A defence of church-government, exercised in presbyteriall, classicall, & synodall assemblies; according to the practise of the reformed churches

CHAP. VII.

The Allegations of Mr Canne examined.

AFter the former 21 Arguments against the authority of Synods, M^r Canne falles to flatter himself, & rejoyces in himself to thinke what the Reader will imagine when he sees his manifold Reasons.(a) 1.1 By this time I suppose (saith he) the indifferent Reader perceiveth, that the Scriptures, are every way for us, and against M^r Pa∣get, in this controversy betwixt us. Now hee should doe well, seeing we dispute about a mat∣ter of faith, appertaining to life and salvation; to rest in them as the onely touch stone for triall of all truth. But then further, to make way for his new troupes & legions of Hu∣mane Testimonies against me, and because this doth not well suit with his profes∣sion, that pretends so much warrant of Scripture, and to rely onely upon it; there∣fore he seeks to take occasion from my words, thereby to excuse his vaine often∣tation in alledging so many Writers, and saith, Notwithstanding considering he makes so much a doe, about the multitude of learned and godly Ministers, being of the same judgement and practise with him; (according as Festus knowing Paul to have appealed unto Caesar, did reasonably resolve, saying, Unto Caesar shalt thou goe, so) I am well contented to heare what reverend and judicious Authors doe say herein: And if M^r Paget will stand unto their Testimonies, I doubt not but to make it manifest, that (as the Scriptures so) they are also with us; &c. Hereunto I answer, 1. In all my former Answer I have not alledged against them the testimony of any one Author: neither have I framed any argument drawne from their words. The words of my writing which he alledgeth, are onely a part of an answer unto a slanderous accusation both of me and the Classis, in a matter of fact, wherein I shew how unconsciona∣bly and without proof they wrong both me and a multitude of learned and godly Mi∣nisters, being of the same judgement and practise. I desire the Reader to looke upon the(b) 1.2 place and to judge thereof. II. Whereas he thereupon brings forth an Ar∣my of Papists and Lutheranes, Ancient fathers and later Writers, Conformists & Non-conformists, &c. though it be with lesse reason then Festus sent Paul to Cae∣sar, seeing I made no such appeale, as Paul did unto Caesar; yet I am content to follow him, and to heare what his Authors doe say, and to shew both how idly and needlesly he alledgeth many of them, to prove that which is not denyed; and also how he perverts and falsifyes their meanings, alledging them for that which is contrary both to their words and practise.

The severall Bands of that Army, which M^r Canne mustereth against us, are these, as he reckoneth them,(c) 1.3 The Allegations of the Learned, which I purpose here to set downe, shall be taken, 1. From Papists. 2. Lutherians. 3. Calvinists. 4. English Conformists. 5. The Non-Conformists. 6. Ancient Writers: And lastly the Confession of Reformed Churches.

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 pro∣pounded 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 Ains∣worth answers,(d) 1.4 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 Pa∣pists, Bellarmine, the Rhemists, &c. in faining that they will not allow that go∣vernment 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, accor∣ding 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 place(e) 1.5 alledged by him, pleads for the same Government to be used now, which he shewes to have bene ordained and con∣firmed 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 the(f) 1.6 Chapter following he laboureth to prove that the same Govern∣ment hath bene still retained and practised ever since, from the first age of the pri∣mitive Church unto this present. The Rhemists also(g) 1.7 derive the government which they now stand for, from the institution of Christ, and practise of the pri∣mitive Church. And therefore it is untrue which he sayth, viz. that the Pa∣pists acknowledge a difference betwixt the government instituted at the first, and that which is now maintained by them. To prove this generall assertion he al∣ledgeth a particular testimony of Scultingius. But that which is sayd of one, can∣not 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 ge∣nerall; so it is unjustly applyed against us. Though in the primitive Church of∣fenders 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

is alledged by M^r Parker (from whom it seemes M^r Canne hath taken this testi∣mony 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 shewed(h) 1.8 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 Sa∣ravia in the number of Papists: so well is he acquainted with the Authors he al∣ledgeth at second hand; such injury he doth to his witnesses. So afterward(i) 1.9 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 in∣stance 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 Parisien∣sis; 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 fol∣low 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 Parker(k) 1.10 from whom he hath both these testimonies, doth not so alledge them against the au∣thority 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 is(l) 1.11 brought in saying, Bishops & Arch-bi∣shops have no authority, but what is conferred and bestowed upon them by the Church and Sy∣nods. 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 testimo∣ny 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 pur∣pose in oppugning of Synods.

As for Alphonsus de Castro and Franciscus Victoria, 1. It is an errour to approve their testimony there(m) 1.12 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 dark∣nes 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 in∣ferre that Classes & Synods have no authority over particular Congregations, be∣cause all Churches, Elderships and Officers are equall: This their assertion re∣maines yet to be proved; which we doe expressely deny, as I have(n) 1.13 shewed in my answer unto his first Reason.

The testimonies of the three next Popish Authors, viz. Cusanus de concord. Cathol. l. 1. c. 11, &c. Sanders de visib. Mon. l. 1. c. 6. Scultingius, Hierarch. Anarch. l. 4. pag. 103. are all of them before alledged by(o) 1.14 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 Congrega∣tion 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 Con∣gregation 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 depo∣sed

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 Ana∣cletus, 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 Sy∣nod, or Councell, maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope, & power to depose the Pope; others of thē asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope, rather then unto the Church or a Generall Councell representing the same: yet doe they all agree in this, that there is a superiour power above particular Congregations to judge the same.

The University of Paris, and the Doctours of Sorbon have in speciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the Pope; they(p) 1.15 bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same. They alledge the sentence of Pope(q) 1.16 Zozimus confessing himself to be inferiour unto the Councell. They avouch that(r) 1.17 the frequent edebrating of Synods is simply and absolutely necessary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church. Whereas a certaine Frier, Ioannes Sarrazin, had by word and writing under his hand preferred the authority of the Pope above the Synods, they(s) 1.18 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, & acknow∣ledged the power of Synods above the Pope.

The(t) 1.19 Councell of Constance did not onely exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in condemning of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage, but also decreeing the autho∣rity 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 at(v) 1.20 Brixia had in former time by their sentence con∣demned Pope Hildebrand, and judged him to be deposed. So in like manner did the Clouncell held at(x) 1.21 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 main∣taine

the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods & Councells whatsoever, & that their decrees are not of force, unlesse they be approved by the Pope; these doe evidently teach that the affaires and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superiour judicatories out of themselves. This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings, where he shewes(y) 1.22 the causes, the necessity, and the authority of Generall and Provinciall Synods, the(z) 1.23 power of elections, and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter. The same is maintayned by him in his(a) 1.24 treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies, plenary or for a certaine number of dayes, for the living or for the dead. And the like is to be found in(b) 1.25 sundry other of his writings.

And to these might be added more then an hundred of other witnesses, of the Romish Church, acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes & controversies of particular Churches. Instead of many other, the Councell of Trent, called by(c) 1.26 Pope Paulus the third, continued by(d) 1.27 Pope Iulius the third, and confirmed by(e) 1.28 Pope Pius the fourth, together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in severall Sessions of that Councell, doe give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts.

Onely to conclude this Section, let it be remembred how of old in our owne countrie, the like testimony hath bene given to shew the authority of Synods. We read(f) 1.29 of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore, Archbi∣shop of Canterbury, Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provinciall Synods should be kept within the Realme at least once a yeare. Another Synod(g) 1.30 was held at Winchester, Anno D. 1070. where Stigandus Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed for receyving his pall from Benedict the fift: And another(h) 1.31 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 Pa∣pists, 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

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

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 ex∣pressely taught by the same(i) 1.32 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 the(k) 1.33 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 quo∣tation, 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 the(l) 1.34 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 govern∣ment; but onely this is sayd, that it was almost like unto a popular government, propemodum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 govern∣mēt 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 jud∣ging and deciding of matters doubtfull and controverted. And not onely this, but after againe in the same page,(m) 1.35 this power of Synods in judging and excommunica∣ting 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 same(n) 1.36 Century, as in others according to their order, they doe

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,(o) 1.37 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 un∣due 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 his(p) 1.38 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 Here∣fies arose, they did nothing by their private counsell, neither durst they, &c. but calling toge∣ther other fellow-Bishops of the same Province, either all or many, by conferring their judge∣ments 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. And(q) 1.39 after againe they de∣scribe 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 preg∣nant testimony he gives unto them in the(r) 1.40 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, ga∣thering together so many holy men in the Synod or Councell of Nice for the de∣ciding 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 he(s) 1.41 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 coe∣quall 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 also(t) 1.42 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 Sy∣nods, 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 that(v) 1.43 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 a(x) 1.44 Synod held at Antioch, where many Bi∣shops 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 per∣son when he would have resisted the Synod. The same story is recorded also by the(y) 1.45 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 & judg∣ment of the Brownists, and wonders at their blindenes, and bewailes it. For spea∣king of Morellius and the popular government which he strove for, he sayth,(z) 1.46 Some of the Separation, I grant, are too offensive this way: which I am heartily sory for. They take the wordes in Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church, more popularly then there is need, or then reason or good order would. Howbeit in this yet they hold the substance of the true Church-government. They erre but in the circumstance of order, though it be too(a) 1.47 foule That is, they will examine all scandalls, &c. whatsoever in the presence and under the judge∣ment of the whole multitude perpetually and necessarily. I say perpetually and necessarily. Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents, which will and must ensue many times. And afterwards againe in the same(b) 1.48 chapter, he saith, But to hold those popu∣lar 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 place(c) 1.49 he brings divers allegations of Scriptures and other Au∣thors to prove that we may not change the Apostolick Government, nor leave

their institutions, &c. In all which he beates the ayre, and trifles, leaving the question that is betwixt us, as I have noted(d) 1.50 before: seeing they prove not that the authority of Synods is against the Apostolick institution. Come we there∣fore unto his testimonies of Lutheranes, & of such as he confusedly mingles with them, viz. of Zuinglius, Luther, Chemnitius, Melancthon, Sarcerius, Brentius, D. Run∣gius, 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 Mi∣nister, 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 Ecclesiasti∣call judicatory for the redresse of such wrongs? Or doe any of his Lutherane wit∣nesses 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, & con∣taineth 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 con∣tinue: 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 produ∣ced, 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,(e) 1.51 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 abu∣ses 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 au∣thority; neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate those that are not in communion with them. The other place cited out of Zuinglius, touching the calling of Ministers, is so farre from prooving any thing against us, that being

duely considered it may fitly serve to blame those popular courses which 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 Clas∣sis, Zuinglius in that treatise called Ecclesiastes, having spoken of the Popish tyran∣ny, bereaving most Churches of the liberty of election, he reprooves another ex∣treme, saving,(f) 1.52 If there were any Church unto which election was yet left free, the com∣mon 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 Pa∣stour. 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 mat∣ter 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 Ana∣baptists 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 ad∣vise, as he had called it before, but the authority of the Officers of other Con∣gregations.

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 ac∣cording to the ordinances and customes of men, &c. Now this is not to dispute against the thing itself, but against the abuse of it. And therefore having spoken against such Councels, of the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops, in such sort as Mr Canne had alledged him(g) 1.53 before, he addes withall,(h) 1.54 I speake onely of these that are such; my writings shall not hurt others, who set themselves under the Scriptures, not above the Scriptures. And that these conditions for the want whereof he opposed those Popish Synods, may yet be found in other Synods which have made decrees for the deciding of controversies raysed in the Church, he acknowledgeth in these words,(i) 1.55 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 disanul∣led the decrees thereof, without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures. Againe in another place, speaking of the foure Generall Councels, though he justly blame those that accounted them to be of equall authority with the foure Evangelists, yet he saith,(k) 1.56 Truely I would not have any thing to be detracted from them. He was not

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 to∣gether all the Ministers of the Churches both in their city and countrie, and had procured the presence of divers others, for the solemne vindicating of the doctrine taught in their Churches; there Faber, Vicar of the Bishop of Constance, having spoken of a Generall Councell, that it onely had authority to determine these things, Zuinglius replyes,(l) 1.57 Whereas in this our assembly there be so many right faithfull men, both of our owne countrey and strangers, and furthermore seeing here be so many godly & learned Bishops present, who doubtles have a desire not onely to heare and understand, but also to advance divine trueth: verily I see nothing to hinder even in this place, whereby it should not be lawfull for us, according to the Vicars meaning, to dispute of these things, and to decree what trueth teacheth. But other nations (he sayth) will never consent unto these our decrees: &c. By these and the like(m) 1.58 passages it is evident that Zuinglius did allow the Mini∣sters 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 con∣troversies & settling peace in the Church, while they did it according to the Scrip∣tures, 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 be∣fore; 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 con∣fined within the bounds of a particular Congregation, but that Synods & Coun∣cells have authority to judge of Church affaires and to censure offendours: foras∣much as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other. In the yeare 1518, having understood that they proceeded against him in the Popes Court at Rome, and that an unjust sentence was likely to be pronounced by them,(n) 1.59 he appealed from the Pope to a Councell or Synod. The compleat forme of his Appeale is recorded(o) 1.60 among his workes, wherein he doth plainly acknow∣ledge the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods, both by the whole drift and sub∣stance 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 rea∣sons which he useth to reenforce his Appeale, he alledgeth this,(p) 1.61 that the Pope most wickedly preferred his owne tyranny above the power of the Councell, &c. and there∣fore 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 re∣presse 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 se∣verely, and not without cause, against the Pope for his frustrating the desires of

those that sought a Generall Councell, & admitting of none but where he might sway all by his owne authority and command; yet he doth fully approve of that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had bene formerly exercised in Synods & Coun∣cells lawfully assembled and rightly ordered. A Councell (saith(q) 1.62 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 accor∣ding to the Royall law, that is, according to the holy Scripture, as they professe, which is the Law of the holy Church. Speaking of the right and power of Councells, having shewed(r) 1.63 that it is not lawfull for them to make new Articles of faith, to com∣mand any new work, to binde mens consciences to new ceremonies, nor to inter∣meddle with Civill government; he declareth withall that it is their duety to con∣demne 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,(s) 1.64 Anathematisamus, [we pronounce Anathema] so is their office called. Anathematisat Ecclesia, the holy Church condemnes or excommuni∣cates. So farre was Luther from denying the authority of Synods, that he al∣lowes them the power of pronouncing this heavie sentence of Anathema or Ex∣communication.

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 testimo∣ny of Chemnitius in such manner, as if that which was sayd with an expresse condi∣tion, had bene uttered simply and absolutely without any such restraint. Chemni∣tius 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 imme∣diately in the same period, saying that it belongs unto the whole Church, certo quodam modo, in such wise that both the Presbytery arrow_forward and the people have each their owne share in the choyse or calling. Chemnitius in that(t) 1.65 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 arrow_back Presbytery arrow_forward ; 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 Apo∣stolick, primitive, ancient, and their owne moderne Churches. Besides Chem∣nitius doth sufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods, which is our maine question, in divers pregnant passages of that book which he wrote against the Councell of Trent. He(v) 1.66 alledgeth & commendeth the words

of Augustine, saying that most wholesome is the authority of Councels in the Church, while they judge according to the rule and square of the holy Scripture, &c. He saith(x) 1.67 that ma∣ny 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 Canne(y) 1.68 that the decrees of Councells are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture: but this doth no more empaire that authority of Synods which we asscribe unto them, then it doth the power of all Church-acts and sentences whatsoever, concerning which Chemnitius(z) 1.69 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 himself(a) 1.70 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 defectively(b) 1.71 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 Con∣gregation, 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 Lu∣ther, and explained by Chemnitius, teaching(c) 1.72 that Christ hath delivered and commen∣ded 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 cal∣led of God by the Church, as in the Ministers, to whom is commanded the exercise or admini∣stration 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 Au∣thors words; there is nothing here sayd that doth any way prejudice the jurisdic∣tion of Synods, neither can he from hence inferre any thing against us. Moreo∣ver 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 exe∣cution 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 deter∣mined. Thus Mr Parker(d) 1.73 opposeth this distinction unto the Democratie or popular government of Morellius, whom Mr Iacob in this respect parallels with them of the Separation, as was noted(e) 1.74 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

Officers of the Church, for the ordinary exercise of it; she still retaining her in∣terest therein so farre that in matters of speciall moment nothing be concluded without her knowledge and consent. That moderating and guiding of the acti∣on, 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 diffe∣rence 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 done(f) 1.75 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. Neverthe∣lesse 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 wit∣nesse also, whom he hath sought to produce against us in this controversy tou∣ching the authority of Synods. Among other Articles propounded unto the Protestants to ensnare them, this being also questioned, Whether the holy Oecume∣nicall and receyved Synods have erred, Melanchthon answers,(g) 1.76 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 where∣in 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 al∣so according to M^r Cannes principles, that though there may and ought to be judgements, that is, Ecclesiasticall sentences and censures in particular Congrega∣tions, that yet they ought not to be in Synods, or Assemblies of Ministers of se∣verall Congregations, that these have no such power to judge, that no such de∣terminations 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 determi∣nation, and pronouncing of sentences; heare how he explaines himself elswhere, saying,(h) 1.77 There are in the Church judgements concerning doctrine, which are called Synods. And againe, Synods are ordinary judgements, which are pronounced against the unwilling, as they use to say. And the Church is commanded to make a lawfull inquiry, which being done, if [sentence] be rightly pronounced, obedience is to be yeelded. And if any doe not obey, he is justly punished. He hath also upon other occasions given plaine and pregnant

testimonies of his judgement in this particular: among the rest, that especially is worthy our observation, which he writes in a certaine Disputation concerning Synods; it being one of those Disputations which Luther by a preface thereunto prefixed hath commended unto the Readers, for which cause it seemes, they are also inserted among Luthers workes, as being in speciall manner approoved by him.(i) 1.78

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 Ty∣rannie and Democratie, [or popular government.] This is to be framed and maintained, as in all government so especially in the Church▪ Both these, Ty∣rannie 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 im∣pietie, 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 doc∣trines, or to give sentence concerning doctrines, for the Multitude also, as He∣rodotus 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 requi∣reth, 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 af∣firmes that greater is the authority of the Pope then of the whole Councell be∣side, &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 judg∣ment: for every one ought to know the measure of his owne faith.

Thus Me∣lanthon hath fully declared himself in this controversy touching the ground of Synodall government, together with the power and use of the same: yet for fur∣ther 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,(k) 1.79

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 Mi∣nisters of their owne Church. He doth therefore by this plaine testimony justifye our course in the calling of Ministers, by how much we doe not proceed therein

without taking along with us the advise and approbation of the Classis, that is, of the Pastours of neighbour Churches.

Forasmuch as we may easily discerne from that which hath bene hitherto sayd in this Section, what the judgement of the chiefe of the Lutheranes is in this con∣troversy, and what small credit is to be given unto M^r Cannes allegations and af∣firmations touching the consent of others with him in these matters of difference betwixt us; it may suffice to have examined the testimonies of these Authors, whose words he hath set downe; and for the rest, to judge of them according to the profession of their esteeme of those already mentioned, which are of chiefe note among them, and according to the publick Confessions of their Churches, of which we are to speak(l) 1.80 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 Eccle∣siasticall 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 Pro∣vince, in which a new Bishop was to be chosen, is now in well ordered Churches rightly perfor∣med in the Consistorie, where some principall Divines together with Politicall men, doe choose a Superintendent, who is confirmed by the assent and approbation of the chiefe Magistrate. These are the assertions of Mylius, Rungius, Osiander and others, as they are cited and approved by(m) 1.81 Vestringius, one of the same profession. Though these Au∣thors 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 Ecclesia∣sticall 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) un∣justly call those Authours whom here they alledge: as if there were no other fit and convenient speech to describe Godly and learned Ministers, of whom I spake, but the name of Calvinists. Though it be lawfull to denominate men of their errours and Schismes wherein they stand against the Churches of God, and to

call such Sectaries by names taken from them that have bene their chief ringlea∣ders, 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 er∣rours and offences.

M^r Canne(a) 1.82 after an idle and impertinent declaration of his owne surmise and imagination, that these Authors, as he is perswaded, doe not teach the doctrine main∣tained 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, Hemmingi∣us, Tossanus, Polanus, Hyperius, Praedirius, Munster, Oecolompadius, Beza, Bucer.

Having cited these witnesses to appeare for him, he then beginnes to insult and glory, saying,(b) 1.83 And now M^r Paget what thinke you of these men? were they not lear∣ned 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 them∣selves, 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 excom∣municating 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 Au∣thors 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 immedi∣ate 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 fa∣milies are cōbined together for their mutuall governmēt. Though particular cities

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 a∣bove 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, that(c) 1.84 these things were not spoken, that the Authority of Councels should be wholly cast away. For (saith he) if they reprehend, excom∣municate 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 brings(d) 1.85 divine warrant to shew the institution and order of Synods, from the example of the A∣postles, 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 ob∣jecteth against the Protestants, that they reject Ecclesiasticall judgements, and re∣fuse the authority of Synods; this he(e) 1.86 shewes to be most false. And further(f) 1.87 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 he(g) 1.88 maintaineth that Synods are not onely to make in∣quisition and to consult, but that they also have under Christ a ministeriall judge∣ment touching the controversies either about faith or manners. Iunius there∣fore is greatly abused when it is pretended that he hath brought in a contrary ver∣dict 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, tou∣ching 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 particu∣lar were named by me, so Musculus in speciall should not have bene alledged, con∣sidering his different judgement and practise from other Reformed Churches. For although he confesse that the power of election and deposition of Ministers, ex∣communication, &c. was exercised with consent of the people in the primitive Church and in the Apostles time; yet he saith, and that(h) 1.89 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 be∣longs unto the Magistrate to appoynt Ministers, either by choosing them him∣self, 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

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 op∣posites, while he(i) 1.90 maintaines that particular Congregations are subject to ano∣ther 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 choo∣sing their owne Ministers. Who sees not here how notably they pervert the Au∣thors alledged by them? Come we to the rest.

In the next place he nameth Viret, but it seemes he is mistaken in his Allegati∣on, there being no such booke of Viret, as he hath quoted in his margine; he ra∣ther 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 is(k) 1.91 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 pow∣er of an Ecclesiasticall Judicatorie over divers particular Congregations, was esta∣blished at Geneva. That weed of Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods (as M^r Canne here(l) 1.92 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 the(m) 1.93 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 exer∣cised by herself alone, or in that popular way which he requireth: for even in the place(n) 1.94 which M^r Canne hath cited, he saith, It skilleth not much whether fit Mini∣sters 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

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 fol∣lowing words that he alludes unto the practise of the Helvetian Churches, con∣cerning which we are to make further mention(o) 1.95 hereafter, when we come to speak of their Confession. Touching the Ecclesiasticall power of Synods, Bul∣linger declares his judgement also in this same booke, when(p) 1.96 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 he(q) 1.97 cites and approves the decree of Justinian the Em∣perour, 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 dif∣ference betwixt Bullinger and Mr Canne; that which the one holds to be the so∣veraigne remedy to preserve the safety of Churches & of the ministery, the other rejects as an unprofitable weed, and that which tends to the undoing and(r) 1.98 spoy∣ling 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 autho∣rity of Classes & Synods, or the totall excluding of the same in those things which belong unto elections. Onely he doth there(s) 1.99 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 arrow_back Presbytery arrow_forward ; and that the approving and accepting of the person so examined and propounded doth belong unto the people, they also ha∣ving 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 prac∣tised 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,(r) 1.100 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 Com∣mandement.

Gualter in the(v) 1.101 first place alledged, having spoken of the due suffrages or voi∣ces of the Church in elections, to prevent such a construction as M^r Canne seemes

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 ad∣vise and consent. In the other(x) 1.102 place (for M^r Cannes marginall quotation [13.22.] seemes to be misprinted) he saith that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 elec∣tion of Matthias, &c. And upon Act. 1.26. he labours to prove that this man∣ner 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 judg∣ment of God, by casting lots; in such sort as Matthias was chosen unto the A∣postleship. However, that he doth not deny the matters of particular Congre∣gations to be subject unto the judgement of the Ministers of other Churches, as∣sembled 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 Ge∣nerall Councell which many then so much desired, he sayth,(y) 1.103 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, con∣stantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, &c. And afterwards againe,(z) 1.104 intrea∣ting 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 indu∣strie of Paul doth appeare, so also we are admonished that the assemblies of Ministers are alto∣gether 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 of∣ten 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 con∣demned, viz. that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves?

Touching Sibrandus, the order of electing Ministers in these Churches(a) 1.105 appro∣ved by him, is the same that is used in our Church, and approved by me also: and he hath notably perverted it in opposing of it unto me. For that order hinders not but that there may be another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority in a Classis or Synod, to judge of the elections made in particular Congregations, or of other

controversies. This trueth is so often and so earnestly avouched by Sibrandus, that scarsely any have bene more vehement in this poynt. And in this very book alledged, he in his first entrance, in the preface to the Senate of Gelderland, com∣plaines of Grotius for oppugning this order of Classes and Synods; and in the con∣clusion of his preface he professeth that there was scarsely any other meanes then a Nationall Synod to heale the evills of that time, and desires them to perswade the calling thereof. Afterward in the(b) 1.106 book itself he shewes at large both from the Scriptures and practise of ancient Churches, the use, the order, and the autho∣rity of Synods; not onely in deliberating, but in judging and deciding of contro∣versies. In his Disputation with Bertius he shewes(c) 1.107 that it is altogether needfull to have a Synodicall judgement to heale the wounds of the Church. In his book against Vorsti∣us, after long dispute,(d) 1.108 in conclusion he offereth, yea he provoketh and urgeth him to referre their controversy and differences to the judgement of other Chur∣ches, 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 exam∣ples of the godly, the necessity of Synods, he declares what confusion and distrac∣tion of Churches ensueth where they are neglected, and makes earnest supplica∣tion unto them for the maintenance of this order in government. In another of his bookes against Vorstius,(e) 1.109 both in the beginning, middle, and end of it, he harpes upon the same string. His appeale unto the judgement of other Churches, and his willingnes to submit unto their judgement, with his desire of a Nationall Synod, is plainely declared therein. Speaking of the fruit of Synods, he saith(f) 1.110 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 ac∣quainted 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 un∣derstand the Discipline and state of these Churches, and deny the fruit of Synods, they must be held for impudent and unconscionable persons. Moreover in his book against Bellarmine concerning Councells he gives divers testimonies(g) 1.111 tou∣ching 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 Si∣brandus in producing him as a witnesse against the authority of Synods, whereas he hath so often testifyed his judgement to the contrary.

Mornaeus in the place(h) 1.112 alledged, hath no such thing as for which he is quo∣ted; unlesse he meane that which is noted in one of the following pages,(i) 1.113 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 ap∣plyed 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 approba∣tion of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes: He alledgeth frequent∣ly 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 Coun∣cell of Basile,(k) 1.114 Catholick or universall trueths, whereby it was enacted; 1. That

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 of(l) 1.115 Marsilius Patavinus,(m) 1.116 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 defends(n) 1.117 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 go∣vernment 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 expresse∣ly give his verdict on my side against the Brownists. He teacheth(o) 1.118 that the fourefold power of the Church is to be exercised not onely in Presbyteries, but al∣so in Councels or Synods: that(p) 1.119 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. &(q) 1.120 give ministeriall sentence, &c. And further he saith,(r) 1.121 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 no∣thing 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 that(f) 1.122 Ecclesiasticall discipline and excommunication itself ought to be administred by them who are ordained thereunto of the Church; such as are Mini∣sters of the Word, and Elders, the rest of the Church consenting thereunto; yet with this cor∣rection, 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. For(t) 1.123 having shewed the conditi∣ons 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;

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, but(v) 1.124 writ∣ten 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,(x) 1.125 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,(y) 1.126 to judge the controversies of Religi∣on, and to(z) 1.127 make decrees by gathering of voyces in order, it is evident from other of his writings.

Calvine requiring the(a) 1.128 cognition of the whole Church before any be excom∣municate, requires no more then is held and practised by us. And this is no em∣peachment to his and our opinion with him, that in case of doubt or controversy,(b) 1.129 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 con∣firmes 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 af∣forded by Calvine to this purpose, when as M^r Canne(c) 1.130 afterward notes the as∣sertions of divers pleading for the Hierarchie of Bishops, and oppugning Ecclesi∣asticall 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 Con∣gregation 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 undoubted∣ly 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, Pa∣raeus is a plaine witnesse for us in(d) 1.131 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 therein(e) 1.132 men renowmed in regard of their learning, understan∣ding

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 his(f) 1.133 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 hea∣ling the wounds of the Church, and rejoyceth greatly in the spirit for the benefit ex∣spected 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 con∣troversy. For in the book alledged by M^r Canne, when as the parts of the govern∣ment of the Church are there described; he shewes that(g) 1.134 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 for∣mer 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 ex∣communication of Ministers, he commends the order of the ancient Church, where he saith(h) 1.135 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. He(i) 1.136 maintaines against Thyraeus that which he had formerly written, in these words, In controversies of reli∣gion 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 concer∣ning 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 Chur∣ches, about the ordaining of Ministers, he saith that(k) 1.137 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 Clas∣sicall 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 (con∣cerning which we are to speake(l) 1.138 hereafter) where he joyned with them in the exercise of the sayd government, being(m) 1.139 at Neustadt a moderator of the Eccle∣siasticall counsels of the Consistory, and sometime also President of a Synod; and

afterwards at Heidelberg(n) 1.140 a member of the Ecclesiasticall Senate. How unjustly therefore & untruely hath M^r Canne dealt with Tossanus and his readers, in recko∣ning him among those who, as he saith,(o) 1.141 have condemned for an errour & un∣trueth, that position touching particular Congregations standing under other Ec∣clesiasticall 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 the(p) 1.142 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, that(q) 1.143 the liberty or power of those Ecclesiasticall as∣semblies is a right given of God unto his Church, &c. that An Ecclesiasticall Synod is a pu∣blick 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 ex∣amples 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 deci∣ding 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 with∣all, that whosoever is convicted of heresy or any crime, and remaineth obstinate, should un∣dergoe Ecclesiasticall censure, that is, deposition from his Ecclesiasticall office, or Suspension, or Excommunication. And to like purpose he writes in(r) 1.144 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 preg∣nant sentence and so peremptory verdict against them?

Hyperius, next alledged, though he deny not the power of particular Congrega∣tions, yet in his writings it is evident that he holdes the power of Synods, consi∣sting of the Deputies of many Churches, to be a superiour power above one parti∣cular Church, and that they may judge of the affaires thereof and of the persons therein, either Ministers or people. This he declares at large in a peculiar treatise touching yearely Synods,(f) 1.145 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 exer∣cise of all kinde of Ecclesiasticall censures, as Rebukes of offenders, Suspension, Excommunication, and Deposition or deportment of Officers from their mini∣stery. 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,(t) 1.146 he doth high∣ly commend the Councell of Nice, and specially for decreeing that none should af∣terwards attempt to adde any new articles unto that Confessiō of faith which they

had set downe. Which Nestorius being found guilty of, Oecolompadius approves of that Act of the Councell of Ephesus, whereby he was excommunicated, saying, For which cause being condemned of the crime of heresie, he was by common consent shut out of the Church, which was sensible of peace restored unto her by this meanes. Hereby it appea∣reth 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 Excommunicati∣on, 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 gathe∣red from his Annotations on that place. But on the other side he shewes(v) 1.147 els∣where 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 opini∣on 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 Ge∣neva, where he was one of them that had their voyce in the government of that Church by a joynt arrow_back Presbytery arrow_forward or Classis; and in France, where he himself was President of that famous(x) 1.148 Synod at Rochell, where the Confession of their faith was subscribed by divers Princes, and many Ministers and Elders assembled toge∣ther. 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,(y) 1.149 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 Sy∣nods 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 toge∣ther, for their mutuall assistance in removing offences & advancing the kingdome of Christ. Touching Synods, he speakes also in(z) 1.150 another place to the same purpose, approving the ancient constitution, whereby it was ordained that the Bi∣shops 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 in∣quire 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 correc∣tion spoken of here and in the former testimonie, he understands not onely counsell

and admonition, but the judiciall exercise of authority in Ecclesiasticall censures: For he doth plainly distinguish betwixt admonition and correction, when in the fol∣lowing 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 conse∣quences 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 seve∣rall 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,* 1.151 because the Church had interest almost in every thing; yet this proves not that he thought particular Congregations to be in∣dependent and uncontrolable by the Deputies of other Churches assembled in Synods. The ordinary practise of B. Whitgift, in judging the causes of other Con∣gregations, 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 contro∣versy. For when D. Bilson had sayd,(a) 1.152 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. acknowled∣geth, that there may be just cause to disanull the election of the people, if it be found worthy to be misliked. And his meaning is yet more evident by the story which in the sentence immediately preceding he alledgeth out of(b) 1.153 Socrates, tou∣ching 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 Bi∣shops, and so the people were forced to hold their peace. That which is prac∣tised 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 al∣ledged as agreeing with my opposites, let it be further observed, that in his Dis∣pute against Beza & such as approve the Discipline of these Reformed Churches, he doth not as my adversaries, complaine of the undue power of Synods, that judge and determine the causes of particular Congregations. He acknowledgeth that(c) 1.154 the necessity and authority of Synods is not so much in question betwixt us, as the persons that should assemble and moderate those meetings, &c. He would have(d) 1.155 Metropolitanes to be the Moderatours and rulers of Synods: he would have(e) 1.156 lay-Elders thrust out from assembling with Ministers in Synods: he complaines(f) 1.157 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 Sy∣nods, to decide the causes of particular Churches, which is the poynt in question, herein he agreeth with us. He saith of such Synods and their power to judge, as followeth.(g) 1.158

Their warrant so to doe is builded on the maine grounds of all

divine and humane societies, strengthened by the promise of our Saviour, and assured unto them by the example of the Apostles and perpetuall practise of the Church of Christ.

Afterwards he saith of their meetings in Synods;(h) 1.159

This hath in all Ages, as well before, as since the great Councell of Nice bene ap∣proved and practised, as the lawfullest and fittest meanes to discerne trueth from falshood, to decide doubts, end strifes, and redresse wrongs in causes Ecclesiasti∣call; 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 or∣der is(i) 1.160 an heathenish, if not an hellish confusion, &c.

That which they bring out of Scultingius, a Papist before alledged, is idle & im∣pertinent: 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 argu∣ments which they guesse that I will use.

Having brought such Authours against me, mark how Wil. B. or Io. Ca. for him, doth triumph against me before the victory; in these words,(k) 1.161 To say that this su∣periour 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 au∣thority 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 many(l) 1.162 places of Scrip∣ture, both from the old & new Testament: he alledgeth at large(m) 1.163 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 coun∣sell and advise, but of those that have power to(n) 1.164 judge and condemne obstinate offenders by a publick judgement, and as occasion requires, to anathematise or ex∣clude from the fellowship of the Church: he maintaines that those which are lawfully called unto Synods, have authority of deciding and determining contro∣versies by(o) 1.165 definitive sentence or suffrage: he saith that(p) 1.166 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 adver∣saries 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 Congre∣gation to be judicially examined by a Synod or Classis. The severall testimonies of D. Whitaker to this purpose, are alledged(q) 1.167 before and applyed at large, to de∣clare his judgement in this controversy.

Though D. Whit. doe(r) 1.168 grant (as is here alledged against me) that Ecclesiasti∣call authority is in the Church principally, primarily and essentially, &c. he doth not here∣by

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 testi∣mony alledged from Saravia and Schola Parisienfis is(s) 1.169 before answered. Yea the Schoole of Paris doth sufficiently(t) 1.170 explaine this matter by a fit similitude, shew∣ing 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 autho∣rity 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. Where∣as from(v) 1.171 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 illu∣strate 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,(x) 1.172 where he evidently declares his minde, that Synods have power to exercise Ec∣clesiasticall 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 be(y) 1.173 an wholesome meanes for the repressing and reforming both of errours in religion and corruption in manners: he alledgeth the consent of anti∣quity to prove that our opinion is grounded upon trueth and Scripture, namely that those which are lawfully called unto Synods,(z) 1.174 have determining voyces, and power to give sentence; and giveth instance in the Councell of Antioch, where Pau∣lus Samosatenus was condemned and cut off as an enemie to the trueth, &c. he avou∣cheth that(a) 1.175 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, that(b) 1.176 Ex∣communication 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 assem∣bled 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, ac∣cording to the order of these Churches, before we proceed to cut off any mem∣ber of the Church by excommunication, this proves no deprivation but a direc∣tion 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. B∣doe without blushing(c) 1.177 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 are(d) 1.178 here produced: and in another(e) 1.179 place, unto which he re∣ferres 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 of(f) 1.180 Mr Hooker,(g) 1.181 D. Ames, and the Author of the booke enti∣tled 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 Mini∣sters 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 Mini∣sters, 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 Rigi∣dest 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 opi∣nions, 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 opi∣nion to have changed and altered their judgement; when as he saith,(h) 1.182 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 insi∣nuation against me. And afterwards againe he saith,(i) 1.183 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 was(k) 1.184 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 Pro∣testation,

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, that(l) 1.185 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 Scrip∣ture, confirme any one thing whereof he speaketh. He accuseth him there also of great hy∣pocrisy 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 im∣mediately 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 large(m) 1.186 before, in answer to Mr Dav. his Allegations.

As for Mr Hooker, his argument(n) 1.187 annexed to his Testimony, is of no force against us, seeing he concludes beside the question, which was not of every parti∣cular Church, but of such as stood already in combination with a Classis.

Concerning the Churches in New-England, M^r Canne saith,(o) 1.188 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 Go∣vernment 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: nei∣ther can I receive the testimony of M^r Canne & his bare word for a sufficient evi∣dence herein, without some more authentick witnesse. Divers bookes have bene published touching the nature of that soyle, the fruits of the countrie, & the man∣ners of the wilde people: but touching the Ecclesiasticall government and disci∣pline 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 Com∣binations, I heare not; and ought therefore to suspend my judgement for the pre∣sent, touching their practise. 11. Suppose every particular Congregation in New-England were independent, and subject to no other Ecclesiasticall govern∣ment out of itselfe; yet is this no sure argument to prove that the forward profes∣sours

in England (as M^r Canne calles them) are generally of the same opinion al∣so; 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 exer∣cise of their power, in matters of doubt and difficultie. The testimonies out of the Centuries, D. Whitgift, Thomas Bell, there(p) 1.189 alledged by the Replyer, are answered already in the severall places which M^r Canne hath assigned unto them in his wri∣ting; 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 al∣ledge 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, saying(q) 1.190 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 al∣so, 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 the(r) 1.191 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 (ae∣quato jure) by an equall right; we doe no lesse detest, then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates, which other reformed Churches have abolished. And afterwards(s) 1.192 when he al∣lowes a preheminence for orders sake, unto some one to be the mouth of the rest, in executing that which was by the whole arrow_back 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 cele∣brated in well ordered Churches; even such as doe not onely advise, but also decree what is meet, as he had sayd of the Presbyterie in generall. As for the other places alledged out of this Authour, I referre the Reader unto that which I have sayd(r) 1.193 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

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 Clas∣sicall and Synodall Assemblies, in such manner as Mr Parker himself doth after∣ward(v) 1.194 often shew unto his Reader. II. For the downe-right speech of Mr Par∣ker, wherein M^r Canne glorieth, I desire the Readers that understand, to review those passages which I have(x) 1.195 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 dis∣honest, in corrupting and perverting their testimonies contrary to their meaning.

As for Mr Baines, he is confusedly alledged, viz. Dioces. Tryall, Conclus. 4. for whereas in that booke there is often mention of Conclus. 4. who can tell what place he meanes? The trueth is that none of those fourth Conclusions in any part of his booke, doe by any word empeach the authority of Classes or Synods. But on the contrary, in that his writing he gives plaine and evident testimonies of his agreement with us, as I have(y) 1.196 already sufficiently declared.

Come we now to the testimony(z) 1.197 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 saith(a) 1.198 There ought to be in every Church an Eldership, which ought to have the hearing, exa∣mination 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 El∣dership, yet so as that the judgement and consent of the Congregation in weigh∣tier matters be not excluded: and so also that the judgement of the Classis or Sy∣nod 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 Au∣thor, who is so pregnant a witnesse for me and for Synods against the Brownists. This is that which he(b) 1.199 saith:

Seeing our Saviour Christ promised his presence and authoritie to every Church indifferently, Matt. 18.19.20: None may challenge any such preroga∣tive afore other: but as the Churches are limited out for order and convenien∣cie, 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 autho∣rity

in them, to determine of matters concerning them all. By which there ap∣peareth to be a double authority of the Pastor: one with the severall Congrega∣tion, 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 autho∣rised in the Scripture, &c.

Againe,(c) 1.200 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, pertay∣ning 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 re∣giment of the Church.

Againe,(d) 1.201 Let us returne to the authority of the Synod, which consisteth in deciding and determining such matters as cannot otherwise in particular Chur∣ches be concluded, either because they concerne the common state of all Chur∣ches, or because they lack sufficient authority in some one Church. First there∣fore 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 Sy∣nod of the Apostles and Elders, command for a time abstinencie from meat of∣fered to Idols, otherwise lawfull in it selfe, for offences sake, &c. Also for or∣der 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 ab∣surd, that they should be taught by such in these small things, as ought to learne the trueth of them in all matters, &c.(e) 1.202 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 reli∣gion, untill both Emperours and Synods were thrust out of all lawfull authori∣tie, 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:(f) 1.203

The Synod hath further authority concerning Discipline, to reforme and re∣dresse

by Ecclesiasticall Censure, all such defaults and controversies, as cannot be determined in the particular Churches: as for example: If the Pastour him∣selfe, 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 Coun∣cell, 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 au∣thority, 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 fi∣delity and skill of a Brownist, therefore is he runne into Scandall, having publi∣shed 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 exa∣mined 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.(g) 1.204 alledgeth, he neither specifyeth his words, neither doe I finde in either of those pages any one word against the use of Classes or Sy∣nods 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 recko∣neth up these, the joynt care of Elderships and Synods. Afterwards he speaketh more fully in praise of this government, and saith,(h) 1.205 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 con∣stitutions, with the like of the other in any part, beareth witnesse, whether the want of lear∣ning 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 govern∣ment, the title and praise of(i) 1.206 rightly reformed Churches; when D. Bridges was of∣fended 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 al∣so

concerning the spirituall policie, Discipline and order, for guiding of his Church. And fur∣ther, in the same place he repeats and undertakes to defend D. Fulkes words, per∣swading 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 pu∣blishing 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 have(l) 1.207 before noted: where among the rest, when ha∣ving 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 mem∣bers of the Church which have no Ecclesiasticall office, are to be subject to this go∣vernment, and ought to advance the same according to their power, &c. it is thereby evi∣dent 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 En∣glish 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 Congregati∣on 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 con∣trary, in that writing asscribed to Mr Vdall, there be sundry testimonies shewing the authority of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations. As it was(m) 1.208 before noted out of D. Fulke that there is a double authority of the Pastour; one with the severall Congregation in which he is Pastour, the other with the whole Synod or Assemblie whereof he is a member, and both these authorities sufficiently authorized in the Scriptures: so saith Mr Vdall to like purpose,(n) 1.209 The word of God hath described sufficient ministers & ministeries for doctrine, exhor∣tation, overseeing, distributing, and ordering of every particular Church or generall Sy∣nod. And againe, he saith of Bishops or Pastours, that(o) 1.210 they are of equall authority in their severall charges, and in the generall government of the Church. And in the same chapter he alledgeth the decrees of divers* 1.211 Councels, shewing how the causes of one Church or Congregation were judged by many Bishops of other Congre∣gations meeting together. In speciall, when some(p) 1.212 objected that there would be so many Elderships, so many divers fashions, seeing one may not meddle with another: Here∣unto 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 Elder∣ships. 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 al∣so

alledged as a proofe of the Non-conformists dissenting from me; whereunto I an∣swer: I. Those three Articles of their Discipline objected; the one, that the Mi∣nisters and Seniours, severally and joyntly, shall have no authority to make any manner of De∣crees 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 fur∣ther, 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 au∣thority 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 o∣mitted that disjunction, which affords an exception touching the strict observati∣on thereof. For whereas M^r Canne alledgeth it simply thus, None shall be excom∣municated untill the matter be heard by the whole Church; the(q) 1.213 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 objec∣ting against this Article, and arguing that thereby(r) 1.214 the authority of the Pastour and Seniors is all wiped away; for every thing is referred to the confused multitude of the Congre∣gation: 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 Canne(s) 1.215 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 rea∣son to appeale rather to the body of the Congregation, then that parties should be suffered to be judges in their owne cause. And no marvell, considering what I have noted(t) 1.216 before touching the state of that Church; where the Reader may see a further answer unto these objections. But then he askes me what I say to this, and hopes I will not say that they were Brownists: I answer, His hope is right in this poynt, I may not say they were Brownists, nor their practise the same with the Brownists: 1. Because they made this agreement through necessity, when they wanted a Classis, whereas the Brownists wilfully oppugne and refuse Classicall combinations. 2. Because the Brownists deny authority of judgement

unto Ministers and Elders, in such cases where they are no parties, which this(v) 1.217 Church at Frankford did not. 3. Because the English Church at Frankford did not teach the doctrine of Separation, as the Brownists doe, but when they could not obtaine the reformation desired, did(x) 1.218 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 peculiar(y) 1.219 treatise which he wrote against his brother Franc. Iohnson, and that Church of the Brow∣nists 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 seve∣rall instances to shew that where any disorder, scandall or offence was in the En∣glish Church at Frankford, the like evills, scandals and offences were also to be found and observed in the English Church of the Separatists in Amsterdam. And in the second part of this treatise, entitled,(z) 1.220 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 in∣stances to shew that the English Church of the Separation was worse then the o∣ther, 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 Amster∣dam. And in particular, let this be observed, that concerning the English Church at Frankford G. Iohnson(a) 1.221 alledgeth, that there was agreement among them, that the mat∣ter 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 testi∣mony 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 main∣taine 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 autho∣rity 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: name∣ly 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 Brow∣nists against Non-conformists.

First, when as the Ministers have made request unto Q. Elizabeth for reformati∣on of things amisse, shewing how controversies may be compounded, they say,(b) 1.222 that a free Nationall or Provinciall Councell at home were much to be wished, &c. And in a treatise annexed thereunto, entitled, Opinions of such as sue for Reformation, among

other things which they hold & sue for, this is one,(c) 1.223 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 Sy∣nod; 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 di∣rection of the rest, &c. And a little after againe,(d) 1.224 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,(e) 1.225 that nothing could be more profitable then these Assemblies, being so used as they are ap∣pointed 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 un∣to Qu. Elizabeth of happy memory, for the establishing of such a Discipline in her dominions.

To like purpose doe they write which were the Authours of the Admonition to the Parliament, holden in the 13. year of Q. Eliz. begun Anno 1570, and ended 1571. They(f) 1.226 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 re∣quire 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 one∣ly, but to judge the causes of particular Churches, and to censure such persons as were found guilty. It is by one of them manifested in a speciall(g) 1.227 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 are(h) 1.228 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 William∣son,

Mr Fawsbrook, Mr Patinson, Mr Massey, &c.

The lawes, rules and order, both in Classes and in Synods, described in that(i) 1.229 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, accor∣ding 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 for∣mer times with me. Hen. Barow speaking of the censures of evill, and condemning both Conformists and Non-conformists together, he saith;(k) 1.230

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 at∣tend 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 Coun∣cell, &c.

And this he calleth a devilish forgerie, &c.

After that to like purpose he saith,(l) 1.231

These Priests, they will not onely not submit their persons and doctrine to the censure of the Church where they ad∣minister (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 them∣selves, and with their blazing light strike all the rest of their hearers & followers stark blinde. Againe,(m) 1.232 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 them∣selves 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,(n) 1.233

The Pharisees of these times, I meane these your great learned Prea∣chers,

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 er∣ror, 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 govern∣ment which is now manifest and odious unto all men, would bring in a new a∣dulterate forged government in shew, or rather in despite of Christs blessed go∣vernment, which they in the pride, rashnes, ignorance and sensualitie of their fleshly hearts most miserably innovate, corrupt and pervert, &c. The thing it∣selfe 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.(o) 1.234 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 appoyn∣ted in his Testament. But that which H. Barow writes is more plaine, and more par∣ticularly applyed to the Ministers of England, whom he calleth the Reformists. Of them he saith,(p) 1.235

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 Chur∣ches 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 plea∣sures: 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 a∣mongst 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 un∣der colour of Reformation, these and many more their leavened corrupt wri∣tings of Discipline, and their supplications unto the Parliament, declare: &c.

Againe he saith,(q) 1.236

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

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 misera∣ble 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-confor∣mists have(r) 1.237 held that unto the just calling of a Minister there is required the cal∣ling of a particular and certaine Church where he is to administer: Yea so much is also confessed touching them by the(s) 1.238 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 Chur∣ches, 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,(t) 1.239 Both sides, both Bishops and this new Classis take upon them to make Ministers without the people, without any charge, place, or office cer∣taine. 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 Non∣conformists 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,(v) 1.240 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 gunpow∣der 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 former(x) 1.241 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 Mi∣nisters of these Reformed Churches under my name, in regard of their consent and practise agreeable to mine. I desire that the testimonies, confessions, and pe∣titions of the ancient Non-conformists above mentioned, in allowance of a Clas∣sicall & 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

to utter the grossest falshood, so that they might but contradict me. Let them re∣member, 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 he(a) 1.242 confesse he had done it already, in mentioning some testimo∣nies 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, Am∣brose, 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 pow∣er 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 au∣thority of another superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of themselves. This their inference will never be made good from such a ground. This beggerly conse∣quence I have oft(b) 1.243 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 Chur∣ches(c) 1.244 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 as∣sembled 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 cha∣rity 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 direc∣tion 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 Philadelphia(d) 1.245 to choose a Bishop, which being sent thither as an Embassadour in the Embassage of God, it might be granted unto them to glorify God in their meeting together. He speakes there not of

choosing a Bishop to minister in their owne Church, but of choosing one to be their Deputy, to travell unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for settling of order in that Church. And in the same place to moove them the more, he shew∣eth what was the practise of the Primitive Churches in such cases, viz. that alwayes the neighbour Churches did send Bishops, and some of them Elders and Deacons. Againe, writing upon the same occasion unto Polycarpus, Bishop of Smyrna, he saith(e) 1.246 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 Parker(f) 1.247 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 communica∣tion of offices. And whereas D. Bilson(g) 1.248 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 com∣pounding 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 boa∣steth, but his meaning hath bene manifestly perverted contrary to his words.

Tertullian, that is next alledged (though misalledged, c. 29. being put for c. 39.) relating the manner of Christian assemblies in his time, saith in effect,(h) 1.249 They came together into the Congregation [it is not sayd into one Congregation, as M^r C. al∣ledgeth it] for to pray unto God, for to rehearse the Divine Scriptures, and with holy words yo nourish faith, stirre up hope, and fasten confidence. And they used exhortations, reproofes and divine Censure. I answer: I. Though particular Churches met together for such end, this hinders not but that the Deputies of those same Churches might meet together in Synods, for their mutuall assistance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult causes. It followes not because severall Congregations have their due power, that therefore the power of Classes is an undue power. II. that Tertullian himself intended no such thing, it appeares evidently by the great approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods, in saying,(i) 1.250 The appoynted Synods are kept through the countries of Graecia in certaine places out of all the Churches, whereby both the deeper or more difficult matters are handled in common, & by that representation of the whole Christian flock they are celebrated with great reverence.

He alledgeth the words of Origen, writing much to the same purpose,(k) 1.251 Such as were brought in the third place, for sinne unto the Congregation; if they stood obstinate, by the judgement of the whole Church were excommunication from the body, the Elders of the Church pronouncing the sentence. And then in his owne words he sayth,(l) 1.252 Observe here, he saith not that the matter was caried to a Classis, and there first determined, &c. but

names onely the Congregation, and Elders thereof; notwithstanding had there bene any such superiour judicatorie Assembly, it is likely he would have omitted it, and mentioned a subordinate and inferiour one. ANSVV. I. The words which they alledge in ano∣ther 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 judg∣ment of the Church, nor of Elders pronouncing the sentence: he shewes how all the peo∣ple 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 un∣der 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•• that(m) 1.253 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. tou∣ching binding and loosing in heaven, & comparing it with the promise made un∣to Peter Mat. 16.19. because a word of the plurall number is used in the promise to Peter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in coelis, and to others a word of the singular number, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in coelo; Origen from thence(n) 1.254 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, argueth(o) 1.255 from the greater assistance of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ governing his Church, to wit, in Synods: and for declara∣tion 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 Parker(p) 1.256 from him repea∣teth againe the same Argument, taken from the testimony of Origen. And besides this it is noted by the(q) 1.257 Magdeburgenses how Origen himself was employed in di∣vers

Synods in Arabia, for the conviction of sundry heresies.

Cyprian is in like manner perverted: for when as her 1.258 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 conclu∣ded without common consent of the Church; and confesseth also thats 1.259 the peo∣ple 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. Poly∣carpus, and many others, in the name of the Synod then assembled together, it is sayd, thatt 1.260 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 or∣dination, 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 manyv 1.261 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, dothx 1.262 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,y 1.263 Why doe I spend time? There is nothing more evident to him that is acquainted with the ancient mo∣numents 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 meigh∣ty 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 ba∣nished this most pleasant combination of Classes? Hereby the Reader may judge whe∣ther 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 E∣pistles, 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 thea 1.264 next place, Eusebius testifyeth that the Churches of the most fa∣mous Cities were in their constitution first, but one ordinary constant Congregation, as Jeru∣salemb 1.265, Ephesusc 1.266, Alexandriad 1.267, Hierapolise 1.268, Corinthf 1.269, Sardisg 1.270, &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.

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 alled∣ged, Eusebius doth not testify that the Churches of these Cities, were in their consti∣tution 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 con∣stant 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 Ec∣clesiasticall 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. Heh 1.271 records how the errour of Montanus was judged and condemned by many Synods in Asia: howi 1.272 Novatus and the Catharists were excommunicated by a Synod holden at Rome, consisting of 60 Bishops, with many Elders and Deacons: howk 1.273 Paulus Samosa∣tenus was deposed and excommunicated by a Synod holden at Antioch. He de∣claresl 1.274 at large and celebrates the piety of Constantine, the great friend & main∣tainer of Christian religion, for assembling the Nicene Synod, wherein Arius was condemned. And in like manner he shewes them 1.275 impiety of the Emperour Li∣cinius, 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 Sy∣nods, 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 Dea∣con, nor any excommunicatiō of any offender among us, but that the matter was first solemnely communicated with the Church, and declared severall times in the publick Congregation, & the consent of the people required & obtained before any such act was confirmed & finished among us. But what is this to the purpose?

Athanasius notwithstanding this doth witnesse unto us, that the causes and contro∣versies 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, havingn 1.276 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] by their suffrages condemne, and reject the Authors of such mis∣chiefes. And more plainely in the 2^d place, he declareso 1.277 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 hep 1.278 gives instances in the Synods of Alexandria, Greece, and Spaine, where Euzoius, Eudo∣xius, 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 o∣ther Presbyters assisting them; Epiph. cont. Haer. 73. and among themselves ex∣communicate 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 falsi∣fy 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 con∣fesse & not to deny it. Here is no mention of particular Churches or Congregations; nor of lawfully ordayning, nor of doing this without other Presbyters assisting them. But that which is recorded touching the acknowledgement of a lawfull or perfect Synod,

that is omitted. Thus he varyeth from the Latine translation of Epiphanius: the Originall Greek in divers Copies is further from the matter; having this beside other differences, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which made themselves to be Bishops, instead of lawfully ordaining their owne Bishops. Such are the Alle∣gations 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 Chur∣ches, 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 excommu∣nicate 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 isq 1.279 re∣corded 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 one∣ly approve the lawfull authority of Synods; but he went further and did maintaine the unlawfull authoritie of particular persons over divers Churches. This appea∣reth in hisr 1.280 condemning of Aërius of heresie, that held Bishops & Presbyters to be the same by divine institution; whom D. Whitakers 1.281 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 ab∣surd men that doe so often object Aërius unto us: he sayth Epiphanius doth foolish∣ly 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 furthert 1.282 recorded of Epiphanius, that he disorderly in∣truded himself into the charge of Chrysostome, contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Ca∣nons observed in those times, by celebrating the Lords supper & ordaining a Dea∣con 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, thatv 1.283 In every Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders. To this I answer, I. This is nothing against the authority of Synods. The Reformed Churches have in every Congregation such a Senate of Elders: and yet this hinders not but that they have & ought to have Classes & Synods also, both for direction and correction of Elderships, and for decision of the controversies arising in particular Churches. II. Though every Congregation ought to have a Senate of Elders; yet Ierome doth not avouch so much in the place alledged. His words are falsifyed: for in the place which they misquote (ad Gal. instead of ad Alg.) the words of Jerome are these,x 1.284 How great the traditions of the Pharisees are, which at this day they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and what old wives fables, I cannot expresse. For neither doth the greatnes of the

booke permit: and many of them are so filthy, that I blush to tell. And yet (saith he) I will tell one of them, to the ignominy of that envyous nation. They have Rulers in their Synago∣gues, 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 par∣ticular Churches, it may appeare by that he sayth,y 1.285 Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. If we seek for authority, greater is the world then the city; that is, as D. Whi∣taker expounds the same, the Churches dispersed through the world: he sayth,z 1.286 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 zea∣lous 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, Hieromea 1.287 confesseth that in the writing of those Synodall letters he did assist and help Damasus, which he could not with good conscience have done, un∣lesse 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,b 1.288 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 alsoc 1.289 wrote a peculiar booke touching Synods, exstant among his workes, which he had tran∣slated 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 un∣lawfull power; he ought not to have given so much approbation of them, in al∣ledging their authority for defense of his opinion, without some testification a∣gainst their power. Besides, what colour of reason hath M^r C. to shew that Hi∣larius should vary from the judgement of Orthodox Bishops, who in that age

d 1.290 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 assem∣bly 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 Fa∣ther 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 Allega∣tions 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 appea∣reth evidently by his practise, while in thee 1.291 Synod holden at Ephesus, in the time of Theodosius, he being a principall member of that Synod, did together with o∣thers give sentence against Nestorius, and deposed him from his office, for his ob∣stinacy 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.f 1.292 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 conse∣quence is this? IV. That Ambrose did allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, it appeares, both by his practise, heg 1.293 himself being present with Da∣masus, Britto, Valerian and other Bishops at the Synod holden at Rome for the cen∣sure of Apollinaris and Timotheus his disciple; and by hish 1.294 exhortation given un∣to Theophilus and others, to judge the cause of Euagrius and Flavianus, being depu∣ted thereunto by the Synod of Capua: and againe by hisi 1.295 exhortation given un∣to 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 joynesk 1.296 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 be∣fore unto the testimony from Ambrose, may also serve for Nazianzen. And fur∣ther that Gregory Nazianzen did not limit all Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely, it may appeare, if we observe, I. Howl 1.297 he himself was made Bishop of Constantinople, by the suffrages of many Bishops met together, which is a further degree of Ecclesiasticall authority then that

which is exercised in the Classes or Synods of these countries. II. How he plea∣deth(m) 1.298 from a Synodall law, touching the receyving of those that were fallen. III. How he alloweth the order of convocating and assembling neighbour Bi∣shops about the creating of a new Bishop, affirming this to be(n) 1.299 right and accor∣ding to the Ecclesiasticall law. IV. How he in his counsell and exhortation unto the Synod at Constantinope,(o) 1.300 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 Canne(p) 1.301 alledgeth them, are these,(q) 1.302 I am minded (saith he) to shunne all as∣semblies of Bishops, because I never saw any good event in any Councell, that did not rather in∣crease then diminish our evills: Their contention and ambition passeth my speech. ANSVV. I. Observe how M^r C. mistranslateth those words of Nazianzē, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he rendreth, as signifying, passeth my speech; whereas they signify: prevayled more then reason, as(r) 1.303 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 Nazi∣anzen, the answer of D. Whitaker may give sufficient satisfaction; who sayth,(s) 1.304

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 trou∣bled 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 acci∣dent, 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, He∣reticks 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 Sy∣nods 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 op∣poseth

unto the speech of Nazianz. the testimony of Christ, saying,

Christ him∣self pronounceth and promiseth, Matt. 18.20. Where two or three are assembled to∣gether 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 ap∣poynted 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 mee∣tings 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 Bi∣shops, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] whether for counsell or censure, with∣out exception of one sort more then another: therefore he no more condemneth our Synods, then those which my opposites allow.

Augustine, his next witnesse, is in like manner perverted as the former. Though he in the place(t) 1.305 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 ha∣ving 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 other∣wise, it appeares by the great approbation which he(v) 1.306 gives unto the use and au∣thority of Synods, as being most wholesome in the Churches of God. D. Whitaker(x) 1.307 alledgeth often the presence of Augustine at divers Synods. And it is recorded in the Acts of the third Councell of Carthage, where Augustine was both present, and subscribed with the rest unto the decrees which were then agreed upon,(y) 1.308 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 cal∣led unto the yearely Synod, did refuse to come, should be held guilty, and be ex∣cluded from the communion, or excommunicated. And it is(z) 1.309 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 Sy∣nod 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 confir∣mation of this opinion. For, I. Chrysostome in the place alledged, viz. De Sa∣cerd. 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 chap∣ter; they are not at all distinguished into any Chapters: and where there is a divi∣sion 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,(a) 1.310 maketh his speech more terrible, saying in

the sight of the Churches. He saith it for the glory of the Churches, for their honour. For if ye honour them, ye shall honour the Churches which sent them, &c. And then he con∣cludeth, This shall be no small matter, for great is the power of a Synod, that is, of the Chur∣ches. III. When as a wrongfull sentence had bene given against Chrysostome, being unjustly procured by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, he then(b) 1.311 appealed unto a Synod of many Bishops, both before and after the sentence was pronounced. The summe of his defence afterward was this, that he was willing to be judged by a Synod. And he complaines that his adversaries dealt with him, contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons. In those Canons it had bene oft decreed, that there should be liberty of appeale unto Synods. IV. When Bellarmine pleading for the Popes authority, alledged the request of Chrysostome unto Innocentius, Bishop of Rome, desiring him to write for him, that those things which were unjustly done against him, might not prevayle, &c. Chamierus expounding the words of Chrysostome,(c) 1.312 distinguisheth betwixt admonition and giving of sentence; and shewes that Chry∣sostome 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 confes∣seth that Synods have jurisdiction to give sentence, and not onely a liberty of ad∣monishing. V. When after this, Chrysostome(d) 1.313 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 pro∣ved innocent by greater judges, or in a greater judicatory,(e) 1.314 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; wherein he acknowledged a power of Synods, not onely above a particular Con∣gregation, but also of one Synod above another, as of a Generall Synod above a Nationall or Provinciall, &c. VI. The minde of Chrysostome touching Church-government, may further be knowne to us by this, that he(f) 1.315 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 Go∣spell, he thus describeth their speciall power,(g) 1.316

It is granted unto them to dis∣pense 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 what∣soever 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 three∣fold 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

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 with∣out 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 he(h) 1.317 gives unto the Nicene Synod, & that for the censuring of Hereticks, which was an act of jurisdiction, and not of admo∣nition or counsell onely: and againe in that he complaineth unto his great friend Nazianzen, touching the intermission of Synodall assemblies, and saith,(i) 1.318 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 cal∣leth them,(k) 1.319 the way of help for troubled Churches. Thus also doe the Centurists(l) 1.320 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 contro∣versies arising in particular Churches were judged by another superiour Ecclesi∣asticall authority out of themselves, to wit, by the authority of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in Synods. This he shewes in the(m) 1.321 condemnati∣on of Arius by the Councell of Nice; in the(n) 1.322 deprivation of Photinus by the Sy∣nod of Si••mium; in the(o) 1.323 deposition of Nestorius by the Councell held at Ephesus; and in many other the like instances. If happily he intended those places misap∣plyed 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 mar∣ginall note is assigned to Socrates; he having written two bookes concerning Eccle∣siasticall 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 rea∣son can be applyed against the authority of Classes and Synods. On the contrary, we may justly inferre that he did not there restraine all Ecclesiasticall power unto a particular Congregation, as from many other, so especially from these his words,(p) 1.324 Moreover that a Bishop is not ordained of one, but of all the Bishops of the Provinces, this is acknowledged to be appointed because of heresies; lest by the tyrannicall authority of some one ordaining, they should attempt any thing against the faith of the Church. Therefore they all

concurring, he is confirmed, and no lesse then three being present, the rest consenting by the te∣stimony of their letters. Againe, for other of his writings, to shew his judgement in this poynt, this Isidorus is(q) 1.325 sayd to have made a collection of all the Synods that were before his time; which booke is(r) 1.326 alledged in a Synodall Epistle of the Councell of Basil, to prove the authority of Councels above the Pope. For his practise, he is(s) 1.327 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 be∣sides them more then 30 Epistles Ad Eugen. he doth not specify which of these bookes, or which of these Epistles he meanes. But whether we consider those bookes, or Epistles, we finde Bernard in extremity opposite to Mr Canne, giving power not onely unto Synods, as the Ancient Fathers before mentioned, but even to the Pope himself, to judge the causes of all Churches. For living in a time of great blindenes, and height of Poperie, when the smoke of the bottomlesse pit had darkned the Sunne and the ayre, he was led aside through ignorance to exalt Antichrist; and writing unto Pope Eugenius that had bene his disciple, he gives him these most ambitious titles, and(t) 1.328 calles him the great Priest, the supreme High Priest, the Prince of Bishops, the heire of the Apostles, Abel in primacy, Noah in government, A∣braham in Patriarkship, Melchisedek in order, Aaron in dignity, Moses in authority, Samuel in judgement, Peter in power, Christ in unction, &c. the onely Pastour of all flockes and of all Pastours themselves, &c. the Vicar of Christ, &c. And though otherwise he gave many lively testimonies of a godly minde that was in him, yet not without cause is he(v) 1.329 taxed for blasphemy in these unrighteous titles given to the man of sinne. More particularly, in his first Epistle which he wrote unto Eugenius, af∣ter he was created Pope, upon occasion of the controversy that was betwixt the Archbishop of York, & the Archbishop of Canterbury, he puts this Pope in minde that he(x) 1.330 hath authority to judge the controversies that arise in other Churches, and wisheth him to use the same, and to give unto them according to their works, that they might know there is a Prophet in Israel. And writing againe(y) 1.331 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 sen∣tence of deposition against the Arch B. and as the phrase of Bernard is, to lighten or strike with the thunderbolt of his power. The like exercise of power over those in other Congregations is often elswhere(z) 1.332 allowed by him. And hereby it may appeare how grossely M^r Canne hath alledged these ancient Writers, quite con∣trary 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 opini∣on,

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 shewed* 1.333 before that it makes directly for us. That 22^th Canon which he alledgeth, viz.(a) 1.334 that no Clerk be or dained without examination by Bishops, and testimony of the people, empea∣cheth not the authority of Classes and Synods, but confirmeth the order establi∣shed by them. And that Christian Emperours have by their lawes confirmed the authority of Synods, it is plaine and undenyable. The(b) 1.335 Councell of Nice that condemned Arius, was authorised by Constantine the Great. The(c) 1.336 Councell of Constantinople that condemned Macedonius, was authorised by the Emperour The∣odosius the Elder. The(d) 1.337 Councell of Ephesus that condemned Nestorius, was au∣thorised by Theodosius the younger. The(e) 1.338 Councell of Chalcedon that condem∣ned Eutyches, was authorised by the Emperour Martianus. And as it was in these first Generall Councels, so may it be observed in many other. Instead of the rest, let the(f) 1.339 book of Canons suffice, confirmed by Iustinian the Emperour; there being contained in that book many Canons, which ordaine that the causes of par∣ticular Churches should be(g) 1.340 judged by Synods, and so decided by another su∣periour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves. At the end of these Canons there is added the sanction or decree of Iustinian,(h) 1.341 by which he doth not onely allow them, and give force of lawes unto them, but with an excessive & farre grea∣ter honour then is due unto them, would have the foure Oecumenicall Coun∣cels to be receaved even as the holy Scriptures. Now though he offended greatly in this his esteeme of them, yet this may serve to shew what little reason Mr Canne had to alledge the decrees of Councels for his opinion.

SECT. VII.

Touching the Testimonies of Reformed Churches.

FRom ancient times they come back to the later times of Reformation, and say(a) 1.342 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 Chur∣ches, the French Churches, Churches of the Auspurge Confession, of the Low-coun∣tries, of Nasovia. But the trueth is, both these and other Reformed Churches, doe condemne my oppisites, in allowing of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations.

The Confession of the Bohemian Churches (say they) hath these words,(b) 1.343 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 de∣rivation of this power: The words of this Bohemian Confession, are that the

keyes of the Lord, or this administration and power of the keyes is granted and delivered first unto the Governours and Ministers of the Church, and then unto every Christian Congrega∣tion, &c. Therein they doe not consent with M^r Canne, but with the opinion of Mr Baines, noted(c) 1.344 before. And they doe there also apply these words unto ab∣solution given by the Priest of the Church, as they call him. To this end they al∣ledge those places, Ioh. 20.23. & Luk. 10.16. Their meaning is declared more fully before, where they(d) 1.345 teach that the poenitent are to come unto the Priest, and to confesse their sinnes unto God before him, &c. and to desire absolution of him by the keyes of the Church, that they may obtaine remission of sinnes by such a ministery, so instituted of Christ. This order seemes to agree with that forme of absolution described and appointed in the English booke of Common prayer, at the visitation of the sick. 11. It is acknowledged by the Ministers of the Church of the Picards (so called) in Bohemia and Moravia, in the(e) 1.346 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 appea∣reth in the booke of their Discipline; where they(f) 1.347 professe that for weighty cau∣ses, in providing for the necessities of the whole Vnitie, or some Diocesse therein, they use to hold Synods, either Generall or Particular, &c. They alledge these 5 ends: To confirme brotherly love and concord: To strengthen them in the work of the Lord: To preserve the vigour of Discipline: To exclude scandalous persons out of the number of their Ministers, &c. To ordaine Ministers, &c. and for the(g) 1.348 examination of Ministers before they be confirmed. The exercise of this authority is also declared in their(h) 1.349 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 & bles∣sing 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, ha∣ving continued from the dayes of Iohn Husse, and being holpen by the Waldenses that were scattered into those parts; so that they(i) 1.350 were increased to almost 200 lit∣tle 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, re∣sorting(k) 1.351 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 per∣fection 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 denomi∣nate. Their government and the fruits thereof have bene such, that many of the

speciall lights of Christendome, since the time of Reformation, have admited and commended the same, and sundry of them have wished for the like Discipline and order in the Churches where they lived; as appeares by the testimonies of Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Pet. Paulus Vergerius, Beza, Zanchius, Olevian, Vrsinus, Chytraeus, Pet. Martyr, Calvin, Polanus, Bucholcerus, which testimonies are(l) 1.352 affixed unto the end of that book of their Discipline. Yea the printing of this book of their Discipline (according to their cōmon order in such cases) was not done without the(m) 1.353 au∣thority 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 An∣swers. 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 Congregati∣on, 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 ca∣ses, is agreeable unto the doctrine and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate, may appeare from the testimonies(n) 1.354 before noted out of Vrsinus, Tossanus, & Pa∣raeus, Divines of speciall eminencie in those Churches. III. Whereas it is sayd in this Catechisme,(o) 1.355 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 Sacra∣ments, shut out from the assembly of the Church, &c. The meaning is, as it is explained(p) 1.356 by Vrsinus (who also yeelded speciall help for the compiling of that Catechis∣me) that when any is to be excommunicated, the matter be first heard, tryed, and judged by the whole Presbyterie, and that their judgement be approved by the Church; that it be not undertaken by the private authoritie of one alone, or of the Ministers alone. This serves to justifie what we teach and practise, and to condemne both the tyrannicall and popular courses of others. IV. Moreover for the judgement and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate, concerning the authority of Classes & Synods, which is the poynt in controversy, it is to be observed, that all the Ministers which according to order are there confirmed in the Ministerie, are as a Jurie of so many sworne men, bearing witnesse against the Independencie of Churches. For at their ordination they doe not onely testify and promise by subscription and giving of of the hand, but withall they doe binde themselves by a solemne oath, among the rest,(q) 1.357 to obey the Politicall and Ecclesiasticall Lawes, the Officers and Inspectors, there appointed, &c. to referre or submit Church-affaires unto the Ecclesiasticall Senate set over

them, &c. and also according to the appointment of their Inspector, to frequent the Classicall assemblies, in whatsoever place or quarter they are held; willingly and freely to subject them∣selves unto the censure of their brethren, to deale faithfully, uprightly, and quietly in their cen∣sures & votes, to doe nothing neither for feare nor favour of any, but what they judge to be pro∣fitable for the edification of the Churches and Schooles.

The Confession of the Churches of Switserland or Helvetia, is notably falsifyed by M^r C. They confesse in the place(r) 1.358 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 Congre∣gation, about the election of Ministers. And a little after(s) 1.359 this is further de∣clared, when they acknowledge that the faulty are to be admonished, reprehen∣ded, restrained, and those that goe further astray, by a godly agreement of such as be cho∣sen out of the Ministers and Magistrates, to be excluded by Discipline, or punished by some o∣ther convenient meanes, so long untill they may repent and be saved. Such an Ecclesiasti∣call Senate, it seemes, was among them for the government of particular Chur∣ches. And further, the authority of Synods for such purpose, is likewise speci∣fyed and justifyed in the larger(t) 1.360 Helvetian Confession. Besides this, we have a particular story hereof related by Walaeus out of Beza, who recordes that(v) 1.361 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, fol∣lowing the order of the Apostles, did appoynt a Synod out of all the Classes with∣in their jurisdiction, who together with the help of other excellent Teachers, cal∣led from Zurich, Basel, Schaphuysen, and Geneva, did take cognition of the differen∣ces, 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(x) 1.362 Chur∣ches, viz. the equality of all true Ministers and Churches, so that none may arro∣gate dominion over another, is not at all hindred by that authority which is exer∣cised 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 Ar∣ticle. Whereas there be many evidences of the Reformed Churches in France, which shew what their judgement and practise is touching the subjection of parti∣cular Congregations unto a superiour Ecclesiasticall power; yet instead of many, one for the rest may suffice, which is from the(y) 1.363 Nationall Synod of Ales, transla∣ted and published in divers languages, containing a most pregnant testimony tou∣ching this poynt of our controversie. M^r C. and W. B. doe falsely tell me of a Iu∣rie 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 proposition(z) 1.364 made

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 to(a) 1.365 make this concordant agreement the more authentick, and to binde all the Provinces thereunto, the Assembly or∣dained 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 Sy∣nods, and in the Universities, that there it might be approved, sworne and sub∣scribed unto by the Ministers, Elders and Professours of the Universities, as al∣so by those that desired to be admitted unto the holy Ministery, or unto any A∣cademicall profession. And if(b) 1.366 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 As∣sembly 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, was(c) 1.367 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 profes∣sion 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 Pe∣lagianisme, 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 men∣tall reservation.

After this followes the(d) 1.368 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

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 Confessi∣ons, & 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 affirmed(e) 1.369 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 Ecclesiasti∣call authority out of a particular Congregation; or that Classes and Synods have no right to hinder the disordred callings of unfit persons, when particular Chur∣ches doe offend therein. And that the Authors of that Confession did approve of the authority of Synods, for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes, it appea∣reth both by(f) 1.370 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 that(g) 1.371 now long agoe all good men in all nations doe desire a Synod: And fur∣ther, 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 ho∣nourable for the Emperour to imitate the example of those the best Princes, &c. And there∣fore as in the times of Constantine and Theodosius, particular Churches were subject unto another superiour Ecclesiasticall power, that judged their causes and censu∣red 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 the(h) 1.372 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 Coun∣tries, whereas M^r C. saith,(i) 1.373 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 falsi∣fyeth my words: that which I sayd, was this,(k) 1.374 When the busines is so weighty, that by former generall consent of Churches, testifyed by their Deputies, meeting together in their Sy∣nods, 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 a∣greement, not to proceed without advise of the Classis, before matters of so great

weight were determined, was not to hinder particular Congregations from the practise of all Gods ordinances among them; but onely to prevent and restraine a∣buses in the manner of doing, and to direct them for the better performance there∣of 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 these(l) 1.375 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 sundry(m) 1.376 Provinciall Synods: so that from time to time, after ripe deliberation & long experience, these Acts of their Synods have still bene renewed and confir∣med, 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,(n) 1.377 that Caspar Coolhaes was excommunicated by the Pro∣vinciall Synod of Holland, holden at Haerlem, Anno 1582. that the cause of Her∣mannus 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: that(o) 1.378 Nicolaus Gre∣vinchovius, Minister at Rotterdam, was removed from his ministery by the sentence of the South-Holland Synod holden at Delph: that(p) 1.379 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-Hol∣land 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 the(q) 1.380 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 perver∣ted, when their Confession of faith is objected against me.

That which M^r Canne(r) 1.381 alledgeth from the Synod of Middelburgh, An. 1581. is also mistaken by him; there being no such thing found in that Synod as he men∣tioneth, 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 allo∣wing

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 Zep∣perus(s) 1.382 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 Middel∣burgh, Anno 1581. he took such liking thereof, that in the yeare following he cal∣led the speciall Ministers of his country together unto a Synod in Tilleburgh, requi∣ring 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 par∣ticular Congregations are to be subject unto an Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods and Classes. Therefore it was agreed,(t) 1.383 that the calling of Ministers should be made by the judgement of the Classis, &c. That(v) 1.384 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 pu∣blickly 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 allow∣ance of the Classis in such elections. Moreover it was there agreed,(x) 1.385 that if any complaine of wrong done in a lesser assembly or Synod, he may referre the matter by appeale unto a superiour Synod:(y) 1.386 that no man be excommunicated without the consent of a Classicall assembly:(z) 1.387 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 Chur∣ches 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,(a) 1.388 that we have had ere now in England Provinciall Synods, and have go∣verned 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 ex∣amples, there is a(b) 1.389 speciall monument recording the Acts and Articles agreed upon in the Synod holden at London, Anno D. 1562. and againe of another Sy∣nod, 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 pre∣sent controversy) they doe all agree, viz. that there is a superiour Ecclesiasticall

authority of Synods, to judge and determine the affaires of particular Con∣gregations.

The testimony of the Church of Scotland for the authority of Presbyteries and Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations is most cleare. In the admission of Ministers to their offices there was(c) 1.390 required not onely the consent of the people and Church whereunto they should be appoynted, but also appro∣bation of the learned Ministers appointed for their examination.

Touching all sorts of Synods among them it was concluded, that(d) 1.391 they have power to execute Ecclesiasticall discipline and punishment upon all transgressours and proud con∣temners 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 af∣faires of the Kirkes thereof, &c. they(e) 1.392 say,

Thir assemblies are institute for weightie matters, to be intreated by mutuall consent and assistance of the brethren within that Province, as need requires.

This Assembly hath power to handle, order, and redresse all things commit∣ted or done amisse in the particular assemblies.

It hath power to depose the office-bearers of that Province for good and just causes deserving deprivation.

And generally thir Assemblies have the whole power of the particular El∣derships whereof they are collected.

Besides these Canons and rules of their Discipline, there be also divers Actes of their Generall Assemblies prefixed before the foresayd First and Second bookes of their Discipline, which by many instances doe shew how that power of Sy∣nods was exercised and put in practise in the Church of Scotland. For example; we read(f) 1.393 that there was an Excommunication directed against Patrik, called B of Mur∣ray, to be executed by M. Robert Pont Commissioner their, with the assistance of the Ministers of Edinburgh. We finde there in another Assembly,(g) 1.394 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 Excommuni∣cation. We finde in another Assembly,(h) 1.395 that the B. of Dunkell was ordained to confesse his fault publickly in the Kirk of Dunkell, for not exequuting the sentence of the Kirk against the Earle of Athol.

For the confirmation of this Synodall authority, there is added in the same place an Act of Parliament,(i) 1.396 prefixed also before the sayd bookes of their Disci∣pline, having this Title, Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk: of generall and Syno∣dall Assemblies: of Presbyteries; of Discipline, &c.

The Confession of fayth made by the Church of Scotland, both for the Doc∣trine and for the Discipline thereof, is yet further confirmed unto us both by ge∣nerall Subscription, and by a most Solemne Oath. The formall words of that Subscription and Oath, are thus recorded unto us:(k) 1.397 We beleeve with our hearts, confesse with our mouth, subscribe with our hands, &c. promising and swearing by that great

name of the Lord our God, that we will continue in the Doctrine & Discipline of this Church, and that we will defend the same according to our calling and power, all the dayes of our life, under paine of all the curses contained in the law▪ & danger of body and soule in the day of that dreadfull judgement of God. Hereunto is annexed in the same place the Mandate of the Kings Majestie, whereby he enjoyneth all Commissioners and Ministers of the Word throughout his kingdome, that they require this confession of all their Pa∣rishioners, &c. And so farre as I can learne, even unto this day, there is still ob∣served 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 er∣rour and untrueth, as he(l) 1.398 speakes, may see a Iurie of more then thrice 24 Con∣gregations in Scotland, maintayning my position, and condemning his errour by their example.

The Reformed Churches in Savoy, as that of Geneva,(m) 1.399 and the Churches in the villages thereabout, standing under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in Ge∣neva, were combined together for their mutuall guidance, and the Ministers of those Churches meeting weekly together were subject to the censure of such Ec∣clesiasticall 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, that(n) 1.400 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 subjec∣ting particular Churches under the Ecclesiasticall authority of Synods, and have witnessed the same in divers solemne assemblies. They professe(o) 1.401 that when con∣troversies 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 agreed(p) 1.402 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 ordained(q) 1.403 that every Evangelicall Minister was not onely to have and to read the Canons of their Sy∣nods, 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 East∣friestand, 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 them∣selves unto the judgement of such assemblies. The distribution of these Chur∣ches into severall Classes(r) 1.404 recorded publickly, as followeth. I. Classis: The two Churches at Franckford, the Church at Schoenau, at Heydelbergh, at Franckendael,

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, o∣ther Churches of Holland, of Over-Yssel, of West-Friesland. The faithfull Mini∣sters 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 Dra∣gon, have given speciall testimony unto this Classicall government, whereunto they submitted themselves even in those hard times, when it was difficult & dan∣gerous for them to meet together.

As the Dutch Churches practised among themselves of old, so they in the fore-mentioned Synod by common advise agreed(s) 1.405 to exhort the English that they would combine their Churches into a Classis. And accordingly this order of go∣vernment 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,(t) 1.406 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. With(v) 1.407 con∣sent and allowance of these Ministers of such Classes or Conferences, together with consent of the Eldership, were the Pastours and Teachers of particular Con∣gregations to be elected: and then the names of such being signifyed to the Con∣gregation, 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 Depu∣ties of the sayd Churches, assembled together in the Nationall Synod of Dort, then which it is rightly judged, that(x) 1.408 there hath not bene for many ages past, any Synod more renowmed, or more holy, or more profitable to the Church. When as the Re∣monstrants 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, that(y) 1.409 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: They(z) 1.410 alledge the practise of the Church both in the old & new Testament,

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 Ecclesi∣asticall 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. They(a) 1.411 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, Land∣grave af Hassia, had called another generall Synod of Hassia, wherein the former Synodicall decrees were confirmed, & sentence pronounced against such as main∣tained contrary errours.

The Divines of Switzerland or Helvetia, consent hereunto, and(b) 1.412 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 also(c) 1.413 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(d) 1.414 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(e) 1.415 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 per∣vert 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 Sentence(f) 1.416 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 in∣vocation 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 Sy∣nods, &c.(g) 1.417 Doth interdict the persons cited unto this Synod, from all Ec∣clesiasticall 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

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 manner(h) 1.418 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 Re∣monstrants, that by authority of the Synod were(i) 1.419 cited to appeare before them; there is also another speciall sentence,(k) 1.420 of suspension from their function, con∣cluded & pronounced against Everhardus Vosculius, and Iohannes Schotlerius, Mini∣sters 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 testi∣mony of the good conscience which they had in the exercise of this authority: The forme of the Oath was(l) 1.421 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 Profes∣sours, 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 boasting(m) 1.422 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 doe(n) 1.423 stile them, all testifying both by word and prac∣tise against him, and against the opinion of Mr Dav. touching the jurisdiction of Synods.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Churc. plea, p. 77.
• (b) 1.2

  Answ. to W.B. p. 73.
• (c) 1.3

  Churc. plea, p. 78.
• (d) 1.4

  Coun∣terp. p. 19.
• (e) 1.5

  DeVer∣bo Dei, l. 3. c. 5.
• (f) 1.6

  Ibid. c. 5
• (g) 1.7

  Rhem. on Mat. 18.17. & 1. Cor. 5.
• (h) 1.8

  P. 105.
• (i) 1.9

  P. 93, & 98.
• (k) 1.10

  Pol. Ec∣cl. l. 3. p. 29.30. & 42.
• (l) 1.11

  Ibid. p. 42.
• (m) 1.12

  Ch. pl. p. 78.79.
• (n) 1.13

  P. 159.
• (o) 1.14

  Pol. Ec∣cl. l. 3. c. 1. p. 2. &c. 3. p. 11.
• (p) 1.15

  De Eccl. & Polit. Pot. pag. 1. &c. edit. 1612. Paris.
• (q) 1.16

  Ibid. p. 16.
• (r) 1.17

  Ibid. p. 19.
• (s) 1.18

  Ibid. p. 46-56.
• (t) 1.19

  Acts & Monum. p. 546, & 547. An. D. 1414. &c.
• (v) 1.20

  An. D. 1083. Act. & Mon. p. 164.
• (x) 1.21

  Ibid. p. 632.634.
• (y) 1.22

  Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 9, 10, 11. & l. 2. c. 2. &c.
• (z) 1.23

  Tom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7, 8, 9, 10. & 14. &c.
• (a) 1.24

  Tom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14. & l. 2. c. 1, &c.
• (b) 1.25

  Tom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei, l. 3. c. 3, &c. Tom, 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1, 2, 3, &c.
• (c) 1.26

  Concil. Trid. Bul. Indict. p. 8.
• (d) 1.27

  Bul. Re∣sumpr. p. 66.67.
• (e) 1.28

  Bul. Confirm. p. 243, &c.
• (f) 1.29

  Act. & Mon. p. 112. col. 2. art. 7.
• (g) 1.30

  Ibid. p. 155.
• (h) 1.31

  P. 157.
• (i) 1.32

  Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. de Cōc. col. 5 46. &c. 7. col. 522. & 542.
• (k) 1.33

  Col. 4••4. &c.
• (l) 1.34

  Syn. Tolet. 3.
• (m) 1.35

  Col. 135.
• (n) 1.36

  Cent. 2. c. 9. de Cōc. col. 159.160, &c.
• (o) 1.37

  OnRev. 12.1.
• (p) 1.38

  Magdeb. Cent. 3. c. 7. col. 161. &c.
• (q) 1.39

  Cent. 3. c. 9. de Syn. col. 192, 193, &c.
• (r) 1.40

  On Rev. 8.3, 4.
• (s) 1.41

  OnRev. 7.2, 3.
• (t) 1.42

  Cōment. in Cantic. c. 4. V. 15. p. 75.76.
• (v) 1.43

  OnRev. 12.1.
• (x) 1.44

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 26, 27.28. & 29. edit. Basil. 1611.
• (y) 1.45

  Cent. 3. c. 9. col. 206.207.
• (z) 1.46

  Attestat. c. 8. p. 249.
• (a) 1.47

  Beza, Annot. in Mat. 18.17.
• (b) 1.48

  P. 280, 281.
• (c) 1.49

  Ch. pl. p. 81.
• (d) 1.50

  P. 145. &c.
• (e) 1.51

  Art. 31.
• (f) 1.52

  Eccles. Tom. 2. f. 54.
• (g) 1.53

  Ch. pl. p. 75.
• (h) 1.54

  Art. 8. expl.
• (i) 1.55

  Paraenes. ad cōmun. Helvet. civ. Tom. 1. f. 116.
• (k) 1.56

  Arche∣teles, T. 1. f. 137.
• (l) 1.57

  Act. Disp. 1. Tom. 2. f. ••10.
• (m) 1.58

  Ibid. f. 621. &c.
• (n) 1.59

  Sleid. Comment. lib. 1.
• (o) 1.60

  Tom. 1. f. 231. edit. 1545.
• (p) 1.61

  Tom. 2. f. 52. Sleid. Cōm. l. 2.
• (q) 1.62

  Oper. German. Tom. 7. f. 260. edit. 1562.
• (r) 1.63

  Ibid. f. 257. &c. Sleid. Cōm. l. 12.
• (s) 1.64

  Ubi su∣pra. f. 260.
• (t) 1.65

  Exam. Conc. Trid. par. 2. de Sa∣cram. Ord. Can. 7.
• (v) 1.66

  Exam. Conc. Trid, par. 1. praef.
• (x) 1.67

  Ibid. Exam. De∣cret. 1. & 2.
• (y) 1.68

  Ibid. praef.
• (z) 1.69

  Exam. par. 1. de bon. op. qu. 2.
• (a) 1.70

  Ch. pl. p. 95.
• (b) 1.71

  Pol. Ec∣cl. l. 3. p. 26.
• (c) 1.72

  Exam. Conc. Trid. par. 2. de Sa∣cram. in gē. Can. 10.
• (d) 1.73

  Pol. Ec∣cl. l. 3. p. 26.
• (e) 1.74

  P. 176.
• (f) 1.75

  Ubi su∣pra, p. 26.
• (g) 1.76

  Respōs. ad Artic. Ba∣var. Art. 7.
• (h) 1.77

  Enarr. Symb. Nic. Tom. 1. f. 391.
• (i) 1.78

  Luth. Tom. 1. f. 444, 445.
• (k) 1.79

  Ibid. f. 442.
• (l) 1.80

  Sect. 7.
• (m) 1.81

  Dise. Theol. de Potest. Ecc. th. 7.10.17.18. arg. 10. &c.
• (a) 1.82

  Chu. pl. p. 81.
• (b) 1.83

  Chu. pl. p. 83.
• (c) 1.84

  Loc. Cōm. Class. 4. c. 4. § 11 de Cōncill
• (d) 1.85

  Ibid. c. 6. § 18.
• (e) 1.86

  Anim∣adv. in Bell. Controv. 4. de Conc. in Praef. n. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13.
• (f) 1.87

  Ibid. l. 1 c. 1. & 3. & 10. n. 1, 2. & 11. n. 1.
• (g) 1.88

  Ibid. c. 18. n. 1.8. & l, 2. c. 1. n 1. &c. 16. n 1. &c. 18. n 1, 2, 6.
• (h) 1.89

  Loc. Cōm. de Minist. p. 199, 204. de Eccl. p. 311 de Magist. p. 631. 632. & 633.
• (i) 1.90

  Ibid. de elect. Mini∣str. p. 200.
• (k) 1.91

  Beza, in vita Calv. & Calv. E∣pist. 25, 39.54, &.c
• (l) 1.92

  Ch. pl. p. 94.
• (m) 1.93

  Groūds of Relig. b. 3. c. 1. p. 2. 7, 708, edit. 12.
• (n) 1.94

  Decad. 5. Ser. 4.
• (o) 1.95

  Sect. 7.
• (p) 1.96

  Decad. 5. Ser. 1.
• (q) 1.97

  Decad. 5. Serm. 10.
• (r) 1.98

  Ch. pl. p. 74.
• (s) 1.99

  In. 1. Tim. 5.22.
• (r) 1.100

  Ethic. Christ. Lib. 2. cap. 10.
• (v) 1.101

  Homil. in Act. 13.2
• (x) 1.102

  Ibid. in cap. 14.23.
• (y) 1.103

  Ibid. in cap. 5.21.
• (z) 1.104

  Ibid. in cap. 20.17.
• (a) 1.105

  Sibrād. Lubb. Resp. ad Piet. H. Gr. p. 159.
• (b) 1.106

  P. 140. 141, &c.
• (c) 1.107

  Epist. Discept. de Fide. p. 3.
• (d) 1.108

  Declar. Resp. Conr. Vorst. p. 142, 143.144.
• (e) 1.109

  Cōment. ad 99 Erro∣tes C. Vorst. pref. p. 45, Cōm. p. 503 504. & p. 841.
• (f) 1.110

  Ibid. pref. p. 34. 35.
• (g) 1.111

  DeCōc. Lib. 1. c. 1. & l. 2. c. 3. & l. 5. c. 1, 3, 5, 8.
• (h) 1.112

  Histor. Pap. p. 542, &c. edit. 1612.
• (i) 1.113

  Ib. p. 545
• (k) 1.114

  P. 1218.
• (l) 1.115

  P. 1010. &c.
• (m) 1.116

  P. 1232 &c.
• (n) 1.117

  P. 1341.
• (o) 1.118

  Syntag. Disp. Theol. par. 2. Disp. ••0. thes. 1.
• (p) 1.119

  Thes. 4.
• (q) 1.120

  Th. 19.
• (r) 1.121

  Th. 38.
• (f) 1.122

  Expos. Catech. Qu. 85.
• (t) 1.123

  Tom. 2. Admo. Chr. de lib. Con∣cord. c. 12. col. 686.
• (v) 1.124

  Ibid. Tit. & Col. 478.
• (x) 1.125

  In 1. Cor. 5. Obs. 1. Art. 3.
• (y) 1.126

  In Act. 15. Obser. in V. 6.
• (z) 1.127

  Thes. Theol. Vol. 1. Loc. 23. de Eccl. th. 68. & 72.
• (a) 1.128

  Instit. l. 4. c. 1. sec; 15.
• (b) 1.129

  Ibid. c. 9. sec; 13.
• (c) 1.130

  Ch. pl. p. 94.
• (d) 1.131

  Colleg. Theol. De∣cur. Coll. 9. Disp. 8. Auc∣car. 1. & Co. 10. Disp. 22. th. 1-10. & Disp. 24. th. 9.
• (e) 1.132

  Eirenic. cap. 5.
• (f) 1.133

  Act. Sym. Nar. Dordr. Ses. 98.
• (g) 1.134

  System. Theo. l. 3. c. 6. p. 401.402.
• (h) 1.135

  Enchir. Theo. Clas. 3. c. 11.
• (i) 1.136

  Pastor. Evang. p. 61 edit. 1603.
• (k) 1.137

  P. 40.
• (l) 1.138

  Sect. 7.
• (m) 1.139

  D. Toss. Vita, p. 38.
• (n) 1.140

  Ib. P. 44.
• (o) 1.141

  Ch. pl. p. 83.
• (p) 1.142

  Synt. Theol. l. 7. c. 18.
• (q) 1.143

  Ib. c. 14
• (r) 1.144

  Ib. c. 16. Syllo. Thes. Theol. par. 1 de Concil.
• (f) 1.145

  DeSyno. Annuis O∣pusc. Theol. p. 768-870. Bas. 1570.
• (t) 1.146

  Tom. 2. fol. 491.
• (v) 1.147

  Epist. 83. De Ministr. gradib. c. 23 p. 155. &c. 24. p. 176. 177.
• (x) 1.148

  Harmo. Confes. p. 112. edit. 1612.
• (y) 1.149

  De Reg∣no Christi. Lib. 2. c. 12.
• (z) 1.150

  De vi & usu S. Min. tit. de Disci. Cler. Opuse. f. 582.
• * 1.151

  See Def. ag. T. C. p. 180. 182.
• (a) 1.152

  Perpet. Gover. c. 15 p. 360.
• (b) 1.153

  Lib. 7. cap. 35.
• (c) 1.154

  Perpet. Gover. c. 16 p. 370.
• (d) 1.155

  P. 378, &c.
• (e) 1.156

  P. 387, &c.
• (f) 1.157

  P. 386, 387.
• (g) 1.158

  P. 372.
• (h) 1.159

  P. 374.
• (i) 1.160

  P. 376.
• (k) 1.161

  Chu. pl. p. 85.
• (l) 1.162

  DeConc. qu. 1. c. 3. p. 15.16. & q. 2. c. 3. p. 55, 56.
• (m) 1.163

  P. 17. &c.
• (n) 1.164

  P. 21.
• (o) 1.165

  Ibid. q. 3. c. 3. p. 95.96. &c.
• (p) 1.166

  DePōtif. Rom. qu. 4. p. 470.
• (q) 1.167

  P. 39. & 133-141.
• (r) 1.168

  DeCōc. q. 5. p. 178.
• (s) 1.169

  P. 170.
• (t) 1.170

  Schol. Paris. p. 1, 2.
• (v) 1.171

  Regim. of Chur. ch. 2. sect. 4.
• (x) 1.172

  Bells motiv. l. 2. c. 4. concl. 3. &c.
• (y) 1.173

  Synops. Papi. Cōt. 3. qu. 1, p. 105.
• (z) 1.174

  Qu. 3. p. 109.110.
• (a) 1.175

  Qu. 7. p. 123.
• (b) 1.176

  Com. on Tit. 3.10. p. 712.
• (c) 1.177

  Ch. pl. p. 86.
• (d) 1.178

  Ch. pl. p. 86, &c.
• (e) 1.179

  P. 23.
• (f) 1.180

  Answ. to W. B. p. 74.
• (g) 1.181

  Ib. p. 27
• (h) 1.182

  Chu. pl. p. 86.
• (i) 1.183

  Ib. p. 88.
• (k) 1.184

  P. 23.
• (l) 1.185

  Necess. of Separ. p. 217.
• (m) 1.186

  P. 106-111.
• (n) 1.187

  Ch. pl. p. 88.
• (o) 1.188

  Ib. P. 23.
• (p) 1.189

  Repl. par 2. l. 2. p. 104
• (q) 1.190

  Ibid. p. 105.
• (r) 1.191

  P. 106.
• (s) 1.192

  P. 113.
• (r) 1.193

  P. 116.117.
• (v) 1.194

  Pol. Ec∣cl. l. 3 c. 13. &c. 23, 24, 25, &c.
• (x) 1.195

  P. 89-105.
• (y) 1.196

  P. 111-116.
• (z) 1.197

  Chu. pl. p. 23.
• (a) 1.198

  Learned Discours. of Eccl. Gov. p. 84.
• (b) 1.199

  Ibid. p. 82.83.
• (c) 1.200

  Ibid. p. 111. 112.
• (d) 1.201

  P. 115, 116. 117.
• (e) 1.202

  P. 118.
• (f) 1.203

  P. 122. 123. 124.
• (g) 1.204

  Against Bridges p. 15, 16.
• (h) 1.205

  Def. of Ecc. Disci. ag. Bridg. p. 105.
• (i) 1.206

  Learn. Disc. of Ecc. Gov. p. 7.
• (l) 1.207

  P. 84-88.
• (m) 1.208

  P. 204.
• (n) 1.209

  Demōst. of Discip. c. 1.
• (o) 1.210

  Ib. c. 10
• * 1.211

  2. Concil. Carth. tom. 1. c. 10. & 3 Conc. tom. 1. cap. ••.
• (p) 1.212

  Demōst. of Disc. c. 14
• (q) 1.213

  Disc. of troubl. at Frankf. p. 129.
• (r) 1.214

  P. 163, 164.
• (s) 1.215

  Chu. pl. p. 36.
• (t) 1.216

  P. 121-125.
• (v) 1.217

  Art. 59.63.
• (x) 1.218

  Disc. of troub. Frāk∣ford, p. 187-191.
• (y) 1.219

  Disc of troub. in the banish. English Church at Amsterd. p. 21-73.
• (z) 1.220

  Ibid. p. 73-93.
• (a) 1.221

  P. 74.
• (b) 1.222

  Petit. to the Q. most excel. Maj. p. 3.
• (c) 1.223

  Ibid. § 19. p 57.
• (d) 1.224

  § 21.
• (e) 1.225

  Eccles. Disc. p. 98. with p 103. 104. reprin. 1617.
• (f) 1.226

  Admon. to Parl. p. 51 52. ed. 1617
• (g) 1.227

  Danger. Positio. for Presbyteri. Governm. l. 3. c. 2-15
• (h) 1.228

  Ib. p. 77
• (i) 1.229

  Ibid. p. 109, 110, &c.
• (k) 1.230

  H. Bar. Discov. of False Chur. p. 165.
• (l) 1.231

  Ibid. p. 169.
• (m) 1.232

  P. 169, 170.
• (n) 1.233

  P. 189, 190.
• (o) 1.234

  Apol. of Brown. Pet. 3 pos. 9. p. 64.
• (p) 1.235

  Discov. p. 191.
• (q) 1.236

  Ib. P. 193
• (r) 1.237

  Demōst. of Disc. c. ••. pr. 3. & p. 24, 25. Mr Travers of Ecc. Disc. p. 19. 20. Ad∣mon. to Parl. p. 15. edit. 1617.
• (s) 1.238

  Dang. pos. l. 3. of Engl. Scoti. c. 3. p. 46. &c. 14. p. 114. 115.
• (t) 1.239

  Discov. p 175.
• (v) 1.240

  Chu. pl. p. 88, 89.
• (x) 1.241

  Answ. to W.B. p. 71, 72, 73. & 18, 29.30, &c.
• (a) 1.242

  Ch. pl. p. 89.
• (b) 1.243

  P. 145, 146, 149. &c.
• (c) 1.244

  Ad Phi∣ladelph. ad Magnes. ad Trall.
• (d) 1.245

  Epist. ad Philadel. p. 76. edit. Pa∣ris. 1562.
• (e) 1.246

  Epist. ad Polyc. p. 97▪ 98.
• (f) 1.247

  Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. p. 356.
• (g) 1.248

  Perpet. Gov. c. 7.
• (h) 1.249

  Apol. c. 39.
• (i) 1.250

  De Jeju∣nüs advers. Psychi. c. 13
• (k) 1.251

  In Jos. Hom. 7.
• (l) 1.252

  Ch. pl. p. 90.
• (m) 1.253

  Orig in Mat. 16.
• (n) 1.254

  Idem in Mat. 18.
• (o) 1.255

  De Cōc. qu. 5. p. 183.
• (p) 1.256

  Pol. Ec∣cl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 89, 90.
• (q) 1.257

  Cent. 3. c. 9.
• r 1.258

  Lib. 3. Epist. 14. & 10.
• s 1.259

  L. 1. ep. 4
• t 1.260

  Art. 6, 7.
• v 1.261

  Cypt. L. 1. ep. 2. & 5 Firmil. ad Cyp. Ep. 75. p. 236.
• x 1.262

  P. 243. ad annot. 14
• y 1.263

  Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. de Classib. p. 356, 357.
• a 1.264

  Ch. pl. p. 90.
• b 1.265

  Eus. l. 3.11.
• c 1.266

  L. 3.28.
• d 1.267

  3.13.
• e 1.268

  4.1.
• f 1.269

  3.32.
• g 1.270

  4.22.
• h 1.271

  Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 14.
• i 1.272

  L. 6. c. 42.
• k 1.273

  L. 7. c. 29.
• l 1.274

  De vita Const. l. 3. c. 6, 7, &c.
• m 1.275

  Ibid. l. 1. c. 44.
• n 1.276

  Tom. 1. Epist. ad ubiq. Or∣thodoxos.
• o 1.277

  Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes.
• p 1.278

  Tom. 2. Epist. ad Rusinian.
• q 1.279

  Socrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 9.
• r 1.280

  Epiph. Haer. 75.
• s 1.281

  De Pont. Rom. q. 1. p. 104, 105, 106.
• t 1.282

  Soc. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 11.13.
• v 1.283

  Jer. ad. Gal. q. 10.
• x 1.284

  Ad Al∣gas. qu. 10.
• y 1.285

  Ad Eua∣griu ep. 85.
• z 1.286

  De Pont. Rom. qu. ••. p. 9••, 99.
• a 1.287

  Ad Ge∣rontiam.
• b 1.288

  Ad Rust. Hil. ad Cōst. August. Cyr. in Ioh. 20.21.
• c 1.289

  Cent. Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 10 col. 1134, 1135.
• d 1.290

  Ib. Cent. 4. c. 7. col. 519. & 528 &c.
• e 1.291

  Euagr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 4.
• f 1.292

  Amb. Offi. l. 1. c. 1
• g 1.293

  Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9.
• h 1.294

  Amb. Tom. 3. epi. l. 10. ep. 78. ad Theoph.
• i 1.295

  Ib. Epi. 79. ad The∣oph. & Anys.
• k 1.296

  In orat. fun. de patr.
• l 1.297

  Soc. Hist. Ecc. l. 4. c. 21. Sozom. Hist. Ecc. l. 6. c. 17.
• (m) 1.298

  Nazian. Epist. 1. ad Clidon.
• (n) 1.299

  Epi. 30. ad Caesariē.
• (o) 1.300

  Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 8.
• (p) 1.301

  Ch. pl. p. 93.
• (q) 1.302

  Ep. 42. ad Procop.
• (r) 1.303

  Apo. tep. p. 225.
• (s) 1.304

  De Cōc. qu. 1. c. 3. p. 13.14, 15.
• (t) 1.305

  DeDoct. Chr. l. 1. c. 17.
• (v) 1.306

  Epist. ad Ianuar. Ep. 118. De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 2. c. 3.
• (x) 1.307

  DePont. Rom. q. 4. p. 484. & 497
• (y) 1.308

  Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. co. 866, 867.
• (z) 1.309

  Ib. Col. 870, &c.
• (a) 1.310

  In 2. Cor. 8.24.
• (b) 1.311

  Tom. 5. Epist. ad Innocent.
• (c) 1.312

  Panstra. Cath. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 23
• (d) 1.313

  Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14.
• (e) 1.314

  Edit. gr. R. Steph. l. 6. c. 16.
• (f) 1.315

  In Matt. 18.
• (g) 1.316

  De Sa∣cerd. l. 3. Col. 508. Edit. Basil.
• (h) 1.317

  Basil. Magn. Epi. 60. & 78.
• (i) 1.318

  Ep. 33.
• (k) 1.319

  E••. 48.
• (l) 1.320

  Cent. 4. c. 7. col. 522
• (m) 1.321

  Hist. Ecc. l. 1. c. 5
• (n) 1.322

  L. 2. c. 24.
• (o) 1.323

  L. 7. c. 33.
• (p) 1.324

  De Offi. Ecc. l. 2. c. 6
• (q) 1.325

  Cus. de Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 3. &c.
• (r) 1.326

  Concil. Tom. 2. p. 146, 147.
• (s) 1.327

  Magdeb. Cent. ••. col. 261-287. & 513.
• (t) 1.328

  De Cōsi. ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 8.
• (v) 1.329

  Whit. de Pont. Rom. q. 4. p. 425.426.
• (x) 1.330

  Bernar. ad Eugen. Epist. 237.
• (y) 1.331

  Ep. 238
• (z) 1.332

  Ad In∣noc. Epist. 189, &. 190.
• * 1.333

  Pa. 223.
• (a) 1.334

  Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. col. 868.
• (b) 1.335

  Sulp. Se. v S. Hist. l. 2
• (c) 1.336

  Sulp. S. Hist. con••in. ex Sleyd. p. 162.
• (d) 1.337

  P. 164.
• (e) 1.338

  P. 170.
• (f) 1.339

  Codex Canon. Ecc. Univ. edit. Christ. Just.
• (g) 1.340

  Can. 5▪ 80, 83, 85.
• (h) 1.341

  Novella consti. Just. Imper. 131.
• (a) 1.342

  Ch. pl. p. 91.
• (b) 1.343

  Harm. Conf. c. 14.
• (c) 1.344

  P. 114, 115.
• (d) 1.345

  Harmo. Confes. Art. 5. de Poenit. p. 241. edit. 1612.
• (e) 1.346

  P. 219.
• (f) 1.347

  Ratio Discip. or∣dinisq. Ecc. in Unitate frat. Bohem. c. 2. p. 33.34, & 38.
• (g) 1.348

  Ib. p. 41.
• (h) 1.349

  Ib. cap. 6. p. 87, 88. &c.
• (i) 1.350

  Ib. pref. p. 2, 3.
• (k) 1.351

  Ib. cap. 3. p. 54. & 72, 73.
• (l) 1.352

  P. 106-122.
• (m) 1.353

  Pref. p. 8. & 16.
• (n) 1.354

  P. 191.192.193.
• (o) 1.355

  Qu. 85.
• (p) 1.356

  Explic. Catech. ad Qu. 85.
• (q) 1.357

  Churf. Psaltz Kir∣chendi. be∣stall. punct. Art. 16.
• (r) 1.358

  Confes. Helvet. Art. 16.17.
• (s) 1.359

  Art. 19.
• (t) 1.360

  Cap. 18. p. 63.
• (v) 1.361

  Ampt der Kerckē∣dien. p. 214 out of Bez. Apol. pro Justif. ex sola fide. p. 263. &c.
• (x) 1.362

  Art. 30.
• (y) 1.363

  Oordeel en uyrspra∣ke, met den Eed vā Ap∣probatie vā het Synode Nation. der Gereform. Kerckē van Vrancrijck, gehoudē tot Ales in de Cevennes, besloten en̄ gearresteert den 6. Oct. 1620.
• (z) 1.364

  P. 3.••.
• (a) 1.365

  P. 4.5.
• (b) 1.366

  P. 5.
• (c) 1.367

  P. 6.
• (d) 1.368

  P. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
• (e) 1.369

  Confes. August. Art. 14.
• (f) 1.370

  Syntag. Confes. par. 2. p. 7.
• (g) 1.371

  Ib. p. 28.29. Confes. August. Art. 21.
• (h) 1.372

  Art. 31.
• (i) 1.373

  Ch. pl. p. 91.92.
• (k) 1.374

  Answ. to W.B. p. 66.
• (l) 1.375

  Kerckē-Ordeningē der Gerefo. Nederlātsc. Kerckē, Na∣tion. 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.
• (m) 1.376

  Provinc. Syn. tot Dordr. An. 1574. Art. 12. Prov. Syn. tot Middelb. An. 1591. Art. 3, 4, 9, 58, 68, 69.
• (n) 1.377

  Triglād. van de Mo∣der. p. 56.57.
• (o) 1.378

  Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. An. 1618. Ses. 22.
• (p) 1.379

  Ib. pref.
• (q) 1.380

  Ses. 22, 23.
• (r) 1.381

  Ch. pl. p. 91.
• (s) 1.382

  Pol. Ecc. p. 831.
• (t) 1.383

  Ib. p. 833 Art. 4.
• (v) 1.384

  P. 834.
• (x) 1.385

  P. 837. Art. 23.
• (y) 1.386

  P. 843. Art. 61.
• (z) 1.387

  Art. 63.
• (a) 1.388

  Def. of Apol. of Ch. of Engl. par. 6. c. 17. div. 1. & 2.
• (b) 1.389

  Syntag. Confes. p. 125, & 136
• (c) 1.390

  First book of Dis∣cipline, p. 29. ed. 1621
• (d) 1.391

  Sec. b. of Discip. ch. 7. p. 80.
• (e) 1.392

  Ib. p. 81.
• (f) 1.393

  P. 14. Edinb. Iul. 5. 1570.
• (g) 1.394

  P. 15. Edinb. Aug. 6. 1573.
• (h) 1.395

  P. 16. Edinb. Mar. 6. 1573.
• (i) 1.396

  P. 19. 20, &c. The 12 Parl. at E∣dinb. Iun. 5. 1592.
• (k) 1.397

  Syntag. Confes. p. 158, 160.
• (l) 1.398

  Ch. pl. p. 83.
• (m) 1.399

  Kerc∣kel, Ordon, der gemeē∣te van Ge∣neven, p. 9, 10▪ &c.
• (n) 1.400

  Ch. pl. p. 94.
• (o) 1.401

  Syntag. Confes. par. 2. p. 294. Syn. Posna. 1570. Art. 19
• (p) 1.402

  Ib. p. 300 303. Syn. Crac. Xans. Wlodisl.
• (q) 1.403

  P. 320-326. Syn. Toru 1591 Art. 2▪3▪7.14▪17.
• (r) 1.404

  Synod. Embd. An. 1571. Art. 10.11.
• (s) 1.405

  Synod. Embd. art. 12.
• (t) 1.406

  Forme of Comm. prayer, Ad∣ministr. &c. printed at Middleb. 1602, the 4. edit.
• (v) 1.407

  Ibid. p. D 7. b. & 8. a, b. & F 3. a.
• (x) 1.408

  Molin. Anat. Ar∣min. praef. A 3.
• (y) 1.409

  Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 29. p. 97.
• (z) 1.410

  Ibid. p. 98.
• (a) 1.411

  Ibid. p. 100.
• (b) 1.412

  Ibid. p. 102.
• (c) 1.413

  Ibid. p. 102. 103.
• (d) 1.414

  Ibid. p. 104.
• (e) 1.415

  Ibid. p. 1••7.
• (f) 1.416

  Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 138. p. 280.
• (g) 1.417

  P. 281.
• (h) 1.418

  Ibid. p. 282.
• (i) 1.419

  Ibid. p. 16, 17.
• (k) 1.420

  P. 204, 205.
• (l) 1.421

  Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 23. p. 61.
• (m) 1.422

  Ch. pl. p. 83.
• (n) 1.423

  Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 3. p. 12.