. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 3. p. 12. stile them, all testifying both by word and prac­tise against him, and against the opinion of Mr Dav. touching the jurisdiction of Synods.