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

A Supplement, annexed by the Publisher, for answer unto that vvhich follovveth in Mr Cannes booke.

THus farre, good Reader, the Authour hath travelled through those tedious wayes, which M^r C. though with lesse trouble, yet with more prejudice to his owne cause, hath first opened unto him. The summe of all is, that wading through those streames of Arguments and Reasons wich M^r C. had let out upon him, he hath found such as were of any depth, to runne another way; & the other too shallow to hinder the passage of trueth in this controversie. And marching through those severall rankes & files of learned Authours, which M^r C. had muste∣red, & brought into the field for his defence and assistance in this conflict, he hath found them all (excepting those that were to be excepted) to be friends instead of enemies, testifying plainely in their owne words, & in the words of sundry others with them, that against their wills they were forced to appeare under his banners. And therefore in the same order that he marshalled them against the Authority of Synods, they now stand in aray against the Independency of Churches. There remained yet one part of M^r Can. opposition in this cause to be encountred, wherein he pre∣tends to disappoint and conquer such forces as might seeme to be used in defence of that Classicall and Synodall government which he hath hitherto oppugned. To this end he(a) 1.1 undertakes to answer certaine Reasons or Objections, picked out of divers passages in the Authours(b) 1.2 first booke, supposing by this meanes to have fully acquitted himself in this Dispute. Now though there be nothing in these his Answers, for which an intelligent Reader might not easily satisfy him∣self from what hath beene sayd already in the foregoing Treatise: yet lest M^r C. should plead there was ought left untouched, that with any shew of reason re∣quired an answer; & for their help to whom such directions may be usefull, I have here briefly noted what he hath sayd, and to what purpose.

The Reasons or Objections which in this latter part of his booke he assayeth to answer, are 1. Concerning the evill consequents of Independency: 2. The ancient exercise of the power used in Synodall combinations: 3. The liberty & freedome hence arising unto Churches & the members thereof: 4. The deter∣minations of Synods, and consent of Reformed Churches in this matter: 5. The Authours alledging the former practise of the Church where he was Minister. In the sixt place he mentioneth some objections, of which he(c) 1.3 saith he will not stand to make any particular answer thereto; but referreth us in generall to the writings of others, which whosoever shall compare with the Authours words against which they are applyed, and duely weigh the severall circumstances on both sides, may easily discerne that this his generall answer needs no reply. In the end lest we should doubt with what affection all the rest was written, he graceth his booke with this Conclusion, and disireth it may be noted, when out of the abundance of his charity he saith, Mr Paget would faine have the Classicall Discipline advanced, that hee by it might have worldly credit also: These are his last words, ushered with

others of the same stamp; that hee seeks to disgrace Christs government, & to have his owne honoured & embraced, &c. A vile slander, & not worthy to be answered.

For the other objections which M^r Canne pretends to answer, it is to be ob∣served that the Authour in his former writing hath not framed any Reasons for proofe of this poynt in controversie, as he hath often(d) 1.4 before noted in this Trea∣tise. It was not his purpose at that time to propound any Argument, first or last, but being the Defendant or partie accused, to wait for the Arguments of his Ac∣cusers. And so much was also signifyed in his(e) 1.5 other booke, which M^r C. had read, and from whence those Reasons or pretences, as he calles them, are taken, unto which here he shapes his Answers. Yet notwithstanding he will take no notice of this, but runnes into two contrary extremes: before he affirmed that he brought no proofes, because he had none to bring; intimating(f) 1.6 that he hath not left this point unprooved, out of forgetfulnes; but rather of meere poverty, as not having any authenticall records, &c. Here againe he makes him to bring Reasons & Arguments, when as he professed that at that time he intended to bring none: not out of forgetfulnes, or want of ability; for he had sayd in the place before mentio∣ned, that he had to this purpose in his Sermons divers times alledged sundry evidences & grounds of holy Scripture, &c. And M^r C. knew that he was able to produce such evidences, by the occasionall mentioning of those two places, Deut. 17. & Act. 15. which he hath also undertaken to answer. Come we now to the particulars.

[ I] THe first pretended Reason is set downe by M^r C. in these words: If particular Congregations should not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of them∣selves, manifold disorders, confusion and dissipation of Churches would follow. Thus he perverts the Authours words, which were not set downe by way of Argument, but meerly as a declaration of his judgement touching the benefit of Classes and Synods, against the contrary accusation of his opposites. His words are these,(g) 1.7 That single uncompounded policie (as Mr Iacob calles it) whereby particular Congrega∣tions are made to be independent, not standing under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves, that I conceive to bring with it manifold disorders, confusion and dissipation of Churches. That which the Authour thus set downe as his owne opinion, which he held concerning the safety of this government, for the maintaining of order & setled peace in Churches; that M^r C. transformes into an Argument, & calles it his first reason. The Authour had just cause to mention that consideration in such manner as he did, to shew the importance of this point in controversie, by which he there also hoped that others would be warned, to take heed what new formes of Churches and Church-government they frame unto themselves, or commend unto others. Experience hath taught, not once, nor twice, that in the matter of framing Churches, for want of taking such advice, some have become like Vtopian Commonwealths men; going to work according to their owne Idaeas, they have begun a work which they were not able to finish; not unlike unto that builder of whom our Saviour speakes, Luk. 14.28, 29, 30. And therefore, as before more briefly, so now(h) 1.8 at his entrance into a more full and professed handling of this question, the Authour hath hereby declared of what importance this controversy is, and given instance in the disorders, confusions and dissipations which have hap∣pened

unto that Church of the Brownists at Amsterdam, the rather because of their neglect and contempt of such remedies, as from Classicall and Synodall go∣vernment might have been afforded unto them. If those that pretend such accu∣rate exercise of Discipline, have fallen into so great and manifold scandals, such rash and offensive excommunications, schismes, & depositions, as are there men∣tioned; how can it be expected that others, in outward appearance more unable to mannage such a kinde of government, should be free from running into the like or greater offences? If some few single Churches, within a few yeares, have bewrayed to their losse and shame, the great want of a combined government, for the establishment of peace and order among them; how many instances and ex∣amples of the same kinde might we looke for in processe of time, where many Churches together should be erected according to this modell of Independent politie? To this purpose the Authour hath applyed that observation touching these evill consequents of Independency; not by way of argument, as M^r C. hath set it downe. If he had intended to propound an Argument, he would have fra∣med it after another manner, for the aggravation of their errour; as thus for exam∣ple: That independency of Churches, which not being prescribed of God, doth occasion mani∣fold disorders, &c. that is so much the more to be avoyded: But such is that Independency which is required of these Opposites: Ergo. Or thus; That Independency of Churches, which not by accident onely, but in the very nature thereof, is a proper cause of manifold disorders, is to be condemned: But such is that Independency taught by these Opposites: Ergo. The Ar∣gument thus propounded, and understood principally of more Churches of this frame seated together (where the disorders ensuing would be more apparent, and the neglect of the remedy more culpable) hath sufficient grounds, both of Scrip∣ture and Reason, to uphold it. First, there being required a communion betwixt Churches, as well as betwixt members of one Church, as hath been noted(i) 1.9 be∣fore; and seeing God is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the author of confusion, or of unquietnesse, but of peace; and will have all things done decently & in order, specially in the Churches of the Saints: 1. Cor. 14.33, 40. hence we may conclude that such formes of government as doe unavoydably tend to disunion and disorder, are not the Ordinances of God. Secondly, the principles of nature & common equity, as they may be read in the practise of all times and places, doe teach that no humane societies can subsist together without these bonds of combination & confederacy; whereby it comes to passe that families unite themselves and grow together into greater Corporations, Cities, Provinces, Commonwealths, and Kingdomes, for their mutuall peace and safety in the way of government. The subordination of Courts in Civill government, while they are framed according to an Aristocraticall temper, is not repugnant unto the nature of Ecclesiasticall politie. These things thus premised, and applyed unto Classicall and Synodall combinations, it may hereby appeare how M^r C. hath played the trifler in so ma∣ny idle and impertinent answers which he hath made unto his owne frame of rea∣son obtruded upon the Defendant. But for further satisfaction, behold the sub∣stance of his Answers.

I. C. ANSVV. I. When God hath established an order for the administration of his

owne house, what presumption of man dares change it? Thinkes he that he is wiser then the Almighty? &c. REPL. I. This answer saith nothing to any part of the pro∣posed argument, even as he himself hath framed it; unlesse it be a denyall of the Conclusion. For of changing an order that God hath established, there was no mention, nor colour of any such meaning, in the Authors words which he under∣takes to refute. Onely the question is whether Independency be that forme of ad∣ministration which God hath appointed unto his Churches: This M^r C. with vehement asseverations affirmes, and complaines of them that deny it. If this rea∣soning were good, he might easily beat downe all objections that are made against his Tenet. II. Observe with what insolent language he inveigheth against those that oppose his opinion, as if they did set themselves poynt blanck against that which they saw to be the ordinance of God. Did he thinke the Authour or others of his minde, meant to plead in such manner for their judgement & practise tou∣ching Classes and Synods? Sure M^r C. knew it to be otherwise; at least by those places of Scripture, which he saw mentioned in their defence. But herein also he shewes himself to be a disciple and follower of H. Barrow, who for the same thing reproaching the Reformists, sayth(k) 1.10 they would bring in a new adulterate forged government in shew, or rather in despite of Christs blessed government, which they in the pride, rashnes, ignorance, and sensualitie of their fleshly hearts, most miserably innovate, corrupt and pervert, &c. M^r C. doth here in like manner multiply words to the same purpose.

I. C. ANSVV. II. Be it well considered, that God alwayes abhorreth all good in∣tentes of men, that are contrary to the good pleasure of his will, revealed in his word, &c. REPL. I. There is no mention made of any intentes in the supposed Reason: it is onely sayd that Independency will be attended with disorders and confusion, &c. M^r C. therefore disputes with his owne intentes in these his impertinent answers. II. How can God be sayd to abhorre good intentes? Or how can those be sayd to be good intentes, that are contrary to the revealed will of God? III. Intention notes the purpose of the will, with reference both unto the end at which it aimes, and the meanes by which it endeavours to attaine that end. If both these be good & lawfull, the intention also is absolutely good. Yet if the end be good, though the meanes be unwarrantable, the intention is not presently abhorred, but some∣time commended of God himself; as in David, when he purposed to build an house for the Name of the Lord, 1. King. 8.18. with 2. Sam. 7.7. But in this case, on their part that maintaine Classicall and Synodall combinations, not onely the end they aime at, to wit, peace, order, and the establishment of Churches; but the meanes also, or the practise of such combinations, is allowed by the word of God: neither doth M^r C. proove ought to the contrary.

I. C. ANSVV. III. This objection taken up here by Mr Paget, is the very same which the Papists, and those that way affected use, &c. REPL. I. If Papists use the very same objection, that is, if from the same Premisses they make the same Conclu∣sion, rejecting Independency & Anti-Synodall courses, because of the confusions and disorders which doe follow the same; then herein they are no Papists, foras∣much as Protestants have reasoned in like manner, as may be seen in sundry Testi∣monies

before(l) 1.11 alledged. II. When Papists dispute against any lawfull forme of government, with the same argument which we use against that which is un∣lawfull; this can no more prejudice our reasoning then it doth M^r Cannes, while both he & they reason against lawfull Synods, as taking away that right and power which they pretend to be due unto others; he asscribing that to the body of the Congregation, which they doe(m) 1.12 to the Pope, viz. the supreme Ecclesiasticall judgement of all controversies; and both pleading from the same grounds of Scripture, Math. 16, & 18, &c. Men may use the like arguments, & yet their conclusions be farre unlike & contradictory.

I. C. ANSVV. IV. If particular Congregations must loose their right and power, because of the offences, which some men have committed in the exercise thereof. Then surely by the same reason (if Mr Pagets reasoning be worth any thing) ought Classes and Synods, to lay downe that superiour authority, which they have taken over many Churches; because they in many things, many times have offended, in and about the execution. REPL. I. The reason here mentioned by M^r C. is a meere fiction and forgerie of his owne. The Author never reasoned on this manner: he never sayd, never thought to say, that particular Congregations must loose their right & power, &c. There is no shadow of any such thing in those words which M^r C. hath here set downe for himself to answer. II. Particular Congregations doe still retaine their due right & power, even while they are subordinate unto the superiour authority of Classes and Synods, as hath been often shewed(n) 1.13 before. III. If he would have spoken to the purpose, he should have shewed, that particular Congregations, standing under no other Ec∣clesiasticall authority out of themselves, are not thereby exposed to manifold dis∣orders, confusion, and dissipation: Or if he would have retorted this argument upon the Defendant, he ought to have prooved that Classicall and Synodall go∣vernment, of its owne nature, brings with it manifold disorders, confusion, and dissipation of Churches. But instead of this, he mentioneth onely the offences which in many things, many times have been observed, in & about the execution. And behold what he saith for proofe hereof.

I. C. And this I am sure no good Christian will deny, I could give divers instances for it; but it needs not: Onely it is not amisse to set downe Nazianzens(o) 1.14 words; who was an Elder or Bishop: I am minded, sayth hee, to shunne all assemblies of Bishops, be∣cause I never saw any good event in any Councell, &c. Whither things are better ca∣ryed now, then they were in his time. I will not, nor am able to judge. ANSVV. I. If he will not nor cannot judge whether the same abuses be now committed which Nazianzen complained of; it followes that he ought not to have the will nor abi∣lity to conclude that this government should now be remooved, as it seemes he would inferre from such a reason as was used by Nazianzen for his dislike of the Synods of his time. II. This testimony of Nazianzen hath been sufficiently answe∣red(p) 1.15 before out of D. Whitaker, where it hath been also shewed, that it makes as much against those Assemblies of Bishops which M^r C. himself allowes, as against any other. But to make it appeare that this is no new objection, & that we need not seek any further answer unto it, loe here what others have sayd tou∣ching the same testimony. Beza, among other counsels to the Emperour & States

of Germany, for the settling of the peace of Christian Churches, doth specially give advice for the celebrating of a Synod: & seeing he doth not onely answer the foresayd exception, but withall notably declare the lawfull, ancient, and profita∣ble use of Synodall authority, I have here set downe his words at large, as worthie our observation for this purpose.

Churches,(q) 1.16 saith he, cannot be rightly governed by their Pastours, unlesse beside the sowing of good seed, they doe also by the word of God, as with a sickle cut downe evill herbes, yea & root them out according to their power. But because that cannot oftentimes be per∣formed by the authority of one or a few, neither happily were it meet: therefore since Churches began to be settled, the Bishops of the Provinces did meet to∣gether as often as there was need: and that according to the example of the Apostles, lest any should think this hath been the device of man. The Synod of the Church of Jerusalem and Antiochia, celebrated in the Actes of the Apostles, is well knowne. Afterwards followed that first Oecumenicall Sy∣nod of Nice, where Ecclesiasticall Provinces being more accurately then hap∣pily divided, this also was ordained, that every yeare two Provinciall Synods should be gathered by the Metropolitanes: which custome if it had bene dili∣gently observed, certainly it is likely that many and most great calamities of the Church might have bene prevented. But here some doe object unto us, that for the most part dissensions have been rather kindled then quenched by these Synods, insomuch that the famous Bishop Nazianzene by a certaine sentence of his hath as it were, condemned all those assemblies. But we make no doubt to oppose unto this opinion, partly that Apostolicall example, and partly also the historie of things done. Indeed the Nicene Synod hath not quite allayed the furies of Arius, no nor some that followed after. But who shall therefore judge that there hath been no fruit of that Synod, which even at this very time we doe abundantly reap? Yea that Apostolicall Synod hath not altogether re∣strained Cerinthus and those obstinate maintainers of Circumcision. But who would therefore deny that it was necessary for the Church? Therefore every one sees that that sentence of Nazianzene doth not concerne Synods rightly or∣dered, unlesse we thinke that he would detract from the Synod of Nice: which indeed is very absurd, seeing it is well knowne how great a defender he hath been thereof. If neverthelesse Arians ceased not to rage through the world, how much the more may we thinke that they would have done it, if the autho∣rity of that holy Synod agreeing whith the word of God, so often objected against them, had not repressed their renewed endeavours? The same we avouch concerning the Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and their issue, whom as many Oecumenicall Synods, if not with one wound, yet with reiterated blowes have by the word of God stricken downe, insomuch that they doe afford us armes against the same, springing up againe in this our age. Yet when we say these things, we doe not hold that the Church is grounded upon the au∣thority of such Assemblies, or that all Conventicles, by whatsoever name they be called, are to be accounted Synods: but this one thing we say, that God is to be intreated by us in these calamities of the Church, that we may duely and

holily use these remedies also which are given unto us of God.

Thus farre Beza. The same objection out of Nazianzene is to like purpose answered by Vrsi∣nus, when he saith,(r) 1.17

The complaint of Nazianzene, that he saw no good issue of any Synod, we make no generall rule; unlesse we would condemne the Or∣thodoxe Oecumenicall Councels of the ancient Church, to have had an evill event; which Nazianzene doth not say, who speakes of the Synods of his time, whereof some were Arian [Synods,] some perhaps confusedly undertaken & governed.

Sibrandus Lubbertus speaks in like manner touching the same testi∣mony of Nazianzene, saying,(s) 1.18

This unhappines of the events must not be asscribed unto the Councels themselves; but to the ambition & desire of com∣mand in those that assemble, as the same Nazianzene doth also testify.

I. C. ANSVV. V. If the infirmities of the people, be a good reason to take away their liberty, in practising among themselves all Gods ordinances: then the contrary vertues, which oftentimes have bene found in them (as in staying the rage of the Scribes & Pharisies(t) 1.19; in preferring sincere Christians before Arrians(v) 1.20; & being themselves sound in the faith(x) 1.21; when their Ministers have bene Heretickes:) is a good reason to maintaine their liberty still. REPL. 1. This answer is beside the question, which is not here touching the peoples liberty, as they are distinguished from their Ministers; but concerning particular Congregations and their subjection to Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves. Though M^r C. and some others that now strive for the Indepen∣dencie Churches, doe also affect a popular way of government in the Church; opposing not onely the power of Classicall Presbyteries, but also of particular El∣derships; yet Popularity doth not necessarily follow upon Independency, neither have they alwayes both the same Patrons. Mr Iacob, though he pleaded for a single uncompounded policie, in opposition to Synodall authority; yet he utter∣ly disliked those popular circumstances held by the Separation, as hath been noted(y) 1.22 before. Againe, the Anabaptists, though they maintaine and practise those popular wayes of judging causes among them, and(z) 1.23 oppose the Elderships of the Reformed Churches, as exercising an undue power, in deciding matters apart from the Congregation; yet they allow and practise divers things, contrary to the nature of Independencie, so as M^r C. pleades for it: seeing, 1. They have(a) 1.24 their Bishops, as they call them, distinct from their other Preachers, by them termed Vermaenders, that is, Admonishers; and by some of them(b) 1.25 held to be Deacons: these acknowledge themselves(c) 1.26 to be inferiour to their Bishops in the ministery. The Bishops belong to some more eminent Congregations of that Sect, doe at certaine times visit the other lesser Congregations, and admi∣nister the Sacraments among them. 2. The Anabaptists(d) 1.27 use to excommuni∣cate whole Congregations at once, when having been of the same profession with them, they witnesse their dissent from them in such matters as for which particu∣lar persons are excommunicated by them. 3. The causes that cannot be deter∣mined in their particular Congregations, are by them sometimes(e) 1.28 referred to the judgement of Arbiters, men of severall Congregations, chosen by both par∣ties, with promise to stand to their sentence, & sometimes also to the meetings of the Officers of sundry Churches. This shewes that though they plead for Popula∣ritie,

yet they doe not simply allow of Independencie. 11. Suppose that consi∣deration had been alledged by the Authour against Popular government also, as justly it might, in regard of the manifold disorders, confusion, and dissipation of Chur∣ches, which it is knowne to bring with it; yet this answer cannot proove it to be insufficient, because it runnes upon a twofold false supposition; 1. That this ap∣pertaines to the due liberty of the people, to have their judgement sought unto for the determining of all controversies that arise in the Church: 2. That this li∣berty is acknowledged to have been taken from them, as if they had been once in full possession of it; or that this is the maine reason for denying that pretended li∣berty to the people, because of their infirmities or miscarriages in the use of it. These things as they are untrue in themselves, so they are unjustly obtruded upon the Defendant, who had given no occasion to such pretences. We maintaine on the other side, that this is no part of the peoples priviledge, because it is not due unto them by any divine warrant: and herein we are further confirmed, seeing such an order is in outward appearance, and according to undenyable experience, in the Anabaptists, Brownists, & others, attended with manifold disorders, con∣fusion & dissipation of Churches. 111. Though it were granted that the people have beene oftentimes wiser in their choyce, & sounder in the faith then their Ministers (which yet three of those places(f) 1.29 here alledged doe not proove, there being nothing in them to that purpose for which they are cited;) yet that is not enough to disprove the foresaid assertion, unlesse he could shew that ordinarily they are so qualifyed, & indued with such abilities as are requisite for the orderly exercise of judiciary power in the Congregation. This is not onely contrary to experience, but also to the revealed will & wisedome of God, in dispensing his gifts severally unto the members of the mysticall body of his Church, appovnting some to be of meaner use, and in subjection to others. 1. Cor. 12.14-31. Heb. 13.17. We must either straiten the limits of the Church, further then Christ himself hath allowed us, by shutting the weak & feeble out of his fold; or else acknow∣ledge that all the members are not fit to be used in the judiciall trying & determi∣ning of causes.

[ II] THe next thing that M^r C.(g) 1.30 pretends to answer, is touching the Antiquity of Classicall and Synodall government, from those words of the Authour, that the power which the Classis exerciseth is ancient, &c. that he names it the old beaten path, &c. The Authour indeed had used these words, upon just occasion; not as any reason or argument, to justify the lawfulnes of this power, as M^r C. seemes to insinuate; but to declare the trueth in the matter of fact, rather then in the con∣troversie of right: and this may easily appeare to those that looke upon the places(h) 1.31 alledged out of the Authours book. When an unjust complaint was made, that he had subjected the Church under an undue power of the Classis, that he brought it un∣der, &c. he answereth, That power which the Classis exerciseth is ancient; the same power which they had long before I either knew them or they me; &c. Againe when there was mention made of those of his side, he answered, For my part I abhorre this siding; I de∣sire to walk in the old beaten path of that discipline and government, practised by these Refor∣med Churches, and established in their Classes and Synods: &c. Was not here just cause

to use these words to this purpose for which they are applyed? He speakes chiefly of the antiquity of this government, in regard of the state of that particular Church, & of those with which it is combined; concerning which M^r C. him∣self cannot deny but that he hath spoken the trueth. But suppose it were uttered in generall, with reference unto the joynt consent of the Churches in all ages, giving testimony unto the exercise of this power; might not this be a weighty & profitable consideration, to be commended unto the serious thoughts of those that offer to oppose it? Let us heare what M^r C. saith to this.

I. C. ANSVV. I. Sundry errours are as ancient as the Apostles time, &c. REPL. 1. This doth not prejudice the constant practise of this or any other trueth, nor the regard that is to be given unto the custome of the Churches of God, according to the direction of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11.16. To what end else are those manifold proofes and Allegations, which M^r C. hath taken from Authours of all times, to shew, as he(i) 1.32 pretends, their consent with him, and that his opinion may not be thought a Noveltie? 11. The due power of Classes & Synods is not grounded upon the ancient exercise of it; neither is this made an argument to prove the lawfulnes thereof: It is onely alledged to shew that others also, professing subjection unto the Ordinances of Christ, have in like manner understood the divine warrant for the exercise of such government in the Church. The Antiquitie whereupon the lawfulnes of this combined politie doth rest, is that which it claimeth from the Law and the Gospel, as hath been shewed(k) 1.33 before.

I. C. ANSVV. II. Housoever Mr Paget for the credit of his cause, names it the old & ancient Discipline; yet sure I am, to proove it so, he never will nor can. There are many (and I think hee knowes it) which doe affirme that the Ecclesiasticall government by Classes and Synods, is a weed that grew many yeares after the Apostles, A late devise(l) 1.34, and that in all antiquitie there doth not appeare any one step thereof(m) 1.35; Also that at Geneva, subjecting of Churches to this order first began(n) 1.36. And before Cal∣vin came there, everie Congregation was free in itself(o) 1.37. REPL. 1. These testimonies doe not speak of Synods, and the Ecclesiasticall authority exercised by them. What trueth is there then in M^r Cannes words when he sayth, they affirme that the Ecclesiasticall government exercised by Classes and Synods is a weed, &c. 11. The distinction which these Authours make betwixt Classes and Synods, as it is ungrounded and insufficient to prove the one lesse lawfull or ancient then the other; so it can least of all serve M^r Cannes purpose: seeing the chief cause why they disallow Classes, is because they exclude Hierarchicall authority; not simply because they exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō, which is the maine ground where∣upon M^r C. doth oppose them. III. The place quoted out of D. Bilson, where he objecteth unto some their owne device, is not properly directed against Classicall government; and he seemes to intend it principally against Lay-Elders, as they call them, as appeares by that which followeth(p) 1.38 in his book. But to shew how farre he was from uttering any thing, that might either disprove the ancient use of Synods, or favour independent Church-government, and the pretended anti∣quity thereof, mark what he saith elswhere;(q) 1.39

There is no Christian Realme nor Age, wherein the use of Synods hath not bene thought needfull, &c. as

appeareth by the Councils that have bene kept in all kingdomes and countries since the Apostles times, when any matter of moment came in question, which are extant to this day; and likewise by the Synodes that every Nation and Pro∣vince did yearely celebrate, according to the rules of the great Nicene & Chal∣cedon Councils, which cannot be numbred, & were not recorded, &c. And unlesse you give the Pastor and Presbyters of every Parish full & free power to professe what religion they best like, to offer what wrongs they will, to use what impiety and tyrannie they themselves lift, without any restraintor redresse, which were an heathenish, if not an hellish confusion; you must where there is no Christian Magistrate, &c. yeeld that libertie to the Church of Christ, which every humane society hath by the principles of nature, to wit that the whole may guide each part, & the greater number overrule the lesser, which without assembling in Synode cannot be done.

Againe he professeth his judgement touching the danger and noveltie of Independencie, when he saith,(r) 1.40

In que∣stions of faith, matters of faction, offers of wrong, breach of all order & equitie, shall each place & Presbyterie be free to teach & doe what they please, without depending on or so much as conferring with the rest of their brethren? Call you that the Discipline of Christs Church, & not rather the dissolution of all peace, and subversion of all trueth in the house of God? I thinke you be not so farre beside yourselves, that you strive for this pestilent kinde of anarchie to be brought into the world. Our age is giddie enough without this frensie to put them forward. Howbeit we seek not what new course you can devise after fifteen hundred yeares to governe the Church; but what meanes the ancient and primitive Church of Christ had, before Princes embraced the trueth, to assemble Synodes & pacifie controversies, as well touching Religion as Eccle∣siasticall regiment, &c.

IV. The words cited by M^r C. out of D. Su••cliffe, against Classes, are expressely answered by Mr Parker, when having fet downe the objection here mentioned, viz. that in all antiquitle there doth not appeare one step of these Classicall assemblies, he sayth,(s) 1.41

What, not so much as a step 〈◊〉〈◊〉 there is a step at least extant in the Canonicall law throughout, but specially (that we be not altogether silent) Decret. par. 2. cap. •• 1. q. 3. c. 4. & in the Councils every where, in that of Sardica, Can. 17. of Africa, C. 127. of Laodicea, c. 12 whence it appeareth that according to ancient custome neighbour Bishops were alwayes wont to come together, in all sorts of difficult cases: which the Pres∣byters at Rome judged to be so necessary, that a firme decree could not be made in the farre-spread cause of those that were fallen, without the assem∣bling of those that were neer unto them. Cypr. L. 2. Epist. 3. which course Cyprian himself also followed, L. 1. Ep. 8. & Cornelius Romanus, L. 3. Epist. 11. Why doe I spend time? There is nothing more evident to him that is acquainted with the ancient monuments of history, then that neighbours (even besides the Synod) did est soone meet together for deciding of strifes, for ordinations, for dissolving of doubts, & in sum••••••, for every weighty bu∣sinesse. Of which assemblies the Epistles of Cyp••••an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 full. And these assem∣blies what are they els but Classicall assemblies?

The exceptions that might be

made against these things are further answered by Mr Parker in the same place. It had behooved M^r C. to have refuted M^r P. herein, if he would have us give credit to this assertion of D. Sutcl.? V. The testimonies next alledged touching Geneva, as they are untrue in regard of the state of those Churches, so they are un∣justly applyed against Classes and Synods; seeing as Mr Par. sayth, and acknow∣ledgeth with D. Sutcl. that(t) 1.42 Geneva hath neither Classes nor Synods, because their ter∣ritorie is so small that it is not capable of them. Yet that they of Geneva doe allow the use of Classes and Synods, Mr Parker hath there manifested from their writings, and the confessions of their adversaries; and it doth also appeare by their practise, while their joynt Presbyterie doth not greatly differ from a Classis. But to speake properly, it is not a Classis, and to speak truely, they are not the first that have ap∣proved and practised such kinde of combined government. But lest M^r C. should seeme to urge us with the testimonies of these Authours, behold what proofes he addes to this purpose.

I. C. Touching these Assertions: I cannot see how Mr Paget, or any other is able to dis∣proove them. It is acknowledged, on all sides, that in the first hundred yeares after the Apostles, Ministers and Brethren of sundry Congregations, met sometimes, to conferre mu∣tually together of common Church-affaires; yet so as every particular Congregation, had al∣wayes (as the Centuries(v) 1.43 write) power and authority in themselves, to chuse their Officers, reject Heretickes, excommunicate offenders, and the like. ANSVV. 1. There is no∣thing here sayd to proove the foresaid assertions, but what is grounded upon a false supposition, which the Authour-hath before(x) 1.44 often discovered; viz. that par∣ticular Congregations have not still their power & authority in elections and cen∣sures, when they are combined with others, & subject to the power belonging to such combinations, for their direction, & correction, in case they offend. M^r C. leaving this without proofe, the assertions which he offers to maintaine, are in like manner left without defence, for ought he hath here sayd. II. The Magde∣burgenses never understood that the consociation of Churches, in such sort as it is maintained by the Defendant, is inconsistent with that power which they have in themselves; as hath been shewed(y) 1.45 before out of other places of the same Au∣thours, according to which the place here quoted must be explained; where they speak onely of the Apostles times, and of particular Congregations considered in themselves, without excluding their confederacy with others, for their mutuall help in iudging and deciding of causes.

I. C. So againe, for a hundred yeares next after; we read in Eusebius(z) 1.46, Iraeneus(a) 1.47, Nicephorus(b) 1.48, and others, that neighbour Ministers came often together, when there was any dangerous errour broched, or weighty points to be determined, serving for generall good: but this they did of liberty, not of duety; partly to preserve mutuall society; as Zipperus(c) 1.49 sayth) & partly that they might hereby be the more able, to resist adversaries as, M^r Par∣ker(d) 1.50 sayth. ANSVV. His quotations here, as they use to be, are either mis∣printed or impertinent: howbeit the things themselves for which they are alled∣ged, may easily be granted. But the question is, whether the Synods or mee∣tings of Ministers, held in that age did not exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in determining of weighty points, and deciding of controversies. If so be they

did, which cannot be denyed, seeing (as hath been(e) 1.51 noted against the Armini∣ans) such a deciding of Ecclesiasticall controversies was used in all the Synods of the ancient Orthodox Church: then it must needs follow that those times have given testimo∣ny unto such Synods as are here maintained. But to avoyd this Conclusion, M^r C. puts in this shift, which we must take upon his owne credit, saying, this they did of liberty, not of duety. But to what purpose is this evasion? 1. The oppo∣sing of dangerous errours, the preserving of mutuall society, and seeking help for the resisting of adversaries, the things here spoken of, are necessary dueties; and therefore to be done of duety, and not of liberty.* 1.52 Men are bound to the perfor∣mance itself, though there may be liberty used in the choyce of the circumstan∣ces. 11. M^r Parker saith expressely in the very place here cited by M^r C. that(f) 1.53 the ground of the combination of Churches is the duety of maintaining mutuall society, &c. and that bond of mutuall help which Moses mentioneth Num. 32.6. where the Reubeni∣tes and Gadites are urged to their duety, not left to their liberty.

In the next place he telles us his opinion touching the limits of Synodall acti∣ons, to wit, that(g) 1.54 Ecclesiasticall Officers may conclude what they judge meet & good, but not make a Church-act or sentence, unlesse the Church first know it, & give their free consent unto it. As if to any effectuall purpose weighty points could be determi∣ned, mutuall society preserved, and adversaries resisted, when dangerous er∣rours are broched (which are the reasons he himself hath allowed for assembling in Synods,) while every Church is left free to itself, to approve or reject what is so concluded. His reason is, because the power & authoritie to make Church-acts is in the body of the Congregation. The proofe hereof, as it is understood & applyed by him, is yet to be expected. _____ _____ Comming downe to the next hundred yeares, he seemes to acknowledge the practise of those times to be against him: but to ex∣cuse the matter, he alledgeth Casaubon, D. Whitaker, Mornaeus, Brightman, yea and Cyprian, Eusebius, and Ambrose, testifying that in those times men began to devise a new order and manner of governing Churches, &c. Observe here a notable fallacy, in his insinuating that to be the cause of such speeches which indeed was not. It is true that these and other Authours have complained of changes and corruptions crept into the Church in those times; but not because of Synodall authority then exercised: nay this hath ever been accounted the happines of those times, that the Churches had more liberty to assemble in Synods, then they could have be∣fore, in the times of persecution under Heathen Emperours. Constantine is every where commended for his religious respect unto the welfare of the Church in assembling the Synod of Nice. On the other side the wickednes of Licinius is no∣ted by his forbidding the use of such Assemblies. Though Episcopall dignity grew to a greater height in those times then before, yet Synodall jurisdiction was the same that had been used formerly, save onely that the favour of the Empe∣rours, publick liberty, and the increase of offences together with the inlargement of the Churches are(h) 1.55 observed to have made the Assemblies more generall and frequent then in former ages. And therefore whatsoever M^r C. affirme, there is no reason why we should dissent from what was before(i) 1.56 alledged out of D. F. whom he had cited for his witnesse, who speaking of the authoritie of Synodes, sayth,

Which authoritie we know to be granted to the Church by our Saviour Christ; practised by his Apostles; cōtinued by their successours 300 yeares, before there were any Christian Emperours.

Afterwards falling againe to the point of Popular Government, he sayth,(k) 1.57 Mr Beza is very streyt to the people, hardly granting the liberty which the very Iesuits doe: he should have shewed wherein; for the Iesuites are knowne to(l) 1.58 expound the word Church by Prelates, in the place whereunto he sends us in Maldonate. To evince the late rising of Presbyteriall authoritie in elections, he argueth from the 13^th Canon of the Synod of Laodicea, mentioned(m) 1.59 by Beza, where it was or∣dered that the election of Ministers should not be permitted to the multitude or people. but 1. He doth not rightly interpret the Canon, when he saith that this Synod pro∣hibited the body of the Congregation, from using that liberty and power, which they before al∣wayes had in Ecclesiasticall government. For as Beza saith in the place by him quoted, the manner of election here forbidden was not essentiall but accidentall: Chemnitius also(n) 1.60 shewes that the people were not thereby excluded from the election, but that their consent was still required; that this Synodall decree was occasioned by the peoples abusing their right unto tumults, seditions and diverse confusions. 2. By a like inference he might conclude that other erroneous opinions and disordered practises, condemned in the Councils and Synods of those times, were before al∣lowed and used in the Church.

[ III] THat which he pretends to answer in the third place, is taken from this ex∣pression which the Authour used in his Preface, saying, That which some will have to be the slavery & bondage of a Church, that I esteeme to be the liberty, safety and preservation of Churches. That which they count a Tyrannicall government, that I be∣leeve to be a Sanctuary against Tyranny▪ and afterwards in the book itself,(o) 1.61 If I should in doctrine oppugne, and in practise deny unto the members of this Church, this liberty of appeale unto the Classis, as they doe here condemne it in me, then might they justly complaine of tyrannicall government and corrupt doctrine, then had they cause to bewayle their slave∣ry and bondage. Thus he declared his judgement touching the benefit of this kinde of government in opposition to the Title prefixed unto the printed Complaints, which M^r C. knew best who framed. The matter of Argument couched in these words is sufficiently explained and vindicated(p) 1.62 before, where the libertie of Appeales, suitable to common equity, and instituted in the Law, is prooved to be agreeable unto the doctrine of the Gospel.

I. C. ANSVV. I. It is a strange course, when there ariseth a controversy touching two contrary opinons, which of them is true, & to be embraced; to draw the resolution hereof, to the consideration of the usefulnes of the opinions, or practises questioned. As if because a thing is usefull, therefore it is to be concluded it is true: &c. REPL. 1. It is strange M^r C. did not discerne, that there is no other course of reasoning in the Authours holding Classi∣call government to be a Sanctuary against Tyranny, & the denyall of Appeales a mat∣ter of slavery & bondage; then in M^r Cannes & others, accounting Independency to be the libertie & freedome of a Church, & subjection to Classicall government slavery & bondage. What is here sayd unto the one, may as fitly be applyed against the other. If his answer be found, he doth plainely overthrow his owne(q) 1.63 Arguments, built upon the same foundation which here he seeks to destroy. There was no

usefulnes mentioned in the Authours words, nor any other to be understood, then such as is implyed in the sayd & other the like expressions and reasonings of M^r C. 11. Though it be certaine that every trueth of God is usefull, & to be used with∣out gainsaying, when it appeareth to be such; yet when this trueth is denyed, and the point controverted, it is no strange course to proove it to be law by the agreement which it hath with that which is confessed to be law. This the Au∣thour hath done in the place above mentioned. And besides, seeing according to that* 1.64 law of lawes commonly received, the safetie of the people is the highest law; and that Appeales are(r) 1.65 for the relief of the oppressed, and a remedy against wrongs & injuries; why may we not conclude that such a government where they are in due manner admitted, is a Sanctuarie against Tyranny, and in this respect rather to be embraced then Independency, where the same are denyed?

I. C. ANSVV. II. The Papists and Hierarchie for their Discipline give the very same reason; viz. that there may be no Tyranny and oppression among brethren, &c. REPL. And so doth M^r C. for Independencie,(s) 1.66 that a particular Congregation may not of a Mistres become a servant; instead of being a superiour wilfully vassall & enslave herself, &c.

I. C. ANSVV. III. I doe deny that this government by Classes & Synods serves better for the Churches welfare, then that which the Apostles instituted, &c. REPL. And so wil we, when he hath prooved that Independency is the government instituted by the Apostles.

I. C. ANSVV. IV. If it should be granted that particular Congregations by this kinde of government, shall have peace, profit, credit & other worldly respects: yet this is no suffici∣ent reason, &c. REPL. The Defendant never used such a reason: this is a skarre∣crow of his owne setting up, and therefore we must give him leave to please him∣self in that fivefold shot which he makes as it.

[ IV] THe fourth reason which he supposeth he hath found in the Authours book, is the mention which he made of the determinations of Nationall Synods concer∣ning the power exercised by the Classis, and the consent of all Reformed Churches. Hereunto he answers, I. Councils may erre, &c. II. These testimonies are all humaine, &c. III. This reason is the same which the Papists use, &c. REPL. I. The Decrees of Synods were not alledged to proove the lawfulnes of this government, but to shew the established exercise of it before the Author either knew the Classis or they him, & that therefore he hath not subjected the Church to this power. II. Though Coū∣cils may erre, yet it doth not therfore follow that they do alwayes erre & that they may not make decrees for the deciding of controversies, as Vedelius(t) 1.67 sheweth a∣gainst the Arminians. III. Though the decrees of Synods have no absolute authori∣ty, yet being framed according to the word of God, they doe specially binde the Churches that are in combination with them: as when a Church-act or sentence is made so as M^r C. would have it, he will not deny but that the Congregation is bound to observe it. The other exceptions here added are already answered.

[ V] IN the next place he undertakes to answer what was objected touching the long continuance of that which some of later times onely did complaine of. Here M^r C. brings in W.B. pretending ignorance of the former state of that Cogrega∣tion, yet in such termes as might hide the point in question from the inconsiderate Reader. But not to speak of what hath been frequently noted before, the colour

given to this pretēce, which W.B. probably never dreamed of till it was suggested by M^r C. is when he makes him say, The thing specially, which induced me so to thinke was his owne words, written to Mr Ainsworth; reporting how he was first made our Mini∣ster: hee saith,(v) 1.68 The Dutch Eldership in this City being desired, both for their counsell & help in his ordination; deputed three of their brethren to assist us in this businesse, &c. this they did not as assuming authoritie* 1.69 to themselves over us: but in our name, & by our request, &c. If the Classis assumed not then any authority unto themselves over us, how comes it to passe that they doe it now? Or how will it hang toge∣ther, that their power is ancient; and yet 20 or 30 yeares past, they used it not. This to me seemes grosse contradiction, &c. REPL. This his conceit of a grosse contradiction, which he is so taken with that he spends almost a whole page of his Rhetorick upon it, is no better then a grosse mistake of his owne, which he hath blindely runne into by not discerning betwixt things that differ. 1. He confounds these two things as if they were one & the same, viz. the Dutch Eldership of that city, & the Classis; which being two distinct assemblies, there can be no contradiction in affir∣ming that of the one which is denyed of the other. The Dutch Eldership is not the Classis, no more then the English Eldership of the same city. They are both members of the Classis, together with other Congregations of the neighbour townes & villages. Now the Elderships of particular Churches are not subject one to another, neither doth one exercise authority over another, as hath been shewed(x) 1.70 before. It is the Classis, or combination of more Churches or Elder∣ships, sending their Deputies thither, to whom is asscribed the power of determi∣ning the matters of particular Congregations. And this is so evident that if M^r C. had but consulted hereabout with W. B. in whose name he pleades on this man∣ner, he might have been sufficiently informed of this trueth. Yea he might easily have learnt it out of the Authours former book, where he saith of the same Dutch Consistory,(y) 1.71 Though they had no power to judge & determine the matter by their sentence, yet they refused not to give their counsell &c. 11. Though it had been spokē of the Clas∣sis, which was sayd of the Dutch Consistory, yet there had been no contradiction in the Authors words, saying that they assumed no authority to themselves over them in his Ordination, & yet avouching that the power which they exercised of later times, is the same which they had & practised long before, for 1. The power which the Classis exerciseth, is not by them assumed, but given unto them & acknowled∣ged to be their due by the Congregations that either at first or afterwards enter in∣to this confederacy for the submitting of themselves unto such an assembly in all requisite cases. 2. The orders according to which the Classes doe here exercise their authority,(z) 1.72 doe not in ordinary cases require the manifestation thereof in the Ordination of Ministers; which being onely(a) 1.73 the solemne introduction of the Minister already chosen into the free exercise of his function, the Classis doth leave it to the Congregation itself, after they have consented to the choyce of the Minister. 3. When a Congregation destitute of fit men for the solemnising of an Ordination doth seek unto a neighbour Classis, Consistory, or Minister, for their counsel & help herein; they that in such cases doe yeeld unto their desire, doe not exercise authority over that Congregation where the Minister is ordained: seeing they

performe that work in the name & at the request of the sayd Congregatiō. What∣soever power & authoritie is therein exercised by a neighbour Minister, is not by him assumed, but received from the desire of those that seek his help, for the performance of this service unto them in a time of need, as the Authour had before explai∣ned himself in the(b) 1.74 same book. And therefore he hath herein no way contradic∣ted himself, neither can this excuse W.B. from that which was objected unto him.

But by the conclusion of this plea it seemes M^r C. did not so much intend there∣by the defence of his client, as the casting of some disgrace upon the Authours book, called An Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists, which he loves to have a fling at upon all occasions: but his beating of the aire is apparent to those that observe his blowes, & mark where they light. From what is now said it is manifest how vainely he hath here applyed against the said book, what the Au∣thor had sayd touching Mr Robinsons Iustification of Separation, viz. that it was sick of King Iehorams incurable disease, &c. which M^r C. himself hath(c) 1.75 elswhere in his wonted language, acknowledged to be true. But to hasten to an end, & to op∣pose somewhat unto this censorious & the forementioned slanderous conclusion of M^r C. that the Reader may partly understand what entertainment that Arrow a∣gainst the Separation hath had among the godly learned, & what they have judged of the Authors paines therein; I have here set downe the testimony of that wor∣thy servant of Christ,* 1.76 Mr Hy. as it was written by himself to the Authour in these words. I thanke you for the Arrow of your owne Quiver, which now of late I have receaved, according to your letter. You have fashioned & feathered it so well, headed & poynted it with such diligence & care, drawne it up to the head with such strength, directed & discharged it with such & so sure ayme & skill, that it hath pierced, not onely the head, but the heart of the Brownists cause, & Rabbines fancyes & forgeries; wherein I professe you have given me better satisfaction both of your owne sufficiency for polemicall imployment in the Lords service (whereof notwithstanding I ever held a very good opinion) & of the weaknesse & vanity of all their forces & fortresses, raised & advanced against either Gods Church, or Gods word, then hitherto I ever had, or could ever by any thing that I have heard or seene, attaine unto. Which if I might not speake as truely, as freely; or did not thinke as unfainedly, as I write it willingly, I should feare this might savour of some spice of flattery, which I have, & (I know) you neither love, nor looke for at my hand. The substance of this his ju∣dicious & unpartiall approbation, hath been confirmed by sundry others, in like manner eminent for learning & piety, & shall doubt∣les be further verifyed hereafter, according to His gracious dis∣posing, who hath sayd,* 1.77 The memory of the just is blessed: and, The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Chur. plea, p. 92.
• (b) 1.2

  Answ. to W.B. &c
• (c) 1.3

  Church. pl. p. 100.
• (d) 1.4

  Pag. 40, 73. 168.
• (e) 1.5

  Answ. to W. B. p. 71. 88.
• (f) 1.6

  Chur. pl. p. 15. 16.
• (g) 1.7

  Answ. to W. B. Pref.
• (h) 1.8

  Pag. 32, 33.
• (i) 1.9

  Pag. 109.
• (k) 1.10

  Discov. p. 189. 190.
• (l) 1.11

  Ch. 7. Sect. 2-7.
• (m) 1.12

  Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 4. c. 1. & de Verb. Dei. l. 3. c. 5.
• (n) 1.13

  Pag. 156. 157. &c. 164. &c.
• (o) 1.14

  Epist 42. ad Proc.
• (p) 1.15

  P. 222. 223.
• (q) 1.16

  Cons••l. ad Caes. & Stat. &c. Tract. The∣ol. vol. 2. p. 111. 112.
• (r) 1.17

  Admon. de lib Con∣cord. c. 12. Op. tom. 2. col. 686.
• (s) 1.18

  De Con∣cil. l. 1. c. 1.
• (t) 1.19

  Mat. 21.26. Act. 3.26.
• (v) 1.20

  Zezom. l. 7. c. 7.
• (x) 1.21

  Theod. l. 2. cap. 7.
• (y) 1.22

  Pag. 176.
• (z) 1.23

  Protoc. Embd. Act. 101. n. 1. q. 7. Cl. Cl. Bekent. p. 218. Clop∣penb. Canc∣ker der We∣der-doop. p. 535.
• (a) 1.24

  Faukel. Babel der Weder-doop. pag. 166, 167, 190.
• (b) 1.25

  Protoc. Embd. Act. 78. n. 4. & Act. 80. n. 2.
• (c) 1.26

  Gesprec to•• Zierickz. p. 21.
• (d) 1.27

  Protoc. Embd. Act. 99. n. 1. Fauk. Babel der We∣derd. D a. & p. 215.
• (e) 1.28

  Babel der Weder∣d. C4. a. & C6. b.
• (f) 1.29

  Act. 3.26. Zozo. l. 7. c. 7. Theod. l. 2. c. 7.
• (g) 1.30

  Chur. pl. p. 94.
• (h) 1.31

  Pag. 72. & 105.
• (i) 1.32

  Ch. pl. p. 77-81-89. &c.
• (k) 1.33

  Ch. 2.3, 4.
• (l) 1.34

  Bilson perp. gov. c. 16. p 387
• (m) 1.35

  Sutclif. Discipl. c. 8. p. 138.
• (n) 1.36

  Bancrost surv. c. 22. p. 353. Comp. Ch. p. 91, 93, 94.
• (o) 1.37

  Hook. Ecc. Polit. Pref.
• (p) 1.38

  Perpet. Gov. p. 388
• (q) 1.39

  Ibid. p. 376.
• (r) 1.40

  Ibid. p. 378.
• (s) 1.41

  De Po∣lit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. p. 355.
• (t) 1.42

  Ibid. p. 361.362.
• (v) 1.43

  Cent. l. 2. c. 4. p. 391.
• (x) 1.44

  Pag. 30.156, 157, 164, &c.
• (y) 1.45

  P. 173.174, 175.
• (z) 1.46

  L. 3. c. 22. L. 5. c. 16. L. 3. c. 19.
• (a) 1.47

  L. 3. c. 1.2.3.
• (b) 1.48

  L. 4. c. 23.
• (c) 1.49

  L. 3. c. 7.
• (d) 1.50

  Eccl. Pol. p. 329, 330.
• (e) 1.51

  Prof. Leyd. Cen∣sur. Confes. Remonstr. Pref. § 14. Vedel. de Arcan. Ar∣min. l. 2. c. 6. p. 186.
• * 1.52

  See before, p. 78.
• (f) 1.53

  De Pol. Eccl. l. 3. p. 329.
• (g) 1.54

  Ch. pl. p. 95.
• (h) 1.55

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 10. c. 3. Iun. Ani∣madv. in Bellarm. de Concil. l. 1. c. 10. n. 2. Camerar. Hist. Syn. Nic. p. 212. edit. Ni∣ceph.
• (i) 1.56

  P. 204.
• (k) 1.57

  Ch. pl. p. 95.
• (l) 1.58

  Bellarm. de Verbo Dei, l. 3. c. 5. Mariana & Em. Sa, in Mat. 18.17.
• (m) 1.59

  Respō∣si. ad Tract. de Ministr. Evang. grad. c. 22. p. 154, 155.
• (n) 1.60

  Exam. Concil. Tri∣dent. par. 2. p. 411, 412. ed. 1606.
• (o) 1.61

  Pag. 83.
• (p) 1.62

  P. 36- 41.
• (q) 1.63

  Ch. pl. p. 71. & 76. Arg. 9. & Reas. 7.
• * 1.64

  Salus po∣puli supre∣ma lex esto.
• (r) 1.65

  Luth. Tom. 1. f. 231.
• (s) 1.66

  Ch. pl. p. 76.
• (t) 1.67

  De Ar∣can. Armin. l. 2. c. 6. p. 183.184.
• (v) 1.68

  Arrow ag. Separ. p. 116.
• * 1.69

  Note.
• (x) 1.70

  Pag. 29, 30, & 159.
• (y) 1.71

  Answ. to W. B. p. 70, 71.
• (z) 1.72

  Kerckē. Orden. Nat. Syn. Dordr. Art. 4.
• (a) 1.73

  Ames. Medul. l. 1. c. 39. th. 34.
• (b) 1.74

  Arrow ag. Separ. p. 111, 112.114.
• (c) 1.75

  Stay a∣gainst stray∣ing. p. 142.
• * 1.76

  Frō Bunb. Iul. 8. 1619.
• * 1.77

  Prov. 10.7. Psal. 112.6.