A DEFENCE OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT, Exercised in PRESBYTERIAL, CLASSICAL, & SYNODALL ASSEMBLIES; According to the practice of the Reformed Churches: Touching 

I. The power of a particular Eldership, against those that plead for a mere Popular Government, specially Mr AINSWORTH in his Animadversion to Mr Clyft. etc.  
II. The authority of Classes and Synods, against the Patrons of Independency: answering in this point Mr DAVENPORT his Apologetical Reply, etc. and Mr CAN his Church's Plea, &c, sent forth first by W. Best, and afterwards for this part of it, under the title of Zion's Prerogative Royal.    
By JOHN PAGET, late able and faithful Pastor of the Reformed English Church in Amsterdam.  
Hereunto is prefixed an Advertisement to the Parliament, wherein are inserted some Animadversions on the Cheshire Remonstrance against Presbytery: by T. P.  
MDCXLI. Printed by H. A. for Thomas Vnderhill, dwelling at the sign of the Bible, in Woodstreet, LONDON.   

AN Humble Advertisement to the high Court OF PARLIAMENT.  
Right Honourable, and most prudent Patriots;  
IT is the divine observation of Ecclesiastes the Son of David King in jerusalem, 
(a) Eccles. 3.1, 7.  To every thing there is a season: A time to keep silence, and a time to speak. Truly it hath seemed to be a time to keep silence in some bygone years in England, when the 
(b) Amos, 5.13.  prudent Ministers of God were necessitated to keep silence through the evil of the times, having been 
(c) Isa. 29.21.  made offenders for a word, as if their doctrine had been 
(d) Amos, 7.10.  conspiracy against the State, and the land not able to bear all their words. Howbeit for the English 
(e) Isa. 62.1.6.  Zion and jerusalems' sake, the Lords remembrancers could not hold their peace nor keep silence in secret: but 
(f) Isa. 26.20.  entering into their chambers, and shutting the doors about them, to hid themselves as it were for a little moment, have poured out their complaints and supplications before the Lord (who is 
(g) Psal. 65.2.  a God that heareth prayers, and 
(h) Math. 6.6.  seethe in secret) waiting on him till the indignation should be overpast. But now it seemeth there is a time to speak in England, (And 
(i) Prov. 15.23.  a word spoken in due season how good is it?) sigh 
(k) 1. Cor. 16.9.  a great door & effectual is opened by a longed-for hopeful Parliament. Oh how admirable it is, even to amazement! that the hearts and tongues of the people of God throughout the English nation, have been so graciously enlarged 
(l) Hos. 14.2.  in taking words with them, (not only 
(m) Zach. 12.12, 13, 14.  in their humiliations apart in families, but also) on the days 
(n) 2. Chron. 20.3.4.  appointed by authority for solemn prayer & fasting; to 
(o) Ezr. 8.21.  seek a right way for themselves, and for their little ones, and for all their substance; speaking and crying unto the Lord, 
(p) Amos, 7.5.  Cease we beseech thee, by whom shall English jacob arise? for he is small. Yea, and is it not exceedingly marvellous also? how after supplicating God in such sort, their 
(q) Act. 17.16.  Spirits were stirred in them to speak to your Honours of the cure-all-court of Parliament in their manifold Petitions for Reformation, contributing votes by thousands of several Counties. And what though 
(r) 1. Cor. 16.9.  there be many adversaries that do murmur and repine at those 
(f) Luk. 19.39, 40.  wel-approved zealots? May it not be thought that if they had held their peace, the stones would immediately have cried out?  
The blessed tidings of this reviving state of English affairs spreading abroad in sundry countries, is come also into the United Netherlands, to refresh (as 
(t) Prov. 25.25.  good news is wont from a fare country) such of us of the English nation, who have been enforced by home-oppressions to seek for liberty, employment and livelihood (as the 
(v) 2. Chro. 11.13, 14.  Priests & Levites in Israel did on somewhat the like occasion) who yet in our measure 
(x) jer. 51.50. Psal. 137.5, 6.  remember the Lord afar of, not daring through forgetfulness to let go out of mind our most endeared native country. 
(y) Psal. 122.6.9.  Let them prosper that love and seek the welfare of England.  
Hence your Honour's most humble advertiser convinced of not 
(z) 2. King. 7.9.  doing well to remain altogether silent, readily took hold on the opportunity of the ensuing treatise (as 
(a) Luk. 19.3, 4.  Zacheus climbed up into a Sycomore tree to see his Saviour, because of the press, and littleness of his stature) to insert a word, to be as 
(b) Mark. 12.42.  the widow's farthing, some addition to the great stock of more able qualified seekers of Reformation.  
Most noble and right worthy Sirs; It were much to have been wished, t'had never been 
(c) 2. Sam. 1.20.  told in Gath, that the 
(d) Psal. 12.1. Mic. 7.1, 2.  godly men have ceased, and the faithful failed in England: Woe is us, 'tis too notoriously known, how that divers worthies of the Lord of b. m. 
(e) 2. King. 2.12.  the chariots and horsemen of the English Israel, who by 
(f) Psal. 46.4.  the crystalline streams of pure doctrine made glad the city of God, had their 
(g) Reve. 11.7.  untimely deaths hastened by sharp tempests of persecution raised against them by the Hierarchy through their Summoning, Traducing, Reproaching, Suspending, Excommunicating; Depriving, Fining, Imprisoning, & trampling on them as unsavoury salt, or as broken and despised vessels cast to the walls. Others have been constrained to provide for their breathing as they could by removing into foreign parts, after much suffering at home, and thereby exposed to the bitter miseries 
(h) Psal. 56.8. Isa. 16.3, 4.  of wanderers, being debarred of the pleasant land of their nativity, ancient habitations, natural kindred, familiar acquaintance, means of subsistence, accustomed air, and wont manners of people; and instead thereof 
(i) Ezek. 3.5, 6.  cast into a land of strangers, and of a strange language, as a greater aggravation of their most disconsolate condition. Yea & 
(k) Psal. 44.17.  all this come upon them, only for their 
(l) Act. 24.16.  endeavouring to keep consciences void of offence towards God, & towards men; in refusal of conformity to some superstitious ceremonies, & subscription to the Canon (albeit they never refused to subscribe according to 
* Stat. Q. Eliz. 13.12.  the law of the land) whereas otherwise they were orthodox and painful in their ministry, and unblamable in their conversation, approving themselves to the 
(m) 2. Cor. 4.2.  consciences of their adversaries. Moreover they were such as highly prized the Church-assemblies of England, and diligently frequented and joined in the solemn administration of the word, Sacraments, and prayers, so fare as they could free themselves from their own personal pollutions and defilements, as 
(n) Mat. 23.1, 2, 3.  our Lord Christ directeth in such case.  

A true report of some Prelatical proceed in Chester Diocese.  May it please your Honours to receive a hint of some Prelatical proceed, exemplified mostly in the particular of your humble advertiser; who was called to the work of ministry many years ago in such place of Chester Diocese, where he could execute his function, without such officiating as is usually required of incumbents, that take the Cure in Parishes. In process of time 
* Now B. of Durham.  D. Morton became Prelate, who taking knowledge of divers Non-conformists in this Diocese, 
† H. Commission pretended ag. Papists in Lancashire chief bend ag. refusers of superstitious ceremonies.  sent out letters missive to summon some of them to the high Commission Court then kept at Chester. Which being divulged, it pleased God to stir up some of the eminent & well-affected Knights & Esquires inhabiting in that Diocese, to consult & agree together to write a letter to the Bishop in these words; 
* A copy of a letter sent to the B. of Ch. from some worthy gentlemen of the diocese, in behalf of some non-conformists.  Right Reverend, etc. Whereas we understand that divers of our painful and discreet Ministers, are lately by letters missive from your L. & others of his Majesty's high Commission for causes Ecclesiastical within the Diocese of Chester, enjoined to appear before you, to answer to such matters as shallbe objected against them: We have thought fitting to acquaint your L. with our opinions of these our Ministers, whose names are subscribed, for the better preventing (if need require) of such sinister and malicious informations, which in these cases are frequently stirred up against men of their sort & quality, sometimes by lewd & profane persons remaining in our own Church, & many times by the disguised, subtle, & superstitious Romanists, & Church-papists, whose hearts are wholly against us, all the while their faces are seemingly with us. First therefore we have observed (so fare as we are able to judge) in these our Ministers, Integrity of life & conversation, orthodoxal soundness of doctrine in their teaching, diligence & painfulness in their places; sobriety, & peaceableness in their dispositions, free from factiousness. In regard whereof, as also the great good and profit which our Congregations where they remain have abundantly received from their ministry; we are emboldened eftsoons to entreat, etc. The letter was delivered to the B. at 
* The B. had besides his Bishopric the Parsonage of Stocport, being the greatest benefice in all Cheshire.  Stocport, who having read it, let fall these words. They whom the letter concerneth are the worse to be liked, for the good testimony the Gentlemen give of them: And then speaking to me, (being one of the Subscribed in the letter) required a proposal of any argument against the use of the Cross in Baptism; that so he might instantly discover (as he boastingly spoke) our weakness and folly in refusing to conform. But I desired to decline disputes with him, partly sigh my errand at that time was to obtain his favour for release from the High C. Court, if it might be procured; and partly sigh He was to be the chief judge in our cause, which might prove prejudicial to us in case of a denied dimission. Nevertheless when he pressed his demand in the presence of many persons of quality (lest I should seem to betray a good cause in being unwilling or 
* 1. Pet. 3.15.  unready to give answer, when a reason of my profession was asked) I propounded an argument, stating it according to the fairest pretence of urging the sign of the Cross in Baptism, even as the Canon interpreteth the use of it: For the dedicating of the party baptised to God. Whence I proved that the sign of the Cross in Baptism was superstitious, sigh such dedication signified by it, is an usurpation of an office besides divine institution, & consequently unlawful, as 
* Levit. 10.1, 2. Galat. 1.8, 9  by two texts of Scripture alleged & applied I did evince. After some debate about this argument, & of a nonsense distinction used by him, viz. A dedication of consecration, and a dedication of protestation, etc. He then said, he could not believe that the Canon was so explained, & therefore sent for the book of Canons; but being thereby further convinced, & not knowing what to answer, he passionately wished, that either it had been otherwise expressed, or that no explanation had been added to the Canon. In fine he ingenuously acknowledged his former neglect to study these controversies, having hitherto esteemed lightly of them; yet sigh occasion seemed to require, he now resolved to apply his studies a while this way. Heerupon he was pleased to undertake our dismission from the H. C. C. till he should first have assayed to win us to conformity in a scholastical way, sigh he discerned in us (as he said) some scholarship above his expectation. At the same time he ordered us, severally to set down in writing within the space of the month following (& then to bring to him) 3 
* The B. would not dispute at all about the greatest grievance of the Non-conformists, viz. intolerable subscription unto 5 books in several points questionable and faulty.  arguments, against the Cross in Baptism, the Surplice in divine service, & kneeling at the Lords supper. His order was accordingly observed, albeit a desired success failed. For some of us shortly after were again summoned by letters missive, to the H. C. Court, & then dealt with in a vexatious sort. I was compelled to travel 30 miles from my dwelling, three several times in 14 days. On one of these Court days M. Nichols of b. m. a most pious and learned Minister, being required to give an account of his arguments he had delivered to the B. was in open Court by the B. & D. Snell scornfully taunted & giered, as if what he had written was raw, and should therefore be roasted, when they were not able to gainsay the wisdom & Spirit, by which he spoke. At the same time (I having been immediately before sharply spoken unto by the B. and Commissioners, & deferred to the Court for the week following) one of the Bs chief 
* Prelates have gentlemen to wait on them, but they are such for the most part, as are notoriously debauched, as is commonly observed.  Gentlemen, accompanied with two Popish Gentlemen, belonging to a great Earl then in Chester, plucked me a little aside, & did idly & disdainfully upbraid me of simplicity, & reproach me as if I were conjuring, because I looked to the ground, & answered nothing; they therefore also concluded I should go to Hell, sigh my looks seemed thitherward. Such their vile language uttered likewise with blasphemers swearing & cursing, in the hearing of many thronging about us, occasioned a Gentleman that was present to complain of their uncivil behaviour, & in humane carriage: whereupon they being much enraged, thrust him on the sudden to the door of the palace, and cast him headlong down the stairs, to the endangering of his life. When the Court was risen the B. was privately informed of his man's insolences, who seemed to be somewhat discontented towards him; yet said, that what his servant had disorderly done could be no disparagement to him, that was his master. At my coming to Chester the week following, as I had been ordered, the B. was not well in the morning of the Court-day, & in that respect kept his chamber, yet having notice of my attending, sent for me, & lying on his bed reasoned & expostulated with me touching the Ceremonies a full hour, letting fall by the way some complaints, that his remiss course with us, had been prejudicial to his preferment to Lincoln Bishopric, vacant about that time. So that in great passion he threatened to suspend, excommunicate, degrade, and make the land too hot for me; ask me what I would do. I answered in the words of the Prophet, 
* Mic. 7.7.  I will look unto the Lord, I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me. He retorted, God would not hear a blasphemer, a blasphemer of his mother the Church of England, & that despised her ordinances. I answered again, that I desired to fear God, & abhorred blasphemy; & that a refusal of conformity to superstitious ceremonies, esteemed by the Prelatical party to be things indifferent, was neither blasphemy nor contempt. In conclusion he was pleased to dismiss me at that time without any censure, save of paying large fees to officers of the Court, towards payment whereof he gave ten shillings. Not long after this the said Prelate printed a book in defence of the 3 nocent Ceremonies, pretending to answer our arguments given in against them, 
* Abridgm. was given to the B. by M. Midsley son of father Midsley. They both had been Vicars of Ratsdale in Lancashire, & deprived for inconformity to Ceremonies. The sone after degradation became a Physician, & was prosecuted for not kneeling at Sacrament.  & also that unanswerable Abridgement of the reasons of the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese, so fare as it argued against them. But the weakness of his Defense and pretended answer is fully & effectually discovered by the learned D. Ames in his printed Reply thereto: And in his Fresh Suit against humane Ceremonies in God's worship, or Triplication to D. Burgess his rejoinder for D. Morton.  
The translation of the said Prelate to Lichfeild near the same time, became occasion to D. Bridgman, the Parson of Wiggan in Lancashire, to succeed in the Bishopric of Chester; who for a space moved not much against any, pursuing rather his worldly affairs, save only that he suspended a few Non-conformists, and 
* At Knutesford a market town in Cheshire a Gentleman of the country being vainly disposed, did cause a bear passing through the street to be led into the Chapel: which the Bishop hearing of suspended the Chapel from having any divine service or sermons for a long time, as being profaned by the bear.  Knutesford Chappel. But when D. Neale the Prelate of Winchester, could not resist the title of Grace, but was removed to York, & should visit in Chester Diocese, being in that Province; then the said Prelate of Chester, pretending fear of the Archb. of Y. in case that at his Visitation he should find any Non-conformists, & so tax him of negligence or partiality, did therefore send for & inhibit privately most of the Nonconformists in his Diocese. About the same time, upon notice given, I went to him at his house in Lancashire, & desired his favourable convivency as formerly; which he denied to grant, lest (as he said) he should hazard the favour of his Prince. Yet he required to hear at that time what I could say against kneeling at the Sacrament. I alleged our Saviour Christ his argument against it. For 
† Math. 15.9. Mark. 7.7.  he esteemeth it a vain worshipping of him, when men's precepts are taught for doctrines; which by a just inference I applied against kneeling at the Sacrament. Now all the answer the B. gave was that he expected from me a more learned argument. And then said, He thought I would have insisted in the gesture used by Christ at the institution, which he would show me what manner of gesture that was, to convince thereby how unseemly the use of it would be in the Church. And so he gravely laid himself along on a bench by a table in his parlour, leaning on his elbow: & then affirmed Christ's posture all the Supper was such; which he said, I was not able to contradict, especially if I understood Greek, sigh the original word used in the Gospels, implied so much. I replied, that what ever my understanding in the Greek tongue was, yet undoubtedly the Translators of the new Testament were skilful therein, & had rendered it 
* Math. 26.20. Mark. 14.18. Luk. 22.14. john. 13.12.  Sitting. Yea & D. Morton, his predecessor, notwithstanding he kept a stir about the translation, yet confessed, it was a kind of sitting.  
About two years after (when 'twas thought the storm of the Archb. Visitation had been blown over) means was used again to the B. of Chester to obtain liberty of preaching; but failing, there were procured from Y. 3 writings, signed by the Register of the H. Com. in the behalf of three of us in Cheshire, giving way to our going on in preaching as formerly. But within three months following, attachments were brought from the H. Com. (no letters missive having preceded) to apprehend & bring us to York, & there to imprison us till we should give security to satisfy the Court, in all their demands. In this straight (having had some notice through the good providence of God, before the attachments could be served, & knowing too much already 
(a) 2. Thes. 3.2.  of the absurd unreasonableness of that Court) we withdrew ourselves as the 
(b) 1. King. 17.5.  Prophet Eliah sometime escaped the fury of Ahab. Howbeit the inquiry of these H. Comissi. was not only such, as was after the 
(c) Ibid. ca 18.10.  Prophet in public intimations in our Parishes in Cheshire, & taking the messengers oath he found us not, but also in some kind more malicious: for they fined us in great sums of money, & aggravated our fines one Court-day after another, & then returned them into the Exchequer at London, where they were extended for the King's use & then begged by M. Tyrrel a servant to his Maj. with whom we were enforced to compound for present money paid in hand to our great impoverishment, as being otherwise liable to greater troubles. I humbly beseech your Honours to pardon this boldness thus fare animated by your garcious aims & endeavours to vindicate the liberties of your distressed countrymen: Wherein I should still have remained patiently silent, both in my own & brother's behalf, had our sufferings been all (although the Hierarchy could not countervail the damage to our King & nation) & had there not now been an opportunity of some redress. 
(d) Esth. 7.4.  I crave leave therefore to suggest a few of the woeful fruits ❀ & sad consequents of Prelatical proceed. 
* Sad consequents of Prelacy.  For even hence it is come to pass that, I. Some well affected Parents have been discouraged from training up their hopeful sons in such learning as should fit to the Ministry. II. Some conscientious young men, having attained to a good degree of learning, have diverted, & applied their studies otherways. III. Some in the Ministry concerning the faith have made shipwreck, or schismed dangerously, entertaining unsound, & unwarrantable opinions & courses, turning to be Anabaptists, Separatists, Semi-separatists, etc. and others become licentious, or merely formal and careless in the execution of their calling. iv Some of the 
(e) 2. Pet. 2.2.  people have followed their pernicious & deceivable ways of Anabaptism, Separation, Independency, Popularity, & Profaneness, by reason of whom the way of truth is evil spoken of. 
(f) Hos. 4.9.  Like Priest, like People. V But behold greater scandals then these; for hence 
(g) Ezek. 8.3.  the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy, even 
(h) 2. Thes. 2.7.  the Mystery of iniquity hath been more bold to lift up the head, & 
(i) Ezek. 8.12, 16.  chambers of imagery have been raised at the upper end of Chācels, & Altars placed thereon, and worship directed towards the East. VI Hence 
* In the year 16 17. D. Morton B. of Chester framed the directions for the first liberty granted to sports on the Lord's day; at the same time he so eagerly prosecuted the Non-conformists about Ceremonies.  a wide gap hath been opened to Libertinism, in the audacious profanation of the Lords day; gross contempt of the faithful ministry; scorning at the performances of family duties; bolstering of ignorance, the stepdame of devotion; countenancing of Wakes, Rushbearings, Mixt-dancing, Maypoles, Beare-beating, Stageplays, Revellings, Healthings, & all manner of the like disordered courses, with a censuring all strictness in religion, & circumspect walking to be foolish preciseness & Puritanisme. VII. Hence have followed those irregular confusions in the popular and independent government of the Brownistically affected, breaking in pieces again and again to their great reproach; & yet discovering thereby, that their 
(k) Act. 5.38.  new way is not of God, sigh it doth daily come to nought, by their own disuniting and unchurching of themselves. viij. 
(l) judg. 5.15.  Hence have risen those great thoughts of heart amongst brethren, occasioning bitter contentions, fruitless janglings, censorious words, tart & galling writings, alienation of affections, strangeness of countenance, breach of Christian fellowship, interruption of prayers, & neglect of necessary mutual offices. ix. Yea & hence doubtless hath issued (as from the proper original) that unworthy Remonstrance against Presbytery, represented to the house of Peers from divers Noblemen and Gentlemen of Cheshire, as appeareth by a printed book under the name of Sir Thomas Aston Baronet, 1641. The grievous scandal & offence whereof may in some part be evinced by these short animadversions following.  

Animadversions on the Cheshire Remonstrance.  I. The title of it; A Remonstrance against Presbytery.  
ANIMADVERS. Of the title the same may be said, which was observed 
Declaration against Vorstius.  by the great & wise king james of famous memory, touching the title of Bertius his book de apostasia sanctorum, viz. The title only were enough to make it worthy the fire. Because I. The holy Scripture approveth of Presbytery, as a divine ordinance both for the 
(m) 1. Tim. 4.14.  imposition of hands, & also for 
(n) 1. Tim. 5.17.  the exercise of rule & government. II. Presbytery is established in the neighbour Reformed Churches, which are precious in the eyes of the Lord, & of all well-affected to the reformed religion in England. III. Prelatical men are not wont in their writings to contradict it simply. How cometh it then to pass that some in Cheshire 
(o) Numb. 12.8.  are not afraid to speak against Presbytery?  
II. The pretended occasion of the Remonstrance against Presbytery, alleged by the contriver & subscribers, is, A Petition; & Positions preached at Chester, & Knutesford, annexed to the Remonstrance.  
ANIMADV. The occasion of the suggested pretence, is but a mere pretence, having no just ground at all. For I. Neither the Petition, nor Positions annexed to the Remonstrance do seek for 
* Presbyterian discipline mentioned in the positions in greater characters seem to be the words of Remonst. not of the Preacher, disaffected to Presbyterian government.  Presbytery, but seem rather to affect a popular government. II. The Patrons of popular government (contended for in the positions) are for the most part either Separatists, or Semi-separatists, who are as opposite to Presbyterial government, as they are to Prelacy; as is well known to them that know them. And therefore it behooveth Cheshire men to 
(p) john. 7.24.  give righteous judgement, when they take upon them to censure, & in-no-wise confound & jumble together opinions & defenders of them so directly opposite. For 
(q) 2. Cor. 5.10.  we must all appear at the tribunal of the 
(r) Gen. 18.25.  righteous judge of all the world, who will do right.  
III. REMONSTR. taketh for granted that 
* Provincial & Diocesan B B. are to be understood by the Remonstr. otherwise nothing is concluded.  Provincial & Diocesan Bishops are of Apostolical institution; 
(f) Philip. 1.1. 1. Tim. 3.1.  alleging in the margin two texts of Scripture for his proof.  
ANIMADV. Neither of the texts alleged do infer an Apostolical institution of Provincial & Diocesan Bishops. For, I. The original words translated 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bishops or Overseers, & 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Presbyters or Elders, are equivalent names of the same office, & are so used in the 
(t) Act. 20.17, 28. 1. Pet. 5.1, 2.  Scripture. II. The pleaders for Hierarchy do grant that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase are the same. III. The text in the Epist. to Phil. 1.1. mentioneth Bishops in the plural number, that is, such officers as did oversee the Church at Philippi, & not a Bishop alone, superior to other officers in degree, or government, according to the opinion of hierarchical men 
(v) 3. john. 9  affecting preeminence. iv The text in 1. Tim. 3.1. mentioneth also office, as well as Bishop, which office is described in the 
(x) 1. Tim. 3.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  subsequent verses to be the office of the Presbyter. And this may appear further by comparing therewith the 
(y) Tit. 1.5, 6, 7.  Epist. to Titus. V It is good to be wise according to sobriety in understanding some things in 
(z) 2. Pet. 3.16.  Paul's Epistles & other Scriptures, lest for want of learning & stability they be wrested to destruction. This is an useful item for Cheshire men & others also.  
iv REMONSTR. commendeth Bishops, that they were the great lights of the Churches; and Martyrs in primitive times.  
ANIMADV. There is no consequence to justify Prelacy hence. For 1. Papists pretend the same thing, albeit unjustly, in the behalf of their Romish Bishops & Hierarchy. II. The name of Bishops or Presbyters is oftentimes indifferently by the Fathers attributed to those great lights, and Martyrs: as is evident in their books, & sufficiently cleared by Orthodox Writers against the Papists. III. Such Bishops as hadia superiority in those times, 
* jerom. Gomment. on Epist. to Titus.  received it from the Church in humane policy, not by divine institution.  
V REMONST. asscribeth to Prelates the redemption of the purity of the Gospel now professed in England from Romish corruption.  
ANIMADVERS. This assertion seemeth to want the truth of story. For 1. In the book of Martyrs alleged by the Remonstr. the reformation of religion is referred to King Edward himself, & his Counsel, & Parliament. II. King Edward approved himself better than the best of the Prelates, in withstanding toleration of Mass to his sister, at the request of the Emperor. III. Archb. Cranmer acknowledged to M. Cheke that King Edward had more Divinity in his little finger, than all they had in all their bodies. Let the Remonst. therefore henceforth take heed of detracting from Kings unjustly, to extol the Bishops unjustly.  
VI REMONST. observeth that divers of the Prelates have been great assertors of our religion against the common enemies of Rome.  
ANIMADV. I. Divers of the Prelates have been too great friends to Rome, as it is famously known, both heretofore, & of late also. II. The Prelates generally have more vehemently prosecuted the faithful Ministers refusing conformity to some popish ceremonies, (albeit of the same religion professed and established in England) then the superstitious & idolatrous Papists, the grand enemies of the reformed religion. II. The Prelates generally do make use of divers arguments used by Romanists against Protestants for their hierarchical discipline & Ceremonies. iv The greatest assertors of the reformed religion amongst the Prelates make use against the Papists of the Non-conformists arguments against prelacy & superstition. V Non-conformists & Ministers of the Reformed Churches, where Presbytery is established, have approved themselves oppugners of Antichrist to purpose.  
VII. REMONST. urgeth a continuance of Prelacy, sigh it is established by the laws of the land.  
ANIMADV. I. It sometimes falleth out that 
(a) 1. King. 12.28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.  unjust laws are enacted, & 
(b) 1. King. 16.26. Mic. 6.16.  continued in a land professing religion, touching both the Ministry & Ceremonies. II. Parliaments do aswell serve to repeal, as to enact laws, as just cause & occasion shall require. And accordingly English Parliaments have been wont to proceed.  
VIII. REMONST. affirmeth that in the doctrine of the Prelates generally taught nothing is found dissonant from God's word.  
ANIMADV. I. The Prelates generally have taught very seldom, so that it cannot much be taken notice what manner of doctrine they teach. Queen Eliz. is reported to say, that when she made a Bishop, she marred a Preacher. two. 
(c) 2. Cor. 11.13.  Deceitful workers do sometimes transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ. III. It is well known that many of them, & their favourites have been deeply stained with Popish, & Arminian points. iv The Prelates generally have countenanced Arminians rather than any way opposed them.  
IX. REMONSTR. suggesteth a danger of tenants preached publicly, & of printed pamphlets, etc.  
ANIMADV. I. Such 
* See above 2. Animadv.  suggestion against tenants intimated, doth not at all reflect on the seekers of Presbyterial government. II. Albeit 'twere to have been desired, that no such unwarrantable courses had been held by preposterous and popular zealots, yet it is no new thing that 
(d) Math. 13.39.  Satan by his instruments should sow tares in God's wheat field. III. Anabaptists in Luther's time were a great scandal to the begun glorious reformation, yet not any just ground of prejudice against it.  
X. REMONSTR. conceiteth that the 26 Prelates are easily responsal to Parliaments, for any of their deviations from the rule of law.  
ANIMADV. 1. Deviation that is 
(e) 2. King. 23.15.  wholly devious is not at all responsal either to. God or rational men. Such a deviation is Prelacy, considered as Prelacy, in the sense of the 
* D. Bilson, D. Downham, D. Hall.  rigid patrons of it. II. Prelates have not been easily responsal to Parliaments at any time for their deviations in prelacy, till this present Parliament. III. There are more than 26 Ordinaries that dispense the Civil & Canon law, viz. Suffragans, Chancellors, Commissaries, Arch-deacons, Officials, Surrogates, Rural deans, Subdeanes, etc. iv It is better to 
(f) Math. 15.13.  root up the plants, which God hath not planted.  
XI. REMONST. feareth future inconvenience may be found in the government of a numerous Presbytery in England, which may consist of near 40000 Church-governors.  
ANIMADV. I. No inconvenience need be feared in establishing of Christ's ordinance. II. The errors of Presbyteries in their government are responsal to Classes & Synods. III. It was the honour of the land 
(g) 1. Chro. 23.3, 4, 5.  of Israel in King David's reign, that there were numbered from the age of 30 years & upward 38000 Church-officers. And would it not be the honour of England in the reign of King Charles to have 40000 Elders to oversee the Lords houses in the days of the Gospel? iv It is much to be feared (such have been the unhappy fruits of Prelacy) that they that should be chosen to oversee in Parishes, willbe 
(h) 2. Chro. 29.34.  found too few, so that there willbe great need of uniting or combining several lesser Parishes adjoining into one Presbytery.  
XII. REMONSTR. apprehendeth that presbyterian government may prove to be inconsistent with Monarchy, and dangerously conducible to Anarchy.  
ANIMADV. I. Monarchy in the civil state and Presbytery being both God's ordinances are not inconsistent one with another. There may be a 
(i) Matth. 22.21.  rendering to Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are Gods, in one and the same Commonwealth. II. King 
* Basil. dor. Epist. to reader.  james of b. m. known and found a consistency of Monarchy and Presbytery together in Scotland. III. King Charles findeth the same in Scotland at this day. iv The United Netherlands do find by experience that Presbytery is no way conducible to Anarchy. But had the reins of Presbytery been loosed, as the Arminians affected, what might have ensued may easily be guessed by some begun commotions of that party.  
XIII. REMONSTR. feareth that the consequents of Presbytery would be the utter loss of learning & laws.  
ANIMADV. I. There 
(k) Psal. 53.5.  are some that oft fear, where no fear is. II. Learning and laws do flourish gloriously in the reformed Churches, where Presbytery is established. III. Prejudice and loss of learning and laws have in great part been occasioned by Prelacy. For 1. Is it not through the default of Prelates, that there are so many 
(l) Isa. 56.10.11.  unlearned & unable to preach in the ministry? 2. Is it not by the negligence of Prelates, that there are so many negligent Ministers, suffering their gifts to decay by seldom preaching? 3. Is it not from their qualifications and dispensations, there are so many Nonresidents, & Pluralists, as that other Scholars of better desert do want encouragement? 4. Doth not the Parliament well enough know & understand who are the Seekers of the subversion of the laws, and of introducing an arbitrary government?  
XIV. REMONS. is subscribed by a numerous sort of the Nobles, Baronet's, Knights, Esquires, Divines, Gentlemen, Freeholders, & others inhabitants of Cheshire.  
ANIMADV. This is indeed the sad consequent of Prelacy in Cheshire. Ah & alas, that 
* Cheshire the chief shire.  Cheshire not long ago reputed & deservedly esteemed for the 
(m) Prov. 12.26.  profession & power of religion more excellent than their neighbours, should 
(n) jer. 2.21.  now turn to a degenerate plant of a strange vine to the Lord! Especially the Ministry that had their spiritually glorious 
* Exercises at Northwich, Namptwich, Knutesford, Macclesseild, Bowden, Frodsham, Budworth, Torperley, Tarvin, Ince, Motterum, etc.  monthly Exercises, & solemn assemblies (besides their blessed Sabbaths) frequented by sundry of the renowned Gentry; & very many well-disposed people, whereby 
(o) 1. Tim. 3.13.  they purchased to themselves a good degree in Christianity & great boldness in the faith, which is in Christ jesus. But yet it may be thought in a charitable construction, some excuse of the greatness of their error, that either the most of them subscribed the Remonstrance 
(p) 2. Sam. 15.11.  in their simplicity, not knowing whereto it tended, or else in an inconsiderate haste, being 
* The letters sent to the several Hundreds required a hasty dispatch.  urged to do quickly, what they did, sigh dispatch was the life of the business, & no copies permitted to be taken. However, it's not to be doubted, but that 
(q) Reve. 2.1.  He that walketh amidst the golden candlesticks, 
(r) Reve. 3.4.  doth graciously take knowledge of many names in Cheshire (
(s) 1. King. 19.18.  it may be 7000) that as 
(t) Hos. 11.12.  juda do yet rule with God, and are faithful with the Saints.  
Right honourable, there is no fear of your abundant wisdoms in discerning of these grievous Prelatical maladies, nor of your compassionate faithfulness in applying seasonable remedies; sigh all men must needs acknowledge, that its 
(v) 1. King. 10.6.7.  a true report, they have heard of your acts & wisdom, exceeding the fame thereof. 
(x) Luk. 1.68.  Blessed be the Lord God of England that hath visited and redeemed his people. 
(y) Psal. 118.2.  Let the Churches of the Saints in England, Scotland, & Ireland, now say, his mercy endureth for ever. Let the Non-conformists (
(z) Psal. 83.3.  Gods hidden ones in those lands) now say, his mercy endureth for ever. Ye 
(a) judg. 6.12.14.  mighty men of valour, the Lord hath been with you hitherto, 
(b) 1. Sam. 17.36.  subduing the Lion & the Bear (even the High Commission court, & Star chamber) that did prey upon the flock. Go on in this your might to save from (that uncircumcised Philistin) the oppressing Hierarchy. And let it be 
(c) 1. Sam. 25.31.  no offence of heart to your Honours to 
(d) 2. Pet. 1.12.  be stirred up to go forward, making the word of God the 
(e) Psal. 119.24.  man of your counsel. And for your better help and 
(f) Act. 8.31.  guidance, may it please your Honours to make use of the labours of godly-learned Interpreters, that have been the excellent lights of the Reformed Churches, both 
* Calvin, Beza, G. Bucer, Didoclavius, etc.  abroad & also in 
* Cartwright, Traverse, Vdal, Parker, Bayne, etc.  England; observing withal the Apostolical advertisement touching 
(g) 1. Cor. 11.16.  the Custom of the Churches of Christ, and their 
(h) Colos. 2.5.  comely order, even of the purest 
* Scots, French, Dutch, etc.  reformed Churches from all Antichristianisme, both in doctrine & discipline. These Reformed Churches have in their cities, towns, and villages 
(i) 1. Tim. 4.14.  Presbyteries; 
(k) 1. Tim. 5.17.  consisting of teaching & ruling Elders, chosen by the plurality of their voices, consented unto by the Congregation, & approved by the Magistrates and Classis. These 
(l) Act. 20.17.28.  Elders do take heed to the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made them Overseers; They ordain Officers, admit to the Sacraments, admonish and censure offenders, according to 
(m) Math. 18.17.  Christ's rule of discipline: and they signify to the Congregation what belongeth to them to take knowledge of, either to consent unto the same, or except against it, as just cause shall require. And in case some difficulty do appear in the affairs of the Church, that cannot be decided well by the Presbytery, then they have a liberty (& are wont) to appeal 
(n) Act. 15.2.  & seek help & assistance from the Classis, consisting of neighbour Presbyteries, (called by some also Presbyteries) with which they are combined in an equal power & authority, no One exercising any prelatical preeminence. And if the matter controverted cannot satisfactorily be determined by the Classis, then there is a reference to the Provincial Synod, consisting of the Deputies choose by the several Classes, of equal power & authority. And if yet agreement be not made, than the matter is to be brought to a Nationall Synod, consisting of Deputies sent from the Provincial Synods. In their several Presbyteries, Classes, & Synods, Provincial & Nationall, they have Precedents and Scribes chosen from amongst themselves for the more orderly menaging of their Sessions. And in Synods some chief Magistrates are present to see order observed. This way of Christ, walked in by the Reformed Churches, is the way of peace, liberty, & edification, though carped at by some 
(o) jude vers. 8.16.  that speak evil of what they neither know nor understand. And for the more clear & pregnant demonstration hereof, the following treatise touching the power of Elderships, Classes, & Synods may be of singular use; written by an 
(p) Math. 13.52.  able, judicious, & pious Divine, instructed to the Kingdom of heaven, having been well studied, and diligently exercised in the doctrine & practice of discipline above 30 years together; whilst he was Pastor of the English reformed Church in Amsterdam; where was special occasion 
(q) Matth. 25.20.  to put forth his talon, by reason of the chiefest of the Separatists that sojourned there at the same time. And albeit the Author lived not to finish, & review his pains, yet through divine providence, a Timothy 
(r) 1. Cor. 4.17.  who knew his ways (trained up in the Scriptures, & other good learning in Schools, and University, and for present 
(s) 2. Tim. 2.15.  a workman that needeth not to be ashamed) hath brought the 
(t) 2. Tim. 4.13.  parchments he left behind him to public use, for the common benefit of the English nation in a time of need, calling for help 
(v) 2. Sam. 15.34.  & counsel to defeat the dangerous projects of all Achitophel's.  
Right honourable, ye are as 
(x) 2. Sam. 14.17.  Angels of God to discern good & bad, & to speak comfortable words to your afflicted & banished Countrymen; Ye are the great Counsellors, judges, and State-physitians of England. Now 
(y) Isa. 9.6.  the Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace furnish your Honours more & more with the 
(z) Isa. 11.2.  Spirit of wisdom & understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge & of the fear of the Lord, 
(a) Psal. 20.4.  & fulfil all your counsels which are for the 
(b) 1. Cor. 10.31.  glory of God, for the 
(c) 1. Pet. 2.17.  honour of our gracious King Charles, and for the true 
(d) job, 22.30.  welfare of England, Scotland, & Ireland; even so prayeth  
Your Honour's most humble advertiser, and devoted observer, THOMAS PAGET.   

The Publisher to the Christian Reader.  
THere are two staves wherewith the Lord Christ, the great Shepherd of his sheep, doth usually feed his flock; Doctrine and Discipline. By the one he maketh them to lie down in green pastures, and leadeth them beside the still waters, replenishing their souls with the food of life; by the other he guideth them and ordereth them in their going out and coming in, for their further peace and safety: and both his rod and his staff do comfort them. If either of these be wanting, the flock is endangered; & if God in his just judgement cause one of them to fail, the other presently comes to be in jeopardy. Woeful experience hath taught, that where the reigns of Discipline are slackened or ill guided, there the soundness of Doctrine doth hardly subsist long: and where the truth of Doctrine is assaulted, there the course of Discipline is not free from injurious attempts. Though Doctrine justly challenge the first place, yet seeing Discipline also, to speak properly, is a part of Doctrine, being only the practice of divine truth revealed concerning the guidance of the Church; hence it may not without cause share in the arguments alleged for the necessity and benefit of the other. They both being so nearly allied, and jointly requisite to the welfare of God's Church, the Enemy, ever envying the prosperity, and plotting the ruin thereof, where he cannot prevail against the one, he sets on work his mischievous devices against the other: When he cannot hinder the growth of good corn and sound truths, by sowing tares; then he makes so much the more furious onsets upon the fences and hedges of due order and government. And if his designs may be effected in the one, he finds a readyer way to the other. But he that hath bruised Satan's head, is not ignorant of his devices, nor slow to resist him in his enterprises. Christ doth graciously provide for the safety of his flock, against both kinds of evils, by such instruments as he is wont to raise for the explaining and vindicating the truth of those laws which he hath given, both to direct and maintain his people in the obedience of his will, and to stop the mouth of all iniquity oppugning the same. His goodness therefore is to be acknowledged in whatsoever helps to this purpose are afforded unto us. And that thou mayest the better be provoked hereunto, Christian Reader, concerning the Treatise now presented unto thee, take a brief survey at thy first entrance, of somewhat may further fit thee unto a more judicious and profitable perusal of the work itself.  
The main errors touching the exercise of Church-government, may be reduced unto these two extremes, whereby men swarve from that middle and safe way prescribed by Christ, the only Prince and Lawgiver of his Church. Some ambitious of preeminence, making themselves lords over God's heritage, have brought in, and seek to maintain a Tyrannical kind of government in the Church, by engrossing all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction into their own hands, as the Popes, and Popish Bishops: Against these Usurper's many Worthies have stood up, and done valiantly, in their Writings, whereof divers remain yet unanswered. Others have erroneously fallen into a contrary extreme; while opposing hierarchical Tyranny, they have become pleaders for a mere Democracy; and not content to reject Provincial & Diocesan Bishops, they have impugned the lawful combination of Churches in Provincial and Classical Synods. Against this twofold error the ensuing Treatise is directed. The former part thereof was written long ago, about the year 1618., upon the occasion noted in the Introduction. And though it was but a beginning of a larger writing, neither finished nor polished for public view: yet considering how little there is extant in this kind, how useful it may be for these times, and what affinity it hath with the other controversy touching Classes and Synods, by how much the opposers of such joint Presbyteries do seldom allow the due power of particular Elderships; I thought good to prefix it before the other, in such wise as it doth now come forth. The second and main part of this Treatise discusseth at large (and more fully than any other yet seen) the question concerning the due power of Classical & Synodall Assemblies. A controversy, in a manner unknown to former ages, and for the present scarcely heard of among the Reformed Churches in other nations. For though the positive truth thereof be manifest from the testimonies of Orthodox Writers of all times and places; yet hitherto it hath not been showed that ever any Authors of note (I mean either of former ages, or other nations) have maintained the assertions here opposed, viz. that the power of Classes & Synods is an undue power, and that all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction must be confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation. H. Barrow, & those of that Sect, are noted to be the first that in such sort have opposed this kind of government. The Arminians indeed have spoken much against the jurisdiction & deciding sentence of Synods, 
* Censur. Confess. Remonstr. p. 322.326.328. Apol. Remonstr. f. 6. & 282-290.  but upon other grounds; to wit, so fare as it taketh away that liberty of Prophecy which they plead for, and describe to be in effect an unlimited licentiousness of venting and maintaining almost any thing in matters of religion. They do so contradict the power of Synods, that withal they overthrew all Ecclesiastical judgement and censure (at least in matters of heresy & false doctrine) as well in a particular Congregation as elsewhere. Herein they differ from the Patrons of Independency, here disputed against. These therefore, though they be not all Brownists, yet they must not take it ill to see this error in the following Treatise sometimes branded with the mark of Brownism. especially when the Author deals with Mr Can, a known Separatist, and hitherto the busiest Disputer for this opinion. Besides, it is not unknown that this Tenet of Independency hath been attended with Semiseparatisme in divers of the better sort of those that have held it, both in Mr jacobs' time, when Orthodox men began first to be stained with it; & of later years also, when new exorbitant oppressions of the Hierarchy, have occasioned many to witness their dislike of Prelatical government, whereof some eschewing that rock of usurping Episcopacy, have inconsiderately rushed upon these sands of Popularity and Independency. And these are the points here discussed.  
Concerning the Author of this Defence, not to speak of his other abilities wherewith he was excellently furnished unto every good work in the Ministry whereunto he was called, it may be observed how he was specially fitted unto the maintaining of truths of this nature. He was not as one of yesterday in regard of his knowledge, study & practise of these points of Church-government. Long experience hath taught him in these things what he saith, and whereof he affirmeth. Of those forty years & upward, wherein he laboured in the Ministry, for thirty of them & above, he hath been conversant in the exercise of Presbyterial and Classical government. During which time, his abode being in the same place where the ancient and chiefest opposites unto this Discipline were seated, he had special occasion to be acquainted with their courses, and to arm himself and others against them. Besides, it may not be amiss to observe the correspondence which the Author hath had with divers of the learnedest of our nation, together with the esteem which they have had of him and his abilities in these points of Divine learning. I will instance only in these three Worthies, Mr Parker, Mr Sh. the Author of the Reply to D. Down. and D. Ames; whose names use frequently to be mentioned in writings of this kind. For Mr Parker, the familiar and loving acquaintance betwixt him and the Author, is partly noted 
* Pag. 105.  in the Treatise itself. And though Mr Dau. would make his Reader to suspect it were otherwise, yet it what he hath written 
* Apol. reply. p. 74.75.76.  to this purpose be examined by the rule and square of truth; it will be found to be only a sinister insinuation, grounded upon unsound reports. The widow of Mr Parnell hath of later years before sufficient witnesses protested solemnly the foul untruth of that that was laid to this our Authors charge concerning him. Which charge while Mr D. undertakes to justify, he slightly passeth over the main thing where with the Answerer, as he calls him, had cleared himself from that imputation, and instead of due answer, turneth aside unto other matters, neither true nor pertinent, as may be manifested from undeniable evidences. After Mr Parker removed to Doesborough, to preach to that Garrison (not to a Leaguer, as Mr D. hath it;) where he died, not about 3 months (as Mr D. saith) but above 8 months at least after he went from Amsterdam; not in the year 1613. (as Mr D. was informed) but in the y. 1614: from thence he wrote many loving letters to the Author, wherein he doth thankfully acknowledge sundry kind offices received, & occasionally intreateth the performance of others. Among the rest, being causelessly accused touching some things in his book de Descensu ad Inferos (which he dedicated to our Author, together with the other Officers of the same Church) he writes thus, I pray, use the means which conveniently you can, to clear my innocency, etc. And afterwards in another letter; I thank you for your pains in defending my innocency, which I would keep if I might, howsoever the success fall out for my return to Amsterdam, etc. Touching that very matter he writes, I thank you for the pains you have taken for me, although in vain: at which I am not dismayed nor any whir moved, being assured that it is come to pass by the will of the Lord, who I know will be my God as well out of Amsterdam as in it, etc. Whereas the second part of Mr Sh. his Reply was committed to the Authors trust, for the overseeing of the press, and some passages were observed, which he conceived to be prejudicial unto the due maintaining of the cause, Mr Parker being advertised thereof, returned this answer: I have gone in my 
* De Po●it. Eccles.  third book, to the very point you doubt of, and there left, till I had seem this book printed. I am not as yet resolved fully about these things: etc. Being I am not as yet clearly resolved. you may not look I should send you my judgement therein, save only this, that I incline to your opinion, for aught I yet see in the specialties by you mentioned, etc. Afterwards, having considered further of those particulars, he approved our Author's judgement, and saith in his next letter, I verily think as you writ, that every Congregation, etc. The matter itself would be too long to rehearse in this place. He advised him at the same time to qualify the words about which the difficulty was, etc. who chose rather to send the Copy to Mr P. for the amending or altering of what they conceived to be amiss. Mr P. returned the Copy, with these words, I have corrected (as I might) the main point of your scruple. As for the rest, although some things might be bettered, or better set down, or altered, yet (for aught I see) they are not such as should stay the printing, till Mr A. etc. The liberty thus used about this book was granted by Mr Sh. himself, who asscribed so much unto our Authors judgement in these matters, that when he sent the said book to be printed, he wrote thus unto him; I pray you, peruse and ponder it, add, altar, or detract ad placitum. The author is no such man, but can easily cast himself doume at, yea under the feet of the Prophets, etc. and the more you do therein, the more he shallbe and will acknowledge himself indebted to you, etc. In his next letter he saith, I hearty entreat you to help more than ordinary, in correcting, not the faults of the workman with you, only, but my faults also. Add therefore, I pray, altar & detract therein, etc. what the Lord shall direct you, etc. Shortly after he wrote again to the same purpose; Once again I entreat you to peruse all well, & add, altar, or detract what you see good. Our Author having noted somewhat in the Reply, as was said before, which he judged to tend to the weakening of the authority of Synods, & to the strengthening of Mr jacob in his opposition against them, Mr Sh. having notice thereof, answered as followeth, writing of himself in the third person, as sometimes before, for better security in those dangerous times: Concerning the difference betwixt the author's judgement and yours, I hope it will not begreat, upon second thoughts advised. I am sure his meaning is not to confirm H. ja. against whom he disputed by writing, about the subject you speak of. The author resteth fully persuaded of that he hath written, yet referreth again (as he did before) his do to censure, and that by you, Mr Ames, and Mr Parker, or either of you, to alter, etc. so be that the adversary he answered. Afterwards he explained himself more fully, on this manner. Had my beloved altered what he deemed untrue or insufficient, he had done but what I desired, and would have been well pleased with, so he that it had not weakened the answer. But to come to the particulars. 1. Concerning the Synods, both their institution and power, what it is, belongeth to another question. neither conceive I how aught from that assertion in the Reply (which you except against) can be drawn to prejudice the judgement or practice of the Churches governed by Synods: for I conceive not so of their Synods, that they rob the particular Churches (whereof Elders there sit to determine of causes) of the power of government by their Presbyteries. Nay rather, seeing their Synods have their power, by and from the deputation which the Elders there assembled have from the particular Churches (if I be not deceyved) it will follow that the power of government originally resteth in them, and not in the Synods, etc. Observe in these passages of Mr Sh. 's letters, besides what I intended and mentioned before. 1. His judgement (set down here more plainly then in any place of his book) touching the power of Synods in the determining of causes, agreeable unto that which the Author maintaineth in this Treatise; considering what he saith in his 
(a) Pag. 89. 90. 203.  answer to the objections alleged out of Mr Parker. 2. The difference then acknowledged betwixt Mr jacob and other Non-conformists, concerning the authority of Synods, which Mr D. would seem to excuse 
(b) Apol. repl. p. 236.  by some words of Mr I. wherein he speaks not directly touching this point in controversy. 3. The Authors care to maintain the due power of Classes and Synods, even in those times, when there could be no suspicion of his own advantage, or private engagement therein, wherewith his Opposites do unjustly 
(c) Apol. repl. p. 61, 63, 232, 235. Chur. pl. p. 11. 41. 100  upbraid him, feigning it to be the cause of his late pleading for them. Moreover, whereas the Author hath taken the liberty upon occasion, to witness his dissent from D. Ames, touching certain particulars in this controversy; he hath done no more than D. A. was wont to allow unto all ingenuous Readers of his writings, and in special unto the Author. When he put forth his first Dispute against Grevinchovius, which he inscribed unto our Author in his 
(d) De Armin. sentent. Discept. scholast. An. 1613. Praef. ad I. P. Ex memet ipso judicium faciens, tibi (vir amicissime) sicut affirmanti facile credo, sic ut postulanti nunc tandem cedam. non aegre quidem adducor. etc. Ibid. p. 57 Vito doctissimo, D.P. Hoc quidem recte judicas, judiciosissime vir, etc.  Epistles printed with it, where he calls him a most loving, most learned, and most judicious man, he wrote unto him withal in his private letter; As I leave it to you, to print mine, or not to print, so also to blot out, or alter, what you see amiss. To like purpose he wrote unto him concerning his Reply to D. Morton. When his book, called the Marrow of Divinity, first came forth, he sent him a Copy, with this express condition, that he should write unto him his animadversions upon it. And in like manner, on the other side, when the Author was to publish his Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists, he sent the several parcels first to D. Ames, to be perused by him, who answered sometime on this wise: For this part of your writing unto Mr Ainsw. I find nothing in it but good. Of another part he saith: In it I find much good pains, and as useful as the subject would permit; no defect of any moment, etc. And again: I have perused all the rest of the sheets, and find nothing which I can mend, etc. Your pains have been very great in this business: I pray God the fruit may answer thereunto. Such was the judgement of these godly learned and famous men, touching the Author, and his sufficiency for businesses of this kind. I have set down nothing here but what I have to show in black and white, as the Author of the Preface to D. Ames his last book 
(e) Fresh suit, praef. p. G. 1. b.  saith upon somewhat the like occasion.  
To come nearer unto the work in hand; the occasion of this writing touching Classes and Synods, cannot but be accounted grievous unto such as have hearts to be affected with the dissensions of brethren. But bitter roots do many times yield sweet and wholesome fruits. God hath here also many ways ordered for good that which in itself was and tended to evil. I need not enlarge about that whereof they that are desirous, may easily be informed from what hath been heretofore published. In a word, Complaints were made by those whom it least beseemed. These being divulged, first in written copies, and afterwards in print, gave just occasion unto as public an Answer. Unto this Answer hath been returned a twofold Reply, the one called Apologetical, by him that had helped to complain; the other entitled The Church's plea for her right, by a known Schismatic, standing in opposition to all the Reformed Churches; and in his behalf, who refused to join as a member unto his Church, when he schismed from that whereof he was a member when the complaints were framed. These Replies undertake to handle, besides matters of fact, these two points, that were at the same time opposed, to wit, the due power of Classes and Synods, and the lawfulness of baptising infants, whose parents are no members of a particular Congregation. The former of these is sufficiently maintained in the ensuing Treatise. For the other, though the Author have not gone so fare in it as in this; yet he hath laid such a foundation, as upon which it will not be difficult to build what may satisfy for the clearing of that controversy. Whereof more hereafter, as conveniency and public benefit shall require. Touching personal concernment though I acknowledge myself doubly and trebly bound to vindicate the Author's reputation, at whose feet I have been brought up, and from whom I have received fare more than by such or better means I am ever able to requite; and though it were easy to show how his opposites have offended in many untruths touching matters of fact, and vain pretences of meekness in the midst of great bitterness, etc. yet I am resolved to pass by, and to bury these things in silence, unless further cause be given for the publishing of them. And hereunto as I have been advised by others, so I have the rather yielded, considering (as they also alleged) that the benefit to be expected from dealing in these matters, would be but of a narrow extent, reaching only to the satisfaction of a few, and little concerning the main cause; that the Authors good name and blessed remembrance is so deeply engraven in the hearts of those that are acquainted with his ways and writings, that no envy nor obloquy shall ever be able to raze it out. Again, they that will but compare the Answer and Replies together, and distinguish betwixt plain dealing and groundless surmises, evidence of truth and uncharitable insinuations, shall hardly need any further help for their satisfaction; specially if they be mindful of the Rule, 1. Tim. 5.19. from which these opposites have too too frequently swarved; and in which respect Mr D. had just cause to entreat his Reader 
(f) Apol. repl. praef. near the end.  to suspend his censure concerning what he hath said, etc. Moreover, that plausible and colourable name of the Church, used by the Replyers when they spoke of a few dissenting from the Author, is now further manifested to be inconsistent with those passages whereunto in such sort it was applied; forasmuch as they that then complained, do now quietly enjoy themselves and communion with the Church, in the continued observation of the same orders that were practised before: except only W. B. the foreman of the complainants, now a professed Arminian. And of those that once joined with him, some before, others since the Authors death have plainly signified their better respects unto him, and given free and full testimony of his well deservings, even of that Church, both for Doctrine and Discipline.  
To return unto his Defence, here published, the greater part of it is in way of answer to Mr C. who hath been the forwardest and largest in this part of the plea touching Classes and Synods. It seems also that he hath not been a little confident of his pains about this work, by the reiterated editions and sundry shapes into which this his writing touching Independent government hath been cast. The 
(g) Printed in the year 1635.  first edition, which the Author here deals with, was seconded with another, into which he hath taken only that which concerns this controversy, adorning it with this new and fair title, 
(h) In the y. 1641.  Zion's Prerogative Royal. And this hath been answered 
(i) Disput. Theol. de Union Ecclesiarum, carumque Regimine in Classibus & Synodis, par. post. Ultraj. 1641.  by the famous and truly excellent Divine of these countries, D. Voctius. A third edition, it seems, hath been put forth with some additions against the Presbyteries of particular Churches, under another title, viz. The Presbyterial Government examined. And this also hath been examined and answered by the Author of the 
(k) Edinb. 1641.  Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, etc. in the Postscript, thereunto annexed. Thus the same writing hath met with several Refutations, whereof though this be the last in birth, yet it was the first in conception. And here the Author, as he took more time, so he hath more closely followed his opposite; & being better acquainted with his condition and courses, hath more nearly applied his answers unto him, for further conviction. However, 
* August. de Trin. l. 1. c. 3.  it may be profitable to behold several learned men, avouching and pleading for the same truth: and many blows may beat down an error, that could not be felled at once. But it may seem strange that Mr Cannes writings, being such as the several Refuters have observed them to be, should yet have the honour of three several Refutations. 
See afterw. p. 145, 146. etc.  Who ever saw such gross Logical mistakes in one that makes such a flourish with Syllogistical reasonings? Who ever saw in a serious writing such abundance of quotations, so generally perverted, or so little to the purpose? He vainly allegeth above an 100 testimonies of Authors, old and new, to prove that which was never denied by those whom he opposeth. And yet on the other side, who so confident of his own cause, amidst such barrenness of proof, where there was need of it, either from Scripture or approved Authors? Let those that seem to hold with him in this controversy, judge whether Mr C. be not in these respects a Disputer, one of a thousand, as his phrase is 
(l) Ch. pl. p. 15.  elsewhere, to another purpose. How comes it then to pass, that they that have been induced to write in defence of Presbyterial and Classical government, have had no other matter to work upon, but what was afforded by Mr C. or that the cause of Independency, which makes so great a noise among some, yields yet so little to be seen for the maintenance of it? May not we justly doubt concerning others that seem to favour this way, that their judgements are not settled in this point; by how much they are so slow to profess, what they hold, and upon what grounds? If they agree with Mr D. and Mr C. and their grounds & pretences be the same with theirs, they may here receive satisfaction. But some happily will think the Author hath been needlessly curious in noting the manifold gross failings of Mr C. both in his Reasonings and Quotations. For answer hereunto, besides that for the most part they be such as in this through kind of refuting, used by the Author, could not be passed over with silence; it appears that Mr C. stands in need of being told of these faults; for in his latter edition of the same things, I find not any of these foul mistakes amended. Herein only he hath somewhat corrected himself, that what he had before 
(m) Chur. plea, p. 74, 76.  ascribed to Mr Paget, now he attributes it 
(n) Zion's prer. roy. p. 16, 21.  to the Presbyterian governor's, and such as stand for Presbyterial government: hereby acknowledging that what he had before called 
(o) Ch. pl. p. 71.  Mr Pagets new doctrine, 
(p) Ibid. p. 77.  Mr Pagets lately-devised Tenets, 
(q) Ibid. p. 81.  Mr Pagets new opinion, was neither his device, nor sole opinion, but common with him to at least all that allow of the government of the Church of Scotland; from whom that Mr C. might profess his dissent, he hath put in the words Presbytery, and Presbyterian, with Classis, and Classical, seeing the Presbyteries in Scotland are in effect the same with the Classis, and Classical, seeing the Presbyteries in Sctoland are in effect the same with the Classes in these countries.  
For the publishing of this Treatise, I had more need to plead excuse for not setting it forth before, according to their judgement who have frequently called upon me and encouraged me unto the finishing of this task; rather then to provide against their displeasure, who are apt to censure as unseasonable what in this kind is unwelcome unto them. But for the seasonableness of it, let the times speak. And for the delay, occasioned partly by the difficulty of the work, and partly by other distractions, & want of necessary helps for dispatch, the book itself unto those that are not unacquainted with businesses of this nature, will give reasonable satisfaction. That which thou here seest touching Classes and Synods, was written by the Author in the latter days of his pilgrimage, amidst sundry bodily weaknesses, & other necessary employments. There are now three years expired, since he rested from this & other his labours, having served the will of God in his own age, & entered into the joy of his Lord. Being warned some time before by a messenger of death to desist from the pursuit of this work, he gave way that in convenient time, as I was able, I should husband these his notes for public use. It were to have been wished that his own eye & hand might have prevented the charge of an executor herein. So shouldest thou have had this work fare more complete and refined then now can be expected. But the Almighty, infinite in understanding, to whom belong the issues of life and death, hath ordered otherwise: & who will say unto him, What dost thou? According to the trust therefore committed unto me, I do now at length set forth this monument of his godly & painful labours touching this weighty point of Church-government. I have forborn, as much as might be, to interpose my rude pencil in this masterpiece. The liberty allowed unto me for the persiting of what was wanting, I have used no further than was requisite, for the coupling of the parts together, out of several papers, written at several times, & for the filling up of a few gaps, specially in Ch. 7. having had the opportunity to meet with some books which the Author wanted. I have withal added a small Supplement, for answer unto what remained in Mr Cannes book, touching this point, according to the first edition, the same which the Author only saw & followed in this his Defence. And thus I have also cast my mite into this Treasury, before I opened it for public benefit. If my coin be not currant, let not that prejudice the rich supply that may be had out of the Authors store; the value whereof will sufficiently discover itself, unto them that with understanding & unpartial minds receive it. Howbeit, thou art allowed & desired according to the Authors meaning, to bring it to the touchstone of truth, to the Law, & to the Testimony. According this word try the reasons on both sides, and hold fast that which is good. Farewell, from DORT: Where a most pregnant & effectual testimony hath been given, for the needful authority of Synods; with which testimony the Author hath closed his writing touching this subject: Where this his Treatise now comes to light; which we hope may prove useful to direct unto the like remedy, where the like case may require it. He that hath the Stars in his right hand, so guide the beams of this Candle, now set upon the Candlestick, that it may give light unto all that are in the house; that the dark corners of error may be further disclosed, & the lustre of his own Ordinances becomes more apparent. With this suit I again, take leave, requesting thee to join therein with him that desires to be  
Thine in truth, R. PAGET.   

THE FIRST PART OF THIS TREATISE, Touching The Power of a particular Eldership.  

CHAP. 1.  
The occasion of this writing, and the State of the Question.  
WHereas Mr Ainsworth was desired by the Author 
(a) Arrow ag. Separ. f. 2. v.  to set down his reasons concerning whatsoever he thought might be a just cause of refusing communion with that particular Congregation whereof he was a Minister: Mr Ainsw. in his answer among the rest hath 
(b) Ibid. pag. 5.  these words; Other things there are, wherein you know we differ from you: etc. Your Eldership sitteth & judgeth matters apart from the Congregation: etc. Concerning which particular the Author thus 
(c) Ibid. p. 33.  replied: Though our Eldership for the examination of parties & witnesses, and for their consultations thereabout do sit apart, as is meet; yet do we not exclude or debar any from hearing & seeing the conviction of any sin that is either public of itself or persisted in, when they desire the same: yea we ourselves have oft desired their presence to behold the convictions, admonitions & rebukes of offenders. And further, before any sentence be given for the cutting off of any offender, we do first propound the matter unto the whole Church, requiring their prayers, advise and consent, without which never yet any judgement of excommunication hath been executed against any amongst us: and this also is propounded unto them by divers degrees, long & oft before any pronouncing of sentence, that so our brethren may have sufficient time, both to inform themselves of the matter and to deliberate ripely thereof. etc.  
Mr Ainsworth in his next having 
(d) Ibid p. 317.  said, I put you in mind that you have not as yet alleged any one word of God, for your Consistory, etc. the Author puts him in mind of his own allowing the same by communicating therewith in some measure, whereof he had been told 
(e) Ibid. p. 32.  before, & whereunto he answered not a word, and adds 
(f) Ibid p. 330.  further: Seeing you have not yet answered, neither the 
(g) Exp. of Matt. 18.  first nor the 
(h) Christian plea.  last book of Mr johnson, wherein he hath written against your popular government, what mean you to call for more? if more be requisite, you may see that I promised you in my former 
(i) Arrow ag. Sep p. 33.  writing that when I should receive any arguments from you to prove your refusal of communion upon these grounds, that I would then give further answer unto you. The errors which you have published in your Animadversion for the maintenance of your popular order, and the enormities which in that order are committed by you in your unlawful excommunications & censures, are so many that they require a distinct treatise for the refutation thereof: of which I purpose to say more hereafter as occasion is given. etc. Hereupon and about the same time was written that which follows, though not happily all that was intended.  
By that which is said it may appear that the Question is not, whether the power of the keys be given to the Church, or whether the power of excommunication be in the body of the Church, or whether Church-government ought to be with the people's free consent, etc. All this may be granted, and yet the point in controversy remain undecided. But the difference is about the execution & judicial exercising of this power: Whether every offence to be judged or cause to be determined, aught to be brought to the multitude or body of the Congregation, and they to give their voices therein together with the Officers of the Church; or whether the Officers being chosen with the public knowledge and free consent of the Church, have not by virtue of their calling power to hear & judge matters, to rebuke and censure offenders without the advice of the multitude; yet so that in matters of greater importance & more public concernment (as admissions, excommunications & absolutions of members, elections & depositions of Officers, etc.) the case be made known unto & determined with the free consent of the people, according to the practice above-written. The former of these is denied, the latter affirmed & maintained in the ensuing discourse.   

CHAP. II.  
Arguments to prove the power of the Eldership injudging, & ending some cause without the knowledge of the Congregation.  
1. THe titles given by the holy Ghost to Ecclesiastical Offices & Officers are such as import a power of judging causes; being such titles as do express & declare the power of judgement, which was in the Rulers of Israel, both Civil & Ecclesiastical: as for example; 

1. A Guide or Leader, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  is the title given to Ecclesiastical Officers, Heb. 13.7, 17, 24. & is the same that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, agreeable to the Original, is given to Civil Rulers, Iosh. 13.21. Deut. 1.13. Mica. 3.9, 11.2. Chro. 5.1. Ezek. 44.3. & 45.7. Dan. 3.2. as also in the New Testament, Act. 7.10. Besides it is the same with another word so often given unto Civil Rulers, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Mat. 2.6. & 27.2. Act. 23.24, 26, 33. 1. Pet. 2.14. etc. And so is this word also used by other humane writers abundantly.  
2. A Bishop or Overseer, the title given by the H. Ghost unto Ecclesiastical Officers to describe their authority & power, Act. 20.28. Phil. 1.1. 1. Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.7. is the same word that is given to express the power of Civil Magistrates in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, Num. 31.14. judg. 9.28. 2. Kin. 11.15. and very often in other Writers.  
3. An Elder, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nafi.  the title which the Scripture useth to denote & show the office of Ecclesiastical Elders, Act. 14.23. & 15.2, 4. & 20.17. 1. Tim. 5.17. Tit. 1.5. 1. Pet. 5.1. is the same word which is likewise given to Civil Rulers & Elders in the gate, judg. 8.14. Ruth. 4.2, 3. etc. 2. Sam. 5.3. 1. Chron. 11.3.  
4. A Prince or Ruler, being the title of Civil Governors in the Commonwealth, to signify their authority, Num. 7.2. Gen. 25.16. & 34.2. Levit. 4.22. Rom. 13.3. 1. Cor. 2.6. is also given to Ecclesiastical Rulers to note their office and authority, as Act. 23.5. with Exod. 22.28. Mat. 9.18. Luk. 8.41. joh. 3.1. Num. 3.24, 30, 32, 35. And hereby it may appear how untrue it is which Mr Robinson writes concerning the difference betwixt Civil Officers & Church-governors', when having mentioned some of the titles given to Magistrates, he saith; 
(a) Justify. of Sep. p. 135.  Ecclesiastical Officers are not capable of these & the like titles, which can neither be given without flattery unto them, nor received by them without arrogancy: And yet the very first of the titles wherein he gives instance, is that title which here I show to be given to Ecclesiastical Rulers as well as to Civil.  
5. The title of Heads, 
Rosch  wherein Mr Robinson 
(b) Justific. ibid.  instanceth in the second place, that it may not be given to Ecclesiastical Officers, is yet (if we will regard what the Scripture affirmeth) given to them as well as to Civil Rulers. As it is given to Magistrates in Deut. 1.15. the place alleged by Mr Robinson, so is it also given to Ministers in 1. Chron. 15.12. & 23.24. & 24.4. & 26.10, 12. 2. Chron. 19.11. Ezra, 8.1, 17. Nehem. 12.12, 22, 23, 24.  
6. The title of Governors or Governments, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which the Greeks' are 
(c) Steph. Thes. ling. Gr.  noted to use to express the power of Civil Magistrates thereby, by a Metaphor from pilots, out of Xenophon, Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, etc. is the same that the holy Ghost also useth to signify unto us thereby the authority of Church-governors' in guiding the ship of Christ's Church. 1. Cor. 12.28.  
7. The title of Rulers, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which H. Stephanus 
(d) The saur. l. Gr.  shows to be used by Thucydides, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Plato, Plutarch, & others for the Rulers of Cities, of Armies, & Kingdoms, is that same which the Scripture useth to describe unto us those Officers that bear rule in the Church, which is the City of the living God and his spiritual Kingdom. Rom. 12.8. 1. Thes. 5.12. 1. Tim. 5.17.  
8 The title of 
(e) Elohim.  Gods, which is so often used to express the dignity and authority of Civil Governors, Psal. 82.1. Exo. 21.6. & 22.8. 1. Sam. 2.25. etc. is also given to Ecclesiastical Officers to declare & signify the authority that they have. Though Mr Robinson 
(f) Justif. of Sep. p. 135.  denies this title also unto them; yet if we diligently weigh what the Scripture saith, we may well discern that this title is also given to Church-governors' & Minister's. for 1. The description of those persons to whom this title is given, is that they are such, to whom the word of God comes; such as the Father hath sanctified & sent: Joh. 10.35, 36. and therefore according to the exposition of our Saviour, seeing the word of God is come unto Ecclesiastical Ministers & Rulers, giving them thereby a commission to administer in his name; seeing such are sanctified & sent of God, we may hereby see how this title belongs unto them. 2. By the exposition & application of the Apostle, those who in Moses are called Gods & Rulers, Exod. 22.28. are showed to be Ecclesiastical Rulers, Act. 23.5. And howsoever some differ about this title, yet are there of the learnedest that do 
(g) jun. & Trem. Annot. on Ex. 22.28. jun. anal. expl. Ex. 22 28. joan. Rainol. Cens. lib. Apocr. tom. 1. prael. 6.  so interpret these places, viz. of such as have either Civil or Ecclesiastical administration committed unto them. And if we come unto those Authors that are so much honoured by you, they will also confirm the same. The 
(h) Onkelos Targum on Exo. 4.16. & 7.1.  Chaldee Paraphrast upon those places where this title of God is given to Moses, translateth it Rab, a Master or Doctor, which is such a word as is given unto Ecclesiastical Ministers. Others 
(i) Aben Ezra come. on Exo. 22.28.  of the learnedest jew-doctours do expound that title of the Priests & Levites, & so apply it to Church-governors'. Another 
(k) Baal hatturim on Exo. 22.28.  Cabalist often alleged in your Annotations doth show these Gods mentioned in Exo. 22. to be all kind of Rulers over the people by his Gematria because the numeral letters of the words, Elohim, venasi, yield the same number with these, hu dajan, vecol shehu, signifying judges of all sorts, the said words as they are written in their own letters, being compared together either jointly or severally.    
II. If the Deacons may distribute some alms unto the poor without the knowledge of the whole Congregation; then may the Elders also judge some causes without the knowledge of the whole Church. But the first is true. Therefore. etc.  
The consequence of the Proposition is proved by this: Because the whole Church hath as much right & authority to dispose of the Church-treasure & alms, as they have to judge of the offences that are committed therein. This the Scripture showeth by the examples of sundry Churches, of Antiochia, Macedonia, Achaia, etc. Act. 11.29, 30. Rom. 15. 25-28. 1. Cor. 16.3.2. Cor. 8.1.4.19. Phil. 2.25. with c. 4.18.  
The Assumption is manifest, and your own practice confirmeth it.  
III. If Arbiters chosen by consent of some particular persons may judge the causes of wrong & injury, whether public or private, wherein they strive against one another; then may the Elders chosen by consent of the whole Church, judge the causes & offences that arise, when they willingly submit unto the same. But Arbiters so chosen may judge the causes referred unto them. Therefore the Elders may do it also.  
The truth of the Proposition appears; because the free & solemn consent of the Church in any election gives authority unto such persons, either in general or special works, as well as the choice of any particular men in their causes. Act. 14.23. & 2. Cor. 8.19.  
The truth of the Assumption appears, by the doctrine of the Apostle giving such power of judgement unto Arbiters: 1. Cor. 6.4, 5.  
If you answer hereunto as you 
(l) H. Ains. Animadv. to Mr Clyfton, p. 43.  elsewhere expound this place: that these controversies to be referred unto Arbiters, are for civil things of this life; that such are not Church-matters, nor there to be heard, etc. this is insufficient and will not help you, seeing it appears by the text that these Controversies in Corinth might as well have been said to be Ecclesiastical causes as Civil, and belonging to the judgement of the Church as of the Magistrates or Arbiters. Had their controversies been touching a wound or struck given, touching any slander or theft, which may be said to be Ecclesiastical causes, as belonging to the judgement of the Church; yet might the Apostle have said unto them thereupon all that he doth, 1. Cor. 6. 1-9. for 1. These are businesses which Infidel Magistrates in those times used to judge, and the general speech of the Apostle imports as much, v. 1. & 6. 2. The reason which the Apostle useth, taken from the honour & dignity of Saints in their judgement of Angels & the world, serves to perswado them to submit the judgement of such causes to one another mutually as well as any other causes, v. 2, 3. 3. The reason taken from their shame, as if there were no wise men among them to judge these causes, serves to reprove them for a want of wisdom in Ecclesiastical things as well as Civil. 4. The matters of controversy among them were of wrong & injury done to brethren, v. 7, 8, 9 And these being sins & scandals, belong to the judgement of the Church, as doth the judgement of 
* 2. Cor. 10.4, 5, 6. 1. Cor. 5.7.  all known sins.  
This Argument is in effect yielded unto by yourself, when you 
(m) H. Ains. Animadv. to Mr Clyf. ton. p. 9  allow the Articles of the Discipline agreed upon in the Reformed English Church which was at Frankford in Q. Mary's days; for whereas in the 62. art. thereof, in case of difference betwixt the Governors of the Church & others it is there concluded, that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to hear & determine the said matter or matters, as it shall seem good unto the Congregation: hereupon in approbation of this Discipline you observe, that hereby the reader may see what the learned & most conscionable of the Church of England held heretofore: which if they had continued in, would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacy, the bane of so many Churches. And hereupon I observe further against you, how the reader may hereby see, that if the body of the Church may appoint so many Arbiters as they will to hear & determine matters, then may the Elders of the Church receive this authority as well as any others; then is it no unlawful usurpation for them to hear & determine some matters among the brethren by themselves.  
iv If particular persons may lawfully pass by some lesser offences & leave them unto the consciences of the offenders, without prosecuting them or bringing them to the Church for any judgement at all: then may the Church also leave some lesser offences unto the judgement of the Elders. But the first is true. Therefore the second also.  
The consequence of the Proposition is proved; because God doth no more require the Church to judge of sins made known unto the same, than he doth require particular persons to prosecute and to deal against the offences made known unto them: the Scripture speaking as fully & giving unto particular persons as ample commission & charge to 
* Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. Leu. 19.17.  admonish and complain of sin, as it doth unto the Church to judge & censure the same.  
The Assumption is proved: 1. By express testimonies of Scripture, that teach us to pass by some sins & offences, and not to prosecute them. Prov. 19.11. Eccl. 7.21. 2. Particular persons being taught to love their neighbour as themselves, & to do good unto all, Levit. 19.18. Matt. 22.39. Rom. 13.9. Gal. 5.14. jam. 2.8. are thereby bound to admonish them that are without, those that are not members of the same Church with them, but of any other either true or false, or of none. Now if this be to be done, it follows necessarily that the reproofs of many lesser faults are to be omitted; because otherwise men could never discharge this duty, neither would their time suffice to perform these duties of admonition to all such as they should find subject thereunto both within the Church & without. Yea suppose they had no other calling to attend upon, yet could not the whole age of man be sufficient to testify effectually & in order against all such transgressions which an intelligent person might discern to be committed daily before his eyes, both in private & public. 3. Even yourself seem to acknowledge this also, when touching the difference of offences you say, 
(i) Com. of Saints. cap. 22. § 2. & 3.  when offences arise, it shallbe our glory if we can pass them by, as Solomon hath said. But if the trespass be such as we may not but insist upon, both for the honour of God who is offended, & soul of the sinner which is endangered, & our own or neighbours good who are endamaged thereby: then are we bound to admonish the trespasser hereof, etc. Doth not this distinction of offences & different manner of dealing allowed by yourself, show that for some trespasses we are not bound to admonish the trespasser, nor to insist upon them.  
V If Magistrates may lawfully pass by the judgement of some lesser sins, then may the Church also pass by the public censure of some lesser offences. But the Magistrates may do it. Therefore the Church also.  
The consequence of the Proposition appeareth, because the Church is not more strictly bound to judge any sin then the Magistrate is: his commission for the judgement of all kind of sin, great or small, being as large as the Churches; he being ordained of God to keep all the words of his Law, to be a keeper of both Tables, and to judge all evil, according to the nature of it, as well & as fare as the Church is. Deut. 17.18, 19 Iosh. 1.7, 8. 1. Kin. 2.3. 1. Chron. 28.7, 8. & 29.19. Prov. 20, 8. Rom. 13.3, 4.  
The Assumption appeareth likewise to be true, from the first proof of the Assumption in the former Argument; as also from this that men are sometimes reproved for bringing their brethren before the Magistrates even in cases of injury & sin committed against them: 1. Cor. 6. 1-8. whereas if they were absolutely bound to let no small offence pass without judgement, then should it also be the fault of others not to bring the same unto them; & this whether they were Christians or Infidels, the like law & charge being given unto them both.  
VI The ending of some controversies & judging of some public offences without the knowledge of the whole Congregation, is by yourself acknowledged to be lawful in the approbation of that Discipline in the English Church at Frankford, which was there confirmed by the Church & Magistrate. for whereas it was there agreed that 
(k) Disc. of troub. at Franckf. pag 115. etc. art. 53.  if admonition with witnesses prevailed not, the offence was then to be declared to the Ministers & Elders, to whom the Congregation hath given authority to take order in such cases according to the Discipline of the Church: that 
(l) Art. 54.  there be three degrees of Ecclesiastical Discipline; first, that the offendor acknowledge his fault and show himself penitent before the Ministers & Seniors; secondly, that if he will not so do, as well his original crime, as also his contempt of the Ministers & Elders who have the authority of the Church, be openly declared by one of the Ministers before the whole Congregation: etc. that 
(m) Art. 67.  if any controversy be upon the doubtful meaning of any word or words in the Discipline, that first it be referred to the Ministers & Seniors; & if they cannot agree thereupon, than the thing to be brought and referred to the whole Congregation. Hereupon after recital of these Articles held by the learned and most conscionable of the Church of England heretofore, you add as I noted before in another particular, that 
(t) Animad vers. p. 8.9.  if they had continued herein, it would have freed them of all Antichristian Prelacy, etc. And further as you would there have it to be observed by the reader against Mr Clyfton & Mr johnson, in your third note upon the allegation of these Articles, so may we as fitly observe against yourself in your own words, that if you had looked upon the examples which yourselves allege, you might have seen your errors resisted by others, against which the Lord hath now called me also to witness.   

CHAP. III.  
A Refutation of sundry errors, whereupon Mr Ainsworth grounds their Popular Government.  

The first Error.  
YOu seek to build the government of the Church upon unsure foundations, & these of sundry sorts: First in that you argue from the examples of Civil Government in the Commonwealth, to demonstrate the power of the people in the one by the authority exercised in the other. This error is to be observed in you divers ways.  
1. In your 
(a) Art. 24.  Confession of faith, and 
(b) Pos. 8. p. 60.  Apology you describe & labour to prove the power given unto each Christian Congregation for the cutting off of any member, to be in the whole body together, from the Law of God mentioning a Civil judgement to be executed by the people of the Land in killing the man that should give his children unto Molech: Leu. 20.4, 5. and from the commandment that bond the Israelites to bring the Blasphemer without the camp, & to stone him to death: Leu. 24.14. But 1. These judgements were Civil & corporal punishments, not spiritual censures. 2. These were to be executed on strangers, and such as were no members of the Church, as well as upon them that were members thereof; Leu. 20.2. & 24.16. 3. These were to be executed on the offenders without exception, whether they repent or not. By what manner of reasoning then can the power of Ecclesiastical censures be deduced or demonstrate from such examples as these?  
II. In your 
(c) Animad vers. p. 28.  answer to Mr johnson you confess that you alleged Numb. 15.33. & 27.2. & 35.12. to give light unto the Question touching the power of Excommunication, by showing what was the people's right then, under the Law, and under the Magistrate; which may be more, but cannot be less now under the Gospel, etc. Now those Scriptures & the examples contained therein (even as those before mentioned) do concern Civil judgements, pleas & controversies; as the stoning to death of the Sabbath-breaker, the dividing of inheritances and possessions unto the daughters of Zelopehad, the preserving of him that had stain a man unawares from the avenger of blood: unless therefore you can show that the power of excommunication is in all those that have power to execute the sentence of death, and of the like Civil punishments, you do in vain allege all these examples & wrest the word of God unjustly for the maintenance of your own opinions.  
III. This error is so much the more inexcusable in you, in that you condemn it in others, and yet will not acknowledge and see it in yourself. When Mr johnson would show the power of the Elders in Ecclesiastical judgements by the power which the Magistrates had in Israel, you tell him that he 
(d) Anim. adv p. 14.  streynes too fare, & you allege the testimonies of sundry learned men that disclaim such manner of arguing & say, that to reason 
(e) Ibid. p. 16.  from the Magistrate to the Minister, from the sword to the word, from the Law to the Gospel, etc. the leap is so great, that cart-ropes will not tie the conclusion to the premises: that the argument is not good from Civil government to Ecclesiastical: and again, that the example is altogether unlike, of temporal empire & spiritual ministry; between these there is not, neither aught, neither can a proportion or comparison be rightly made. And how then comes it now to pass, that the reasoning from the people's power in Civil judgements unto their power in Ecclesiastical judgements should not be as unlawful as the reasoning from the power of Civil Elders unto Ecclesiastical Elders? or why might not Mr johnson derive the power of the Elders in Ecclesiastical matters from Civil, as well as you may derive the power of the people from Civil judgements unto the spiritual judgements of the Church?  
iv The excuse which you bring to colour this unsound manner of reasoning in yourself, is that 
(f) Animadv. p. 28.  the Apostle applieth many things from Aaron's priesthood 
(g) Heb. 5.4. & 9.6.7. & 13.11, 12.  to Christ: yet he maketh Christ's priesthood not to be after Aaron's order 
(h) Heb. 7.11, 12, 15.  but Melchizedeks: should men now thus carp at his allegations? But I answer, 1. When the H. Ghost in the New Testament reasoneth from types & figures in the Old, such reasoning is authentical & infallible; but when men do reason by proportion & similitude from types & other temporary ordinances in the Old Testament, their reasonings serve only to illustrate things proved in other places of Scripture, but else prove nothing of themselves: and therefore though the first kind of reasoning may not be carped at, as being divine; yet the latter may often justly be reproved. 2. Though some things may be applied from the Civil government to the Ecclesiastical; yet that shows not that they are like in this point of the persons by whom the power is to be exercised: even as Aaron's priesthood & Melchizedeks, though they be like in some things, yet not in all. 3. If there be any weight or worth in this evasion, it may as well serve to excuse Mr johnsons' reasoning from the Civil authority of the Magistrates, as yours from the Civil authority of the people; both of you arguing alike from a Civil power of judgement unto an Ecclesiastical power.   

The Second Error.  
YOur second error in the doctrine of Ecclesiastical government is, that you do not only derive the power of the Church from the Civil authority exercised in the Commonwealth, but also from such a supposed power of Civil judgement in the people as the Scripture no where gives unto them.  
I. All the places before alleged by you to this purpose do not prove the same. As for that allegation. Levit. 20.2, 4. where the people of the land are commanded to kill an offendor; we are thereby to understand both Princes & Rulers as well as the subjects: and so that the power of judging & giving sentence is to be ascribed unto the Rulers, as the liberty & duty of complaining before sentence, and of execution after sentence belonged unto the subjects. This word people is taken diversely in the Scriptures: sometimes for subjects alone by way of opposition to Princes, as Exod. 18.21, 22. Num. 11.16, 17. sometimes for the whole body of a nation comprehending Rulers of all sorts together with the subjects, as Gen. 25.23. Deut. 4.6, 33. and when any thing is in general commanded unto the people (taken in this sense) as here, such commandments are to be practised according to the several callings of men; but do not prove the like power of performing those commandments to be in all the people.  
That place, Levit. 24.14. shows that the people did execute the blasphemer but shows not that they had power to decree that sentence, or to pronounce the judgement in the first place which they executed in the last.  
Those Scriptures, Num. 15.33. & 27.2. & 35.12. do show that divers Civil causes were brought before the people as witnesses to hear the same decided, but not as judges to give sentence upon the same. Yourself speak but faintly of the matter, when you 
(i) Animadv. p. 29.  plead from Ruth, 4.2, 7, 9, 11. that the people were also interested with the Elders in these affairs: they might have interest to hear those controversies debated, but what is this to prove the power of judgement to be in the whole body of the Congregation? Besides, if such a presence of the people to hear controversies do prove a power of judgement in the people; you might as well plead that almost all Civil governments at this day are democratical, as in England, France & Germany, where malefactors are brought before the judges & before the multitudes of people assembling together at such places.  
Other pretences also you do bring to obscure & diminish the authority of the Magistrates in Israel, as if they had not power to put a man to death & to cut off a man from Israel without the consent of the people, etc. but they are as the former, frivolous & insufficient.  
H. AINSW. 
(k) Animadv. p. 20.  I know when God's Law ●●ndemned a man, if it were showed by all or any one of the judges, or Priests, or Prophets, yea or Israelites; the people should in order have executed him. ANSW. But what order was that for the people being subjects to take upon them the execution of judgement upon the testimony of any one of the judges or Priests, when all the rest both of the judges & Priests & Prophets did not assent? What warrant did the law of God in any place give unto the people to exercise such power of judgements upon the declaration of any one of the Israelites. when all the Rulers both Civil & Ecclesiastical did make a contrary declaration, and could not so understand the law of God, as one of the Israelites had showed it? What is this order but the plain way to sedition & tumult?  
H. AINSW. 
(l) Ibid.  Oft times the Heads of the people judged for rewards. Mich. 3.11. the Princes as Lions, the judges as Wolves devoured them, the Priests polluted the Sanctuary & wrested the Law. Zeph. 3.3, 4. Isa. 1.23. And then the people of the land, whose du●ty also it was to look to open wickedness, (Levit. 20.24.) were neither to follows the many nor mighty in evil. Exod. 23.2, 7. ANSW. 1. Oft times the people also were wicked, rebellious, Idolatrous, Apostates, and presumptuous abettors & maintainers of evil, sometimes as bad, & sometimes worse than their Governors. Exod. 32.1, etc. Numb. 14. 1-10. & 16.41, 42. judg. 2.11, 19 etc. But what is this to determine the right of authority? doth that vary & change according to the goodness & wickedness of the persons? we are taught the contrary of God. Though the Roman Emperor in Paul's time was a Lion, devouring many; 2. Tim. 4.17. yet he teacheth submission unto the authority even of such. Rom. 13.1, 2. etc. Though Annas & Caiaphas & other wicked Priests & Scribes & Pharisees, were wolves, devouring widows houses, polluting the Sanctuary & wresting the Law, (john. 18. Matt. 23.) yet we are taught to acknowledge the authority of such. Matt. 8.4. Act. 23.5. 2. Though wicked Rulers are not to be obeyed in their unlawful commandments, and therefore the servants of Saul did well not to execute his bloody commandment (1. Sam. 22.17.) wherein for one act he ravened as the wolf of Benjamin: Gen. 49.27. yet the authority remained in him, & not in those that disobeyed him. Subjection unto authority is showed, if not by obedience, yet by patience in suffering according to the will of God, if need require. 3. But that any of the people which are subjects, should go further to execute Civil judgements when the Rulers neglect justice, this is not proved by Leu. 20.2, 4. The people their mentioned are not the subjects considered apart from their Rulers: but under the title of the children of Israel there spoken unto, are comprehended principally the Princes of the people & Rulers of Israel. The other people if they did mourn in themselves & complain unto others for the redress of such evils, were not to be blamed, but had the mark of God's favour upon them. Ezek. 8.6. with Ezek. 9.4.  
H. AINSW. 
(m) Animadv. p. 20.  I find how in Naboths case (though it were a wicked fact) there was a solemn fast and assembly of the people with their Governors. 1. Kin. 21.12, 13. ANSW. But you find not one word there to prove any power in the people either to condemn or to absolve & acquit Naboth. The presence of the people is noted, but the kill of Naboth is ascribed unto the Elders and Nobles of the city, according to that which jezebel required of them. Ibid. vers. 9, 10, 11.  
H. AINSW. 
(n) Ibid.  In jeremies' case, he was accused to the Princes and people, made his defence to Princes & people, and was acquitted by Princes & people. jerem. 26.11, 12, 16. ANSW. This action was pattly tumultuous at the first, not much unlike that when Paul was so violently haled and accused unto the people, Act. 21.27, 28. And when it grew into order by help of the Princes, it appears that the authority of judgement was in the Rulers. for 1. The Princes are expressly named in each part of the action, in the accusation brought to them, in hearing the defence & in giving of the sentence; and therefore nothing was done without their authority. 2. Whereas there is mention made of the people together with the Princes, vers. 11▪ 16. there some learned 
(o) Trem. & jun. in jer. 26. See also Corn. Bertr. de Polit. jud. cap. 6. & 11.  Interpreters do translate it for explication, Seniores populi, that is, the Elders of the people: and this agreeth with the text, vers. 17. where there is mention of the Elders of the land rising up out of their seats and speaking to the multitude, as well as the Princes of the Court that came up from the King's house, vers. 10, 16. Even in that part of the Government which was democratical and popular, yet were there some Rulers representing the people. 3. Persons accused do sometimes speak to their accusers for refutation of them, as jeremy here might do unto a multitude of the people that had dealt so unjustly with him, vers. 8, 9 and yet without allowing them to have authority in giving sentence against him.  
H. AINSW. 
(p) Animadv. p. 20.  When King Saul swore that jonathan should die; the people swore the contrary, & saved him from death. 1. Sam. 14.39, 44, 45. ANSW. 1. It is not evident and certain that the people did peremptorily swear the contrary; for according to the translation of learned 
(q) Trem. & jun in 1. Sam. 14.  Interpreters, the words in the text may be read, not by way of absolute affirmation but by way of interrogation on this manner, as the Lord liveth, ought there an hair to fall from his head? whereby it is understood that the people did adjure Saul appealing unto his conscience before the living God, that he would have regard of right & equity rather than of his oath, etc. And this agrees with the judgement which some are 
(r) Pet. Mart. on 1. Sam. 14.  noted to have hereof, viz. that the people by entreating & persuading of Saul did save jonathan rather than by force. 2. By the people in that place we are to understand not the common people only, but all the Princes & Rulers of the people, whose authority in such case is more than of a multitude of other people; and this is manifest in the text, vers. 40, 41. where in casting of the lot, All Israel was set on the one side, and Saul with jonathan on the other side, so that all the Nobles and Governors of Israel, all beside Saul and his son were there included under the name of the people. 3. This case was also extraordinary, the question being not only about the King's son & his Eldest son, but such a son, as with whom God had wrought miraculously at the same time for the preservation of Israel. It was no wonder if upon such occasion the people did take unto themselves more liberty and power then ordinary, which at other times in common cases they durst not have done.  
H. AINSW. 
(s) Animadv. p. ●0.  When the High-Priests & Scribes would have killed Christ, they feared the people. Luc. 20.19. & 22.2. ANSW. They feared the people, not because they should have encroached upon the authority of the people, if they had killed him; but because of the shame & danger which they feared would ensue upon the unjust oppression of so holy & innocent a person. Herod feared the people when he would have put john to death, and yet this argues no want of absolute and sole authority in himself to execute that judgement when he listed. Matth. 14. 5.-11. And so at this day many cruel persecutors do fear the people, and their rage is in part bridled, while they have absolute and full authority in their hands to execute judgement according to the form of their government; only the shame of injustice & cruelty restrains them: as on the contrary they are bolder to exercise their authority and cruelty, when they see that it pleaseth the people, as Act. 12.2, 3. & 24.27.  
H. AINSW. 
(t) Ibid.  The people as well as the Rulers, were called before Pilate about Christ's death, Luk. 23.13. and by their voices prevailed, Matt. 27.20, 22, 25, 26. Luk. 23.23. ANSW. 1. The people were called before Pilate with the Priests & Scribes, as being the accusers of Christ, Luk. 23.1, 2, 4, 5. joh. 19.12. but this calling of them proves no part of their power in the judgement. 2. Pilate being a corrupt judge, & yet being convinced in his conscience of the innocency of Christ, partly to show how willing he was to favour and content the jews, and partly to stop the clamour & testimony of his own conscience, doth call them before him to try if he could persuade them to stay & cease their action, using many arguments and devises to that purpose. 3. Moreover Pilate called the people with the Rulers before him, to know what prisoner they would have released unto them at the feast according to a corrupt custom among them. Matt. 27.15. And that very custom itself of releasing one prisoner at the feast, whom they would, & that upon their request, Mark. 15.6, 8. was an evidence of the people's want of power in judgement: for had they had authority to have judged & determined such matters, what needed they to have petitioned to Pilate, or what favour had it been in the Roman Governor to have granted that unto them for one person at one special time, which they might have done of their own authority at any time? 4. Though it be said, that they prevailed with their voices, this is to be understood of their importunate request and voices of petition, as is noted in the same place, and not of their suffrages or giving of voices with authority in the sentence of judgement: as the importunate widow prevailed with the unrighteous judge, Luk. 18.5. so did the jews prevail with Pilate, by their importunate requests, cries & clamours in begging Barrabas of Pilate & desiring him to crucify Christ. Act. 3.14. 5. This condemnation of Christ was done by the Roman authority; the jews confess that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death; joh. 18.31. the sceptre was now departed from juda; Luk. 2.1. etc. they acknowledged no King but Caesar; joh. 19.15. and Pontius Pilate a Roman Governor under Caesar gave sentence of death upon Christ; the people of the jews were now vassals to the Romans and had not the power pretended: when you therefore send to this example, you send us to Rome & to the Romish government, and not unto that order and policy which God had commanded and planted among his own people.  
II. Whereas you say, 
(v) Animadv. p. 20.  it is not manifested that the Magistrates in Israel had in themselves full & absolute power to cut off a man or to put him to death, etc. the contrary may be showed: First, by the example of David, who as he resolved & professed for himself, that he would cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord: Psal. 101.8. so when occasion was given he presently condemned the Amalekite to death for slaying Saul; 2. Sam. 1.15. he by his own authority appointed Baanah & Rechab to be slain for kill Isnbosheth, without gathering any assembly to ask the people's consent. 2. Sam. 4. 8-12. When David heard from nathan's parable of a rich man oppressing the poor, he forthwith pronounced the sentence of death against that oppressor, not waiting for the counsel or consent of the people, though in a rare & unusual case. 2. Sam. 12.5, 6. When the woman of Tekoah makes request for her son that he might be absolved in judgement and delivered from the sentence of death, David presently by his own authority decrees that he shall be pardoned, and confirms it with an oath, he stays not for approbation from the people. 2. Sam. 14. 4-11. Again if we look upon the way of his son after him, we see the same thing, even in Solomon; and that both in his doctrine, where he teacheth that the power of life & death is in the hand of the King; Prov. 16.14, 15. & 20.2, 26. and in his practice he confirmed the same, in the judgement & sentence of death, which he forthwith decreed & pronounced upon Adoniah, & swore to have the same accomplished presently without ask consent of the people. 1. King. 2.23, 24, 25.  
III. If the Magistrates in Israel had not in themselves authority to put a malefactor to death without consent of the people, then do you unjustly blame that proportion that might be made betwixt the Elders in the gate and Elders in the Church, betwixt Magistrates and Ministers; then do you unjustly impugn the same 
(x) Animadv. p. 14. 15. 16. 19, etc.  as a disproportion & strained too fare: for if the Magistrates in Israel did but guide & govern the action in Civil judgements, as 
(y) Ibid. p. 113.  Mr Robinson in his answer recorded by you doth note of the judges of Assizes in England & even of the Lord Cheef-Iustice himself with his Bench, wishing also that the Ecclesiastical Elders, whom he & you oppose, would allow the body of the Church the like liberty at their spiritual Sessions, that those judges allow unto the country or jury in the judgement of malefactors: if the Magistrates in the Commonwealth might not decree the sentence of judgement without consent of the people, no more than the Ministers in the Church without consent of the Congregation; if the Ministers in the Church might govern the action and the people in their judgements as well as the Elders in the gate; is there not then here an even & manifest proportion both of government & power betwixt the one & the other?  
iv If the power of judgements & giving sentence of life & death were not in the Magistrates in Israel, then do you contradict the testimony of the jew-doctours out of their Thalmud alleged not only by 
(z) Annot. on Matt. 5.22.  Beza & many others, but by your 
(a) Animadv. p. 17.  self also in the description of their several Courts & the authority which they exercised in the same. Yea you do more plainly yet contradict yourself, when afterward from the testimonies of Scripture alleged by Mr johnson you do again 
(b) Ibid. p. 18, 19  confess that the Magistrates in Israel had power of life & death.   

The third Error.  
A Third error in the proof of the Church's power, is in that you derive the same from other unsound proportions of the ceremonial observation in Israel: Though you yourself do acknowledge against Mr Johnson that the drawing of proportions from the government in Israel is one of the 
(c) Animadv. pref. 1. & p. 15.  main pillars of Popery, to underprop the tower of Antichrist; yet the truth is that neither Mr johns. nor Cardinal Bellarmine himself do gather more unequal proportions for their supremacies which they plead for, than you do.  
I. Whereas you would prove 
(d) Confess. art. 24. Ap. p. 62. Animadv. p. 20.  the power of excommunication to be in the whole body of every Christian Congregation, and not in any one member apart, or in more members sequestered from the whole, etc. and seek to prove this by a proportion drawn from the government in Israel, because as you argue from Numb. 5.2, 3. not the Priest only, but the children of Israel were charged to put the Leper out of the host: This proportion faileth, unless you could show that the Priests wanted authority to pronounce this judgement of excluding a leper out of the host, until they had the consent of the people. We see the contrary; namely that the Priests discerning and judging the lepers, and others executing their decree might lawfully remove the leper: for 1. The Priest did not only declare by way of teaching & informing who was unclean (as you 
(e) Ibid. p. 19, 20.  seem to insinuate) but also by their sentence of judgement, & by their power to censure; therefore is the Priest said to make him polluted or to make him clean, Leu. 13.3.6. etc. in such 
(f) timme, tibar.  phrases as in their full signification do express unto us the judicial sentence of their remoovall out of the host, as well as a bare declaration of their opinion in the matter: even as the like use of other phrases in the Scripture, Deut. 25.1. Prov. 17.15. signifying to 
(g) hitsdik. hirshiagn. ) make just & to make wicked do also import the judicial sentence of absolution & condemnation, & not only a declaration of the judge's opinion thereabouts. 2. It is noted of the Prieft, that in doubtful cases, in the trial of the leprosy, he should shut up him that had the plague seven daves: Levit. 13.4▪ 5. now as he had the power of suspension in a doubtful case to shut up for a time; so by your own doctrine it will follow that in a manifest case of leprosy he had the power of shutting out the leper, until the time that he was clean. 3. The Lord requires the like submission & subjection unto the judgement & sentence of the Priests in matters of controversy between plague & plague, as he doth unto the judge in his judgements: Deut. 17. 8-13. and therefore as the judges had the power of judgement & giving sentence Civilly; so had the Priefts power of judgement Ecclesiastically. 4. Whereas you 
(h) Confess. art. 25.  show every member of the Church to be subject unto the censure of excommunication by alleging, 2. Chron. 26.20. you may thereby discern the weakness of your proportion for the power of the people; for in that story you see how the King Vzziah so soon as his leprosy appeared, was hastily remooved & caused to departed out of the Temple, and this by the authority of the Priests, without waiting to ask the consent of the people. And therefore if Ministers & Elders have now as much power to excommunicate, as the Priests had then to remove that Leper, than your proportion for the people vanisheth as a smoke. 5. Though the children of Israel be commanded to put the Leper out of the camp, Num. 5.2. yet is the practice thereof to be understood according to the diversity of men's callings, namely so that the Priests did put out the Leper, by giving sentence & pronoucing him unclean; the people by complaining & bringing the matter unto the Priest in the first place & helping to execute it in the last place. 6. Whereas you grant a proportion herein thus fare, 
(i) Animadv. p. 19.20.  that as every Priest than might according to the Law, declare what was leprosy; so every Minister now may & aught by the law to declare what is sin & heresy, & this though it be without or against the consent of the Church & of all the world: your grant herein is nothing worth, while you grant as much both to the Prophets & people under the Law as well as to the Priests, and to the Prophets & people now as well as to the Ministers & Elders. The declaration of sin, the trial & conviction of sin you do now allow to one as well as to the other. Lastly, as the Lord commands the children of Israel to remove the leper our of the camp, so he gives them the like charge for those that were defiled by the dead or by unclean issues: Numb. 5.2. And yet who will say that the judgement & daily administration of these actions did belong unto the multitude of the Congregation, or that they were bound to come together in a solemn assembly upon such occasions of removing these persons & receyving them again at their cleansing? The law of their purification requires no such things ●um. 19.18, 19 Levit. 15.13, 14, etc. And therefore howsoever the act of removing these unclean persons in the time of the Law may be held as a general type to show the exclusion of wicked persons from the holy things of God under the Gospel; yet the persons by whom these Legal & Ceremonial separations were ordinarily administered & performed, cannot serve for a sufficient proof that obstinate sinners are to be cenfured and remooved by the whole Congregation assembled for that purpose.  
II. Another of your wrested proportions from the practice of Israel, you may see in your Apology▪ where you labour to prove that the power of Excommunication is in the body of the Church by this reason because 
(k) Apol. p. 62.  the duty of putting away leaven out of their houses at the feast of Passeover & unleavened bread was by the Lord himself laid upon all Israel, and not committed or enjoined only to the Officers. 1. Cor. 5.7▪ 12, 13. compared with Exod. 12.3, 15. Leu. 23.2, 5, 6. Deut. 16. 14. Here unto I answer. 1. If the power of Excommunication be in the members of the Church now, as the power of putting away leaven was in the Israelites of old: then as every particular Israelite under the Law had power of himself to remove leaven out of his house, yea & was bound to do the same whether the rest of the Congregation consented or not, as appears in the places of Scripture here alleged by yourself; so now in like manner every particular member of the Church should have power in his hand to excommunicate & remove a wicked man out of the Congregation, whether the rest of his brethren consented or not. 2. If you further intent that as each Israelite for himself was to put away leaven, so also he was to look to others that they did the same, this I grant so fare as the means of admonition, exhortation and complaint might reach; but that the Israelites had all of them judicial authority and power to judge those that offended herein, (about which authority the question is) the Scriptures by you alleged do not prove the same. 3. As for that place, 1. Cor. 5.7. where the Apostle shows that the incestuous person ought to be excommunicate by an allusion unto the ceremony of purging out the leaven; he therein only teacheth the duty that is to be done, but as for the authority of the persons by whom the censure was to be executed, though he teach them that also in other verses of that chapter, yet doth he not derive the ground thereof from the ceremony of the leaven put away: therein is your error to stretch & rack the proportion too fare.   

The fourth Error.  
IN the fourth place, your warrant & ground for the people's power is insufficient, when as you derive the same from that separation which you say was appointed of God before the Law. This you teach, when as you would confirm the same unto us from 
(l) Apol p. 62. pos. 8. with p. 44. pos. 3.  the truth & proofs of the third Position in your Apology, where among other testimonves of Scripture you would prove your Separation by these allegations, Gen. 4.16, 26. with 6.2. & 9.27: & 12.1. & 13.6, 7, 8. Exod. 5.3. But these Scriptures do neither justify your kind of Separation, though they be often perverted by you to that purpose; & much less do they show unto us that the power of Excommunication is in the body of the Church.  
As for Gen. 4.16. where it is said that Cain went out from the presence of the Lord: 1. It is uncertain whether it was by an excommunication from the place of God's word & public worship: Many are said to be caft out of God's presence, as we read sometimes of Israel & judah, though we cannot say that they were then excommunicate. 2. Kin. 17, 18▪ 20, 23. & jer. 52.3. etc. Though the face of God do sometimes signify his allseeing providence & government from which none can flee, Psal. 139.7.12. jer. 23.24. as you do 
(m) Annot. on Gen. 4.16.  write; yet your reasoning there is imperfect, because the face of God doth signify divers other things besides his allseeing providence & the place of his worship, as namely his more comfortable presence & providence, etc. Psal. 30.7. with job, 29.2, 3, 4. whereof men may be deprived though not by excommunication. 2. Suppose Cain was excommunicate, yet this proves not the Separation you plead for. you cannot deny but that excommunication of murderers and such like is sometimes practised in divers Churches, whom yet you will not allow for a separate people according to your profession. 3. With what colour of a just consequence will you collect that the power of excommunication is in the body of the Church, from this proof of your third position? how doth cain's separation demonstrate unto us the people's power in Ecclesiastical censures?  
As for Gen. 4.26. when Sheth begat his son & named him Enosh, and when (according to your translation) men began profanely to call on the name of the Lord: 1. Your reasoning upon this verse is unwarrantable, when as you say, that 
(n) Annot. on Gen. 4.26.  the sorrows of this age were great, as the very name of Enos testifieth and the history following in Gen. 6. confirmeth: for neither is the name of Enos a witness of great sorrows in that age any more than the name of Henoch, given both to the posterity of Cain & Sheth (Gen. 4.17. & 5.18.) is a witness of the great holiness or catechising in their age, or the name of Isaac a witness of the great joy and gladness of that age, or any more than the name of Enos given to every man is a witness of the sorrows of every age: Psal. 8.4. & 144.3. neither doth the story following in Gen. 6. confirm unto us the sorrows of Enos his age & birth, going a thousand years before the same, any more than the story following in Zedekias his time confirmeth unto us that there were great sorrows in the days of David. 2. As for your Separation & the power of the people in excommunicating, as you note in your Apology, who can devise or comprehend how they should be derived hence? How can you account those things proved unto us, for which there is not so much as a show of any consequence in the places alleged?  
As for Gen. 6.2. where it is recorded how the sons of God took unto them wives of the daughters of men according to their lust; I would feign see how by any lawful argument you can hence conclude either your Separation, or the people's power in excommunicating: when your argument appears in the form of it, it will then be time enough to shape an answer unto it. In the mean time, whereas you 
(o) Annot. on Goe 6.2.  note that by the daughters of men are meant they of Kains' posterity, that out were of God's Church, etc. you might as well have said that they had been of Sheths' posterity, which was also degenerate, so that for their wickedness they were swept away with the flood & destroyed as well as cain's posterity, Noah's family only excepted. Who can say that the posterity of Cain for more than a thousand years together were strangers from the Church of God, during the time of so many Patriarches; or that some of Sheths' posterity also did not cease to be the Church of God? And if the testimony of your Hebrew doctors were to be admitted, I might easily show you many of them that tell us of cain's repentance, & consequently of the receiving of him & his posterity into the Church of God. Yea if Naamah was the wife of Noah as they 
(p) R. Solomon come. on Gen. 4.22.  presume, you might then observe the posterity of Cain living still after the flood in her that was the daughter of Lamech, on cain's side.  
Touching Gen. 9.27. though japhet was to be persuaded to dwell in the tents of Shem, etc. yet how are we to be persuaded thence touching the form of government among them, and that the power of excommunication was in the people, rather than in any Rulers among them? These bare allegations of Scripture help you nothing until you draw some argument from them to show the matter in controversy, which yet is not done by you.  
Touching Gen. 12.1. where Abram is called out of his native country: 1. That place is strangely abused by you for your Separation, seeing Abram there is called to travel he knows not whither, unto a land which God would afterwards show and give unto him, (Hebr. 11.8. Genes. 12.1.) without any mention of separating or joining unto any Church. And the land of Canaan unto which he came appears to have been as Idolatrous at that time, & more manifestly accursed then that of the Chaldaeains from whence he came. Gen. 9.25, 26, 27. 2. With what kind of arguing can you show us the people's power in judgements & censures of sin from this ground? This we desire to know & wait for. Yet to make you more circumspect against that time, consider in the mean while the error of your Annotations touching this calling of Abram, Gen. 12.1. 1. When as concerning the time you writ that it was 
(q) Annot. on Gen. 12.  after that Abraham's father was dead, Act. 7.4. this your assertion is unwarrantable and without proof: Though it be manifest from Act. 7.4. that God brought Abram from Charran after his father was dead; yet this shows not that the calling mentioned in Gen. 12.1. was after his father's death. 2. Whereas you note further upon the same verse, touching the place from which Abram was called, Gen. 12.1. that it was that country wherein he now dwelled in Charran, this is also unsound and appears to be contrary to the express word of God, mentioned by Stephen, who saith (Act. 7.2, 3.) that The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelled in Charran, and said unto him, Come out of thy country & from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee: The words used of God in that calling, Gen. 12.1. are plainly noted to have been said unto Abram, before he dwelled in Charran; and who can then without great presumption feign them to be said at another time & place, having no warrant of Scripture for the same? I know indeed that 
(r) R. Solomon jarchi on Gen. 12.1.  some of your Rabbins (who do so often misled you) do write that this call was from Charran, but their authority is too light to rest upon it. They will have Nun, the last letter of the word 
(f) In Gen. 11.32.  Charran to be written with the head of it downward and the lowest part of it upward, contrary to the order, to show 
(t) R. Sol. ibid.  that the wrath of God burned until Abram. One of your authors according to his Cabalistical art 
(v) Baal hatturim on Gen. 12.1.  tells us that the numeral letters of the word arecha used in the call of Abram, Gen. 12.1. do yield the same number that begnananim doth, which signifieth by the clouds, to teach us that the clouds went before him & shown him the way in his journey. And the inversion of this Nun haphueah is as well & as worthy to be observed for matter of meditation & instruction, as are the great & little letters which you 
(x) Annot. on Gen. 23.2. & 34.31. & Leu. 1.1.  mention for like use. You tell us in the same place that the Hebrew doctors expound the name Charran by Charon aph, that is, wrathful anger, (R. Menachem on Gen. 12.) as if he were now to departed from the place of wrath, etc. but if you had alleged the place more plainly & fully, the vanity of that rabbin would thereby have appeared, while he saith that 
(y) R. Menachem on Gen. 12.4.  when Abram went to give his influence or abundance unto the higher land, Lot went with him, for that land was to receive from them both, and the word Lot is from Levatin (which signifieth curses) and this at his going from Charan: the word charon signifieth anger. This is the vain conceit contained in the allegation which you send us unto, & compare with so many places of Scripture. And suppose Charan be denominate of anger, yet this will not prove that the calling Gen. 12.1. was from Charan. Again it appears to be the opinion of other 
(z) Chazkuni come. on Gen. 12.1. Aben Ezra on Gen. 11. & 12.1.  Rabbins, that this calling of Abram, Gen. 12.1. was from Vr of the Chaldees, before he came to Charan. And besides these, the judgement of learned 
(a) Merc. on Gen. 12. Trem. & jun. annot. ibid. Calv. & Musc. come. ibid.  Christians is herein against you, and more to be respected then the jewish doctors whom you so much follow. 3. Besides other things, how gross is that error, when you write 
(b) Annot. on Gen. 12.5.  that the land of Canaan is a country in Asia the less, etc. It appeareth not by the Scriptures that Abram ever came into Asia the less. And had he gone thither to seek Canaan, he should never have found that land unto which he was called of God. This your error of misplacing Canaan is reproved not only by the general testimony of the chiefest 
(c) Ptol. Geogr. lib. 5. c. 2. Asiae tab. 1. Strab. Geogr. l. 12. Plin. Hist. nat. l. 5. c. 27 Solin. Polyh. c. 43.  Geographers, but also by the evidence of the holy Scriptures, which do often & plainly distinguish these countries & make it very manifest that Canaan is not a country in Asia the less, as you say. Act. 2.9. & 16.6. & 20.16.1. Pet. 1.1.  
Touching your allegation of Gen. 13.6, 7, 8. we read there of the riches of Abram and Lot, of the strife betwixt their servants, of the Canaanites and Perizzites dwelling in the land, of Abraham's care to avoid strife: but how you will conclude your Separation from hence, together with the people's power in excommunications, who can imagine or comprehend it? we would feign see what face of an argument you can paint out unto us from this Allegation.  
And as for Exo. 5.3. where Moses & Aaron tell Pharaoh, how the God of the Hebrews met them, how they desire to go three day's journey into the wilderness to do sacrifice, and of the danger of pestilence or sword to come upon them if they did it not; by what consequence will you maintain your Separation from hence? and by what second consequence will you then demonstrate the people's authority from this Separation here employed, as you writ? These things do yet lie hid, wrapped up in darkness, that men cannot discern what you mean thereby. It is a strange folly in matters of so great controversy, so barely to allege such a number of Scriptures, which seem not so much as to look towards the point of the question in hand, and this your fault is so much the greater in that yond can find time & leisure to note and publish so many other idle and unproffitable things; as when in the explication of this verse you set down those dotages of Maimony about the Pestilence, Deber, which have no weight in them, no ground or colour of truth. Why did you not rather manifest your Separation from hence, if it be here taught as you say, for the clearing of your cause & plucking others out of the darkness & shadow of death, wherein (according to your profession) they do remain?    

CHAP. FOUR  
Whether the people be bound to be present at the proceed against offenders.  
A Nother error concerning the government of the Church is this, that you hold the people bound to be present at the conviction of sinners & trial of causes. Though Mr johnson 
(a) Advertis. of Mr Clyft. p. 41.42.  left it free for any of the people to come if they would; yet you 
(b) Animadv p. 42.43.  hold not that sufficient, unless they be bound to come & to hear the proceed. Against the liberty of being absent or present you allege many things, and plead as followeth.  
H. AINSW. Is not this to divide the body, when the head must be present, & the shoulders with the other parts and members may be absent? ANSW. It is no division in the body mystical, when the head labours for the good of the body, though some members thereof be absent; no more than there is a division or disunion among the friends that consult for the comfort of one another, though not present; no more than there is betwixt the States of these lands & the people thereof, when the States meet apart to determine some things without the people; no more than there was a division when the Elders at jerusalem met apart without the people. Act. 21. 18-25.  
H. AINSW. The Apostle writing to the Church of Corinth, how to do when they came together for the Lords supper. 1. Cor. 11.18, 33. writeth also to them how when they were gathered together, they should deliver the wicked unto Satan. 1. Cor. 5.4, 5. We find no difference, but they were bound to come to the one as to the other. And if they answer, they are bound to assemble for to excommunicate him, but not to hear, him by the word convinced in the trial of his cause; they may as well teach the people they are bound to come to eat the bread and wine in the Lord's supper, but not bound to hear the word teaching & preparing them hereunto. ANSW. 1. In coming to the Lords supper every man is bound unto a special & particular examination & preparation of himself, & by his own knowledge to convince & judge himself: 1. Cor. 11.28, 31. but in coming to the excommunication of offenders a man may lawfully content himself with the testimony of others touching their conviction, and so rest in the judgement of the Church; Deut. 19.15, 16, 17. & ch. 17. 8-13. neither doth the Scripture in any place require more of us. 2. A man may be fitted & prepared unto the Lord's supper, though he do not hear the word of God taught and preached at the same time when he comes thereunto. True faith & repentance make men worthy & lawful communicants & able to discern the body of the Lord, though by some means they be hindered from hearing the Word immediately before. 1. Cor. 3.21, 22. joh. 6.40. And therefore to follow you in your own comparison; as a man may lawfully come to the Lords supper, though he have not heard the word before: so may he lawfully come to the excommunication of a sinner, and consent thereunto, though he have not been present at his conviction before, but only hear it testified by others. 3. If you find no difference, but that men are alike bound to come to hear the examination & conviction of offenders, & to come to the Lords supper; why do you not then censure those among you that after your Sermon ended do departed, when you enter upon these convictions & disputations, continuing sometimes until eight, nine, or ten a clock in the night, as well as those that after Sermon should departed & refuse to eat the Lords supper with you? Doth not your own conscience and practice reprove you in this point?  
H. AINSW. We do so understand God's law, that when it commandeth us any thing, it doth also command us to use all means for the right & holy performance of it: and all will be little enough. ANSW. Thus do we also understand the Law: but the Question is whether all the means for the right and holy performance of this judgement of excommunication cannot be used, unless all the members of the Church be present at the conviction of the excommunicate. The reader is to consider whether this be justly proved by you.  
H. AINSW. The people therefore that were bound to stone an Idolater in Israel, were bound by that Law. Thou shalt not slay the innocent, Exod. 23.7. to look that he were duly convicted of the crime. ANSW. But could not the people know that an Idolater were duly convicted, unless they themselves were all present at his examination & conviction? By this kind of reasoning, 1. You condemn the just & lawful war undertaken against the enemies of Church & Commonwealth: you might as well say that because no soldier may slay the innocent, therefore every particular soldier is bound to be present in the assembly of the Rulers, where the cause of the war is tried, and there to hear the examinations & convictions of the wrong-doers. But how was this possible in Israel, where so many hundred thousands were sometimes assembled together unto the war? 2. Chron. 13.2, 3. etc. or how should it now possibly be observed in our times? how should private soldiers with good conscience go into the field, unless they may rest in the testimony of their Governors touching the cause of the war? 2. By that commandment, Thou shalt not slay the innocent, Exod. 23.7. those also are condemned that suffer the innocent to be slain, having authority & power in their hands to hinder the same: & thus according to your reasoning, the King or other supreme Magistrates of any country▪ that should suffer any person to be slain or punished within their dominions, should be bound to be present at their examination & conviction in like manner, contrary to the liberty that God hath given unto Princes, in appointing & sending Governors for the punishment of evil doers. 1. Pet. 2.13, 14. And divers other the like unreasonable consequences would follow upon this manner of arguing.  
H. AINSW. And now by this law, Be not partaker of other men's sins: Keep thyself pure, 1. Tim. 5.22. every soul that is bound to cast out a man condemned for heresy or other sin, is also bound to see him convicted, lest Diotrephes cause to cast out faithful brethren. 3. joh. 9, 10. ANSW. 1. The error of this collection applied to the Question in hand, appeareth by your own practice; when those members of your Church who having been sick or absent while any person is condemned for heresy or other sin, do yet upon the testimony of the Church reject him as an excommunicate and cast him out of their society. Here you allow a rejection of offenders by such as have not been present to see their conviction. 11. Your error in this allegation may likewise appear in this, that those who are excommunicate by one true Church are also to be rejected by other true Churches that have not been present to see the conviction of such persons. Luk. 10.16. Matt. 18.18. joh. 20.23. 1. Cor. 5.3. 2. Cor. 2.10. This shows that a man may keep himself pure, resting in the testimony of others: and that the place, 1. Tim. 5.22. is not to be applied against them that do upon the witness of a Church reject offenders. 111. As for Diotrephes causing to cast out faithful brethren, 1. There is no appearance in the text alleged, 3. joh. 9, 10. that this was done for want of the people's presence: his love of pre-eminence & his tyranny might be exercised in their presence, as well as in their absence. 2. The reader is here to mark the contradiction of H. Barrow unto you, and his further error who will not have this casting out of the faithful by Diotrephes, to be understood of excommunication, 
(c) H. Barr. Refut. of Giff. p. 165.  nor to be meant of the abuse of any censure of the Church, etc. 3. For rash excommunications & actual casting out of brethren, name any true Church where ever this sin hath prevailed so notoriously as among yourselves and the Anabaptists, where the popular order hath been most in use. If you look upon all the Reformed Churches & their practice, where the people are not bound to be present at the conviction and examination of offenders, I think your own heart will tell you & your mouth will acknowledge, that the like rash & unjust excommunications have not been executed among them, as among yourselves & other Sects of Separatists that use the same manner of proceeding which you do.  
H. AINSW. He that stands out to excommunication, will commonly plead his cause to be just, and complain that the Elders have perverted judgement: with what comfort of heart can the people now excommunicate him, if they have not heard the proceed against him, and yet must execute the Elders sentence upon him? Let wise men judge whether this be not spiritual tyranny, which the Elders would bring upon the consciences of the Church. ANSW. I. They which consent to the excommunication of a person judged by the Church, and do thereupon reject his fellowship; may have the same comfort of heart, which your people ordinarily have when themselves upon divers occasions being present neither at the conviction of offenders, nor at the pronunciation of sentence against them, do yet rest in the testimony & sentence of others; and thereupon avoid such an excommunicate, though he plead his cause to be just & complain that the Elders & others of the people have perverted judgement. II. They may have the same comfort of heart, which divers of your people have, being soldiers here in the service of the City, who together with the rest of the soldiers do at the Magistrate's appointment attend upon the execution of justice of divers malefactors, as pirates & others; and though they have not heard the proceed against them, though they have not been present at the examination and conviction of such persons, do yet help to execute the Magistrate's sentence upon them, being ready to assist & defend the executioner, if need should require; even then when the condemned persons do still plead that they are innocent, and complain that the Magistrates have perverted judgement against them. Thus you may see how this your kind of reasoning brings blood upon the head of your people, and so upon your own & your Church's head for retaining of them. II. They may have the same comfort of heart, which the Israelites had in avoiding the Lepers, & putting them out of the camp upon the testimony of the Priests, Num. 5.2, 3. Levit. 13. 2-46. though they had not been present at the proceed, nor come together to see the marks & tokens of the leprosy; and this even then when the Lepers did plead that they were clean, & complained that the Priests had done them wrong. iv The manner of proceeding against offenders, both in the Reformed Churches & in our particular Congregation, is such that any of the people may sufficiently inform themselves both touching the matter of fact & right in any question & cause, before the sentence of excommunication be pronounced: They have liberty & opportunity to deal with the parties accused, and with the Elders also; and this not only with either of these apart, but also if they will, to hear the conviction of the offenders before the Elders. Yea the cause of such offenders is so often publicly propounded to the whole Congregation, and the people are so often exhorted & stirred up to admonish & deal with those which are run into scandal, that they may fully discern the guiltiness of such persons before they be cast out; and therefore cannot by wise men be judged to be under any spiritual tyranny for consenting unto the rejection of those, whose iniquity & obstinacy they may so plainly understand. V If the law of God may be expounded according to those select interpretations of the Rabbins, which you make special choice of & commend unto our consideration above others; then are the people to execute the judgements of the Elders, though the proceed therein be kept in fare greater secrecy than we require. for expounding those words, Thou shalt not walk a talebearer, you say thereupon, 
(d) Annot. on Levit. 19.16.  As this Law immediately followeth the former about the judges; so the Hebrews apply this precept unto them, saying, It is unlawful for any of the judges, when he goeth out from the judgement hall, to say, I am he that doth acquit or condemn; and my fellows are against me: but what can I do, seeing they are more then I. And if he thus speak, he is within the compass of this, HE THAT WALKETH as A TALEBEARER, REVEALETH SECRETS: (Proverb. 11.13.) Maimony in Sanhedrin, ch. 22. sect. 7. Whereto the Greek version of that place agreeth; A double tongued man revealeth counsels (or secrets) in the Synedrion (or Council.) And so in Prov. 20.19. To practise according to this exposition of the Jews which without any note of dislike you publish unto us, might justly be called a spiritual Tyranny, when even the Judges should not be allowed to testify openly against the oppressions & blood & other iniquities maintained by wicked men. Such smothering of sin is both against the law of God, Exod. 20.16. Prov. 14.25. Eph. 5.11. Esa. 59.4. jer. 9.3. Mic. 7.3, 4. and against the law of nature itself, which taught even the wicked Pilate to take water and wash his hands before the multitude, & to make public protestation of his innocency against them that were authors of unrighteous judgement. Matt. 27.24. joh. 18.38. & 19.4. Thus do your writings lead men into contrary extremities.  
THus fare for answer unto your own reasons: An argument on the contrary side brought to show the freedom of the people in coming or not coming to hear the examinations & convictions going before the censure, and to show that the people are not bound thereunto, is thus set down, because 
(e) R. Clyf. Advertism. p. 42. Rom. 12.7.8. 1. Thes. 5.12, 13. 1. Tim. 5.17, 18. As may come to pass in great Congregations and when many cases are to be heard, etc.  So it shall not be enough, that the Elders by their Office are bound unto it, & aught to have maintenance for the doing of it & of the other duties of their Office: but the men must (without any allowance for it) leave their trades & callings, the women their houses & families, the children their schooling and employment, the servants their work and labour and must come together (though it should be day after day) to hear & judge the cases that fall out between brother & brother according to Matt. 18.17. for by this Scripture in 1. Cor. 12. ch. they will have it understood of men, women, & children that can sorrow & rejoice with others, as before was showed. In your answer hereunto by a crooked winding you turn away from the argument, and do not direct your answer unto the point & force thereof, when as you say, 
(f) Animadv. p. ●3.  Let them then excommunicate alone, as well as try the case alone: seeing they have maintenance for both; & let the people be bound to come to neither: no nor to the Pastors' ministering of the Word and Sacraments (if this reason be good,) because he is more worthy maintenance than the ruling Elders, as the Apostle showeth. 1. Tim. 5.17, 18. For if the Elders were only bound to utter and pronounce a sentence of excommunication, when the people are gathered to hear the same; then should the Elders deserve no more maintenance than the people. If the Pastor were not bound to study all the week & to take pains to prepare himself for the ministry of the word and Sacraments, but did only speak the same without labour going before; then could not the double honour & maintenance mentioned, 1. Tim. 5, be due unto him. Where there is no special work, there is no special maintenance. And therefore while you do not require double labour of the Elders in trying cases, but do bind the people even to the same labour of enquiring, examining & trying matters, how can you require double honour & such special maintenance for them? But after this general evasion, you proceed unto some more particular answers, & say there in your Animadversion:  
H. AINSW. First, they restrain things too much, when they say between brother & brother: for what if it be a public case of heresy oridolatry, as that mentioned Deut. 13.12, 13, 14. etc. will they say women, children & servants were then, or are now bound to leave their callings, & come together to try out the matter? Hereunto I reply. I. They restrain things not otherwise than Christ himself doth, when speaking generally of the sundry sorts of sin, he also notes them to be between brother & brother, saying, If thy brother fin against thee. Matt. 18.15. Even to public sins of heresy and idolatry, as that in Deut. 13. though immediately they are committed against God; yet as they are scandals and occasions of falling unto others, so are they cases between man & man, brother & brother, to be censured & judged by them. Deut. 7.4. & 13.5, 6, 13. II. If they restrain things too much, then do they no wrong unto you but unto themselves: then is there more force in the matter, than their words do make show of. For if it be unmeet to bind all the members of the Church to hear cases daily between brother & brother even in a stricter sense, as you would have their words to sound; how much more inconvenient shall it be, when by a larger bond they shall be required to hear all cases of sin, both between brother & brother, & between the Lord and our brethren? III. What sense or reason have you to make this question, Will they say etc. whereas it is not they, but you which say & plead by all this your arguing, that women, children & servants are bound to leave their callings & come together to try out these controversies?  
H. AINSW. Secondly, many controversies between neighbours, are for civil things of this life: such are 
(g) Luk. 12.14.  not Church matters, nor there to be heard, but by 
(h) Rom. 13.  Magistrates, or arbiters chosen. 1. Cor. 6.4, 5. REPL. I. Even the controversies about Civil things of this life, are Church-matters & there to be judged, seeing all sins are there to be judged. Matt. 18. 15-17. 1. Cor. 5.11. 2. Cor. 10.4, 5, 6. If you could prove that men did never make false & deceitful bargains, nor use false weights, nor any kind of extortion, oppression, cozenage, etc. then might you exclude controversies for Civil things from the judgement of the Church. And the controversies about these things being prosecuted before the Church cannot but require a greater time for the examination of them, than the callings & works of men, women, children & servants can well afford: so that the force of the argument by this exception is not diminished, but further manifested hereby. II. For one & the same sin God hath appointed two judgements, one Civil, another Ecclesiastical: as for example, if a man should refuse to divide the inheritance with his brother; this man by the Magistrates might be forced thereunto; and this judgement is a Civil administration. And this is that which our Saviour remooves from himself, Luk. 12.13, 14. Again, the same man for his deceit, covetousness & sinful oppression of his brother used in this controversy for Civil things of this life, might justly be censured by the Church & excluded from the same; which is an Ecclesiastical judgement and administration. You cannot show any place of Scripture, that denies this judgement unto the Church. Moreover our Saviour at that time was none of the ordinary judges, no not in Ecclesiastical causes. He did not in his life time erect another judicatory besides that which was already then established among the jews: and therefore did not use to excommunicate any or cast them out of the Synagogue. And if Christ did not now ordinarily give sentence, neither in Civil nor Ecclesiastical judgements, how fare is this his example from proving that controversies for Civil things are to be remooved from the Church? III. As for Rom. 13. showing that controversies for Civil things are to be judged by Magistrates, this is not contrary to any thing in the argument, neither doth it weaken the same. The causes of Murder, Adultery, Theft, Cozenage, Slander, as they are to be judged by the Magistrate, so by the Church also. And if all the members thereof, men, women, children & servants be bound unto the labour of trying and examining such causes, why have they not maintenance for the same, as well as either Magistrates or Ecclesiastical Elders? iv As for matters referred unto Arbiters, seeing they are oftentimes matters of sin, of wrong & injury (1. Cor. 6.7, 8.) subject in that respect unto Ecclesiastical censures; this course of deciding controversies doth as well serve for the ease & help of the Elders, & saves them a labour as well as the people. And therefore the consideration hereof doth help to show that there is still no reason why Elders should have special maintenance, when their ease & excuse from labouring is as much as any others.  
H. AINSW. Thirdly, for doubtful cases Ecclesiastical, people are to inquire the law 
(i) Mal. 2.7  at the Priest's mouth, and to ask counsel of their Elders, severally or jointly, who are to have their meetings apart for such & other like ends: Act. 21.18. so many things may be composed without trouble of the Church. REPL. 1. The people are to ask counsel of one another also, as well as of their Elders, for in the multitude of counsellors is health; Prov. 11.14. and all the brethren are to instruct, guide and support one another: Rom. 2. 17-20. & 15.14. Heb. 3.13. and by your own confession they are to be used not only in private, but in 
(k) Animadv. p. 40.  public consultations also. Yea beside this, you acknowledge further, that 
(l) Ibid. p. 39, 41.  the greatest Errors, Heresies, Schisms & evils have both arisen & been continued by the Elders; that sometimes they are blind guides and without understanding: and oftentimes they differ in counsel among themselves; and thus in doubtful cases men become more doubtful by their counsel, and so have the more need to consult among themselves. If therefore this duty of giving counsel do lie upon the people and they be bound unto it; this work alone being common to others with the Elders, could not show the double honour & maintenance due unto them, unless some other study and work together with the labour of hearing, examining and judging of causes did require the same. II. As for Mal. 2.7. the knowledge in the Priest's lips there spoken of, was that which he principally manifested in his office of public preaching the law of God: Deut. 33.10. Leu. 10.11. in which office the Elders do not succeed them, and so have no special maintenance due in that regard. Again, the knowledge in the Priest's lips appeared secondarily in judicial causes, which they heard, examined & judged. Deut. 17.8, 9-12. 2. Chron. 19.8. Zech. 3.7. This power you give unto the people now as well as unto the Elders, who therefore by your doctrine deserve no more maintenance for the same then do the people in this regard. III. Though we grant that Elders are to have their ordinary meetings apart for the Church-affaires, yet doth not your allegation from Act. 21.18. prove the same. for that meeting being upon extraordinary occasion, to entertain the Apostle Paul and those that were with him, who being new come to jerusalem, they came together to salute & embrace one another, to hear tidings of the success of the Gospel & to rejoice together in the Lord, vers. 19 and then consulted further of such things as tended to the edification of the Church, vers. 20. etc. You might as well conclude that strangers of other Congregations should be present in the ordinary assembly of the Elders, because we do here read of some such who being in Paul's company were now also present at this special meeting of the Elders in jerusalem. Act. 21.15, 16, 17, 18.  
H. AINSW. Fourthly, when apparent sinners so convicted by witnesses, are to be judged by the Church: there is no time more fit than the Sabbath day; wherein all men are board to leave their own works, (Exo. 20.10.) & tend to the Lords, of which sort this is. REPL. I. Though I do not hold it simply unlawful to judge causes on the Sabbath day, yet that this day is the fittest, your allegation from Exod. 20. shows it not. Men may then leave their own works & tend to the Lords, though they hear no controversies pleaded: yea much more fitly, comfortably and fruitfully may they attend upon the public administration of the Word, Prayer & Sacraments, and sanctify themselves thereunto in private both by duties of preparation before, and by duties of meditation, repetition, conference, etc. afterward, if the minds of Minister & people be not distracted or hindered by other controversies and contentions. Psal. 26.6. Matt. 5.8. Exo. 19.10. & 30. 18-21. Act. 17.11. Psal. 119.11. etc. That there hath been such a disturbance and hindrance among you, it is testified not only by strangers which sometimes hearing you do complain hereof, but also by your own Ministers, as Mr johnson & Mr Clyfton, and your own people, both such as have left you and even such as still remain with you. II. As Ecclesiastical judgements are the Lords works, so are Civil judgements also, which the Magistrates sitting on the Lord's throne in stead of the Lord their God, do administer & execute in his name. 2. Chron. 19.6. & 9.8. And by this reasoning you might make the Sabbath to be the fittest day for them also.  
H. AINSW. Or if that day suffice not, they may take any other for them convenient: for etc. REPL. You do hereby yield unto us that you have walked in an unclean way, and that you have (according to your own doctrine) an unclean and polluted people. for seeing as Mr johnson confesseth & witnesseth, 
(m) Treat. on Matt. 18. p. 17.  your wont manner hath been to hear matters on the week day; at which time there was seldom half the Church together: if now according to 
(n) Anim. adv. p. 42.  your former arguing from 1. Tim. 5.22. men cannot keep themselves pure from partaking with other men's sins, unless they see & hear the conviction of those whom they do reject, then hath half your Church together been defiled many times, while they have consented to the excommunication of such, at the hearing and examination of whose cause they have not been present.  
H. AINSW. For unto public affairs the Church is to be assembled. 1. Cor. 5.4. Act. 14.27. & 15.4, 30. & 21. 18-22. REPL. This your general and indefinite speech doth admit many exceptions: for I. Even the Elders when they have their meetings apart, as you grant unto them, do consider together of the public affairs; and there you see then that the Church is not always to be assembled unto public business. II. If the whole Church and all the members thereof, men, women, children and servants must assemble to hear the proceed against them whom they are to avoid & reject, according to your plea; and this also on the week days though it should be day after day, as may come to pass in great Congregations and when many cases are to be heard, etc. as was 
(o) R Clyfr. Advert. p. 42.  before objected unto you: what reason is there that the Elders should have special maintenance in respect of this work, where all the members of the Church are bound to attend upon the work as well as they? To this you say nothing. III. Even unto the public administration of the word and prayer, you do not bind your people on the week day, but leave it free for them to come or not to come unto the same: And shall the hearing of examinations & proceed against particular men have more honour than the word preached? Yea which is much more, by this your opinion and reasoning you do more bind your people to be present at controversies even on the week day, then to hear the word and prayer even on the Lord's day: for to be absent from judicial proceed on the week day doth not only require acknowledgement of a fault, as doth the absence from public worship on the Lord's day, but by your doctrine it doth also require a reversing & repeating of the proceed, or else a refusal to allow the same in not rebuking or rejecting them who are publicly censured, rebuked or excommunicated by the Church. iv As in respect of the ease & commodity of the Church, the hearing of some public affairs is to be committed to the Eldership, as hath been showed before; so also for the avoiding of scandal & offence. for example: the examination of each particular act and circumstance serving for the conviction of offenders in some unclean & filthy sins, and the open repetition & naming hereof before the whole Congregation, men & women, young & old, your own people & strangers that come to hear, cannot but be very offensive, & so is found to be: for it is a shame even to speak of the things which are done of many in secret. Eph. 5.12. And even shame itself (as it seems) hath forced you sometimes to leave this your practice, which you so earnestly plead for: As heretofore in the case of H. C. it is testified, that in the examination of an unclean fact imputed unto him, there were certain men deputed to hear and examine the cause apart from the Congregation, that the ears of women and children and of the whole multitude should not be offended therewith. And why may you not now still by the like reason yield that the hearing and examining of offenders may be done apart by the Elders which are the Church's deputies thereunto, as well as heretofore by some other deputies new chosen?  
Touching the Scriptures alleged by you, although that which is said already might serve for answer thereunto, yet this in particular may be further considered. As for 1. Cor. 5.4. there is not a word of the Churches meeting together to examine the fact of the incestuous person, but only of giving sentence after it was sufficiently known. In Act. 14.27. we read that the Church was gathered together; and so with us both on the Lord's day and on one of the week days there is a gathering of the Church together. What an idle thing is it to prove that there should be public assemblies of the Church, which none denies? But this place shows not that the Church was gathered together to the public examination of scandals & to hear the proceed against offenders, according to the question in hand. As for Act. 15.4. the receiving by the Church there mentioned doth not so much as show that the Church was then gathered together. The Church might be said to receive Paul & Barnabas & some others with them, and to hear what things God had done by them, though not in a public assembly met together for that end: even as the Church of Rome might be said to receive Phoebe (Rom. 16.2.) though not in a public assembly; & Gaius might be said to be the host of the whole Church (Rom. 16.23.) & consequently to receive the same, though not gathered together at one time. In Act. 15.30. Luke shows that the Epistle of the Apostles was delivered to the multitude assembled at Antiochia. So we read that the Epistle written to the Colossians was to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans: Colos. 4.16. So the letters and decrees of Princes & States at this day are often times upon sundry occasions delivered and openly read to the multitude & people in several cities assembled and called together to hear the same, even as these decrees of the Apostles and Elders were delivered in sundry places: Act. 16.4. But do these manner of assemblies prove that no cases of controversy, scandal or sin may be examined & heard by the Rulers & Governors without the presence of the people gathered together in such an assembly, according to the question betwixt us? How can such kind of collections be ever justified by you?  
That place, Act. 21. 18-22. is oft alleged by you to show the people's power, while it is there said, that the multitude must needs come together; touching which words, though neither the Syriack nor the Arabic versions of the New Testament have them; though the want of these words from the text in this place is by 
(p) Inn. Annot in Arab transl. in Act. 21.22.  some learned men judged not to be unmeet; yet will I not insist thereon. But 1. to take the words as they are in the Greek, the word 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  translated must needs, doth not always signify a duty to be done, but sometimes only a necessity of a thing coming to pass & done by men, though they ought not to do it: and so this very word is elsewhere used by the Apostle, when he saith there must be herefies, 1. Cor. 11.19. showing thereby the necessity of an event, but not the duty of any person to do that thing. Neither doth any thing hinder but that the word here also in Act. 21. may be taken in like sense, viz. that the multitude would needs come together, though not bound by duty thereunto. 2. Suppose that this coming together of the multitude was according to duty, yet seeing that both the occasion was extraordinary, & that also the form of their coming together is not specified, whether they were to come as hearers only of Paul's doctrine, or as judges in judicial manner to examine him; how can you now conclude from hence that all cases of controversy among brethren are ordinarily to be examined by the multitude of the Congregation in a public assembly?    

THE SECOND PART, Touching The power of Classical and Synodall Assemblies.  

CHAP. I.  
The State of the Question, and the importance thereof.  
THe sum & substance of the Discipline or Church-government appointed of God & practised in the Reformed Churches, consists chief in this; that when as for the removing of private offences private admonition in the first and second degree prevails not, or when as the offence is public at first, the matter be then brought unto the judgement of the Eldership; and so that in weightier cases, as receiving of members, excommunication, election & deposition of Ministers, etc. nothing be concluded & executed without the knowledge & approbation of the Church; likewise that in more weighty & difficult cases, as the aforenamed or the like, the advice, help and allowance of the Classis under which they stand, and if need be of the Synod unto which the Classis is subordinate, be sought & rested in: & this in such manner, that if any person, either Minister, Elder, or any other, even the least member of the Church do find any evil to be maintained, either against faith or manners, either by the Eldership or by the Congregation, it is then lawful for them for the redress of such evil, to repair unto the Classis or Synod, that by their authority & sentence, the offence may be censured & the abuse reform. As the Eldership of a particular Church consists of Ministers & Elders chosen out of the same, so the Classis consists of many Ministers & Elders sent from many Churches, & assembling together to hear & determine the cases above written.  
That the State of the Question may yet more clearly be understood, it is to be remembered that in this combination of Classes and Synods, I. The authority which they exercise is not absolute, nor their decrees held to be infallible, but to be examined by the word of God, and not to be received further than they do agree therewith. And therefore also 
(a) Kercken. Ordeninge Synod. Nat. Dordr. art. 31.36.  there is liberty of appeal from them, from the Classis to the Synod, and from a Provincial Synod to a Nationall. II. The authority of Classes & Synods is not Civil, neither have they power to inflict Civil punishments; they 
(b) Ibid. art. 30.  judge only of Ecclesiastical causes & that in Ecclesiastical manner, using no other than spiritual censures. III. In the Classical union & consociation of neighbour Churches, 
(c) Ibid. art. 84.  no one Church hath any prerogative or power above another, nor any one Minister or Elder greater authority than another: but their questions are determined by most voices; and they are all mutually & equally subject unto one another in the Lord. IV. This government of Churches by Classes doth not deprive particular Churches & Congregations of their liberty & power, but serves to direct & strengthen them in the right use & exercise of their power: for example, when a particular Church with their Elders or the greater part of them agree together to choose a Minister that is offensive or unfit for them, if the Classis upon due consideration of the matter do disannul their election & hinder their proceeding, yet do they not hereby deprive them of their liberty nor take from them their privilege of election, forasmuch as they do still leave unto them a freedom to choose another fit Minister; they do not in this case go about to choose for them, or to obtrude upon them another Minister against their will, but only exhort them to use their power and liberty aright, and to show more care and godly wisdom in seeking out such an one as may be more inoffensive & fit for the edification of their Church.  
Against this authority of Classes and Synods divers opposites have risen up and have pleaded for a new kind of Discipline, contrary to the order of all Reformed Churches, and contrary to that Reformation which the ancient Non-conformists in England have so much desired & laboured for. And yet many of these Opposites do in the mean time in general terms seem to 
(d) Mr jacob in his Auestation of Church-gov. p. 118. & 178. Church's plea. p. 94.  embrace Synods and greatly to approve of the benefit that comes by them. But herein is the point of difference, that they do limit & confine all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Congregation. Though they acknowledge Synods to be lawful, expedient and necessary; yet this they hold to be only in regard of counsel & advise, for provocation, direction & countenance: but do not acknowledge them to have any authority to give sentence for the decision of causes; they do not allow Classes or Synods to use any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction or censure in judging the controversies that arise in particular Congregations. They maintain that 
(e) Church's plea. pref. Mr Dau. Reply. p. 229, etc.  every particular Congregation is independent, not standing under any other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves.  
This opposition of Classes & Synods is made specially by the 
(f) H. Barrow Discov. p. 190. 191. Apol. of Brown. pos. 9  Brownists, and by them have the Ministers of England been reproached for the respect which they had unto Synods. After them Mr jacob in his writings often allowing them for counsel, 
(g) Necess. of Reform. p. 31, 32, 33  yet denies the power & authority which we asscribe unto them. And in that book which is entitled English Puritanisme 
(h) Chap. 2. art. 3.6. etc.  this their opinion is most plainly & peremptorily propounded. And now also Mr Davenp. though he 
(i) Apolog. Repl. p. 226  allow a combination of particular Churches in Classes and Synods, and such a consociation of them as is between equals, and is by way of counsel, or brotherly direction; yet he saith 
(k) Ibid. p. 229.  that their authority is not a prerogative of jurisdiction, but of estimation & reverence rather: because God's ordinance hath limited the former (viz. jurisdiction) to particular Churches, as his delegates in their own matters, & it is not in their power to alienate it from themselves: But the latter (viz. estimation & reverence) is due to Classes consisting of grave, learned, prudent and faithful men, for their excellent personal gifts, in which respect their judgement is to be much valued, & receyved with due regard. But if any do asscribe unto Classes a power of jurisdiction over particular Churches, and that in things which he calls proper unto themselves, this he saith 
(l) Ibid. p. 230.  is to subject particular Churches under an undue power: this he calls an usurped power. Now then behold what this estimation & reverence is which Mr Dau. allows to Classical assemblies or Synods; viz. not so much power as is allowed to any one man, though it were the most ignorant and offensive that is a member of a particular Church. for when a controversy ariseth about the election of a Minister, the one half of the Congregation giving voices for him, another half excepting against him as unsound in doctrine & unfit for them; if a whole Classical assembly of Ministers & Elders deputed from all the Churches round about do also except against him as unsound and unfit, and with one consent judge that he ought not to be called, yet for one voice of that one ignorant person, whereby the one part of the Congregation comes to exceed the other in number, is that unworthy one to be received & called. This is that due regard, that estimation & value which Mr Dau. affords unto this Classis consisting of so many grave, learned, prudent & faithful men of excellent personal gifts, while he maintains that all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is limited to the particular Church: and all the counsel & brotherly direction of the Classis must be of no authority against the resolution of such a wilful company, to censure their unjust proceed & to stay the same. So again 
(m) Apol. repl. p. 47.  he pretendeth Mr Cartwr. his authority, to prove that other Churches have no power of hindering a faulty election, but by admonition, which power every Christian hath in another, for his good.  
The special or only remedy which the Opposites fly unto in such cases is the help of the Magistrate. But hereby the importance of this Question and the danger of despising Synods may appear. Though they hold that Christ hath not subjected any Church or Congregation of his, to any other superior Ecclesiastical jurisdiction then unto that which is within itself, etc. yet they hold 
(n) Engl. Purit. cap. 2. § 6. & 3.  that if in the choice of Ministers any particular Church shall err, that none upon the earth but the Civil Magistrate hath power to control or correct the same for it, etc. that in such cases others are to leave their souls to the immediate judgement of Christ and their bodies to the sword of the Civil Magistrate, etc. But this help & remedy is weak & insufficient, & that many ways: for I. The Churches of Christ do sometimes remain under heathenish Magistrates, that either regard not the cause of the Church, & refuse to judge their controversies, as Paul & Gallio, john. 18.31. Act. 18.14, 15. or else seek wholly to root out the same. II. The Churches are sometimes dispersed & sojourn in the countries of Popish Princes and Magistrates, as the Churches which at this day live under the Cross in Brabant & Flanders & sundry other places, where they keep themselves as secret as may be: and what help can they expect from the Magistrates which seek to expel them out of their territories? III. Other Churches of Christ do abide in such Popish countries where though they be tolerated to have their meetings, as in many parts of France, yet it would be in vain for them to seek help of the Popish Governors that have dominion in some of the places where they have their abode. iv In these United Provinces of the Netherlands, where the Reformed Churches are maintained, yet forasmuch as here is a toleration of many Sects and Religions, and among the rest of the Brownists, the Magistrates do not use to judge their Ecclesiastical controversies, & so afford no help unto those Sects in that kind. When did the Brownists ever seek any help from them to repress their contentions and schisms? V That or those Churches which are secretly gathered in England according to the direction & example of Mr jacob, do they not altogether want the help of the Civil Magistrate in their controversies? He prescribes this remedy, 
(o) Necess. of Reform. p. 28.  that if people in their Church-elections, etc. will presume to be unruly & violent, than the Princes next dwelling Officers of Justice may & aught to make them keep peace & quietness. But durst he or his in any of their contentions ever seek that remedy? Lastly, suppose that in every country the Magistrates did seek the wealth of Zion and did use their authority to correct and punish the disorders committed in true Churches, yet would not this remedy be sufficient to humble obstinate offenders, God having appointed other means of Spiritual censure as well as Civil punishment to work upon the consciences of sinners, of which more is to be spoken hereafter.  
The importance of this Question may further appear unto us, if we consider the manifold & great offences & scandals which many have the rather fallen into through their neglect & contempt of Classes & Synods, and through want of that help which they might have obtained by them. And this is most evident in the practice & course of the Brownists. In that infamous contention when Francis john's. the Pastor with his company did excommunicate not only his brother George johnson, a Preacher also, but his own father likewise, john johnson, coming out of England for this purpose, to make peace betwixt his two sons: had they used the help of neighbour Churches & permitted them to judge betwixt them, it might have been a means through God's blessing to have preserved them from such extreme courses. Hereof George johnson oft complaineth in his book: 
(p) Discourse of troubles, etc. p. 74. & p. 38.39. & 41.  they will not consent hereunto, they will not be persuaded nor entreated to let the Reformed Churches hear, try, judge & end the controversy between them and us. And this is not the complaint of G. johnson alone, but the Ministers both of the Dutch and French Churches in Amsterdam do likewise give testimony thereof, being deputed by the Elderships of both those Churches, & that upon the request of the father, to see if they could procure Franc. joh. and the Elders of his Church to submit the controversy to their trial & judgement. This appears in the Testimony hereof given unto the father john john's. by the 
(q) johannes a Vinea, Petrus Plancius, jacobus Arminius, Simon Goulattius.  Ministers of these Churches in writing under their hands. Yea & further the Church of the Separation did so much abhor to have their causes and affairs submitted unto any censure or judgement out of their own Church, that in the excommunication of the father, an old man of 70. years, that had undertaken so hard a journey (as he confessed) for the reconcilement of his sons, & sought such means from other Churches to end their strife, this was set down as one distinct & special cause of his excommunication, viz. for labouring to draw the Church into Antichristian bondage in the the judging the causes thereof. This appears in the Copy of his Excommunication delivered unto him & subscribed by 
(r) Daniel Studley. Stanshall Mercer.  two of their Elders in the name of their Church.  
And since that time, when the Brownists have so often schismed & rend in the midst, as in Mr johnson & Mr ainsworth's division when they separated one from the other; when after the death of Mr Ainsworth that company rending again in the midst, one half followed john de Cluse & the other Mr Can; when after the death of Mr Robinson, his company also rending in pieces they forsook their old fellowship together; when Mr Can was first rashly elected a Minister by the Brownists, when shortly after that election he was censured and deposed from his office by that half that rejected him & renounced communion with him: In all these & the like controversies they wanted help & durst not seek the benefit of Classical Government, nor submit their cause unto such an order of trial and censure, lest they should enthrall themselves in Antichristian bondage, as they call it. They that allow not Synods with authority to decide causes, do yet profess that they are to be approved & embraced for counsel & advise: but it appears by these & other not unlike passages among those that are of the same opinion, that they which deny the power of censure in Classes, do seldom inquire after their counsel.  
And although the importance of this controversy doth hereby appear plainly enough, yet do we not hold the same to be so great as some of our opposites do make it, as if the essence of the Church & our own salvation depended hereupon. Mr Can calls it 
(s) Church's plea. p. 77.  a matter of faith, appertaining to life & salvation. Mr jacob speaking of this particular Church, wherein this single, uncompounded policy is maintained, saith, 
(t) Necess. of Reform. p. 5.  This only aught to be allowed & believed to be a true Church by all Christians: and again, 
(v) Ibid. p. 6.  This is the only true visible Church of Christ having from him the spiritual power of order & government in itself ordinarily. The proper Ministers thereof are the only true ordinary Ministers of Christ. He saith further, 
(x) The divine begin. & instit. of Christ's true visible Church. pref.  The true form indeed of Christ's visible & ministerial Church is an Inward thing. It is the Power of a single & uncompounded spiritual polity. He denies the Profession of saving faith, to be the essential form, and often inculcates that the form, essence, nature & constitution of the Church consists in that power of spiritual polity, before rehearsed. He complains of them that do not practise according to his rule, saying, 
(y) Ibid. pref.  These truly seem to destroy the conscience & faith of the people, etc. And he gives this exhortation, that 
(z) Ibid. A. 4.  All Christians every where ought to frame the visible Church where they live to this only true form, or else to betake themselves unto some Church so form, as they tender their spiritual safety & comfortable assurance in Christ. But we on the contrary side, though we hold that Classes and Synods are most necessary and profitable for the well being of the Church, being also prescribed unto us by divine ordinance, 
See Voet. Desp. Caus. Pap. p. 65 2.  yet do we not hold that the essence & being of the Church doth consist in this, much less in that form of government commended by them. If a particular Church of God should sojourn among the Indians or among Heretics, where it could not obtain fellowship with other Churches out of itself; or if by violence or other unavoidable inconveniencies any Church should be hindered from enjoying this benefit of combination with other Churches in Classical government: yet do we acknowledge that notwithstanding this want such a Church might still subsist & be reputed a true Church. And yet so that we hold every Church bound to seek this dependency & union with other Churches, as God shall give opportunity & means, and cannot without sin neglect the same.  
To this place belongs the answer unto two of those Questions which Mr Can 
(a) Church's plea. p. 33.  propounds upon another occasion.  
I. CAN. Wither it be Jure Divino that Ecclesiastical Officers of many Churches are necessarily bound to determine by joint authority the cases of many particular Congregations; or whither it be a thing arbitrary & left unto every man's liberty. ANSW. That the combination of Churches in Classes & Synods for judging & determining the cases of many particular Churches by joint authority, is a divine ordinance and appointed Jure Divino, is that which I maintain & labour to prove in this Dispute & in the following Arguments. As it is not a thing arbitrary and left unto every man's liberty, whether he shall join himself as a member unto a particular Church, if he have means and opportunity to do it: so it is not a thing arbitrary nor left in the liberty of particular Churches, whether they shall combine themselves into Classes & Synods, for their spiritual government, if they have opportunity. All that neglect to do it sin against the communion of Saints, & walk not as becomes the members of the body of Christ. Rom. 12.5. 1. Cor. 12.25. Eph. 4.16.  
I. CAN. Whither all such cases and controversies, as are decided by many Ministers, combined into Classes & Synods; must so stand, as that particular Congregations may not (if they think fit) reject the same, and practise otherwise then hath been there determined by joint authority. ANSW. Men are bound to stand unto the judgements of Classes & Synods, so fare as their determinations are found agreeable unto the Word, & no further. Act. 4.19. But if any particular Church reject their sentence & determination being consonant unto the Scripture, than that Church committeth double sin, once for transgressing against the written word of God, and again for despising the ordinance of God and contemning the joint authority of such as are met together in his name. Particular Churches are so to respect and stand unto the determinations of Classical or Provincial Synods, even as particular men and members of a Church are bound to stand unto the sentence of that Church where they are members, viz. according to the truth and will of Gods and not otherwise.   

CHAP. II.  
The first Argument, taken from the words of the Law, Deut. 17. 8-12.  
THe first Argument is taken from the ordinance of God delivered by Moses of old unto Israel, where the people of God in particular Congregations were taught to bring their hard & difficult controversies as well Ecclesiastical as Civil unto a superior Judicatory, unto the Priests the Levites, or unto the Judge in those days, according to the quality of the cause, for the deciding thereof. Deut. 17. 8-12. This Order was also reestablished in the days of jehoshaphat who placed and settled in jerusalem an Ecclesiastical Synedrion or Senate for the matters of the Lord, over which Amariah was Precedent, & these were to receive the complaints and to judge the causes of their brethren that came up unto them from other cities & places of their habitation; even as there was also a Civil Synedrion for the affairs of the King, over which Zebadiah was Precedent. 2. Chron. 19. 8-11. This form of government is commended unto us of David, as the praise of jerusalem, when he points out distinctly these two kinds of Senates, 
(a) See jun. Annot. on Psal. 122.  Ecclesiastical and Civil, thrones of judgement and thrones of the house of David, whereunto the Tribes, even the Tribes of the Lord did go up. Psa. 122.4.5. As Paul once rejoiced in the spirit to see the order of the Colossians; Col. 2.5. so David considering the beauty of this order declares the same to be one special cause of his spiritual gladness & joy in the Lord witnessed in that Psalm. Hereby it is evident that the Assemblies & Synagogues of Israel were not independent, but stood under an Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves; they had no single uncompounded policy; all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not limited unto particular Congregations. Now let us see what our opposites say to this.  
I. CAN. 
(b) Church's plea. p. 43, 44.  He seeks to strengthen the authority of Classes & Synods by the jewish polity & government: Now the Papists to establish the Sea of Rome, use the same argument. And the truth is, if Mr Paget intent to dispute this way, they will carry it quite away from him. But I think he will hereafter be more considerate, and speak no further of that manner and form of Church government: seeing he knows, the most learned on our side do condemn the Papists for it; viz. 
(c) Animadv. contr. 1. l. 3. c. 4.  junius, 
(d) Inst. l. 4. c 6. sect. 2.  Calvin, 
(e) Ag. Whitg. l. 2. p. 614.  Cartwright, 
(f) Contr. 4. qu. 1.  D. Whitaker, & others. ANSW. Mr Ainsworth before him speaks much in like manner to this purpose, he saith, 
(g) Animadv. p. 15.16.  It is a main pillar of Popery, to proportion the Church now, in the outward polity to Israel. The Rhemists would have 
(h) Rhem. annot. on Mat. 23.2.  the see of Rome in the new law, to be answerable to the chair of Moses. Cardinal Bellarmine 
(i) De Rom. Pout. l. 4. c. 1  maketh his first argument for the Pope's judging of controversies, from the Priest & Judge that was appointed in the Law, Deut. 17. etc. And there also he allegeth three of the same witnesses against arguing from the jewish policy, which here Mr Can citeth again. Mr Davenp. pleads to the same effect, saying, 
(k) Apol. repl. p. 254.  The Texts which Bellarmine allegeth for the power of Councils in making laws, are the same which the Answerer sometimes harpeth upon in this case, but junius clearly showeth that they make nothing to the purpose. The first is Deut 17. etc. Hereunto I answer:  
I. Though the Papists argue from the Jewish polity, and from the same places of Scripture alleged by us; yet it is false which Mr Can here saith, viz. that they use the same argument. They argue thence a●●er another manner, make other consequences & draw other conclusions from those places than we do. Their abuse of those Scriptures doth not hinder us from the right use of them. for than we might be quickly deprived of the whole Scriptures, wrested by many unto their destruction. 2. Pet. 3.16. The 
(l) Bellarm. contr. de verbo Dei. l. 3. c 5.  Papists allege Mat. 18.17. as well as Deut. 17. to establish their Romish authority, yet my opposites think it to be no prejudice to themselves that argue in another manner from the same place.  
II. More particularly, the Papists argue from Deut. 17. to prove that there should be one person supreme judge of Ecclesiastical causes, as there was one High Priest among the jews. This is justly refuted both by 
(m) Conf. with Hart c. 6. div. 2. p. 204.  D. Rainolds & by 
(n) DePont. Rom. count. 4. qu. 7. p. 818.819.  D. Whitakers, showing that the judgement given there was not by the High Priest alone, but by a College or Senate of Priests noted in that Text. The Papists argue from Deut. 17. to prove an infallibility of judgement in this one Judge, to show that the Pope cannot err. These & such like false collections from the Policy of the Jews are justly reproved by Orthodox Divines. Had I used any such reasonings, then had there been cause to have complained.  
III. Whereas Mr johnson used to plead for the power and authority of Elders in the Church, and to maintain the same from the Civil Policy of the Jews & from the authority of the Magistrates in Israel; Mr Ainsworth had just cause to dislike the same, and doth 
(o) Animadv. p. 16.  justly allege against him the Testimonies of D. Whitakers, junius, Cartwright, & others. It is true which they affirm, The argument is not good from Civil Government to Ecclesiastical: and again, The example is altogether unlike, of temporal empire and spiritual ministry: between these there is not, neither aught, neither can a proportion or comparison be rightly made, viz. in such a confused manner as Mr johnson hath done it. But as for me, I never pleaded on that manner, I argue not from the Civil, but from the Ecclesiastical Policy in Israel, to show the lawful government of the Church by Synods. Mr Can therefore doth not rightly imitate Mr Ainsw. in the allegation of these Writers.  
iv If Mr Can would see who they be that do in special manner offend by reasoning from the jewish Policy and government, let him look yet better upon the writings of the Brownists. There he shall find not only Mr johns. worthily complained of for 
(p) Animadv. pref.  wresting a proportion from the Princes of Israel to the Ministers of the Gospel: for 
(q) Ibid. p. 14.  straining too fare in proportioning the authority and power of Elders in the Church with the authority of the Elders the Magistrates: for 
(r) Ibid p. 19  matching the power of the Ministers in Spiritual things with the power of the Magistrate in Civil things, etc. But there shall he also find the rest of the Separation, so many as do allow their Confession & Apology, pleading from the Jewish Policy & government to establish & confirm the authority & power of particular Churches in their administration of spiritual and Ecclesiastical censures: he shall find Mr Ainsw. proceeding yet further, not only to reason from the Jewish polity but from an imagined power of the people in Civil judgements, such a power as was not due unto them by the Law. These errors have I noted & refuted at large in the 
(s) Pag. 7-13.  former part of this Treatise.  
V Whereas these Opposers do often allege that 
(t) Animadv. pref. & p. 14, 15. etc.  Moses polity is done away & abrogated; I answer, Though the Ceremonies that were shadows and figures of things to come, be abrogated; yet the Judicial Laws are not wholly boargated, but only so much as served to establish the Ceremonies, or had a peculiar respect to the condition of the Jews, & to that land of promise given unto them. Otherwise, that part of Moses Polity which was of common equity, grounded upon principles of reason and nature, & serving for the maintenance of the Moral Law, is perpetual & not changed. This is showed at large by Orthodox Divines. junius 
(v) De Poli●ia Mosis. cap. 3. thes. 13, 14, 15, etc.  in special doth manifest this, both in general rules and in particular instances, as in the law of making battlements upon the flat roofs of their houses; Deu. 22.8. in the law of not putting to death the children for the offence of the fathers; Deut. 24.16. in the law of not admitting one witness; Deut. 19.15. These and the like Judicial laws in the Polity of Moses are not abrogated. This is likewise showed by that learned 
(x) Gersom Bucerus, Discept. de Gubern. Eccl. p. 51, 52.  Writer who defending the Government & Discipline of the Reformed Churches against D. Downam, declares such Judicial laws to be ad perpetuam Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the perpetual good order of the Church. Now our present controversy is neither about Ceremonial ordinances, nor other Judicial laws peculiar to the Jews, but only about the liberty of Appeals, from one Ecclesiastical judicatory to another, from the judgement of a particular Church unto a Synod Classical, Provincial, or Nationall. This liberty of appeals being granted, than a dependency of Churches is granted, and then the single uncompounded Policy is not to be urged upon us. That this liberty of appeals dependeth upon common equity & the light of nature, the practice of all ages & nations generally witnesseth unto us.  
It was the light of nature that taught this law of common equity unto Jethro, Moses his father in law, approved of God himself. Exod. 18. 22-26. for there (as junius interprets the same) there was a law appointed touching Appeals from subaltern or subordinate Judges: 
(y) Analy▪ Explic. in Deut. c. 17.  That if any matter did either seem obscure unto them [the Judges] that they could not determine it, or did appear hard unto the parties [contending] that they could not rest therein; then they were to betake themselves unto superior judges. And again in the same place, comparing Deut. 17. with Exod. 18. he writes that according to the sum & substance of that counsel which Jethro gave, and ex illo fundamento, etc. from that ground Moses here, viz. Deut. 17. defineth the manner of the appealing of parties, & of consultation to be made by inferior judges, when any weighty business should be, etc. Thus doth he expound this law of appealing to a superior judicatory, either Civil or Ecclesiastical, to be among these judicial laws that are perpetual, arising from the ground of common equity. In like manner G. Bucerus speaking of these same judicatories, inferior & superior, & applying that which he had spoken before in general, unto this particular ordinance, shows that 
(z) Dissert. de Gubern. Eccl. p. 65.  the judicatories of the Church at this day are lawfully framed according to the same form, and that the reasonis, because it clearly appears that this order being anciently instituted of God & most religiously observed of the Fathers, did belong only unto the good order of the Church and not unto the pedagogy of the Law, etc. and therefore was not to be abolished.  
Again, it was prophesied of Christ and his kingdom, that he should deliver the needy when he cryeth; the poor also and him that hath no helper: that he should redeem their soul from deceit & violence, etc. Psal. 72.12, 14. But if liberty of Appeals be now taken away by the coming of Christ; then in respect of Ecclesiastical government, confessed to be a part of Christ's kingdom, the yoke of the Law should be more tolerable, sweet and easy in this point of appeals, than the yoke of Christ: for under the Law the poor being oppressed in judgement by unrighteous judges in one place, they cried for help by appealing unto a superior Synedrion, and there found release, and so were redeemed from deceit & violence. but now under the Gospel, if it were as our Opposites hold, that all spiritual jurisdiction should be limited to a particular Congregation; then might the afflicted & wronged souls cry in vain & find no helper, there being no Ecclesiastical judicatory to relieve them and to redeem their soul from the deceit and violence of their oppressors.  
We read of Cranmer, the holy Martyr, how that when he was cruelly handled by unrighteous judges he sought to comfort himself by his Appeal from them unto a free General Council: The form of his Appeal is exactly set down by him, and he doth as it were cry out for it with great vehemency of words, saying, 
(a) joh. Fox. Acts & Mon. pag. 1709. col. 1 edit.. 1●10.  I desire, the first, the second, & the third time: instantly, more instantly, most instantly, that I may have messengers, if there be any man that will & can give me them. And I make open promise of prosecuting this mine appellation, by the way of disannulling, abuse, etc. But according to the Tenent of our Opposites it should thus have been answered unto him by them: Seek no comfort in such Appeals: under Moses Policy they were lawful, but now under the New Testament they are unlawful: There is no Ecclesiastical jurisdiction out of a particular Church that may give sentence in your cause, etc. What an unworthy conceit is this, thus to dishonour the New Testament, as if God had showed more grace and provided more help for afflicted souls under the Law, then under the Gospel?  
This erroneous conceit is so much the more blame-worthy in some of the Brownists, in that when they plead against the usurpation and injustice of Elders, they then confess this same thing in effect, saying, 
(b) H. Ains. Animadv. p. 22.  Is it meet that they should be judges in their own cases? In Israel when any complained of wrong in the Synagogues or Cities, there was an higher Court to control unruly Elders & to help the oppressed. But now 2 or 3 Elders in a Church, bearing themselves upon their forged ●●thority from Mat. 18.17.20. may be lawless; and who shall let them in their proceed? And for proof of this liberty in Israel they allege Deut. 17.8, 9 & 2. Chron. 19.8, 10. And why then cannot Mr Can endure that I should allege the very same Scriptures to a like end? for, is it meet that particular Churches should be judges in their own cases? In Israel if any complained of wrong against a whole Synagogue, there was an higher Court to control unruly & disordered Congregations, and to help those that were oppressed by them. And shall now 6 or 7 persons in a Church (for sometimes there be no more, specially in the new erected Churches of Separatists) shall those be lawless, bearing themselves upon their forged authority, falsely collected from Mat. 18? shall there be no means by any Synod or by any superior Ecclesiastical judicatory to let them in their proceed?  
Again they confess, that the 
(c) Ibid. p. 24.  Saints have as much more power and liberty in the Gospel now, than the jews had; as the heir when he is of years, hath more than in his childhood; Gal. 4.1, 2, 3. And likewise speaking of the people's right then under the Law and under the Magistrate, they say it 
(d) Ibid. p. 28.  may he more, but cannot be less now under the Gospel, where the Church ministry hath not the power of Magistracy over God's heritage. What is then this liberty that the people have? In the offensive controversies arising and continuing in a Church, the people are either doers of wrong or sufferers of wrong, either oppressors or oppressed: is it now the right & liberty of oppressors, that they in their wrong-doing shall be exempted from the judgement of any superior Church-government to control them? and for the oppressed, is this their sorry inheritance now under the New Testament, that they are deprived of this liberty of appealing to any other judicatory out of themselves, so as to seek any help thereby? What is this else but to diminish and obscure the grace of the Gospel, and to shorten the hand of the Lord, as if he did not now stretch it out as fare, either in mercy for help of the oppressed by allowing them the liberty and comfort of appeals, or in judgement for rebuke of oppressors, by permitting them to be lawless and secure without danger of further censure after they had once prevailed by an unrighteous proceeding in a particular Congregation?  
D. Whitaker, whom Mr Can often allegeth and often perverteth contrary to his meaning▪ is very pregnant and full in witnessing this same truth with me, touching the lawfulness & necessity of appeals. He saith, 
(e) Contr. 4 de Pont. Rom. Qu. 4. c. 2. p. 470.  Truly appeals are of Divine and natural right, and certainly very necessary in every society, because of the iniquity or ignorance of many judges. Otherwise the innocent person should be undone, if it were not lawful to appeal from an unrighteous sentence: and seeing many controversies do arise in causes & persons Ecclesiastical, who can deny that the right of Appeals is of necessity to be granted? Thus he avoucheth that the denial of appeals is against common equity, against the law of God and the law of nature. D. Rainolds also 
(f) Conf. with Hart c. 9 div. 2. p. 572.575.  agreeth with D. Whit. in allowing of appeals in Ecclesiastical causes. As both of them condemn the Appeals unto Rome, so both do grant liberty of Appeals unto Synods. Yea and all the Arguments generally both of Greeks' and Latins directed against the appeals made unto the Pope, do yet reserve a liberty of appeal unto Synods. This may be observed from D. Whit. in his 
(g) De Pont. Rom. Qu. 4. p. 4 6. & 48●, etc.  large & ample defence of the Arguments of Nilus the learned Bishop of Thessalonica, as he calls him, and in his maintaining of the Arguments of the Latins also. And now if these appeals be granted, then is the question clearly granted and fully yielded unto me: then is not all spiritual jurisdiction limited to a particular Church; then are not Churches independent; then is there a superior Ecclesiastical power to judge the controversies of particular Congregations out of themselves.  
Lastly, though Mr Can cannot endure that we should seek to strengthen the authority of Synods from the Policy of the Jews, yet if he would open his eyes, he might see (beside those above noted) others also arguing in like manner. The ancient Fathers have often argued from the Judicial ordinances delivered by Moses unto Israel, yea they have often alleged this very place in special, Deut. 17. to show thereby the practice of Christians in the New Testament. Cyprian 
(h) Lib. 1. Epist. 8. ad plebem. p. 94 Epist. ad Pompon. de virginibus, p. 170. & Epist. ad Rogat. p. 192.  citeth it often. and the like might be observed in other writings of the Fathers. Among later Writers, the lights of this age▪ Vrsinus 
(i) Tom. 1. in Expl. Catech p. 295 & Tom. 3. judic. de Disc. Eccl. p. 806.807.  pleadeth from Deut. 17. to show the authority of the Church, for the excommunication of obstinate sinners. Mr Cartwright 
(k) First Reply to D. Whitg. p. 192.  to show what authority Ministers and Ecclesiastical Governors have now in the New Testament for the governing of the Church, argues from the Jewish Policy, and from that Ecclesiastical Synedrion described 2. Chron. 19.8, 11. which had power to judge the causes of particular Synagogues. Dudley Fenner speaking of the Presbytery in general, as it contains under it both Classes and Synods, as well as the Elderships of particular Churches, to show the authority and use thereof, among other places taken from the Jewish Policy, 
(l) 8. Theol. lib. 7. c. 7. p. 276.277.  allegeth this also, Deut. 17.9. with 2. Chron. 19.8, 11. Zepperus to show a divine warrant for the government of Churches by Synods, 
(m) Polit. Eccles. l. 3. c. 8. p. 707. & 709.  allegeth these same places of Scripture, Deut. 17.8. 2. Chron. 19.8. Ruardus Acronius in like manner in his treatise 
(n) Cap. 7. with c. 13.  of the Church of God & the government thereof, to teach how the more weighty controversies were to be brought from Synagogues and from particular Congregations unto greater Assemblies, he allegeth out of the Judicial laws of Moses this special place, Deut. 17.8. etc.  
To omit many other, how is it that Mr Can doth so much forget the practice of his own Sect? Is it not their manner frequently to allege the ordinances of the Jewish Policy, to strengthen and confirm that power of the Church and that order of government that is maintained and practised by them of the Separation? Their Confession and Apology is full of such reasonings. But instead of the rest, consider we at this time the writings of H. Barrow, who to prove the duty of the Church 
(o) H. Barr. Disc p. 1.  allegeth this place, Deut. 17.8, etc. To prove the power of the Church in driving away and keeping out the profane & open unworthy from the table of the Lord, allegeth at once 
(p) Ibid. p. 17.  the whole book of Deuteronomy. and if the whole book, than this 17. chap. also that is contained therein. What unreasonable men are these, to eat up and devour at one mouthful a whole book of Judicial laws, and not to permit another to have a crumb thereof, or to allege one of those ordinances? To prove that Princes for their transgressions are subject unto censure and judgement, 
(q) Ibid. p. 14. & 245.  to be disfranchised out of the Church and to be delivered over unto Satan, as well as any other offendor, he allegeth sundry examples, and all out of the Old Testament, all of such Kings as stood under the Jewish Policy. Can they from the Jewish Policy prove them to be subject to the greatest censure, and can they not from the same Law procure them liberry of appeal, when they judge they are oppressed? Is the Policy of Moses in force to bind them, and is it then abrogate when they seek relief by appeal unto a superior judicatory? This is indeed an injury & a misery to Princes & people, to high and low, to be brought into greater bondage under Christ in the New Testament, than others were under Moses in the Old.  
THese things being duly considered, it may hereby also appear how vain that is, which Mr Dau. excepteth concerning appeals, or the bringing of causes unto Classes. Touching that which I had said upon another occasion from Deut. 17.8. with 1.12. & 2. Chron. 19.8.9, 10. he excepts as followeth.  
I. DAV. 
(r) Apol. Repl. p. 215  The pretended reason, etc. will not help him in the cases questioned, unless he can prove, I. That the Classes are of the same use by Divine institution, for the help of Pastor which have the assistance of their Eldership, whereof that judicatory was for the help of Moses, etc. ANSW. I. Observe how Mr Dau. being an Accuser, and an Advocate of accusers, instead of bringing any proof to justify the accusations, calls upon me for proof of that established order of government, so long enjoyed in these countries. II. Seing it appeareth that the order of Ecclesiastical government prescribed Deut. 17. & 2. Chron. 19 was for the substance of it no part of the Ceremonial law, but of common and perpetual equity, and that the power of Classes for the receiving of appeals & judging the causes of particular Churches was included therein; it is thence also manifest that the power & authority exercised by Classes & Synods is therefore of Divine institution for the same use, from the same grounds of holy Scripture. III. What reason had he in describing the use of Classes to mention this only, that they were for the help of Pastors, seeing both they & those judicatories, Deut. 17.2. Chron. 19 were for the help & benefit of every member of the Synagogues then and the Churches now, as well as for the help of Pastors? IU. What reason had he also in speaking of Pastors now, to add these words, which have the assistance of their Eldership, seeing in the Synagogues anciently their Pastors & Teachers had the assistance of an Eldership, and Rulers of the Synagogue, as well as now.  
I. DAV. It is to be proved II. That the causes in question, which he carried from the Consistory to the Classis, are of the same nature with those causes between blood & blood, between law & commandment, statutes & judgements, which were deferred to the Levites, the Priests, etc. ANSW. I. It is here also to be noted, how instead of disproving that which I said, and instead of showing any dissimilitude of the question brought unto the Classis, from those brought unto the judicatories, Deut. 17.2. Chron. 19 he leaves his accusation without proof. II. As for the proof he requires, it is most plain and evident from the places alleged: for in them it is manifest, that about whatsoever cause there was any strife or contention in Israel, it might be brought unto the judicatories there mentioned. All Ecclesiastical affairs, all matters of the Lord, were to be brought unto the Ecclesiastical Senate, over which Amariah was Precedent: All Civil affairs, all matters of the King, were to be brought unto the Civil judgement, over which Zebadiah was Precedent. 2. Chron. 19.11. And what controversy can there be in any Church or Estate that may not be reduced to one of these? junius in his exposition of these places 
(s) Anal. Expl. & Annot. on Deut. 17.8. & 2. Chron. 19.8, 11.  plainly distinguisheth these causes & questions on this manner. Again, whereas, 2. Chron. 19 vers. 10. there is express and general mention of any cause whatsoever, about which there might be controversy, between Law & Commandment, Statutes & judgements, I would demand of Mr Dau. what cause can be excepted or exempted from these judicatories? Was there ever any controversy or any contention in any Church, which hath not reference to some Law or Commandment? And seeing Mr Dau. himself in these disputes, pretends the Law and Commandment against us, do not these questions therefore, being of such nature, belong unto such judicatories? Seeing judicatories were therefore originally instituted, to take away strife & dissension, as in Civil causes, Deut. 1.12. so also in Ecclesiastical: Deut. 17.2. Chron. 19 and withal seeing the causes in question, etc. have been special means and causes of discord among us; why should not these matters be brought unto these judicatories for trial and judgement, as well as others? And therefore whether those Scriptures above mentioned, have been by me misapplyed or not, I leave to the consideration of them that are able to judge.   

CHAP. III.  
The second Argument, taken from the words of Christ, Matth. 18. 15-20.  
THe second Argument is taken from that Rule of Discipline, delivered by Christ unto his Disciples, for the government of his Church in the New Testament, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. From this rule we may reason divers ways, and chief thus: If this Rule of Christ be the same that was prescribed unto Israel of old, and be translated from the Jews Synagogues unto the Christian Churches; then are not these Churches independent, then are they not single uncompounded policies, then is not all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction limited within the compass of particular Congregations, then cannot appeals unto superior judicatories be justly denied. But the first is true. Therefore the second also.  
The Assumption of this Argument is denied by many kinds of opposites. H. Barrow cries out against it; 
(a) Refut. of Giff. p. 76.  Is it likely or possible that our Saviour Christ would fetch his pattern for the Elders of his Church & the execution of these high judgements from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the jews, which by the institution of God was merely Civil, and not ordained for causes Ecclesiastical, as appeareth Exod. 18. Num. 11. Deut. 1. the Priests bearing the charge & having the deciding of all Ecclesiastical causes: Num. 18. Deut. 17. But this Council of theirs was now mixed of the Elders of the people and the Priests, & handled all causes, both Civil & Ecclesiastical indifferently. Matt. 26.3. Act. 4.5. How unjustly and ungodly they dealt, may appear by their handling our Saviour and his Apostles from time to time. Now as their is no likeness to collect these surmises from that place, so is there no one circumstance in that Scripture to lead thereunto.  
Mr Ainsworth would persuade that 
(b) Animadv. p. 18.  Christ's doctrine in Matt. 18.18. is a new rule which Israel had not: and thinks it would be good for men to yield unto this persuasion.  
Mr Smith, that declined unto Anabaptism, speaking of the order observed in the old Testament, saith, 
(c) Parall. Cens. Observe. Sect. 8. p. 75.  The Lord did not then require men to proceed with their brethren in three degrees of admonition, and so to bring them to the acknowledgement of their sin and repentance: That is the Lords dispensation for the new Testament. But the Lord's order for those times was 1. reproof for sin, Leu. 19.17. 2. The party reproved was to offer a sacrifice, which if he did he was cleansed from his sin visibly, Levit. 4.23. 3. If the wilfully refused to hearken, he was to be promoted to the Magistrate, and put to death for his presumption. Numb. 15.30, 31. Deut. 17.12. This was the Lord's oecconmie for those times: when this order was violated, than all communion was defiled; whiles it was observed, all was well in the visible communion. Let any man declare the contrary if he be able. Thus he challenged all men in the confidence of this opinion, that Christ gave a new rule.  
Mr jacob speaking of this rule, Mat. 18. saith, 
(d) Attest. c. 8. p. 278.279.  The jewish Church-government cannot be here alluded unto; much less required to be kept & practised by Christians. Concerning which together with all other jewish ordinances, the Apostle teacheth and confirmeth unto us that all those old things are passed away, and that all things (of such nature) under the Gospel, are made new: 2. Cor. 5.17. and that the same things are shaken and changed, and remain not now unto us. Heb. 12.27.  
NOw on the contrary to show the truth of the Assumption against these and the like denials thereof, and to prove that Christ gave no new Rule, but the very same for substance which was given formerly to the Jews; let us consider it in the several parts thereof, & so by induction from them demonstrate that which is affirmed by us. _____ In that Rule of Christ, Mat. 18. 15-20. we have described to us, 1. Three degrees of admonition. 2. A censure upon contempt of admonition. 3. A confirmation of that censure.  
The first degree of admonition is most private, betwixt the person admonishing and the person offending alone, vers. 15. This is no new commandment, but taught of old, both generally in the equity of the Law, to love our neighbour as ourselves, Leu. 19.18. and more specially, to show this love by admonition, in the rebuke of sin, Leu. 19.17. and that with secrecy. Prov. 11.13. & 25.9. And further, as Christ describes the person offending by the name of a brother, to show in what loving manner this duty was to be performed to him, saying, If thy brother sin against thee, etc. so had Moses done before, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, etc. As Christ requires not only a simple telling of the fault, but a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  convincing of the offendor: so had Moses taught Israel before, 
* hocheach tochiach.  thoroughly to reprove or convince, and not to suffer sin upon a brother. Mat. 18.15. with Leu. 19.17. As Christ in the same place to encourage unto this duty, propounds the winning of a brother; so the Lord in the old Testament, shows how the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and how the wise do win souls. Prov. 11.30. Thus fare it was no new rule.  
The second degree of admonition was with witnesses: If he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Mat. 18.16. This is expressly taken from & grounded upon the Policy of Moses, who prescribed the same order for Israel. Deut. 19.15. Hitherto therefore it is the same rule.  
The third degree of admonition was by the Church, being complained unto and told of the offence. Mat. 18.17. This admonition was also observed in Israel, when as the Church, or those Ecclesiastical Governors which represented the Church, either in Synagogues, or (as occasion required) in superior Judicatories, did teach, inform, and admonish offenders, before they gave sentence of their obstinacy and presumption. Deut. 17.9, 10, 11. 2. Chron. 19.10. Herein likewise the same rule was prescribed. And the word thus duly spoken in his place, or 
* gnal ophnan.  on the wheels of order, in divers degrees of admonition, that it might run and prevail, was like apples of gold in pictures of silver. Prov. 25.11.  
The censure which followed upon the contempt of these admonitions was Excommunication, or rejection of the obstinate offender. Mat. 18.17. This was no new kind of censure, seeing Excommunication was also an ancient ordinance, a part of that Ecclesiastical Policy under the old Testament; yea described by the same phrase of ●●tting off (Exod. 12.19. Num. 15.30, 31.) which is also used in the Gospel of Christ. Gal. 5.12. As in Israel they had a censure of separating from the Congregation; Ezra. 10.8. so in the new Testament, in an equivalent phrase, the like judgement was signified, by denouncing some to be accursed, anathema. or separate from the Church of God. Gal. 1.9. And even in this text, Mat. 18.17. the censure of excommunication being described by declaring men to be as Heathens & Publicans, there is not only a manifest allusion and respect unto the estate of the Jews, but a commandement of the same order for avoiding the obstinate, by denying civil communion, of eating & drinking with excommunicates, as they did unto the Publicans; Mat. 9.11. Luk. 15.2. and both religious & civil communion, both in public & private, as they did unto the Heathen: Act. 11.2, 3. & 21.28, 29. neither could this rule be well understood without knowledge of the present practice of the Jews in this behalf.  
The confirmation of this censure, is described in the rule of Christ, by a threefold testimony and promise. 1. That this judgement of the Church given on earth should be ratifyed in heaven, either for binding or losing, Mat. 18.18. And so Moses setting life and death, blessing and cursing, the judgements of God before Israel, calls heaven & earth to record for confirmation, to bind them to reverence those ordinances of God. Deut. 30.19. & 4.26. 2. As Solomon, under the Law, at the building of the Temple, did by his prayer confirm Israel in hope of having their prayers to ascend from earth to heaven; 1. King. 8.30, 31, 32. so Christ here promiseth that the prayers of those which agreed touching any thing on earth, should be granted in heaven. vers. 19 3. As josaphat for the establishment of the judaical Policy, encouraged the judges with the promise of God's presence & assistance; that the Lord would be with them in the matter of judgement, that the Lord would be with the good: 2. Chron. 19.6, 11. so here Christ to encourage his servants in the observation of this order promiseth his presence, to be in the midst of two or three gathered together in his name. verse. 20.  
Thus it appeareth from the enumeration of all the several parts of this rule, compared with the ordinance of God in the old Testament, that this is no new rule. Though there were many other Ceremonial and temporary ordinances in the Law, for the purging of sin and uncleanness: yet so fare as concerns this Rule, Mat. 18. there is no new order prescribed herein; here is nothing specified which was not taught before.  
EVen those witnesses, before alleged by Mr Can, and before him by Mr Ainsw. do testify the same: they and others, the most excellent servants of God, the stars of the Churches, subscribing unto this truth, and bearing witness with us unto this interpretation of Scripture, and arguing divers ways for the authority of Classes & Synods from this place, Mat. 18. and specially in this respect, that it was no new rule.  
Calvine speaking of this rule and of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction prescribed therein, saith plainly, 
(e) Instit. l. 4. c. 11. § 2. & 4.  Christus nihil hîc novum instituit, etc. Christ here instituted no new thing; but followed the custom always observed in the ancient Church of his own nation: whereby he signified that the Church could not want the spiritual jurisdiction which had been from the beginning, etc. And this he also applies unto the jurisdiction exercised in Synods, when he writes, 
(f) Ibid. c. 9 § 2.  If it be demanded what the authority of Synods is from the Scriptures, there is no clearer promise extant then in this sentence of Christ; Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Mat. 18.20. Again in his exposition of those words, Tell the Church, he saith 
(g) Harm. Evang. in Mat. 18.17.  The quaestion is, what he means by the name of the Church. for Paul commands that the incestuous Corinthian should be excommunicated, not by any choice number but by the whole company of the godly, 1. Cor. 5.5, 6. and therefore it might seem probable that the judgement is here referred unto all the people. But because there was then no Church which had given the name unto Christ, nor such a manner appointed, but that the Lord speaks as of an usual and received custom; there is no doubt but that he alludes unto the order of the old Church, even as in other places also he applies his speech unto the known custom, etc. So therefore he now had respect unto the form of discipline which was received among the Jews: because it would have been absurd to propound the judgement of a Church which yet was not. Moreover seeing the power of excommunication among the Jews, was now in the Elders which represented the person of the Church, Christ fitly saith that those which had offended should then at length be brought publicly to the Church, if either proudly they contemned or scurrilously rejected private admonitions. We know that from the time that the Jews returned out of the captivity of Babylon, the censure of manners and of doctrine was committed to that chosen Council which they called Sanhedrin, and in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This government was lawful & approved of God, and this was the bridle to keep in order the froward & untractable. Thus hath he fully expressed himself, that this commandment of Christ, Mat. 18. is no new rule, but taken from the Ecclesiastical Policy of the Jews.  
Beza in like manner confirmeth this interpretation, saying, 
(h) Annot: maj. in N. Test. in Mat. 18.17.  This power & jurisdiction was in those which are therefore called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rulers of the Synagogue, Mark. 5.22. & an example of this custom is found, joh. 9.22. & 12.42. etc. And speaking of this word Church, mentioned Mat. 18. (he saith,) It is to be observed that they do foully err which would prove from this place that all things are to be referred unto the assembly of the whole multitude. They say the name of Church is never otherwise taken: which from this very place is convinced to be false. for certainly it appears that these things are spoken as of the Jews, at least from this which he addeth, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publican. But all writers of these things do testify that the judgements of these matters among the Jews were in the Elders, and that the whole multitude of the people was not always wont to be assembled. And certainly unless Christ had applied his whole speech unto the custom of his times, who could have understood what he spoke? Afterwards again in the same place he addeth this, Sed doceo Aristocratiam Christianam non esse novum aliquod institutum, etc. I teach that the Christian government of the Church by an Eldership is no new institution, etc. no new rule.  
D. Whitaker to prove the authority of Synods, brings warrant & evidence, not only from the new Testament, but also 
(i) Cont. 3. de Conc. qu. 1. de necess. Concil. c. 3. p. 15.  from the Church of Israel and from the Ecclesiastical Policy of the Jews before Christ, in the times of David, Ezekias, josias & other godly Princes, by which it appears that he held this part of Church-government not to be a new ordinance, but a practice common both to Jewish & to Christian Churches. And besides, from this very place, Mat. 18. he draws a double warrant for Synods: first from the commandment, given to Peter as well as to others, to tell the Church. vers. 17. from thence he argueth against the Papists, that the Pope may be judged of a Council. 
(k) Ibid. de Concil. qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169. 170.  If (saith he) every particular Church hath greater authority in judgement, than Peter or any particular man; then much more the universal Church, which is represented in a general Council or Synod. Herein he is directly opposite to our opposers, who grant a power of jurisdiction to a particular Church, but none to any Synod whatsoever, further than to counsel and direct. Again he 
(l) Ibid. qu. 1. c. 3.  argueth from the promise of Christ, Mat. 18. Where two or three are met together in my name there am I in the midst of them, & applies that sentence to the maintenance & allowance of Synods, particular or general.  
junius in like manner, as he is plentiful in giving allowance unto the authority of Synods, so he derives this authority from this place, Mat. 18. both from the 
(m) Animadv. in Bellarm. de Concil. l. 2. c. 19 art. 8.  commandment of telling the Church, vers. 17. and from the 
(n) Ibid. in lib. 1. c. 3.  promise made unto Ecclesiastical assemblies, to be in the midst of them, vers. 20. while he allows that promise alleged by others to be a just ground thereof, though he add other warrant also. And further, speaking of the Council or Ecclesiastical Senate, he shows what reference it had unto the Polity or government of the Jewish Synagogues; he saith, That which 
(o) Ecclesiast. l. 2. c. 3.  the Church of the jews called the Synagogue, that Christ in like manner called the Church in that place, Mat. 18. for as the Synagogue or Ecclesiastical Counsel was a certain Epitome of the Church, so also is the Presbytery.  
Mr Cartwright above many other is very pregnant in giving plain testimony, that this rule of discipline is no new ordinance, and this for that part of the rule in special which is most controversal. He disputing about the interpretation of Mat. 18. saith, 
(p) First Reply to D. Whitg. p. 176. edit. 2.  It is commanded of our Saviour Christ, that in such a case when a brother doth not profit by these two warnings, it should be told the Church. Now I would ask who be meant by the Church here: if he say by the Church are meant all the people, than I will ask how a man can conveniently complain to all the whole congregation, or how can the whole congregation conveniently meet to decide of this matter. I do not deny, but the people have an interest in the excommunication, as shall be noted hereafter; but the matter is not so fare come, he must first refuse to obey the admonition of the Church, or ever they can proceed so fare. Well, if it be not the people that be meant by the Church, who is it? Then showing that by the Church one person alone cannot be meant, he concludes; Seeing then that the Church here is neither the whole congregation, nor the Pastor alone, it followeth that by the Church here he meaneth the Pastor with the Ancients or Elders. Or else whom can he mean? And as for this manner of speech, wherein by the Church is understanded the chief governor's & Elders of the Church, it is oftentimes used in the old Testament, from the which our Saviour borrowed this manner of speaking. For instances he allegeth, Exo. 4.29, 30. Ios. 20.4, 6. 1. Chr. 13.2, 4. etc. After this he is yet more plain in respect of the censure, saying, 
(q) Ibid. p. 183.  Now that this charge of excommunication belongeth not unto one, or to the Minister, but chiefly to the Eldership & Pastor, it appeareth by that which the authors of the Admonition allege out of S. Matth. c. 18.17. which place I have proved before to be necessarily understanded of the Elders of the Church. And further in the same place, It may be the clearlyer understanded that the Presbytery or Eldership, had the chief stroke in this excommunication, if it be observed that this was the Polity or discipline of the Jews, and of the Synagogue, from whence our Saviour Christ took this, and translated it unto this Church; that when any man had done any thing that they held for a fault, that then the same was punished & censured by the Elders of the Church, according to the quality of the fault, as it may appear in S. Matthew, ch. 5.22. etc. A little after he adds, And if the fault were judged very great, than the sentence of Excommunication was awarded by the same Elders, as appeareth in S. john, cha. 9.22. And this was the cause why our Saviour Christ spoke so shortly of this matter in the 18. of S. Matthew, without noting the circumstances more at large, for that he spoke of a thing which was well known and used amongst the Jews whom he spoke unto.  
To the same purpose he writes in his answer to the Rhemists, where speaking of the Governors of the Church, which were set over every several assembly in the time of the Law, he saith, 
(r) Confut. of Rhem. transl. on Mat. 18.18.  Those governing Elders are divers times in the story of the Gospel made mention of under the title of the Rulers of the Synagogue. And this manner of government, because it was to be translated unto the Church of Christ under the Gospel, our Saviour by the order (at that present) used amongst the Jews, declared what after should be done in his Church.  
Neither doth he speak these things touching the Elderships of particular Congregations only, but applies the same unto Classical & Synodall Presbyteries also, and doth allow of appeals unto them, and thereby acknowledgeth a dependency of Churches mutually one upon another. It is to be observed here (saith he) 
(s) First Reply to D. Whitg. p. 187.  that both in this part of the Discipline, viz. touching excommunication, and also in all other parts of it (as I have showed) as in harder and difficulter causes, things were referred unto the Synods Provincial, Nationall or General, as the case required: so if the Elders of any Church shall determine any thing contrary to the word of God, or inconveniently in any matter that falleth into their determination, the parties which are greeved may have recourse for remedy, unto the Elders and Pastors of divers Churches, that is to say, unto Synods of Shires, or Dioceses, or Provinces, or Nations, of as great or of as small compass as shall be thought convenient by the Church, according to the difficulty or weight of the matters, which are in controversy. Which meetings ought to be as often as can be conveniently, not only for the decision of such difficulties which the several Presbyteries cannot so well judge of, but also to the end that common counsel might be taken for the best remedy of the vices or incommodities, which either the Churches be in, or in danger to be in. And as those things which cannot be decided by the Eldership of the Churches are to be reserved unto the knowledge of some Synod of a Shire or Diocese: so those which for their hardness cannot be there decided, must be brought into the Synods of larger compass, as I shave showed to have been done in the Apostles times, and in the Churches which followed them long after. And thus it appears that according to the order and practise of the Jews under the Law, he allows and maintains a liberty of appeals for parties greeved, and a superior judicatory above particular Churches, an use of Synods not only for counsel but for decision of controversies, for censuring of offenders even unto excommunication, according to divers instances thereof given by him in the precedent pages, of which more is to be said hereafter.  
Mr Traverse agreeth fully with the former, and witnesseth plainly that the Rule of Christ, Mat. 18. is no new rule, but taken from the Jewish Policy, and this both in respect of the persons judging, called the Church, and in respect of the censure & sentence of excommunication there described. For the first, he saith, speaking of the assembly of Elders, 
(t) Eccles. Discipl. p. 87. edit. 1617.  In Mat. 18. our Saviour calleth them by the name of the Church, because they rule and govern Church matters under the name and authority of the Church. So likewise the name of all the Assembly, by Moses is given to the Elders of the Jews; that is to say, unto certain chosen & picked out men who were assigned by all the Congregation to the government of the affairs. Thus plainly it is taken in Numb. 8. where the Lord appointeth the Congregation shall lay hands upon the Levites: but I think no man will say this is to be understood of all the congregation, that so many thousands should lay their hands upon them, as are rehearsed then to have been in the host of Israel, but the Elders and Princes only as Aben Ezra doth rightly interpret it. Which is to be noted the rather, because some will have the word of our Saviour to be expounded of all the Church, whereas according to the manner of speaking which the Hebrews use, the Consistory or Council of the Church is called the Church: Where also it is to be observed that together with the name, the thing itself is translated from the Jews unto us: that look what a Council the Jews used for the government of the Church, we ought to understand by this name that such a one is apppointed by our Saviour to be used in the Church. Therefore in the same place he attributeth to this Council the chief government of all Church matters; that all such things as cannot otherwise be agreed and ended be at the last brought unto them, and ended by their authority & judgement.  
As for the second, the censures of the Church, having spoken before of Suspension and proceeding to speak of Excommunication, he saith, 
(v) Ibid. p. 92.  This part of Ecclesiastical censure, as also the first, were translated unto us from the Jews; for the Church of Christ in all this matter of Discipline hath received all her laws & decrees from the Jews: for as it hath been showed before, it is plain & manifest that our Saviour in Mat. 18.17. alluded to the manner of the Jews, because that otherwise his speech should have been very obscure, and such as no man had been able to understand. But this appeareth most manifestly by the excommunication of the blind man in the 9 of john, etc. And further, that which he saith concerning the government of a particular Church, he extends also unto the 
(x) Ibid. p. 98.  Synods for the governing of more Churches, of which there shall be more occasion to speak again hereafter.  
Mr Fenner in his Counterpoison touching the certain form of Ecclesiastical government, declares himself to be of the same mind, viz. that the Rule of Christ, Mat. 18. is no new rule, when as he writes, 
(y) Part of a Register, p. 479.  Our Saviour Christ in setting down the Ecclesiastical Presbytery, speaketh according to the jews, for otherwise the Apostles could not have understood him, when he said, Tell the Congregation, or Church, which was the title then given unto the Ecclesiastical Senate; and his words of having as a Publican & Heathen, do manifestly prove he meant to speak according to their custom, etc. And therefore also in his 
(z) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 276.  general description of a Presbytery comprehending under it as well the government of many Churches by Synods, as of one particular Church by the Eldership thereof, for the proof and warrant of one as well as the other, he allegeth this rule, Mat. 18.18. even as he doth other places taken from the Jewish Policy under the Law.  
Mr Brightman, when he shows that Christ in his Church hath appointed a more accurate order for remove all of less offences, then that which the Pharisees observed, who corrupted the Law with their erroneous glosses, condemning grosser sins, as murders, and neglecting lesser transgressions; yet for the form of the judicatory he declares that it was such an one as the former Writers do witness to have been taken from the Jews Policy, when as he thus describeth it 
(a) Comment. in Cant. cap. 4.  The Synedrion is a Senate of Elders, watching for the souls of that Congregation over which they are set in things that belong unto manners & Christian honesty, which Senate because it represents the state (or 
* quoniam vicem sustineat etc.  bears the place) of the whole Congregation, is called of Christ himself the Church, saying Tell the Church, Mat. 18.17. and of Paul is called 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Eldership, 1. Tim. 4.14. And again in the next leaf, showing the meaning of that text, Matth. 18.15, etc. Only remember thence, that the Church is not the whole Congregation but a Synedrion or Senate of certain chosen persons. And for aught that can be gathered from this his exposition, it was no new rule, but a renewing and confirming of that which had been of old prescribed unto Israel.  
Mr Parker for the maintenance of Classes and Synods whereby many particular Churches are combined & united together, argues also from Mat. 18. and that after a double manner. for first, to show withal that the right manner and form of combination doth consist in a mutual obligation of Churches, without subjection unto the rule or dominion of any one, he reasons thus, 
(b) Polit. Eccles. l. 3. c. 22. p. 331  Let us go to the very fountain of combination, which (as Chamierus saith well) is found in Mat. 18. because many Churches are combined together after the same manner that the prime Churches, viz. particular Congregations, do grow together in their members into one frame. And he maintains that the form of this combination & coming together is noted in those words, in my name, and if they agree together. Mat. 18. v. 19, 20. Thus he derives the combination of Churches from their mutual consent & agreement. And hence it may appear further, that as members of particular Churches are united together by the bond of mutual consent, not only for counsel & advise, but also for the censuring & judging of their offences, and this without superiority of one member above another; so by the like bond of mutual consent many Churches are also united, not only for counsel, but for the mutual censuring & deciding of one another's causes, and this without superiority of any one Church above the rest. Otherwise also how could he have applied these things as he doth, for the defence of the Reformed Churches, wherein such authority of Classes and Synods is exercised?  
Secondly, whereas D. Whitgift & others dispute against the Classes & Presbyteries of Scotland & the Low-countries, where the faults and causes of particular Churches are judged & censured, and ask for Scripture to prove and justify such an order of government; Mr Parker in defence of them, besides other answers & proofs alleges this place, Matt. 18. for the warrant thereof, and saith, 
(c) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. p. 355.  This proceeding from an Eldership to a Classis, from a Classis to a Synod, is founded in the institution of Christ, Matt. 18.17. by proportion on this manner. He commands that from the admonition of one being despised men proceed unto the admonition of two or three, if that be contemned unto the censure of the Eldership, if that be despised unto the censure of the whole Church: therefore why not from one whole Church unto many in a Classis, & again from many in a Classis unto yet more in a Synod? And having laid this just foundation he reproves the opposites further from the confession of some of them contradicting the other, 
(d) Ibidem.  Both Sutlive & Downam do interpret the Church, Mat. 18. to be either a Consistory or a Synod. Behold therefore by the judgement even of Hierachicall men themselves, a manifest commandment of Christ for Classical assemblies. for what? Is not the Classis a certain kind of Synod?  
Zepperus having spoken of the Ecclesiastical Policy or government in the Judaical Church, shows how the same was continued, when he saith, 
(e) Polit. Eccl. l. 1. c. 16. p. 198.199.  This administration of Ecclesiastical discipline Christ also established and made to be perpetual, Mat. 18.15. etc.  
Gersom Bucerus, that excellent and worthy servant of God, who hath given so full an answer to D. Downam, in defence of the Discipline practised in the Reformed Churches, is as full in this point, that the Rule of Christ, Mat. 18. is no new rule. He maintaineth that 
(f) Dissert. de Gubern. Eccl p. 182.  the form of the sacred Polity in the new Testament, aught to be framed according to the manner of the Jews Polity. To this end he 
(g) Ibid. p. 48.  brings the testimony of many learned Writers, witnessing with him unto the same truth.  
Philip Melanchthon, as he is there alleged by him, showing what order of Discipline was apppointed by Christ, in those words, Tell the Church, Mat. 18. saith, 
(h) P. Melan. comment. in 1. Cor. 15.  This custom was not first instituted of the Messiah, but was the old manner of the levitical Priests, who in their place maintained the discipline by such judgements, though they had also other Political judgements & punishments.  
Victorinus Strigelius, cited also by him, speaks in like manner, 
(i) Hypom. in N. T. in Mat. 18.  A new form of judgement is not instituted in this place, but the old manner is repeated, delivered from the first fathers, the steps whereof have always remained in the Church. etc.  
Pezelius having expressed the form of Government in Israel, writes thus, 
(k) Argum. & Resp. Theol. part. 7.8.690.  According to this example of the old Polity, almost the same order of judgements was kept in the new Testament. etc.  
Musculus 
(l) Loc. con. de Eccl. c. 5. , & Aretius 
(m) Problen. Tom. 2. loc. de Excom. , are likewise brought in by him as deriving & describing the Discipline of the Church, Matth. 18. from the manner of the Jewish Synagogue.  
Bucanus also describing this Discipline, saith, 
(n) Loc. con. loc. 44. de Discipl. qu. 12.  Christ hath expressly appointed this order translated unto us from the Church of Israel. And again, 
(o) Ibid. qu. 22.  Christ doth not describe a temporary but a perpetual order of his Church, Mat. 18.17. where following the custom that had been always observed in the ancient Church of the jews, he signified that the Church cannot want that spiritual jurisdiction, which had been from the beginning.  
And lest any should blame us, that we seem to be drawn with the judgement and consent of late Writers, the same 
(p) Dissert. de Gub. Eccles. p. 49.50.  Gersom Bucerus doth also allege divers of the ancient Writers, as 
(q) In 1. Tim 5.  Ambrose, 
(r) In 1. Tim. 4.  Theodoret, 
(f) In joan. l. 6. cap. 20.  Cyrill, 
(t) In Cant. cap. 6.  Gregorius Magnus, agreeing with us that the Church of the new Testament succeeding the Church of the Jews hath borrowed from thence the form of her Polity, and the order of jurisdiction. And to these I might add many other, but that I have further occasion to do it hereafter, in answering the objections from the perverted Testimonies both of new & old Writers.  
It is not here to be omitted, that Mr johnson, Pastor of the Separatists, who had been a principal instrument in oppugning this interpretation of Matt. 18. by whose writings many had been confirmed in their opposition against us, hath yet before his death, after long experience and consideration, confessed his error in this point, and a in peculiar Treatise publicly revoked the same. And though in other points touching the order of government prescribed in Matt. 18. he came not to the clear sight of the truth, yet thus fare he hath showed his consent with the former Writers, saying, 
(v) Expos. of Mat. 18.17. C1.  Note here, that if Christ now had given a new Rule of government that Israel had not, the Disciples to whom it was spoken, could not have understood it by these words, which were according to the jews received phrase & practise: and the Pharisees & other adversaries of Christ would have beneglad, if they could have had such an exception against Christ, that he had taught contrary to Moses, and had led the people from the way & order of government which the Lord himself had prescribed in his word.  
AFter evidence of Scripture & consent of so many Writers agreeing in the interpretation of this place, let us now examine the exceptions of such opposites, as maintain that Christ gave a new rule in Mat. 18.  
Some object with H. Barrow the unjust & ungodly dealing of the Rulers in that time, and reason thus: that it is not likely or possible that our Saviour should fetch his pattern from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the jews, etc. To these I answer:  
I. Though the Governors of the Jews in Christ's time were most of them wicked men, and abused their authority; yet the form of government itself, and namely so much of it & so fare as it is described in that Rule, Mat. 18. that there should be a Synedrion or Presbytery for the judging of offences in such order as is there specified, cannot be showed to be unlawful, nor contrary to that which God had apppointed of old by Moses: And therefore our Saviour might well commend the very same unto his Disciples. Thus Calvine answereth a like objection, 
(x) Harm. Evang. in Mat. 18.17.  If any man except that all things were corrupt & perverted in the time of Christ, so as that tyranny could be accounted nothing less than the judgement of the Church: the answer is easy, Though there was then an adulterate & perverse manner, yet Christ might worthily commend the order so as it was delivered from the Fathers. And when a little after he erected his Church, the corruption being removed, he restored the pure use of excommunication.  
II. How great soever the abuses and corruptions of Governors & Government were in Christ's time; yet were not the godly required then to renounce or forsake the communion of that Church. Christ himself both by his example & his commandment taught otherwise, whiles he both communicated therewith himself, Matt. 26.17, 18. and likewise required others to do the same. Luk. 17.14. Mat. 8.4. & 23.2, 3. Now forasmuch as the public worship of God and his ministry are holy ordinances, as well as the government of his Church; seeing Christ taught his people to go unto the worship & ministry of the Jews either in Synagogue or Temple, what reason is there to think that they should be forbidden to repair unto their government in their Synedrion or Presbytery? Moreover as our Saviour taught ordinarily in the Synagogue and in the Temple, whither the jews always resorted; john. 18.20. Matt. 4.23. so there were some righteous and faithful men Governors and Rulers of the Jews in Christ's time, who though they consented not unto evil and unrighteous judgements, but testified against them; Luk. 1.6. joh. 7.50, 51. Luk. 23.50, 51. yet were they not required to forsake their offices and their government. And if they might lawfully retain their office and government, why might not others resort unto them in their government, and seek redress of offences, and so by them tell the Church, according to the rule, Mat. 18.17?  
III. For the further clearing of this point, concerning which many are diversely minded, and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty, minded, and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty, doubting what is meet to be done, when corruptions do abound in a true Church (as the Jews in Christ's time were) when as yet some of the Ministers & Governors thereof do become oppressors of the godly & persecutors of the truth; we are therefore to observe divers rules of direction according to which both the Jews then and Christians now in such case are to carry themselves, 1. There is a difference to be put betwixt the causes and matters of complaint, about which men had occasion to go to the Jews Synedrion or Eldership. There were some kind of sins, as of open theft, adultery, extortion, sacrilege, legal impurity, Sabath-breaking & divers the like scandals, against which the Pharisees and Rulers of the Jews were very zealous: Luk. 18.11, 12. Rom. 10.2. Phil. 3.5, 6. Luk. 18.18, 21. Mark. 10.21. And what should hinder the godly from going unto their Presbytery to seek redress, and so to tell the Church of such offences? In other quaestions touching their traditions they had not the like encouragement to go unto them. 11. There was a difference to be put betwixt the Rulers of the Jews to whom they had occasion to complain. As there was a multitude of Synagogues among them, so there was great variety of the Rulers of those Synagogues; some of them being more modest, humble and attentive to the Gospel than others, as we read of jairus, Crispus, Sosthenes, and divers of the Priests and chief Rulers: Mark. 5.22, 23. Act. 18.8, 17. Mark. 12.28, 32, 34. joh. 12.42. Act. 6.7. And to such there was yet the more reason to complain upon occasion. As for others that shown themselves open & obstinate contemners of the Gospel & persecuters of Christ, our Saviour taught his Disciples to beware of such, Matth. 10.17. to fly from them, joh. 11.54. and not rashly to cast the pearls of holy admonition before such as would tread them under their feet, and seek to rend the admonishers. Mat. 7.6. with Prov. 20.15. & 9.8. Paul sometimes went voluntarily unto the Jewish Synagogues. Act. 13.14. & 17.2. & 18.4. sometimes he withdrew himself from such as were hardened & blasphemed; Act. 13.46, 51. & 19.9. III. For the persons admonishing, there is also a difference to be observed betwixt them; some of them being weak, and some stronger. Such of them as were weak in knowledge and weak in resolution and courage, were taught to take knowledge of their own infirmity and not to presume above the grace given unto them, but to wait until God had further prepared & enabled them, by furnishing them with such gifts as were meet and required for the performance of great & hard duties. Matt. 17.9. john. 13.36. Luk. 5.36, 37, 38. It was required of them that were to go unto the Elderships of the Jews, and so to tell the Church of corruptions abounding among them, that they should be able to argue from the Scriptures & to convince the gainsayers, in public as well as in private in the first degree of admonition, Matt. 18.15. and withal to stand constantly as iron pillars against the faces of unrighteous & cruel men. jer. 1.18. Esa. 50.7. Peter being yet weak, & presuming above his strength, did therefore fall so greevously. Matt. 26.33.74. But for those that are strong, confirmed in knowledge and godly resolution, they are to gird up their loins for the doing of that which is not so safe for the weak to enterprise. And as the Apostle giving direction in other cases, wherein it was also something hard to discern and determine what was best to be done, requires men to look unto their resolution & persuasion without wavering or fainting (as in the matter of marriage, of going to a feast with unbelievers, and eating of meats then in question) and describes their resolution in many words, saying, He that standeth fast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, & hath so decreed in his heart, etc. 1. Cor. 7, 37. and If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, & ye be disposed to go, or as the words are and ye will go, etc. 1. Cor. 10.27. and Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind: Rom. 14.5. So in the case of going to tell the Church among persecuters, every man was and is still to see that he be strong in the Lord & stand fast in his heart. 1v. Even those that were strongest and most resolute, were yet bound to distinguish the times, and in all spiritual wisdom to put difference betwixt occasions. When Paul went bound in the spirit unto jerusalem, knowing that bonds & afflictions waited for him there, Act. 20.22, 23. there was no entreaty, no tears & cries of his godly friends could persuade him to stay, or hold him from going up thither to tell the Church and Rulers of the Jews such things as God called him to witness unto them, Act. 21.12, 13, 14. though he was ready to have been torn in pieces of that Seditious Church. Act. 23.10. At another time when Paul being bold as a Lion would have adventured himself among the tumultuous Ephesians for the defence of his companions in danger, yet not having so express and strong a call thereunto as in the former example, he yielded to the counsel of others & suffered himself to be overruled: when he would have entered in unto the people, the Disciples suffered him not. Act. 19.30. Here is the wisdom, faith & patience of the Saints; let those that have understanding lay these examples before them, & labour to apply them unto themselves upon like occasions. V Even those that are the weakest also are to put difference betwixt unadvised going of themselves and a necessary calling. for though men should not rashly expose themselves to danger, yet being brought by others & drawn before a Jewish Synedrion, & being examined touching their profession and practice, it is then required even of the simplest to answer for the truth with meekness & reverence, so fare as they know and are able, 1. Pet. 3.15, and not to betray the truth by their silence, but to tell the Church of the evils to be reform. Such were and are to remember the promises; that out of the mouth of babes & suckling's God ordaineth strength, to still the enemy & the avenger: Psal. 8.2. that such are blessed in suffering according to the will of God. Matt. 5.10, 11, 12. Act. 5.41. 1. Pet. 4.19. And thus according to these directions in divers kinds there was occasion to practise in the Jewish Church that Rule of Christ, Mat. 18.  
Some others, as was noted before, to prove that Christ gave a new rule, Mat. 18. do object that 
(y) H. Ains. Animadv. p. 14, 15.  Christ was to destroy both City & Sanctuary; so to force the jews to an end of their polity: Dan. 9.24.26. Luk. 19.41, 44. that Christ hath abrogated through his flesh the hatred, that is the law of commandments which stood in ordinances, etc. that we are built, not upon Moses polity that is done away, but upon the foundation of the Apostles & Prophets, etc. Eph. 2.15, 19, 20. That 
(z) H. jacob. Attest. p. 278. 279.  all those old things are passed away, that all things of such nature under the Gospel are made new, and that the same things are shaken and changed, and remain not now unto us, etc. 2. Cor. 5.17. Heb. 12.27. To these I answer:  
I. That the Ceremonial law is abrogate, we willingly grant, and some of the Scriptures here alleged by them do prove the same: & so much of the judicial law as had a peculiar reference unto the state & condition of the Jews, & did not in common equity concern other people as well as them, we acknowledge in like manner to be disannulled, as we have also noted 
(a) Pag. 36. 37.  before. But that the spiritual admonitions & censures by the Ecclesiastical judicatories, were either any Ceremonial or Typical ordinances, or such as do not agree with the state of Christian Churches under the new Testament, this remains for them to show, if they will make good those allegations of Scripture which they apply to such a purpose. In the mean time we esteem such allegations to serve our opposites turn no better, than they do the Anabaptists, who upon a like pretence that Moses polity is abolished, and that the Law is changed and old things passed away, do thereupon plead that the Civil power of the Magistrate, and the use of the sword is not to be exercised by Christians in the Church of God under the new Testament.  
II. As for those places, Dan. 9.24, 26. Luk. 19.41, 44. where the destruction of the City and Sanctuary is foretold, they do not prove the abolition of that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Synods which we maintain; because this part of Moses polity, and this liberty of appeals from one judicatory to another, might have continued even among the Jews themselves, though both City and Sanctuary were destroyed, and much more may still be retained among Christians, that are not tied unto the levitical priesthood, nor unto any other legal ceremonies. So the inquisition for murder was an ordinance of Moses polity: Deut. 21. 1-9. though divers ceremonies were in Moses time annexed there unto, this hinders not but that those ceremonies being abolished, the judicial law itself for inquisition after murders, being of common equity, ought still to continue among us.  
Again, it is further to be observed how some of our opposites labouring to find a difference between Moses polity and Christ's rule, have described unto us such a rule of proceeding in Moses time, as is not to be acknowledged. Mr Smith, as is noted 
(b) Pag. 42.  before, makes this to be the order of proceeding in the time of the Law, 1. reproof of sin, Levit. 19.17. 2. a sacrifice for the cleansing of the party reproved, Leu. 4.23. 3. death inflicted by the Magistrate upon the party reproved, if he wilfully refused to hearken, etc. Numb. 15.30, 31. Deut. 17.12. Mr Ainsworth agreeth with him in this point, & saith, 
(c) H. Ains. Commun. of S. c. 22. p. 440.  God commanded this duty in his law, plainly to rebuke our neighbour; Leu. 19.17. that so upon warning and sight of his sin, he might bring his sacrifice & reconcile himself unto the Lord whom he had offended. Levit. 4. 23-28. which if he regarded not, but should do aught with a high hand, he then was said to blaspheme the Lord, and must be cut off from among his people, Numb. 15.30, 31. because he despised the word of the Lord, etc. Again he writes: 
(d) Animadv. p. 120. 121.  That private men forgave not sins in Israel, so absolutely touching the Church order or polity, as Christians do now, is evident by the Law, which bond the offender not only unto repentance and faith in Christ, Act. 15.9, 11. as also to confess his sin, Levit. 5.5. and satisfy his neighbour offended; Leu. 6.5. but withal to bring a trespass offering to the Priest (the minister of the Church) that so the Priest making an atonement for him before the Lord, it should be forgiven him. Leu. 6.2, 5, 6, 7. Now under the Gospel the law is. If thy brother trespass against thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him: Luk. 17.3. neither is such a man bound to go to a Minister that he may pray for, or forgive him; as the Papists by proportion 
(e) Bellar. de Poenit. l. 2. c. 3.  do gather. Now for answer hereunto, and to show how they were mistaken about the rule of admonition in the old Testament, in teaching that men were bound upon admonition to bring an offering, & so bound that if they wilfully refused or regarded not to do it, they were to die or to be cut off from among their people, we are to observe that God did not lay such a bond of necessity upon his people, and this appeareth by these considerations:  
I. The 
* vehebi.  words of the Text, Levit. 4. 23-28. being rightly translated do not infer such a bond. Whereas the words are commonly translated, than he shall bring his offering, etc. they should rather have been thus translated, and or if he will bring his offering, etc. or thus, than he may bring his offering, etc. And so the words being conditional and not imperative, there is no absolute commandment to bring a sacrifice: but the ordinance of God in that place is, that if they would bring a sacrifice for their sin, than they must do it in such manner as is there prescribed. And there is a double reason for this translation. I. The particle vau is 
(f) Vau omnium aliarum Conjunctionum significationem assumere potest. etc. aliquando conditionem includit▪ Cevall. & Bertr. in Galeed, p. 44.  often and very conveniently expounded conditionally by if or and if, as Numb. 5.13, 14. & 12.14. Deut. 24.1, 3. Exod. 4.23. So the principal Interpreters do sundry times translate the same: the Chaldee Paraphrasts, both Onkelos and jonathan, as also the Greek version, in Num. 12.14. So the ancient Arabic version of Rabbi Saadias', as also that edition of the Chaldee printed at Constantinople in Exod. 4.23. So Tremellius and junius in Gen. 18.30. Levit. 26.40. Numb. 12.14. So our English translation in Exod. 4.23. Levit. 26.40. Numb. 12.14. Deut. 24.3. And to omit a multitude of other interpreters, Mr Ainsworth himself doth sometimes so translate the same, as in those places before specified, Exo. 4.23. Leu. 26.40. Numb. 12.14. and further 
(g) Annot. on Leu. 26.40.  notes that so it ought elsewhere to be translated, as in Mal. 1.2. & 3.8. II. Suppose that the conjunction or particle vau were not conditional in this place, yet the word turned into the future tense by vau hippuc according to the Hebrew speech, as other simple 
(h) See Galeed, p. 117.  verbs future, doth not always necessarily imply a commandment, but rather a permission. Though sometimes they import an absolute commandment, as in the Decalogue; yet sometimes they are used to signify what we may do, and what we are permitted to do. This is commonly observed by Translatours, who in their translation of the very same form of the future verb, do sometimes express it by a commanding phrase, thou shalt do, sometimes by a phrase of permission, thou mayest do: for example, in our English translation, Gen. 2.16. Leu. 11.21, 22. Deut. 12.15, 20, & 20.19. & 23.20, 24, 25. & 24.2. Thou mayest eat, Thou mayest lend, Thou mayest eat grapes, Thou mayest pluck, She may go, etc. Thus are many of these places translated by Mr Ainsw. himself; and thus in like manner might this place, Leu. 4.23, 28. be fitly translated, Then he may bring his offering, etc. And being so interpreted there is no such bond of necessity contained therein.  
II. As the words and form of speech in the Text do admit this interpretation; so the matter itself & the nature of the ordinance doth determine it, & constrain us to entertain this translation, which shows it to be a permission: because otherwise it had been impossible ever to observe it in Israel. The sins spoken of in Leu. 4.2, 27. are for the general nature of them all manner of sins, great or small, except presumptuous sins. The words of the Text are, If a soul shall sinne through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord, concerning things which ought not to be done, & shall do against any one of them: the word schegagah there used containing under it all sins of infirmity, ignorance, error, forgetfulness or unadvisedness. Now the holiest men on earth being ready to offend on this manner every day & hour; if for every daily unadvised word or deed they had been bound to bring a sacrifice, & no other way to purge their sin, then had it been utterly impossible to have kept this ordinance: I. In respect of the cost and charges, especially for the poor, described by this argument, that he 
* hamsucran terumah.  wants an offering, so impoverished that he was not able to bring an oblation. Esa. 40.20. The poor soul that had but two mites, Mark. 12.42, 44. and the poor man that had but one lamb lying in his bosom, 2. Sam. 12.3. could not purge their daily sins with sacrifices for them all: especially considering that in this sinne-offering here spoken of, they must of necessity bring either a shee-goat or a lamb-female without blemish: Leu. 4.28, 32. there was no respect of the poor to spare them or to dispense with them for bringing a sacrifice of less price, as yet in other cases we see they were dispensed withal. Leu. 14.21, 22, 30, 31. & 12.6, 7, 8. whereupon the mother of Christ being very poor (as appeareth hence) brought a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons, Luk. 2.24. which had not been lawful, if she had been able to have brought a lamb. Now if the Lord had this care to ease the burden of the poor leper at his cleansing, and of the poor woman at her purification, which might fall out to be but once in the year, or once in a life time, and to many never in their life; then how much more agreeable is it to the mercy of God, that the charges of the poor should have been respected in those sacrifices which they might have had occasion to offer even every day in the year? but hence we may gather that this sacrifice was not of necessity imposed upon them. Yea it had been impossible for the richer sort to have sustained this charge, especially in the years of dearth or scarcity. All the cattles upon the mountains of Israel, with the sheep of Kedar and Nebaioth were not so many as the known sins of Israel, which needed this sacrifice. II. In respect of the labour and travel, this order was not possible to be observed, when for every known sin they should take a journey to jerusalem, many of the Israelites dwelling divers day's journeys from the Temple. Abraham travelling from Beersheba in the South to offer his son in the mount of Morijah, where the Temple was afterwards built, 2. Chron. 3.1. came not thither before the third day, Gen. 22.2, 3, 4. And some others that dwelled in the Tribes Northward from jerusalem, were as fare again distant from the Temple, as appears by the 
(i) Cl. Ptol. Geogr. l. 5. c. 16. tab. 4.  Geographical description of that country; so that to go and come & to perform that sacrifice could not be much less than a weeks work unto divers of them: & every week in the year they might have occasion to take this journey, if this sacrifice, Leu. 4. had been exacted of them. Yea as joseph & Mary having been at the feast, when they had come a day's journey homeward from jerusalem, seeking the child jesus and not finding him in the company did return back again to jerusalem: Luk. 2.43, 44, 45. so many sinners having offered this sacrifice and coming homeward, might in the way come to the knowledge of some new sin, and so be forced to go back to jerusalem to offer again; yea and this so often that all their life long they might do no other work but travel up and down to offer sacrifices. But seeing it was impossible for the tribes and families of Israel to endure such travel, we may therefore conclude from hence, that both Mr Ainsworth and Mr Smith have erred in teaching that Israel was bound unto such a rule.  
But against this it may be objected from the interpretation of the Rabbins alleged by Mr Ainsworth, that these errors for which the Sinne-offering was to be brought were not so many & common, but few and rare, and that therefore there was no such impossibility of purging them by sacrifice. Therefore to clear the Text, and to vindicate the ordinance of God from the absurd traditions of the Thalmudists, and that it may appear how men have corrupted the Rules of admonition & discipline, as well in the Old as in the New Testament, I will briefly point out some of their vain glosses, & show their contrary extremities about this particular statute.  
The errors & sins for which this sacrifice was appointed are in one extremity restrained too much by the Jew-doctours: I. By expounding them only of such works and deeds as are distinguished from thoughts and from words. Because the Text saith, shall do, 
(k) H. Ains. Annot. on Leu. 4.2.  this they restrain to deeds and facts, and therefore they teach that the Blasphemer because his sin was in word & not in deed, was not to bring this sinne-offering. This gloss is a vain and false collection: because the H. Ghost in the Scripture, doth ordinarily describe the words, speeches and save of men under the phrase of doing, as appears, Psal. 15.2, 3. with vers. 5. & Psal. 50.19, 20. with vers. 21. And what reason is there that the sins of standering, railing, cursing, perjury, blasphemy, being repent of should not be purged by sacrifice as well as other heinous facts & deeds? II. By a second restriction of these errors in deeds and facts unto the transgressing of negative commandments only. Herein they 
(l) Ibidem.  show themselves partial in the Law, dividing it into 613 commandments, & those again into 248 affirmative commandements according to the supposed number of bones in a man's body, & 365 negative commandements according to the number of days in the year: & the sinne-offering they require only for the breach of negative commandements, pretending a reason from the Text, which makes mention of all the commandements concerning things which should not be done. Hereupon they say, that no sinne-offering is to be brought for neglecting of Circumcision or the Passeover, because they are affirmative commandments. And thus at once they cast out 248 kinds of sins, according to the number of the affirmative commandements, from having any part in the Sinne-offering. And this their exposition is not only alleged but allowed & approved of Mr Ainsw. when he saith, 
(m) Annot. on Leu. 5.1,  The sinne-offerings in ch. 4. were for greater offences, in doing things forbidden of God, viz. in the negative commandments. And to prevent an objection that might be made against this distinction, he saith, 
(n) Annot. on Leu. 4.2.  Other sins (viz. against the affirmative commandments) in omitting things to be done, were expiated by Burnt-offerings, which were offered daily for the whole Church, or by particular persons, as they would bring them, as is showed on Leu. 1. Also by the sacrifices offered on Atonement day, whereof see Leu. 16. etc. But how vain is this distinction? what just warrant is there that the expiation of sins of omission, against the affirmative commandments, should be restrained and applied with such distinction unto the Burnt-offerings or unto that one day of Atonement? It is a general rule and received of Divines that in expounding the commandments the affirmative part should be comprehended under the negative, and the negative under the affirmative. And there is ground for this from the word of God, who in his speech sometimes comprehendeth all our obedience of the Law under an affirmative commandment, as Deut. 5.33. sometimes under a negative, as Deut. 8.11. with Deut. 5.32, etc. III. By a third restriction they do yet further limit & appropriate this Sinne-offering to the ignorant or negligent breach of such negative commandments, for the presumptuous transgression whereof men deserved cutting off by the Law, as is noted 
(o) Ibidem.  in general by Mr Ainsworth, for the interpretation and illustration of this ordinance. But that the Reader may the better discern and judge thereof, I will set down the particular errors: 
p Maimony in Shegagoth, c. 1.  The first when a man did lie with his mother, 2. with his wife's mother, 3. with his mother's mother, 4. with his father's mother, 5. with his daughter, 6. with his daughter's daughter, 7. with his son's daughter, 8. with his wife's daughter, 9 with her daughter's daughter, 10. with her son's daughter, 11. with his sister, 12. with his sister, of his father's wife, 13. with his father's sister, 14. with his mother's sister, 15. with his wife's sister, 16. with his father's wife, 17. with his father's brother's wife, 18. with his son's wife, 19 with his brother's wife, 20. with a man's wife, 21. with a menstruous woman, 22. with a male, 23. with his father, 24. with his father's brother, 25. with a beast, 26. a woman lying with a beast. And besides these 26 monstrous and unnatural pollutions, they reckon 17 other transgressions, 1. Idolatry, 2. giving of their seed to Molech, 3. having a familiar spirit, 4. to be a wizard, 5. profaning of the Sabath, 6. to work upon Atonement day, 7. to eat or drink on Atonement day, 8. to eat the remainder, (viz. of the sacrifice on the third day, Leu. 7.17, 18.) 9 to eat leaven at the Passeover, 10. to eat fat, 11. to eat blood, 12. to eat the abominable thing, 13. to kill holy things without the court, 14. to offer sacrifice without the court, 15. to make the anointing oil, 16. to make the sweet incense, 17. to anoint with that anointing oil. Unto these 43 particular and enormous errors they restrain the Sinne-offering. As by the former restriction they excluded all the 248 affirmative commandments, so by this of 365 negative precepts they exclude 322. By these and sundry other groundless restrictions they do many ways make both this and other commandments and ordinances of God of no effect by their traditions, and as for private persons, so also for the Priest, the Congregation and Rulers, which being so vain, I will not insist upon further refutation of them; they being also many ways contradictory unto themselves about the same.  
And as the Jews do thus offend in unjust restrictions, so do they also in a contrary extremity of extending the words of this ordinance in some other respects too fare: as when it is said according to the translation of Mr Ainsw. and shall do, of any one of them. Levit. 4.2. hence they gather that this Sinne-offering is to be brought by such as break any piece or part of those negative commandments; 
(q) R. Solomon jarchi, on Leu. 4.2. R. Moses Mikkotsi in Sepher mitsvoth gadol, precept affir. 213.  as for example, if upon the Sabbath one should write Shim of Shimeon, Nah of Nahor, Dan of Daniel, against such they do apply the words of this commandment. Now if for so small a transgression as writing with a pen upon the Sabath but half a word, a syllable or two letters of a man's name, they were bound to bring this sinne-offering, and so accordingly for other sins of like nature and weight, what man though the holiest on earth, could have endured the labour and charge of so many sacrifices as such kind of sins might have occasioned? Though Bellarmine erred in labouring to 
(r) Bellar. de Paenit. l. 3. c. 3.  prove auricular confession of sins unto the Priest from the legal sacrifices, as Mr Ainsworth mentions (though the place be cited amiss, which I suppose to be the Printers fault, lib. 2. for lib. 3.) yet Mr Ainsw. himself doth err likewise in describing an impossible & unreasonable order in the Old Testament, as Bellar. doth for the New.  
Lastly, suppose there had been such a bond of necessity laid upon the Jews of old, to bring a sacrifice for each sin when it was made known unto them; yet this proves not that any new duty was prescribed in Matt. 18. which was not taught in the Law before. We know that the legal sacrifices and ceremonies are wholly abrogate: yet this hinders not but that the moral duties observed in the midst of those ceremonies may still remain, when the ceremonies are abolished. When the Ministers of the Lord in old time entered into their offices with knowledge and consent of the people, and together at the same time were consecrated with divers sacrifices and other ceremonies, Numb. 8.9, 10, etc. Levit. 8.2, 3, 4, 5. though the ceremonies of consecration be abolished, yet the people's right of knowledge and consent is not therefore abolished. The Brownists themselves allege 
(f) Confess. art. 23. Apolog. pos. 5. p. 46, 47, 48.  the same places for the continuance thereof: and why can they not observe the same for the rule in Matt. 18. notwithstanding any ceremonies that had formerly been annexed unto the practice & observation of some duties contained in that rule?  
Moreover, it may be observed from Mr ainsworth's own words that the Rule in Matt. 18. and in special that which concerns the third degree of admonition, was for the substance of it no new rule, but that which was required and practised under the Law. In Israel they told the Church two ways: 1. By telling the Governors that represented the Church, because it then also chief appertained to the Ministers & watchmen of the Church to give the people warning, to admonish them of their wicked ways, to teach the people the difference between the holy and profane, etc. Divers Scriptures are 
(t) Commun. of Sts. c. 22. p. 450.  alleged by Mr Ainsw. himself for proof hereof, as Ezek. 3.17, 18, etc. Ezek. 44.23. jer. 1.10. Hos. 6.5. etc. It was therefore no new rule in the new Testament when the like order was established for going first unto the Eldership and seeking redress of evil by them. Mr Ainsw. acknowledgeth, that 
(v) Ibid. p. 451.  the keys of the kingdom of heaven are in more special manner given unto them; and therefore in special manner ought they to be told and spoken unto for the reformation of evils: seeing, they were to guide and go before the people, as in other affairs, so in administering the censures of the Church; therefore ordinarily matters were to be brought unto them before they were brought unto the whole Congregation. 11. As it is the ordinance of God in the new Testament, 1. Cor. 5. & accordingly the practice of the Reformed Churches in these countries, that the more weighty affairs & censures of the Church should not be administered without knowledge and consent of the body of the Church; so that none is either received for a member of the Church, or cast out by excommunication, but they do first tell the Church; even the whole Congregation is solemnly & publicly acquainted therewith, & liberty granted unto them to show their assent or descent therein: so Mr Ainsw. himself acknowledgeth that there was a like order in the old Testament. The Scriptures which he allegeth, and his manner of arguing from them doth import so much. Of Israel he saith, 
(x) Commun. of S. c. 18. § 8.  Unto all & every of the Israelites, was commended the care & observation of all God's statutes; that neither all nor any of them, man nor woman, nor family, nor tribe, should forsake the Lord, nor suffer among them any root to bring forth gall and wormwood, etc. Deut. 29.18. So of the multitude of believers and people in the new Testament, he writes in like manner, that 
(y) Ibid. § 9  they were willed to exhort and admonish each other; even the Officers of the Churches, etc. and to look that no root of bitterness sprung up and troubled them, etc. Heb. 12.15, etc. Again he saith, 
(z) Ibid. c. 18. § 8.  Even the leprous & unclean, though the trial of them appertained to the Priests, Leu. 13. yet all the children of Israel were to look that such were removed out of the host; yea the care of the Priest's purity in their administration, appertained to all the people. Levit. 21.1, 8, 24. And long after, both in counsels, & in the redressing of public evils and trespasses, all Israel indifferently, had their hand and presence; as the Scripture showeth. 2. Chron. 30.21, 23. Ezra. 10.1, 9, 12, etc. Then presently he parallels the course of the Churches in the New Testament with this supposed practice in the Old, saving, The Churches in the Apostles days had also the like right and liberty: for the multitudes of believers were both beholders and actors in the common affairs, etc. Afterwards again, speaking of the rules of admonition & of the censures of the Church, he saith, 
(a) Ibid. c. 22. § 12 p. 449.  The keeping of which rules belongeth to all the Saints, as the commandment directed of old to the children of Israel (Num. 5.2. Levit. 19.17.) and in the new Testament to all the brethren & Church, doth show. Matt. 18.15. 1. Cor. 5. And thus by his own confession, yea even according to his own opinion, in respect of the Church's power and the people's right, there was no new rule given by Christ in Mat. 18.  
Whereas it is objected that the Jewish Synedrion 
(b) H. Barr. Resut. of Giff. p. 76.  by the institution of God was merely Civil, etc. that 
(c) D. Bilson, perpet. gov. ch. 4. p. 21.  Moses appointed neither judges nor Elders in City or Synedrion, but they were Magistrates to execute the judgements of the law, & had the sword to chastise the body and punish with death, etc. The error of this assertion hath been showed 
(d) Pag. 34, 35.41.  before from the Scriptures, Deut. 17. & 2. Chron. 19 From these places is the distinction of Civil and Ecclesiastical judgements maintained by many learned Writers, as 
(e) Conf. with Hart, c. 6. div. 2. p. 203, 204.  D. Rainolds, 
(f) First reply to D. Whitg. p. 192. Second reply, latter part. p. 152.153.  Mr Cartwright, 
(g) Counterp. in part of Regist. p. 490.491.  Mr Fenner, and the 
(h) Ibid. p. 522.  Defender of him, and most largely by 
(i) Diss. de Gub. Eccl. p. 59 etc.  G. Bucerus. As for H. Barrow, he sufficiently resutes himself when he acknowledgeth that the Priests did bear the charge and had the deciding of all Ecclesiastical causes, Numb. 18. Deut. 17. This they could not do without judging of them; & therefore it appeareth hence that they had a double Synedrion, one Ecclesiastical, the other Civil.   

CHAP. VI  
The third Argument, taken from the practice of the primitive Churches, in the Apostles times.  
OUr third Argument is taken from the practice of the primitive Christian Churches, after the Ascension of Christ, from which we reason on this manner: That government of the Church which is commended unto us & approved by the example of the Apostles and Apostolic Churches, is worthily to be embraced of us. But the government of the Church by Synods, which besides their counsel and admonition, do also with authority judge and determine the weightiest causes and affairs of particular Churches, is commended unto us as is above said: Therefore, etc.  
The Assumption of this Argument is proved:  
I. By that holy assembly or Synod which is recorded Act. 1. 15-26. wherein there was not only counsel given, but also an exercise of Ecclesiastical power & authority, and that in such a business as was of great and rare importance, in the choice of a new Apostle. This Assembly was not an ordinary Congregation or particular Church, but it was a Synodical assembly, and performed such a work as did not belong unto any one particular Church. This appears divers ways: I. In respect of the persons of whom this Assembly did consist, and these again of two sorts; First, of Apostles, who being such persons as were not tied unto any particular Church, but had an universal charge; Matt. 28.19. Rom. 10.15, 18. This commission was unto them as much as if they had had a special delegation from many or all Churches, so that their presence and concurrence was sufficient to make this Assembly in some measure, as a general or universal Synod. These eleven Apostles having also a peculiar charge to be at this time at jerusalem, the place of this Assembly, and to tarry there for a while (Luk. 24.49. Act. 1.4.) were by divine direction brought unto this Synod. Secondly, for other persons, the Disciples that were present at this Assembly, it appears they were from divers places; some of them from Galilee, as the brethren of Christ there mentioned, Act. 1.14. with Mat. 13.55, 56. & how many of them were inhabitants of jerusalem or judaea, it is not specified: so that the 120 persons met together at this time, Act. 1.15. cannot be said to have been a distinct particular Church of persons dwelling in jerusalem, but an occasional assembly or Synod upon such ground as the story of the Scripture doth manifest. II. In respect of the business itself here performed, viz. the election of an Apostle: it was such a work as did not appertain unto any one particular Church, but all Churches had interest therein, seeing the care of all the Churches was committed unto the Apostles. 2. Cor. 11.28. All Churches were alike bound to beware of false Apostles, that could transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ. 2. Cor. 11.13. It had been a presumption in any one Church, and a wrong unto all the rest, if without their consent, one alone should have chosen an Apostle: especially considering there were even at this time a multitude of the faithful in other places whom this work concerned. Many had been lately converted by the ministry of john Baptist: Matt. 11.12. and now immediately before the Ascension of Christ we read of more than 500 brethren at once which were witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ. 1. Cor. 15.6. These 120 had done injury unto them, save that these general persons, the Apostles, called of God for the service of all Churches, did for them by divine appointment appear in this Synod. III. In respect of the manner of this election, which was made with a threefold limitation, 1. Unto one of those men which had companyed with the Apostles all the time that the Lord jesus went in and out among them, beginning from the baptism of john, even until that same day that he was taken up from them. Act. 1.21, 22. Now these Disciples that thus waited on Christ, such as Barsabas and Mathias were, being no inhabitants of jerusalem, what power had a particular Church to determine and dispose of them that were no members of their particular society? 2. There was a restraint from absolute electing of any one of these: they were only allowed to present two, and to offer them unto the choice of the Lord. vers. 23.24. 3. The way and means of enquiring the will of God herein, was determined and restrained unto a Lot, whereby the judgement and definitive sentence of God was declared unto the Synod that rested therein. And by these extraordinary directions it pleased God to honour this first Synod of the new Testament.  
It is here also to be observed, that although some Writers have spoken of this election as made by a particular Church, yet we have sundry learned men consenting with us in the exposition of this story, who labouring to show the profit and necessity of Synods, 
(a) Whitak. de Concil. qu. 1. c. 3.  do argue from this place, Act. 1. and affirm that in the New Testament the Apostles and whole Church did celebrate a Synod for the choosing of Mathias into the place of judas. The Professors of Leyden to the same purpose 
(b) Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 49.  allege this example, Act. 1. and call it the first Synod at jerusalem.  
II. The example of that renowned Synod which is recorded Act. 15. is a sufficient warrant, wherein the use and authority of Classes and Synods is commended unto us, and this not only for counsel and admonition, but also for the judgement of causes and for the exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. As that which went before the Synod, namely the great dissension about a dangerous error, with seeking of redress by a solemn deputation of messengers from the Church of Antioch (Act. 15.1, 2.) did call for help in the most effectual manner: so the things done in the Synod are an evidence of the authority which they used therein, both by a definitive sentence which they pronounced concerning that controversy which was brought unto them; vers. 28, 29. and by an authentic ambassage of chosen men sent from that Assembly of Apostles, Elders and brethren, both to carry the Epistle that was written, and by word of mouth to declare the same things, vers. 22, 23, 25, 27. That also which is noted to have been done after the Synod in the publication of the acts thereof, doth also bear witness touching the authority of those acts, in that they are called the decrees, ordained of the Apostles and Elders, etc. Act. 16.4. The fruit also which by the blessing of God followed hereupon, in being a means of great consolation, and establishment of the Churches in the faith (Act. 15.31. & 16.5.) is to be considered as an argument whereby the H. Ghost doth further commend unto us the authority of such Synods in the right government of the Church.  
Upon this example do generally all judicious Writers build the authority of Synods, as upon a sure foundation & groundwork.  
Calvine saith that 
(c) Comment. in Act. 15.6.  here is prescribed of God the form and order of gathering Synods, etc.  
Beza upon this place, 
(d) Annot. maj. in Act. 15.12. & V 23.  having showed that here was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or foregoing consultation of the Apostles and Elders, which was related unto the whole Church, and ratifyed in the common assembly thereof, he affirmeth that this was the right form of a lawful and true Apostolic Synod, etc. And both these are to be understood of such Synods as exercised authority of Ecclesiastical censure, according to the practice of those Churches wherein they lived, of which more hereafter.  
Bullinger observeth here (as is noted by 
(e) Expos. Eccles. in Act. 15.6.  Marlorate) that this custom was in old time diligently kept of the holy Bishops in imitation of the Apostles, and complaineth of the neglect thereof.  
D. Rainolds, when as the Papist objected unto him that there must be a chief judge to end controversies, to keep the truth of faith, & peace of the Church, that it be not pestered with heresies and schisms; he answers thereunto, 
(f) Conf. with Hart. c. 6. div. 2. p. 206.  that The wisdom of God hath committed that chiefty of judgement (so to call it) not to the sovereign power of one, but to the common care of many. For when there was a controversy in the Church of Antioch about the observation of the law of Moses, some jews teaching contrary to that which Paul and Barnabas taught: they ordained that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to jerusalem, to the Apostles and Elders about that question. Act. 15.2. And so by their common agreement & decree, the controversy was ended, the truth of faith kept, and peace maintained in the Church. After which example the 
(g) Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. & 21. & 22. lib. 7. c. 26. &. 28. Cypr. epist 6. &. 14, & 31. & 53. & 72. & 75. Concil. Ancyr. Gangr. Antioch. Laodic. etc.  Bishops (that succeeded them) made the like assemblies, on the like occasions: and by common conference took order for such matters, both of doctrine and discipline, as concerned in common the state of their Church. So did the Apostles and Apostolic men provide against schisms and heresies. Their wisdom reached not unto the policy of one chief judge. Thus D. Rainolds doth many ways acknowledge the authority of Synods: he calleth that power which they have, the chiefty of judgement: he avoucheth that they have it by divine right, that the wisdom of God hath committed it unto them: he pleadeth from the forenamed warrant, Act. 15. he extendeth this power unto matters both of Doctrine and Discipline: the testimonies which in his margin he allegeth out of the Ecclesiastical history, to show that the like assemblies were kept in succeeding times, are such as speak of their excommunicating wicked Heretics, viz. Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. etc. l. 7. c. 26, 28. etc. whereby it appears that he allowed unto Synods not only counsel or admonition, but a power of exercising Ecclesiastical jurisdiction & censure. Those Counsels mentioned and pointed at by him, for instances of this chiefty of judgement, were such as did not only admonish, but also determine and judge of causes: The Synod of 
(h) Barthol. Carranza, Summa Concil. p. ●3. etc.  Ancyra in Galatia made most severe Ecclesiastical laws for the excluding of such as did fall in time of persecution: The Synod of 
(i) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 3. col. 111. etc. 6. col. 463  Gangris in Paphlagonia exercised Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in deposing Eustathius. Bishop of Sebastia for his errors: and the like might be noted for the rest. Whatsoever particular errors were in any of these, yet the authority and jurisdiction itself is approved of him as proceeding from the wisdom of God, declared in this place, Act. 15.  
D. Whitaker in his disputation against Bellarmine touching Counsels lays down this Text, Act. 15.6. for a ground of that which he takes occasion to entreat of, and 
(k) De Concil. Qu. 1. c. 1. p: 1, 3, 4, etc.  often repeats that text, applying it to each of the questions which he discusseth. And whereas our Opposites do grant a lawful use of Synods for counsel, but not to judge, nor to give judicial sentence for the deciding of causes; D. Whitak. describing the State of the Question betwixt us and the Papists, touching the persons that are to be called to a Synod, shows that 
(l) Ibid. qu. 3. c. 1. p. 79.  the Papists will have only the Bishops or greater Prelates, to be allowed for judges, and the Presbyters or inferior Clergy to be only inquisitors, disputers or consulters, to give counsel, but not to have suffrages in giving definitive sentences. This is the opinion of the 
(m) Bellar. Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil. l. 1. c. 15.  Romish Church. Now D. Whit. in the refutation of the Papists, doth as well refute the Brownists and other opposites, while he proves 
(n) De Concil. qu. 3. c. 3.  that all who have a lawful deputation and calling are to be allowed for judges, and not for counsellors only; and that their suffrage is not only for consultation but for decision, as is hereafter showed more at large. Observe only at this time, that the first argument in that dispute is taken from this very place, Act. 15.  
G. Bucerus pleads from this same ground of Scripture, and writes 
(o) Dissert. de Gub. Ecc. p. 65.  that not only several particular Churches had their proper distinct Presbyteries, but that the history of the Apostles witnesseth, that when greater controversies did arise which could not be ended in lesser Colleges, then more Churches under the new Testament did run unto a General Synod. Act. 15. And what power they were wont to exercise therein, he shows by a distinction of persons coming to the Synod. As D. Whit. refuting the popish distinction of greater and lesser Clergy, shows that there was a right and power of suffrages & judgement in the Synod: so Bucerus 
(p) Ibid. p. 107. 108. etc.  confirming the distinction of junius, viz. that some persons came to the Synods as Delegates sent from the Churches, which therefore did give definitive sentence of matters propounded; that others coming without such deputation and commission, might give their advice and counsel but without suffrages, doth hereby acknowledge a power of jurisdiction in the Synod, by those that were peculiarly called to be judges therein.  
Zepperus 
(q) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 8. de Syn. p. 713. 714. 715. etc.  alleging Act. 15. for a pattern of Synods, declares that after the Apostles the primitive Church in the new Testament being most studious of this consociation or combination in Synods, did not only communicate by letters, but meeting together in Nationall or General Counsels, did hear the causes of Heretics & others that appeared before them, & so convinced, condemned and excommunicated them, & sent their decrees unto all Churches with the names & heresies of those that were excommunicate, etc. Thus did he acknowledge the right of Synods, not only for counsel & admonition, but also for jurisdiction in censuring.  
Piscator 
(r) Thes. Theolog. vol. 1. Loc. 23. p. 361-364.  writing of Counsels and Synods, and of the seven questions concerning them, doth seven times allege this place, Act. 15. for a ground of direction in each of them. And for the authority of Synods, he plainly expresseth his meaning, when speaking of the government of the Church in general, he saith 
* Thes. 62, 63.  it consisteth chief in Ecclesiastical jurisdiction: and again distinguishing this jurisdiction into two parts, he saith that the one part consisteth in the power of making laws, & potissimum spectatur in Conciliis, that is, it is chief seen in Synods.  
Bucanus 
(f) Loc. Con. Loc. 43. qu. 21, 22, 25, 27.  writes much to the same purpose, and asscribeth unto Synods authority of making laws, of deciding controversies, and this from the example of that Synod, Act. 15. often mentioned by him.  
Mr Fenner 
(t) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 278-281.  briefly and methodically describing the nature of Synods, the kinds, the use & authority of them, doth derive their authority from this ground, Act. 15. which even in that short description is more than ten times alleged by him.  
Many other such Testimonies might be produced to show the consent of judicious and learned Divines in this point, of which somewhat more is to be said, when I come to give answer touching that multitude of Authors which Mr Can allegeth against me. Let us now hear what my Opposites say concerning this Example.  
Mr Dau. his Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered.  
I. DAV. 
* Apol reply, p. 254. 255.  This Text, Act. 15. is alleged by Bellarmine to prove the binding force of the decrees of Councils, and by the Answerer, to show the authority of the Classis: whereunto junius giveth 2 answers also. 1. Non sequitur ex particulari, si custodienda fuerint decreta Concilii Apostolici, ergo & omnium servari oportere. It doth not follow from a particular, that because the decrees of an Apostolical Council are to be observed, therefore the decrees of all Councils must be so kept. 
Contr. 3. li. 4. cap. 16.  And whereas Bellarmine affirmeth that the question there was not defined by Scripture, but by the voices of the Apostles, junius denyeth that any thing was ordained in that Council, but from the Scriptures, as he had before demonstrated, and thereunto referreth the Reader. ANSW. I. It may be observed here how untrue it is which Mr Dau. pretends in excuse of his large writing, saying, 
(v) Pref. to the Reader.  For the help of the Reader in comparing the Reply with the Answer, I have inserted his own words every where. This hath he not done here, nor in many other places. I shown 
(x) Answ. to unj. compl. p. 88  how this place Act. 15. had been alleged by another against the Brownists, and that this his allegation served to condemn both himself and his fellows. Mr D. hath neither inserted mine own words, nor yet the words of him that had alleged this place. II. In alleging the two answers of junius unto Bellarmine, he wanders wide from the question in hand. I am of the same mind with junius in both those answers: Though the decrees of that Apostolical Synod were infallibly true and just; yet is it not so with other Synods, many whereof are to be rejected for their erroneous and unjust decrees. All the decrees in that Synod, Act. 15. were grounded upon the Scriptures, and rested not merely upon the suffrages of men. junius had just cause so to answer Bellarmine, that maintained an unlawful and absolute authority of Synods, and exacted obedience of necessity to all their decrees. Is not this to abuse both me and his Readers, and to blear their eyes, that they should not rightly discern the state of the question? III. That the Reader may better conceive in what manner an authority and power is ascribed to Classes and Synods, let the authority of particular Churches be considered, as an example and model of that authority which is in Synods. My opposites themselves confess that there is in particular Congregations an authority and power to judge and censure offenders, and yet they will not deny but that they may err in their judgements, that they want such infallible direction as the Apostles had, and that their decrees and Ecclesiastical censures are to be regarded no further than they are grounded upon the Scriptures. So is it with the authority of Classes & Synods.  
I. DAV. 
(y) Apol. reply. p. 255.  And, whereas Bellarmine saith that the decree of the Apostles was not left to the examination of the Disciples, but that they were simply commanded to obey, junius chargeth him with falsely supposing two things. 1. That the Apostles alone made this order. For the Elders concurred with the Apostles in this sentence, and the whole Church, all of them being taught by the spirit of truth to think the same thing. And this he saith is the manner of proceeding in those Councils where Christ is president. 2. That the same respect is to be had to the determination of others, as of the Apostles. Which is an error, he saith, For it was the singular privilege of the Apostles, that they had immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost, and infallibility in their Apostolical determinations. so that what they delivered was to be received without examination, whereas the dictates and sentences of all other are to be examined by their writings: whereby it appeareth that the Scripture acknowledgeth no such power of making laws to be due to the Classes, unless they can produce some other texts, which when they shall be alleged, shall be further examined, if God permit. ANSW. I. All that Mr Davenp. hath here set down is wholly impertinent, and all being granted, our assertion touching the lawful authority of Synods & Classes remaineth firm. We grant with junius, 
(z) Animadv. in Bellarm. Contro. 4. l. 1. c. 18. § 11.  that the Apostles alone did not judge, but the Elder and others also concurred with them, not only in counsel, but in giving judicial sentence with them. We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of others, as of the Apostles: we grant that no such power of making laws is due to Classes, that is, no such power of infallible determinations, etc. and yet we hold they have a lawful authority of judging and deciding controversies, etc. The like we hold concerning particular Churches with their Elderships; we grant they have no such power of infallible determinations, and yet a lawful power to determine and judge of causes: We grant that there is not the like respect to be had to the determinations of particular Churches, as of the Apostles; and yet a due respect not only for admonition and counsel, but also for power to censure and to give sentence. We grant that the censures, sentences and judgements as well of Elderships and Churches, as of Synods and Classes, are in like manner to be tried and examined by the Scriptures, and yet this grant impeacheth not the lawful authority of either of them, in exercising a power of judgement. II. For the better direction how to discern & judge of the actions of the Apostles, and how fare their example is a rule of practice and imitation to the Church of God, it shall not be amiss to set down a profitable and useful distinction observed by junius, 
(a) Ibid. lib. 2. c. 16. n. 6.  which is, that the Apostles had a twofold manner of Power, Common and Proper. The Common is that ordinary power which they had together with the Elders, as they were Bishops. The Proper or peculiar is that extraordinary power which was for a while given unto the Evangelicall Church at the springing up thereof, in respect of which the Apostles were above the whole Church. According to that common power, Peter was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a fellow Elder, 1. Pet. 5.1. according to this peculiar power he destroyed Ananias and Sapphira, Act. 5. By that common power Paul saith, 1. Cor. 5.4. You and my spirit being gathered together in the name of our Lord jesus Christ: but by that peculiar power he saith, what will you? shall I come unto you with a rod? etc. 1. Cor. 4.20. This he sets down elsewhere more fully, and applies it to the power exercised Act. 15. saying, 
(b) Ibid. l. 1 c. 16. n. 1.  Here the Aposles are said to have used communication: therefore this power was common to the Church, and not a peculiar action of the Apostles in this Synod at jerusalem. We do therefore thus determine distinctly concerning this thing: All that were furnished with gifts and calling judged in this Synod: first the Apostles and Apostolic men: then the Elders that laboured in the ministry of the Word, as well they of the place in jerusalem, as those of Antioch, & if any moreover were come from other places, etc. Therefore when we allege this example, Act. 15. to show the authority and power of Synods in judging of controversies, those that to frustrate & elude this example do plead and except that the Apostles had extraordinary power, they are here reproved by junius, who shows that though the Apostles had extraordinary gifts in judging, which might procure the more respect in that regard; yet the power itself by which they did judge, Act. 15. was not extraordinary and peculiar to the Apostles, but ordinary, and common to Ministers, Elders, & other Deputies of the Churches, & therefore commonly & perpetually to be observed & used, as occasion requireth.  
Mr Can's Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered.  
BEfore he comes to the point, he entreats me to resolve five Questions, the two latter whereof I have answered 
(c) Pag. 34.  before; the other with their answers are as followeth.  
I. CAN. I. 
(d) Church's plea, p. 32, 33.  Wither the Assembly, mentioned in Act. 15. there a Synod or Classis. ANSW. The Assembly mentioned Act. 15. was a Synod, and not properly a Classis, according to the usual acception of the word in these places. Classes are Assemblies of Ministers coming often together out of neighbour Churches within a lesser circuit: Synods have a larger extent, comprehend many Classes under them, & come more seldom together.  
I. CAN. II. How it can be manifested from that place, that both are divine institutions, as here is affirmed. ANSW. This place, Act. 15. or any other that yields warrant for one of these Assemblies, yields it for both: because both are of like nature, and differ not essentially, but in circumstantial matters of time, place, number of persons. In both these is a superior Ecclesiastical authority over particular Churches: in respect of both there appeareth a mutual dependence of Churches, & that all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church, which is the Question betwixt us.  
I. CAN. III. How he can naturally from thence raise this doctrine; viz. Excommunications and elections of Ministers, are actions belonging unto Classes and Synods. ANSW. When I raise such a doctrine from Act. 15. as he mentions, which I have not done any where, then is it time for me to manifest how the same ariseth naturally from the Text. Election of Ministers is an action belonging to several Congregations, and not to Classes and Synods: but if any particular Churches do offend in choosing unlawful and unfit persons, then are Classes and Synods to judge thereof, and to hinder such elections. Had the Church of Antioch gone about to elect for a Minister among them one of that Sect which taught the brethren there, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved; Act. 15.1.5. then had the Synod at jerusalem authority to have hindered that election, which appeareth because they had power to make a decree against such false doctrine. Act. 15.28. And thence also it followeth, that if any of the Christian Pharisees had stood obstinately in such errors, tending to the subversion of souls, to the bringing in of another Gospel, and making Christ become of no effect unto men, Act. 15.24. Gal. 1.6, 7. & 5.2, 3, 4. then after due conviction, that Synod at jerusalem had authority as well to censure the person, as to condemn his error, having in readiness a revenge against all disobedience, 2. Cor. 10.6. with Gal. 1.8, 9 especially if the particular Church whereof such a person was a member, should refuse to do the same according to their direction.  
I. CAN. To the point now: I do deny that this place Act. 15. proveth any such thing, for which it is alleged. For I. Here was no combination of many Ministers of divers Churches; but only a few messengers sent from Antiochia unto the Congregation at jerusalem, about a controversy there specified. Hence it is affirmed by many learned men 
(e) D. Brid. pag. 1224.  that as this was an assembly of one only particular Church; so it binds 
(f) D. Whit. de Conc. qu. 2. p. 6. & 67  only but in a special or particular meeting. ANSW. I. It is untrue which he saith, that here was no combination of many Ministers of divers Churches; because here were the Ministers of all Churches, even the Apostles that had the care of all the Churches, of whom all Churches might say, these are our Ministers. Act. 15.6.2. Cor. 11.28.1. Cor. 3.21, 22. Mat. 28.19. This was the noblest combination of Ministers that ever was. II. It is without warrant that he saith, only a few messengers were sent from Antiochia, for besides Paul and Barnabas, the deputies and messengers of that Church, which might stand for many other, it is said, that certain other of them were sent, Act. 15.2. but how many or how few it is not specified. III. That which he allegeth from D. Bridges is unsound, viz. that this was an Assembly of one only particular Church. As it is expressly against the text, so I may oppose against in the testimony of junius 
* Pag. 68  before noted, who speaking of them that judged in this Synod, reckons up first the Apostles and Apostolic men; then the Elders that laboured in the ministry of the Word, as well them of the place in jerusalem, as those of Antioch, and if any moreover were come from other places, etc. iv Whereas he citeth D. Whitaker, as if he affirmed of this Synod at jerusalem, that it binds only but in a special or particular meeting, he doth herein falsify the testimony of D. Whitak. for though he distinguishing Synods into Particular, Provincial or Nationall, & Universal, doth in 
(g) De Council Qu. 1. c. 2. p. 6.  that place, call this a Particular Synod, yet hath he no such assertion as though it should bind only in a special or particular meeting; and it had been against the text, Act. 15.23. & 16.4. where it is noted that the Synodical Epistle was sent unto the Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria & Cilicia, that they might observe the decrees thereof. As for that 
(h) Ibid. p. 67.  other place out of D. Whit. it is misalledged, there being no such matter at all there mentioned. Instead of that mistaken place, let him consider what Mr Cartwright saith hereof, 
(i) Confut. of Rhem. Annot. on Act. 15.6.  We will not strive whether the Council were General or Provincial: but it may be counted a General Council in respect of the presence of the Apostles, which were Governors of all the Churches of the world.  
I. CAN. II. As Mr Cartwright saith, 
(k) Refut. of Rhem. on the place.  Paul and Barnabas went not up to jerusalem, to submit their judgement to the judgement of the Apostles; for that had diminished the authority of their doctrine, than which there was no greater in the world: they being both infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost. Only they went up to confer with them, and for countenance of the truth, in respect of men, and for the stopping of the mouths of such deceivers, as pretended they were sent by the Apostles. vers. 24. In a word that no suspicion might remain in the minds of the people, as if Paul in doctrine differed from the rest. ANSW. I. Mr Can corrupteth and falsifyeth the words of Mr Cartwright, by adding unto them this word Only. Though Paul and Barnabas went up to confer, yet the words of Mr Cartw. are not, Only they went up to confer, as here they are alleged. Again, those words that follow, which Mr Can sets down in such a letter as if Mr Cartw. had spoken word for word in such manner, viz. for countenance of the truth in respect of men, and for the stopping of the mouths of such deceivers as pretended they were sent by the Apostles; v. 24. these are the words of Mr Robinson 
(l) justif. of Sepat. p. 199.  verbatim, & taken out of his writing, and therefore ought rather to have been alleged in his name, then in Mr Cartwrights. II. Though Paul and Barnabas went up for such ends as are here propounded, for countenancing of the truth, etc. yet those ends do not argue that therefore the Synod at jerusalem did not exercise Ecclesiastical authority in giving definitive sentence touching the controversy brought unto them; seeing those ends were more effectually and fully obtained thereby. for by such judicial sentence the truth was countenanced before men, and the mouths of deceyvers more effectually stopped, and suspicion of difference betwixt the Apostles more clearly taken away. III. Though Paul and Barnabas went not up to submit their judgement to the judgement of the Apostles; yet this hinders not their going to procure that the judgement of those deceyvers, which had troubled the Church of Antioch, and likewise that the judgement of such as had been made to doubt by them might be submitted unto the judgement of the Apostles, or that those deceyvers might be censured by the Synod, if after conviction they should persist in their evil. iv That which Mr Cartw. speaks of P. and Barn. not submitting their judgement unto the judgement of the Apostles, as if it would have diminished the authority of their doctrine, etc. is to be understood (as I conceive) as spoken by way of opposition to the Rhemists and other Papists against whom he dealt, who say as well concerning Paul and Barnabas, as concerning the other deceivers, 
(m) Rhem. on Act. 15.2  that they did not stand stiffly to their own opinion on either side, but condescended to refer the whole controversy and the determination thereof to the Apostles, Priests or Ancients, etc. who hold from Jerome that 
(n) Rainol. Conf. with Hart. c. 4. div. 3. p. 133  Paul had not had security of preaching the Gospel, unless it had been approved by the sentence of Peter, and of the rest that were with him. Such a submission might have diminished the authority of their doctrine, and therefore is not to be acknowledged. Otherwise there was even in the Apostles themselves a lawful submission unto the judgement of the Church. 1. Peter himself (as junius well 
(o) Animadv. in Bell. de Concil. l. 2. c. 16. § 5.  observes) judicio Ecclesiae subjicitur, atque ad cam remittitur voce Christi jubentis, Dic Ecclesiae, Mat. 18. & alibi. that is, he was subjected unto the judgement of the Church & sent unto it by the voice of Christ commanding, Tell the Church, Mat. 18. & elsewhere. D. Whitaker also 
(p) Contro. de Concil. Qu. 5. c. 3. p. 172.  affirms and confirms the same thing concerning Peter: and why may it not be said of Paul and Barnabas as well as of him? 2. Seeing Paul and Barnabas were certain that the Apostles did agree with them in judgement and could not err in their sentence, they knew that the same should not diminish the authority of their doctrine, but rather magnify and illustrate the same.  
I. CAN. III. If jerusalem lay northward 200 miles from Antioch, as I read 
(q) Itiner. N. Test. fol. 96.  it did: Surely then he hath small reason to bring this Scripture, as the ground and foundation of the Classical Assembly; yea and to tell us 
* Pag. 88  that it is a remarkable place of Scripture, to warrant the exercise of that power which we deny. And a little after, This one allegation is sufficient to evince the falsehood of their assertion. ANSW. I. He mistakes and so perverts the testimony of the Author whom he allegeth, directly contrary to his express words, who 
(r) Itiner. N.T. p. 66. & 82. edit. 1624. & p. 82. & 101. edit. 1635.  in divers places of this book, as is to be seen in the several editions, saith not as it is alleged, that jerusalem lay Northward from Antioch, but on the contrary that Antioch lay Northward from jerusalem. So uncircumspect is he in his quotations. II. Suppose it had been written in his Author so as he allegeth it, yet than it was a great simplicity and want of judgement in him, that could not of himself have corrected such a manifest and palpable error. Had he had a very small measure of knowledge in the Geographical descriptions of the holy Land and the countries bordering thereupon, without the knowledge whereof men cannot well understand the story of the Bible, there being so many references which the H. Ghost hath unto the different situation of several places, than might he have known that jerusalem lay Southward and Antioch Northward from jerusalem. for 1. The common Geographers, 
(s) Cl. Ptol. Asiae tab 4. Atlas' Merc. etc.  old and new, of all sorts, do bear witness hereof in their Maps and ordinary descriptions of the world and those parts thereof. 2. Had he gone no further but looked well on this story, Act. 15. where the messengers travelling from Antioch to jerusalem, are said in their way to pass through Phaenice and Samaria, he might have observed that as those countries in the way lay Northward from jerusalem, so must Antioch also from whence in the right way they came to those countries. Let others be admonished hereby, that they rashly follow not such a guide, that will be a great master and teacher of the Churches, and yet as the wise man noteth, knows not the way to the City. Eccles. 10.15. III. I do willingly grant that Antioch was 200 miles from jerusalem: those 70 Dutch miles which this Author mentions, according to common account make 280 English miles, 80 more than Mr Can reckons. Now the further that Antioch was from jerusalem, the stronger is this our Argument from Act. 15. The greater pains they took in travel, to come unto another superior judicatory out of themselves, doth argue the greater necessity of Synods, and shows that the fruit expected thereby was the more precious in their eyes. The Deputies of the Churches that came to the late Synod at Dort, from Geneva, Zurich and Berne, traveled further than these Antiochians did. And of old time they came more than twice so fare unto Synods. Had this combination of Churches and their authority in judging brought the Churches into Antichristian bondage, as the Brownists call it, 
See before Pag. 32.  than might it have been said unto all these travellers, as once unto the Idolatrous Jews, O ye swift dromedaries, etc. keep your feet from bareness and your thoat from thirst. jer. 2.23.25. iv It is to be observed how he omitteth the things that were specially intended by me, for the conviction of those I had to deal with by the testimony and reasoning of one of their own fellows. Whereas I grounded my reproof of them upon his confession, and the conclusion I made did arise from the premises of his assertion; this is passed by, so that the Reader cannot understand the force of my reasoning in that place, and yet he cries out to me, teaching his client to say, But before you make such hasty conclusions; have a little patience to hear us, to speak for ourselves. W.B. should rather have said, to hear what a Brownist can say for us, and how Mr Can can defend the matter. I desire the Reader to look on my 
(t) Answ. to W.B. p 87. 88  first Answer, and then to judge whether that was a hasty conclusion, wherein the ancientest of themselves went before me. But let us hear how he proceeds.  
I. CAN. 
(v) Church's plea. p. 34.  I pray how can you prove that the Officers of these two Churches, being 200 miles asunder, were combined and met ordinarily together (as the Classes do) to determine the cases of many Churches? ANSW. I. Their combination is manifest in this act of communion and coming together for the judgement and decision of the controversy raised among them. II. That they met ordinarily together I never said, neither do I affirm it; this being not a Classical but a Synodall Assembly, according to the common distinction thereof, and according to the practice among us. III. That they determined the cases of many Churches I shown 
* Pag. 69.  before, from Act. 15.23. & 16.4.  
I. CAN. Orhow do you prove that there was any officer at all of Antioch, in jerusalem at this time? ANSW. I prove it, I. Because Paul and Barnabas were both special Deputies of the Church of Antioch, and likewise had such a general calling as made them Officers of every Church. II. Because the Apostles which then remained at jerusalem, as Peter and james, were as well Officers of Antioch as of jerusalem, Apostles being Governors of all Churches. III. For the other messengers sent from Antioch, seeing Elders are approved by the Church as sittest to manage the affairs thereof, therefore it was reasonable that at least some of them should be sent about this business, & thereupon junius (as is 
* Pag. 68  before noted) takes it for granted, that the Elders of the Church of Antioch were among those that judged in this Synod.  
I. CAN. Briefly, or how do you prove, that the brethren sent from Antioch exercised authority in the Church at jerusalem? ANSW. That the Deputies sent from Antioch, had authority and power of suffrages in the Synod at jerusalem, appeareth by the general and special commissions given unto them, as is mentioned in the answer to his former demand. As Paul once answered for himself and for Barnabas upon another occasion, when he was carped at by some in the Church of Corinth: Or I only and Barnabas have we not power, etc. 1. Cor. 9.6. so might he have answered for both in this case for let Mr C. show if he can what public Ecclesiastical meeting could have been in those times, in any Church, touching any controversy that concerned any general doctrine of the Gospel, yea or the censure of manners in any other person, wherein Paul and Barnabas might not exercise authority with others.  
I. CAN. Yet all this you must make good, otherwise you are guilty of abusing and perverting the Scripture, in affirming that the power which the Classis exerciseth, was practised at Antioch and jerusalem, and by Apostolical direction. This you have spoken: but it is untrue. etc. ANSW. I. Suppose I had not made good all that he required me to prove; suppose the Church of jerusalem alone had judged the controversy, and that no Officer of the Church of Antioch had been among them, with any authority: yet this example of one Church judging the controversy risen in another, doth show that all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church within itself, but that the causes of one Church may be submitted unto the judgement of another. This is the substance of the Question betwixt us, and this being granted it follows that Churches have liberty to appoint Classes and Synods for the mutual judging of their causes, as occasion shall require. II. By charging me with untruth in such manner as here he doth, he makes himself guilty of double untruth: for 1. This affirmation here mentioned was not mine at that time, but his in whose name I repeated it, and that with condition, if it were so, If the Churches here do practise, etc. as may be plainly seen in the forementioned place of my Answer. 2. Though at that time I intended not to dispute the cause, but first waited for the proofs of such as accused me; yet had I then used such an affirmation, yet it had been true, as I show throughout this Chapter, and therefore it was an untruth in Mr Can to avouch the contrary. And as for that place jer. 23.31. which he misapplyeth against me, the threatening contained therein is to be feared of him who hereafter abuseth & perverteth so many Scriptures for the subverting of Synods.  
I. CAN. FOUR It is certain, that at jerusalem not only the Apostles and Elders met together; but as Luke expresseth it, vers. 12, 22. the Church also; being interested in the thing: And therefore gave sentence with the rest, to the decree then made. Observe what D. Whitaker replies unto Bellarmine, denying the multitude to be called: It was always (saith he) 
(x) De Conc. Qu. 8. c. 3. & Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 96. 97.  the practice of the Apostles in common cases, to call the whole Church together: and no doubt but they did so here. Now there was no need to have it mentioned, seeing it had been their constant custom formerly so to do. Mr Parker 
(y) Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 108. 126. 334.  affirms the same: So the Authors of the Cent. 
(z) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9 p. 547. 548.  And it seems in Cyprians 
(a) Lib. 4. Epist. 16.  time, the Church was not deprived of her right herein; howsoever the Papists 
(b) Bellarm. de Conc. & Eccl. l. 1. c. 16. p. 39  in those days teach otherwise, and Mr Paget and others, do otherwise practise. ANSW. I. In that not only the Apostles and Elders, but other brethren also gave sentence with therest to the decree then made; it followeth hence from the consideration of that which is here confessed to be done by each kind of person here mentioned, that the use of Synods is not only for counsel or admonition, but also to give sentence and to make decrees, which are acts of authority and power. The error of Bellarmine and the Papists is 
(c) De Con. cil. l. 1. c. 15. & 16.  that only Majores Praelati, the greater sort of Prelates (such as are their Bishops and Archbishops, and by privilege or custom, Cardinals, Abbots, and Generals of Orders) have jus suffragii decisivi, that is, authority to give definitive sentence; that Presbyters, Elders, and other Doctors or learned men in the Synod have only suffragium consultivum, a voice in consultation, liberty to give counsel, to deliberate and dispute, but not to give definitive sentence in the deciding of any matter. Thus they take away the right and power of judging from one half or more of those persons that are to appear in Synods. The error of the Brownists and other our Opposites is that all the persons in the Synod have only suffragium consultivum, only power to deliberate, to advise and give counsel, that all jurisdiction is limited unto a particular Church: and so they destroy wholly the authority of Synods, which the Papists do in part. The Papists deprive one half of the persons of their power, and these deprive all the persons of their power. But now in this case Mr Can by his confession refutes both these errors, granting jurisdiction, a power of giving sentence and making decrees unto the people as well as others. Thus is he condemned out of his own mouth. Thus is he condemned by those whom he allegeth: when D. Whitaker saith of Act. 15. 
(d) De Conc. qu. 3. c. 3. p. 97.  In hoc ergo Concilio quivis laicus & Presbyter definitivum suffragium habuit, non minus quam Petrus; that is, In this Synod every layman and Elder had a definitive voice, as well as Peter. Thence it follows that there was an authority and jurisdiction in the Synod: it was not only for advise and counsel. He saith again, 
(e) Ibid. c. 2. p. 85.  The end of Synods is to decide controversies, to prescribe Canons, to correct abuses, to set Churches in order, etc. What plainer evidence of their power can we seek for? This same authority of Synods is in like manner proved by that which 
(f) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 108 126. 334.  Mr Parker to like purpose witnesseth together with D. Whitak. and others. II. Mr Can here doth yet blame our practice in depriving the Church of her right, and the people of their interest, and is so eager in seeking to blame the manner of our keeping Synods, that unawares he hath yielded us the matter itself about which we dispute, viz. an authority of giving sentence, and not only a giving of counsel by Synods. His reprehension is that Mr Paget and others do otherwise practise. But who be those others beside me? Why did he not name them as well as me? Are they any other than all the known Reformed and Orthodox Churches in Europe? He might well think that if he had mentioned these, the very naming of them and my following of their practice, would have been not so great a blame unto me, as an occasion of making himself suspected and condemned for his unjust opposing of them. That it may the better appear how unjustly he blameth our practice, let us examine more particularly what he hath said, and withal set down some observations, whereby the people's right in Synods may the better be discerned.  
I. To show the people's interest, he allegeth Act. 15.12, 22. where there is mention made of the multitude that was present, and of the whole Church sending messengers, etc. But by the multitude we may understand not the whole number of the Church at jerusalem, which consisted of many thousands, but rather the multitude of such special persons as were met in the Synod. So Beza interpreteth it, 
(g) Annot. maj. in N.T. in Act. 15.12.  Multitudinis autem nomine intellige non totam Ecclesiam, etc. By the name of the multitude understand not the whole Church, which was not yet wholly adjoined, but the whole company of the Apostles and Elders, as appeareth before from the 6 verse, etc. Piscator likewise 
(h) Scholar in Act. 15.12.  approves this interpretation, and adds some further light unto it, from the reference of the Greek article, though he also give liberty for another interpretation. So for that phrase, the whole Church, mentioned vers. 22. junius 
(i) Animad. in Contr. 4. de Conc. l. 1. c. 15. n. 19 etc. 16. n. 1.  expounds the same of the Elders and Deacons, or the whole Clerus or Clergy serving that Church: these saith he are designed by the common name of the Church. Calvine also 
(k) comen. in Act. 15.6.  writes to the same purpose, Luke saith not that the whole Church was gathered together, but those that were men of learning and judgement, and which by virtue of their office were lawful judges of this cause. It may be indeed that the disputation was before the people, but lest any man should think that the common people were promiscuously admitted to handle the cause. Luke expressly nameth the Apostles and Elders, as more sit to take cognition thereof.  
II. We grant that besides Ministers and Elders, other members of the Church may have suffrages or voices, and give sentence in Synods as well as those that are Officers; always provided, that they be lawfully deputed and sent thereunto. Thus D. Whitaker explains himself touching his allowance of lay-men to have voices in Synods, and saith, 
(l) De Conc. qu. 3. c. 2. p. 92.  Every man ought not to be admitted into the Synod nor to speak therein, but he that shall be chosen of the Church and designed thereunto. Again he saith, 
(m) Ibid. c. 3. p. 103.  Not only Bishops are to be chosen of the Church to be sent unto Synods, but other godly, prudent, & learned men, which happily can dispute more skilfully, and inquire into controversies better than the Bishops. Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the Church. And so 
(n) p. 97. 98. 104.  oft in other places. junius in like manner 
(o) Animadv. de Conc. l. 1. c. 15. n. 4. etc. 16. n 1. & n. 10.  requires of such as have voice in Synods that they be furnished with gifts and calling, whether Officers or any others. And this also is the practice of the Reformed Churches in these parts, where upon occasion divers times some such are deputed and sent unto Synods, which have no Ecclesiastical office: and even in the Nationall Synod at Dort divers other members of the Church, which were neither Ministers nor Elders, were sent thither & allowed to be Delegates, & were to have not only deliberative but also definitive voices, as well as any other; as appears 
(p) Act. Synod. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 4. Art. 3.  in the laws & orders prescribed by the Illustrious LL. the State's General, etc.  
III. Even of those which by a lawful election & deputation are sent unto Synods, whether they be Ministers and Elders, or other members of the Church, there ought to be a limited and certain number: for if every Church in a whole nation might send as many as they would or could; there might be thousands and ten thousands gathered together into some Synods, whereby great confusion and disorder in the discussing and judging of many causes would apparently follow. D. Whitaker saith, 
(q) De Conc. q. 3. p. 81.  Certainly confusion cannot be avoided, when too many meet together: And as for that Synod at jerusalem, he saith, 
* Ibid. q. 1. c. 6.  That assembly could not be great, because they were compassed about with the Priests and Pharisees. And therefore also in the practice of these Churches there is a certain number determined, of such as are to be sent unto Synods, as appeareth likewise in 
(r) Act. Synod. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 4. Art. 3.  those laws before mentioned. If Mr Can will allow any limitation of number, and can therein satisfy himself, that he doth not deprive the people & Churches of their right, he may thereby also satisfy himself for any thing that he objecteth unto us in this behalf.  
iv We do further grant this liberty, even unto such as are no Delegates or Deputies of the Church, that though they be not allowed for judges, yet many of them 
(s) Inn. Animadv. in Bell. de Concil. l. 1. c. 15. n. 2.3. & 9  as hearers may for their edification be present at the communication & conference in the Synod, that they may profit in godliness. This also is the practice of these Churches, both in Provincial and Nationall Synods, so fare as the place will conveniently receive a competent number: and so also it was observed in the Nationall Synod at Dort.  
V This liberty of hearing in Synods is so moderated & restrained, that though they which have no calling unto the Synod, may hear questions touching doctrine and religion discussed, yet such are not allowed to be present and to hear when personal matters of scandal and offence come to be examined, because as junius saith, 
(t) Ibid. c. 15. n. 9  contra charitatem fuisset. Nam veritatis cognitio ad omnes pertinet, infirmitatum minime. that is, It had been against charity. for the knowledge of the truth belongs unto all: the knowledge of infirmities not so.  
VI Touching the right and liberty of Synods there are many other things to be further observed. When Mr Cartwright had spoken very much for the liberty of the people in Synods, yet for prevention of mistaking, and by way of correcting himself after a sort he saith, 
(v) Confut. of the Rhemists Ann. on Act. 15. V 6. n. 5.  Yet writ we not this, as though the people's presence, either in all Counsels where the doctrine is not in controversy, were 
* The negative particle added there. seems to be the Printers fault. being concrary to that which went before and follows after, making no good sense in his words, & is therefore to be omitted.  needful: or that in those Counsels where they were present, they have like right with those Bishops and Elders. For they (we mean Bishops and Elders) may first by a several and foreset deliberation, take counsel whether it be expedient to propound any such matter, as is in controversy in that Council where the people shall be present. Whereby if they perceive any general and obstinate opposition of them against the truth, they may hold that point of doctrine back. This we see to have been done by josias, who or ever he assembled the people, first of all assembled the Elders of juda and jerusalem. 2. King. 23.1. Also by james, who at Paul's arrival to jerusalem, first assembled the Elders to debate of the matter, or ever he was presented before the Church. Act. 21.18, 19 Secondly, if the people should bewray a wilful stubborness against the truth, not suspected by them: yet the Governors being sound (without whom there can nothing be concluded) there should not follow any prejudice of the Counsels authority against the truth: albeit the number of the people assembled were greater than of those Bishops and Elders. Hereupon it cometh that the Decrees of the Council are after called the Decrees of the Apostles & Elders: leaving out the brethren, which Luke had first set down. And upon the same ground in the decision of doubtful matters, Moses, Deut. 17. commandeth that they should have recourse unto the Priests of the levitical stock, for that they bore the principal sway in those deliberations. Lastly, the case of Counsels being as it hath been declared, it is no marvel although Augustine call a General Council in some respect, the consent of the whole Church, considering that not only those Bishops and Elders, but some of the people were (in all likelihood) there assembled.  
That which Mr Cartw. saith of the several and foreset deliberation, agreeth with that which Beza 
(x) Ann. in Act. 15.12.  writes of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or foregoing consultation. The same is acknowledged by 
(y) S. Theo. l. 7. p. 277.  Mr Fenner also. And hereunto accordeth that which Gersom Bucerus fitly noteth concerning the meaning of Cyprian, who writing unto the Elders & Deacons that he had determined from the beginning of his government to do nothing by his own judgement privately, 
(z) Cyprian. l. 3. ep. 10.  without their counsel, and without consent of the people; Bucerus explaineth his speech distinctly, on this manner 
(a) Dissent. de Gub. Eccles. p. 145.  Behold, first he mentions the counsel which was to be borrowed from the Presbytery: and then▪ the consent, whereby the judgement of the Presbytery was publicly approved of the people. And this he applies also to the order of that judgement described, 1. Cor. 5. But concerning the judgement of Cyprian we have occasion to speak more hereafter.  
I. CAN. V Howsoever the Church at Antioch, sent some Brethren, with Paul and Barnabas, unto the Church at jerusalem: notwithstanding (and let it be well observed) they did not this as being a dependent body, and standing under another Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. For as Mr Parker 
(b) Poli. Eccl. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301. & 314.  excellently proves it, the Church at Antioch at this time, had absolute power in, and for herself, to have ended the controversy; and might have done it: I say, in respect of authority, without acquainting therewith any other Congregation at all. To the same purpose another saith, 
(c) D. Whit. Conc. qu. 1. c. 1.  The Church of Antioch sent not to jerusalem, as being bound in duty thereto: But in regard it was the chief place of Religion, therefore they made choice freely of that Congregation, as knowing them to be best able to resolve the controversy. True it is, the Hierarchy 
(d) D. Whit. g. T. C. 3.  deny this: of whose opinion Mr Paget must either be; or else the Classes, (as they now rule) must fall to the ground; for any relief that this Scripture, Act. 15. will yield unto them. ANSW. 1. Had Mr Can well understood the state of the question, or what he saith and whereof he affirms, he might easily have known that we are of the same mind with Mr Parker, in this, that as Antioch so every other particular Church hath like authority to end their own controversies, if they find themselves able. This condition, concealed by Mr Can, is four or five times repeated by Mr Parker in the 
(e) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301, 302.  place alleged, speaking of Antioch and other particular Churches with these express words, si modo possit, si modo vires suppetivissent, etc. if they could; if they had ability; if they found not themselves too weak; in case of impotency, etc. Mr Can hiding these conditions from the eyes of his Readers, doth hereby hoodwink them and keeps them in darkness from seeing the right meaning of Mr Parker. 11. Besides the case of impotency alleged by Mr Parker, there was another reason why this controversy at Antioch was to be brought unto a Synod, viz. because it was causa communis, a common cause, that concerned both many other Churches in regard of the matter, and in special the Church of jerusalem, because the authors of this controversy were not members of the Church of Antioch, but came from judaea and from them of jerusalem, Act. 15.1, 24. and therefore that Church of jerusalem had more right and authority to judge of them, than they of Antioch had. 111. Whereas he would have it to be well observed, that the Church of Antioch sent to them of jerusalem, not as being a dependent body, standing under another Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves: the right and well observing hereof stands in this, that we acknowledge particular Churches to be dependent bodies, not by way of subjection unto any one supposed to have more authority than the rest, but so dependent that every one is equally and mutually subject to one another, as occasion requireth. The Churches of jerusalem, of Antioch, of Samaria, and others, were all of equal authority, and yet each standing under the authority of a Synod compounded of them all: and this appeareth by the instance of this controversy, referred here to the decision of the Synod at jerusalem. iv For the testimony of D. Whitaker, 
(f) Conc. qu. 1. c. 1.  that the Church of Antioch sent not to jerusalem as being bound in duty thereto: 1. It is misalledged by him, for in the Chapter mentioned by him there are no such words to be found: the words are indeed Mr Parkers, and not of another as he saith, pointing at D. Whit. in his margin. He jumbles testimonies together; that which one saith, he sets down in another's name, and follows the mistake that is in Mr Parkers 
(g) Pa. 314.  book through the Printers or Writers fault. And though in the 
(h) De Conc. Qu. 1. c. 2. p. 6.  Chapter following D. Whit. saith of jerusalem, that there was as it were a certain castle of Religion and the head of the Church; yet the other words are none of his. So licentious and negligent is Mr C. in his quotations. 2. For the thing itself, though in the combination of Churches into Synods, they are not limited and simply bound in duty (ex obligato, as Mr Parker saith) to any one Church more than another, yet this freeth them not from their duty of uniting themselves to some Classes or Synods: even as particular persons though they be not simply bound to one Congregation more than another, but may use a Christian liberty therein; yet are they bound in duty to join themselves as members to some Church: and further where no absolute necessity is imposed, yet godly wisdom teacheth men a duty in respect of circumstances and accidental occasions, to make choice of one Church rather than another. V He allegeth D. Whitg. so defectively that no man by his quotation can tell how to find his words. But whereas he saith of the Hierarchy, that I must either be of their opinion; or else the Classes (as they now rule) must fall to the ground; for any relief, etc. this consequence remains to be declared and proved by him.  
I. CAN. VI When the Hierarchy allege Act. 15. to prove their Diocesan and Provincial Synods lawful, mark how they are answered by the Reformists, 
(i) Park. Polit. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 315, 316.  The particular acts of the Apostles, in cases alike, must alike be observed. If this reason be effectual (as indeed it is) against them; than it is no less effectual against the Classes: Now I have in part already showed, how quite contrary their do are unto the Example in Act. 15. unto which this further may be added: that the matter carried from Antioch to jerusalem, was agreed upon by the whole Church; 
Pag. 338.  and sent thither by their mutual desire and consent; And hence our Divines teach, that the power of bringing things from one Congregation to another, belongeth not to any one Officer, but to the whole Church. If this be true, by what word of God than doth Mr Paget, by his 
* Thus he is accused by our Elders, in the records of our Church, Oct. 6. 1631.  own authority, and without the consent of the Consistory, or any one of them, carry matters to the Classis, and there he and they together, undo all that, which the Elders, with the Church's consent, had before jointly concluded. ANSW. 1. That the particular acts of the Apostles, in cases alike, must alike be observed, I do willingly grant, and thereupon ground our Argument for the authority of Synods. To this end it is alleged of Mr Parker in this very place which Mr C. doth cite, viz. to show how controversies are to be brought from particular Churches, not to one person, to a Bishop or Archbishop, as the Hierarchy would have it, but unto a Synod according to the example in Act. 15. How Mr Can doth imagine that this should be effectual against Classes, he neither declareth, neither can I conjecture. II. Whereas he addeth, that the matter carried from Antioch to jerusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church, etc. I argue thence; if a whole Church sometime be so offended and troubled by false teachers, that they hold it needful to seek help of a Synod; it is less marvel that sometimes one or two should be driven to seek such help. Had there been but one person in Antioch troubled and unsatisfyed in conscience about that point of justification and salvation by the works of the Law, who could have forbidden him to seek help of the Synod, either by way of counsel or judgement, when he could not find it at home? And in matters of judgement, seeing justice is to be done to one person as well as to a multitude; jer. 21.12. & 22.3. Esa. 58.6. Amos, 5.12.24. therefore if one person think himself oppressed by a particular Church, the liberty of appeal is not to be denied him. III. Whereas they say, Hence our Divines teach, etc. whom do they mean by this phrase, our Divines? Doth W. B. mean the Arminian Divines, unto whom he hath declined, and is become one of their disciples? Doth Mr C. mean the Divines of the Separation? The communion of other Divines is renounced by them. And these also are such, that if a whole Church together should agree to refer their controversies unto the judgement of a Synod, they hold it to be an Antichristian bondage. Do they mean Mr Parker whom they alleged immediately before, and unto whom they seem to have reference by that ambiguous quotation, so set down in the margin as if it belonged unto that which went before? Yet he is but one, and none of theirs. Mr Parker saith indeed 
* Pol. Eccl. p. 338.  there, that this delegation and power of delegating is not in one Bishop, but in the Churches themselves. He speaks of that communication of Churches, when some deal with others concerning any Ecclesiastical business, by sending their delegates or messengers unto them, which power of sending delegates in Ecclesiastical affairs, he proves to be in the Church itself, and not in any one Bishop, in opposition unto the Hierarchy, who will have such businesses to be done by themselves and in their own name. That which Mr Parker saith is no way contrary unto the practice of the Classes and Synods, where the Deputies and Delegates of the Churches appear in the name of those several Churches from which they are sent, acknowledging the power of their delegation to be derived unto them from the same. Mr C. and W. B. confound these two things which are to be distinguished, viz. the dealing in Church affairs in the name of the Church, which they only are allowed to do who are chosen of the Church and designed thereunto, and the propounding of personal grievances in case of appeal or complaint touching any thing that is amiss, which, as we said before, is free unto every Officer and member of the Church when he cannot otherwise be satisfied, he doing it still in his own name. Now both these may be understood by that their phrase of bringing things from one Congregation to another: whereas Mr Parker meant only the former, as is plain by his whole discourse in the place mentioned; though Mr C. and W. B. would feign apply it unto the latter, as appears by the inference which thence they make against me. But for this their opinion they cannot show any one word of God, nor any one Divine, whereas I have the 
* Pag. 37.41.  witness of both. iv Touching the accusation of me in particular, that I have brought matters to the Classis, without consent of the Consistory, or any one of them, etc. how earnest soever they be both in the line and in the margin to load me with double rebuke; yet their own words fall upon them, and while they seek to accuse, they excuse me rather. for if it be as they say, than it appears that the matter I took in hand was such as might stand firm upon trial and examination by the Deputies, Ministers and Elders of many Churches, when as the contrary proceed were all undone and came to nothing. And yet it is also false which they say of the Church's consent: the matter being never propounded unto the Church, nor their consent required or asked, notwithstanding all that was done by some particular persons. The complaints and reproaches with which they make up their 6 Exception are not worth the answering. The testimony of the English Church at Franekford is afterward to be considered.  
I. CAN. VII. The thing then and there concluded, was divine Scripture, imposed upon all other Churches of the Gentiles, although they had no delegates there, v. 22, 28. ch. 16.4. ANSW. I. The Argument is not taken from the infallibility of truth that was in the decrees of this Synod, but from the order according to which they were made, and the persons determining the things that were then and there concluded, being such as did not all belong unto that particular Congregation, where the controversy was raised. II. Though the decrees in that Synod were grounded upon the Scriptures, as I granted 
* Pag. 66.  before; yet they could not be said to be divine Scripture, until they were by Luke recorded among the Acts of the Apostles: neither was it manifest unto all that they were according to the Scriptures, until it was concluded in the Synod; for else it had been in vain to have repaired thither for this resolution. III. He that would seem to say 
* Pag. 69.  before out of D. Whit. that this assembly did bind only but in a special or particular meeting, doth now acknowledge that the thing then and there concluded did bind all other Churches of the Gentiles, being imposed upon them all, to be observed by them. It is true indeed that the decrees of this Synod were directed and delivered unto several Churches of the Gentiles, where the observation of them was judged to be necessary, not only because they were by infallible direction from the holy Ghost, which reason is employed by Mr Robinson (from whence this and the substance of most of the former exceptions is borrowed) when he adds, 
(k) justif. of Sep. p. 199.  and so imposed upon all other Churches, etc. but besides, because the Apostles were chief judges in this Synod, who as I have showed often 
* Pag. 62, 72.  before, were as Delegates from all the Churches; in which respect, as was also noted 
* Pag. 69.  out of Mr Cartwright, this Synod may be accounted a General Council.  
I. CAN. VIII. It is observable, how Mr Paget stumbleth at the same stone, and misapplyeth the very same place of Scripture, as the Papists 
(l) Rhem. on the place. etc.  have done before: For thus they writ; Paul and Barnabas condescended to refer the whole controversy, & the determination thereof, to the Apostles and Ancients at jerusalem, that is to say, to commit the matter to be tried by the Heads and Bishops, and their determination in Council. And indeed such application of it, better serves the turn of jesuits and Priests, that seek to set up the Pope's Supremacy, and a Tyrannical Hierarchy, than those that desire to stand for the Rights and Privileges, which Christ hath given unto his Church. ANSW. There is nothing said here, but either it is refuted by that which I have said already; or else it is a mere begging of the question, by avouching that which remains by him to be proved, and which I am to disprove when I come to the examination of his Arguments. Though the Papists abuse and pervert this place, yet that is no prejudice to our and others right use of it, as I shown before 
* Pag. 35.36.  touching the like exception about Deut. 17. How can I be said to misapply this place as the Papists have done, seeing I do not apply it in such sort as they have done, either to derogate from the certainty of the doctrine preached by Paul and Barnabas, which their opinion noted in those very words of the Rhemists which he citys, I have 
* Pag. 70▪  before rejected; or to prove that Counsels have absolute authority, and that their decrees are infallible, which error of theirs I have in like manner disclaimed, both in my 
(m) Ans. to W. B. p. 89.  former writing, and at the very 
* Pag. 29. & p. 6, 67. See before. p. 63, 64, 65.  first entrance into this Dispute? In a word, seeing I have applied this place no otherwise, than other Orthodox Divines have done before me, it is needles to insist further upon this matter.   

CHAP. V.  
An Answer to the Allegations of Mr Davenport, touching the Authority of Synods.  
HAving searched through Mr Day. his book for some special Arguments from the Scripture, to show the undue power of Classes and Synods, whereof he with others doth accuse them, I do therein find myself deceived and frustrate of my expectation. He speaks oft of the warrant of the word, but he brings it not where and when it most concerned him. I find only in one piece of a leaf 
(a) Apol. reply▪ p. 236.  a few testimonies of Scripture, but so loosely and ambiguously noted, without framing any Argument from them or without applying them directly to the Question, that men hardly can guess at his meaning. I find also the most of the very same testimonies first alleged by Mr Can before Mr D. his book came forth, and by him framed into Arguments; and therefore in answer to Mr Can. I shall speak something of them in the next Chapter. That which he doth most largely insist upon, is the writing and testimonies of men: and of these he saith, 
(b) Ibid. p. 238.  I will not stand to give a Catalogue of their names, though I might be plentiful therein, but will content myself with the three Writers of this kind, whom the Answerer pretended, in conference with me, to make for him. and I shall show them to be strongly against him, Mr Cartwright, and Mr Fenner, and Mr Parker, men of our own nation.  

SECT. I.  
His Allegation of Mr Cartwright answered.  
FOr Mr Cartwright; His own words undivided are these: 
(c) T. C. ● Reply, p. 49 2 edit.  And if it should happen (which may come to pass) that any Church should desire or choose, or consent upon by the most part, some that is unmeet, either for doctrine or manners, than the Ministers and Elders of the other Churches round about, should advertise first, and afterward as occasion should serve, sharply & severely charge, that they forbear such election, or if it be made, that they confirm it not, by suffering him to exercise any ministry. And if either the Churches round about do fail of this duty, or the Church which is admonished, rest not in their Admonition, then to bring it to the next Synod, and if it rest not therein, than the Prince or Magistrate, which must see that nothing in the Churches be disorderly and wickedly done, aught to drive that Church from that election to another which is convenient. Now upon these words Mr Dau. without any just explication or further declaration thereof, makes this bold and unreasonable conclusion. 
(d) Apol. reply, p. 47.  Thus Mr Cartwright. So that in his judgement, other Churches have no power of hindering a faulty election, but by admonition, which power every Christian hath in another, for his good. But that Mr Cartw. giveth more power unto the Churches and Synod, then that which every Christian hath, & more than the power of admonition only, it appeareth thus:  
I. He doth in this place manifestly distinguish betwixt admonition, & a charge or commandment, which implies a greater power and authority; when as he saith of the Classis, or of the Ministers and Elders of the Churches round about, that they should advertise first, which notes their admonition, and afterward sharply & severely charge, which implies a commandment and authority therein. Therefore in Scripture one and the same 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  word is usually and indifferently translated either to charge or command, Matt. 10.5. Luk. 8.29. Act. 1.4. & 4.18. & 5.28. 1. Tim. 4.11. with Luk. 5.14. & 8.56. 1. Tim. 1.18. & 5.7. & 6.13, 17. thereby to express a special authority of such as use the same. And the propriety of this word is thus declared by Mr Cartwr. himself, when expounding those words of Paul, 1. Tim. 6.13. he saith, 
(e) T. C. 1 Rep. p. 177.  It is to be noted that he saith [I denounce or I charge] he doth not say [I exhort or give counsel] leaving it to the liberty of Timothy, And thus here we are in like manner to understand him, when he tells how a Classis of Ministers and Elders were sharply and severely to charge a Church, that they used an authority more than of exhorting or admonishing and counselling, so that the matter was not left in the liberty of them that were so charged.  
II. He proceeds further, and after both admonition and a severe charge or prohibition, he shows that the Classis hath yet more to do in this business, if their charge be not regarded, in respect of the unlawful election, viz. that they confirm it not by suffering him to exercise any ministry. Whereas ordinarily Ministers newly elected are confirmed and ordained by imposition of hands by some Ministers of the Churches near unto them; this Mr Cartwr. would have to be denied unto him. And this denial of his ordination after his election, is to be esteemed a kind of censure, in some sort proportionable to the deposition of a Minister already confirmed; seeing keeping out or casting out from the Ministry, are actions of like nature. And this is that which Mr Fenner, who was well acquainted with the meaning of Mr Cartwr. in these things, pointeth at, when speaking of a controversy rising in a Church about the calling of a Minister, he saith; 
(f) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 2. p. 244.  that the cause is to be referred unto the judges whom it concerneth, (and who are after mentioned) that they may either ratify the election or make it frustrate. Now in the Ecclesiastical polity these judges are no other than Classes or Synods, whereof he afterward speaks; and this their abrogating and making void an unlawful election, is a power more than simple admonition.  
III. Whereas Mr Cartwr. here saith, that if either the Churches round about do fail of this duty, or the Church which is admonished, rest not therein, then to bring it to the next Synod, etc. hereupon 
(g) Def. of Answ. to Admon. p. 173.  D. Whitgift calls for proof of Scripture, commandment or example to justify this order. Mr Cartw. in his second Reply having first shown other warrant for admonition by Churches, proceeds further and saith, 
(h) T.C. 2 Reply. p. 231, 232.  That from the admonition of the Churches, it is meet to come to Synods, if the judgement of the Churches be contemned; may be showed by proportion from the place of our Saviour Christ in S. Matthew, ch. 18. for as when one brother is not moved with the admonition of two or three, the matter must be referred unto the Church, to see whether the majesty of it will move him, whom the authority of two or three would not: even so it is meet that the Church, that maketh light of the judgement of two or three Churches, should be pressed with the judgements of the Diocese or Province, as shall be in that behalf advised. From this proportion, seeing the rule, Matt. 18. was not only a rule of admonition, but also a rule for the exercise of authority in censuring, it follows hence in like manner, that many Churches combined in a Synod, have power to censure as well as to admonish.  
iv Mr Cartwr. doth further declare his meaning in the same place, when he allegeth the example of the Reformed Churches in this matter: If I were in this point (saith 
(i) Ibid. p. 232.  he) destitute of the word of God: yet the naked examples of the Reformed Churches ought to weigh down a Popish custom. Now it is undeniable, that the Reformed Churches do allow the use of Classes and Synods, not only for counsel or admonition, but also for the exercise of Ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction in judging of causes & censuring of offenders.  
V Mr Cartwr. speaking of the utmost that can be done by a Classis, or by Ministers and Elders of neighbour Churches in time of persecution, wanting a Christian Magistrate, against an obstinate Church that refuseth to be admonished, saith, 
(k) T.C. 1 Repl. p. 52.  If they excommunicate the whole Church, it is a hard matter, and yet if they may do that; there is all they can do. To excommunicate a whole Church together, is indeed a hard thing, and such a thing as I never heard of in the practice of the Reformed Churches: yet this intimates that he thought they had a power of excommunicating at least some, if not all, upon a just occasion. And when D. Whitg. 
(l) Def. of Answ. to Adm. p. 675  answering to a testimony of Cyprian alleged by Mr Cartwr. saith, Who ever denied but that the Synods might excommunicate? Mr C. 
(m) Rest of 2 Rep. p. 89  replying again unto him, yet shows no dislike at all or difference from his Opposite herein, which yet he ought to have done, if he had thought it an undue power, & to have reproved him for giving this power of the greatest censure, even of excommunication unto Synods. Hence it appears that he was fare from limiting all jurisdiction unto a particular Church; that he allowed Synods more power than of counselling or admonishing.  
VI Mr Parker speaking of this very place in Mr Cartw. and vindicating it from the opposition of D. Whitg. shows that he agrees with me in the interpretation thereof, and not with Mr Dau. He saith, 
(n) Pol. Ecc. lib. 3. c. 24. p. 353.  Cum pressisset Thomas Cartwrightus Ecclesiarum Reformatarum morem, etc. When T. C. had urged the manner of the Reformed Churches in correcting the faulty election of Ministers, first by a Classis; if that prevailed not by a Synod; if that failed also, by the Magistrate, etc. For if the example, custom and practice of the Reformed Churches be urged herein, then doth he not speak of hindering an unlawful election by admonition or counsel only; then doth he acknowledge a further authority of judgement & censure in the Classes.  
VII. The judgement of Mr Cartwr. touching the authority of Synods is manifest by that right which he asscribeth unto them for the decision of causes, and not for counsel only, as was showed 
* Pag. 47. 48.  before: and this may further be seen by that blame which is imputed unto him for Scottizing and Genevating, declared 
* Chap. 7. sect. 5.  hereafter. Had he been of this new opinion, he could not have defended the cause of Reformation so as he did, but should have opened the mouth of his adversaries against him otherwise then he hath done.   

SECT. II.  
His Allegation of Mr Fenner examined.  
FOr Mr Fenner, in the allegation of his Testimony Mr Dau. hath made himself guilty of a threefold unfaithfulness; 1. in the omission of such things as snew his mind fully touching Synods: 2. in the mistranslation of his words: 3. in the misinterpretation and false collections that he maketh from them.  
I. For his omissions: I. He omitteth that definition of Ecclesiastical polity, set down in the 
(o) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 1. p. 241.  beginning of that tractate, viz. that it is a divine polity, so fare as it is instituted of Christ, for the government of particular Churches, jointly and severally. This definition being admitted, overthrows that single uncompounded policy, maintained by Mr jacob; as also the assertion of Mr Dau. for jurisdiction limited to particular Churches: because herein he allows a compounded policy, not only for counsel, but for the government of Churches, as well jointly as severally. Herein Ecclesiastical policy and jurisdiction is extended further than the limits of one particular Church, even unto a Synod or Classis; because there is no joint government of Churches perfectly found but in such assemblies. The Scriptures also which Mr Fenner allegeth for confirmation of this definition, being many of them taken from the old Testament, do undeniably lead us unto such a joint & compound government of the Church. II. He omitteth the definition of a 
(p) ibidem.  particular Church, which Mr Fen. applies as well to the Churches and Synagogues under the old Testament, as unto any since. This appears in divers of the Scriptures and instances which he bringeth to confirm his definition, as namely, 1. Sam. 10.5. Psa. 107.32. & 111.1. Luk. 5.17. Mat. 4.23. Hereby it may appear how fare different and contrary he is to Mr jacob and those of his opinion, 
(q) Divine beg. & instit. of Chr. vis. Church. A 1. A 2. A 4. C 8. etc.  teaching that the Churches of the old and new Testament and their government, do differ one from the other in the very kind, nature and form; by a specifical and essential difference, etc. Then could not both have had one and the same definition, in such sort as Mr F. gives it unto them, comprehending also under it such assemblies as stood under a compound policy, and were subject to an Ecclesiastical judicatory out of themselves. III. He omitteth that which Mr Fenner writes touching the election of a Minister, where the controversy of the Church, upon the people's objecting against the same, is to be referred unto such judges, who (as is before noted) may either 
(r) S. Theol. l. 7. p. 243, 244.  confirm or make void the Election: A plain acknowledgement of a lawful power out of a particular Church to judge the cause thereof. iv He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in the description 
(s) Ibid. p. 245, 246.  both of the Elders office in general, and of the Ruling Elders in particular, where the warrant and authority of their office is derived from the Elders in Israel, and from the government of the Jewish Church, as appears in those testimonies of Scripture which he allegeth for proof thereof, as namely these, beside other, Leu. 4.13, 14, 15.2. Kin. 6.32. jer. 19.1. Ezek. 8.1. Neh. 8.5.8.10. Act. 4.5. & 6.12. & 5.21. Now seeing he derives their offices from that form of government, which is confessed not to have been a single, uncompounded policy; this is an evidence, that he also did not hold jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Church. V He omitteth that which Mr F. writes in distinguishing the Presbytery or Eldership of many Churches 
(t) Ibid. p. 281.  into a Synod or a General Council. And not to speak of other things, he omitteth that description of a General or Universal Council, viz. that it is a Presbytery consisting of the deputies of many Synods, to determine and compound those things that may be profitable for the whole Church or for the greatest part thereof. The word which he useth to express the authority exercised therein, when he saith, ad ea statuenda, t.i. to determine, to make a statute or decree, imports more than a bare admonition, or counsel: and therefore it is manifest from hence that Mr F. did not allow of this new Discipline, which denies the authority of Synods.  
II. His unfaithful translation of Mr Fenner is also to be observed in divers points. I. When speaking of the Eldership of one particular Church, 
(v) Apol. reply, p. 238.  he tells how Mr F. saith, it is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The words of Mr F. are, that it is 
(x) S. Theol. l. 7. p. 279.  proprio nomine sie dictum, so called with the proper name: His meaning is, that in common use of speech it had the proper name given unto it; even as it comes to pass oft times that a part is called by the proper name of the whole, and one species or one sort receives the proper name of the whole kind, as when in speaking commonly of the Ministers and Elders of a Church, the ruling Elders are so called with a proper name that belongs to the whole kind, seeing Ministers of the word are Elders as well as they: 1. Tim. 5.17. so when the ruling Elders are called with the proper name of Governors, 1. Cor. 12.28. though Ministers of the word are governor's also as well as they. And unless we thus understand Mr Fen. there should be no truth in his words; for as he himself saith, 
(y) Ibid. p. 245.  there is a Synecdoche in the name of Elders when it is given to Ecclesiastical Governors: and therefore there must be a double improper or figurative speech, a double Synecdoche, when the assembly of some Officers in a particular Church is called with the proper name of the Eldership, whereas but some of them are elderly or aged men, and whereas the assembly of such men in a Synod is an Eldership as well as the other. II. It is a notable falsification of Mr Fenners testimony, when as he distinguishing the Ecclesiastical Eldership into the Eldership of a particular Church and into the Eldership of many Churches, and giving beforehand in the first place a general definition of the Eldership, common to both those kinds, Mr Dau. comes and restrains that general definition to one kind, and brings in Mr F. speaking on this manner, The Eldership of the first sort, he saith, is a compound office wherein all the Elders do, in the name of the whole Church, administer all the businesses etc. But this Mr F. hath not said: I desire the Reader to look on the 
(z) S. Theol. l. 7. p. 276.  place, as also on that which follows in his 
* Pag. 279.  transition, from the general unto the species and several sorts of the Eldership, and there to behold how grossly Mr D. corrupteth the words of Mr F. and abuseth the reader, and that in a point of main consequence touching our question: for while Mr F. gives the same general definition to the Eldership of many Churches, viz. to Classes and Synods, which he gives unto the Eldership of a particular Church, thereby the same authority and jurisdiction which he gives herein unto a particular Church is also given by him unto a Synod, the Eldership of many Churches: and then are not Synods for counsel only or admonition, but they are to exercise a jurisdiction and power as well as particular Churches. III. Another instance of his unfaithful translation, is to be observed from those words of Mr F. 
(a) Ibid. p. 278.  postea autem auditis & assentientibus, decernenda & pro decretis Ecclesiis proponenda sunt; which he translates thus, 
(b) Apol. reply. p. 239.  and afterwards, the opinions and assent of all being declared, matters are to be concluded. Those last words should have been translated thus; matters are to be decreed and to be propounded unto the Churches for decrees: and being thus translated they import an act of authority, and a power of jurisdiction, in making decrees, which are more than counsel or admonition, especially when those matters so decreed are propounded unto the Churches for decrees. But the word of concluding which Mr D. useth is ambiguous, and is applied sometimes to the reasonings of men, either in private or public, where there is no authority to give definitive sentence, or to make decrees for the Churches. Mr Can himself, though he condemn the Classes and Synods of the Reformed Churches, yet doth he allow Ministers and brethren of divers Churches to come together, 
(c) Church's plea, p. 95.  to confer of things, yea and to conclude (if they can) what they judge meet etc. This use of the word conclude serves to elude and frustrate this pregnant testimony of their power. iv Another mistranslation is, when in the same page, those words of Mr F. leges maximi momenti constituendae, are thus translated by him, orders also of the greatest moment to be made. This I do therefore note the rather, because Mr D. keeps so great a quoil about the strict difference betwixt orders and laws, and saith 
(d) Apol. rep. p. 257. 258.  that orders & laws are ill confounded by me, and is large in declaring his mind therein. His friend also that made the Alphabetical Table for him, and prefixed it before his book, notes this as a remarkable matter therein, 
* Letter L.  Laws and orders differ. Now if these things be so, then hath he done very ill in confounding laws and orders, by translating the word leges, orders, when he should have translated it laws, according to the right and proper signification thereof. If he had disliked Mr F. for using the word leges, or laws, and would correct it by putting in the word orders; this was more than an exact and faithful Translator might do. He should rather have translated the word truly, according to the right signification, and then have given warning to the Reader touching the fault of Mr Fenner in the ill confounding of laws and orders, and putting one for the other. After these unfaithful omissions and mistranslations, Mr Dau. hath not been afraid to say confidently of himself; Thus have I faithfully translated the words of this eminent light in his time, Mr Dudley Fenner, who was joined with Mr Cartwright, etc. To his commendation of him I do willingly assent: he was indeed an eminent light: and why then hath Mr Dau. gone about to obscure his light, by depraving his testimony, and labouring to put this bright-burning candle under a bushel, that men should not see his light? Whether he make strongly for him or against me, let others judge.  
III. Moreover after these omissions and mistranslations, come we to consider his miscollections from him, which without any just deduction or inference, upon the lame and imperfect recital of his words, he thus propoundeth: 
(e) ibidem.  The Reader may see how he leaveth the whole power of jurisdiction in the particular Church, etc. How untrue this is it may appear, I. By Mr F. his alleging those 
(f) S. Theo. l. 7. p. 276.  Scriptures, Deut. 17.9. with 2. Chron. 19.8, 11. Matt. 18.18. 1. Tim. 4.14. to show what authority there is in a Classis or Synod, comprehended by him under that general definition of a Presbytery, as well as the Eldership of a particular Church: thereby he confesseth, that there is a power of judgement, censure and jurisdiction in Synods; because those testimonies of Scripture speak of such jurisdiction and judgement, of binding and losing of imposition of hands or ordination, etc. II. Though Mr F. speaking of excommunication and absolution from it, saith that they are to be done in the assembly, by the authority of the whole Church, which last words Mr D. for special observation causeth to be printed in great capital letters; yet this doth not prove that he left the whole power of jurisdiction in the particular Church: seeing in the same 
(g) Pa. 277  place speaking of Ecclesiastical judgements administered by the Synod or Presbytery in deciding of doubts, he saith also, etsi authoritas communis sit, ministris tamen & sententiam dicendi & eam exponendi maxima facienda potestas: that is, though the authority be common, yet the greatest power of giving sentence and declaring it is to be yielded unto the Ministers. Therefore did he not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church. III. Mr F. a little after again speaking of Ecclesiastical judgements and censures, and still of administering them by the Ecclesiastical Senate or Presbytery, which contained the Synod as well as a particular Eldership, he saith of them, 
(h) ibidem.  In quibus, per omnes Ecclesias summa Ecclesiastica potestas Presbyterio demandata est: that is, In which throughout all Churches the highest or chiefest Ecclesiastical authority is committed to the Presbytery. And hereby also it appears that he did not leave the whole power of jurisdiction in a particular Church. But these passages Mr D. omitted, when he translated other parts of the same periods: He thought it not to be for his advantage to have his Reader take knowledge of them. iv Whereas Mr F. requireth, that in matters of greatest moment, after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fore-consultation of the Presbytery, comprehending both Classis and particular Eldership, their counsels be told unto the Church; that thing ordinarily is thus performed in these Reformed Churches, viz. after that in the Classical assembly of Ministers and Elders it hath been found just and requisite, that any persons should be excommunicated or any Ministers called, these censures and elections are then first solemnly propounded unto the particular Church, whom these things specially concern, and so accomplished with their consent, and not otherwise: if the greater part of the Church dissent and allow not the excommunication or election; then for the avoiding of strife, the matter is again referred ad majorem Senatum, unto a greater Ecclesiastical Senate, Classis or Synod, to judge thereof and to compose the dissension. V Mr F. in the same chapter, 
(i) Pag. 278 279.  shows from the Scriptures that in these Presbyterial assemblies there ought to be a mutual office performed in the same in special manner towards one another, not only for counsels, but also for the censures of such as are members of those assemblies. And this is also agreeable to the order prescribed both in the 
(k) Kercken-Ordeninge, Art. 43.  Nationall Synod at Dort, and in divers others; for the censure of such faults as are committed in those meetings, or by contempt of the admonitions of inferior assemblies. Hereby also it appears that he allowed an Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Synods and Classes, and did not limit all jurisdiction unto a particular Church. VI After Mr F. had spoken in general both of the Presbytery of one and of many Churches jointly together, than he comes to speak of each of them severally: and there again speaking of the Presbytery of many Churches, that is, of Classes and Synods, he saith, 
(l) S. Theol. l. 7. p. 280.  Hic autem leges Ecclesiasticae condendae sunt, Here are Ecclesiastical laws to be made. This was a power of jurisdiction, more than of admonition or counsel. This Mr D. passeth over also; it was no policy for him to draw collections from such testimonies. VII. That one testimony of Scripture which Mr F. oft 
(m) Ibid. p. 280, 281.  allegeth, 2. Cor. 8.19, 23. (not to speak of others alleged with it) is an evidence of the authority of Synods. It is there specified that the brother who was chosen to be a messenger of the Churches, was 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  elected by saffrages: now this election was an act of authority, exercised by sundry Churches in one business, touching one person; and hence it appeareth, that a combination of Churches may exercise jurisdiction together touching such as are no peculiar members of one particular Church. And if such election may be made by many Churches, then may censures be decreed by many Churches together as occasion requires. Lastly, Mr F. having spoken of the first part of Ecclesiastical polity, touching such as administer the same both by a simple and compound office in the Presbytery, both of one or more Churches, in Synods or General Councils, he comes at last to speak of the duty of the Saints, other members of the Church, which are not promoted unto any Ecclesiastical office, and 
(n) Ibid. p. 242 with p. 282.  sets this down for a common law unto them all, that they be subject in all those things aforesaid, and further the same according to their power, with their gifts, labour, and whatsoever way they are able. Hebr. 13.17. This peculiar bond of special obedience and submission unto such Officers, even in Synods as well as in other ordinances, is an argument, that he thought them to have special authority, more than of admonition & counsel.  
The judgement of Mr Fenner, this worthy Writer being thus cleared and vindicated from those unfaithful omissions, mistranslations and miscollections of Mr D. his demand is hereby answered, and hereby he may see why I referred him to this book. As for those matters of fact which he adds, the untruth thereof is elsewhere to be declared. We will now proceed to Mr Dau. his third allegation.   

SECT. III.  
His Allegation of Mr Parker examined.  
IO. DAV. 
(o) Apol. reply. p. 240, 241.  For Mr Parker. He largely and strongly proveth this position, 
(p) De Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 1  Potestas Ecclesiastica essentialiter & primariò in ipsâ Ecclesiâ, tanquam in subjecto proprio, residet. The power Ecclesiastical doth essentially and primarily reside in the Church itself, as in its proper subject. The sense wherein he thus spoke, to prevent all suspicion of his pleading for popular confusion, he declareth out of Zanchy, who saith, toti Ecclesiae dedisse Christum claves, 
Zanch. in precept. 4. qu. 3.  sed ita ut in Ecclesiâ certi essent, qui clavibus utantur ad salutem Ecclesiae, honoremque Dei. That Christ gave the keys to the whole Church, but so, that there should be certain men that should use the keys to the good of the Church and glory of God. For the proof of the former, that the right of power is in every particular Church, he useth five Arguments; in the 6. & 7. chapters, and then in the 8. chapter, he cometh to speak of the exercise and ordinary execution of this power, which is, he saith, in the Church-officers or rulers, yet with this moderation, that this dispensation of the Church's power in the Officers be according to a well tempered form, partly Aristocratical, partly democratical, the Church committing those things to the Presbytery, which it cannot commodiously perform by itself, and retaining that exercise of power which belongs to the dignity, authority, and liberty which it hath received from Christ. Thus he wholly destroyeth that Democraty, or popular Anarchy, which Beza justly condemneth in Morellius, and is by some unjustly imputed to those that plead for a due reformation of Churches, according to the rules of the word, and the primitive patterns. Of the first sort of things, which the Church committeth to the Rulers, because it cannot commodiously perform them by itself, he speaketh in cap. 9.10.11. ANSW. Mr Dau. professed and promised touching Mr Parker and these other Writers, that he would show them to be strongly against me: but though he make a long discourse of his writing, and do allege in gross eleven chapters at once out of Mr Parker; yet do I not find that he applies any thing to the question against me. for I. Suppose it be granted (which yet some godly and learned men deny) that all power Ecclesiastical is essentially and primarily in the Church, as the proper subject thereof, and from thence derived and communicated to other, either particular persons, or assemblies of Classes and Synods; what is this to our question? doth it follow from hence that Synods have no power to judge Ecclesiastical causes, or that they are only for counsel or admonition? This is the point of our question; but this neither Mr Parker affirms, neither doth Mr D. offer to conclude it by any just consequence from his words: and so all that he allegeth is not to the purpose. II. This very derivation of power from particular Churches unto Classes and Synods, is an argument of the power of judgement that is in them: for what great need was there of a derivative power to consult or to admonish only? Mr D. confesseth that 
(q) Apol. reply. p. 47.  every Christian hath power of admonition in another for his good. And shall Synods have no more power then particular and private persons? III. Whereas Mr Parker distinguisheth betwixt the power of the Church and the exercise of that power, and acknowledgeth that the execution of this power in the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in the whole Church, but in some special persons apppointed thereunto; it followeth hence that in some things the Ministers and Governors of a Church have a power which the Church cannot exercise without them; and therefore in some respect a greater authority than the whole Church beside them. This is confessed in the practice of the Brownists themselves, who keep their children sometimes unbaptised for many years together, while they want Ministers that have authority to baptise. iv The Authors alleged by Mr Parker, to show that Ecclesiastical power is originally in the Church, did never draw any such consequence from thence, that therefore there is no power of jurisdiction in Synods, but made the contrary conclusion, that therefore there was a power of jurisdiction in them. And this conclusion was made, not only by the Council of Constance and Basill, joh. Gerson & Schola Parisiensis, but by D. Whitaker also, whom Mr Dau. 
(r) Ibid. p. 237. 238.  allegeth as if he made for him, who yet reasons strongly against him, saying, 
(s) De Conc. qu. 5. p. 170.  If a particular Church have greater authority in judgements than Peter, or any particular man, then much more the universal Church, which is represented in a general Council or Synod. V For Mr Parker himself, though he be very large touching the original power of particular Churches, and the derivation thereof unto Ministers & Synods; yet he never concludeth from hence a want of jurisdiction in Synods, but declares the contrary in many 
(t) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. & 23, 24. etc.  places, as is to be showed hereafter. In the mean time let us consider how Mr Dau. proceeds in alleging Mr Parker.  
I. DAV. Of the second sort of things, which the Church retaineth in itself, because it can commodiously exercise them by itself, he speaketh in cap. 12. Wherein by 22 Arguments, he proveth the Church's superiority over her Pastors and rulers, in 3 respects, 1. of the end, the power which they have being given them for her aedification, 2. in respect of the application of it to the persons, 3. in respect of regulating the use of it, if it be abused. ANSW. I. If those 22 Arguments of Mr Park. be good and effectual to prove the Church's superiority over her Rulers; then have we so many sound Arguments to prove the authority of Classes and Synods. This is evident, because Mr P. applies those 22 Arguments to prove the jurisdiction of Synods as well as of particular Churches. His affirmation is 
(v) Poli. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 77.  that the superiorit of jurisdiction is retained in every Church, so that neither the Pastor in the Prime Church, nor the President in the Combined Church, nor yet any Bishop is above the Church, but under the power of every Church. This distinction of the Church is more plainly declared by him afterward, where he saith, 
(x) Ibid. c. 13. p. 117.  Est itaque visibilis Ecclesia duplex, Prima et Orta, Prima, est collectio singulorum fidelium in unam Congregationem, et generali nomine Ecclesia dicitur. Orta, est collectio & combinatio Ecclesiarum primarum plurium in unum coetum, & appellatur Synodus. that is, The visible Church is of two sorts, The Prime and the Combined Church. The Prime Church is a collection of several faithful persons into one Congregation, and is called by a general name, the Church. The Combined Church is a collection of more prime Churches into one company, & is called a Synod. Now the jurisdiction which he speaks of, he makes common to both, and expressly applies it to both, to the combined Church or Synod, as well as to the particular or prime Church. And further that in the 12. chapter he spoke generally of both these kinds of Churches, he manifests in the first words of the 13. chapter, where he gins thus, 
(y) ibidem.  Hitherto we have spoken of the Church in general, so fare as it is the subject of Ecclesiastical polity, now let us come to the divers kinds thereof. II. Notwithstanding the superiority of the Church, yet Mr Par. 
(z) Ibid. p. 77.  acknowledgeth the authority of the Pastor to be very great, as having it immediately from Christ, and not only the authority, but also the exercise of the same authority and jurisdiction; in which respect he saith he is superior not to men only, but to the Angels themselves, Gal. 1.8. as being in Christ's stead, 2. Cor. 5.19, 20. so long as he useth this authority lawfully. And repeating the same again, he proceeds further when he saith, that if he do not lawfully exercise his authority in the administration of the Word and Sacraments, than he ceaseth to be a Pastor, 
(a) Ibid. p. 88  quo casu solo, eum suae Ecclesiae subjectum esse dicimus: in which case alone we say that he is subject unto his Church. If in this case alone (which I durst not have said) then in other cases, the authority of many Pastors & Elders, especially meeting together in a Synod, may exercise an authority superior unto one particular Church.  
I. DAV. And in cap. 18.13. making a comparison between a particular Church, and Churches combined in Synods and Classes, he affirmeth that the difference between them is, not in the intensive consideration of their power (which the Congregation hath, in reference to the Keys, within itself) but in the extensive power only, wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects, viz. to many Churches (in things common) whereas the power of a particular Church is confined, and limited within its own compass. ANSW. In this 13. chap. (for that number of 18. seems to be mistaken) Mr Parker doth again give divers pregnant testimonies for the authority and jurisdiction of Synods. I. In the place alleged his words are these: 
(b) Pol. Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. p. 121.  I distinguish touching the power of the keys, which is intensive or extensive. No prime Church, no not the least of them doth want the intensive power; but it wants that extensive which a Synod hath, seeing the power thereof is extended to many Churches; whereas the power of the prime or particular Church is not extended beyond her own bounds. The power of the keys is a power of jurisdiction, an Ecclesiastical power of binding and losing; whether intensive or extensive: this power he confesseth to be in a Synod; and therefore the use of Synods is not only for counsel or admonition, but for jurisdiction also in the judgement of causes. Whereas according to Mr D. his allegation, the difference betwixt the power of a particular Church and of a Synod is in the extensive power only; therefore the Synod is also of greater power and jurisdiction in extension unto many Churches. II. In comparing the power of a particular Church with a Synod, he saith expressly, 
(c) Ibid. p. 129.  Major quidem potestas est Synodi, quam unius alicujus Ecclesiae primae & parochialis. Greater is the power of a Synod, then of any one prime or parishional Church. But if Synods could only counsel and admonish, & a particular Church besides that, could censure and use Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, then should a particular Church have greater power than a Synod: and not only greater intensive power, but as great extensive; seeing a particular Church, yea or a particular person may give counsel or admonition, either to a Synod, or to many Churches, as occasion shall require. It is true indeed which Mr P. saith, that all the parishional Churches are greater than their Synods, seeing by a new Synod they may abrogate that which was ordained amiss by their Deputies, without their consent, sentence and will. This he proves by many arguments, and this we willingly consent unto; this is the practice of all the Reformed Churches. But this is sufficient for the question in hand, that a Synod hath the power of the keys, and jurisdiction, and greater authority than any one Church. III. This is another conclusion of Mr Parkers. 
(d) Ibid. p. 120.  We say there is one form of government instituted of Christ in all Churches, both prime and combined: so that we may not dream there is in the prime Church a different form from that which is in the combined Church: neither may we imagine that in the combined Church there is another different from that by which the prime Church is governed. If this assertion be true, than Mr Dau. and those of his mind do dream, when they imagine so different a form of government to be instituted in the particular Churches and Synods, which he calls the combined Churches, that one sort of them should only give counsel & admonition, & the other exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction & censure.  
I. DAV. 
(e) Apol. reply. p. 241.242.  The same author, in the 20 chapter, speaking of the summity, or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations, propoundeth the due limits of it, wherein, he conceiveth, it is to be understood, and bounded, as that the power of particular Churches is chief. 1. in its own matters, not in things common to many Churches. 2. in case it be able to transact its own matters within itself: as, if a doubt or controversy arise, the Church hath power to terminate it, if it can: as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves, and laboured to compose the difference within themselves, but finding (not a want of right to end it among themselves, but) need of more help, they sent to jerusalem freely for the help of their counsel, in this matter. 3. In case of right and lawful administration. 4. In case of no evil administration presumed by those, who, finding themselves wronged by an unjust sentence, appeal to the judgement of the Synod. In which 3 last limitations, other Churches (to whose judgement, or advice, persons injuried by an unjust sentence appeal) do concur, in way of counsel, & declaration of their judgement, to help particular Churches to exercise their power aright, 
P. 47. P. 239.  in their own matters, as was before noated out of Mr Cartwr. & M Fen. & out of the Author himself in the foregoing passages. which being so understood, doth not justify any undue power of jurisdiction, if it be exercised by the Classis over that Church in the cases & manner complained of by the Subscribers: & how fully it agreeth with my stating of the question in the beginning of this Section, will appear to the indifferent Reader, when he shall have compared both together. ANSW. The judgement of Mr P. is very partially & corruptly described by Mr D. in this place. for whereas Mr P. here describes 4 bridles of restraint, or 4 limitations by which the supremacy of power in particular Congregations is to be moderated and kept within bounds, lest it should seem to be absolute; by every one of these it is manifest, that he acknowledged this authority, power and jurisdiction of Synods, and that they were not only for counsel and admonition. He saith, 
(f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301, 302.   
The first limitation is ad rem propriam, unto their proper business, for in a common matter the Synod is chief, that is, the authority of Churches jointly gathered together, is the chiefest. Hence it is confessed that Synods have power of jurisdiction over Churches: for 1. In judging these common causes particular Churches, though differing one from an other are overswayed by the most voices; and each Congregation is subject to the sentence of the Synod. 2. Let any Scripture be alleged by Mr Dau. to show the summity or sovereignty of Synods in these common causes, and he shall find thereby the use of Synods proved to be for jurisdiction in one Ecclesiastical cause as well as in another being lawfully brought unto them. for, what reason is there, why the counsel and admonition of a Synod, may not suffice for the help of particular Churches in a common controversy as well as in other special businesses, leaving the sentence and decision unto the prime Churches?  
The second limitation is also in a proper business; to wit ad casum sufficient is potestatis, in the case of sufficient ability: for if any Church be found unable to end their own business: who doubts but that it is bound to require the help of fellow-Churches? In this case Mr P. acknowledgeth the superiority or sovereignty of power and authority in Synods: but if Synods were only for counsel & admonition, what needed a supremacy of power; seeing inferiors may give counsel unto their superiors, & admonish them also of their duty? Mr P. shows well that in case of impotency, or weakness, the Church of Antioch sent to jerusalem, etc. Act. 15. But this Mr D. seeks to pervert by his gloss, when he saith, they sent to jerusalem for the help of their counsel, as though they did not as well desire help by their authority and sentence in determining the controversy. If counsel only had been sought, why did not the Synod at jerusalem content themselves to give counsel and advise? why did they also make a decree, and this not only by authority of the Apostles, but also by common authority of Elders and others that were in the Synod? Act. 15.23. & 16.4.  
The third limitation is in a proper business, and ability also, to wit in the case of right and lawful administration. for we are to think the same of the Church, as of every Pastor of the Church: now we have showed before out of Gerson, touching the rector, that he in case of right administration is subject to none, yet in case of aberration is subject: so the Church which in case of right administration is subject to none, yet in case of aberration doth now begin to be subject. Even as therefore the Pastor erring and offending is subject to no one of his fellows, as to a Bishop, but only to many of his Church: so also the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church, as to a Diocesan, but to many assembled together in a lawful Synod. Hence it is evident that Mr P. asscribed unto Synods more authority, than a bare counsel or admonition only: for 1. He often useth the word of subjection, which implies an authority and jurisdiction in those to whom in regard of their calling men be subject. This is passed by as unseen or unregarded in Mr D. his allegation. 2. He speaks of being subject so as the Pastor erring and offending is subject to many of the Church, that is to their jurisdiction and censure. 3. He speaks of such subjection as is distinguished from receyving of counsel and admonition: otherwise it should not be true which he saith of the Pastors and Church's subjection; seeing every Pastor erring and offending is bound to receyve counsel or admonition from any one of his fellows; and the Church erring & offending is bound to receyve counsel or admonition from any one particular Church, though it be not subject to the jurisdiction of any one in special, but only to many in a lawful Synod.  
The fourth limitation is in case of right administration, when no evil administration is presumed [or imagined.] for although the Church administer aright, yet if any man thinking himself wronged, do appeal from it, the same is now become obnoxious [or subject unto the censure of] her fellows and sisters, so that judgement may be given in a Synod touching her administration. That Mr P. here also speaks of subjection unto the jurisdiction of Synods, it is evident, while for the allowance of appeals he alleges in the same place the testimonies of the Synod of Sardica, of the University of Paris, and of D. Whitaker, who do all speak of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the correction and redress of unrighteous sentences and proceed by inferior judges. Again in the same chapter, he saith, 
(g) Pa. 31●  Christ would have every man to be judged of his own Church, Matt. 18. or if the judgement of his own Church displease him, yet always of the Church, that is, of a Synod of many Churches. Again in the same page, We certainly find Mat. 18. that causes are to be ended by the Synods of the Churches and not by one man, if any do appeal from the judgement of his Church. Thus we see, 1. that he makes Mat. 18. a common ground for the jurisdiction of Synods, as well as of particular Churches. 2. The very phrase of terminating or ending controversies, shows that he spoke of jurisdiction; because counsel alone is not sufficient to end controversies, unless there be authority and jurisdiction exercised withal. And further, whereas D. Bilson had said, that Synods have had more power than Elderships, Mr Parker assenteth, saying, 
(h) Pa. 303  So truly it ought to have been done, that they should only have more: but this more serveth not your purpose, but contradicteth it: for if they have had only more, it followeth that the Elderships always ought to have had some power, though less. Thus expressly he acknowledgeth a power of jurisdiction in Synods, as well as in Elderships: and many the like assertions (if need were) might further be noted out of the same chapter.  
Hereby it appears how vain it is which Mr D. saith, that in the 3 last limitations other Churches do concur, in way of counsel and declaration of their judgement, as if that were all they did; as if the Synod consisting of those Churches did not give definitive sentence of causes brought unto them. And hereby it may withal appear, how the judgement of Mr Parker doth agree with the practice of the Reformed Churches, which do exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in their Synods, according to those 4 limitations specified by him. There is no matter determined by them and judged in their Synods, but it may be reduced to one of these 4 heads; it is either a common cause, or a case of impotency, where there is need of help, or an unlawful administration in some, or at least a presumption of evil dealing.  
I. DAV. 
(i) Apol. reply. p. 242.  Thus have we examined his own witnesses, and find them to be wholly for us in this cause. ANSW. Whether the forenamed witnesses, Mr Cartwr. Mr Fenner, and Mr Parker, be wholly for Mr Dau. and those of his opinion, let the Reader judge. His examination of Mr Par. inspeciall, is done by the halves; but before we come to speak of other pregnant testimonies which Mr P. hath given touching the authority and power of Synods, omitted by Mr D. we will first examine another allegation which he had set down before, 
(k) Ibid. p. 226.227.  where he labours to prove that the lawful combination of particular Churches in Classes & Synods, is by way of counsel or brotherly direction, and not otherwise.  
I. DAV. The reasons whereby it may be proved, are weighty. Mr Parker hath saved me the labour of this task, by laying down six Arguments, for the proof of this, in those his learned and elaborate treatises, concerning Ecclesiastical policy, as 1. From the ground of this combination of Churches, 
De Eccl. pol. l. 3. c. 2●. p. 329.  which is love, not obedience. 2. From the form of it, which is communion and consociation, etc. 3. From the matter of it, which are Churches, who are equal among themselves, as members in the body, which have a vicissitude of offices mutually to be performed, among themselves. 4. From the object of it, which is res communis, that which concerneth all the Churches in common. 5. From the outward manner of proceeding, which is collatione consiliorum, by conference and communication of counsels. 6. From the end of this combination, which is, not to receive the mandates of other Churches, but their consent, counsel and approbation. ANSW. In general, it is to be observed, 1. That the scope of Mr Parker in this chapter is to show in what manner many Churches are combined together in Synods, namely as equals in a mutual fellowship, and not with subjection to any one Church above the rest. This he propounds in the beginning, as the state of the question; when he sauth, 
(l) Pol. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 22. p. 327.  The Hierarchy will have this combination to be subordinate and joined with subjection unto their Hierarchy: against the common opinion of all Protestants, which affirm no consociation to be lawful, but that which is mutual, such as is wont to be among equals. He thought not therefore of this new found out combination, by such as maintain the single uncompounded policy, but of such as is commonly received by all Protestants. His arguments are all directed against the Popish and hierarchical combination, which we also disallow with him. This he repeats again for conclusion after his six arguments, saying, 
(m) Ibid. p. 336.  By all which it is plenteously demonstrated, that the combination of Churches is not hierarchical, with subjection unto any one among the rest, but rather Aristocratical, wherein equals are joined together. Neither could he call the government of Churches by Synods, Aristocratical, if they did only direct by way of counsel; seeing an Aristocracy is such a government as exerciseth jurisdiction in the judgement of causes. II. If Mr Parkers meaning had been otherwise, viz. that Classical and Synodall combinations had no authority nor jurisdiction, or that no Churches ought to be subject unto the same; then had all his 6 arguments been of no force, neither could they prove any such matter. We may see it plainly in the example of the prime or particular Churches, where in the combination of many members together, though the ground of it be love; though the form of it be communion; though the matter of it be brethren, which are equal among themselves; though the object of it be res communis, that which concerneth all in common; though the end of it be, not to receive the mandates of any one member, but the consent of many: yet doth it not follow hence, but that such a Church and society hath power of censure and jurisdiction, and that the members thereof are to be subject unto such a combination. And thus also may particular Churches submit themselves to many, combined together in a Synod. III. If Mr Parker did not mean thus, but simply denied all jurisdiction of Synods & subjection of Churches unto them; then should he be contradictory to himself, in that which he had so expressly and so often acknowledged in other places before: as that, Greater is the power of a Synod, then of any one prime or particular Church: and that the Church that erreth and offendeth is subject to no one Church as to a Diocesan, but to many assembled together in a lawful Synod.  
Moreover, to come more particularly to each of his 6 Arguments, there is something to be observed in his reasoning in every one of them, that may show unto us how he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods.  
I. The first Argument, 
(n) P. 329.  taken from the ground of love and mutual help, is that which (he saith) is proved by Zepperus, l. 3. c. 7. (mistaken for c. 8.) who in the same chapter, pag. 715. describes the authority of Synods in the exercise of Discipline and the greatest censures thereof, even unto excommunication, & therefore not for counsel only. Again, all those places of Scripture, Num. 32.6, 17. Eccl. 4.9. Rom. 12.13. Phil. 2.4. 1. Thes. 5.11, 14. Heb. 10.24. & 13.3. 1. Cor. 10.33. which he together with Zepperus doth allege for the warrant of this combination of Churches in Synods for their mutual help, they are all of them such as do equally, yea and primarily concern the communion and society of several persons and members in a particular Church, where it is confessed by our opposites that there is jurisdiction as well as counsel. If these places would have removed jurisdiction from Synods, and condemned the subjection of Churches unto a Synod; then would they also have done the like for particular Churches, and have condemned the subjection of members thereunto. Seeing they do not the one, therefore not the other also.  
II. In prosecuting his 2d Argument, 
(o) P. 330.331.  taken from the form of combination, which is consociation consisting in a mutual obligation, he confirmeth it by the testimony of D. Whitaker, alleging that Calvine said well, that by brotherly charity, 
Cont. 4. qu. 4. p. 448.  not by naked authority, but by letters and admonitions and other such means Heretics were deposed in the time of Cyprian. Deposition of Heretics was an act of jurisdiction in Synods. And again, alleging Mat. 18. as the fountain of this combination, he saith, Many Churches are combined after the same manner, that the prime Churches grow together into one body in their members: and therefore it must be confessed, that as Mat. 18. is a ground of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in particular Churches, so is it also for Synods.  
III. Mr Parker for confirmation of his 3d Argument, 
(p) P. 331.332.  taken from the matter of this combination, which are the several Churches, equal members of one body, allegeth the example of the Reubenites, who when they would express their combination with the Tribes on this side jordan, do call it their part in the Lord, which was not unequal because of the distance of place. Ios. 22.24, 25- 28. And from hence then it may appear, that as the Tribes of Israel equally combined together were not subject to any one Tribe apart, and yet were each of them subject to the whole society and body of Israel: so the particular Churches having each of them equal part in the Ecclesiastical consociation of Classes and Synods, though they be not subject to any one Church apart, that is exalted above the rest, yet may be subject to the whole society of many Churches concurring together in Synods.  
iv In the explication of his 4th Argument, 
(q) P. 332, 333.  taken from the object, which is a common matter, concerning all or many Churches, he allegeth a distinction 
(r) Conf. with Hart. c. 8. d. 5.  maintained by D. Rainolds, betwixt questions of the Church, requiring knowledge only, and causes of the Church, requiring jurisdiction also for the judging of them. Questions of the Church were sent unto them that had no jurisdiction over those that propounded them: but the causes of the Church, not so: They in Africa were 
(s) Concil. Carthag. Graec. c. 2● & Milevita. c. 22.  forbidden to appeal unto them beyond sea; viz, for the decision of their personal causes, which yet were to be judged by the Synods in Africa: whereby it is acknowledged that Synods have a power of jurisdiction, which is more than counsel. Whereas Mr P. addeth, The first combination of Churches is in matters of faith, etc. The second combination of Churches is in personal causes, yet by accident only▪ for these properly belong unto each several Church, as they are proper: yet when they become public by accident, than Churches are combined indeed. but without subjection, as it fell out in Cyprians time in causa lapsorum, in the cause of them that fell [in time of persecution] which thereupon became public, because the offence was common in many Churches: Lest any should stumble at these his words, it is to be considered, that as personal causes and offences are by accident the object of Classical and Synodall judgements; so by like kind of accident they are the object of that judgement and jurisdiction which is exercised by particular Churches. In that main ground of Ecclesiastical discipline, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. all the degrees of admonition and censure are ordained to be used according to those 4 accidental ifs; If thy brother sin; If he will not hear thee; If he will not hear the witnesses; If he will not hear the Church: And so in like manner, those 4 limitations before noted by Mr Parker, are 4 accidental cases, wherein the power of Synods is to be exercised, and wherein it is greater than the authority of particular Churches, viz. if it be a common cause; if the Church be unable; if the Church administer unlawfully. if it be so presumed. Such kinds of accidents are properly the lawful and just object of Classical and Synodall jurisdiction, by proportion from the same rule, Matt. 18. If one member sin or suffer, it becomes a common cause so fare as it is known, all the members suffer with it and take care for the redress of it, in a particular Church: 1. Cor. 12.25, 26. And if one Church sin & be in danger, it becomes a common cause; all the Churches that are members of the same body, especially those that are united by covenant in a Classical and Synodall government are to take care for it, and to seek help according to the quality of the danger. Thus the community of cause inferreth combination. And further, for that which he repeats again, that this combination of Churches by accident, is without subjection, it is still to be remembered that his meaning is, without subjection to any one above the rest: for so he again largely explains himself in the same place, giving instance in the Church of Carthage and in Cyprian the Bishop thereof, maintaining against D. Downam, that Cyprian was no Metropolitan, that the province was others as well as his, that in the Synod there held there was a parity, that the Churches were equally combined without subjection to any one, that Bishops & Elders had equal power in giving their suffrages.  
V In setting down the 5t Argument, 
(t) P. 334.  taken from the outward manner of proceeding, which was by conference and communication of counsels, he shows withal, that therein there was an exercise of jurisdiction, when as in the words of Cyprian he shows the end of those counsels, ut communi consens● figerentur sententiae; that by common consent firm decrees might be made. And the authority of these judicial sentences and decrees touching those that were fallen, is further declared by Cyprian, when he shows, that they were 
(v) Cyprian. L. 1. Ep. 8.  tempered with discipline and mercy; whereby it is evident that there was an exercise of discipline or Ecclesiastical jurisdiction therein: and that Epistle of Cyprian contains in it sundry other sentences, which show that he spoke of the administration of censure, and not of counsel only.  
VI In his last Argument, 
(x) P. 335.  taken from the end of this combination, which was not to receive mandates, but for consent, counsel and approbation; he saith it followeth hence that no one Church was superior unto others, but all were equal among themselves. This he declares by instance in the Church of Rome, which though in ancient time it was of great estimation and dignity, yet had it no special authority and jurisdiction above other Churches, as he shows by the testimonies of D. Rain. Whitak. and junius. But he doth not collect thence, that many Churches concurring together in Synods do want authority to judge, and to give definitive sentences in the causes brought unto them. Yea the contrary is manifest: for whereas Bellarmine perverting the testimony of the Magdeburgenses, who had said that the unity of faith might be preserved by the consociation of Churches which mutually were to help one another, objecteth, 
(y) DeRom. Pon. l. 1. c. 9  Non sat est confilium: imperium requiritur; Counsel is not sufficient, but authority is required: Mr Parker in this 
(z) P. 327.  same chapter allegeth, alloweth and commendeth the answer which D. Whitaker 
(a) DeRom. Pont. Cont. 4. qu 1. p. 49  giveth unto Bellarmine, viz. Consensum multorum non minus habere imperii quam unius voluntatem. Sicolim Haeretici per Synodos refutati, et alii in eorum locum suffecti. Quid amplius postulas? aut quae melior ratio excogitari potest conservandae pacis? etc. that is, The consent of many, hath no less authority than the will of one. Thus have Heretics been refuted of old time, and others put into their places. What do you require more? or what better way of preserving peace can be thought upon? etc. Or what plainer testimony can Mr Dau. require for the jurisdiction of Synods? They do not answer Bellarmine that counsel alone is sufficient, but plead for authority and power, arising from the consent of many. junius also answereth this objection of Bellarmine in like manner, and saith concerning the power of Synods, 
(b) Anim. adv. in Bellarm Contr. 3. l. 1. c. 9 u. 74.  Et est revera imperium Christi: qui primum jubet per Apostolum, ut spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subjiciantur; deinde vero remedium adhibet, 1. Cor. 11.16. quod si cui contentiosum esse videtur, nos ejusmodi consuetudinem non habemus, neque Ecclesiae Dei. There is indeed the power of Christ, who first commands by the Apostle, that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets; and then addeth the remedy, 1. Cor. 11.16. that if any list to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God. And Mr Parker in the same place, reasoning in like manner, confirmeth his answer and enforceth it, saying, What, I pray you, can be answered to this last reason? for the Apostle Paul referreth us from the contentions of any one Church unto many; whose example if it prevail much, how much more their sentence, when they are assembled together in a Synod?  
HAving answered these Allegations of Mr Dau. we may now see what wrong he hath done to Mr Parker, in perverting his words and meaning, and making him a Patron of this erroneous opinion that is so prejudicial to the Church of God in the government thereof by Synods: and yet for the further clearing of the truth and vindicating of Mr Parker, and for the help of the Reader, that he may better understand his meaning touching Classes and Synods, (for many have not his book, and many understand it not, being written in Latin) I will set down his judgement more particularly, touching the divers kinds and degrees of consociation of Churches, with the special questions touching Synods, and show withal how he applies the same to the practice of the Reformed Churches for the defence thereof, in all which the jurisdiction of Synods is maintained. And  
First, coming to speak of the kinds of conjunction, or consociation, and showing 
(c) Poli. Eccl. l. 3. c. 22. p. 336.  that some are more imperfect by way of Communication, & some more perfect by way of Combination; The Combinations (he saith) are of two sorts: for some communicate among themselves by Letters only, and some both by letters & messengers, or Delegates. These communicatory letters were called in old time pacifical & Synodall letters, and Formatae. And he 
(d) P. 337.  allegeth divers examples both from the Scripture and from the primitive Church, touching this kind of communication by letters. And howsoever he notes from the Magdeburgenses, that this communication by letters did not proceed from dominion and subjection, etc. yet this is to be understood, touching the subjection of any one Church to another, and not of subjection to many Churches: for so he expounds himself touching this particular of communication by letters, as he had often done before in general. For whereas it is objected, If all Congregations be equal, what shall be done in case of Schism and Heresy, when there is no Synod nor Christian Magistrate? He answers, 
(e) Ibid. c. 21. p. 324.  The time scarcely falls out, when no Synods can be had: or if Synods be wanting, yet Churches may communicate together by letters: and although there be no authority in one Church above another; yet many Churches joined together, either in a Synod, or by letters, have authority over one Church offending. And in the next page 
(f) P. 325.  again, always every one Church is subject to many Churches. And thus he expressly avoucheth a jurisdiction of many Churches over one, even in their communication by letters. And yet more particularly he applies this to the present practice of the Reformed Churches, & highly commendeth the same, saying, 
(g) Ibid. c. ●2. p. 337.  And now in the Reformed Churches the necessary use of Elderships is acknowledged, ubi communicatio per literas primaeva purissime floret; where the primitive communication by letters doth flourish in greatest purity.  
Again, Mr Parker proceedeth in describing the consociation of Churches, and saith, 
(h) Ibid. p. 338.  The second communication of Churches followeth, when some deal with others concerning any Ecclesiastical business, not by letters only, but by messengers also. This consideration is of great moment: for unto whomsoever this handling of Ecclesiastical businesses doth belong, to them also of necessity doth belong the rest of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This he often repeateth, but most fully, when speaking of the authority of sending messengers or Delegates, he saith, 
(i) P. 342.  The power of sending Delegates in Ecclesiastical affairs was not in any one Bishop, but in the Church itself, and therefore all the other jurisdiction. Now it is evident that the Synod at jerusalem did send Delegates in an Ecclesiastical business, Act. 15.25, 26, 27. and therefore according to Mr Parker, did not only consult & admonish, but also exercised jurisdiction therein, and had the power of all other jurisdiction. Thus the Reformed Churches do daily practise: their Classes and Synods do upon occasion send their Deputies unto particular Churches to judge, compound and decide the controversies that arise in the same; and according to Mr Parker do exercise a lawful jurisdiction herein.  
From this Communication of Churches, he cometh to speak 
(k) Ibid. c. 23. p. 345. 340.  of their Combination, from whence ariseth a combined Church, derived from other Churches. This combination he notes to consist either of two, or more Churches. An instance of this combination of two, he gives in the Synod at jerusalem, Act. 15. and saith. It was a Council and Synod, and that properly, and that of two Churches, to wit, of Antioch and jerusalem, for the Messengers sent from Antioch were present, which represented the Church of Antioch, as is usual in Counsels. And notwithstanding an objection made against the Church of Antioch, yet he saith that Church was also judge in that Council, because their Messengers brought the judgement of the same with them. Hereupon he reproveth two Spirits of error, the one of Grotius, who 〈◊〉 said to reject the use of Synods altogether: for who would write this (saith Mr Par●… 〈◊〉 be that is bewitched with error? seeing the Church of God hath always held, that S●… are here instituted of God to endure for ever, etc. The second spirit of error will-he reproves is that of the Hierarchy, 
(l) P. 347.  because they condemn the Reformed Synods, as if they were degenerate, quae tamen ad hunc typum accuratissime efformantur; which are notwithstanding most exactly framed according to this pattern. Hence it appeareth that Mr Parker held the Synods of divine institution to be not only for counsel and admonition, but for jurisdiction also: for otherwise he could not have said with truth, that the Reformed Synods, all which exercise jurisdiction, do answer exactly thereunto; otherwise he might rather have said, that the Synods of the Reformed Churches, swarving from the primitive pattern, were indeed adulterare and degenerate, usurping authority and jurisdiction which did not belong unto them.  
The combination of more Churches, Mr Par. describes in divers kinds or degrees also: 
(m) ibidem.  and first that which is of many Churches into one Eldership. The reason of this is, because some little Churches knowing their own weakness, do join themselves unto the neighbour Churches, and so make but one Eldership only among themselves. He gives an instance of this in those small Churches about Geneva, which not being sufficient for themselves, do join themselves unto the Church in the next City, so that they come together weekly into the neighbour-Consistory of the City. This combination of lesser Churches into one Eldership or Consistory, Mr Parker approves and justifyes, and declares his judgement touching this kind of consociation. 1. He saith, It is grounded upon the communion of Churches, and derived from the wisdom of the Spirit; and complains of the Hierarchy that do so virulently impugn the same. 2. 
(n) P. 348.  Whereas nothing is more objected against the Reformation in England, then that many Churches or Parishes are unable for it, wanting fit men to govern and to exercise discipline in Elderships: Mr Parker answereth hereunto; If it be so, let them join themselves unto the next Eldership; or erect a common Eldership among themselves; and so from common counsel and help let them seek remedy for their weakness. Now it is recorded 
(o) Calvin. Epist. 167.  that in the Discipline at Geneva, the right of Excommunication is in the power of this Consistory or common Eldership: and hereby then it appears that all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Church only; and that Mr Parker allowing of this government at Geneva, is not against the jurisdiction of many Churches over one. Again, whereas D. Bancroft and D. Field object that the Churches at Geneva, and the villages of the Netherlands, have not the power of Excommunication; and whereas my opposites complain, that Churches are brought into bondage, and lose their liberty, when they may not excommunicate without the consent of others; Mr Parkers answer is, 
(p) P. 349.  that the power of Excommunication, ordination, and other jurisdiction remains pure in them, saving that communion which ought to be among Churches; every Church in greater matters useth the consent and counsel of her neighbours, as of the Classis or Eldership in the City, quod ego Ecclesiis vel perfectissimis non indig●um reor, which I judge (saith he) not to be unmeet even for the most perfect Churches. Thus he requires not only counsel, but consent of other Churches in weightier matters; which is that we stand for. This doth not, as he saith, 
(q) P. 390.  import any hierarchical subjection in the parishes at Geneva, unless happily any can be subjected unto himself; for these parishes, each for their part, and that equally, are this very Eldership. What subjection is it, where all as well City-churches as the Country-churches are equal? for the country-churches are no more subject unto this Eldership, then are the city-churches.  
The next combination of many Churches, which Mr Parker speaks of, 
(r) Ibid. c. 24. p. 353. etc.  is when they are united into one Classis. And of these he giveth instance in the Churches of the Netherlands; and in Scotland, where the 52 Presbyteries, so called by them, were nothing else but so many Classes. For the warrant of these he bringeth both divers grounds of holy Scripture, and the example of antiquity. He there answereth 10 Objections made by the Hierarchy against these Classes. And it is to be observed that he doth not simply speak of Classes in general, but of these Classes of the Reformed Churches in these Countries, of our Classes, as he useth to call them, not only for that he approved them, but because together with us, he was a member of this communion, and lived under the jurisdiction of the Classis with us. If he had not allowed their jurisdiction, which he knew and saw to be exercised by them, how could he with good conscience have praised them as he doth? Speaking of the ancient Discipline used in the Primitive Churches, he saith, 
(f) P. 357.  Omnia his in politeia nostra & in Classibus nostris similia. O quantum peccat Hierarchia, quae hanc suavissimam Ecclesiarum combinationem eliminavit! that is, All things in our government and in our Classes are like unto these. O how much doth the Hierarchy offend, which hath banished this most sweet combination of Churches! And as well might we cry out, O how much do the authors of the single, uncompounded policy offend, who likewise seek to banish and overthrow this combination of Churches in Classes; while they allow them only for counsel, and regard not their consent; but allow the Churches in combination to proceed in the weightiest affairs, without or against the consent of Classes! Whereas it is objected not only by my opposites, but by some of the Hierarchy themselves, that these Classes do take unto themselves that jurisdiction which they seem to condemn in the Hierarchy; Mr Parker in his answer shows the contrary: He saith, 
(t) P. 358. 359.  The superior power that is in Classes, ariseth from the Churches, that are combined in Classes, etc. No Church hath dominion or pre-eminence over another. He saith that in the Metropolitical or Episcopal jurisdiction, Churches have not their own government, but are spoilt of their Elderships and subjected to the power of one, and to an external Church, namely the Cathedral. All which things are contrary in our Classes. Every Church enjoyeth her own government by her own Eldership: the Classis, is no external Church, much less an external Court: for it consisteth of these Churches that are combined: so that here is no authority over many; the parishes do join their authority together, and that equally.  
After the combination of many Churches into one Eldership and one Classis, Mr Parker proceeds 
(v) Pol. Eco. lib. 3. c. 25. p. 362.  to speak of that combination of many Churches in many Classes, which is into one Synod, and that either Provincial, Nationall, or General; the Nationall containing under it the Churches of sundry Provinces, and the General comprehending the Churches of many Nations. Touching Synods, he speaketh of the 7 controversies about them, and first of the Necessity of Synods. He saith, he never knew any in the Reformed Churches to deny the necessity of Synods, before Hugo Grotius, that was the great friend of Arminius. He showeth from Bogerman, that the Reformed do stand for the necessity of Synods more than any other. Whereas D. Sutlive condemneth such as would have status Synodos, Synods kept at certain set times, and not only extraordinary, as he saith that Synod of the Apostles was, Act. 15. 
(x) P. 364. 365.  Mr Parker refureth him, and argueth thus from that place, This example of the Apostles showeth that Synods are to be called, as the necessity and edification of the Church requireth: but there fall out so many abuses, errors, controversies, scandals and other such things; that set and frequent Synods are necessary: for the neglect whereof the English Hierarchy doth sin grievously, which contenting itself with an extraordinary Synod only, doth not call a Synod after the example of the Apostles, so often as abuses, errors, controversies, and scandals do arise, but contrary to the example of the Apostles, committeth all these things to the care of one Bishop alone. And whereas he addeth further in the same place, that the Hierarchy is crept in in place of the Synod, taking violently unto itself those things which by divine right do belong unto Synods: he doth herein acknowledge the authority of Synods to be of divine right; for what else or what more doth the Hierarchy snatch unto themselves, than authority of censure, and jurisdiction in the judgement of Ecclesiastical causes?  
Touching the second controversy about Synods, viz. the authority and power of them, 
(y) Ibid. c. 26. p 367.  he notes that as there is an Aristocratical government in Elderships: so there is an Aristocratical government by Synods; and from this his assertion it follows, that as the Consistories or Elderships have a jurisdiction and power of government in them, and are not only for counsel, so the Synods in like manner. When as he saith further, 
(z) P. 368.  that the Synods borrow that authority which they have from the prime Churches, this argues that he confesseth they have some authority; else how could they be said to borrow it? To like purpose he argues there again, 
(a) P. 370.  It appears by the very obligation that Synods have their authority from the prime Churches: for otherwise Synods should not bind the prime Churches, unless by sending their Delegates they did avow their consent; unless they have just cause afterwards of dissenting. Thus he acknowledgeth a bond of authority and an obligatory power in Synods: & as for the exception which he addeth, it is as well to be added unto any judicatory, either Civil or Ecclesiastical whatsoever; for there is no jurisdiction nor authority of the highest Governors on earth, that aught to bind us unto the obedience of their decrees, if we have just cause of dissenting.  
For the Convocation of Synods, which is the third controversy, 
(b) Ibid. c. 27. p. 371.  Mr Parker doth maintain and much commend the practice and order observed in these Reformed Churches, and declares at large what their manner is from divers acts of their Synods. He saith, it is cum sapientissime tum saluberrime instituta; a most wise & most wholesome institution. He shows, that the Church hath power of calling Synods; but where there is a Christian Magistrate, 
(c) P. 372.  this power is regulated of the Magistrate. He brings 
(d) P. 373. etc.  10 Arguments to prove that this power of calling Synods is not in a Metropolitan Bishop. He saith touching Ecclesiastical persons, 
(e) P. 375.  The power of convocating is in no one, but in many; therefore Synods are not to be called by one, nor by the authority of one, but by the Synods themselves, by the precedent assembly itself, as is usual in the Reformed Churches. And speaking of Act. 15.6. he saith, Doth not this example bind all ages, that the meeting in Synods be by common consent, even as the Acts in the Synod are by common consent decreed? This decree of calling together is an act of jurisdiction, more than counsel or admonition only.  
The fourth controversy about Synods is concerning the Persons 
(f) Ibid. c. 28. p. 379. etc.  whereof the Synods consist. Whereas Bellarmine distinguisheth betwixt the greater & lesser Clerks, and alloweth unto hierarchical Bishops to have a deciding voice, and to the inferior sort to have only a consulting voice, Mr Parker shows at large that whosoever is lawfully deputed and sent, whether Ministers, Elders, Deacons, or any of the people, have a deciding voice, and may give definitive sentence in Synods; and thereby he acknowledgeth the jurisdiction exercised in them. He saith, 
(g) P. 387.  As the material foundation of Synodall right, is the excellency of inward gifts, not the dignity of any office: so the formal foundation thereof is delegation from the Church, from which whosoever they be that have receyved authority (and therefore Elders also) they have power of decreeing and judging in Synods. And many other testimonies thereof he gives in that chapter.  
A fift controversy is about the President or Moderator in Synods. 
(h) Ibid. c. 29.  Mr Parker labours to prove that this presidency doth not belong to an hierarchical Bishop or Archbishop, but maintains the practice and order of the Reformed Churches, where the Precedent of the Synods is elected or chosen by the Synods themselves. 
(i) P. 402.  We argue first, saith he, from the authority of the Church. for in Matt. 18. Ecclesiastical authority is given primarily, and originally unto the prime Church: so that no rector without the election and designation thereof, may challenge any authority unto himself. The Synod is a combined or secondary Church, which receiveth authority from the prime Churches: & that under the like condition, to wit that no rector or President be made without election of the Churches, which are combined in that Assembly. This he declares at large and refutes the contrary arguments. Now this Election of a President is an act of Ecclesiastical authority, a part of the Church's power; and seeing this is confessed to be in Synods, it appeareth hence also that Synods are not only for counsel & admonition, but also for the exercise of jurisdiction.  
A sixth controversy about Synods concerns the Execution of the Synodall Canons. 
(k) Ibid. l. 3 c. 30.  Mr Park. holds that this belongs not unto any one Bishop or Archbishop, but unto particular Churches and their Elderships. He argues on this manner, 
(l) P. 428.  The execution of Canons, of what kind soever, whether they be those which are published of Christ, in the Scriptures, or whether they be ordained in Synods according to the Scriptures, is a part of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, a part of the exercise of the Keys, as the Parisians call it. But the Keys and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction are not given to one Bishop, but are promised to the Church and Eldership, Mat. 16. and given unto them, Matt. 18. Therefore the execution of Canons, belongeth not unto one Bishop, but unto the Church which importeth many. Now if the execution of Synodall Canons by an Eldership or particular Church be a part of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and of the Keys, then much more is the making of these Canons in the Synod: and then Synods have not only liberty of giving counsel and admonition, but power of jurisdiction also, which Mr Daven. denyeth. This conclusion and inference is afterward noted by Mr Parker himself also; when as he addeth, 
(m) P. 432.  Why should not he be judge in the execution of Canons, who hath power of judging in the sanction or decreeing of the Canons? etc. And again, If it be not lawful for them to execute the Canons, neither will it be lawful to ordain them: on the other side, if they have authority of making Canons, then have they authority to execute them; and that much more.  
The seventh controversy about Synods, is concerning the Conditions 
(n) Ibid. c. 31.  thereof. And among other conditions, Mr Parker 
(o) P. 452.  requires this for one, that there be a common consent, or a community of suffrages: and he complains of it as a great corruption when there is in Synods a negative voice allowed unto Bishops or Archbishops. He notes 
(p) P. 454.  that to be not without reason called an oligarchical Synod, when things are not done by common consent, but one maketh frustrate the consent of the rest. Now if it be a violation of the Synods right and authority, when the general consent of the greatest part is made frustrate by the dissenting of one or of a few; then much more is the authority thereof violated, when as notwithstanding the universal and entire consent of the whole Synod, both of the President, & of all the Deputies of all the Churches there assembled, yet by receiving this erroneous opinion of my opposites, the definitive sentence of them all is made frustrate and disannulled; as if they had no jurisdiction nor power of censure, but were only to counsel or admonish.  
AS that which Mr Parker hath written particularly touching the combination of Churches in Classes and Synods, doth sufficiently show his mind touching this controversy, and that Mr Dav doth in vain seek to shroud himself under his shadow: so that which he writes more generally in defence of the Discipline practised in the Reformed Churches, where the authority and jurisdiction of Synods is maintained, doth serve for a more full declaration thereof. He laboureth to prove (q) by 10 Arguments, 
(q) Pol. Ecc. lib. 1. c. 29. p. 84.  that the Church of England is bound to imitate the Reformed Churches in their Discipline; which yet, (if Mr Dau. his opinion were true, they ought not to do, but rather to avoid it & flee from it, as being an usurpation of unlawful power, whereby their people are kept in bondage under the undue power of Classes and Synods. In special, Mr Parker following Mr Brightman in his exposition of the Revelation, 
(r) Ibid. p. 84.85, 86.  saith that in Philadelphia, which is the type of the Reformed Churches, nothing is reprehended, but all things are commended, and among the rest, the discipline which is noted by the key of David, Rev. 3.7. He saith, that the Angel of the Reformed Churches stands in the Sun, Rev. 19.17. as being the natural son of the woman clothed with the Sun. Rev. 12.1. that the Reformed Churches are as the beautiful mountain, the mountain of Christ's delights, Rev. 16.16. & the hill of precious fruits. He saith again, that the Philadelphian Church is the type of the Reformed Churches; that it is commanded to hold fast her crown. Rev. 3.11. Now if Mr Parker did judge this rare and high commendation to be due unto the Reformed Churches, and that by divine warrant, by the testimony of the holy Ghost foretelling their estate and the purity of the Discipline observed by them; then was he not of Mr D. his mind. for than he should have judged them not to be a free people, while the causes of particular Congregations are judged and determined by another superior authority in Synods: Then should he rather have judged that their Churches wanted the key of David, and were deprived of their lawful and proper privileges and prerogatives, being subject to an Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the assembly of the combined Churches. And in sum, then should he (according to Mr D. his opinion) have judged them to carry a yoke of servitude and subjection, to be cast off with all speed, rather than a crown of lawful liberty, to be held fast by them: then should he with Mr Can 
(f) Church's plea. p. 74.  have taught them to complain in the misapplyed words of the Prophet, jer. 4.13. Woe unto us, we are spoilt; viz. by the authority of Classes & Synods.  
TO conclude, for the judgement of Mr Parker in this controversy, there are few that did better know, or at least had more means to know his mind, than I. The truth is, when he came from Leyden, where he and Mr jacob had sojourned some while together, he professed at his first coming to Amsterdam, that the use of Synods was for counsel and advise only, but had not authority to give definitive sentence in the judging of causes. But after much conference with him, when he had more seriously and ripely considered of this question, he plainly changed his opinion, and professed so much not only unto me, but unto sundry others upon occasion; so that some of Mr jacobs' mind were offended with him, and expostulated not only with him, but with me also, as being an occasion of altering his judgement. I had means to understand his mind aright, and better than those that do so many ways pervert his meaning, he being not only a member of the same Church, but a member of the same family & living under the same roof with me; where we had continual and daily occasion to talk of these things, and at that time when Mr jacob published his unsound writings touching this question. He being afterwards also a member of the same Eldership, and by office sitting with us daily to heat and judge the causes of our Church, and so becoming a member of our Classical combination, yet did he never testify against the unduepower of the Classis, or complain that we were not a free people, though the Classis exercised the same authority then, as now it doth. Yea he being also for that time the Scribe of our Consistory, the Acts of our Eldership and Church being recorded with his own hand, are extant to show his agreement with us in the government of this Church. And it appears hereby that he was of another spirit and judgement, than Mr Davenp. who hath published so many vain cavils against the government and discipline of these Reformed Churches, and this under the cloak & pretence of his agreement with Mr Parker. Yea and further it is apparent that the knowledge and experience which Mr Parker got by this his living here in communion with these Churches, hath been a special help unto him in the writing of those learned treatises of Ecclesiastical policy, which for the substance and maine are as a lively Table wherein the government of these Reformed Churches is plainly portrayed before our eyes; his discourse being as it were a narration and defence of their practice; which discourse might yet have been more perfect, had he lived to finish the same.   

SECT. iv  
His Allegation of D. Ames examined.  
IO. DAV. To these I might add D. Ames in that which he wrote, in his latter time, wherein the Answerer pretendeth that he set down his judgement more warily, in this matter, 
Casus consc. l. 4. c. 24. q. 4. etc. 25. qu. 5.  then formerly. See his Cases of Conscience, the 4. Book, where he speaketh clearly of this power, as essentially belonging to particular Churches. ANSW. Thus instead of Arguments from the Scripture for the confirmation of his cause, Mr D. still leads us from one man's testimony to another, & thither I am forced to follow him. And for D. Ames,  
1. I may justly testify that I have found him wavering in his opinion, touching the authority of Synods. For through the inward familiarity which I had with him a long time, for more than 20 years together, while he lived in these countries, having oftentimes had earnest conference with him touching this question, and much complaining of the wrong done to many Ministers by that book entitled English Puritanisme, which he had translated into Latin, wherein there is such a peremptory restraint of all Ecclesiastical authority unto particular Congregations; though he did never plainly retract that which he published, yet he shown himself divers times inclining to a change of his judgement, yea & sometimes acknowledged that Synods had power to judge of causes, and by their sentence to decree the excommunication of such as had deserved the same.  
II. For his writings; D. Ames when he 
(t) Preface to Mr Par. book de Pol. Eccl. anno 1616.  gave so great approbation of Mr Parker's work which he wrote of Ecclesiastical policy, wherein he doth so largely maintain the power of Classes and Synods, might cause the Readers to think that he was of the same judgement with him, seeing he gives such general allowance and commendation thereof, without any exception about this question.  
III. It is to be observed that in none of his latter writings he doth use that peremptory phrase, in limiting Synods, or Churches combined in Classes or Synods, only to counsel or advise, in such manner as was done in that 
(v) Engl. Purit. c. 2.  first writing.  
IU. And more particularly, in his Treatise of Divinity, he writes thus of particular Churches, 
(x) Medulla. SS. Theol. l. 1. c. 39 th'. 27.  that as their communion requires, the light of nature, & equity of rules and examples of Scripture do teach, they may and also ought frequently to enter into a mutual confederation and consociation among themselves in Classes and Synods, that they may use common consent and mutual help as much as commodiously may be done, in those things especially which are of greater moment. Now as in particular Congregations the greatest acts of power and jurisdiction which are exercised therein, receive their strength from common consent, and do consist therein: so if in matters of greater weight the common consent of Synods is to be used, then is a power and authority ascribed unto them; then ought not particular Churches to proceed without and against the authority of common consent in Synods. And that mutual help of other Churches is then most effectual, when there is not only advise, but authority also to confirm the same. Though D.A. add in the same place, that this combination doth neither constitute a new form of the Church, neither aught by any means to destroy or impair that liberty & power which Christ hath left unto his Church, for the directing & furthering whereof it only serveth: this we also willingly grant. When a particular Congregation is hindered & stayed from the exercise of their authority in an unlawful business, in an unjust excommunication or election their liberty & power is not hereby destroyed or taken away, but rectified and preserved. Here is to be remembered that which Mr Par. (as was noted before) saith upon like occasion: when some objected that the Churches of the villages in the Netherlands wanted the power of excommunication, he replies, 
(y) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 349.  Imo potestas excommunicandi, ordinandi, & jurisdictionis caeterae illis illibata relinquitur, etc. The power of excommunication, ordination and other jurisdiction, remains unto them uncorrupted, etc. though they do not proceed thereunto but with common consent of the Classis.  
V After this, D. Ames in his Disputation against Bellarmine touching Synods or Counsels, doth sundry times acknowledge that they have more authority then only to counsel and advise. This is to be observed in divers pounts': as first in the Question whether the greater Prelates only have jus suffragii decisivi, the right or authority of a determining or definitive suffrage; or whether the same belong unto the Elders also, or inferior Officers, to whom Bellarmine allows a consulting voice, but not a definitive. Here D. Ames according to the receyved opinion of the Protestants, 
(z) Bellarm. enerv. Tom. 2. l. 1. de Conc. c. 2.  allows unto them also the right and authority of suffrages, when they are deputed and sent as the Delegates of their Churches unto Synods. This he oft repeateth. And although he say 
(a) Ibid. th'. 8.  that in matters of faith there is no judgement belongs unto men, but of inquisition, discretion & consultation, and that therefore that whole distinction betwixt persons defining and consulting is vain: yet it is manifest and undeniable that in the censuring of Heretics that err in matters of faith, there is an Ecclesiastical judgement belonging unto men, and a definitive sentence to be pronounced against such. The matters of faith are as little to be subjected or submitted unto the judgement of a particular Congregation, as unto the judgement of Synods: and yet Heretics are not to be exempted from the judgement and censure of either of them. D. Am. himself in the same place doth plainly acknowledge this distinction betwixt consultation and definitive suffrage; when he saith 
(b) ibidem.  Bene consulere, majoris est virtutis, quam ex aliorum consilio bene definire, quamvis hoc sit majoris potestatis. To consult well is a matter of greater virtue, then from other men's counsel to define well, although this be a matter of greater authority. Seeing therefore he confesseth that to have a definitive voice is a matter of greater authority, then to counsel and advise; and seeing withal that this power of suffrages and definitive voices belongs unto the Deputies of Churches in Synods, and that by his confession; it is evident that herein he asscribes more power unto Synods than he did in that book of English Puritanisme.  
Again, in the question whether a General Council be above the Pope, or the Pope above the Council; although D. Am. in handling the same, doth not so fully and directly speak against Bellarmine, as D. Whitaker, D. Rainolds, junius, Sibrandus Lubbertus, Chamierus, and other of our Divines, which maintain that the Pope may be justly condemned, deposed and Excommunicated by a General Synod; yet doth he 
(c) Ibid. de Conc. c. 7.  acknowledge the Council or Synod to be above the Pope, in the very proposition of the question, and after takes upon him the defence of the Arguments commonly used by Protestant Divines for the proof thereof. Would he have spoken plainly, according to the positions set down in that book of Engl. Puritan. & according to Mr Dau. his opinion, that limiteth all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation only; he should then have said, that as the Pope hath no power over a General Council, so neither hath the Synod any authority over the Pope, either to depose, excommunicate, or any way to censure him, but might only counsel and advise him etc. & he should as well have refuted the Protestants, for giving too much power to the Synod, as the Papists for giving too much power to the Pope. Now this he hath not done, but hath set down his mind in such manner, that neither the Papists against whom he disputed, nor the Protestants whose receyved opinion he seemed to maintain, could easily observe any difference in him from our common tenant.  
VI In another book after this, he acknowledgeth 
(d) Cas. Consc. l. 4. c. 29. q 9 th'. 23.  that it belongeth unto Classes and Synods, when any difficulty is, to declare by common counsel and to decree, who ought to be excommunicated. Now to decree an excommunication is an act of power, whereby judicial sentences are determined, and in all propriety of speech, doth contain more in it, than a bare counsel or admonition: and therefore herein he doth apparently give unto Synods more authority, then only to counsel and advise. And thus D. Burges had reason to understand this speech of D. Am. which he allegeth and approveth, and agreeably thereunto professeth; that God hath established the use of Ecclesiastical Synods for Church affairs as well as the gathering of Churches. 
(e) Rejoin. p. 206.  D. A. did either acknowledge the authority of Synods in this sentence, or else was too blame for deceyving his Reader with ambiguity of speech.  
VII. In his 
(f) Fresh suit ag. Cerem. p. 90.91.  last book which he wrote immediately before his death, when he speaks of representative Churches, though he disallow that kind of Synod or Convocation, which is sometimes kept in England, in respect of hierarchical Officers, and in respect of their imposing humane ceremonies; yet doth he not condemn the Synodall assemblies of Scotland, before Perth, nor the Reformed Churches of France, which have their association and combination without any Hierarchy. And yet it is undeniable & most certain that those Synods of Scotland and France have used Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in censuring of notorious offenders, and were not only for counsel and advise, as is further manifested hereafter. Had he dealt plainly and answered his opposite fully, he should have condemned the Assemblies of Scotland for that jurisdiction which (according to Mr Dau. his opinion and that book of Engl. Purit.) they unjustly usurped. Yea further he doth justify those Synods; for when as D. Burges 
(g) Rejoin. p. 206.  had spoken of such Ecclesiastical Synods, as have jurisdiction and authority of censure, as appears by his opposing of them unto other Synods, which the Separatists and Mr jacob do allow, which have no power to control but by way of brotherly admonition; D. Am. in his reply unto that place, confesseth that D. Burges did speak of 
(h) Fresh suit, p. 183.  right Ecclesiastical Synods, and for the other Synods of Mr jacob & the Separatists, the same that Mr Dau. allows, he passeth away from them, and saith not a word in their defence, which yet had been most pertinent unto the question.  
VIII. As for those places in particular which Mr Dau. allegeth out of D. Ames his Cases of Conscience: for the 
(i) Cas. consc. l. 4. c. 24. q. 4.  first of them, though it be said there, that the power of removing scandals and excluding the wicked, for the right thereof, and in respect of the first act, cannot be separated from a true Church, because it flows immediately & necessarily from the essence thereof, etc. this is not against us. for 1. When Synods judge the causes of particular Churches, they do not take away their power, but only restrain and correct the abuse of their power; the authority of particular Churches is not separated from them, but the corruption or fault that appeareth in the exercise of their authority. They are still permitted to use their authority and judgement in censures, elections, etc. when the Synod perceives that they do not go astray therein. 2. Though there be a stream of authority flowing immediately from the prime Churches, this hinders not, but helps and furthers the authority of Synods, unto which that power by delegation is immediately derived. And therefore as there is a fountain of authority springing out of a particular Congregation; so there is a Sea of authority in the Synod, where the waters of so many fountains, and the authority of so many Churches doth concur and meet together. As for that other place, Cas. Consc. l. 4. c. 25. it is answered hereafter in the Allegation that is taken from D. Voetius.  
Lastly, for that 
(k) Cas. consc. l. 4. c. 29.  place which Mr Can objecteth out of D. Ames, I acknowledge that there is something more found against the authority of Synods, then in any thing that Mr Dau. hath alleged out of him. But all that D. Ames there writes is not easily to be admitted. For in that chap. the Question being made, 
(l) Ibid. qu. 11.  Whether whole Churches or members of another Church, may be excommunicated? He answereth, They cannot properly be excommunicated. He bringeth 3 Reasons. 1. Because every Church hath communion in itself, out of which it can no more be cast, than out of itself. But this reason is insufficient, 1. Because, though every Church hath communion in itself, yet not only in itself, and with itself, but with other Churches also: Eph. 4.4, 5, 6. 1. Cor. 12.13. and by excommunication it may be deprived and cut off from that comfortable fellowship, to the great grief, terror and shame thereof, for their humiliation thereby, and for the warning of others. 2. Because an obstinate and rebellious Church, by a sentence of excommunication may be cast out of itself, and deprived of communion in itself either in the dissolution of that unlawful society, while the Magistrate helps to execute the sentence; or otherwise in making their communion abominable even unto their own consciences, by the hand of God working with his own ordinance, in delivering them to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, and depriving them of inward rest, notwithstanding any pretended security of the obstinate.  
His 2d reason is: Because the power of excommunicating flows from some superiority; but all Churches are constituted of Christ with an authority altogether equal. This is also a weak reason for 1. Though all Churches be equal, and no one above another, yet many meeting together in a Synod, are superior to one, as was showed before by Mr Parker; 
(m) Pol. Eccles. 3. p. 129.  Greater is the power of a Synod, then of any one prime and parishional Church. 2. When two Churches only are by special covenant united together, as it may fall out necessarily upon occasion, though this combination be more imperfect, yet is this 
(n) Ibid. p. 345. 346.  reputed for a Synod: and though these Churches be in themselves equal, yet when one of them falls into error & offence, than it becomes subject to the other, and the other hath authority over it to rebuke & censure the same. This is to be observed by proportion of two brethren, members of one Church: though both of them be in their estate equal; yet he that offendeth becomes subject to the other, who thereupon hath power over him, in a degree of binding and losing, a power of losing and forgiving him, if he repent, a power of retaining his sin and binding him over to further proceeding, if he do not repent. Luk. 17.3, 4. with Matt. 18. On this manner that general commandment of mutual subjection to one another (1. Pet. 5.5.) ought to take place in two Churches as well as in two persons.  
His 3d reason is, Because the members of one Church, are neither subject to the government of another, neither do they belong immediately unto the communion of other Churches, but by the communion of their own Church coming betwixt. The first part of this reason touching subjection, is answered before: and for the second part of it, there is no weight therein; for those that belong unto the communion of other Churches but mediately, are not therefore exempted from the jurisdiction and authority of them. And again, the covenant of communion made at the first confederation of Churches for their mutual government by a Synod, remaineth firm for the continuance and exercise of authority, either for or against some particular members of any one Church in that combination, although that Church unjustly violating their covenant, should refuse to consent or communicate with the Synod in their acts of Ecclesiastical judgement and censure of some scandalous persons among them.  
Moreover, that which D. Ames writes in the same chapter, may justly lead us to acknowledge the necessity of Synods, and their authority in the censure of offenders.  
1. He adds in his answer to the same question, touching whole Churches & members of another Church, that though they may not properly be excommunicated, 
(o) Cas. cōs. l 4. c 29. q. 11. th'. 26.  yet for manifest heresies or great faults, they may be condemned, forsaken, rejected, which is proportionable to excommunication. If he grant this authority unto Synods, thus to condemn whole Churches, than he confesseth that they have more power then only to counsel or admonish. If he grant this authority unto any other Ecclesiastical persons, and not to Classes or Synods, the warrant from Scripture ought to be showed. A censure proportionable to excommunication, requires an authority proportionable to theirs, that may excommunicate, for the execution thereof.  
II. In the same chapter, propounding this case of conscience, 
(p) Ibid. q. 10.  What is to be done of the Pastor, where a fit Eldership is wanting, or where the people do not consent unto ajust excommunication? His resolution is, The solemn proceeding may be omitted: yet a good Pastor ought to give all diligence hereunto with the rest of the faithful members, that the substance of the matter be so fare preserved, that holy things be not given unto dogs & swine, Mat. 7.6. and that all public scandals be publicly reproved. But by this direction, neither is the peace of the Ministers conscience provided for, nor yet the safety of the Church. For by what warrant may a Pastor by his sole authority, determine and reject some members as dogs, and exclude them from the holy things, from the Sacraments, and this not only without allowance of the Eldership, but against the consent of the people and body of the Congregation, or the greatest part of it? This is in effect an excommunication, or as he calls it, the essence or substance of the matter: for excommunication, greater or less, is the only Ecclesiastical judgement appointed of God to keep holy things from being given unto dogs. To permit this authority unto the Pastor alone, is to open a door for tyranny, and oppression of the Church; and is condemned by those 4 reasons which he gives for confirmation of his answer unto the 9th question immediately going before. It is the denial of Synods, that drives unto such extremities.  
III. That which he here saith of public reproving all public scandals, is again impeached by that which was said before, 
(q) Ibid. q. 4. th'. 12, 13.  that in those Churches which through want of discipline are troubled with confusion, it is not always necessary for the person offended to admonish the offendor, because he should oftentimes in vain begin that which he had no power to finish: that the commandment of solemn admonishing of a brother offending, doth then only bind, when there is some hope that the same will prevail to take away the offence, either immediately or mediately. for a means is so fare good, as it makes to the obtaining of his end. As though God did not bless his own ordinance above our hope and reason, above all that we can think: or as though we were not to use his means and leave the success unto him. He that gins a good work and proceeds so fare till he be stopped by others, is accepted of God as if he had finished it.   

SECT. V  
His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined.  
IO. DAV. 
(r) Apol. reply, p. 242. Dioc. trial. p. 13. & ●●.  To him I may add Mr Paul Baynes, a man of singular note for learning and piety, in Cambridge, where he succeeded Mr Perkins, who freely expresseth his judgement for the right of particular Churches, and their independence, in this sense, in his Diocesans trial. ANSW. As Mr Baynes was a man of singular note for learning and piety, so is his testimony of singular note to show the right use & power of Synods, not only for counsel, but for authority to censure and judge Ecclesiastical causes; so that particular Churches may not do within themselves, what they would without their consent.  
1. After he had set down 4 conclusions, wherein we agree with the opposites, he comes to speak of the point of difference, and saith, 
(f) Diocese. trial, p. 13.  That wherein we contradict one another, is, we affirm that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually, but that all Churches were singular congregations, equal, independent each of other in regard of subjection. Secondly, we say, were there a Diocesan granted, yet will it not follow, that Parish-Churches should be without their government within themselves, but only subject in some more common and transcendent cases. As it was with the Synagogues & that Nationall Church of the jews, and as it is betwixt Provincial and Diocesan Churches. This do I willingly assent unto: And this is no other thing then that which is practised in these Reformed Churches, with whom we are united. Here is no one head-Church, that hath more authority than another, all Congregations are equal, independent each of other: here is no subjection to any one Diocesan: all are equally and mutually subject to the Synod consisting of many: their dependency is not upon one more than another, but it is only in regard of many combined; notwithstanding which combination they have their government within themselves: being subject to the Synod only in some more weighty and difficult cases.  
II. As for that other place; when some had pleaded from the example of the Reformed Churches, as if they had not been distinct Churches, etc. Mr Bays so explaineth their estate and practice (as Mr Parker 
(t) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 348, 349. etc.  more largely had done before) that therein he doth not at all prejudice their subjection to Synods. for speaking of the 24 Churches at Geneva and of their combination and subjection unto one Presbytery, he saith, 
(v) Dioc. trial. p. 21.  They have power of governing themselves, but for greater edification, voluntarily confederate, not to use nor exercise their power, but with mutual communication, one ask the counsel and consent of the other in that common Presbytery. Secondly, it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory, wherein they shall have no power of suffrage: Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherein themselves are members and judges with others. After that again, he addeth, Geneva made this consociation, not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect, and to make one Church by this union: but because though they were entire Churches, and had the power of Churches, yet they needed this support in exercising of it, and that by this means the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion. Thus he notes not only the counsel, but the consent of others required. And as at Geneva a particular Church proceeded not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in a common Presbytery: so in these Low-countries in weightier affairs they proceed not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring in their Classis.  
III. Mr Baynes having showed how every Church being an Ecclesiastical body, and having Governors every way equal, there is yet no fear of confusion, seeing Aristocracy, especially when God ordains it, is a form of government sufficient to preserve order; hereupon he propounds this objection, 
(x) Dioc. tr. p. 68  But every Church might then do what ever it would within itself. And hereunto he answers thus, Not so neither; for it is subject to the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled, and to the Civil Magistrate, who in case of delinquency, hath directive and corrective power over it. And thus we have his express testimony and confession, that Synods have authority not only to counsel and advise, but to censure; that particular Churches are subject to the censure of other Churches; that consequently there is a double Ecclesiastical Aristocracy, one in particular Churches severally, another in many Churches Synodically assembled; that if a particular Church err in matters of faith and religion, that it is subject, not to the power of the Magistrate alone, but both to him and to another superior Ecclesiastical jusridiction, arising from the combination of many Churches, contrary to that assertion in the English Puritanisme, chap. 2.  
iv Speaking of Presbyters, that is of Ministers and Elders, and of their government, he saith, 
(y) Ibid. p. 67.  There is nothing found belonging to the power of the keys in foro externo, but the Scripture doth asscribe it to them, power of suffrage in Council, Act. 15. power of excommunication, which is manifest to have been in the Church of Corinth, etc. While he allegeth Act. 15. for an evidence of the Presbyters power in Synods or Counsels, he doth hereby acknowledge that in Synods there is a lawful exercise of jurisdiction and of the power of the keys; and that therefore they are not only for counsel and advise. To like purpose he saith afterwards again, 
(z) P. 82.  The Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question, Act. 15. but had the joint suffrages of the Presbytery with them. Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered, but because it was a thing to be determined by many; all who had receyved power of the keys, doing it ex officio, and others from discretion and duty of confessing the truth. And a little after, he there addeth, It is manifest by Ecclesiastical writings of all sorts, that Presbyters had right of suffrage, not only in their own Presbyteries, but in Provincial Synods, and therefore in Ecumenical Synods, which doth arise from a combination of the other, to which their minds went in the instruction of Bishops receyved from their Churches.  
V Whereas one error useth to accompany another, and commonly those that deny the authority of Synods, do also in part deny the authority of particular Elderships, as we see in the Brownists, and therefore after private admonitions do in a popular order refer the judgement even of lesser matters unto the public examination and decision of the whole Church assembled together, not permitting the same to the judgement of the Eldership; Mr Baynes doth also impugn this practice. For he speaking of the rule of Discipline, Matt. 18. where Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many, yet after some other observations touching the meaning of the word Church, he further explaineth himself, when he addeth these notes and saith, 
(a) Diocese. trial. p. 80.  Thirdly, as Christ doth speak it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly, so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the Congregation. For then Christ should give not some, but all the members of the Church to be governor's of it. Fourthly, Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderly complain: now this we cannot to the whole multitude. Fiftly, this Church he speaketh of, he doth presuppose it as the ordinary executioner of all discipline and censure. But the multitude have not this execution ordinary, as all but Morellius and such democratical spirits do affirm. And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church, doth show that often the number of it is but small: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, etc. whereas the Church or congregations essentially taken for teachers and people are incomparably great. Again, showing on the other side that Christ by the Church doth not mean the chief Pastor, who is virtually as the whole Church; and that the word Church doth ever signify a company, and never is found to note out one person; after other reasons he pleads from the example and practice in the old Testament, saying, 
(b) Ibid. p. 81.  The Church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtually, but an assembly of Priests sitting together, as judges in the causes of God. Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose every particular Church: So he doth here only presuppose the joint authority, and joint execution of a representative Church, a Presbytery of Elders who were Pastors and Governors. And thus he concludes from Mat. 18. that there is a representative Church of one particular Congregation; as before from Act. 15. he acknowledged a representative Church in the Synod, for many Churches.  
VI Whereas Mr Dau. allegeth out of Mr Parker, that the power Ecclesiastical do the essentially and primarily reside in the Church itself, as in its proper subject: although this be no ground for the refutation of that power and jurisdiction belonging to Synods, as I have showed 
(c) P. 89.90  before; yet even this ground also is denied by Mr Baynes, who goes not so fare as Mr Parker 
(d) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 8. p. 28. etc.  touching the derivation of all Ecclesiastical authority from a particular Church as from the fountain, but doth (in some part) oppose that opinion, especially in respect of that influence of authority per intuitum, viz. that which is in Ministers called immediately of Christ, as the Apostles were, yet in respect of the end and the whole, is said to be from the Church mediately, etc. And therefore though Mr Parker was fare from the opinion of Mr Dau. yet was Mr Baynes fare further from it. His judgement herein, as being worthy the consideration of the Readers, I have thought meet to set down the more fully. And first, speaking by occasion of the power of jurisdiction in the Church, he saith, 
(e) Dioc. trial. p. 69.  Christ hath committed it originaliter & exercitative to the representative Church, that they might Aristocratically administer it. And afterwards coming to entreat of the third main question in his book, 
(f) Ibid. p. 98.  Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinary power Ecclesiastical, and the exercise of it, to any one singular person, or to a united multitude of Presbyters, he there sets down his judgement more largely, in divers conclusions 
(g) P. 83.84  on this manner.  
Conclus. 3. Ordinary power with the execution thereof, was not given to the community of the Church, or to the whole multitude of the faithful, so that they were the immediate and first receptacle, receiving it from Christ, and virtually deriving it to others. This I set down against the Divines of Constance; our prime Divines, as Luther and Melancthon, and the Sorbonists, who do maintain it at this day. Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullia's error; for in his book depudicitia, he maketh Christ to have left all Christians with like power, but the Church for her honour, did dispose it as we see. The proportion of a politic body, and natural, deceived them, while they will apply all that is in these to Christ's mystical body, not remembering that analogon is not in omni simile, for than should it be the same with the analogatum. True it is, all civil power is in the body politic, the collections of subjects, then in a King from them: And all the power of hearing, seeing, they are in the whole man, which doth produce them effectually, though formally and instrumentally they are in the ear and eye. But the reason of this is, because these powers are natural, and what ever is natural, doth first agree to the community or totum, and afterward to a particular person and part, but all that is in this body, cannot hold in Christ's mystical body. In a politic body, power is first in the community, in the King from them, but all Ecclesiastical power is first in our King before any in the Church from him. But to whom should he first commit this power, but to his Queen? Answ. Considering this power is not any Lordly power, but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake: therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons, and not to the whole community, which are the Queen of Christ. For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queen to serve herself properly: but to have persons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her. Secondly, in natural bodies, the power of seeing is first immediately in the man, from the man in the eye and particular members: In the mystical body, the faith of a believer is not first immediately in all, then in the believer, but first of all and immediately in the personal believer, for whose good it serveth more properly then for the whole, every man being to live by his own faith. The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel, so derived to the Priest: but immediately from Christ seated in Aaron and his sons. Object. Yea they were given the Church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis & totius. Answ. I but this is not enough, that power may be said to be immediately received by the Church as the first receptacle of it, and from it derived to others, as the power of seeing is not only given intuitu hominis as the end of it, and the totum to whom it agreeth, but is in homine as the first subject from whom it cometh to the eye. But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the Church. For as all are said not to have been Apostles, so not to have been Doctors. But if the power of ordinary teaching had been given to every believer, all should have been made Doctors, though not to continue so in exercising the power. Secondly, were the power in the Church, the Church, should not only call them, but make them out of virtue and power received into herself: then should the Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers. Besides, there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly, as women and children. This conclusion in my judgement Victoria, Soto and others deny, with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained.  
Conclus. 4. Fourthly, ordinary power of ministerial government is committed with the execution of it, to the Senate or Presbytery of the Church. If any fail in any office, the Church hath not power of supplying that, but a ministry of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant.  
Conclus. 5. Lastly, though the community have not power given her, yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her, that all power is to be executed in such manner, as standeth with respect to her excellency. Hence it is, that the governor's are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them. Not that they have joint power of the keys with them, but because they sustain the person of the spouse of Christ, and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with, without open dishonour in such things, which belong in common to the whole congregation.  
Afterwards again, 
(h) P. 88  speaking of some derivation of power from the Church, in taking in Officers, he shows that the Church doth this only as an instrument, in taking that person whom Christ describeth and would have to be placed in this or that office: but hath not this power in herself either formally or virtually. And from this Stewardlike power of the Church, he declares that Officers in the Church are not to administer in the name of the Church, but in the name of Christ: As a Butler taken in by a servant, doth execute his office, not in master Steward's name, but in his masters, who only out of power did confer it on him. By these & sundry other assertions, it is apparent that Mr Baynes was of a fare different opinion from Mr Dau. touching the state of particular Churches, & the authority of Synods. Let us hear his next Author.   

SECT. VI  
His Allegation of the Replyer upon D. Downam examined.  
IO. DAV. 
" (r)" Apol. reply. p. 242. Part. 2. l. 2. p. 104, 105. etc.  (i) With whom I might join the Replyer upon Dr Downams' defence, who, not only declareth his own judgement herein concurring with the above mentioned, but also joineth with them the suffrages of divers others, at the Centurists, Illyricus, D. Andrew's Bishop of Winchester, Dr Fulke, Willet, Thom: Bell, Cyprian, Augustine, Gerson, Ferus. ANSW. I. If this Author did in his judgement concur with the above mentioned, and in special with Mr Baynes next above mentioned, as Mr Dau. affirms, than did he allow the jurisdiction and authority of Synods for the censure of things done in particular Churches; then did he judge each Congregation to be subject unto the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled.  
II. This testimony of the Refuter of D. Downa. is alleged also, and more plainly by Mr Can, who expresseth his words, and saith 
(k) Church's plea, p. 86.  he often affirmeth, 
(l) Lib 2. par. 2. p. 104  that the administration of all Church-matters, at first was in every Congregation, the right in the Church, the execution in the Presbytery thereof. And besides this, he allegeth another place, where he saith, For this purpose he instanceth Cenchrea 
(m) Lib. 1. part. 2. p. 22, 23. , howsoever it was the Port of Corinth, and not fare from it, as Radcliffe or Limehouse to London, yet is was a distinct Church, from that of Corinth, and alike endued with full power of Ecclesiastical government. But in all this, the jurisdiction of Synods is not denied; as is manifest by a like instance here in these Reformed Churches. The villages of Diemen and Sloten, this on the one side and that on the other side of Amsterdam, and not fare from it, and in all appearance fare less in comparison of Amsterdam, than Cenchrea was in respect of Corinth, yet are these small Congregations, distinct Churches from that of Amsterdam, & alike endued with full power of all Ecclesiastical government. That which Mr Can by a Note in the margin would have specially to be marked, may as well be observed touching these and many other little Churches hereabout, that they have in themselves the administration of all Church-matters, and the execution thereof by their Presbyteries, as fully and as amply as the Church of Amsterdam, or any other of the greatest Churches in these countries, being alike combined together in the Classis, and equally subject to one another in the Lord for their mutual guidance.  
III. Even this Replyer upon D. Downam, Mr S. who now resteth in the Lord, hath been very careful not to prejudice the authority of Synods, as may appear further if we consider what he answereth concerning those whom D. D. calleth the late Disciplinarians, such as were of Mr jacobs' opinion. First, he saith, 
(n) Reply. par. 1. l. 2. p. 106.  As for Synods, if they be lawfully called, well ordered, and their constitutions by royal authority ratified; the Doctor can give neither more honour nor obedience to them, than they do, as their Protestation showeth, Art. 8.12, 13, 14. Now as for the present Synods, such as are in these Reformed Churches, they are such as he mentioneth here, called and assembled by authority of the Magistrates, and their Acts approved, confirmed and ratifyed by them. This may be seen in the Records of that Nationall Synod holden at Dort, Anno 1618. and 1619. where 
(o) Act. Synod. Dordr. Sesse. 138.  the Decree of the State's General, which are the sovereign and supreme Magistrates in these countries, is inserted among the Acts of the Synod, for the ratification thereof. And this is not only observed in Nationall Synods, but in the Provincial Synods also, held every year, where the States have also their Deputies, Civil Magistrates, which ordinarily are present in those Assemblies, to see that all things be well ordered therein. Thus fare therefore, according to his relation, there is an obedience and subjection due unto Synods. Again whereas he proceedeth to describe their opinion, on this manner; If they want Regal authority to assemble or to ratify them; they think that by Divine or Apostolical ordinance, their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches, without their particular and free consents: It is here to be observed how he notes only what they think, without approbation thereof; he declares their opinion, but doth not acknowledge it to be his own judgement. Neither had he reason so to judge: for in the primitive Church, when there were no Christian Magistrates, there was then a lawful use of Synods, and that by Divine and Apostolical ordinance, as hath been showed before. And as for particular consents: if any Church walked disorderly and offensively, there is no reason to think that the censures and decrees of Synods against such Churches should be differed until they did consent unto the censuring of themselves. It was sufficient that at their first combination there was a general and free consent, to submit themselves in the Lord mutually unto other Churches Synodically assembled. And yet more plainly, in the same place he professeth that he differeth in judgement from them, when he concludes, Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defence of those later Disciplinarians, from whom although in somethings I confess I descent, yet I cannot consent to the D. taking away of their innocency. Though in some things Dr D. did unjustly charge them, yet Mr S. the Refuter of D. D. did also judge that in some things there was just cause to descent from them.  
iv Besides the foresaid Refuter of D. Down. there is also another learned man, who besides his great learning having also as great experience in the discipline and government of the Church according to the practice of the Reformed Churches, hath of later time written a complete and large refutation of D. Downam. And in this refutation he hath dealt more plainly and circumspectly in this point, than Mr S. hath done. For whereas D. D. relating the opinion of these later Disciplinarians, as new and false, sets down their assertion in these words, 
(p) Sermon at Lambeth, p. 4.  That every parish by right hath sufficient authority within itself immediately derived from Christ, for the government of itself in all causes Ecclesiastical; this assertion is not admitted but with sundry cautions. To omit the rest, these are the two last, wherein the authority of Synods is evidently acknowledge; viz. 
(q) Gersom Bucer. Dissert. de Gub. Eccl p. 14.  The fourth caution is, that the authority given to a particular Church, is not sufficient for the handling of all Ecclesiastical causes by their own judgement, but for those only which are so particular, that they may be deemed altogether proper unto it. For whatsoever case falls out belonging unto the common order of neighbour Churches, we judge that the same is to be brought unto a more general assembly, wherein these Churches do jointly meet together. The last caution is, that both the institution and observation of all things, especially if they seem to procure any discommodity or not to make for aedification, be subjected unto the judgement of the next Churches meeting together in one. For we do not permit, that the Governors of parishes should dispatch all things as they list, but will have them to submit themselves to the inspection of the Churches. For we think that of Augustine ought by all means to be observed: 
(r) Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. in Donat. ca 9  Semper universum partibus jure optimo praeponi; that by good right the whole is always to be preferred above the parts, etc. Thus expressly hath this Author given warning, that the whole combination of many Churches united in Synods is of greater authority than any part; that particular Churches own a subjection unto the same.  
Lastly, as for those many other Authors, the Centurists, Illyricus, D. Andrew's B. of Winch. D. Fulk, Willet, Thom: Bell, Cyprian, Augustine, Gerson, Ferus, whose names are here alleged by Mr Dau. without specifying their words, they are all of them, except one or two, alleged by Mr Can, and in answer unto him 
(f) Chap. 7. sect. 1.2.4.6.  hereafter, it is showed that all & every one of them are against Mr Davenp. his opinion, all giving a clear and plain testimony for the jurisdiction of Synods.   

SECT. VII.  
His Allegation of D. Voetius examined.  
IO. DAV. 
(t) Apol. reply, p. 242, 243. Desp. cause. Pap. lib. 2. sect. 2. cap. 11. p. 186.  To the same purpose, hath a worthy and learned wrighter of these countries, Voetius, Professor of Divinity in Vtrecht, whose words I thus translate. The Church is the spouse of Christ, which is the proper and adequate subject of that power, to whom Christ hath committed that delegate right, reserving the chief to himself. Which ought to be and to remain so proper to the Church, that it, neither may be snatched away by the authority of others, nor lost by their voluntary concession, nor committed to the trust of any other; although divers acts belonging to the calling of a Minister may & aught to be performed by certain members of the Church. ANSW. All that is here affirmed by this worthy Writer, being granted of us, yet is not Mr Dau. his opinion justified, nor the authority and jurisdiction of Synods overthrown hereby. for,  
I. Christ was the Bridegroom of his Church, and the Church was the Spouse of Christ, and honoured with this title under the old Testament, as well as under the new: Sol. song. ch. 1. & 2. etc. Esa. 50.1. Ezek. 16.8. Hos. 1. & 2. & 3. 1. etc. And yet it is confessed by my opposites that under the old Testament, before Christ's coming in the flesh, particular Congregations and Synagogues were subject unto the Synedrion, and that all jurisdiction was not limited unto the several villages or cities in Israel, or to the Synagogues therein. And therefore this title of Spouse and Bridegroom doth not infer any restraint of jurisdiction in the new Testament more than in the old.  
II. As when the Church of Antioch sent their Delegates or Deputies unto jerusalem, and the controversy raised in their Church was decided and determined by the definitive sentence and decree of the Synod, Act. 15. they did not thereby lose their power, but it still remained with them, for the judgement of their causes; so those Churches that now submit their causes to the judgement of Classes and Synods, are not thereby spoilt of their power: yea it is their own authority and power which by their Delegates is ●●●rcised in those Assemblies. Moreover the Churches are herein so fare fro●●oosing their power, that on the contrary they might be said to lose their liberty, right and power, if they had not authority for their own help and others thus to send their messengers unto such assemblies.  
III. It is to be observed how Mr Dau. doth mistranslate the words of D. Voetius, by omitting a word of special importance, which both he and D. Ames also 
(v) Cas. cōs. l. 4 c. 25. q. 5. th'. 26.  using the like speech, have expressly mentioned: for whereas their words touching the power of the Church and the propriety thereof, are these, ut alienae fidei planè committi non possit, that it may not altogether be committed to the trust of others; he omitting this word planè, which signify altogether, utterly, or quite and clean, doth hereby corrupt the testimony which he allegeth. For though the Church may not utterly or quite and clean commit her power to the trust of others; yet in some kind and in some measure it may and aught to be done: For the kinds, D. Voetius gives instance in divers acts, belonging to the calling of a Minister, which may and aught to be performed by some certain members thereof; and the same is to be considered for divers other acts of like nature: And for the measure, so (as he also notes) that Christ the Bridegroom, reserve the supreme authority unto himself; which is then acknowledged by his people, when they do not receive nor follow the authority or sentence of any man or Officer, of any particular Congregation, or of any Synod, further than they in their consciences find it to agree with the sentence of Christ revealed in his word. As the Lord himself by an immediate call committed power and authority unto the trust of his servants, whose faithfulness is thereupon commended: 1. Tim. 1.11, 12. 1. Cor. 9.17. Gal. 2.7. so doth the Church also, both in the ordinary calling of men unto office, and in the occasional sending of them about particular works and affairs of the Church; Phil. 2.25. 2. Cor. 8.19, 23. 1. Cor. 16.3. & especially in communicating their power unto them, to give sentence in Synods.  
iv That D. Voetius doth allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, we have many testimonies our of this very book of his, which Mr D. allegeth. I. Though he show that Ecclesiastical power of judgement is first and immediately in particular Churches, yet he notes withal, 
(x) Desp. cause. Pa. l. 2. s. 1. c. 5. p. 96.  that this power arising thence is by a certain fit proportion applied unto many Churches united in some kingdom or kingdoms, or in the whole world. This is done in Nationall & General Synods. II. Speaking of a public Reformation, which he calls authoritative, he shows 
(y) Ibid. p. 62.  how it (being universal) may be done either in an universal Synod, or without a Synod. Speaking of Reformation made by instruction, exhortation, or invitation, he saith it may be done of any one Preacher, yea and in some sort of any one Christian: but for the Reformation wherein there is an actual change of public worship, he saith, it is necessary that the help and consent of many, and those not of one order, do concur; and that one or a few are not sufficient, unless it fall out that the authority and parts of those many who are interested therein, be devolved unto them. Thus he alloweth the jurisdiction of Synods, while he acknowledgeth that the authority of many may be derived and communicated unto a few; which is the very thing wherein the jurisdiction of Synods doth consist. III. He defends 
(z) P. 79.  Luther appealing from the sentence of excommunication given out by Pope Leo the tenth, unto a lawful General Synod: he allows the like appeal made by the Archbishop of Colen, and the appeal of the King of Navarre, and the Prince of Conde, the form whereof was affixed or set up at Rome; in all which the authority of Synods is acknowledged. iv He allows 
(a) P. 85.  the example of those Churches, which determined matters by a public, and Nationall or Provincial judgement. Speaking of the Reformers of Religion, he saith, 
(b) P. 169.  Luther had the right of suffrage, and used the same in the University of Wittebergh, as one of the Professors; in the Church, as one of the Pastors; in the neighbour-churches of Saxony, as a member of them, in the name and by commission from the Church of Witteberg, and not further. So did Zuinglius, Farell, Viret, Calvin, and all the rest. A just pattern of the Classical and Synodall jurisdiction exercised in the Reformed Churches in these countries at this day. V He avoucheth and maintaineth 
(c) P. 201.  that a lawful Synod or Church by their sentence and authority may and aught to depose Ministers that are Idolatrous, Heretical and the like. An express testimony, that Synods have not only right of counsel and admonition, but also of exercising Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the censuring of offenders. He addeth there, that the Western Churches ought to remove such Clerks or keep them out from entering, either by a common, or each of them by their particular judgement, either in a Synod or without a Synod. VI Even in this very page & place that Mr D. allegeth, 
(d) P. 186.  D. Voetius alleging the example of the Synod at jerusalem, Act. 15.3.4, 22, 23. to show that Ecclesiastical power is given to many in the Church, doth thereby acknowledge the authority of Synods. If he had thought they might only counsel and admonish, than had this place alleged been insufficient to prove the thing propounded by him, nor suitable to the other places alleged together in the same place, viz. Matt. 18.17. 2. Cor. 2.6. with 1. Cor. 5.4. which are to be understood of the jurisdiction and authority of the Church in censuring. This power is also again 
(e) P. 187. & 189.  pointed at by him in the same chapter.  
Lastly, to come from his words unto his practice; Whereas this learned Minister of Christ was deputed and sent 
(f) Act. Sy. nod. Nat. Dordr. sess. 2.  with others unto the last famous Nationall Synod at Dort, & was reckoned among those Worthies whose praise is so great in the Gospel, being the messengers of the Churches and the glory of Christ; when as he there among the rest did exercise the authority of suffrage for the decision of divers controversies, and gave sentence with others in the 
(g) Ibid. ses. 138.  censure and deposition of divers both Ministers and Elders, it appeareth hereby that he did not think all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to be limited unto a particular Congregation. If Synods might go no further then to counsel and admonish, than had D. Voetius with the rest been an usurper of unlawful power. Besides, this order of Classical and Synodall assemblies, together with their jurisdiction and authority, in such sort as it was before, and is still practised in these Reformed Churches, was confirmed and established 
(h) Rerckenorden. Nat. Syn. Dordr. Art, 22.52.  in that same Nationall Synod, where D. Voetius appeared as a member thereof, and according to which he was bound to practise both while he was Minister at Heusden, and since also at Vtrecht, being not only Professor in the University, but also Pastor of the Church in the said city. So that there is no cause to doubt but that his judgement touching this controversy is the same with that which I have here noted out of his writings, and for the substance of the matter, no other than that which I maintain throughout this discourse.   

SECT. VIII.  
Touching the English Church at Frankford in Q. Mary's time.  
IO. DAV. 
(i) Apol. reply. p. 243. A discourse of the troubles in the Engl. Chur. at Franckf. Art. 62. Art. 67.  And to conclude, thus it was ordered in the English Church at Frankford, among the exiles in those Marian days, that if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected, or found parties; if any appeal be made from them, that then such appeal be made to the body of the Congregation, etc. and that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to hear and determine the said matter, or matters, as it shall seem good to the Congregation. Again, If any controversy be about the doubtful meaning of any word or words in the Discipline, that first it be referred to the Ministers, or Seniors: and if they cannot agree thereupon, than the thing be referred to the whole Congregation.  
ANSW. I. It is to be observed, that these two Articles of Discipline being alleged against me by 
(k) Church's plea, p. 36.  Mr Can as well as by Mr Dau. there is this difference betwixt them, that Mr Can adds more words than he should, and Mr Daven. omits some words that should have been added. That which Mr Can adds, is against himself, and serves to condemn the practice of the Brownists, when he faith of the Ministers and Seniors, that they have authority to hear & determine, etc. That which Mr Dau. omits, and refuseth to express, serveth to reproove such as complain unjustly of excepting against the Elders judgement. For when that 62d Article speaks of appeal to be made unto the body of the Congregation, the Ministers, Seniors, & parties excepted; this latter clause shows there is just cause of excepting against the Elders judgement sometimes; and that they are to be refused as incompetent judges, being parties. This brief clause being of special use in our controversy, ought not to have been omitted by Mr Dau.  
II. That which they allege for appeal unto the body of the Congregation, doth not overthrow the authority of Synods. This granting one kind of appeal doth not exclude or deny another. Seeing particular Congregations are subject to error, and many of them daily do err, why should not appeal be granted from them unto Classes and Synods, especially where there is no Magistrate that can or will judge of such errors?  
III. This appeal made unto the body of the Congregation was not usually permitted, but extraordinarily in cases of special necessity, when the Ministers and Seniors were not able to end the controversies brought unto them: the express words of the Article are 
(l) ●isc▪ of troubls in Engl Ch. at Franckf. art. 57  in case they cannot end them, than afterwards to be referred to the whole Congregation. Their ordinary practice was otherwise, as appears in other Articles of their Discipline, where it is plainly ordained, 
(m) Ibid. art. 59  that the Ministers and Seniors shall have authority to hear and determine, on the behalf of the whole Church all offences (determinable by the Congregation) committed by any person in the Congregation: unless the party called before them have just occasion to take exception to the said Ministers and Seniors; or to appeal from them as not competent judges. And afterwards again there is another strict and severe decree 
(n) Art. 63.  If any person do unjustly take exceptions to any of the Ministers, or appeal from the whole ministry: that then such persons, beside the punishment for the principal cause shall also be punished as a contemner of the Ministry and a disturber of the Church. This order, as it serves to condemn the practice of the Brownists, as tending to the disturbance of the Church, while they give no power of judging and deciding causes unto the Eldership; so it serves for the reproof both of them and Mr Davenp. in denying the authority of Synods: for if the Church may in ordinary cases commit their authority unto an Eldership, & not deprive themselves of their right, then why may they not do so likewise unto Classes and Synods?  
FOUR This English Church at Frankford did commit and delegate the power of judging controversies, not only to their Elders, but upon occasion even unto other particular and private members of the Church, which had no Ecclesiastical office; and this in divers degrees, as 1. In case some of the Eldership, though the lesser part, were excepted against as parties: 2. When the greater part were excepted against: 3. When all the Ministers and Seniors were suspected, etc. Thus they did erect as it were three several sorts of Classes or Synods within themselves for the judicature of such causes as could not be ended by the Eldership. Thus they ordained in these three several Articles of their Discipline, which follow.  
Of the first sort: 
(o) Art. 60.  Item, if any have just occasion to take exception to some of the Ministers and Seniors, and not to the more part: that then those of the Ministers and Seniors to whom the exception is made, in this case shall not be judges, but in this case for the time removed from the ministry, and that the rest of the Ministers and Seniors to whom no exception shall be made, with as many of the Congregation joined to them, as they be in number which shall be excepted, shall be arbiters and judges in the said causes: and that the said persons so to be joined to the Ministers and Seniors, shall be apppointed by the Congregation, the Ministers and Seniors not excepted, giving their voices as others of the Congregation.  
Of the second sort: 
(p) Art. 61.  Item, if exception be taken to the more part of the Ministers and Seniors, that then the Church shall appoint six more to be judges with the rest of the Ministers, against whom exception is not made: the same rest of the Ministers having their voices in the election of the six, as other members of the Church.  
Of the third sort: 
(q) Art. 62.  Item, if all the Ministers and Seniors be suspected or found parties, or if any appeal be made from them, that then such appeal be made to the body of the Congregation, the Ministers, Seniors and parties excepted. And that the body of the Congregation may appoint so many of the Congregation to hear and determine the said matter or matters, as it shall seem good to the Congregation.  
Now as in all these Commissions the Church did not lose her authority, but did rather exercise the same herein; this very act of delegation being a testimony of her power: so in like manner (if the example of this Church alleged against me may be followed of us) other Churches may also send their Deputies and Delegates unto Classes & Synods, for the judgement & decision of such causes as cannot be so well ended among themselves.  
V Lest any should object that in all these Deputations, the judgement of controversies was referred unto such Officers or members of the Church as were within the same Congregation, and that they did not submit their causes to the determination of any other judges out of themselves; it is therefore further to be observed that there was an order agreed upon by the English Church at Frankford, that in the time of their contention 
(r) Ibid. p. 37.38. & 41.48.  the matter should be determined by these five notable learned men, which were of other Churches, to weet, Calvin, Musculus, Martyr, Bullinger & Viret. This agreement was put in writing. To that all gave their consents. This day was joyful. Thanks were given to God, brotherly reconciliation followed, etc. Yea the holy communion was upon this happy agreement also ministered. This agreement is often repeated, & laid down as a ground of comfort, & as a proof of their equity that did most constantly cleave thereunto.  
Afterwards again, when more contention was raised in that Church, both the opposite parties were content not only to hear the counsel & advise of men in other Churches, but to submit unto their judgement, as fare as men may submit unto the sentence of any particular Church whatsoever. And for evidence hereof it is recorded how the one part of the Church declared their mind by this 
(s) P. 100.101.  writing following:  
We offer & permit with most willing minds (having the licence of the Magistrate as it may well be for this purpose) that all our controversies and contentions whatsoever, which have been sown and brought in among us since the beginning of this breach, and since the first day we began to strive, until this present time and hour: to be debated, decided and determined by Arbiters, being none of this our Congregation, and yet from among the brethren, our country men, equally and indifferently, by the parties disagreeing, to be chosen upon this condition, that not only the election of Ministers and besides all other things done by the order of the said discipline, stand in suspense, to be allowed or disallowed by the determination and judgement of the Arbiters to be chosen as is aforesaid. written the 5. of April, Anno 1557.  
The other part of the Church did in like manner witness their consent, by their writing, the copy whereof was as followeth:  
We submit ourselves and are contented to commit all manner of controversies that have heretofore risen amongst us in the Church, to such Arbiters as the Magistrate hath appointed, and to all such as they call unto them to the hearing and determining thereof, according to God's word and good reason. And thus simply and plainly without any manner of exception or condition. In witness whereof we have subscribed our names the 5. of April, Anno 1557.  
Though there were some differences betwixt these parties in other particulars, yet they all agreed in this, to commit authority & power unto some out of themselves, whom they would set up as Judges over them. Hereby it doth appear that they did not confine and restrain the judgement of Ecclesiastical causes within the limits of one particular Congregation only. And if a particular Church might thus refer their controversies to the judgement of four or five persons out of themselves, than might they as well or better be referred to the judgement of many Churches united together in Classes and Synods.  
VI This English Church which sojourned at Frankford, for four or five years in Q. Mary's time, was not a settled and established Church: they wanted the opportunity of combining themselves with other English Churches. It was the misery of this Church, that they wanted the help of ordinary Classes and Synods: and it is unreasonable to make the special defect or want of some one Church, a precedent for other Churches, to deprive them of that mutual help which they may conveniently enjoy, and which God offers unto them. This English Church 
(t) Disc. of troubls. in Engl. Ch. at Franckf. p. 27, etc. p. 62, etc. p. 135, etc.  was exercised with great troubles and continual dissensions all the time of their abode at Frankford, to the great grief and offence of many. The form of their Discipline, and these Articles here objected by Mr Dau. and Mr Can. were not fully agreed upon: the Pastor and the Elders with some of the Church dissented from the greater part of the Congregation. And in such case, as Mr Fenner, before mentioned, doth testify, 
(v) S. Theol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 278, etc.  the controversy ought to have been brought to a greater Senate, to a Classis or Synod, which he calls a Presbytery of more Churches, for the deciding thereof. The want of this was the cause of their woe.  
VII. The English Church at Frankford in the want of a Classis might so much the rather allow appeals unto the Congregation, because there were in that Church many learned men, able to discern and judge of causes. In that Church 
(x) Disc. &c p. 60.  they set up an University, and chose several men for the reading of Hebrew, Greek, and Divinity lectures. The learned men that repaired unto this Church were also as famous for their piety and sincerity, enduring persecution for the Gospel of Christ, choosing rather to live in banishment with their afflicted brethren, then to enjoy the pleasures and promotions of Antichrist, which they might have had in their own country, if they would have bowed their necks to his yoke. In such a Church it was more tolerable to appeal unto the body of the Congregation, then in many other that are fare unlike. And yet if such a Church, abounding with so many Worthies, could not well subsist alone, in their want of a Classical government, but fell into so great contentions and scandals; this may justly serve for the warning of other Churches, and teach them to seek the help of neighbour-churches, & to submit themselves mutually unto such combinations, as the Lord shall give opportunity.  
Lastly, when as afterwards it pleased God to visit his people, and to restore the light of the Gospel and true Religion unto England by that gracious and noble instrument of his goodness, Qu. Elizabeth, of ever blessed memory, than these excellent and eminent lights of his Church returning again into their country, did give a plain testimony unto this truth, that all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not limited unto a particular Congregation. Some of them being promoted unto chief places of government in England, did by their practice profess that particular Churches may submit themselves unto a superior authority out of their own Congregation. Some of them became Ministers of the Church of Scotland, & stood for the maintenance of that Discipline, which from the beginning of the Reformation, acknowledged the authority and jurisdiction of Synods. None of them (for aught I ever heard) that dreamt of the single uncompounded policy. Though there were some differences among them concerning the government of the Church, yet no one of them or of those other exiles who had sojourned at Strasbrough, Basel, Zurick, Arrow, Geneva and other places, in Q. Mary's days, that left behind them any monument of their agreement with Mr Dau. & Mr Cann. in limiting Ecclesiastical jurisdiction unto a particular Church. But of this story, we have occasion to speak further hereafter, 
(y) Chap. 7. Sect. 5.  where Mr Can. again brings more objections from thence.   

SECT. IX.  
Mr Dau. his pretence of agreement with junius examined.  
BEsides the former Allegations, Mr Dau. pretendeth his agreement with junius in this question: And after his vain excuse of H. Grotius for slighting the authority of Classes and Synods, as he did in that treatise which he published against Sibr. Lubbertus, he saith, 
(z) Apol. reply, p. 225.  thereupon Bogermannus published his Annotations learnedly and succinctly penned, in defence of D. Sibrandus, wherein, for answer of that part which concerned the necessity and authority of Synods, he referred Grotius to what junius had written against Bellarmine de nceessitate & potestate Conciliorum, wherein I fully agree with junius. ANSW. Had Mr Dau. fully agreed with Junius, then had it been meet that the should have brought at least some one pregnant testimony out of Junius, to have manifested their agreement, which he hath not done. If he will constantly and fully abide by this confession of his full agreement with Junius in that which he wrote against Bellarmine concerning the necessity and authority of Synods, then must he acknowledge that they have jurisdiction over particular Churches for the judging of their causes, and that they are not only for counsel and admonition, etc. because 
(a) Animadv. ad Bellarm. Contr. 4. de Concil.  Junius is plentiful in witnessing thus much of them: as appeareth,  
First, Bellarmine complaining how the Protestants by the instigation of Satan, did destroy Ecclesiastical judgements: Junius answereth, 
(b) In proefat. nota. 1.  We also complain of the deceitful arts of Satan: but they are not to be deemed to take away Ecclesiastical judgements, which with Paul, 1. Gor. 14. do urge that the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets: but that do we urge, etc. Junius applying this to Synods, doth thereby confess that they are for censure and judgement of causes and persons, & not for counsel only. He acknowledgeth the Protestants justly desired such a Council, 
(c) Not. 11.  in quo cognosci, decerni & confici omnia posse confiderent, that is, wherein they hoped that all things might be examined, decreed and dispatched. This was more than counselling, and employed jurisdiction and power of judgement. More plainly, he saith, we desire a Council, etc. 
(d) N. 13.  after such a manner as we see to have been done of old, in the examples of Synods, especially of the first Nicene, of the Chalcedon, etc. Now it is manifest in the Histories, that in these Synods there was not only a giving of counsel, but an exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the censure and condemnation of Heretics: as is hereafter showed at large. Again, when Bellarmine accuseth the Protestants, that they desire a General Council, but such a one as never was: Junius answereth, 
(e) N. 38.  It is false. But if we should desire such a Council as Mr Dau. describes, such a one as should be for counsel and admonition, without jurisdiction; then should the Answer of Junius be false: we should desire such a Synod as never was. It cannot be showed that ever such a General Council was held. When Bellarmine accuseth Melancthon for requiring such conditions of a Synod, that neither the persons nor causes of men should be condemned, and that so nothing at all should be decreed in the Synod: Junius answereth that this is feigned or forged of him; and shows further that though it do not become the Church to use a bloody cure, and corporal punishments, yet there is a more wholesome order, and tells what that is, saying, 
(f) N. 40.  What? Arius being overcome:— and convinced, how was he punished of the Synod? How was Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, in those renowned Synods? Silence was enjoined them, and their office taken away: nothing more. A most express testimony of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction exercised in the deposing of evil Ministers. This was more than counsel only.  
After the Preface, when in the book itself Bellarmine complains of Heretics, that they devise a new form of Synods, and then give almost no authority unto them: Junius answereth, 
(g) Animadv. in Contr. 4. de Concil. l. 1. c. 1. n. 1.  As for us, we deny both; and will (God willing) confute the first affirmation in the first book, and the latter in the second. But Mr Dau. cannot justly deny either of those assertions: for first, the single uncompounded policy doth necessarily infer a new form of Synods: if it be not so, let him show when and where such a form was ever used of old. And for the second, it is granted by Mr D. his own confession, when he allegeth 
(h) Apol. reply. p. 47.  that other Churches have no power of hindering a faulty election, but by admonition, which power every Christian hath in another, for his good. Is not this to give almost no power to Synods? Bellarmine to show the divine original of Synods allegeth Matt. 18. there am I in the midst of them. junius assenting to him, saith 
(i) In cap. 3. l. 1. de Conc, n. 1.  It is also demonstrated in these words of the Apostle Paul, 1, Cor. 14.32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. Both places import an authority whereunto subjection is required. When Bellarmine saith of Bishops in Synods, that they are not Counselors but Judges; Junius noteth 
(k) N. 2.  that they are neither Counselors nor judges, but declarers & ministers of the judgement of God in the holy Scripture: in which words he asscribeth as much power and jurisdiction unto Synods as he doth unto particular Churches. His meaning for both (according to his use of speech) is that they are not absolute but ministerial judges.  
Whereas Bellarmine reckoneth up sundry sorts of persons that may be present at Synods, some as judges, which have a deciding or determining voice; some for disputation, which have a consulting voice; some as servitors or attendants; some for the defence of the Synod, to maintain peace, etc. Junius denyeth not this but shows that his enumeration is insufficient, saying, 
(l) Ibid. in c. 15. n. 2.  It is to be added, others as parties or persons accused, whose cause is to be handled: for certainly it is inhuman that any should be condemned not cited, or not heard: Others again to be Auditors, seeking their edification by enjoying that communication of holy things. Hereby it is plain that he acknowledged the jurisdiction of Synods, and that they were not only for counsel; both because he allows a distinction of them in the Synod which had the authority of a determining voice, from them that did only dispute or consult; and because he intimates a judicial proceeding in the Synods, by mentioning parties accused, their citing or calling of them, & the condemning of them, which imports a further matter then only of admonition or counsel. Whereas Bellarmine accuseth us that we allow any learned men, though Laics, to have a determining voice, let their office be what it will: Junius answereth, 
(m) N. 4.  These things have none of us said or thought, as they are here laid down. This is that which we say; such are to be taken into the Synod which are furnished with gifts and calling; which for gifts are godly, honest, learned; for their calling, which are either ordinarily appointed to teach, or extraordinarily sent for and brought by just authority. Now this necessity of a calling which he so 
(n) See c. 16. n. 10. & 18. & 20. etc. 17. n. 1.  often urgeth and requireth to be in the members of a Synod, doth argue a special power and authority belonging unto them, by virtue whereof they may give sentence in the judgement of causes; whereas to admonish or counsel requires no more power than that which every Christian hath in another, for his good, as Mr D. himself confesseth. To the same purpose Junius shows against Bellarmine, that the meaning of Theodosius and Valentinian was not to admit Bishops only, but that 
(o) Ibid. c▪ 15. n. 13.  those only might hear, examine, and give sentence in a Synod, which being sent from the Churches unto the Synod, were reckoned up of the Bishops, according to their letters of public authority which they were wont to exhibit. Again he saith, 
(p) N. 15.  They which are present without the authority of the Church, of them some may only hear, as the laics or common people: some may be used in consultations, as the learned men, especially Ecclesiastical persons; but they may not give definitive sentence. And thus still by distinguishing those that gave counsel, from those that gave sentence in the Synod, it appears he acknowledged a power of jurisdiction in Synods, and that they were not only for counsel. So when Bellarmine saith it was a fault in the Council of Basill, that Presbyters or other learned men besides Bishops, were allowed to have not only a consulting voice, but a deciding suffrage, & affirmeth that this was against the custom of all antiquity, etc. Junius answereth, 
(q) N. 19  This we deny: for it was the first institution, Act. 15. and not only the manner and custom. Seeing therefore there was such an institution of the Apostles, & in their assembly, what need was there to allege custom? etc.  
When Bellarmine chargeth the Protestants as holding that a Synod is nothing but an inquisition; and that Christ alone and his written word hath a determining voice: Junius saith, 
(r) Ibid. in c. 18. n. ●.  It is false. for Synods have both an inquisition of that which is true, just, holy by religious communication, and also a ministerial giving of sentence. Though he show there and in many annotations following, that it is not lawful for Christians to obey them further than they agree with the Scriptures; that their sentence of itself is but a persuasion, and not a constraint; a ministerial judgement, not of absolute authority of itself, etc. yet he 
(s) N. 3.  grants the Lord hath commanded that we should obey the sentence of a lawful Synod, assembled together in his name, etc. He saith, 
(t) N. 14.  Synods have true judgements, so fare as they are of God according to the tables of his truth and commandment: of themselves they are not judgements, but declarations, publications, and ministerial pronouncing of the truth and judgements of God. And more than this cannot be yielded to any Ecclesiastical judicatory whatsoever. Herein he fully grants as much jurisdiction to Synods, as belongs to any particular Congregation or Eldership, either apart or jointly together.  
When Bellarmine blames the Protestants for their exception against the Council of Trent, Junius answereth, 
(v) Ibid. in c. 21. n. 1.  It is the ordinary way of right in every appeal, that the judgement of Synods, and the execution of their sentence be suspended and stayed so long until the matter be again examined in another more free or greater Assembly, etc. This answer had been needles and impertinent, unless Synods had more power than of counsel and admonition only. He saith, 
(x) N. 7.  Certainly in every just Synod, Heretics being cited, heard, present, or wilfully hiding themselves, have been condemned: etc. When Bellarm. objects that Protestants will have nothing to be determined in Synods, and so strifes to be never ended; Junius answers, 
(y) N. 23.  that he perverts their meaning, and refers us to his preface, nota 40. where the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Synods is plainly avouched.  
IUnius proceeding to the examination of his second book touching Synods, where Bellarmine repeats, that Synods of Bishops may judge all controversies both of faith and manners, Junius answereth, 
(z) Animadv. in Bell. l. 2. deconcl. c. 1. n. 1.  We have granted it of those that are lawful Synods. When Bellarmine had said that nothing is greater than a lawful and approved General Council; Junius answereth, 
(a) Ibid. c. 4. n. 2.  It is false: for Christ is greater, and the Scripture is greater: seeing Christ and the Scripture are great of themselves: the Church is great by them, etc. But this answer had been insufficient & not direct enough, if my opposites opinion were true. For then according to their opinion, he might more fitly have answered: that the authority of a particular Congregation is greater than the authority of a General Synod; because though the counsel and advise of the Synod was more to be reverenced in respect of many excellently learned and godly men from many Churches that were in it; yet seeing Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation, therefore the same is greater in the power of censuring, and in the use of the keys for binding and losing of impenitent sinners; seeing Synods have no jurisdiction at all over any other Churches.  
Again, when Bellarmine sets down this insolent proposition, that the Pope cannot commit, neither unto a Synod, nor to any man the coactive judgement over himself, but only the discretive: junius answereth, 
(b) Ibid. in c. 18. n. 1.  The proposition is most true, he cannot commit: because God hath committed it to the Synod and lawful Council. Wherefore we say on the contrary, neither can he commit it (for if he be the servant of God, God hath committed the judgement concerning him unto his Church) neither can he reject it: but though he be unwilling, yet both the Church is bound to judge concerning him, and he to undergo the judgement thereof, discretive and coactive, howsoever it please men to call it. If Mr Dau. do fully agree with Junius, as he professeth, then must he acknowledge that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Church; that lawful Synods have authority not only to counsel and admonish the Pope himself, and so other obstinate offenders, but also to censure them, & to give sentence both of directive & coactive judgement against them, as occasion requires. Junius to make this more plain, repeats it again, and speaking of the Synods judging the Pope, saith, 
(c) N. 2.  Truly we grant that he cannot appoint judges in his own cause, because God hath already apppointed them by the Apostle, saying, The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, 1. Cor. 14.32. and that he may appoint Arbiters: but we add this withal, that the judges which God hath ordained, may by no right be rejected or refused of him.  
When Bellarmine pretends that divers Popes, as Sixtus the 3d, Leo the 3d, Symmachus, and Leo the 4th being accused, were willing to have their causes discussed in a Synod of Bishops, etc. Junius saith, 
(d) N. 6.  And this aught so to be done of them: for they are subjected of God to a Synod of Prophets, by authority of the word. When Bellar. adds that yet the Bishops durst not judge them, affirming also, that they left the whole judgement unto God: Junius answers, 
(e) N. 7.  This is a fallacy from that which is not the cause, as they call it. For they did not therefore abstain from judging, because they wanted authority to judge, but partly because they had rather that the Pope's being guilty should be first judged of themselves and their own conscience, partly because they thought it better to have their cause examined in another more full Synod, partly also because when they would examine it, the matter was not evident enough, etc. Whereas the Popes that thus fare submitted their cause to trial, pretend that by this fact they do not prescribe a law to their successors, whereby they should be constrained to do the same: Junius saith, 
(f) ibidem.  The impudence of these men is so much the greater, who after they are delivered from judgement, do after this manner mock their judges and such as examined their cause, and will have their ambitious licentiousness to be esteemed for a lawful order, asscribing the lawful order of judgements in their cause unto an extraordinary and voluntary dispensation, as they call it. But had Junius been of my opposites mind, he should have answered after another manner, & should have said, The Bishops in the Synods which durst not judge the cause of the Popes, but left the whole judgement unto God did well therein if they had known what they did, and the right ground thereof; for they did indeed want authority to judge: Synods might advise and counsel, but have no jurisdiction to give sentence in censuring either the Pope or any other: Synods may only direct particular Churches to use their power aright, but have no power themselves to judge other Congregations, or any member thereof, etc. How fare was Junius from giving such an answer?  
Other examples and instances alleged to show the power of Synods in the judgement of causes, are avouched, cleared and maintained by Junius against Bellarmine's exceptions, as appears in the cause of 
(g) Ibid. in c. 19 n. 1.  Marcellinus, of the 
(h) N. 3.  Donatists, and of 
(i) N. 5.  Leo. Had he thought that all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction had been shut up within the bounds of a particular Congregation, he ought to have reprehended those Synods, rather than to have spent time in vindicating their practice from the cavils of adversaries.  
AS in these books de Conciliis, alleged by Mr Dau. Junius hath plainly showed his agreement with us: so in his disputations against Bellarmine de Verbo Dei, he hath likewise declared his consent with us touching the authority of Synods. He writes there, that 
(k) Animadv. in Bell. contr. 1. 〈◊〉 Verbo Dei▪ l. 3. c. 3. n. 9  there be two kinds of judgements in the Church: one Private, which belongs to all the faithful, universally and severally; the other Public, depending upon a public calling and authority: the law and rule of both these judgements is the holy Scripture; the author and guide is the holy Ghost, The public judgement is either of a particular Church, or of many Churches meeting together into one body, or of all; which body they call a Synod, a Council, or an Assembly, etc. Seeing the President and judge of the private judgement (whereof the public is compact) is the Spirit of God, and the Scripture the law, there can be no other judge or law apppointed in the public judgement of Synods, without most heinous blasphemy against God, and reproach to his Church. And the Precedents which are given to Synods, have not the dominion and arbritement of the business, but the procuring of order committed unto them, to determine matters by that one judge according to his law. It is here to be observed that under the public judgement of the Church, he doth in like manner comprehend the authority of particular Churches, and of Synods consisting of many Churches: he speaks not otherwise of one then of the other, as touching the kind of power that they have: he doth not attribute jurisdiction to one & counsel to the other: he notes both to depend upon a public calling and authority, for a ground of their proceeding. And though in both the Spirit of God be the principal judge; yet (as he 
(l) Ibid. in c. 5. n. 3.5.28.  afterwards notes more plainly) he acknowledgeth a ministerial judgement committed to them, for the denouncing of his judgement against such as are guilty according to his word.  
Afterward, Junius 
(m) Ibid. in c. 6. n. 3.  showing how unlike the Council of Trent was to the Nicene Council, where the Arian Bishops being present were heard, convicted by the authority of God's word, and being convicted were condemned: though he avoucheth the Bishops of Trent to have been the enemies of the Gospel, yet he saith, 
(n) N. 4.  Otherwise as for lawful Bishops or Elders and Deacons lawfully called into a Synod, & holding the same lawfully, we acknowledge all these things.  
When Bellarmine allegeth Basilius Emperor, who speaking of the judgement of Ecclesiastical causes in a Synod, said, To try and search out these things, it belongeth unto Patriarches, Bishops, and Priests who have an office of government allotted unto them, who have the power of sanctifying, of losing and binding, who have obtained the keys of the Church, and not unto us which are to be fed, which stand in need to be sanctified, to be bound or loosed from binding: Junius answereth, 
(o) Ibid. in c. 7. n. 9  We allow this testimony of Basilius touching the lawful order of Synods, as before. Herein we have the express confession of Junius touching the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, in the use of the keys, binding and losing.  
When Bellarmine sends us unto Damascene; who saith touching the controversies in the Church, To determine and decree of these things, it belongeth not to Kings, but to Synods. For where two or three, saith the Lord, are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Christ hath not given unto Kings the power of binding and losing, but unto the Apostles and their successors, to Pastors and Teachers. Junius answereth, 
(p) Ibid. in c. 8. n. 6.  These things certainly are true, and nothing for that famous principality of the Roman Bishop, etc. We also affirm the same thing, as before, cap. 3. nota 9 etc. 10. Another evident affirmation touching the jurisdiction and power of Synods.  
When Bellarmine saith that Prosper doth not otherwise prove the Pelagians to be Heretics, but because they were condemned of the Roman Bishops, Innocentius, Zozimus, Bonifacius & Celestine: Junius answereth, 
(q) N. 14.  No otherwise? It is false. for Pelagius was first condemned by the Synod of Carthage and of Milevis: but when he went beyond sea to Rome, where he so craftily insinuated himself, that there was great fear lest he should inflict a soarer wound upon the Church at Rome; the African Bishops did prudently and religiously certify Innocentius by two letters, both concerning the sentence of their Synods, and concerning the imminent peril of the Roman Church, unless according to the example of them in Africa they did provide for the public safety, etc. Another example of Synodical jurisdiction allowed by Junius.  
Again, in his disputations against Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano, Junius doth often allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, and shows his judgement, that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Congregation. When Bellarmine speaking of a certain decree made in a Synod of Africa, mentioned by Cyprian, saith, it was ordained thereby, that a cause should first be judged, where the crime was committed, that it did not forbid but that it might be judged again in another place: Junius answereth, 
(r) Animadv. in Bell. contr. 3. de Pont. Rom. l. ●. c. 23. n. 3.  Certainly this is not forbidden: For it is of common right. But that which is of common equity in case of appeal, to have a cause judged again by another judicatory, is denied by my opposites, in allowing no such Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whereas Bellarmine condemneth the Magdeburgenses, as being altogether absurd and ridiculous for their denial of appeals; Junius denies the fact; and saith 
(s) N. 5.  his reasoning is inconsequent: that all appeals should be altogether forbidden, because the appeals to them beyond the sea were forbidden.  
When Calvine allegeth a certain Canon of the Synod held at Milevis in Africa, to refute the ambitious usurpation of the Pope, and manifests thereby the jurisdiction of Synods in the judgement of causes, because it was decreed that appeals should be made to the African Synods, and not to the Bishop of Rome: Junius 
(t) Ibid. in c. 24. n 2. etc.  maintains this allegation and vindicates it against the exceptions of Bellarmine. And he 
(v) N. 11.  allegeth further to this purpose the epistle which the Council of Africa wrote unto Pope Celestine in these words: After due salutation officiously premised, we earnestly desire that hereafter you would not admit unto your audience those that come from hence, and that you would not receive into your communion those that are excommunicated of us, etc. This request Junius calls a modest and brotherly prohibition, to wit, that the Pope should not receive appeals from them: But if there were no superior Ecclesiastical power to judge the controversies of a particular Congregation, then might these African Synods have been accused of usurpation over particular Churches, as transgressing the bounds of modesty and of their calling, for exercising the power of the keys in excommunicating some, as well as the Pope for his usurped authority of the keys in receiving appeals from the Synods. Then had both the allegation of Calvine and the defence of Junius, been partial and unjust, condemning that in the Pope which they allowed in Synods.  
When Bellarmine acknowledgeth that the Pope is bound to keep the Ecclesiastical laws made by Synods, but quoad directionem, non quoad coactionem, according to the distinction of Lawyers touching the Prince; meaning that the Pope may use their direction, but is not under their correction or constraint; which is indeed the same thing in effect which my opposites affirm of particular Churches, that they are bound to use the counsel and direction of Synods, but are not subject to their censure, nor under their jurisdiction: Junius 
(x) Ibid. in c. 27. n. 6.  denies this distinction. for though (saith he) we should grant that it take place in foro soli, in civil courts, to wit, for the judging of Princes; yet is it of no force in foro coeli et conscientiae, in Ecclesiastical judicatories, because the reason of them is not alike, etc. And in the next animadversion 
(y) N. 7.  speaking still of those laws & canons made by Synods, he affirmeth, that as every other Bishop, so the Pope also is subject unto them, according to the order of the Church.  
When Bellarmine saith, the Council or Synod of the Greeks' could not make a law for the Latins, etc. Junius 
(z) N. 16. See also n. 33.  denies the same, and gives a reason, because that Synod was Ecumenical, or universal. Therein he acknowledgeth that they had a greater authority then only to admonish or counsel. Again, when Bellarmine answering the argument of Nilus saith that the Pope is not subject to Canons, viz. of Synods, etc. that he is subject to Christ & not to the Fathers, that he doth not contemn the Fathers nor their Canons, but useth them for direction, though he cannot be compelled by them, etc. Junius 
(a) N. 40.  opposeth him further, & saith, 
(b) N. 42.  that he ought to be subject both to Christ, and to the fathers by Christ, who hath so prescribed, 1. Cor. 14.29, 32. and addeth further, 
(c) N. 46.  If he cannot be compelled by the Canons, that he is therefore rightly called by the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that wicked one or lawless person, 2. Thes. 2. Whereas some now adays begin to speak evil of the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods, as of an Antichristian authority, Junius is so fare opposite unto them, that he accounts the Pope even in this regard to be Antichrist and the Man of Sin, because he refuseth to be subject unto the authority of Synods in their canons and decrees.  
Moreover, in comparing of the Civil and Ecclesiastical estate, Junius saith, 
(d) Ibid. in c. 29. n. 27.  Kings have their authority in Civil matters, Rom. 13. and the Synod in Ecclesiastical matters above the Pope, as it was defined in the Council of Constance and Basel. And their authority is so certain, as it is certain that he which by force repelleth force, is armed with public authority. He distinguisheth their jurisdiction in respect of the causes judged by them, and repeats this their authority again in the 
(e) N. 28.  next animadversion. And though these two kinds of government, Civil and Ecclesiastical, do use a different manner of compulsion, he saith, 
(f) N. 29.  Nihil refert: nos de rei substantia agimus: coactionem uterque habet; sed hic spiritualem, ille temporalem, etc. It skilleth not: we entreat of the substance of the matter: both of them have a coactive power, or a compulsion: but the one spiritual, the other temporal, etc. A most evident assertion of Synodall jurisdiction, and that they are not to direct only by way of counsel, but to correct also by way of censure.  
To these I might add many other testimonies of junius: but these evidences already cited may be sufficient to show that he was not of this strange opinion, touching the independency of Churches; and that Mr Daven. therefore hath abused his Readers, and sought to blind their eyes, when for the credit of his cause, he would have it thought that junius was of his mind, while he professeth that he doth fully agree with him.   

SECT. X.  
His pretence of agreement with Dr Whitaker examined,  
M R Dau. to colour his opinion, as if it were no singular conceit of Mr jacob and some few others, makes mention of the Centurioators, as if they were of the same mind; yet he allegeth not their words, to prove the same. But instead of others he chooseth out Dr Whitaker, as if he had been a favourer of this opinion, which it is likely that he never heard of, and saith, 
(g) Apol. reply, p. 237. 238. Whit. de Conci. quest. 5. Argum.  To these I may add those who have handled the controversies concerning the necessity, and authority of Councils, amongst whom I will instance in Dr Whitaker, who speaking of the fullness of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church, not to the Pope (which he applieth to the Keys in binding and losing, shutting and opening, retaining and remitting fins) saith, that this power belongeth primarily, principally, and essentially to the Church, but to the several Bishops only accidentally, secundarily, and less principally, and explaineth himself by a rule in Philosophy, which is, that when any power is in two, in one necessarily & essentially, in another contingently and accidentally, it is more principally in him, in whom it is necessarily and essentially, then in him, whose it is only contingently and accidentally. As the heat is more principally in the fire then in the water, because it is in the water by reason of the fire. So (saith he) seeing this jurisdiction and fullness of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily, but to the Pope only secundarily, and by the Church it is manifest that it is more in the Church, then in the Pope. What that learned wrighter saith of the Church's power in comparison with the Pope, holds in all other parallel instances. ANSW. First, had Mr Dau. repeated this Argument of D. Whitaker fully and justly as it is set down by himself, than might the Reader have seen therein a plain & evident testimony for the authority of Synods; but divers things being omitted in the beginning, middle and end of it, thereby the truth is obscured and hidden from his Readers.  
In the beginning of it, D. Whitaker propounds it thus, If the fullness of power be in the Church, not in the Pope, than it is evident, that it hath more authority than the Pope: but the first is true: therefore the second also. Now by the Church in this place, he meaneth the General Synod or Council, as appears by the title of this Question noted in the beginning of it, viz. 
(h) DeConcil. Qu. 5. c. 1. with c. 3. Arg. 5.  Whether the Synod be above the Pope: and if he had not so meant it, this his Argument had been beside the Question. And therefore while D. Whitaker here directly concludeth a fullness of power in Synods, and as he further calls it in this same place, that highest authority and jurisdiction which Christ hath left unto his Church; it is manifest hereby that he did not hold them to be only for counsel & admonition; and so was fare from limiting all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation.  
In the middle, in the confirmation of this Argument, D. Whit. saith, For if all this power were in the Pope, or in any one man principally and essentially, than he dying it should perish, and so the Church should altogether lose it. But it is not lost, though the Pope die a thousand times, but it remaineth with the Church, without which the Pope though living could have no part of this authority. Now to argue on this manner against the authority we asscribe unto Synods, by comparing them with particular Churches, as he doth against the Pope compared with Synods, would be inconsequent, unequal, and no parallel instance; because the title of the Church is not where given unto the Pope, or unto any one person, as it is unto an assembly of Ministers, Governors, or Deputies of Churches met together in the name of Christ in Synods: because though we asscribe unto Synods some jurisdiction, yet we do not say that all power is in them originally, and so to be derived unto others as is said of the Pope; and consequently because there is no such danger that the power of the Church should be lost and perish by the death of such as are members of the Synod, as might be by the death of the Pope, if all power were primarily and essentially in him alone. And therefore it is a vain assertion of Mr Dau. touching this argument of D. Whit. viz What that learned wrighter saith of the Church's power in comparison with the Pope, holds in all other parallel instances.  
In the end of this Argument prosecuted by D. Whitak. he concludeth thus: Wherefore seeing it is certain that this power is given unto the Church primarily, and not unto the Pope but secondarily and by accident, and seeing the Church is represented in the Synod: it is of necessity that the Synod must be above the Pope. And thus most evidently he grants unto the Synod, as being a representative Church, a power & jurisdiction above the Pope, a power which consists in binding and losing, shutting & opening, retaining and remitting of sins, as himself here explains it, and so is directly contrary to them which allow no more unto Synods, but counsel and admonition. Why did Mr Davenp. omit and refuse to name the Synod, which D. Whit. so expressly mentioneth, applying & yielding unto the Synod that power which he there pleads for?  
Secondly, as for that similitude of fire and water, though it be granted that heat is more principally in the fire then in the water, because it is in the water by reason of the fire: yet hereby heat is not denied to be in the water, but on the contrary acknowledged to be derived into the water; and experience shows that by the heat so communicated unto the water many excellent effects are produced for the service of man. And so when Ecclesiastical authority is by the Church committed and communicated to Ecclesiastical Officers in calling of them, than doth it belong unto them, though secondarily and less principally, as both D. Whita. confesseth & Mr Dau. himself repeateth.  
THat it may yet further appear how unjustly the name of D. Whitaker is pretended and alleged both by Mr Dau. here, & by Mr Can hereafter, against the authority of Synods, I will here set down divers pregnant assertions and express testimonies of his, gathered out of sundry of his writings for help of the Readers. In them all may see how fully opposite he was to my opposites. To begin with this treatise de Conciliis, of Counsels or Synods, out of which Mr D. took this allegation abovementioned: This book comprehends 6 Questions touching Synods; & in handling every one of these Questions, he speaks plainly for the authority & jurisdiction of Synods. These 6 Questions are 

1. Touching the necessity and profit of Synods.  
2. By what authority they are to be assembled.  
3. Of what persons they consist.  
4. Who is to be President in them.  
5. Whether they be above the Pope.  
6. Whether they can err.    
For the first Question, touching the necessity of Synods: There he brings 8 reasons to prove the necessity and profit of them. I will not insist upon each of them as I might, but mention only one or two of them. The third cause is, saith he, 
(i) Whitak. de Conc. q. 1. c. 3. p. 18.  that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or good order, and right and lawful discipline may both be apppointed and maintained, and that Canons may be made and confirmed. For the Church hath always had authority of making and enacting Ecclesiastical laws, and of prescribing them to others, and of punishing those which did not observe them. And this authority hath always been accounted necessary. This was more than counselling or admonishing. 
(k) P. 21.  The eight and last, and that the chiefest cause of Synods is, that even as in Politic and Civil judgements malefactors upon examination are accused and condemned; so in the Church Heretics might be condemned and pronounced anathema by public judgement, and that the truth might be vindicated from their calumnies. But as there, judgement is not to be given according to the will of the judge, but according to law: so here Heretics, enemies of faith and religion, are not to be condemned but according to the public and Imperial law, that is, the Scripture. For a Synod is as it were a public Court, or Imperial Chamber, or Parliament, wherein the Judges hearing both sides do give sentence, and decree matters of greatest weight. For although Heretics may be condemned of several Churches apart: yet when they are condemned as it were of the whole Church, the sentence is more solemn and of greater weight. So Arius was condemned first of Alexander and the Council at Alexandria, but afterward with greater authority by the Synod of Nice, etc. By these words of D. Whitaker we may see what wrong they do unto him, which pretend that he should deny the jurisdiction of Synods.  
The second Question is, by whose authority Synods are to be assembled. Here D. Whitaker relating how Bellarmine pleads for the Pope's authority, 
(l) De Conc. q. 2 c. 2. p. 42, etc.  repeats his 4th Argument, taken from an ancient Canon wherein it was concluded, that without the mind of the Roman Bishop it was not lawful to celebrate or hold Synods. D. Whit. answers that this Canon mentioned by 
(m) Lib. 2. cap. 8.  Socrates, is not rightly translated: he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not signify celebrare Concilia, to hold Synods, as Cassiodorus hath ill translated it, whose translation they abuse; nor yet Ecclesias consecrare, to consecrate Churches, as Illyricus doth amiss translate it, but leges Ecclesiasticas sancire, et canones Ecclesiis praescribere, to ordain Ecclesiastical laws, & to prescribes Canons unto Churches. And being thus translated, he saith, We acknowledge & approve this Canon, as most just. For reason itself teacheth & telleth, that that which concerneth all, aught to be approved of all. Therefore it was meet that those Canons which should be general, should be approved also of the Bishop of Rome, who was one of the chief Bishops. Now if D. Whita. allow that Canon to be most just, which grants unto Synods an authority of making Ecclesiastical laws and enjoining the Churches to keep them, than it is manifest hereby that he confessed the jurisdiction of Synods, and that they were not only for counsel & admonition.  
And in the same place D. Whitak. 
(n) P. 45, 46  relates how the Bishops of the Oriental Churches meeting together in a Synod at Antioch, did by common sentence write unto julius the Bishop of Rome, and by way of rebuke said unto him, that they were not to be overruled by him, that if they would cast any out of their Churches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that such ought not to be restored of him, even as those whom he cast out could not be restored of them. Although D. Whit. acknowledge the errors and faults of some that were in that Synod, yet he approveth this their writing in reproof of Julius, and saith, they all did gravely rebuke his arrogance & insolence. Though that Synod abused their power in censuring Athanasius unjustly, yet that they had a power of censure, & casting out of their Churches, is not denied, but maintained against the Bishop of Rome.  
The third Question is touching the persons whereof Synods do consist. Here D. Whit. 
(o) De Conci. Qu. 3. c. 1.  first describes the Popish opinion, and reckons up the four sorts of persons, whom they allow to come unto Synods, namely, that Some are present as judges, who have a determining voice: Others, to dispute and examine difficulties, and these have a consultative voice: Others, to defend the Synod, and to see that peace be kept within & without: Others, to serve as notaries, watchmen, servants. Then he shows that they allow only the greater Prelates, that is, all Bishops and Archbishops to have the right of a determining voice in universal and particular Synods ordinarily, but that Cardinals, Abbots, Generals of Orders, though they be not Bishops, yet by extraordinary privilege may also have a determining suffrage: as for all others whatsoever they be, they may be profitable, but not have a determining voice or suffrage. After this he shows the opinion of the Protestants, that not only the greater Prelates, but whatsoever learned and godly men are sent, being chosen by the Churches of several Provinces, and judged fit for that business, aught to have equal authority in giving suffrages, and so to be judges as well as any others. But had D. Whit. been of my opposites mind, he should have condemned each of these opinions, both of Papists and Protestants, and should have said that neither one nor other sorts of persons were to be admitted for judges in Synods, but only for counsellors and admonishers: that none of them were to have determining voices or to give definitive sentence, but only to show their advice, & to have a consultative voice.  
When Bellarmine allegeth that the Prelates only, as being Pastors of the Church are to have definitive voices; D. Whit. answering his arguments, saith, 
(p) Ibid. c. ● p. 85.  The end of Synods is not to feed, viz. by teaching as proper pastors, but to decide controversies, to prescribe Canons, to correct abuses, to order Churches, and to do other things, which belong unto the peaceable and quiet state of the Church. Herein he yields unto Synods not only advise for direction, but jurisdiction and power of correction, etc.  
To prove this authority of Presbyters or Elders, he allegeth Act. 16.4. where there is mention of the decrees, ordained by the Apostles and Elders, and saith thereupon, 
(q) Ibid. c. 3. p. 96. 97.  Who dare now deny the Elders to have had a determining suffrage? They did not only dispute or consult, but did also judge and decree together with the Apostles. For the word, 
* determined, ordained.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equally applied unto both. These things are so manifest that no man can gainsay it, To this end also he argueth 
(r) P. 102. 103.  that a General Synod represents the Universal Church: that whosoever is sent of a Church, represents the person of that Church. And finally 
(s) P. 103, 104, etc.  from ancient histories he allegeth the examples of divers Synods, as of Chalcedon, Nice, and Constantinople, wherein this power & jurisdiction was exercised.  
A fourth Question is about the President of Synods. In this dispute, Bellarmine alleging that Constantine professed himself to be subject unto the Bishops, and that he ought to be judged of them; D. Whitaker allowing and commending that profession, answereth and saith, 
(t) De Conc. q. 4. c. 3. p. 132.  What then? This hindereth not but that he might be President. For if a Bishop had been President, ought be not to have been judged of other Bishops? What godly Prince would not have said so? Hereby he acknowledgeth, that jurisdiction & authority of judgement is no undue power of Synods, and that even the worthiest persons ought to be subject thereunto.  
A fift Question is whether Synods be above the Pope. Here D. Whitaker having first showed what the Popish opinion is, he than declares the opinion of the Protestants, and saith, 
(v) De Conc. q. 5. c. 1. p. 146.  Seeing the Pope is the Bishop only of one Church, he is not only not superior unto all Bishops assembled together, but not so much as superior unto any of them apart. Therefore we say that a Synod may also decree against the will of the Pope, may take cognition of the Pope's cause, may judge the Pope, & compel him unto order, may prescribe laws unto the Pope, which are to have force against his will, and finally may condemn the Pope and deprive him of his office, if he be worthy of such a punishment. Now if a Synod have this power to judge, censure and depose the Popes, then hath it as much power to judge and censure other Ministers and members of other Churches, unless it can be showed that they have more authority than the Pope, or some strange privilege to exempt them from that jurisdiction of Synods, whereunto others are in subjection.  
Afterwards 
(x) Ibid. c. 3  he brings 10 Arguments to prove the superiority of Synods above the Pope. And in them there be plenteous evidences touching the authority of Synods. Those arguments which prove that the Synods have jurisdiction over the Pope and power to censure him, do always prove that Synods have jurisdiction and power of censure. Otherwise, though the Pope deserved censure, yet it should be an usurpation in the Synod, to do that for which they had no calling nor warrant: even as in the execution of Civil judgements, it should be a presumptuous and unlawful usurpation, if private men being no Magistrates should take upon them to punish malefactors, though they had justly deserved the same.  
Not to insist upon many other things which out of those 10 Arguments might be alleged for our purpose, I will only instance in one example that is there 
(y) Ibid. p. 195. 196.  urged by D. Whitaker, and taken out of Sozomen, lib. 4. c. 15, or as in some editions, c. 14. who records that the Synod of Syrmium made an Act, whereby Foelix the Bishop of Rome was apppointed to admit Liberius to be his fellow in the administration of the Roman Church. Hence D. Whitak. infers, So it seemed good unto the Synod: therefore the Synod was above the Pope and above that Church. Bellarmine answers, The Synod did not command, but only exhort Foelix by letters, that he would suffer Liberius to sit with him. D. Whit. replies again, Touching letters of exhortation, Sozomen makes no mention of them. He saith only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. They writ unto Foelix, etc. And that these letters were mandatory it appears, because otherwise Foelix would never have yielded. Thus we see from hence, that Synods have power (at least in the judgement of D. Whit.) not only to exhort & admonish, which every Christian may do, but also to prescribe & enjoin that which is equal & just, and so that others are to be subject thereunto.  
The sixth and last Question is, whether Synods can err. Now lest any should take occasion hereby to deny the authority of Synods, it is to be observed, that D. Whitaker doth in like manner affirm, that any lawful assembly, even of those that are met together in the name of Christ, 
(z) De Conc. q. 6. c. 2. p. 216.  may err also. He saith, (a) Though Christ be in the midst of them which are assembled in his name, it follows not, that they do not err: For all are not free from error with whom Christ is present. And truly two or three which meet in the name of Christ, may be deceived, may err in many things, and may ask those things which are not to be asked, and so be disappointed of their hope, and yet Christ be among them. For Christ doth not always exempt them from error, with whom he is. Wherefore seeing every Ecclesiastical assembly, every Eldership, and every particular Church, being subject to error, and erring often, are not yet deprived of their jurisdiction and power in the judgement of causes: so though Synods want infallible judgement, and err sometimes, yet are they not therefore without jurisdiction and authority. But further he avoucheth plainly that Synods have judicial authority, when he saith, 
(a) Ibid. c. 3. p. 322.  A Synod is said to do lawfully, not only when it condemneth and excommunicateth those which are to be condemned & pronounced Anathema, but also when it ordains and maintains those decrees which agree with the Scripture, etc. Had he been of my opposites opinion he should have said the contrary, viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemn those that deserve to be condemned, but only admonish them, and so leave them to others. Yea he proceeds further, & saith concerning General Synods, that 
(b) Ibid. p. 270.  In them is a sovereign power, and they have the highest authority in the Church. He doth not only grant unto them jurisdiction, but greater then is in any particular Church, or in any other Ecclesiastical judicatory.  
Moreover, whereas Bellarmine maintains that Synods cannot err when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope, and that all their authority depends upon him; hereupon D. Whita. argueth thus against him: 
(c) Ibid. c. 1. p. 214.  If there be such weight in the Pope, that without him neither Provincial nor General Synod have in them any force, it may worthily be demanded, what part the Bishops have in a Synod, whether they be only admonishers or counsellors, or whether they be judges? for if they be counsellors only, why are none but Bishops admitted unto Synods? why not others rather who are more learned than Bishops? etc. He notes it as a point of great absurdity, and as a great straight whereunto the Papists are brought, against their will & against their profession, that Bishops should have no other place in Synods but of admonishers and counsellors. For indeed what use is their of suffrages, of definitive and determining voices, if in the end all be determined by the Pope? why might not advises and counsels have sufficed in such case? This observation D. Whitaker holds to be of special use, and worthy to be remembered, and therefore repeats it oft. 
(d) Ibi. c. 2. p. 221, 222.  What place (I pray you) do Bishops obtain in Synods? what do they? to wh●● end do they meet? Is it that they may judge, or is it that they may only counsel and admonish? Are they therefore judges, or are they only admonishers & counsellors? This indeed some of them think, that they may only admonish in Synods, that they may move questions and dispute, but may not judge. Naclantus Bishop of Clug (as we taught before) in his treatise de potestate Papae & Concilii, saith. The power of the Pope is royal, the power of the Synod is consiliaria, by way of counsel; the power of the Pope is altogether definitive, the power of the Synod is of ambulatory definition, that is, as I interpret it, wand'ring & uncertain. Bellarmine indeed, and the jesuites that now are, hold that the Bishops are judges, but doubtless they mean an ambulatory judgement, that is, none at all. For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone. Now this absurd opinion which he notes to have been the conceit of Naclantus, expressed in plain words, and of Bellarmine and other Papists by consequence, is even the same that is professed by Mr Jacob, Mr Dau. & Mr Cann. for though they differ in respect of the power of the Pope, yet in respect of the power belonging to Synods, they make the persons whereof the Synods consist, to be no other than admonishers or counsellors, not having any jurisdiction at all. D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus, but speaking again of the Pope's overruling of Synods, he doth again record this observation, saying, 
(e) Ibid. c. 3. p. 267.  Certainly this is that which we said before, that Bishops assembled in a Synod, are not judges, but only admonishers, that the Pope alone is judge of all controversies, that the rest have no authority. For if Bishops were judges, judgement should be done according to the greatest number, and the sentence of the most judges should prevail. We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a special providence of God, and directed by his Spirit, thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to point out and commend to our consideration this evil consequent of making Synods to be only admonishers or counsellors; that so we might have his writing for a Testimony against this error, which within a while after was to be broached & made common by Mr Jacob, and some others; that which the Brownists had done before, being neither so commonly known nor regarded.  
Unto this his writing De Conciliis, we may add his treatise De Pontifice Romano, in which controversy he discusseth 8 questions; and in the most of them he gives testimony for the authority of Synods, against my opposites. The Questions be these:  

1. Whether the government of the Church be Monarchical.  
2. Whether any Monarchy of the Church was settled in Peter.  
3. Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome, and died there.  
4. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in a Monarchy Ecclesiastical.  
5. Whether the Pope be Antichrist.  
6. Whether the Pope can err in the faith.  
7. Whether the Pope can make laws to bind the conscience.  
8. Whether Ecclesiastical jurisdiction be given by Christ to the Pope immediately.   
In handling the first Question, whereas the Papists require a Monarch to keep inferior Officers in order and unity, D. Whitaker saith, 
(f) De Pont. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 19  If any will not do their duty, and discharge their office, they are to be admonished and rebuked, and except they obey, they are at length to be remooved by the judgement of the Church, or the Synod, or the Christian Magistrate: and there are known means enough of keeping Ministers in their duty, and the Church in unity, without a Pope. He acknowledgeth that Synods have not only power to admonish, which every Christian may do, but after admonition to censure & remove or depose the obstinate.  
When Bellarmine to prove the superiority of Bishops, objects 1. Tim. 5. Those that sin rebuke before all. D. Whit. answers, 
(g) Ibid p. 43.  This equals also may do. So of old, if any Elder or Bishop was accused, the Bishops brought the matter unto an Ecclesiastical Senate or Synod, and if he did seem worthy of it, they condemned him by a public judgement, that is, they either suspended, or excommunicated, or deposed him. He declares 
(h) P. 48. & 49.  that the Church hath been preserved in greatest tempests and troubles by Synods, and commends them for their use of jurisdiction in judging of causes, and shows how those that would not yield unto such authority, were removed from their places, and others amended by their examples. He saith, 
(i) P 92.  Though one alone could not judge of another, yet a Synod, and as it were a Senate or Session of Bishops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their causes. He observeth again out of Cyprian, 
(k) P. 93.  No Bishop could be judge of another: of another (I say) not of others, because a Synod of Bishops could always judge a Bishop: therefore the Monarchical primacy of the Roman Bishop is of no divine right. As he doth fully condemn the usurpation of one Bishop above another, so by way of opposition he doth fully and plentifully avouch the authority of many, meeting together in Synods, not only for counsel & admonition, but for jurisdiction in judging & censuring of offenders.  
After this, in the prosecution of the second Question, Bellarmine pleading for the Monarchy and jurisdiction of Peter, because he in special was charged to feed the sheep of Christ, and among other Pastoral acts, noting this for one, to judge controversies: D. Whit. answers, 
(l) De Pont. Rom. q. 2. c. 7. p. 229.  What controversies? Of religion? But the other Apostles did that also as well as he: and the Synods of Bishops and learned men can do this, even as we read that it hath often been practised in the Churches for many ages, before this principality of the Pope was brought into the Church.  
Furthermore, D. Whitaker useth this argument to prove a superiority of power in a company or assembly of the Apostles above one or two of them: 
(m) Ibid. p. 260.  The Apostles send Peter to Samaria: therefore Peter was not the head of the Apostles, but rather was in subjection unto their authority. Act. 8.14. He saith, A sending doth always and necessarily imply a subjection in him that is sent, if he be said properly to be sent. This manner of reasoning makes for the authority of Synods, consisting of a company of Ministers or other Deputies of Churches orderly assembled, whiles he argueth that a College or company of the Apostles had superiority of power over some singular persons among them, though considered apart they were all equal in power. He saith concerning Peter & john, 
(n) P. 261.  We read that both of them were sent by the College of the Apostles: from whence we do justly conclude both that these two Apostles were equal, & that the authority of sending was in the Apostles. He shows also 
(o) P. 297, 297.  that the decree made in the Synod, Act. 15. was not confirmed by the authority of Peter alone, but by common consent of the Apostles & the Church, for the repressing of false Apostles, etc.  
In the examination of the fourth Question, whereas Bellarmine would have a double error to be observed: one, of those who teach that the Pope may be judged, punished, and deposed by the Emperor, if he discharge not his office aright; another, of them that maintain he may be judged and censured by a Synod of Bishops, though not by a secular Prince: D. Whitaker answereth, 
(p) Ibid. qu. 4. p. 513, 514.  We acknowledge both of these, but we say there is no error here. For the Bishop of Rome may be deposed, both by the Emperor, when there is cause, and by a Synod of Bishops, and that not only General, but Particular of that Province; whereunto Calvine most truly affirmeth him to be subject, and that he may be judged of it: and those that persuade the Pope otherwise, we affirm them to be flatterers & parasites, rebels to God & the Emperor. And many the like assertions he hath in the handling of that question, wherein the jurisdiction of Synods is witnessed by him.  
In the fift Question concerning Antichrist, 
(q) Ibid. q. 5. p. 674, 675.  he notes it to be an evidence of Antichristian pride in the Pope, that he is by the Jesuits affirmed to be above the Synod.  
Proceeding to the sixth Question, touching the errors of Popes, 
(r) Qu. 6. p. 797.805.812, 813.  he avoucheth the jurisdiction of Synods, by alleging many examples and instances wherein they exercised this power; as in the condemning of Pope Honorius, Gregory the 7th, or Hildebrandus, John the 23th, Eugenius, etc.  
Touching the seventh Question, about the Pope's making of laws to bind the conscience, though D. Whitaker teach that it belongs to God alone to give laws unto the conscience: yet he saith, 
(s) Qu. 7. p. 853.  The Church hath authority of making laws concerning decency, & it is our duty to obey, yet concerning the things themselves the conscience is always free, etc. He adds, Whereas the adversary saith, that all true laws have a coactive or constraining force: if he so understand it, that they constrain & burden the conscience, with respect unto the things themselves, it is false: for certainly even these also do constrain after a sort, to wit, if we have respect unto the general rule, so that if there come contempt or offence or schism, the violation of them cannot be excused. Again he saith to like purpose, 
(t) P. 867.  Whereas Bellarm. saith, we can abide no laws, therein he doth egregiously slander: for we allow & much esteem of laws, even Ecclesiastical laws, & do teach that they are to be obeyed, & do subject ourselves unto them: but we will not that our consciences be bound or ensnared, nor the liberty which Christ hath given, to be taken from us. How the Church exerciseth this power of making laws, he explaineth 
(v) De Conc. q. 1. c. 3. p. 18.  elsewhere, namely in Synods. And seeing here he teacheth obedience and subjection unto them, it is plain that he allows unto Synods a greater authority then only of admonishing or counselling. This he expresseth more plainly, even in this Question also, when he saith, 
(x) De Pont. Rom. q. 7. p. 849.  It is lawful for Synods, both General & Provincial, to make laws and to ordain certain rites which belong unto good order and the outward policy of the Church; and they are to be deposed which do not keep the same: but our consciences are not bound with those laws, except contempt & scandal be added, as was said before.   

SECT. XI.  
His Allegation of Chamierus examined.  
BEsides these Allegations set down in his Apologetical Reply, there remaineth yet to be considered of us the testimony of Daniel Chamierus, another learned man, whom Mr Dau. had cited before any of these, to wit, in his letter which he sent to the Classis, printed by W. B. saving, 
(y) Book of compl. p. 2.  The power of every particular Church, is chief in its own particular matters, (or in things which are proper to itself) as a Synod hath the chief power, in things that are common to many Churches, witness Chamiercont. Bell. lib. 2.  
ANSW. The quotation of this Testimony is imperfectly described, so that men cannot find the same, by the direction he gives, there being many second books in those 4 Tomes of that great work, each of them containing many chapters, and none of them specified by him. It seems he took this testimony from Mr Parker, who hath also imperfectly cited the same: for though he mention not only the second book, but also pag. 193. yet is not that testimony there to be found. But wheresoever it is, he might have 
* See before, pag. 92, 93.  found in Mr Parker sufficient answer and satisfaction for it, while he addeth three other causes wherein the authority of Synods is superior unto particular Churches, wherein is expressed & contained as much power as we asscribe unto Synods.  
But that it may further appear how Mr Dau. is condemned by his own witness, it is to be considered touching this famous light of God's Church, that as he 
(z) Epist. Dedicat.  undertook that great work at the appointment and command of a Synod; as his son Adr. Chamierus after his father's death dedicated that work unto the excellent and faithful servants of God, the Pastors and Elders of the French Churches assembled in a Nationall Synod, comparing them to the threescore valiant men of the valiantest in Israel, compassing the bed of Solomon, all holding swords, expert in war, every man with his sword upon his thigh: because of fear in the night; Sol. song, c. 3.7, 8. and as again speaking of the Synod, he applies unto them that which is said of the Tower of David, where the shields of the mighty men are hanged up, etc. Sol. song, 4.4. so in the book itself there are many ample and pregnant testimonies touching the authority & jurisdiction of Synods.  
And first of all, where he proves that the government of the Church is Aristocratical, by many, and not Monarchical, by one, he makes this distinction, 
(a) Chamie. Panstrat. Cath. Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 5.  The government of Churches is either of several Churches, or of many together, viz. by Synods. In both he maintains an Aristocracy or jurisdiction of many. He doth not restrain jurisdiction to particular Congregations, and allow only counsel or advise to Synods: but he useth the same words and phrases to describe the power and government of one sort as well as of the other, to note a like kind of authority in both.  
For the government of many Churches together in a Province, he sauth, 
(b) Ibid. c. 7.  For the disposing and directing of public affairs, Provincial Synods were appointed, that is, companies of Bishops in the same Province, which were assembled so often as need & commodity required. For evidence thereof he allegeth divers Canons, & commendeth Cyprian for observing that order.  
Touching the administration of all Churches in the world, he saith; 
(c) Ibid. c. 8.  He that denyeth these to have been governed by Universal Synods, must be either notoriously impudent, or ignorant of all antiquity. For in the very beginnings, when a great question was raised about the rites of Moses, and some would have those that were converted from heathenish Idolatry, to be subjected unto them, Luke testifieth that a Synod was assembled, Act. 15. The Apostles and Elders came together to look unto this matter. And by the authority of this Synod, that question was compounded; which authority that they might signify to be the greatest, the decree is conceived in these words, It seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us. And that this was an Ecumenical or Universal Synod, he there maintaineth by divers reasons against joverius, who in regard of the small number that met together, affirmed it to be a particular Synod.  
It seems also that this was the place from whence Mr Parker took that which he alleged out of Chamierus, because in these two chapters, 7. & 8. are contained those testimonies which he citeth. And here it is that he speaks of causa communis, or the common cause, which Cyprian would have to be judged by a Synod. And here it is that he speaks of some proper causes, belonging peculiarly to some Bishops in their special charges, viz. c. 7. But these things are not only misquoted by Mr Dau. by putting the 2d book for the 10th, but the sense is altered, while Chamierus comparing Bishops with metropolitans, restrains some things from metropolitans to such Bishops as had divers countries under them. And though he show how Cyprian brought a common cause unto the Synod, yet he doth not affirm that only such common causes were to be brought unto Synods. Chamierus doth not witness that the power of every particular Church is chief in its own particular matters, as Mr D. allegeth him for witness thereof. And in c. 8. he brings many evidences to witness the power of General Synods in judging the causes of all Churches.  
Again in the Question whether the Bishop of Rome may be judged of any, Chamierus shows the opinion of the Protestants, whom he calleth Catholics in opposition to the Papists, that 
(d) Ibid. l. 13. c. 17.  No Bishop at all may by divine right be judged of another; but of many, to wit in a Synod, so as it hath most often been done. And when Bellarmine objected the examples of some Synods, that refused to judge the Bishop of Rome, Chamierus answereth, that some of them were particular Synods, consisting only of such as were under the Roman. Therefore they could make no general decree; but could only ordain that the Bishop of Rome should not be judged of them assembled in a particular Synod: which certainly they either did not speak concerning a General Synod, or else they spoke falsely. A plain confession of the jurisdiction of Synods: for had he spoken of counsel or admonition only, why might not any one particular Bishop or Synod have admonished the Pope upon occasion, and given their advice touching him?  
In his dispute touching Appeals, he saith, 
(e) Ibid. l. 14. c. 2.  We do not take away all appeals. For they are of common equity: and truly without them the Discipline of the Church could hardly or not at all subsist. And he speaks there of such appeals as were made unto Synods. Afterward, speaking of the imposture or cozenage of the Bishop of Rome in the sixth Council of Carthage, where appeals denied to Rome, are yet expressly allowed to be made unto the Synods of their own Province or to a General Council: hereupon Chamierus cries out, 
(f) Ibid. c. 3.  Immane! quantam crucem etc. O how unspeakable a cross is procured unto our Papists by the sincere constancy of those good fathers! among whom were those great men, Aurelius of Carthage, and Augustine of Hippo, etc. Now look what weight and strength the testimony of those African fathers hath against the Papists; even so much authority hath it against such as stand for the single, uncompounded policy, which deny the jurisdiction and power of Synods, to determine such causes as by appeals are brought unto them. For the jurisdiction of Synods in receiving appeals is in the same place as plainly confessed, as the jurisdiction of the Pope is denied by their prohibition of appeals to be made unto him.  
Again when he proves that the Pope is subject to Ecclesiastical judgement, he doth in the same question with one conclude that there is a superiority of power and jurisdiction in Synods to judge of him. He instanceth 
(g) Ibid. c. 10.  in Honorius a Bishop of Rome, who by the sixth Synod was not only judged, but condemned as a Monothelite. This was more than counsel or admonition. He shows in the same place that many laws were made concerning Bishops, both of the Apostles and of Synods, which do certainly bind all Bishops. When Bellarmine answereth that the Pope is bound by Ecclesiastical laws in respect of direction, not of coaction (which distinction is in effect the same which our opposites use now, viz. that Synods may bind or be respected for their counsel, not for their jurisdiction) Chamierus replieth again and pleads that the Bishop of Rome is subject unto those laws, not only for their direction but for their coaction or constraint, viz. in regard of Ecclesiastical censures. He saith further, Even as particular Synods do bind all the Bishops within their own jurisdiction, so Universal Synods have power over all the Bishops of the whole world. Again, because particular Synods do bind all the Bishops of their own Province: therefore the Bishop of Rome is subject unto the laws, not only of an universal, but also of his own particular Synod. Moreover he instanceth in divers particular laws which the sixth Synod prescribed unto the Church of Rome, by name touching the permission of marriage, fasting, etc.  
Moreover when Bellarmine and P. Auratus do plead for the Pope's supremacy, as being necessary to the unity of faith and the unity of the Church, etc. Chamierus answereth, 
(h) Lib. 9 c. 13.  Of old, when many heresies sprung up, they never ran unto any one man, by whose authority questions might be decided. When disputation was raised against Paul and Barnabas touching Mosaical ordinances, the Apostles called a Synod, Act. 15. which remedy the Church thenceforth used most diligently, as often as either heresies or schisms did break the unity thereof. He allegeth divers examples thereof, in special of Constantine, and Innocentius in the question about chrysostom. And speaking of such Synods as used not only counsel, but jurisdiction in censuring the guilty, such as was the Council of Nice, he showeth thence, they found no other remedy fit enough to preserve Ecclesiastical unity in faith & love, except a General Synod. He saith again, We understand that the best and most certain means of nourishing unity is a Synod, not one Monarch. And among others he allegeth Aegidius Viterbiensis, who disputed on this manner; Paul the glory of the Apostles, when he would show the chief point of our salvation, saith, Without faith we can by no means please God: but without Synods faith cannot stand: therefore without a Synod we cannot be safe. And afterwards; Whatsoever hath been done in the Church worthy of praise, worthy of honour from the age of Melchiades, either to resist the enemy or to settle the Commonwealth, that all sprung from Synods and is again to be referred unto Synods. And many other things he there bringeth to maintain the authority of Synods, without any show that he ever light upon this dream, that they were only for counsel.  
To conclude, whereas Chamierus was translated out of this life, before he had fully finished that great work of his Panstratia Catholica; and therefore for the finishing of it there is added unto his 4th Tome, a Supplement by Alstedius; in that Supplement there is also a plain confession touching the authority of Synods. Therein Alstedius treading in the steps of Junius and D. Whitaker, 
(i) De Conc. c. 1. sect. 6.  doth acknowledge that the original of Synods is from divine right, alleging Deut. 17. Act. 1. & ch. 15. Mat. 18. Repeating the causes wherefore Synods are to be called, he doth not limit them to be for counsel only, but that 
(k) Cap. 4. sect. 2.  as malefactors in Civil judgements are tried, accused & condemned, so in the Church obstinate Heretics are by public judgement to be condemned and excommunicated. He allows unto those that are lawfully called unto Synods, 
(l) C. 5. s. 2.  to have right of giving definitive sentence, and of determining matters according to the Scriptures. He maintains that Synods have authority over the Pope, and that 
(m) C. 10. s. 21.  he is bound to subject himself unto their judgement, discretive and coactive: not only to their counsel, but to their censure. And if these did not suffice, there are yet many other clear testimonies which Alstedius there gives touching the jurisdiction of Synods.    

CHAP. VI  
An answer to Mr Cannes Arguments.  
FRom the Allegations of Mr Dau. we come now to the Argumentations of Mr Can and his client, against the authority of Classes and Synods: and here first we will examine and consider their Syllogisms and Logical forms of reasoning.  
ARGUM. I. 
(a) Church's plea, p. 68  If those Churches, planted by the Apostolic institution, had power fully in themselves immediately from Christ, to practise all his ordinances: Then have all Churches the like power now. But the first is true: Therefore the second.  
The Proposition is clear & certain, by these Scriptures, 1. Cor. 5.2, 3. Act. 14.23. 1. Cor. 16.2. Col. 2.5. 2. Thes. 3.14.  
The Assumption is acknowledged by sundry of our best Divines, etc.  
ANSW. I. The first main fault in this Argument, common to many that follow, is, that herein is committed a foul fallacy, ab ignoratione Elenchi; that is to say, the Conclusion is beside the Question. This whole argument being granted, yet the authority of Synods remains still firm, and unshaken thereby. When or where did I ever affirm that the Churches now have not the like power to practise all the ordinances of Christ, as fully as those Churches planted by Apostolic institution? The testimonies of learned men here alleged by him, to prove that the ancient and first institutions are to be preferred before later inventions, I do willingly assent unto. But what can he conclude hence? Though Christ have committed power unto a particular Church, doth it therefore follow that if such abuse their power and go astray, either wholly or the greater part of it, there is then no Ecclesiastical authority above them, to censure them or to restrain them from proceeding in evil? This consequence which had been to the purpose, he offers not to prove. It was confessed 
(b) Chap. 5. sect. 1. p. 81.  before b● Mr Cartwright, one of his own witnesses here alleged by him, that if any Church should desire or choose, or consent upon by the most part, some that is unmeet, either for doctrine or manners, than the Ministers and Elders of other Churches round about, should advertise first, and afterwards as occasion should serve, sharply & severely charge, that they forbear such election, or if it be made, that they confirm it not, by suffering him to exercise any ministry.  
II. A second extraordinary and gross error is to be observed in his Logic, while in the prosecution of his Argument, he not knowing which is the Major or which is the Minor proposition in his own Syllogism, that which should be for the proof of his Minor proposition, that he applies for proof of the Major; that which should serve for proof of his Major, that he brings for confirmation of his Minor. The Scriptures which he allegeth, he refers to the proof of his misnamed Proposition: the Testimonies of Authors here alleged, he refers to the proof of his miscalled Assumption. This error I do the rather note. 1. Because it is no slip or oversight in him through want of attention in this place, but an ordinary and frequent error, as appears in that which followeth. 2. Because of his insolent and arrogant boasting against others, 
(c) Churc. plea, p. 2. & 3. & 15. Necess. of Sep. p. 188, 189.  for want of art, and want of wit, of Logic, etc. Who can relate unto us such an example of a man professing himself a Logical Disputant, with such abundance of printed Syllogisms, with such contempt of others, and yet to be so rude, as not to know the plainest things and the A. B. C. in Logic, the difference betwixt the Major and Minor in a Syllogism? 3. Because of his spiritual pride, not only in separating himself from the Churches of Christ, as other Brownists do, but taking upon him to be their Pastor, their guide, their champion for defence of their Separation against all men. O miserable men, that follow so blind a guide!  
III. A third error in the prosecution of this Argument is this, that although the premises of this argument being rightly understood, are granted to be true; yet the Scriptures alleged do not prove the same. Though the Churches planted of the Apostles, had power fully in themselves immediately from Christ, to practise all his ordinances; yet these places, 1. Cor. 5.2, 3. Act. 14.23. 1. Cor. 16.2. Col. 2.5. 2. Thes. 3.14. do only prove their right for the practice of some of his ordinances, that are mentioned and pointed at in them, but not of all other. As for example; the administration of the Sacraments, though a right belonging to the Church, and ordained in other places of Scripture, yet is not specified in any of these allegations. The liberty of appeals in case of oppression, the power of sending Deputies unto a Synod for the decision of difficult & weighty causes, are ordinances of Christ, and rights of the Church, as hath been showed before, & yet not specified in any of these Scriptures alleged by him: and therefore his proof for all ordinances is defective.  
iv For the right understanding of this sentence; viz. that every Parish or every particular Church hath full or sufficient authority within itself, derived immediately from Christ, for the government of itself in all Ecclesiastical causes: I desire the Reader to look back unto the explication thereof by 
(d) Disse de Gub. Eccl. p. 14.  Gersom Bucerus, who labouring to make the best interpretation thereof, yet shows that it is not to be admitted without divers cautions, some whereof I have expressed 
* P. 117. 118.  before. He undertakes the defence hereof against D. Downam, but no further than it may be so understood, and so expounded, as not containing in it any denial or impeachment of the authority and jurisdiction of Classes and Synods, judging the causes of many Churches. And indeed how can any Church be said to practise all the ordinances of Christ, so long as they refuse and deny the combination of Churches, or the jurisdiction of them being combined, which is showed to be one of his ordinances?  
ARGUM. II. 
(e) Churc. plea, p. 69.  If Christ in Mat. 18.17. where he saith, Tell the Church; doth mean a particular Congregation: Then hath every particular Congregation, an entire power, in, & of itself, to exercise Ecclesiastical government, and all other Gods spiritual ordinances. But the first is true: Therefore the second.  
The Proposition is clear and certain, maintained by the most judicious Divines, etc.  
The Assumption is proved thus: That Church which Christ intendeth in Matt. 18. hath absolute power in, & of itself to perform all God's ordinances: But Christ intendeth in Mat. 18. a particular Congregation: Therefore every particular Congregation hath absolute power, in, and of itself, to perform all God's ordinances, etc.  
ANSW. I. Here is the same fault that was in the former Argument, viz. of concluding beside the question. This argument being granted, there ariseth hence no prejudice to the authority of Classes or Synods. The authority of particular Churches and the authority of Synods may well subsist together. The arrows which are shot by Mr Can are beside the mark of the main question.  
II. His argument is not only beside the mark, but as an arrow shot up into the air, and falling down on his head again, so doth his argument return upon himself: for if a particular Church hath entire power, in and of itself to perform all God's ordinances; then hath it power to unite itself with other Churches combined in Synods, and to submit unto the judgement thereof, according to the divine warrant & ordinance. Act. 15.2, etc. Deut. 17.8, etc.  
III. As before, so he blindly stumbles here again at the same stone, in not discerning betwixt the Proposition and Assumption of his own Syllogism. The Authors which he allegeth for the maintenance of his Major proposition, aught to have been applied to the proof of his Assumption, viz. to show that Christ in Mat. 18.17. where he saith, Tell the Church, doth mean a particular Congregation: for this is that which he assumes, when he saith, But the first is true. And all the show of help which he hath from his Authors, tends to confirm this Assumption; but their testimonies are no direct proof of his Proposition.  
iv Another new gross error in his Logical dispute, is this, that whereas he goes about to prove the Assumption of his first Syllogism, by framing a second Syllogism, he doth not therein according to order conclude that which was his former Assumption, whether it be understood as it is indeed, or as he miscalles it; but instead thereof he ridiculously repeats the Conclusion of his first Syllogism, which Conclusion is neither the Proposition nor the Assumption which he offers to prove; but the Question made by him in his main Argument. And thus entangling himself with his own Syllogisms, Propositions, and Assumptions, he hath brought himself into such a maze, that he knows not where he is, what he saith, nor whereof he affirmeth. Let Logicians tell how oft they have seen the like in print.  
V Whether all his Authors do affirm that by the Church in Mat. 18. Christ meant a particular Congregation, I will not here examine: I shall have further occasion in the next chapter to speak of many of them. But in the mean time let it be granted, not only that they have all so affirmed, but that it is the truth: Yet do they not all affirm, that only a particular Congregation was intended by Christ, Mat. 18. For both the Eldership of a particular Church, and the Synod arising from the combination of many Churches, are showed unto us in Matt. 18. the one for the judging of lesser causes, without bringing them to the whole Congregation; the other for the deciding of weightier matters, which neither Eldership nor Congregation can so well end. And this is acknowledged by sundry of his Witnesses, whose names he abuseth in this controversy. Mr Parker, touching Mat. 18. saith, 
(f) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 15. p. 160.  The Church of the faithful is intended of Christ, not as it is simply considered (as we said before) but as it exerciseth Discipline according to an Aristocratical temperament in the Eldership. For we do think that the Church mentioned in the first place, in those words, Tell the Church, doth precisely signify the Aristocratical part, that is, the Eldership: but that which is mentioned in the latter place, in these words, If he hear not the Church, if (as Downame teacheth) it include the Church excommunicating for contempt, and not only decreeing or examining, than it doth also comprehend the democratical part of the Church, forasmuch as the consent of the people is necessary unto excommunication. And a little before he saith 
(g) Ibid. p. 159.  Almost all interpreters do agree, that those words [in vers. 19] If two or three, do contain an amplification from the less to the greater, from a less company to a greater: so that it is most plain, that under the name of the Church he included as well the greater company, as that which consists of two or three. How Mr Parker proved the Synod also from Mat. 18. is showed 
(h) See Ch. 3. p. 45. 49.  before; where D. Whitaker, Mr Cartwright and others also teach the same thing.  
ARGUM. III. 
(i) Church. plea. p. 70.  Whatsoever was commanded to the 7 Churches to be practised by each of them, apart, in, and for themselves; that no Church of God must now omit. But Ecclesiastical government, was commanded to the 7 Churches to be practised by each of them, apart, in, and for themselves. Therefore no Churches of God must omit the practice of Ecclesiastical government, apart, in, and for themselves.  
The Proposition cannot be doubted of. For as Chytraeus, etc.  
The Assumption is proved clearly in chap. 2. vers. 2, 14, 20. etc. Moreover Mr Perkins, etc.  
ANSW. I. This Argument for the form of it, is a misshapen Syllogism, and that in a double respect; both because the Minor terminus is superfluously put into the Major Proposition; and because the same terminus is confusedly joined with the Predicate in the Minor proposition, when it should have been placed with the Subject therein. But this is one of the least faults in Mr Cannes reasonings.  
II. For the matter of it, this Argument doth also come short of the mark, & reacheth not home to the question. And that which he concludes (being well understood) may be safely granted of us. That which Mr Can allegeth from Chytraeus, Bullinger, Brightman & Perkins, for the proof of his Proposition & Assumption, I do willingly assent unto, and it was but an idle labour to bring them for proof of that which is not denied. There be no Churches here among us which refuse to practise Ecclesiastical government, apart, in & for themselves. This they practise after a double manner; 1. There be many rebukes and censures against sin administered in them without the knowledge of Classis or Synod, apart, in and for themselves. 2. When as more hard & weighty causes are brought unto the Deputies of other Churches, assembled in Classes, for their advice and judgement, even then also when upon their consideration matters are cleared, and there remaineth no scruple, they are then remitted again and referred unto the particular Churches, so that the Eldership with consent of the Congregation proceedeth therein as they find cause, according to the repentance or obstinacy of the persons with whom they have to deal: And so the sentence is both determined and executed apart, in & for themselves, without the Classis.  
But if by government to be practised apart, in and for themselves, he mean such a solitary and separate government, as refuseth combination with other neighbour Churches, such as admitteth no liberty of appeal in case of greatest wrong, such as excepteth a particular Congregation from the censure of all other Churches, though it should err never so perniciously, and in sum, such a government apart, as denyeth all authority and jurisdiction of Classes and Synods; then is his Assumption most false: and all that he allegeth for proof thereof helps him nothing. for 1. Though the Angel of the Church of Ephesus be commended for not bearing with the wicked, etc. and the Angel of the Church of Pergamus and Thyatira be reprehended for suffering divers enormities, Rev. 2.2.14.20. by what good consequence can these examples overthrow the authority of Synods? There might be occasion at this day to write unto some Ministers standing under the Classes and Synods in these Reformed Churches, and some of them might justly be commended for their zeal in not bearing with the wicked; others might justly be reprehended for their negligence in tolerating of such as offend: now Mr Can according to this reasoning, might as well conclude, against experience, & against the known truth, that these Ministers do not stand under any Classical government. 2. The praise or dispraise which is given to the Angels of several Churches apart, doth not so much serve to argue an independency or disunion in government in these Churches; but the very 
* Rev. 1.16.20. & 2.1. & 3.1.  form of the vision, in the union of these Stars of the Churches in Christ's right hand, doth rather argue a consociation of them for their mutual help in the government of his Church. They appear not scattered in the Firmament, but gathered and drawn together. What is a Classis or Synod, but as a Constellation of so many Stars of the Churches combined together, which by their conjunction together do yield both a greater light of direction, and a stronger influence of authority, for the confirmation of the truth and conviction of error.  
And as for the testimony of Mr Perkins, though he acknowledge, 
(k) Upon Rev. 2.20. & 3.7  God hath given to every Church power and authority to preach the Word, administer the Sacraments, repress evil men, etc. yet doth he not thereby exempt those Churches from the censure of others, if they be found to pervert the word, corrupt the Sacraments, and judge unrighteously. It is not probable that such a conceit did ever enter into Mr Perkins head, neither can it be collected from his words.  
ARCUM. iv If the Church of Corinth, had power and authority within herself; to exercise Ecclesiastical government; yea and did it, I mean the Ministry and the rest of the Church there: Then ought not particular Congregations now, to stand under any other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. But the first is true: Therefore the second.  
The first part is unquestionably certain; and of this judgement was D. Willet, etc.  
ANSW. That which he so boldly affirmeth to be unquestionably certain, viz. that which is indeed the first part of this Argument, is on the contrary most certainly false. This consequence of his Major proposition remains to be proved. Scripture he allegeth none at all, and for those eleven Authors mentioned by him, there is not one of them that confirms his consequence. Why did he not express their words, & apply them to his purpose, & enforce them against us, if he thought they would have served his turn? It is said to have been a stratagem of thiefs, that to affright men they have taken many hats and set them upon stakes afar of, that passengers imagining them to be men, & partakers with those thiefs that came unto them, might the sooner yield. Thus doth Mr Can, who sets down the names of many Authors and their writings in his marginal quotations, as if they were of his mind or partakers of his cause, when as there is no such matter to be found in them. Let us hear how he proceeds.  
I. CAN. Again whereas the Papists and Hierarchy do say (much after Mr Pagets new doctrine) that the Church of Corinth had not sole and alone authority, in itself to exercise Ecclesiastical government; our writers, viz. 
(l) Ref. Rhem. 1. Cor. 5.4.  Mr Cartwright, 
(m) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. p. 17. 18. etc.  Mr Parker & others refute them and prove the contrary by many reasons.  
ANSW. That which he saith here of sole and alone authority, etc. is more than he propounded in his Syllogism: I acknowledge that the Church of Corinth did exercise Ecclesiastical government within herself; and I affirm as much for our own and other particular Congregations here: and Mr Can with as good reason might argue that we do not stand under Classes and Synods, if there were any soundness in his Syllogism. My opinion touching the Church of Corinth may be discerned sufficiently by that which I noted touching the 7 Churches, in answer to his former argument. And as for Mr Cartwright and Mr Parker, whom he specially allegeth, they help him not at all. I acknowledge Mr Parker doth justly oppose them that held, the Church of Corinth did not excommunicate the incestuous person, but Apostle alone: But I do more fully assent unto Mr Cartwright, who differing something from Mr Parker, and refuting the Rhemists most effectually by many reasons, doth yet withal show, that the authority and power both of the Apostle and of the Church did concur in this excommunication. Whereas the Rhemists would have the Corinthians to be only witnesses, Mr Cartwright in his third reason against them, saith, 
(n) Conf. of Rhem. upon 1. Cor. 5.4.  If the Church were assembled only to bear witness, and not to have authority in this case: it followeth that Paul's spirit was there also only to look on and bear witness, considering that the personal presence of the Church, and the Apostles spiritual presence, are associated in this affair of the Church. Thus he joineth both together: and so afterwards again reasoning from those words, Do not you judge of those that are within? 1. Cor. 5.12. he saith thereupon that the Apostle giveth more unto the Church in excommunication, then to be witnesses and lookers on: For he useth the same 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 5.3.12.  word to declare the Church's interest, that he used before to note his own. If then you will say, that the Church's judgement in excommunication is but to bear witness: it followeth that the Apostles then, and consequently their successors now are only to bear witness of the excommunication. Hereunto cometh also that the release of this censure is ascribed in the same word of forgiveness or absolution unto the Church as unto Paul. 2. Cor. 2.10. Now to have the same word in the same verse and the same cause to be understood diversely, and referred to Paul to have the proper signification of remitting, but referred to the Church to signify a witnessing of remission: needeth more learning for the defence of it, then falleth unto the jesuites capacity. Thus he shows that neither the sole authority of the Church on the one side, nor the sole authority of Paul on the other side did determine this business. Again, had there a dangerous contention risen in Corinth, which by their sole authority they could not end; what should have hindered them from following the example of the Church at Antioch, in seeking help both by counsel and authority of other Churches for the judgement thereof?  
I. CAN. The latter part is proved before, in the Minors of the 1. and 3. arguments. ANSW. It it manifest that he did not know the Minor from the Major in some of his former Syllogisms, and so in this place it appears he doth not discern the first from the latter part of his argument. But what he objected before is already answered: it is vain & helpless for him to rely upon his former poofes.  
ARGUM. V 
(o) Churc. plea. p. 71.  Such actions the Church may lawfully do, wherein no Law of God is broken. But there is no Law of God broken, when particular Congregations do in, & among themselves exercise all God's ordinances. Therefore they may lawfully do it.  
The proof of the Proposition, doth arise from the definition of sin; which as 
(p) Cont. Fan. l. 22. c. 27.  Augustine and 
(q) Lib. de Paradis. c. 8.  Ambrose truly define it; is either a deed or word, or thought, against some Divine Law. 
(r) Lib. 2. dist. 35.  Lombard, 
(s) Th. 12. q. 71.  Aquinas; and other Schoolmen (as they are called) agree hereto.  
The Assumption is manifest in our first Argument, the first part of it.  
ANSW. This Argument toucheth not the question: we grant his Conclusion; that particular Congregations may in & among themselves exercise all God's ordinances; and among the rest this ordinance of combining themselves in Synods, for the decision of their controversies. This may be said as well to be in & among themselves, as the use of Synods for counsel, which my opposites allow for an ordinance of God. And as particular Churches may refuse the counsel of Synods if it be unlawful: so ought they to disobey the sentences and decrees of Synods, if they determine any thing contrary to the word of God.  
His Proposition being so manifest, it was needles to bring proof for it. But the definition of sin which he brings needlessly, is insufficient: because it comprehends not all sin under it. There is an original corruption and depravation of nature, which is Sin, considered distinctly apart, beside thoughts, words or deeds. The Law requireth integrity of nature, and all disconformity with that Law is sin, though not yet come so fare as thoughts. Deut. 6. with 1. john. 3.4. The saying of Augustine is to be taken rather for a distribution, then for a definition: and for a distribution, not simply of Sin, but only of Actual sins, as they are either thoughts, words, or deeds. Ambrose is ill joined with Austin, seeing in the place alleged he hath not the same, but another more large definition, containing under it Original sin also, when he saith, 
(t) Tom. 4. lib. de Paradiso. c. 8.  What is sin but a prevarication against the Law of God? etc. This prevarication is as well in the nature and disposition of man, as in actual sins. The judgement of Aquinas, and such Popish Schoolmen is not to be much esteemed in this point, while they teach that original corruption in those that are baptised & justified is not properly any sin at all, & therefore are rejected herein of all Orthodox Divines.  
ARGUM. VI If the Apostle gave commandment unto the Eldership of Ephesus, for the whole administration of all Ordinances in that Church: Then may the Eldership of every particular Congregation administer among themselves all God's ordinances. But the first is true: Therefore the second.  
The Major is proved two ways. 1. By Scripture, Act. 20. vers. 17.28.2. By the testimony of the learned Whitaker, etc.  
The Minor is undeniable. For as Mr Brightman saith, there was one form etc.  
ANSW. I. Mr Can hear again wanders from the question, & goes about to prove that which I never denied, viz. that the Eldership of every particular Church may administer all God's ordinances among themselves. Even those solemn acts of communion with other Churches both in things spiritual and corporal, being the ordinances of God, are to be performed by the direction of the Eldership. This hinders not but that any Eldership or Church itself, being found in error or other unfaithful dealing, may be subject to the censure of many Churches united in their Synods.  
II. If it belong to the Eldership of every particular Church to administer all God's ordinances; then how can the ordinances of God be duly administered in that Church of the Brownists whereof Mr Can is Bishop alone; where there is no Eldership; where there is neither teaching nor ruling Elder beside himself? Seeing there is no Ruler in his own Company but himself, & he denies all other rule over him by Synods, doth he not make himself a kind of Ecclesiastical Monarch or sole Governor of the Separation?  
III. Mr Can doth here again bewray his notorious ignorance of Logic, whereof he professeth so great skill, in the framing of so many Syllogisms, and yet like the children that know not the right hand from the left, cannot discern betwixt the Major and the Minor of his Syllogisms. This appeareth here, when he calls that his Major, which he proves by Act. 20.17.28. and by the testimony of D. Whitaker, viz. that the Apostle gave commandment unto the Eldership of Ephesus, etc. which is his Assumption, or Minor: and again by calling that his Minor for which he citys Mr Brightman and other treatises, which serve to prove one form of Church-government, common to all Churches; as any Logician that looks upon his Argument may easily discern. When he propounded Simple or Categovicall Syllogisms, than was he not so deceyved in his guessing at a Major or Minor. But so oft as he useth any hypothetical Syllogism, so oft he is as a man wand'ring in a wood or wilderness. And the reason hereof seems to be this: whereas in a hypothetical Syllogism, the Antecedent of the Major is assumed usually in the Minor, and that which is but a part of the Major comes to be the whole Minor, he mistaking a part for the whole, doth therefore call that which is only the Antecedent of the Major, by the name of the whole Major Proposition, when as indeed it is the whole Minor Proposition, and so to be called. Had not W. Best been a Simplician, as the Brownist noted him to be, he would never have placed his confidence in the skill of this simple Logician, nor rested under the shadow of his Syllogisms.  
ARGUM. VII. 
(v) Churc. plea. p. 72.  Such Offices and callings, without which the Church of God is complete, and perfect, for Government, are superfluous and humane. But the Church of God may be complete, and perfect, for Government, without Classical and Synodical Offices and callings. Therefore these Offices and callings are superfluous & humane.  
This Argument the Protestants have used against the Pope: & the Reformists against Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Chancellors, etc. Now the same is every-way as firm & good, against Synods and Classes; for without them, the Church of God, is fully brought to complete perfection and unity. D. Fulke 
(x) Learn. Disc. Eccl. Gou. p. 10.11.  confidently affirmeth so much. That which D. Whitaker 
(y) De Conc. qu. 1. p. 22.23.  writes of General Councils, is by Mr Parker 
(z) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. p. 133.  applied (and rightly) unto particular Synods. The Church of God (saith he) can well subsist without them, for she was sometimes without them: besides we are not bound by any special commandment of God to have them.  
ANSW. I. This Argument concludes nothing against us, neither toucheth it the Question. When did I ever speak of any Synodical offices? And what are those Offices that here he intends? The members of Classes and Synods, are no other than the ordinary Officers or Deputies of particular Churches, considering together and determining so as they judge best for the edification of their flocks.  
II. If he imagine or conceive that the President which propoundeth matters in Synods, or the Scribe that recordeth them, be distinct Synodical Officers; he might as well think, and we might as well say, that the Brownists also had other distinct Ecclesiastical Offices, besides Pastors, Teachers, or Elders, namely Precedents and Scribes; because heretofore in the days of Mr johnson and Mr Ainsworth, they with their Elders did by course propound matters in their Church, & had also a Scribe to write down their special businesses: & now in Mr Cannes time, when they have no Eldership, if he alone propound matters and keep record of them in writing, it may then be said that he hath two or three Ecclesiastical offices, as well as so many Mechanical trades.  
III. If propounding of matters as the President, and writing them as the Scribe, do constitute new offices; then many other members of the Brownists Church, may be reputed for Ecclesiastical Officers; for Precedents and Scribes. For Mr Can being now their only Governor, if it fall out that any among them shall make complaint against his doctrine or practice; then those members of the Church that shall propound the same to the Church, and moderate the action, or keep record thereof in writing, in behalf of the Church (he being unfit to do it himself in his own cause) must then be accounted new Officers, Precedents & Scribes of the Church.  
iv That which he saith of Classes and Synods, that without them the Church of God is fully brought to complete perfection and unity, comparing them to Lordly Prelates, Chancellors, etc. it is utterly false. He only affirms it, and no word of Scripture is alleged or so much as pretended for it. Is this to go unto the Law and to the Testimony?  
V The testimonies of men which he allegeth are falsifyed and perverted by him. D. Fulk shows the sufficiency of those offices mentioned by him, viz. of Doctors, Pastors, Governors, etc. but he 
(a) Disc. of Eccl. Gou. p. 111. etc.  shows withal expressly how these exercise authority in Synods, as well as in the Elderships and particular Congregations. Though D. Whitaker and Mr Parker say, that the Church of God may subsist without Synods; yet he corrupts and falsifyes their testimony, when he makes them to say, the Church may well subsist without them. The Church of God may subsist and be a true Church, though it want some divine ordinances. Though they be not absolutely necessary to the being and subsistence of a Church, yet how needful they are to the well-being of a Church, both those Authors do show and prove from divers grounds of Scripture, noted before. If the want of every ordinance of God should destroy the subsistence of a Church, then that Company of Brownists under Mr Can, wanting the ordinance of an Eldership so long a time, must have perished long ago.  
ARGUM. VIII. Whatsoever Government cannot be found commanded in the written word of God; ought not to have any place in the Church of God. But the Government of Classes and Synods, over many particular Congregations, cannot be found commanded in the written word of God. Therefore it ought not to have any place in the house of God.  
The first part is grounded upon these Scriptures, Esa. 8.20. Mat. 28. ult. etc. Likewise this is the judgement of many learned men, etc.  
The second part is also as manifest; for if we once grant (as all learned men have granted) that the Churches of the Apostolic constitution, were independent bodies, and exercised Ecclesiastical government in, and of themselves; than it must follow, that Classical Assemblies, etc. have their rise wholly, from the pleasure and will of man,  
ANSW. The first part of this Argument, being of itself plain enough, needed not such store of proof as Mr Can brings for it. The Reader may observe his notable trifling, in alleging so many testimonies of Scripture, and testimonies of men (though some of them be carelessly misalledged) for proof of that which he had no reason to imagine that it would be denied by me.  
The second part of this Argument is most false, and he knows it is denied by me, and yet for proof of it he brings here neither word of God, nor word of man, no testimony, neither Divine nor humane. He saith indeed, most untruly, that all learned men have granted, that the Churches of Apostolic constitution, were independent bodies; but he names not one learned man that so writes. The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, which show a dependency of Churches in Ecclesiastical judgements, have been noted already, in those Arguments brought for the authority of Synods, together with the consent of learned men, such late opposites excepted as I myself first named as parties in this cause. All other learned Writers do generally reject that independency which he dreams of.  
ARGUM. IX. 
(b) Church's plea. p. 73.  That Government which merely tendeth unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power, is unlawful. But the Government of Classes & Synods (as they now are) doth merely tend unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power. Therefore that Government is unlawful.  
The Major of this Argument may easily be proved by sundry places of Scripture; viz. 1. Thes. 4.6. etc. the definition of justice, etc. the Etymology or precise signification of the word, both in Greek and Latin. etc.  
ANSW. Here again he plays the trifler, in alleging so many Scriptures & testimonies of men, to prove that which of itself is clear enough, & more plain than the proofs that he brings for it. In special that definition of justice which he brings, is not sufficiently confirmed by the Etymologies which he speaks of. The Greek Etymon noted out of Aristotle, is not so currant, but that some learned men refuse the same, and 
(c) Avenar. in praef. Lex. Ebr.  derive the word from the Hebrew, from whence the principal Etymologies of that tongue are to be taken. And yet that Etymology which Aristotle brings of justice, is not with Mr Can to demonstrate an entire definition of justice, but to show in part one effect thereof; and Mr Can overspeakes himself, when he saith of the definition, so much is imported in the Greek word. The Latin Etymology, which Mr Can brings, viz. jus a jure, as he sets it down in his margin, is more strange. It is likely his Author whom he allegeth, hath no such thing. If Mr Can should own it or approve of it, in such sort as it stands in his book; it would thereby appear that his skill in Grammar is like unto his skill in Logic. Who ever heard such an Etymology, that the Nominative should be derived of the Ablative? But admit there should be such a ridiculous Etymology, how doth he or how can he apply this to confirm his definition of justice? How doth this prove the truth of his Major proposition? What is that which he saith is imported in this Etymology? And what is that precise signification, which he vainly talks of, but doth not express? But let us now hear now he seeks to prove his Minor, which is most false.  
I. CAN. The Minor is as manifest: 1. By Mr Pagets own testimony in pag. 66. where he confesseth, that they have concluded among themselves in their Synods, that no particular Congregation without the leave and consent of the Classis, shall proceed to the election of Ministers, excommunication of offenders, and the like, etc. ANSW. I. He doth manifestly change and alter my words; for when as I had said, that it had been agreed in Synods, touching election of Ministers, excommunication, and the like, that the same shall not be proceeded in 
(d) Answ. to W.B. p. 66.  without advise of the Classis; instead of this Mr Can repeats it, without leave and consent of the Classis. Now according to the State of the Question betwixt us, there is difference betwixt doing a thing without advice, and without leave; men ask advise of many, of whom they ask no leave for doing a thing. II. Had I spoken more largely of the allowance and consent of the Classes and Synods, yet would not my testimony have proved his Minor, viz. that their government tends to the taking away from particular Churches their due power: seeing the authority and help of Classes tends to the establishment of their due power, by directing and regulating the same, and so preventing the undue execution of their power. This order takes not away due power, but hinders and corrects only the undue exercise of their power. Thus much is confessed by such as Mr Can himself hereafter calls for to be his witnesses. Mr Baynes speaking of particular Congregations at Geneva, which do not proceed in weighty matters without consent of other Churches meeting together by their Deputies, saith, 
(e) Diocese. trial. p. 21.  They have power of governing themselves, but for greater edification, voluntarily confederate, not to use nor exercise their power but with mutual communication, one ask the counsel and consent of another in that common Presbytery. And a little after he saith, Though they were entire Churches and had the power of Churches, yet they needed this support in the exercise of it, etc. Mr Parker also, whom Mr Can so oft allegeth, and seems to applaud as being of his opinion, is very express in this point, as I have noted before in answer to Mr D. He shows that the government of Classes and Synods as they now are, doth not take away the due power of particular Congregations. Touching the Churches of the Villages in these Netherlands, with whom we are united in the same government, he saith, 
(f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c 23. p. 349.  The power of excommunication, ordination, and other jurisdiction, illis illibata relinquitur, is left pure unto them, saving only that communion which ought to be among Churches: every Church useth the counsel and consent of her neighbours, as of the Classis or Presbytery in the city, which I suppose not to be unmeet even for the most perfect Churches. He judged the freest and most perfect Churches to stand in need of this government, and that it was no impeachment of their due power. But Mr Can labours to illustrate his assertion with some instances.  
I. CAN. For instance; say the Classes and Synods will not permit, that a Congregation shall reject some convicted Heretics; then they must (if they will believe Mr Paget) let them alone in their communion, against God's express commandment; Tit. 3.10. and so obey men rather then God. Again put case, some Churches do want Ministers, yet notwithstanding, if the Classes and Synods will not give them leave, to choose any, except unfit and insufficient persons; than it seems by this Synodical Canon, they must take such, or remain destitute still. ANSW. I. If such strange cases, and unheared of in our times, should fall out, that then such oppression and tyranny, is not to be imputed unto the Classical or Synodall order & government, but to the corruption & personal wickedness of such men as should be members of the Classis or Synod. Such accidental evils, not springing from the nature of an ordinance, are no arguments to prove the unlawfulness of an ordinance; when as the ordinance itself and in its own nature serves for the preventing or removing of such evils in particular Churches. II. All the force of these objections, and all the fear of danger and inconvenience pretended by these instances comes as strongly, yea & much more heavily upon the heads of those that stand for a single, uncompounded policy, & would have all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction limited unto a particular Congregation: for example, put case that the greater part of a particular Congregation, and of the Eldership therein, will choose an offensive and insufficient Minister, or will not permit that an obstinate and convicted Heretic among them shall be rejected; what shall the other part of the Church do, which is oppressed and hindered from the due exercise of their power by the unrighteous proceeding of the greater part? What can follow here according to 
(g) H. Ains. Animadv. p. 39 Cōm. of Saints, c. 23. p. 470. 471.  the doctrine and practice of the Brownists, but separation, & dissipation of the Church? But by the government of Synods, if particular Churches be guilty of error, oppression and tyranny, their error is to be corrected by Classes; if Classes err, Synods may correct them; and one Synod may be corrected by another greater. And so many great evils may be redressed, and scandals remooved. III. As for the rejection of Heretics, commanded Tit. 3.10. a principal means for the accomplishment thereof, is the help of Classes and Synods, by their discerning, convincing and judging of them. If that help should fail, and those that have authority should neglect or refuse to do their duty herein; the godly after testifying against evil, are to tolerate that which they cannot amend: even as the Pharisees and Sadduces, convicted Heretics, were tolerated by the godly, that remained in the Church without separation. Lastly, suppose that the power of particular Churches had been in some sort weakened, and not strengthened by the government of Classes and Synods, as they now are; yet is it a gross falsehood, when he assumeth, or rather lavishly presumeth, that their government tends merely, or only, to the taking away of the Churches due power; as though there were no other fruit or benefit by them. This he shall never prove.  
The second proof of his Minor is taken from the practice of the Classis. W. Best is 
(h) Church. plea. p. 74.  there brought in complaining of the authority which they take over us and our Eldership too: yea in truth (saith he) so much authority as any Lord can do over his servant, etc. But this is a shameless and impudent falsehood, without truth; for no Lords suffer their servants to sit with them in judgement, and to have a voice for determining matters as well as themselves, so as the Elders or Deputies of every Church are allowed in the Classis. Beside other manifest differences, observe the unbounded and unmeasurable slander, in his speaking not only of that authority which Lords do take, but of that which any Lord can do over his servant. For what is it which the worst Lord cannot do to his servant?  
That insufficient reason which he brings for the declaration of this authority, may as well and more truly, in his words be applied unto the Democracy of the Brownists: for so long as any member among them doth what that imperious company will have him do, he is left alone; but if he meddle with things against the others liking, he is immediately commanded to cease, and so must not proceed further. Yea that democratical judicatory is fare more severe and ready to censure those that resist them, than is any Classis in these lands. Had any member of them so behaved himself against them, as W. Be. hath done to the Classis in this scandalous and reproachful writing against them, as well as against me, he had been long since delivered unto Satan: he could not have expected such lenity and patience from them, as the Classis hath used towards this W. Be.  
My answer unto a writing, touching an action jointly concluded by them, as he saith, viz. that it did not belong unto them; is deceitfully and imperfectly set down. The matter being such as had been already brought unto the Classis, and there judged and decided against them: there was no reason that it should be brought back to an inferior judicatory; being such as were parties also; being such parties also as had been already censured about that controversy. And see the daubing between Mr Can and W.B. The conclusion spoken of, was not the conclusion of the Congregation; and Mr Can himself allows not a Consistory to make any such conclusions without the Congregation; and by his profession, it doth not belong unto a Consistory; and yet he helps W.B. to exclaim for that, wherein he himself is of another mind.  
Touching the words of the Prophet, abused and misapplyed by them to frame their complaint, Woe unto us, we are spoilt, jer. 4.13. I answer: 1. The liberty of appeals unto Classes and Synods, is that which preserveth a Church and the members thereof from being spoilt by any faction. And by their help, we enjoy our liberty and peace; and are established, and furnished with such Ministers, as agree with us in the truth, and are endued with such gifts as are meet for our edification. 2. On the contrary, for want of combination with Classes, Mr Can. may justly take up the complaint, Woe unto us we are spoilt: Since his coming unto them (beside former dissipations) their Church is rend in the midst by incurable contentions, their people scattered, he himself deposed, and rejected by the Elders & people; & they mutually one half abandoning another, & avoiding one another's companies as excommunicates. Lo here a Spoil.  
ARGUM. X. It is a sin against God, to add any thing, to that form and manner of ordering Churches, which Christ our heavenly Prophet, hath set forth unto us in the New Testament. To subject particular Congregations, under any other Ecclesiastical authority, out of themselves, is to add unto that form and manner of ordering Churches, which etc. Therefore it is a sin to do it.  
The Proposition cannot be excepted against; for the Scriptures herein are evident, Deut. 4.2. etc. Many learned men, etc.  
The Assumption cannot for shame be denied; only because the weight of the controversy leaneth upon it, I will speak further of it in the next Section.  
ANSW. For the Proposition, I. If it be well understood, I do willingly grant it: And Mr Can doth again trifle, in alleging so many Scriptures, Ancient fathers, and other later Writers for the proof thereof. II. Both the Scriptures and other Writers alleged by him, do as well condemn such as take from the word of God, as those that add unto it. And therefore they serve to reprove Mr Can. that detracts from it by denying the authority of Synods, taught in the forementioned Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament. The King's coin is adulterate, as well by clipping and diminishing the same, as otherwise. This crime are they guilty of, that clip the authority of Synods. III. The Fathers here mentioned do give express testimony for Synods by special & particular allowance of them, and therefore they are doubly abused, being thus alleged against their meaning.  
For the Assumption, he incurreth a threefold shame. I. It is a bold and shameless assertion for him to say, it cannot for shame be denied; when as it is evidently false, and generally denied by the most godly and learned in all ages. II. Another shame it is, that though he here confess, the weight of the controversy leaneth upon it; yet here he brings nothing at all for the confirmation thereof. This is his manner: where no need of proof is, there he idly abounds with Scriptures, Fathers, and other Writers; where the point of difference is, on which the weight of the controversy leaneth, there he leaves his Assumptions naked and without proof. III. It is a further shame, to put us off to the next Section, and to tell us he will there speak further of it, where he only allegeth the testimonies of men. Is this answerable to the profession of the Brownists, that boast so much, To the Law, and to the Testimony?  
HAving thus examined his Arguments, which he hath honoured with the ornaments of his Art, by propounding them in Syllogistical forms; we will now proceed to consider another sort of his Reasons, to which he doth not vouchsafe so much respect, but propounds them more carelessly and nakedly, without such complete Logical attire. Of these he saith, There are yet other reasons to prove our Assertion; the which I will here lay down more briefly.  
REAS. I. 
(i) Church. plea, p. 75.  If every Eldership have a like & equal power, as Jerome, Cyprian, Bucer and others affirm; then may not the Officers of one Congregation, seek by authority to suppress the acts and decrees concluded in another.  
ANSW. I. The consequence of this reason is denied by us. Though every Eldership be of equal power, yet the Ministers and Elders of one Congregation, being joined together in a Classis or Synod with the Deputies of many Churches, these may lawfully seek by their joint authority, to suppress any unlawful acts or decrees of another Congregation. The reason is, because as D. Whitaker 
(k) De Conc. qu. 1. c. 3.  reasoneth from Matt. 18.20. and Mr Parker 
(l) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 13. § 4.  allegeth again from him, Vis unita fortior, Power combined is the stronger. The concurrence of power from many Churches is the ground on Synodall and Classical authority over particular Churches, though otherwise in themselves considered apart they be all equal. II. Note here again the trifling and shifting of Mr Can. To prove the equality of Elderships, he allegeth the testimonies of Jerome, Cyprian, Bucer, and others: though I had before granted it, and shown that in the Classis our Eldership had 
(m) Answ. to W. B p. 86.  the same liberty and power in giving our voices equally with others, and that our Elders 
(n) Ibid. p. 90.  have exercised as much authority as any member of the Classis, by giving their voices for deciding, judging and determining any controversy, etc. yet needlessly he brings divers Writers for proof of this confessed and practised truth; and for the confirmation of his most false consequence he offers not to bring any proof at all, from any word of God or man.  
REAS. II. It is against sense, that a Minister should undertake the care of more Churches than one only: who reads in Scripture of a steward over many families, a sheep heard over divers flocks, etc. Nature hath ordained (saith 
(o) Lib. 1. c. 2.  Aristotle) one unto one.  
ANSW. I. We read in Scripture of Jaacob that was a shepherd over divers flocks, both of his own and of Laban's. Gen. 30.36, 40. II. We read in Scripture of the Apostles that were stewards and shepherds over divers flocks, having the care of all Churches, 1. Cor. 4.1. with 2. Cor. 11.28. joh. 20.15, 16. Mr Can ought at least to have excepted extraordinary Shepherds. III. Though ordinary Pastors or Ministers have the peculiar and proper charge of no more than one flock; yet in regard of a common and joint care of many Churches combined in Classes and Synods, we read in Scripture that the Elders and Shepherds of the Church in jerusalem did undertake the care, and exercise with others authority in judging the cause of the Church of Antioch. It is against sense, against nature, against Scripture, but that the members of the body should have care one for another. 1. Cor. 12.25. etc. IU. The use of Classes and Synods for counsel and admonition is allowed by my opposites, and yet the care and labour therein, for travelling to meet in such assemblies, for deliberation, for disputing, for convincing such as they admonish, and their counsel given unto Churches for the rejecting of Heretics and other obstinate offenders, more or less, is as great in effect as if they should give definitive sentence therein. As little distraction ariseth from one work as from the other. To counsel a Church to excommunicate a sinner, is as great a burden and labour, for a Synod, as if they should pronounce the sentence themselves. V It doth least of all become Mr Can to plead and reason on this manner. If nature have ordained one to one, as he argueth out of Aristotle (though in his quotation he forgot to tell where) then must Mr Can be a man against nature, above many other, in transgressing the law and ordinance of nature. How dared he take the Pastoral charge of a Church upon him, and this alone without assistance of an Eldership, and yet in the mean time undertake the care and charge of divers other trades, as of a Printers workhouse in one place, of a Brandery or Aquavitae shop in another place, and specially of an Alchemists laboratory in another place? Is this paragon of the Separation a fit man to be an Advocate or Patron of the Churches, to write a book and entitle it the Church's plea, whereas if his example were followed, it would bring confusion upon all Churches and on all the Ministers thereof? What Pluralist or Nonresident is there that will not think he hath some colour to justify himself from this practice of Mr Can?  
REAS. III. Is it a like thing, that the Classical power, should be of Gods approving, and yet he never mention it in his word? This argument the Hierarchy use against Popish Offices; and the Reformists against theirs. Now let the discreet Reader judge, if it prove not the point in hand as well. Here I may not omit Zwinglius his speech, speaking of Synods▪ 
(p) Zwingl. Art. 8. expl.  We willingly believe (saith he) that you are a representative Church; for a true Church you are not. But I pray you show us, whence you fetch this name? Who hath given you this name? who hath given you power to make Canons, impose things on men's shoulders, grieve their consciences, etc.  
ANSW. I. This Reason is in substance the same with his fift Argument before, and therefore idly repeated. The grounds of Classical power are showed 
(q) Chap. 2. & 3. & 4.  before from the Scriptures, and the cavils of Mr Can against the same, refuted. II. Note his error of speech in distinguishing the Hierarchy from Popish Offices, by opposing them one against the other; whereas according to the common acception of the word, the Hierarchy doth consist in the Popish offices: and the corruption of offices which he intends, is but a fragment thereof, and therefore ought not to carry the name rather than the whole, when both are spoken of together. Otherwise in proper speech, the true Hierarchy imports the lawful offices and government, prescribed in the Scriptures. III. That which he allegeth out of Zwinglius touching a representative Church, is to be understood of the Romish Church, and of the Popish government; for against them did Zwinglius then writ: and against them there was just cause to complain so as he did. iv If any think that by representative Churches he meant all Synods whatsoever, that exercise Ecclesiastical authority in the judging of causes; then against the testimony of Zwinglius we oppose the testimony of all ages, and of the learned Writers therein, old and new, Papists and Protestants, that generally are against him. Mr Parker 
(r) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 26. p. 368, 369.  saith well, All ages have called the Synod a representative Church: & beside many other witnesses he allegeth D. Whitaker, arguing thus against the Papists, 
(f) De Conc. qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169.  The Church is represented in the Synod; therefore if the Church be above Peter, then is the Synod also. Mr Parker argues further, Except the Synod did consist of the Deputies of Churches, Synods could not represent the Churches: and having there brought many testimonies of Scripture to show the power of Churches in sending their Deputies or Delegates, he concludes in the words of D. Whitaker, 
(t) Qu. 3. c. 3. p. 103.  Whosoever is sent of the Church he represents the person of the Church. But touching the judgement of Zwinglius, more hereafter, when he is again alleged by Mr Can.  
REAS. IU. 
(v) Church. plea, p. 76.  Whosoever shall deny our aforesaid assertion, must of necessity hold, two distinct forms of Church-government; one wherein particular Congregations do in, and of themselves, exercise all God's ordinances; the other where they stand under another Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. Now to hold this, is directly all one, as to hold two ways to heaven, distinct and opposite in themselves, which is very scandalous in Religion, and that which cannot stand with truth.  
ANSW. I. Whatsoever Mr Can here affirmeth, is but his bare assertion, without Scripture or other proof to confirm his reason. But Mr Can. is not yet come to such credit with us, that his ipse dixit, his bare word may go for currant. II. It is false which he saith of holding two distinct forms of Church-government, etc. The particular Congregations here in these Reformed Churches do in, and of themselves; exercise all God's ordinances, and yet withal stand under another Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves; Synodall authority being one of God's ordinances. Though in regard of the local and personal presence of all the members of the Church, this authority is exercised out of themselves: yet in regard of their confederation and combination with neighbour Churches, and in regard of their Deputies, Ministers, and Elders or others that have place and suffrage in these Synods, this authority is exercised in and of themselves. And though here be another act of authority, yet is there but one distinct form of government. III. It is as false which he saith of holding two ways to heaven: and this not only in respect of these Reformed Churches among themselves, having the same government, both by Elderships at home, and by Synods abroad; but also in respect of divers Churches, having different forms of government. The Church of England and of these Countries, though they have a different order of Church-government, yet holding together the same fundamental truths of the Gospell● they both do hold but one way to heaven, and so do both mutually acknowledge one another to be in that way. iv This company of Brownists whereof Mr Can is the sole Governor, was formerly governed by an Eldership, and now since their division they have no Eldership to rule them. Whether it be because they think they have none among them fit to be Elders; or whether they do wilfully refuse such as they cannot deny to be fit; or whether there be any other cause, I leave it to themselves. Always this we know that there be some Churches in remote countries, that want the benefit of Classical government, because there be no other neighbour Churches near unto them, with whom they may combine themselves for their mutual guidance and edification. But now if the want of an Eldership among the Brownists, such as they once had, do not warrant us to say, that they hold two distinct forms of Church-government to be lawful, one with an Eldership, another without an Eldership; & consequently that they hold two ways unto heaven: then much less can the want of a Synod in respect of the different consideration of the times, places, occasions and opportunities of several Churches, be any warrant for Mr Can to object unto us two forms of government, or two ways to heaven, etc.  
REAS. V Let it be observed, that for this reason (among others) the Learned 
(x) Whit. Cont. 4. qu. 4. Chamier. l. 6. conject. 2.  say, the Pope is Antichrist; viz. because he will have men to appeal from their own Churches unto him; and to stand under his sentence and decree. And do not the Classical assemblies and Synods, take upon them an authority much like to it, in subjecting many Congregations to them, requiring appeals to be made to them, and that the Judicatory (as Mr Pagets 
* In his Letter etc.  phrase is) belongeth to them; as if their power above all Churches.  
ANSW. I. Let it be observed how Mr Can speaking here against appeals made unto Classes and Synods, brings no Scripture, no word of God to condemn them, but only the testimonies of men: he needed not to have reserved hereafter a peculiar Section only for humane testimonies, when he uses them so oft before. II. Let it be observed how notably he abuseth even these testimonies also against the meaning of his Authors. D. Whitaker 
(y) DePont. Rom. qu. 4. p. 470.  pleads for appeals, as being both of divine and natural right. Chamier (whom Mr Can doth misquote, without the title of the book alleged) saith, that appeals 
(z) Panstrat. Catho. tom. 2. l. 13. c. 17  are of common equity: and truly without them the Church could hardly or not at all subsist; speaking of appeals unto Synods. That which learned and orthodox Writers blame in appeals made unto the Pope, is this, that they are made unto one man, and not unto a Synod; asscribing unto him infallibility of judgement; giving him power over Churches that are not combined with the Church of Rome: and in special for this, that the Pope allows no appeals to be made from him unto a Synod: This is the Antichristian pride that they condemn in the Pope. And herein the Church of the Brownists doth plainly resemble the Pope; seeing their Congregation also, their democratical judicatory allows no appeal to be made from them unto Classes or Synods, unto any Ecclesiastical judges besides themselves. These are two of the most monstrous propositions of the Papists, touching the Pope's authority, viz. that 
(a) Bellarm. de Conc. l. 2. c. 17. & 18.  the Pope is above a General Synod, and acknowledgeth no judgement on earth above him: and again, that the Pope cannot commit the coactive judgement over him, neither unto a Synod, nor unto any man, but only the discretive: & this discretive judgement they expound to be such a kind of arbitrement, as doth not bind him further than it pleaseth him. Now so fare as concerns Ecclesiastical judgement, the Brownists, and the maintainers of the single uncompounded policy, do likewise hold that there is no judgement on earth above their particular Congregation; and that they may not commit any controversy of theirs unto the censure and decision of any Synod. What stronger reason could Mr C. have alleged against himself, to show their unlawful government, than this their denial of appeals? III. Let it be observed how foolishly Mr Can cavils at my speech touching Classical assemblies and Synods, when he relates it thus, the judicatory (as Mr Pagets phrase is) belongeth unto them: for this relation is false; that was not my phrase; but I said the judicature did belong unto them. It was the simplicity of his informer, or of some ignorant scribe that put judicatory for judicature, as may appear by the writing I made, which is yet to be seen. Note Mr C. his rashness in receyving such things.  
REAS. VI What more meet and reasonable, then that every man's case be there heard and determined, where the fault was committed? So saith 
(b) Cypr. li. 1. Epist. 3.  Cyprian, It is not fit that they over whom the Holy Ghost hath made us overseers, should go too & fro. He speaketh of carrying matters away from their own Church unto others.  
ANSW. I. Though it be meet and reasonable that every man's cause be first there heard, where the fault was committed; yet is it as reasonable, that if either an unjust sentence be there given, the innocent may in the second place have liberty of appeal from their oppressors; or if the case be difficult and weighty, that the matter be at first brought unto Classical assemblies, according to the order of Reformed Churches. II. For confirmation of this reason he brings no word of God, but only the testimony of Cyprian, which also according to his manner, he doth most palpably abuse. For Cyprian doth not simply blame those that appealed unto Synods, but only such as did inordinately run too and fro, such as were not content with the Synods in Africa, but sailed over the sea unto the Church of Rome. Of such he there speaks. And even in the same Epistle Cyprian shenwes both the use of Synods allowed in the Churches of Africa, and the authority of Synods in censuring offenders. He there gives 
(c) Lib. 1. e. 3. § 11.12.  instances of Privatus, condemned in an assembly of 99 Bishops, of Foelix, of jovinus & Maximus, excluded from the communion of the Church by a Synod, of Repostus also, censured in like manner. Their Synods were not only for counsel, but exercise a jurisdiction Ecclesiastical. And as they exercised the power of the keys in binding obstinate sinners, so also losing and absolving those that repent, as appears in 
(d) Lib. 1. Ep. 2. § 1.  another Epistle going immediately before this alleged, and written by the Synod itself. In the inscription of that Epistle are prefixed the names of Cyprian, Liberalis, Caldonius, Nicomedes, and Caecilius, etc. as being special members of that Synod, and writing jointly together that Synodical Epistle. 
(e) Ibid. n. 6.  Goulartius also in his annotations thereon, observeth that these Synods were kept to this end that the purity of doctrine and the discipline of the Church might be preserved entire; and that the disturbers thereof might be excluded from their communion. And in many other places Cyprian is so pregnant in this point, that whosoever shall allege him against the authority of Synods, must either be a very ignorant reader of Cyprian, or else a wilful abuser of him.  
REAS. VII. Note the effect, if it should be otherwise; which is that every particular Congregation must hence necessarily lose her own proper right in government, & so of a Mistress become a servant: instead of being superior, wilfully vassal and enslave herself, which thing is contrary to Gods will revealed in his word. Gal. 5.1. 1. Cor. 7.23. 2. Tim. 1.13. Heb. 4.14. Rev. 2.25.  
ANSW. I. This reason is the same for substance with his ninth Argument before; and therefore it is here idly repeated. II. The vassalage and slavery which he argues from Classical government, is upon a false consequence. The liberty of innocent persons oppressed by wrong judgement in a particular Church, is to appeal unto Classes and Synods. The democratical government that denies this liberty of appeal, is no gracious mistress, but a Tyrannical virago, resembling the Romish Lady, that by denying appeals from the Pope keeps many in bondage. III. The Scriptures cited by him are all perverted and misapplyed: for what force of consequence is in these reasonings? viz. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, etc. Gal. 5.1. therefore stand fast against appeals from particular Congregations. Be not the servants of men: 1. Cor. 7.23. therefore be subject to no Ecclesiastical government, save only to the Democracie of a particular Church. Hold fast the form of sound words, etc. 2. Tim. 1.13. therefore hold fast the independency of Churches. Let us hold fast our profession: Heb. 4.14. therefore hold fast the single uncompounded policy. Hold fast that which ye have already, etc. Rev. 2.25. therefore hold this fast, that Classes and Synods are only for counsel, and not for authority to censure and judge. What unsound inferences and applications of Scripture be these? Mr Can in his 9th Argument before, 
(f) Church's plea, p. 73.  alleged also, 1. Thes. 4.6. 3. joh. 9 Prov. 22.28. Deut. 19.14. together with Gal. 5.1. Mr Dau. also to like purpose 
(g) Apol. reply, p. 237.  allegeth some of these places, to wit, Prov. 22.28. Gal. 5.1. 3. joh. 9 But they prove the Question as little as the other: for how vain are these consequences? Thou shalt not remove the ancient bounds; Prov. 22.28. therefore all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation, and he removes the ancient bounds that allows the authority of Synods. Or, Diotrephes loved the pre-eminence; 3. joh. 9 therefore Classes and Synods have no jurisdiction or power to judge and determine the matters of a particular Congregation. What weight is there in such reasonings as these?  
REAS. VIII. Seeing the Apostles, wheresoever they constituted any Church, with doctrine, immediately established in it 
(h) Pol. Ecc. l. 1. p. 20.  Ecclesiastical government; for without this (as D. Ames 
(i) De Conscience. l. 4. c. 24. p. 214.  saith) there could have been no coupling of the parts and members together. It must needs follow, that the primitive Churches were independent bodies, and stood not under any other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. Now how Mr Paget will be able to prove a change of this government, I do not yet see: especially, considering that the Learned (as I shown before) do hold that there is but one certain, necessary & perpetual form, & manner of ordering Churches, etc.  
ANSW. 1. The consequence propounded in this reason is false. Though the Apostles in the constitution of Churches, did immediately establish Ecclesiastical government therein; yet must it not needs follow, that they were independent bodies etc. For proof of this consequence he brings nothing but his bare assertion, neither Scripture, nor testimony of any learned Writer. To prove an establishment of government in the primitive Churches at first, he idly and needlessly allegeth Mr Parker, and D. Ames; to prove the perpetuity and unchangeableness of that government, which needed no proof, he needlessly according to his manner, heaps up testimonies of Calvin, of P. Martyr, of D. Bilson, of the Churches of France, of the Low-countries, of Scotland, and of Papists also: but to help his weak, unsound consequence, that needed confirmation and support, there is no proof, nor show of proof. II. Though particular Churches in their several assemblies be acknowledged to be distinct bodies, yet in regard of the entire and full communion of Saints, they are all members of one body: there is but one body, Eph. 4.4. And those that are members of one body are not independent. The Scriptures that show this unity and the duties arising from thence are justly alleged and laid down as the ground of combination and consociation of Churches. And this foundation of Classical communion being as ancient as the first constitution of Churches, it appeareth hereby that the right of this confederation of churches was in them from the beginning, with liberty to use and exercise the same as occasion and opportunity should permit. Mr Cartwright being required to show Scripture for the warrant of this practice of Churches, answereth, 
(k) T.C. 2. Rep. p 231. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12.  The Scripture I prove it by is, that St Paul when he teacheth that all the faithful are members of one Mystical body of Christ, which ought to have a mutual care one of another; laid the foundations of this polity. For as in the body of one particular Church, every faithful man compared with another in the same, is a member one of another: so in a more general body of a whole Realm, every particular Church compared with other, is likewise a member of them. Therefore as nature teacheth my hand to help the disorder which is in another part of my body: so the Spirit of God out of his word, through a fellow-feeling teacheth one Church, to stretch out her hand, to put away as it can, the evil which it seethe approach unto another. 
Rom. 15.14 Heb. 3.13.  And therefore when the Scripture willeth that one should admonish another, it is not only a commandment to every singular man, towards his fellow: but also to one whole company, towards another society. Mr Parker 
(l) See before, p. 95.96.  allegeth the same ground out of Zepperus, who from thence deriveth the authority of Classes and Synods, in censuring and judging the causes of many Churches, and citeth many such places of Scripture for proof thereof. III. When the Church of Antioch brought her controversy unto the Synod at jerusalem, there was no change of government. They had this right from the first, though then especially it were manifested unto all for the actual exercise thereof, upon occasion of the dissension. iv It appears that the primitive Churches at their first constitution by the Apostles, were not independent bodies, in a special respect more than any in our times; because they were then subject to the extraordinary government by Apostles and Evangelists, who besides that which they did in ordinary course of judgement with the Church's concurrence, as 1. Cor. 5. had also of themselves extraordinary authority and power granted unto them over all Churches, for the correcting of the wicked therein, as appeareth, 1. Cor. 4.21. 2. Cor. 10.2, 3, 6, 8, 10. Act. 5.9, 10. 3. joh. 10.  
REAS. IX. 
(m) Churc. plea, p. 77.  By the titles given to all particular Congregations, it appears evidently, that Ecclesiastical authority is (or at least ought to be) in every one of them, distinctly, wholly, entirely; viz. a Kingdom, Matt. 3.2. a Family, Eph. 2.19. a Body, 1. Cor. 12.20. a Queen, Psal. 45. etc. For what more senseless, then to say, a Kingdom, or family, standing under another Political, or Economical government out of themselves; a body having all parts & members, & yet may neither receive in, nor put out without another's leave and consent; many such absurdities followeth Mr Pagets lately-devised Tenets.  
ANSW. I. That which seems senseless and absurd unto the transcendent understanding of Mr Can. and W. Be. is not withstanding found reasonable in the judgement of sober men. As for Kings and their kingdoms, we see in the story of the new Testament, that the three King-herods', and the fourth King Agrippa, both they and their kingdoms did stand under another Political government, under the Roman Empire, under the authority of Caesar to whom they paid tribute. Mat. 2. & 14. & Act. 12. & 25. & 26. with Luk. 2.1. Matt. 22.21. john. 19.12, 15. And in the old Testament, we read that Zedekias' King of Judah stood under the Political government of the King of Babel. jerem. 27.12. 2. Chron. 36.13. And other stories show that this was no strange thing. The Kings and Kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary at this day stand under the command of the Emperor. As for families and their Economical government, in regard of that obedience which children own to their parents, by virtue of the fift Commandment, Honour thy father and thy mother, Exo. 20.12. inferior families own subjection unto superior. Those families that descended from Adam for six or seven generations together, and those families that descended of Noah, Shem, Arpacshad, Shelah, and Eber, though in their habitations they were divided after the Flood, did yet owe subjection unto these fathers and grandfathers, and in matters of greatest moment and controversy concerning their families, as about family-worship, marriages, and the like, they were bound to submit unto their censure and determinations in the Lord; those five Patriarches being then all alive in those corrupt times, after the confusion of languages. Gen. 11. As for the bodies of men, it is not unreasonable or absurd to think that the members of any man's body should not be cut off at his own will, without the consent and approbation of sundry experienced and skilful Surgeons, according to the order apppointed by the Governors of this City, and practised therein. II. Those Scriptures alleged to show the titles given to particular Congregations, do not prove the matter intended. By the kingdom of heaven, Matth. 3.2. is not understood simply a particular Congregation; but the abundance of grace revealed and exhibited either unto particular persons, Congregations, or the whole Church of God throughout the world, etc. Thus the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God is in every several believer, and they are all Kings: Rom. 14.17. Rev. 1.6. & now according to Mr Cannes reasoning, not any one of them should stand under any other spiritual government, under any Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves, because they are kings themselves, and have a spiritual kingdom within them. By the household of God, Ephes. 2.19. may be understood the whole universal Church of God, as well as a particular Congregation; and so by the one body, 1. Cor. 12.20. and so by the Queen: Psal. 45.9. And therefore these places prove nothing for the restraint and limitation of all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation only; which is the late-devised tenant of the Brownists.  
REAS. X. The acts of the Apostolic Churches prove directly our assertion: For it is without all contradiction, that they elected their own Ministers, excommunicated, offenders, sent messengers, and performed all other Church matters among themselves.  
ANSW. This reason taken from the acts of the Apostolic Churches is for substance the same with the first, third, fourth, and sixth Syllogistical arguments before, and there answered; and here by him idly repeated, to increase the number of his Reasons.  
REAS. XI. Lastly, let it be observed, that Mr Paget in this accordeth with the 
(n) Bellar, de Eccl. l. 5. c. 5.  Papists; for they say (as he doth) that particular Churches are not independent bodies, but stand under another Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. The which thing our Writers deny, and prove the contrary.  
ANSW. I. The accord of Papists is not sufficient reason for refutation; seeing they accord with us in many points of religion, against Arrians, Anabaptists, Brownists, and others. II. See the partiality of Mr Can: in his eight Reason before, he allegeth for himself how the Papists do accord with him; to this the Papists assent, saith he; here in this place he allegeth against me, their accord & assent with me; presently after again, in the same and following pages, he doubts not but to make it manifest, that the Papists are with him, etc. Thus when they accord with him it must serve for the confirmation of his reason: when they accord with me, it must still serve for confirmation of his reason, and for the condemning of me. Whether it be their assent or descent, it is all one to him: he can ground his arguments upon one as well as the other. Such are his reasonings. III. Mark his false allegation of Bellarmine, de Eccl. l. 5. c. 5. when as there is no such fift book extant, written by Bellarmine. iv How fare we differ from the Papists, and Popish Hierarchy, in this controversy about Synods, hath been noted 
(o) Pag. 29.30.  at first, in the State of the Question, and may be seen at large in manifold passages set down before out of 
(p) P. 125-132.  junius, and 
(q) P. 133-141.  D. Whitaker, their disputes against Bellarmine, and out of 
(r) P. 101-104.  Mr Parker his refuration of the Hierarchy in this particular; which to repeat, in a case so clear, were to imitate Mr Can in his needles and superfluous quotations.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Allegations of Mr Can examined.  
AFter the former 21 Arguments against the authority of Synods, Mr Can falls to flatter himself, & rejoices in himself to think what the Reader will imagine when he sees his manifold Reasons. 
(a) Churc. plea, p. 77.  By this time I suppose (saith he) the indifferent Reader perceiveth, that the Scriptures, are every way for us, and against Mr Paget, in this controversy betwixt us. Now he should do well, seeing we dispute about a matter of faith, appertaining to life and salvation; to rest in them as the only touch stone for trial of all truth. But then further, to make way for his new troops & legions of Humane Testimonies against me, and because this doth not well suit with his profession, that pretends so much warrant of Scripture, and to rely only upon it; therefore he seeks to take occasion from my words, thereby to excuse his vain ostentation in alleging so many Writers, and saith, Notwithstanding considering he makes so much a do, about the multitude of learned and godly Ministers, being of the same judgement and practice with him; (according as Festus knowing Paul to have appealed unto Caesar, did reasonably resolve, saying, Unto Caesar shalt thou go, so) I am well contented to hear what reverend and judicious Authors do say herein: And if Mr Paget will stand unto their Testimonies, I doubt not but to make it manifest, that (as the Scriptures so) they are also with us; etc. Hereunto I answer, 1. In all my former Answer I have not alleged against them the testimony of any one Author: neither have I framed any argument drawn from their words. The words of my writing which he allegeth, are only a part of an answer unto a slanderous accusation both of me and the Classis, in a matter of fact, wherein I show how unconscionably and without proof they wrong both me and a multitude of learned and godly Ministers, being of the same judgement and practice. I desire the Reader to look upon the 
(b) Answ. to W.B. p. 73.  place and to judge thereof. II. Whereas he thereupon brings forth an Army of Papists and Lutherans, Ancient fathers and later Writers, Conformists & Non-conformists, etc. though it be with less reason than Festus sent Paul to Caesar, seeing I made no such appeal, as Paul did unto Caesar; yet I am content to follow him, and to hear what his Authors do say, and to show both how idly and needlessly he allegeth many of them, to prove that which is not denied; and also how he perverts and falsifyes their meanings, alleging them for that which is contrary both to their words and practice.  
The several Bands of that Army, which Mr Can mustereth against us, are these, as he reckoneth them, 
(c) Churc. plea, p. 78.  The Allegations of the Learned, which I purpose here to set down, 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 calls them, he brings in the Papists and draws out the Popish band in the first place against me. When Mr Spr. once heretofore had propounded divers Considerations 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, etc. Mr Ainsworth answers, 
(d) Counterp. p. 19  Though you come against us with horsemen and charets; yet we will remember the name of the Lord our God, etc. That which David speaks of his refuge against the forces of the Heathenish Princes, Psal. 20.7. he applies 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 Mr Can, that allegeth against me, and so unjustly, such a company of Romanists, the horsemen and charets of Antichrist, the Locusts like horses prepared unto the battle. Rev. 9.7.  
And here first of all let it be considered what open wrong he doth unto the Papists, Bellarmine, the Rhemists, etc. in feigning that they will not allow that government now, which they acknowledge to have been used of old; while he saith, Howsoever Romes-Champions will have none now to meddle with Church-government, but Priests, Bishops, Prelates, etc. yet they do acknowledge that in the primitive Church, according to the precept of Christ, in Mat. 18. offenders, after the first and second admonition, were brought to the whole Congregation, etc. This which he feigneth to be granted by them, touching a diversity of Government in respect of times, cannot be justly affirmed. For Bellarmine in the place 
(e) DeVerbo Dei, l. 3. c. 5.  alleged by him, pleads for the same Government to be used now, which he shows to have been ordained and confirmed by Christ and his Apostles, and to that end he allegeth 8 or 9 places of Scripture out of the new Testament, as grounds of the same Government. And in the 
(f) Ibid. c. 5  Chapter following he laboureth to prove that the same Government hath been still retained and practised ever since, from the first age of the primitive Church unto this present. The Rhemists also 
(g) Rhem. on Mat. 18.17. & 1. Cor. 5.  derive the government which they now stand for, from the institution of Christ, and practise of the primitive Church. And therefore it is untrue which he saith, viz. that the Papists acknowledge a difference betwixt the government instituted at the first, and that which is now maintained by them. To prove this general assertion he allegeth a particular testimony of Scultingius. But that which is said of one, cannot be ascribed unto all in such general terms as he hath done, saying of Romes-Champions, they do acknowledge that which Scultingius saith, whereas we see that the chief of them avouch the contrary.  
This testimony of Scultingius, as it is absurdly fathered upon the Papists in general; so it is unjustly applied against us. Though in the primitive Church offenders being impenitent were excommunicated with consent and approbation of all, by the Minister; and though this testify the power of the Church, for which cause it is alleged by Mr Parker (from whom it seems Mr Can hath taken this testimony at second hand, together with his observation upon it, touching the force of truth in a Papist) yet this proves not that the Church was not subject to the censure of a superior judicatory, if they did abuse their power. Mr Parker draws no such consequence from this testimony, to exclude the authority of Synods. There is nothing said by Scultingius here, but it hath always been observed in our Church. Offenders are not excommunicated, as being impenitent, before they have been denounced (as this Author's 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 Mr Park. being sometime one of us, as I shown 
(h) P. 105.  before.  
As for Saravia and Schola Parisiensis, whom he allegeth together in the next place, observe, 1. How little Mr Can understands what the Authors be whom he allegeth, not knowing whether they were Papists or Protestants, placing Saravia in the number of Papists: so well is he acquainted with the Authors he allegeth at second hand; such injury he doth to his witnesses. So afterward 
(i) P. 93, & 98.  again 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 do, and then giving instance in Saravia for one of them. What a blindness and inconsiderateness is this in Mr Can? 11. He perverts the meaning both of Saravia and Schola Parisiensis; for what though they grant that all Ecclesiastical authority belongeth to the Church primarily, etc. doth it follow hence that the power of Classical and Provincial Synods is an und●● power, as W.B. and Mr C. accuse them? doth it not rather follow that there is a due power, secondarily and by delegation, in Synods, where the Deputies of the Churches meet together in their name? Mr Parker 
(k) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. p. 29.30. & 42.  from whom he hath both these testimonies, doth not so allege them against the authority of Synods. He might have seen these words in the same place cited by Mr Parker out of Saravia, whereby authority is ascribed not only unto the Church but also unto Synods, when he is 
(l) Ibid. p. 42.  brought in saying, Bishops & Archbishops have no authority, but what is conferred and bestowed upon them by the Church and Synods. III. He perverts the meaning of Schola Parisiensis, which speaks not of particular Congregations, but of the Universal Church, and specially as it is represented in a General Council. This is plain and evident throughout that whole writing. iv He doth deal deceitfully in his translation of that testimony of Scholar Paris. for the Doctors of Sorbon do there say that all Ecclesiastical authority doth belong to the Church primarily, properly, essentially, but unto the Roman Pope and other Bishops instrumentally, ministerially, and for execution only, etc. instead of the Roman Pope and other Bishops, he puts in the word Officers only to blind the eyes of the Readers, who if those words had not been left out, might easily have seen that they spoke of such transcendent and usurped authority as is exercised by the Pope and his Bishops etc. Hence it may appear what is to be judged of that which he infers from this testimony, to make it serve his purpose in oppugning of Synods.  
As for Alphonsus de Castro and Franciscus Victoria, 1. It is an error to approve their testimony there 
(m) Ch. pl. p. 78.79.  alleged, viz. that all Bishops do receive jurisdiction and power immediately from God: for than 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 do W.B. and Mr C. put light for darkness and darkness for light, when they avouch, that thus God ordered these men's tongues, to give witness unto his truth? 11. All the show of help which they pretend to have from this testimony is grounded upon that groundless consequence, whereby they infer that Classes & Synods have no authority over particular Congregations, because all Churches, Elderships and Officers are equal: This their assertion remains yet to be proved; which we do expressly deny, as I have 
(n) P. 159.  showed in my answer unto his first Reason.  
The testimonies of the three next Popish Authors, viz. Cusanus de concord. Cathol. l. 1. c. 11, etc. Sanders de visib. Mon. l. 1. c. 6. Scultingius, Hierarch. Anarch. l. 4. pag. 103. are all of them before alleged by 
(o) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 1. p. 2. etc. 3. p. 11.  Mr Parker, from whence it seems Mr Can hath taken them, but without judgement, not applying them aright. for 1. When they affirm that Christ's promise of giving the keys unto Peter, must be referred unto the whole Church; as also that Peter in person presented the body of the Church: though these speeches show the power of binding and losing to be in the Church, yet can it not hence be inferred that a particular Congregation ought not to be subject unto the censure of Classes and Synods, or to stand under the authority of any Ecclesiastical judicatory out of itself, when that Congregation is complained of for error or wrong doing. It is a perverting of these speeches, and a false consequence which is drawn from hence, that because a Congregation hath power to judge the members thereof, therefore no other have power to judge of it. 11. When Mr Can inferreth hence that the power of electing Ministers is not in Classes or Synods, he beats the air, & errs from the Question. When did I ever affirm any such matter? or when did the Classis ever offer to obtrude a Minister upon us? III. These testimonies touching the Keys given unto the Church, show what power is in the Church originally and primarily; but yet they do 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 Ecclesiastical authority comprehended in the power of the Keys; and yet the exercise thereof is not permitted to the whole Church, by the confession of the Brownists themselves.  
For his next witness, having alleged the words of Ferus upon Act. 11. that the Church may not only exact an account of her Ministers, but also depose them, and reject them altogether if they be not fit, etc. he insulteth hereupon and glorieth, saying, What can be more for us then this? I answer, This might have been more for you, if he had said, that when a Congregation hath deposed their Minister, there is no other Ecclesiastical judicatory that may judge whether they have done well or ill. This had been to the purpose: then had he absolutely granted you the thing which the Brownists stand for: but this he doth not. When Mr Can was deposed from his ministry by them of the Separation, and when they rejected him altogether, and left both his ministry and the fellowship of all that took part with him; was it not his & their misery that there was none to judge betwixt them?  
When he allegeth the names of Gratian, Gregory, P. Aeneas Silvius, Pope Anacletus, Sixtus Senensis. Thomas of Aquine, Alexander of Alice, john Scot, etc. some of them affirming that the greatest authority is in the Church, that the keys were given to all the Apostles; others that all Bishops are equal in power, and the like: these and the like speeches being alleged 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 infer that because all Bishops are equal in power, therefore Synods have no power to judge: and as false it is to infer that because the Keys were given to all the Apostles, therefore there is no Ecclesiastical power to judge the actions of a particular Congregation.  
In sum, Mr Can doth most ignorantly and grossly abuse all these Papists, against their words, their writings, and their continual profession and practice. For though there be this main difference betwixt the Papists, that some of them do asscribe the greatest authority unto the Church, that is, unto a General Synod, or Council, maintaining that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope, & power to depose the Pope; others of them asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope, rather than unto the Church or a General Council representing the same: yet do they all agree in this, that there is a superior power above particular Congregations to judge the same.  
The University of Paris, and the Doctors of Sorbon have in special manner from time to time maintained the authority of a General Council above the Pope; they 
(p) De Eccl. & Polit. Pot. pag. 1. etc. edit. 1612. Paris.  bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same. They allege the sentence of Pope 
(q) Ibid. p. 16.  Zozimus confessing himself to be inferior unto the Council. They avouch that 
(r) Ibid. p. 19  the frequent edebrating of Synods is simply and absolutely necessary for the better and more holy guiding of the Church. Whereas a certain Friar, joannes Sarrazin, had by word and writing under his hand preferred the authority of the Pope above the Synods, they 
(s) Ibid. p. 46-56.  record at large and publish in print a most solemn decree made by the Theological faculty of that University, whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion, and a form of recantation was prescribed, according to which he confessed his fault, & acknowledged the power of Synods above the Pope.  
The 
(t) Acts & Monum. p. 546, & 547. An. D. 1414. etc.  Council of Constance did not only exercise Ecclesiastical authority in condemning of john Husse and Jerome of prague, but also decreeing the authority of Synods and Counsels to be above the Pope, did actually depose divers Popes, as john the 23th and Benedict, who was likewise excommunicate by them: even as the Council held at 
(v) An. D. 1083. Act. & Mon. p. 164.  Brixia had in former time by their sentence condemned Pope Hildebrand, and judged him to be deposed. So in like manner did the Clouncell held at 
(x) Ibid. p. 632.634.  Bafile, depose Pope Eugenius, & put another in his place. By all which it is evident what the Papists then judged of the authority and power of Synods.  
As all these, so the other faction of Papists, and the jesuites in special, that maintain the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods & Counsels whatsoever, & that their decrees are not of force, unless they be approved by the Pope; these do evidently teach that the affairs and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superior judicatories out of themselves. This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings, where he shows 
(y) Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Council l. 1. c. 9, 10, 11. & l. 2. c. 2. etc.  the causes, the necessity, and the authority of General and Provincial Synods, the 
(z) Tom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7, 8, 9, 10. & 14. etc.  power of elections, and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter. The same is maintained by him in his 
(a) Tom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14. & l. 2. c. 1, etc.  treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies, plenary or for a certain number of days, for the living or for the dead. And the like is to be found in 
(b) Tom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei, l. 3. c. 3, etc. Tom, 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1, 2, 3, etc.  sundry other of his writings.  
And to these might be added more than an hundred of other witnesses, of the Romish Church, acknowledging that there is a due and lawful power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes & controversies of particular Churches. Instead of many other, the Council of Trent, called by 
(c) Concil. Trid. Bul. Indict. p. 8.  Pope Paulus the third, continued by 
(d) Bul. Resumpr. p. 66.67.  Pope julius the third, and confirmed by 
(e) Bul. Confirm. p. 243, etc.  Pope Pius the fourth, together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in several Sessions of that Council, do give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts.  
Only to conclude this Section, let it be remembered how of old in our own country, the like testimony hath been given to show the authority of Synods. We read 
(f) Act. & Mon. p. 112. col. 2. art. 7.  of a Provincial Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provincial Synods should be kept within the Realm at least once a year. Another Synod 
(g) Ibid. p. 155.  was held at Winchester, Anno D. 1070. where Stigandus Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed for receyving his pall from Benedict the fift: And another 
(h) P. 157.  was after held at London, where many decrees were made in the time of Lanfranck, the Archbishop, etc. This being the continual and universal practice of the Papists, what sense was there in Mr Can to allege their testimonies in such a point 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 gross a fault of these my opposites, to pervert their testimonies, contrary to their meaning & practice, further than their words will bear.   

SECT. II.  
Touching the Testimonies of Lutherans.  
IN their first allegation taken from Lutherans they say, It is affirmed by the Centuries of Meydenburg, that from Christ's ascension, unto Trajan's time, which is about a 100 years, 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 than did not stand under any other Ecclesiastical 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 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 expressly taught by the same 
(i) Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9 de Conc. col. 5 46. etc. 7. col. 522. & 542.  Authors. Particular Churches among us also are governed by their own Bishops, Elders, & Deacons, though not by them alone, especially in matters of greater difficulty. Whereas they allege another place on this manner, Cent. 6.7. col. 591. there is a notable abuse therein. for, 1. What reason had they to allege the history of the sixth Centurie to show what was done in the first Centurie, from Christ's Ascension to Trajan's time? 2. As for the 
(k) Col. 4●4. etc.  7th chapter of that Centurie, there are more than an 100 or 200 testimonies showing the power of Metropolitan 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 sixth Century pointed at by his marginal quotation, viz. Col. 591. All that is there specified at large in the story concerning Richaredus a King of Spain, converted from Arianisme, & submitting himself unto the 
(l) Syn. Tolet. 3.  Synod then assembled, is against them that include all Ecclesiastical authority within one Congregation only. If these quotations be misprinted, it was great negligence in Mr Can to look no better to his work.  
Again it is alleged from the Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 7. p. 134, 135. that from Trajan's reign unto Serverus, from the year 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 equal power, etc. This testimony is also abused. 1. There is one falsification in mistranslating of the words: for they do not say that then the government was popular, as Mr Can sets it down; nor yet that it was like unto a popular government; but only this is said, that it was almost like unto a popular government, propemodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem fuisse: And how great is the difference betwixt these assertions? even as much as there is betwixt being a Christian, and almost a Christian; so plainly distinguished, Act. 26.29. 2. What though the government of the Church was almost like a Democracie? Or what though all Churches had equal power then? Can 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 equal power, and are partly democratical, and yet are mutually and equally subject to one another in their Synods. 3. There is another egregious falsification in the alleging of this testimony, by omitting that which principally concerns the Question: for when these of Magdeburg say here, that all Churches had equal power of teaching the Word, administering of Sacraments, excommunicating, ordination and deposition of Ministers, they add withal in the same Chapter, and in the very same sentence & period, in the words immediately following touching this equal power of Churches, that it was for the gathering of Synods and Assemblies, and this not for counsel only, but for the judging and deciding of matters doubtful and controverted. And not only this, but after again in the same page, 
(m) Col. 135.  this power of Synods in judging and excommunicating of Heretics, 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) Cent. 2. c. 9 de Conc. col. 159.160, etc.  Century, as in others according to their order, they do rehearse divers Synods held in those times, as that at Rome, at Caesarea in Palestine, & others in France, in Pontus, in Achaia, etc.  
In the next place confounding the order propounded by himself, he brings in among his Lutherane witnesses, 
(o) OnRev. 12.1.  Mr Brightman, who as he saith, comes down lower, even unto Constantine's time, and is of opinion, that the primitive purity of Church government, was not yet deflowered with the dregs of man's invention: Neither had Satan brought in Prelatical pride into the sheepfold of the Lord: but the Pastors looked every one to the health of his own flock. Hence it appears (saith Mr Can) that for the space of 200 or 300 years after Christ, every visible Church had power to exercise Ecclesiastical government, etc. Now to show how vainly this is alleged, 1. Observe how fare it is from the Question: for though the Pastors looked every one to the health of his own flock, this proves not that the power of Classes and Synods is an undue power. Doth he think that either I or any Minister of these Reformed Churches will not acknowledge the same? Yea do not Pastors than look the better to the safety of their flocks, when as in needful cases they seek the help of Synods therein? 2. Let him consider his 
(p) Magdeb. Cent. 3. c. 7. col. 161. etc.  former witnesses what they say concerning this third age of the Church, showing in what manner Pastors did then look to the health of their flock. If any weighty questions, dissensions or Heresies arose, they did nothing by their private counsel, neither durst they, etc. but calling together other fellow-Bishops of the same Province, either all or many, by conferring their judgements together, they decided the questions, compounded the dissensions, refuted the Heresies, and excommunicated them that were obstinate, etc. And this is further showed at large by many instances and examples in the same place. And 
(q) Cent. 3. c. 9 de Syn. col. 192, 193, etc.  after again they describe divers Synods that were held in those times in Asia, Europe and Africa, for the exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in deciding of controversies, etc. 3. That Mr Brightmen words are perverted and wrested to a wrong end, against the authority of Synods, contrary to his meaning, it appeareth by the rare and pregnant testimony he gives unto them in the 
(r) On Rev. 8.3, 4.  same book, where he teacheth that the vision and type of the Angel standing at the golden Altar before the throne with a golden censer full of incense, was accomplished in Constantine the great, gathering together so many holy men in the Synod or Council of Nice for the deciding of the controversy about Arius, and shows 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) OnRev. 7.2, 3.  interprets a former vision of another Angel that came up from the rising of the Sun, having the seal of the living God, to seal the servants of God in their foreheads. This he expounds of Constantine and of the Nicene Synod, he being the principal instrument to call that Synod. While the Godhead of Christ coequal and consubstantial with the Father was maintained in that Synod, and the truth 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 mystical Song of Solomon, where there is mention made of a fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon, this Mr Brightman doth also 
(t) Comment. in Cantic. c. 4. V 15. p. 75.76.  interpret and particularly apply unto the Synod of Nice: The decrees of that Synod are by him avouched to be the living waters to refresh and make fruitful the gardens of God, which are the Churches of Christ. And while he allegeth such divine warrant to prove the fruit and benefit of Synods, how injurious is Mr Can unto him in perverting his testimony? yea how injurious to the Church of God in drying up these fountains of comfort, by his impugning the authority of Synods?  
Besides this, to omit other the like testimonies of Mr Brightman touching Synods, even in that 
(v) OnRev. 12.1.  very place mentioned by Mr Can, touching the purity of the primitive Church, Mr Brightm. maketh mention of Paulus Samosatenus & the Synodical Epistle concerning him, and so leadeth us to that story, which shows the power of Synods in that primitive age. For there we read that about the year of Christ 280, there was a 
(x) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 26, 27.28. & 29. edit. Basil. 1611.  Synod held at Antioch, where many Bishops and others met together from many Churches and out of divers Provinces, who did not only give counsel about the controversy, but gave sentence against Paulus Samosatenus, and by common consent rejected and excommunicated him; Aurelianus the Emperor using his authority to repress the insolency of that person when he would have resisted the Synod. The same story is recorded also by the 
(y) Cent. 3. c. 9 col. 206.207.  Magdeburgenses in their Centuries, showing that divers Synods were held at Antioch about that business before it could be finished.  
Whereas they do here in their marginal note send me to see what Mr jacob saith, Necess. of Reform. p. 57 etc. I have long since seen what he writes both in that place, and in other of his treatises published of later time: and though he went too fare in this business, yet I find that he disallows the practice & judgement of the Brownists, and wonders at their blindness, and bewails it. For speaking of Morellius and the popular government which he strove for, he saith, 
(z) Attestat. c. 8. p. 249.  Some of the Separation, I grant, are too offensive this way: which I am hearty sorry for. They take the words in Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church, more popularly than there is need, or then reason or good order would. Howbeit in this yet they hold the substance of the true Church-government. They err but in the circumstance of order, though it be too 
(a) Beza, Annot. in Mat. 18.17.  foul That is, they will examine all scandals, etc. whatsoever in the presence and under the judgement of the whole multitude perpetually and necessarily. I say perpetually and necessarily. Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents, which will and must ensue many times. And afterwards again in the same 
(b) P. 280, 281.  chapter, he saith, But to hold those popular circumstances in every Church perpetual and necessary absolutely as the Separation doth, it was neither Cyprians meaning nor Christ's, 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 margin of that page, Separation itself is no such error, as this is. And this aught seriously to be considered of Mr Can and his client.  
In the next place 
(c) Ch. pl. p. 81.  he brings divers allegations of Scriptures and other Authors to prove that we may not change the Apostolic Government, nor leave their institutions, etc. In all which he beats the air, and trifles, leaving the question that is betwixt us, as I have noted 
(d) P. 145. etc.  before: seeing they prove not that the authority of Synods is against the Apostolic institution. Come we therefore unto his testimonies of Lutherans, & of such as he confusedly mingles with them, viz. of Zuinglius, Luther, Chemnitius, Melancthon, Sarcerius, Brentius, D. Rungius, Hunnius, Osiander, Salneccer, Pelargus, D. Mylius, Hegendorphin, etc. These all are notably perverted by him. for to answer first in general: What though these teach that the power of excommunication, of calling Ministers, etc. is in the whole Church; doth it therefore follow that Synods may not judge the actions of a whole Congregation if they abuse their power? If Congregations call a Minister, though never so vile or so unworthy, or if they would excommunicate an innocent person; shall there be no liberty of appeal unto a superior Ecclesiastical judicatory for the redress of such wrongs? Or do any of his Lutherane witnesses condemn such an appeal? This he ought to have concluded from their Testimonies by some just consequence, if he would have spoken to the purpose. The insultation of Mr C. and W. B. upon these testimonies is most vain, & containeth many falsehoods. It is false that my opinion is a new opinion as they call it: It is false that these Lutherans are contrary unto me: It is false that upon my grounds Officers how vile soever must be left alone, if Ministers of other Churches judge them fit to continue: It is grossly false that the power which I leave unto particular Churches is just nothing: It is an open and foul falsehood, that these many Authors alleged do consent fully with them, viz. with Mr Can and W. Best. But this will more plainly appear, if we take a particular survey of the chief of those witnesses here produced, whose testimonies he vouchsafeth to set down.  
The first of these is Zuinglius, who though he was no Lutherane, as Mr Can notes in his margin, who had promised to set down his allegations taken from Lutherans, next after the Papists; yet here he is brought in with Luther. And as he is misplaced in respect of the order which Mr C. propounded to himself, so his testimonies both touching excommunication and calling of Ministers are unjustly alleged against us. In the first sort of testimonies touching excommunication, not to speak of Mr Cannes altering and transposing his Author's words to make them serve his own purpose, Zuinglius reproves 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) Art. 31.  No private man may excommunicate, but the Church wherein he that is to be excommunicated doth dwell, together with the Bishop. And in the explication of that Article, having spoken of other abuses about excommunication, he saith, Can the Bishop alone excommunicate: Excommunication doth not belong unto any one man whosoever he be, but unto the Church. By these & the like speeches of Zuinglius it appears that his testimonies are not prejudicial unto our practice, nor unto that authority of Synods which we maintain: seeing we grant that no one person alone can by right excommunicate any man by his own authority; neither can any Church or Churches excommunicate those that are not in communion with them. The other place cited out of Zuinglius, touching the calling of Ministers, is so fare from proving any thing against us, that being duly considered it may fitly serve to blame those popular courses which Mr Can. pleads for, and to justify our practice in not performing this weighty business without the advice and approbation of neighbour Ministers assembled in the Classis, Zuinglius in that treatise called Ecclesiastes, having spoken of the Popish tyranny, bereaving most Churches of the liberty of election, he reproves another extreme, saving, 
(f) Eccles. Tom. 2. f. 54.  If there were any Church unto which election was yet left free, the common people rashly, without all deliberation, and without all counsel of learned, prudent and faithful men, did choose those whom they did most favour, & not such as were endued with true virtues beseeming a Bishop. Therefore there is nothing so agreeable unto the Divine ordinance and ancient institution, as that the whole Congregation of a faithful people, together with some learned and godly Bishops, or other faithful and experienced men, do make choice of a Pastor. Thus he plainly disavows 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 explains 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 faithful and learned men. For as that matter may not lie in the power of any one man, so neither may the rude and unlearned multitude take upon them so great a weight of election, etc. And in the same leaf speaking of Anabaptists intruding themselves into the Churches of their own accord, he proves that they are no lawful Ministers because they have not a due calling, thus, Bishops they are not. for they are not chosen of any Church by lawful 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 joins not only the counsel or advise, as he had called it before, but the authority of the Officers of other Congregations.  
Moreover that Zuinglius did not absolutely deny the authority of Synods, though he speak much against Popish Synods, may appear if we consider the reasons which he useth against them, viz. because they were not assembled in the holy Ghost, because they did not judge of matters according to the Scriptures, but according to the ordinances and customs of men, etc. Now this is not to dispute against the thing itself, but against the abuse of it. And therefore having spoken against such Counsels, of the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops, in such sort as Mr Can had alleged him 
(g) Ch. pl. p. 75.  before, he adds withal, 
(h) Art. 8. expl.  I speak only 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 raised in the Church, he acknowledgeth in these words, 
(i) Paraenes. ad common. Helvet. civ. Tom. 1. f. 116.  If the Council of Gangra were assembled in the holy Ghost (which no good man will deny, while he sees that the decrees thereof do agree with the laws of the Gospel and with the doctrine of the Apostles) it was unworthily done of those that came after, that have disannulled the decrees thereof, without being moved by any authority of the Scriptures. Again in another place, speaking of the four General Counsels, though he justly blame those that accounted them to be of equal authority with the four Evangelists, yet he saith, 
(k) Archeteles, T. 1. f. 137.  Truly I would not have any thing to be detracted from them. He was not therefore of Mr Cannes mind, who will have all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to be detracted or removed from Synods. Besides, Zuinglius doth not only approve of these Synods held in former times, but he also shows himself ready to join in the like practice, even in the exercise of the same Ecclesiastical authority that was used in those Synods. For when the Magistrates of Zurich had assembled together all the Ministers of the Churches both in their city and country, and had procured the presence of divers others, for the solemn vindicating of the doctrine taught in their Churches; there Faber, Vicar of the Bishop of Constance, having spoken of a General Council, that it only had authority to determine these things, Zuinglius replies, 
(l) Act. Disp. 1. Tom. 2. f. ●10.  Whereas in this our assembly there be so many right faithful men, both of our own country and strangers, and furthermore seeing here be so many godly & learned Bishops present, who doubtless have a desire not only to hear and understand, but also to advance divine truth: verily I see nothing to hinder even in this place, whereby it should not be lawful for us, according to the Vicar's meaning, to dispute of these things, and to decree what truth teacheth. But other nations (he saith) will never consent unto these our decrees: etc. By these and the like 
(m) Ibid. f. 621. etc.  passages it is evident that Zuinglius did allow the Ministers of several Congregations, assembled in a Synod; not only to consult and dispute, but also to determine, yea and to make decrees for the removing of controversies & settling peace in the Church, while they did it according to the Scriptures, which is the same that we maintain.  
The words of Mr Luther, whom he citys in the next place, as they are to no purpose alleged against us, seeing they touch not the question, as I shown before; so being compared with other his writings, they make it appear that these two propositions may well stand together, viz. that the Church hath power to judge, to call, to depose, etc. and yet that all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not confined within the bounds of a particular Congregation, but that Synods & Counsels have authority to judge of Church affairs and to censure offenders: forasmuch as Luther doth as plainly and as fully avouch the one as the other. In the year 1518, having understood that they proceeded against him in the Pope's Court at Rome, and that an unjust sentence was likely to be pronounced by them, 
(n) Sleid. Comment. lib. 1.  he appealed from the Pope to a Council or Synod. The complete form of his Appeal is recorded 
(o) Tom. 1. f. 231. edit. 1545.  among his works, wherein he doth plainly acknowledge the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Synods, both by the whole drift and substance thereof, and when he saith that a sacred Council being lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost, representing the holy Catholic Church, is in causes concerning the faith above the Pope, etc. This his Appeal was repeated and further urged in the year 1520, when the Pope had condemned and excommunicated him. Among other reasons which he useth to reinforce his Appeal, he allegeth this, 
(p) Tom. 2. f. 52. Sleid. Cōm. l. 2.  that the Pope most wickedly preferred his own tyranny above the power of the Council, etc. and therefore he beseecheth the Emperor and other Magistrates that for the glory of God, and for the maintaining of the liberty of a Council, they would admit of his Appeal, and repress the others tyranny, etc. In the year 1539, he wrote a book in the Germane tongue de Conciliis, concerning Counsels or Synods, where though he inveigh severely, and not without cause, against the Pope for his frustrating the desires of those that sought a General Council, & admitting of none but where he might sway all by his own authority and command; yet he doth fully approve of that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction which had been formerly exercised in Synods & Counsels lawfully assembled and rightly ordered. A Council (saith 
(q) Oper. German. Tom. 7. f. 260. edit. 1562.  he) is nothing else but a Consistory, a Court of justice, an Imperial Chamber, or the like, where the judge having heard the parties, pronounceth sentence, but with this condition, that it be according to Law▪ etc. Thus a Council condemns an Heretic, not according to their own opinion, but according to the Royal law, that is, according to the holy Scripture, as they profess, which is the Law of the holy Church. Speaking of the right and power of Counsels, having showed 
(r) Ibid. f. 257. etc. Sleid. Cōm. l. 12.  that it is not lawful for them to make new Articles of faith, to command any new work, to bind men's consciences to new ceremonies, nor to intermeddle with Civil government; he declareth withal that it is their duty to condemn new doctrines contrary to the Scriptures, and to censure the persons, to remove and condemn 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 Council is, he answers, 
(s) Ubi supra. f. 260.  Anathematisamus, [we pronounce Anathema] so is their office called. Anathematisat Ecclesia, the holy Church condemns or excommunicates. So fare was Luther from denying the authority of Synods, that he allows them the power of pronouncing this heavy sentence of Anathema or Excommunication.  
To proceed unto his other witnesses, there is nothing in the words alleged out of Chemnitius and Polycarpus Lyserus (who is the Author of that part of the Harmony, quoted under the name of Chemnitius) that by any just consequence can be opposed unto our doctrine and practice, touching election, excommunication, examination of sentences, etc. Only observe how Mr Can here abuseth his Author and his Readers by his imperfect allegation, setting down this testimony of Chemnitius in such manner, as if that which was said with an express condition, had been uttered simply and absolutely without any such restraint. Chemnitius saith indeed that election or calling doth belong unto the whole Church: but how? that Mr Can leaves out, as unfit for his purpose, which his Author adds immediately in the same period, saying that it belongs unto the whole Church, certo quodam modo, in such wise that both the Presbytery and the people have each their own share in the choice or calling. Chemnitius in that 
(t) Exam. Conc. Trid. par. 2. de Sacram. Ord. Can. 7.  learned discourse touching the calling of Ministers, intends principally to prove, against the Council of Trent, that the consent of the people and of the Christian Magistrate is requisite in elections: but withal he gives as full and plain testimony for the judgement, examination and approbation of the Presbytery; under which he comprehends the Ministers of other Congregations, called Bishops and Clerks in the places alleged by him. And this kind of election he shows to be agreeable unto the practice of the Apostolic, primitive, ancient, and their own modern Churches. Besides Chemnitius doth sufficiently declare his judgement touching the authority of Synods, which is our main question, in divers pregnant passages of that book which he wrote against the Council of Trent. He 
(v) Exam. Conc. Tried, par. 1. praef.  allegeth & commendeth the words of Augustine, saying that most wholesome is the authority of Counsels in the Church, while they judge according to the rule and square of the holy Scripture, etc. He saith 
(x) Ibid. Exam. Decret. 1. & 2.  that many have often wished and long waited for a true, lawful, free, and Christian Council, as the right medicine for the curing of those manifold errors and abuses that were crept into the Church. He doth frequently allege and approve the acts of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction exercised in former Synods, throughout that whole book. He saith indeed in one of the places cited by Mr Can 
(y) Ibid. praef.  that the decrees of Counsels are to be examined by the rule of the Scripture: but this doth no more impair that authority of Synods which we asscribe unto them, than it doth the power of all Church-acts and sentences whatsoever, concerning which Chemnitius 
(z) Exam. par. 1. de bon. op. qu. 2.  saith the same thing; and Mr Can cannot deny but that they are to be examined and tried by the word of God, though they be made in such manner as he himself 
(a) Ch. pl. p. 95.  requireth.  
There is another allegation of Chemnitius touching the distinction betwixt power and the administration of it, which Mr Can hath taken at all adventures, as it seems, from Mr Parker, or rather from the Scribe or Printer, that caused that quotation [Exam. c. 6.] to stand so defectively 
(b) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. p. 26.  in his book; and as he is thus brief and obscure in the quotation, so he is as sparing in the application of this testimony unto his purpose, bidding us only observe what is attributed to the Congregation, what to the guides thereof; to the first power, to the latter the administration of it. For the thing itself, we grant that there is such a distinction alleged out of Luther, and explained by Chemnitius, teaching 
(c) Exam. Conc. Trid. par. 2. de Sacram. in gen. Can. 10.  that Christ hath delivered and commended the Keys, that is, the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, unto the whole Church; but not so, that every one rashly and of his own accord should take unto himself and exercise that ministry without a lawful 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 chief power of the Word and Sacraments is in God; secondly that the ministry is in the Church, as by which God doth mediately call, choose, and send Ministers; thirdly in those who are lawfully chosen and called of God by the Church, as in the Ministers, to whom is commanded the exercise or administration of the ministry of the Word and Sacraments. Not to speak of some difference, which the Reader may easily perceive, betwixt Mr Cannes allegation and his Author's words; there is nothing here said that doth any way prejudice the jurisdiction of Synods, neither can he from hence infer any thing against us. Moreover if that distinction be considered according to the meaning of the Authors from whence it is taken, it doth flatly contradict the opinion and practice of Mr Can and others of the Separation, who will have not only the power but also the execution or administration of it to be in the people promiscuously, when all causes must be brought to the body of the Congregation, there to be heard and determined. Thus Mr Parker 
(d) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. p. 26.  opposeth this distinction unto the Democraty or popular government of Morellius, whom Mr jacob in this respect parallels with them of the Separation, as was noted 
(e) P. 176.  before. These maintain that the people are to exercise their power in judging of causes, which the said Authors, both Chemnitius and Mr Parker, conceive to be derived into the Aristocratical part or Officers of the Church, for the ordinary exercise of it; she still retaining her interest therein so fare that in matters of special moment nothing be concluded without her knowledge and consent. That moderating and guiding of the action, which Mr Can and those of his mind reserve only unto the Officers of the Church, in which respect he doth here call them Guides, cannot make that difference betwixt the judicial exercising of power, as it is in the Officers, and the first receyving of that power, which is said to be in the whole Church by those that maintain 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 agreement betwixt Mr Can and his witnesses.  
Melanchthon, whom he allegeth for the same purpose with Chemnitius (as Mr Parker had done 
(f) Ubi supra, p. 26.  before) hath not any thing in the place mentioned that sounds that way. He speaks there [Loc. Theol. de Regno Christi] only of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, against the Jews and some sorts of Anabaptists. Nevertheless seeing he was one of special eminency among those with whom he is here joined, it may be useful to observe how Mr Can is condemned by this witness also, whom he hath sought to produce against us in this controversy touching the authority of Synods. Among other Articles propounded unto the Protestants to ensnare them, this being also questioned, Whether the holy Ecumenical and receyved Synods have erred, Melanchthon answers, 
(g) Respōs. ad Artic. Bavar. Art. 7.  By this general 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 profess openly, that there ought to be judgements in the Church; and we affirm that there have been many godly Synods and profitable unto the Church; and we do greatly wish now in these dissensions that the judgement of the Church might be rightly settled. If he had been of Mr Cann. mind, he should have answered fare otherwise, viz. that all those Synods erred that exercised any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that they were to be blamed for the making of all those Acts wherein such authority and power was employed, such as were generally all the Acts of the Synods of Antioch, Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Gangra, etc. which as he saith in the same place, their Churches do embrace; he should have said also according to Mr Cans principles, that though there may and aught to be judgements, that is, Ecclesiastical sentences and censures in particular Congregations, that yet they ought not to be in Synods, or Assemblies of Ministers of several Congregations, that these have no such power to judge, that no such determinations are to be desired. But Melanchthon we see, declares himself to be an opposite unto such conceits: and lest we should think 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 & deliberation, then of determination, and pronouncing of sentences; hear how he explains himself elsewhere, saying, 
(h) Enarr. Symb. Nic. Tom. 1. f. 391.  There are in the Church judgements concerning doctrine, which are called Synods. And again, Synods are ordinary judgements, which are pronounced against the unwilling, as they use to say. And the Church is commanded to make a lawful inquiry, which being done, if [sentence] be rightly pronounced, obedience is to be yielded. And if any do not obey, he is justly punished. He hath also upon other occasions given plain and pregnant testimonies of his judgement in this particular: among the rest, that especially is worthy our observation, which he writes in a certain 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 seems, they are also inserted among Luther's works, as being in special manner approved by him. 
(i) Luth. Tom. 1. f. 444, 445.  There Melanthon intending to speak of Synods, reasoneth thus: It is most true and most agreeable unto the nature of men that which Plato saith, that the best state of a Commonwealth is that which is the mean betwixt Tyranny and Democraty, [or popular government.] This is to be framed and maintained, as in all government so especially in the Church▪ Both these, Tyranny and Democraty, are to be avoided and detested in the Church, as most noisome plagues. It is Tyranny to constrain men to approve of manifest impiety, to obey contrary to the clear word of God, etc. Again Democraty also must be removed from the Church, that is, the common people without difference are not to have licence or power granted unto them to alter doctrines, or to give sentence concerning doctrines, for the Multitude also, as Herodotus saith, is a most cruel Tyrant. But a middle state is to be sought, that is, aristocraty ought to be established, wherein by proportion the authority of the learnedest and best men may be the greatest. This aristocraty Paul requireth, 1. Cor. 14. Gal. 2. and it is most gravely written unto the Romans, that every one must know the measure of his own faith. Rom. 12. Therefore that tyrannical speech is to be hissed at, which takes away this proportion in the Church, and asscribes unto the Pope an unbounded Tyranny, viz. which affirms that greater is the authority of the Pope then of the whole Council beside, etc. In the choice of judges the best way is to follow that mean betwixt Tyranny and Democraty, namely to choose the best and the learnedest. When by the consent of both parties good and learned judges are chosen, and matters have been examined in order, it is meet there should be an obeying of their judgement: for every one ought to know the measure of his own faith. Thus Melanthon hath fully declared himself in this controversy touching the ground of Synodall government, together with the power and use of the same: yet for further satisfaction it may be observed how that in another place he applies that which is here spoken against Democraty or popular order, unto that part thereof which Mr Can so much pleads for, concerning election unto Church-offices, when he saith, 
(k) Ibid. f. 442.  According to ancient custom the Church did choose, that is, these to whom the Church hath committed this business, & the judgement and approbation of the Bishop ordaining did also concur. Contrary to divine right and to the ancient Church is that Democraty, where the people do snatch unto themselves the election, without the judgement & approbation of Pastors. By Pastors he means doubtless the Ministers of other Congregations, seeing he speaks of them in the plural number, and seeing it were unreasonable to think that in such cases people should neglect the counsel and consent of the Ministers of their own Church. He doth therefore by this plain testimony justifye our course in the calling of Ministers, by how much we do not proceed therein without taking along with us the advice and approbation of the Classis, that is, of the Pastors of neighbour Churches.  
Forasmuch as we may easily discern from that which hath been hitherto said in this Section, what the judgement of the chief of the Lutherans is in this controversy, and what small credit is to be given unto Mr Cans allegations and affirmations touching the consent of others with him in these matters of difference betwixt us; it may suffice to have examined the testimonies of these Authors, whose words he hath set down; and for the rest, to judge of them according to the profession of their esteem of those already mentioned, which are of chief note among them, and according to the public Confessions of their Churches, of which we are to speak 
(l) Sect. 7.  hereafter, as also according to their general practice. Concerning this it is testified by some of them here named (not to speak of other evidences) that they are so fare from including all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the bounds of a particular Church, that their Churches are governed by Ecclesiastical Senates, or Consistories, as they call them, which are gathered out of three ranks of persons, Poluticall, Ecclesiastical, and Popular or Economical; that these Ecclesiastical Consistories are appointed and directed by the authority of the chief Magistrate; that by these the Magistrate doth exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and call Ministers; that the election of a Bishop or Superintendent which of old was performed by all the Bishops of the Province, in which a new Bishop was to be chosen, is now in well ordered Churches rightly performed in the Consistory, where some principal Divines together with Political men, do choose a Superintendent, who is confirmed by the assent and approbation of the chief Magistrate. These are the assertions of Mylius, Rungius, Osiander and others, as they are cited and approved by 
(m) Dise. Theol. de Potest. Ecc. th'. 7.10.17.18. arg. 10. etc.  Vestringius, one of the same profession. Though these Authors do not accord with us in divers of the foresaid expressions; yet Mr Can had less cause to boast of their consent with him, seeing they agree in this, that their particular Churches are not independent bodies, but stand under Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves, holding that their Churches in this respect are well ordered. What truth is there then in Mr Cans 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 Orthodox Churches in Europe at this day, there was ever heard of such a staggering noun-substantive, rend with so many scandalous Schisms, as is that Anti-Synodall Church of the Separation, whereof Mr Can calls himself the Pastor. Let those that are wise consider of it.   

SECT. III.  
Touching the Testimonies of Calvinists.  
THus Mr C. and W.B. do (though as they say, for distinction sake, yet) unjustly call those Authors whom here they allege: as if there were no other fit and convenient speech to describe Godly and learned Ministers, of whom I spoke, but the name of Calvinists. Though it be lawful to denominate men of their errors and Schisms wherein they stand against the Churches of God, and to call such Sectaries by names taken from them that have been their chief ringleaders, as the Brownists of Browne, and the Nicolaitans of Nicholas; Rev. 2.15. yet is there no warrant so to style those whom we do not charge with the like errors and offences.  
Mr Can 
(a) Chu. pl. p. 81.  after an idle and impertinent declaration of his own surmise and imagination, that these Authors, as he is persuaded, do not teach the doctrine maintained by me, and after an unjust imputation which he implies, as if I should say, that the whole Church (Officers and brethren) wants authority to perform in, and for itself, all Church-services; he comes to name his Authors, and alleges the words of four of them, and tells that the rest do agree with them. His Authors are these, P. Martyr, junius, Musculus, Viret, Bullinger, Danaeus, Gualther, Sybrandus, D. Mornaeus, morel, Tilenus, Bastingius, Vrsinus, Piscator, Calvine, Paraeus, Keckerman, Hemmingius, Tossanus, Polanus, Hyperius, Praedirius, Munster, Oecolompadius, Beza, Bucer.  
Having cited these witnesses to appear for him, he than begins to insult and glory, saying, 
(b) Chu. pl. p. 83.  And now Mr Paget what think you of these men? were they not learned and godly Ministers, Reverend and judicious Divines? Are they not authentic witnesses? If you confess it; then mark what follows: viz. your position that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves, is hence condemned, by a jury of more than 24 men, of your own choosing, for an error and untruth: The reason is; because these affirm (I say all of them) that every particular Eldership, with the Church's consent, may lawfully proceed among themselves to the excommunicating of offenders, whensoever there is necessary and just cause. Neither do they say a word; that it is a Divine institution, that the Ministers of one Congregation, must first ask the leave and consent of other Ministers, before they can lawfully administer this ordinance of God. Hereunto I answer; The more Reverend, Godly and learned these Authors were, the greater is his offence that shows so little reverence unto them, in perverting and abusing their testimonies. If any Advocate should so fare wrong a jury 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 Mr C. the Advocate and abettour of W. B. it may appear in the first place, by the general consideration of their testimonies alleged. 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 administered without the common consent of the Church; yet this proves not that it is unlawful to seek the counsel and help of a Classis or Synod beforehand for the preventing of wrong, or that it is unlawful to appeal unto them in case of wrong done. Though particular Congregations have power to judge, it follows not, that they themselves are therefore subject to no other Ecclesiastical judgement out of themselves. The error & absurdity of this consequence may better appear by these examples: Though fathers & masters of particular families have immediate authority from God, & power to use it in a domestical way, to perform family duties, & judge of matters in the family; yet this hinders not but that their family exercises & works may be judged of by other authority in the city, where many families are combined together for their mutual government. 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 alleged, and first for P. Martyr whom he makes the foreman of the jury; though he writing against the error of the Romish Church, teaching that Counsels cannot err, and preferring them above the Scriptures, have just cause to show the errors of sundry Counsels and Synods, especially about that time when so many wicked decrees were made by the Council of Trent; yet he addeth, that 
(c) Loc. Cōm. Class. 4. c. 4. § 11 de Conncill  these things were not spoken, that the Authority of Counsels should be wholly cast away. For (saith he) if they reprehend, excommunicate or absolve according to the word of God, praying together by the power of the Spirit, these shall not be in vain nor without fruit. And afterwards again he brings 
(d) Ibid. c. 6. § 18.  divine warrant to show the institution and order of Synods, from the example of the Apostles, Act. 15. By which it may appear how he held that there was a superior Ecclesiastical power above particular Congregations, and consequently that his testimony hath been perverted by Mr Can.  
The second Author alleged against us is junius, who notwithstanding is a most pregnant witness for us, to show the authority of Synods. When Bellarmine objecteth against the Protestants, that they reject Ecclesiastical judgements, and refuse the authority of Synods; this he 
(e) Animadv. in Bell. Controu. 4. de Conc. in Praef. n. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13.  shows to be most false. And further 
(f) Ibid. l. 1 c. 1. & 3. & 10. n. 1, 2. & 11. n. 1.  he avoucheth both the just authority and necessity of Synods, and likewise the divine institution of them, alleging 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 yielded unto and allowed contrary to the word of God; yet according to that word he 
(g) Ibid. c. 18. n. 1.8. & l, 2. c. 1. n 1. etc. 16. n 1. etc. 18. n 1, 2, 6.  maintaineth that Synods are not only to make inquisition and to consult, but that they also have under Christ a ministerial judgement touching the controversies either about faith or manners. junius therefore is greatly abused when it is pretended that he hath brought in a contrary verdict against us.  
The third man of the jury, produced against us, is Musculus. And here it is to be observed; I. That it is untruly affirmed by him in his words noted before, touching the jury of more than 24 men, that they are of mine own choosing. For though I have a multitude of witnesses agreeing with me; yet as none in particular were named by me, so Musculus in special should not have been alleged, considering his different judgement and practice from other Reformed Churches. For although he confess that the power of election and deposition of Ministers, excommunication, etc. was exercised with consent of the people in the primitive Church and in the Apostles time; yet he saith, and that 
(h) Loc. Cōm. de Minist. p. 199, 204. de Eccl. p. 311 de Magist. p. 631. 632. & 633.  often, that this order was to be kept while there were no Christian Magistrates; and that the order which was then profitable to the Churches, is not so at this time; that it now belongs unto the Magistrate to appoint Ministers, either by choosing them himself, or confirming such as were chosen by others at his commandment; 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 than I do) condemns the opinion of the Brownists and of my opposites, while he 
(i) Ibid. de elect. Ministr. p. 200.  maintains that particular Congregations are subject to another superior power out of themselves in matters of Church-government; while he justifieth the practice of the Churches in Berne, where Ministers are chosen in the city, and by the Senate sent unto the Churches in the country subject unto their jurisdiction, as they thought best. If Musculus had been of Mr Cannes & W. Bests mind, he should have forsaken those Churches and separated from them, as not being a free people, while they wanted excommunication & power of choosing their own Ministers. Who sees not here how notably they pervert the Authors alleged by them? Come we to the rest.  
In the next place he nameth Viret, but it seems he is mistaken in his Allegation, there being no such book of Viret, as he hath quoted in his margin; he rather seems to mean virel in the grounds of Religion: But whether he mean Viret or virel, neither of them can be justly alleged for his witnesses in this cause.  
For Viret, he is 
(k) Beza, in vita Calv. & Calv. Epist. 25, 39.54, & c  recorded to have been a special assistant unto Calvine in the work of the Lord, for the settling of that form of Discipline, by which the power of an Ecclesiastical judicatory over divers particular Congregations, was established at Geneva. That weed of Ecclesiastical government by Classes and Synods (as Mr Can here 
(l) Ch. pl. p. 94.  calls 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 esteem it a plant of the heavenly Father, not to be rooted out of the garden of his Church, seeing he joined with him in that work?  
For virel, he writes touching the outward calling of Ministers in the 
(m) Grounds of Relig. b. 3. c. 1. p. 2. 7, 708, edit. 12.  place alleged, that it is the lawful choice 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 trial both of the conversation and learning of him that is to be chosen, etc. Another is this, that men come not to it by any corruption of gifts; but that it be free: so as they that have the power to choose, should have only 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 duty it is to look unto it diligently & carefully. And more than this he saith not that can with any colour be thought to look towards this controversy. 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 reform the same.  
Bullinger, next alleged, though he say that the Church hath power to elect & ordain fit Ministers, yet he was not of Mr Cannes mind, to think that the Church looseth her right, and is bereft of her due power, when it is not exercised by herself alone, or in that popular way which he requireth: for even in the place 
(n) Decad. 5. Ser. 4.  which Mr Can hath cited, he saith, It skilleth not much whether fit Ministers be ordained by grave men chosen by the Church, or by the whole Church itself, and that either by votes or by lots, or in any other convenient and holy manner. For godliness doth not contend about these things, so that all be done holily and according to order. And afterwards again he speaks to the same purpose: It is well known that true Churches have the right of ordaining Pastors, whether it be done by the votes of the whole Church, or by the lawful judgement of them that be chosen by the Church. It appears by these & the following words that he alludes unto the practice of the Helvetian Churches, concerning which we are to make further mention 
(o) Sect. 7.  hereafter, when we come to speak of their Confession. Touching the Ecclesiastical power of Synods, Bullinger declares his judgement also in this same book, when 
(p) Decad. 5. Ser. 1.  speaking of the power of the Church in judging of doctrines he gives instance in the gathering of a Synod, which saith he, the Church of God doth according to the power receyved from the Lord, even as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that the Apostles of the Lord have done, etc. Again he 
(q) Decad. 5. Serm. 10.  citys and approves the decree of Justinian the Emperor, for the yearly celebrating of Synods, where matters arising might be examined and by due correction healed. He urgeth this decree against the Bishops, and warns the Magistrates to take heed they do not connive at the others negligence, to the destruction of the whole Church and of all the Ministers of Christ. Behold here the difference betwixt Bullinger and Mr Can; that which the one holds to be the sovereign remedy to preserve the safety of Churches & of the ministry, the other rejects as an unprofitable weed, and that which tends to the undoing and 
(r) Ch. pl. p. 74.  spoiling of Churches.  
Danaeus his testimony is likewise unjustly alleged against us, seeing he speaks not in the place mentioned, of the point in controversy betwixt us, viz. the authority of Classes & Synods, or the total excluding of the same in those things which belong unto elections. Only he doth there 
(s) In. 1. Tim. 5.22.  reproove the gross error of those that in regard of such popular circumstances as Mr Can seems most to plead for, do bring, as he saith, a very great confusion into the Church, by asscribing unto the people more than is due unto them: while he shows that the electing and presenting of the person that is to be called unto any Ecclesiastical office, whereby he understands the first taking notice of him, the examining of his life & doctrine, and the publishing or propounding of him unto the whole Church, that this belongs unto the Presbytery; and that the approving and accepting of the person so examined and propounded doth belong unto the people, they also having a convenient time allowed unto them, that if there be just cause they may testify their dislike and bring in their exceptions against him. This is the course there described and maintained by Danaeus, and the same with that which is practised in our Church: And thus the Witnesses produced against us, do 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 commandment, having spoken of the jurisdiction and power of the Church, he saith, 
(r) Ethic. Christ. Lib. 2. cap. 10.  Here comes in the Question concerning Synods, which if they be right and keep themselves within their own bounds, their authority is ordained by this Commandment.  
Gualther in the 
(v) Homil. in Act. 13.2  first place alleged, having spoken of the due suffrages or voices of the Church in elections, to prevent such a construction as Mr Can seems to make of his words, adds presently, This place doth clearly teach that some parts are committed to the Church in this business. And again he saith there, that the election of Ministers doth in some part belong to the Church, etc. He doth not therefore exclude that part which herein we asscribe unto the Classis, by proceeding with their advice and consent. In the other 
(x) Ibid. in cap. 14.23.  place (for Mr Cannes marginal quotation [13.22.] seems to be misprinted) he saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood not only 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 departed from the first order or course which we have seen to have been observed in the election of Mathias, etc. And upon Act. 1.26. he labours to prove that this manner of choosing is still to be observed in the Church, as most safe and convenient, whereby certain 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 judgement of God, by casting lots; in such sort as Mathias was chosen unto the Apostleship. However, that he doth not deny the matters of particular Congregations to be subject unto the judgement of the Ministers of other Churches, assembled in a Classis or Synod, may be gathered from those testimonies which even in this book here alleged, he gives concerning the authority of Synods, and the Divine warrant upon which it is grounded. Speaking of the authority of a General Council which many then so much desired, he saith, 
(y) Ibid. in cap. 5.21.  To me also it seems 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 Apostolical [Synod] was, of which we are to speak in chap. 15. and such as we know those of old to have been, viz. of Nice, constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, etc. And afterwards again, 
(z) Ibid. in cap. 20.17.  entreating of Paul's sending from Miletus to Ephesus, and calling the Elders of the Church, he calls it a Synod: By which example, he saith, as the faithfulness and industry of Paul doth appear, so also we are admonished that the assemblies of Ministers are altogether necessary, in which Church-affaires may be handled by the common voices of all. This makes greatly for the maintaining of Church-discipline, for the restraining of the ambition of Church-governors', for the preserving of consent in true doctrine, and for the repressing of heresies, which (if Ministers do not most faithfully join their pains together) are wont often to creep in. This he declares again by the example of that Synod, Act. 15. and he commends the piety and prudence of Constantine the great, for his frequent assembling of Synods; as on the other side he notes the wickedness of Licinius and of Antichrist, in resisting and hindering the due exercise of this authority of Synods. How do these things agree with Mr Cannes discourse, who yet allegeth this Author, as one of the Jury, by which he saith my position (as he calls it) is condemned, viz. that particular Congregations must stand under other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves?  
Touching Sibrandus, the order of electing Ministers in these Churches 
(a) Sibrand. Lubb. Resp. ad Piet. H. Gr. p. 159.  approved by him, is the same that is used in our Church, and approved by me also: and he hath notably perverted it in opposing of it unto me. For that order hinders not but that there may be another superior Ecclesiastical authority in a Classis or Synod, to judge of the elections made in particular Congregations, or of other controversies. This truth is so often and so earnestly avouched by Sibrandus, that scarcely any have been more vehement in this point. And in this very book alleged, he in his first entrance, in the preface to the Senate of Gelderland, complains of Grotius for oppugning this order of Classes and Synods; and in the conclusion of his preface he professeth that there was scarcely any other means then a Nationall Synod to heal the evils of that time, and desires them to persuade the calling thereof. Afterward in the 
(b) P. 140. 141, etc.  book itself he shows at large both from the Scriptures and practice of ancient Churches, the use, the order, and the authority of Synods; not only in deliberating, but in judging and deciding of controversies. In his Disputation with Bertius he shows 
(c) Epist. Discept. de Fide. p. 3.  that it is altogether needful to have a Synodical judgement to heal the wounds of the Church. In his book against Vorstius, after long dispute, 
(d) Declar. Resp. Conr. Vorst. p. 142, 143.144.  in conclusion he offereth, yea he provoketh and urgeth him to refer their controversy and differences to the judgement of other Churches, which he there nominates. And in the preface thereof unto the State's General of the United Provinces, he shows from the word of God and examples of the godly, the necessity of Synods, he declares what confusion and distraction of Churches ensueth where they are neglected, and makes earnest supplication unto them for the maintenance of this order in government. In another of his books against Vorstius, 
(e) Comment. ad 99 Errotes C. Vorst. pref. p. 45, Cōm. p. 503 504. & p. 841.  both in the beginning, middle, and end of it, he harps upon the same string. His appeal unto the judgement of other Churches, and his willingness to submit unto their judgement, with his desire of a Nationall Synod, is plainly declared therein. Speaking of the fruit of Synods, he saith 
(f) Ibid. pref. p. 34. 35.  that the holding of them in their Churches, hath been next unto God the chief sinew of preserving both the true doctrine and tranquillity of the Churches: and that if any man acquainted with their affairs dare deny the same, he shall manifest his impudence or make war with his own conscience. And thus by the verdict of Sibrandus, if my opposites understand the Discipline and state of these Churches, and deny the fruit of Synods, they must be held for impudent and unconscionable persons. Moreover in his book against Bellarmine concerning Counsels he gives divers testimonies 
(g) Deconc. Lib. 1. c. 1. & l. 2. c. 3. & l. 5. c. 1, 3, 5, 8.  touching the profitable use of Counsels for the determining of controversies, their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the exercise of it in making decrees and censuring offenders. By all which it appears how injurious Mr Can hath been unto Sibrandus in producing him as a witness against the authority of Synods, whereas he hath so often testified his judgement to the contrary.  
Mornaeus in the place 
(h) Histor. Pap. p. 542, etc. edit. 1612.  alleged, hath no such thing as for which he is quoted; unless he mean that which is noted in one of the following pages, 
(i) Ib. p. 545  that the Popes of Rome were chosen in public assemblies of the Priests, the Nobility, the common people, the Senate, by the voices of all, etc. which if it be explained and applied to the question in hand, may easily be discerned to fall short of proving any thing against us. But this Author in the same book shows plainly his approbation of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiastical causes: He allegeth frequently and maintains against Baronius and Bellarmine the judicial Acts and sentences of sundry Synods against the Popes of Rome. He calls those decrees of the Council of Basile, 
(k) P. 1218.  Catholic or universal truths, whereby it was enacted; 1. That the power of a General Council, representing the whole Church is above the Pope and every other person. 2. That the Pope cannot dissolve a General Council without their consent, etc. 3. That he that doth obstinately oppose the foresaid truths is to be accounted an Heretic. He relates & commends the speeches of 
(l) P. 1010. etc.  Marsilius Patavinus, 
(m) P. 1232 etc.  Petrus de Alliaco, and divers others, showing the power of Counsels in judging and censuring the Pope, the necessity of them, both Provincial and General, for the correcting of abuses, and amending of all sorts of persons and things with greater authority. He approves and defends 
(n) P. 1341.  the renowned Italian Martyr, Hieronimus Savanorola, for seeking that a General Council might be called for reformation of the Clergy, and degenerate estate of the Church, etc. Besides this, he being in his time a principal favourer & maintainer of the Discipline in the French Churches, where the causes of particular Congregations were judged and determined by Synods, could therefore be no favourer of the Brownists opinion, which count such government to be a miserable bondage and slavery of the Churches.  
Tilenus, that is also called to be one of their Jury against me, doth most expressly give his verdict on my side against the Brownists. He teacheth 
(o) Syntag. Disp. Theol. par. 2. Disp. ●0. thes. 1.  that the fourfold power of the Church is to be exercised not only in Presbyteries, but also in Counsels or Synods: that 
(p) Thes. 4.  Synods according to the power granted of God unto his Church, may take knowledge of Ecclesiastical causes, and by their judgements conferred together according to the word of God, may define, etc. & 
(q) Th. 19  give ministerial sentence, etc. And further he saith, 
(r) Th. 38.  As it is not to be hoped for that the body of the Church militant on earth shall be free from divers diseases; so we may not think that it can want this remedy of Synods, which we therefore affirm to be not only lawful but also necessary.  
Bastingius showing how Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church, saith nothing but that which is practised both in our and other Reformed Churches of these countries, especially if it be marked how he explains himself in the leaf following, where he adds that 
(f) Expos. Catech. Qu. 85.  Ecclesiastical discipline and excommunication itself ought to be administered by them who are ordained thereunto of the Church; such as are Ministers of the Word, and Elders, the rest of the Church consenting thereunto; yet with this correction, that the multitude of the people do 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 College 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 evil. For than he should have condemned his own estate and practice, 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, etc. 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) Tom. 2. Admo. Chr. de lib. Concord. c. 12. col. 686.  having showed the conditions and necessity of Synods, he saith of them, This remedy for the healing of the wounds of the Church is not to be neglected, which the holy Ghost hath showed unto us, by the counsel 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) Ibid. Tit. & Col. 478  written in the name of other Divines & Ministers in the jurisdiction of Prince Casimir, and approved by them.  
Piscator saith, Excommunication is a decree of the Church, & therefore aught to be done of the Church, 
(x) In 1. Cor. 5. Obs. 1. Art. 3.  or of the Eldership judging in the name of the Church. We grant as much or more in the practice 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) In Act. 15. Obser. in V 6.  to judge the controversies of Religion, and to 
(z) Thes. Theol. Vol. 1. Loc. 23. de Eccl. th'. 68 & 72.  make decrees by gathering of voices in order, it is evident from other of his writings.  
Calvine requiring the 
(a) Instit. l. 4. c. 1. sec; 15.  cognition of the whole Church before any be excommunicate, requires no more than is held and practised by us. And this is no impeachment to his and our opinion with him, that in case of doubt or controversy, 
(b) Ibid. c. 9 sec; 13.  there is no better nor more certain remedy 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 Pastors of Churches in common do agree together, etc. And this he there confirms both by Scripture, and sundry examples of ancient Churches, showing that from the beginning it was the ordinary way of preserving unity in the Church, so often as Satan began to attempt any thing. Besides this, not to speak of other testimonies afforded by Calvine to this purpose, when as Mr Can 
(c) Ch. pl. p. 94.  afterward notes the assertions of divers pleading for the Hierarchy of Bishops, and oppugning Ecclesiastical 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, every Congregation was free in itself: If these assertions be true, and that none is able to disprove them, as Mr Can 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, Mr Can might as well have written a book, to prove the miserable bondage and slavery of the Church at Geneva, procured by the tyrannical 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 Pastors 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 public action every one might speak and deal: which undoubtedly the Apostle would not bring in. This we grant, and it is not against us, but against the confused practice of the Brownists. But for the point in hand, that Classes and Synods have power to judge of the actions of particular Congregations, Paraeus is a plain witness for us in 
(d) Colleg. Theol. Decur. Coll. 9 Disp. 8. Auccar. 1. & Co. 10. Disp. 22. th'. 1-10. & Disp. 24. th'. 9  other of his writings. And again, speaking of a lawful Synod and the authority thereof in deciding of controversies in the Church, he saith that therein 
(e) Eirenic. cap. 5.  men renowned in regard of their learning, understanding and piety, whether they be of the Laity or Clergy, have not only a voice of delibertion and counsel, but also of judgement and power of defining. And hereunto accords his 
(f) Act. Sym. Nar. Dordr. Sesse. 98.  Epistle written unto the Nationall Synod holden last at Dort, wherein excusing his absence, that he could not come in respect of his age, as he much desired, yet he shows his approbation of such a meeting, as being the ordinary medicine for healing the wounds of the Church, and rejoiceth greatly in the spirit for the benefit expected from that Synod, which judged & censured the errors of particular men in divers Churches. What reason then had Mr Can thus to abuse the words of Paraeus against his meaning and public profession?  
Keckerman also agreeth with the former witnesses touching the point in controversy. For in the book alleged by Mr Can, when as the parts of the government of the Church are there described; he shows that 
(g) System. Theo. l. 3. c. 6. p. 401.402.  the convocation of Synods belongeth unto Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and is contained under the same.  
Hemmingius, though more sound and moderate then other Lutherans, yet being a disciple and follower of Melancthon, there was no reason why he should not have been joined with his Master in the foregoing rank of Testimonies, if Mr Can had either known his Author, or regarded the order which he had set down to himself. But for his judgement touching the jurisdiction of Synods, he hath witnessed his consent with the Writers mentioned both in this & the former Section, and testified against Mr Can in this cause. For speaking of that part of Ecclesiastical Discipline, unto which he refers the deposition and excommunication of Ministers, he commends the order of the ancient Church, where he saith 
(h) Enchir. Theo. Clas. 3. c. 11.  the execution of this discipline was chief committed to the Bishops, who therefore sometimes twice, sometimes oftener in the year called Provincial 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 plainly declared himself to be of the same mind with us, in allowing Synodall and Classical assemblies to judge & determine the causes of particular Churches and persons. He 
(i) Pastor. Evang. p. 61 edit. 1603.  maintains against Thyraeus that which he had formerly written, in these words, In controversies of religion we appeal from Luther, and from the censures and judgements of private men, unto the judgement of the Catholic Church and of a Synod. He proves this to be sound and orthodox from the Apostles referring the decision of the controversy concerning justification and the Ceremonies of the Law, unto the Council at jerusalem, Act. 15. Speaking of somewhat that was wanting in most of the Germane Churches, about the ordaining of Ministers, he saith that 
(k) P. 40.  godly Pastors and Overseers do daily bewail the scarcity of faithful labourers, and that the Presbyteries and well ordered Ecclesiastical Senates do endeavour that both in Synods and yearly visitations, and in Classical meetings the failings of Ministers may be amended according to their power. In which words he hath reference unto the practice of the Churches in the Palatinate (concerning which we are to speak 
(l) Sect. 7.  hereafter) where he joined with them in the exercise of the said government, being 
(m) D. Toss. Vita, p. 38.  at Neustadt a moderator of the Ecclesiastical counsels of the Consistory, and sometime also Precedent of a Synod; and afterwards at Heidelberg 
(n) Ib. P. 44.  a member of the Ecclesiastical Senate. How unjustly therefore & untruly hath Mr Can dealt with Tossanus and his readers, in reckoning him among those who, as he saith, 
(o) Ch. pl. p. 83.  have condemned for an error & untruth, that position touching particular Congregations standing under other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves!  
As for Polanus, to grant Mr Can, that he was of the same mind with the former Authors, touching the Church's power in excommunicating, though so much can hardly be manifested out of the 
(p) Synt. Theol. l. 7. c. 18.  place alleged; yet what is that to our question? The Church's power in excommuncating doth not exclude the authority of Synods in judging of a particular Congregation. Polanus speaking of Synods, expressly confesseth, that 
(q) Ib. c. 14  the liberty or power of those Ecclesiastical assemblies is a right given of God unto his Church, etc. that An Ecclesiastical Synod is a public assembly 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 affairs, etc. He allegeth sundry Scriptures and examples of the Ancient Churches for declaration hereof. And again in the same place, he notes it for a condition of a lawful Synod, that those which are chosen and deputed of the Churches may have a deliberative or consulting, and also a deciding voice or giving of sentence, etc. When he requires another condition of a lawful Synod, that every one may have free access and recess; yet he adds this withal, that whosoever is convicted of heresy or any crime, and remaineth obstinate, should undergo Ecclesiastical censure, that is, deposition from his Ecclesiastical office, or Suspension, or Excommunication. And to like purpose he writes in 
(r) Ib. c. 16. Syllo. Thes. Theol. par. 1 de Concil.  other places. This being the judgement of Polanus touching the authority of Synods, how uncircumspect was W. Best & his abettour, to call for a jury of such Divines as have given such pregnant sentence and so peremptory verdict against them?  
Hyperius, next alleged, though he deny not the power of particular Congregations, yet in his writings it is evident that he holds the power of Synods, consisting of the Deputies of many Churches, to be a superior power above one particular Church, and that they may judge of the affairs thereof and of the persons therein, either Ministers or people. This he declares at large in a peculiar treatise touching yearly Synods, 
(f) DeSyno. Annuis Opusc. Theol. p. 768-870. Bas. 1570.  wherein after he had showed the necessity and use of Synods by many divine and humane testimonies, he than describes their power, not for counsel only, as the Brownists and my opposites do, but for the exercise of all kind of Ecclesiastical censures, as Rebukes of offenders, Suspension, Excommunication, and Deposition or deportment of Officers from their ministry. Of all the men of the jury before mentioned, there is none that gives a more full and clear verdict against Mr Can, than 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 alleged by Mr Can to be perverted, while it is produced against the same. For in his answer to Luther, inserted among the works of Zuinglius, 
(t) Tom. 2. fol. 491.  he doth highly commend the Council of Nice, and specially for decreeing that none should afterwards attempt to add any new articles unto that Confession of faith which they had set down. Which Nestorius being found guilty of, Oecolompadius approves of that Act of the Council of Ephesus, whereby he was excommunicated, saying, For which cause being condemned of the crime of heresy, he was by common consent shut out of the Church, which was sensible of peace restored unto her by this means. Hereby it appeareth that the acknowledged Ecclesiastical jurisdiction & censure to be a power due unto Synods, and that which may lawfully be exercised by them.  
Beza. next alleged, upon 2. Thes. 3.14. though he there call Excommunication, an. Ecclesiastical judgement, yet doth he not thereby infringe the authority of Classes and Synods, neither can any such thing by any just consequence be gathered from his Annotations on that place. But on the other side he shows 
(v) Epist. 83. De Ministr. gradib. c. 23 p. 155. etc. 24. p. 176. 177.  elsewhere that Synods have their Ecclesiastical judgements grounded upon the word of God, and a profitable use in the Church of God; and that the fanatical opinion of Morellius (much like unto the Brownists) hath been worthily condemned in many Synods. And according to his writing, so was his practice; both at Geneva, where he was one of them that had their voice in the government of that Church by a joint Presbytery or Classis; and in France, where he himself was Precedent of that famous 
(x) Harmo. Confess. p. 112. edit. 1612.  Synod at Rochel, where the Confession of their faith was subscribed by divers Princes, and many Ministers and Elders assembled together. And therefore if Mr Can and W. Best their accusation of me were sound and just, they might as well complain of Beza, for bringing the Churches of God into miserable slavery and bondage by his tyrannical government and corrupt doctrine.  
Bucer, last alleged, accords with the foregoing Authors, and his words in commendation of Synods may serve to close up this kind of Testimonies, being an advice unto King Edward the sixth, for the constant celebrating of them. In his Admonition given to the King for the restitution of the Kingdom of Christ in his dominions, amidst other wholesome counsels out of the word of God, he saith, 
(y) De Regno Christi. Lib. 2. c. 12.  It shall be the duty of the Bishops of each Province to celebrate two Synods every year, as it is ordained by so many Canons, and Laws of godly Emperors. At which Synods must be assembled and heard, not only the Bishops of the Cities, but also inferior Bishops and other Presbyters and Deacons, that are endued with a larger measure of knowledge and zeal for the kingdom of Christ: that so the more effectually both the faults crept into the Church may becorrected, and the piety of all repaired. He had also spoken before of other inferior and more frequent assemblies, like unto our Classes, requiring that all the Ministers within the compass of about 20 Parishes, should often meet together, for their mutual assistance in removing offences & advancing the kingdom of Christ. Touching Synods, he speaks also in 
(z) De vi & usu S. Min. tit. de Disci. Cler. Opuse. f. 582.  another place to the same purpose, approving the ancient constitution, whereby it was ordained that the Bishops of every Province should assemble together with the Presbyters and Deacons, as often as the need of the Churches should require, but without fail twice in the year; that they might inquire concerning the doctrine and discipline of Christ, how it were administered and did flourish in several Churches; that where any default was discovered they might correct it; and where they found things in good state, they might confirm and promote the same. By that correction spoken of here and in the former testimony, he understands not only counsel and admonition, but the judicial exercise of authority in Ecclesiastical censures: For he doth plainly distinguish betwixt admonition and correction, when in the following words concerning metropolitans he saith, If any thing were done amiss 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 own authority they might exercise in the Churches, etc. Thus Bucerus also, as well as the former, hath condemned Mr Cannes position, viz. that particular Congregations must not stand under other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves.  
And these are all the Authors here alleged by Mr Can, except only morel, 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 controversy in the writings at hand, as the latter.  
Having now heard what these chosen men of the jury, all nominated by W. B. his Advocate, have testified concerning Classes or Synods; let the Reader judge whether they have given verdict for or against Synods: whether every one of these Authors alleged had not just cause (if they were living) to complain of great abuse done to them in perverting their testimonies, and making false consequences from their words contrary to their meaning. And forasmuch as all these witnesses here examined are so fare from testifying aught against us, that they have on the other side witnessed the truth of that which we maintained against Mr Can; hence it is evident that I had just cause to say that which he would seem to disprove by alleging these Authors against me, viz. that there were a multitude of learned and godly Ministers of the same judgement and practice with me. For further proof whereof it were easy (if need were) to produce another jury of approved Authors, more in number then those he hath specified, and not inferior for learning and piety unto some of those that he hath named, all which in their several 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 only for counsel, but for judgement and decision of controversies; divers of them alleging not only examples of ancient Churches, but the holy Scriptures also for the warrant of that which they teach, and therefore showing that they maintain them lawful jure divino; and that their tenure of them is from the grant that Christ hath given unto his Church. But the truth of that assertion touching the multitude of those that consent with me, will most plainly appear when we come to speak of the public and general testimonies of whole Churches & most solemn assemblies of learned & godly men, touching this controversy. In the mean while let us follow Mr Can, according to his own 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 point. And here they allege B. Whitgift, D. Bilson, Whitaker, Bell, Willet, and Taylor.  
Touching these I answer: First for B. Whitgift, though he confess that in the Apostles time the state of the Church was popular, 
See Def. ag. T. C. p. 180. 182.  because the Church had interest almost in every thing; yet this proves not that he thought particular Congregations to be independent and uncontrollable by the Deputies of other Churches assembled in Synods. The ordinary practice of B. Whitgift, in judging the causes of other Congregations, shown that he was fare from the meaning of the Brownists in this point. 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 testimony, by omitting that which is most material in this controversy. For when D. Bilson had said, 
(a) Perpet. Gover. c. 15 p. 360.  Though the Presbyters had more skill to judge, yet the people had as much right to choose their Pastor; & if the most part of them did agree, they did carry it from the Clergy; Thus fare Mr Can reciteth his words, but here in the midst of the sentence, before the period be ended, he breaks off and leaves out this exception that is added, viz. so the persons chosen were such as the Canons did allow, and the ordainers could not justly mislike. In this exception D. B. acknowledgeth, that there may be just cause to disannul 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 allegeth out of 
(b) Lib. 7. cap. 35.  Socrates, touching the election of Proclus, who being chosen by the greater number was yet refused, because the election was said to be against the Canon of translating Bishops, and so the people were forced to hold their peace. That which is practised in these Reformed Churches, is in this point the very same thing that D. B. testifies of the Primitive Church: for Classes and Synods do not use to impose or choose Ministers. If particular Congregations do choose a Minister, neither Classes nor Synods can disannul the election, if there be no just cause of exception against the person elected. And if upon just exception the election be hindered yet then also is the new election of another permitted to the free choice of the particular Church; neither doth the Classis deprive them of their just power and liberty therein.  
That it may more plainly appear how unjustly and unreasonably D. Bilson is alleged as agreeing with my opposites, let it be further observed, that in his Dispute against Beza & such as approve the Discipline of these Reformed Churches, he doth not as my adversaries, complain of the undue power of Synods, that judge and determine the causes of particular Congregations. He acknowledgeth that 
(c) Perpet. Gover. c. 16 p. 370.  the necessity and authority of Synods is not so much in question betwixt us, as the persons that should assemble and moderate those meetings, etc. He would have 
(d) P. 378, etc.  metropolitans to be the Moderatours and rulers of Synods: he would have 
(e) P. 387, etc.  lay-Elders thrust out from assembling with Ministers in Synods: he complains 
(f) P. 386, 387.  of the intolerable charges and expenses of having frequent Synods, etc. Herein he differs from us, and we from him. But that there is a superior Ecclesiastical authority in Synods, to decide the causes of particular Churches, which is the point in question, herein he agreeth with us. He saith of such Synods and their power to judge, as followeth. 
(g) P. 372.  Their warrant so to do is builded on the main 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 perpetual practice of the Church of Christ. Afterwards he saith of their meetings in Synods; 
(h) P. 374.  This hath in all Ages, as well before, as since the great Council of Nice been approved and practised, as the lawfullest and fittest means to discern truth from falsehood, to decide doubts, end strifes, and redress wrongs in causes Ecclesiastical; yea when there were no believing Magistrates to assist the Church, this was the only way to cleanse the house of God, as much as might be, from the loathsome vessels of dishonour: and after Christian Princes began to profess & protect the truth, they never had, nor can have any better or safer direction amongst men, then by the Synods of wise and godly Pastors. And many other things to like purpose are written by him, complaining that the denial of this order is 
(i) P. 376.  an heathenish, if not an hellish confusion, etc.  
That which they bring out of Scultingius, a Papist before alleged, is idle & impertinent: until they hear me avouch such things as he doth for change of the order of Christ, let them refrain their surmises and conjectures of imaginary arguments which they guess that I will use.  
Having brought such Authors against me, mark how Wil B. or Io. Ca for him, doth triumph against me before the victory; in these words, 
(k) Chu. pl. p. 85.  To say that this superior power of Classes and Synods, is Jure Divino, I think he will not any more do it: there being in the Scriptures no proof (yea I may boldly say) nor show of any proof for it. I confess indeed it is boldly spoken of him. for who so bold als blind B.? But whether there be at least show of proof in the Scriptures, for the superior authority of Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations, let us see what his own witness saith.  
D. Whitaker that is next alleged by him, doth by many arguments show the profit and necessity of Synods; and to this end he citeth many 
(l) DeConc. qu. 1. c. 3. p. 15.16. & q. 2. c. 3. p. 55, 56.  places of Scripture, both from the old & new Testament: he allegeth at large 
(m) P. 17. etc.  7 or 8 causes for which they are profitable, and of great use and fruit. He speaketh also of such Synods as are not only for discussing and concluding of matters by way of counsel and advise, but of those that have power to 
(n) P. 21.  judge and condemn obstinate offenders by a public judgement, and as occasion requires, to anathematise or exclude from the fellowship of the Church: he maintains that those which are lawfully called unto Synods, have authority of deciding and determining controversies by 
(o) Ibid. q. 3. c. 3. p. 95.96. etc.  definitive sentence or suffrage: he saith that 
(p) Depontif. Rom. qu. 4. p. 470.  appeals are of divine and natural right, and cannot be denied in controversies about Ecclesiastical causes and persons. And thus by the testimony of their own witness my adversaries do offend both against the law of God, and the law of nature, in denying appeals, and in not allowing the actions and judgements of a particular Congregation to be judicially examined by a Synod or Classis. The several testimonies of D. Whitaker to this purpose, are alleged 
(q) P. 39 & 133-141.  before and applied at large, to declare his judgement in this controversy.  
Though D. Whit. do 
(r) Deconc. q. 5. p. 178.  grant (as is here alleged against me) that Ecclesiastical authority is in the Church principally, primarily and essentially, etc. he doth not hereby contradict himself, or deny the power of Synods, where Ministers do judge by virtue of their calling and deputation from many Churches. The authority of Churches is manifested in them, and by their service therein. The like testimony alleged from Saravia and Schola Parisienfis is 
(s) P. 170.  before answered. Yea the School of Paris doth sufficiently 
(t) Scholar Paris. p. 1, 2.  explain this matter by a fit similitude, showing that Ecclesiastical 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 Ecclesiastical authority by the Ministers and rulers thereof; and so judgeth of all crimes and offences.  
The testimony of Bell next alleged, is in like manner to be understood. Whereas from 
(v) Regim. of Chur. ch. 2. sect. 4.  him they object that Excommunication precisely and chief pertaineth to the Church; and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof to some special persons, for that purpose, and chosen for that end: this doth no way condemn, but rather illustrate our practice agreeable thereunto. And that the meaning of this Author was not repugnant unto us, it appeareth more plainly by another of his writings, 
(x) Bells motiv. l. 2. c. 4. concls. 3. etc.  where he evidently declares his mind, that Synods have power to exercise Ecclesiastical 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 alleges the confession of many Popish writers, and fare more truly and uprightly then Mr Can hath done in this controversy.  
As for D. Willet, if he speak but to the same effect with Bell, as they say, than the same answer may serve. But for the place alleged [Synops. count. 4. qu. 4. p. 2.] I find no such matter there. They allege p. 2. when as there is no second part of that question. But in the same book he gives plain evidence against them; he acknowledgeth Synods to be 
(y) Synops. Papi. Cont. 3. qu. 1, p. 105.  an wholesome means for the repressing and reforming both of errors in religion and corruption in manners: he allegeth the consent of antiquity to prove that our opinion is grounded upon truth and Scripture, namely that those which are lawfully called unto Synods, 
(z) Qu. 3. p. 109.110.  have determining voices, and power to give sentence; and giveth instance in the Council of Antioch, where Paulus Samosatenus was condemned and cut off as an enemy to the truth, etc. he avoucheth that 
(a) Qu. 7. p. 123.  they have authority to judge, examine, suspend, punish and depose, etc. And thus D. Willet fully accordeth with us in this point, that there is a superior power to judge the causes of particular Congregations.  
D. Tailor next alleged, affords them no help. Whereas he saith, that 
(b) Com. on Tit. 3.10. p. 712.  Excommunication is the common action of the Church, and not of any private person or persons: we also affirm the same thing. Our profession and practise always hath been, never to excommunicate any without common consent of our Church; but had we done unjustly at any time therein, we might justly have been subject to the censure of a Synod or Classis: and yet then also the Ministers and Deputies assembled in the name of many Churches, could with no reason be accounted private persons. And though we think ourselves bound to ask counsel of the Classis, according to the order of these Churches, before we proceed to cut off any member of the Church by excommunication, this proves no deprivation but a direction of our power.  
Now whether I have just cause to blush for denying to the Churches of God that due power which the Learned of all professions do grant unto her, as Mr Can and Will. Bdoe without blushing 
(c) Ch. pl. p. 86.  charge me, let the judicious & impartial Readers judge.   

SECT. V  
Touching the Testimonies of English Non-conformists.  
Under the title of this kind of witnesses, they allege against me, the Replyer to D. Downame, Mr Parker, the Author of the English Puritanisme, D. Ames, Mr Baines, Mr Bates, Mr Fenner, Mr Udall, the English Church at Frank ford, and Mr Hooker. These are 
(d) Ch. pl. p. 86, etc.  here produced: and in another 
(e) P. 23.  place, unto which he refers us for the same purpose, he citys also the Protestation of the King's Supremacic, D. Fulke, and our Countrymen in New-England.  
For answer hereunto; First, concerning some of these that seem to be of Mr Cannes mind, in denying the authority of Synods in the government of the Church, observe how idly and superfluously he allegeth them against me; when as he knows that I myself did acknowledge and note so much before, as namely the judgement of 
(f) Answ. to W. B. p. 74.  Mr Hooker, 
(g) Ib. p. 27  D. Ames, and the Author of the book entitled English Puritanisme, by whom also the Protestation of K. Supremacy is said 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 point.  
Secondly, though these witnesses have testified their particular judgement, yet did they never deny but that they differed herein from many other godly Ministers in England, which desired a reformation 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 complained of wrong done unto many silenced Ministers, who did not hold such opinions as are contained in that book; his excuse was that they did not assirme those to be the opinions of all, but only of the Rigidest sort of those that are called Puritans, and that so much was specified in the Title of that book. And again in the preface of that book, those opinions are said to be the worst that the worst of them hold: and the persons that do hold those peculiar opinions, are there again 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 appear that the Authors and Publishers thereof were fare from that slanderous disposition of Mr Can, in charging those of different opinion to have changed and altered their judgement; when as he saith, 
(h) Chu. pl. p. 86.  Time was when Mr Paget did esteem them to be a multitude of godly and learned Ministers; and was (or at least made show he was) of their judgement and practice. An unconscionable insinuation against me. And afterwards again he saith, 
(i) Ib. p. 88  Mr Paget hath left the way of non-conformity, yea and shows himself to it a great adversary, etc. A gross slander. Whereas Mr Can saith further touching the Protestation of K. Supremacic, that this book was 
(k) P. 23.  set out under the name of all the unconformable Ministers in the Realm; this is a notable falsehood: for neither is the word All used in the title of that Protestation, 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 specified, and alleged by him, viz. We confine and bind all Ecclesiastical power within the limits only of one particular Congregation, etc.  
Thirdly, as for Mr Bradshaw that wrote the forenamed Protestation, & that book of English Puritanisme, if he were such an one as Mr Can reports him to be now after his death, than were his testimony and his writing the less to be regarded. For he saith of him, that 
(l) Necess. of Separ. p. 217.  his proofs are always beggarly I says, or Ifs, and may be foes; and doth not in all his writing, either directly or by sound consequence from the Scripture, confirm any one thing whereof he speaketh. He accuseth him there also of great hypocrisy in pleading for many evils, of which his judgement was well known to be wholly otherwise. And in the same place upon an if and a may be so, which he had immediately condemned in others, upon a report which he judgeth probable enough, he compares him to baalam's Ass, etc. What meant Mr Can to allege such witnesses against me, whom he himself (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 several writings, I have spoken at large 
(m) P. 106-111.  before, in answer to Mr Dau. his Allegations.  
As for Mr Hooker, his argument 
(n) Ch. pl. p. 88  annexed to his Testimony, is of no force against us, seeing he concludes beside the question, which was not of every particular Church, but of such as stood already in combination with a Classis.  
Concerning the Churches in New-England, Mr Can saith, 
(o) Ib. P. 23.  This may not be forgotten. Whereas there are many hundreds of our Countrymen in New-England, they have not erected there any Classical Government, but every particular Church exerciseth her own, I say, within herself wholly; which is a sure argument to prove, that the forward professors in England approve not of this kind of government here pleaded for; although he would feign have his Reader to think so. Hereunto I answer: 1. What the Government of the Churches in New-England is, and whether they refuse the help of Classes and Synods for the judgement and determination of their controversies, according to the order of Reformed Churches here in Europe; I know not: neither can I receive the testimony of Mr Can & his bare word for a sufficient evidence herein, without some more authentic witness. Divers books have been published touching the nature of that soil, the fruits of the country, & the manners of the wild people: but touching the Ecclesiastical government and discipline there practised, I have as yet seen no monument thereof. It is probable enough that those Separatists which had been of Mr Robinson's company here at Leyden, in their plantation would observe their old order, as near as they could: and for some particular persons beside, I have heard of their inclination that way; but that there should be a general agreement & resolution against Classical Combinations, I hear not; and ought therefore to suspend my judgement for the present, touching their practice. 11. Suppose every particular Congregation in New-England were independent, and subject to no other Ecclesiastical government out of itself; yet is this no sure argument to prove that the forward professors in England (as Mr Can calls them) are generally of the same opinion also; seeing these in England may be ignorant of that which is done so fare of. Yea, so fare as I can hear, even such as have been diligent to inquire, cannot yet get any certain information, what order of government is resolved upon in New-England.  
As for Mr Bates, I can say nothing touching his assent or descent in this point, seeing I have not seen his writing alleged against us.  
For the rest, they are all notably abused. For the Author of the Reply unto D. Downame, though he affirm that the administration of all Church-matters, at first was in every Congregation, the right in the Church, the execution in the Presbytery thereof; this doth neither exclude the Classis in censuring of the Presbytery if they abuse their power, nor hinder the Presbytery from seeking the help of the Classis in the exercise of their power, in matters of doubt and difficulty. The testimonies out of the Centuries, D. Whitgift, Thomas Bell, there 
(p) Repl. par 2. l. 2. p. 104  alleged by the Replyer, are answered already in the several places which Mr Can hath assigned unto them in his writing; where it hath been showed that in this controversy they are impertinent, & do not prove any thing against us. Besides Mr Can had the less cause to allege this place in the foresaid Reply, seeing the Author in the very next page doth approve of that order, which for election of Church-officers is practised at Geneva, saying 
(q) Ibid. p. 105.  that it is religiously and prudently observed. Mr Can might there have seen himself condemned under the name of Morellius, even by this Replyer also, as well as by Beza; seeing it is as true of him, as of the other, that which is there said, that he hath presumed by word and writing to reprehend that order, etc. our course being in substance the same, and opposed by Mr C. in like manner as theirs was by Morellius. Again, in the 
(r) P. 106.  next page the said Author doth expressly reject and detest that popular government, practised among the Brownists, and pleaded for by Mr Can, when having said that the people's consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment, according to that which we teach and practise, he adds withal, Notwithstanding a mere Democracie, wherein all matters are handled of all (aequato jure) by an equal right; we do no less detest, than that usurped Monarchy of Lordly Prelates, which other reformed Churches have abolished. And afterwards 
(s) P. 113.  when he allows a pre-eminence for order's sake, unto some one to be the mouth of the rest, in executing that which was by the whole Presbytery decreed, and then explains that one to be the Precedent 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 choice 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 been celebrated in well ordered Churches; even such as do not only advise, but also decree what is meet, as he had said of the Presbytery in general. As for the other places alleged out of this Author, I refer the Reader unto that which I have said 
(r) P. 116.117.  before touching the same, in my answer to Mr Davenport.  
Mr Parker, next alleged, speaks down right in this thing, saith Mr Can. The words cited out of Mr Parker, are these, All Ecclesiastical power is always in the whole Congregation, from hence it flows, as from the fountain, and to the same it returneth as to the Sea. For answer hereunto, 1. This Testimony here alleged by Mr C. is not only cited amiss, 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 seem more full for his purpose; but being taken as he sets it down, it doth not infringe the authority of Classes and Synods. For though all Ecclesiastical authority be said to flow from the Church, as from a fountain; this hinders not, but rather shows how power may be and is derived unto Classes, when particular Churches as fountains do by deputation and delegation send forth a stream of authority and power in Classical and Synodall Assemblies, in such manner as Mr Parker himself doth afterward 
(v) Pol. Eccl. l. 3 c. 13. etc. 23, 24, 25, etc.  often show unto his Reader. II. For the downright speech of Mr Parker, wherein Mr Can glorieth, I desire the Readers that understand, to review those passages which I have 
(x) P. 89-105.  before noted at large out of Mr Parker's book, & them that are able, to look upon those places in the book itself, and then to judge whether Mr Can be not either very blind in alleging the testimonies of learned men, when he knows not what they say; or else very impudent and dishonest, in corrupting and perverting their testimonies contrary to their meaning.  
As for Mr Baines, he is confusedly alleged, viz. Diocese. Trial, Conclus. 4. for whereas in that book there is often mention of Conclus. 4. who can tell what place he means? The truth is that none of those fourth Conclusions in any part of his book, do by any word impeach the authority of Classes or Synods. But on the contrary, in that his writing he gives plain and evident testimonies of his agreement with us, as I have 
(y) P. 111-116.  already sufficiently declared.  
Come we now to the testimony 
(z) Chu. pl. p. 23.  alleged in the name of D. Fulke, whom Mr Can praiseth to be a man famous and of rare learning. They object unto me that he saith 
(a) Learned Discourse. of Eccl. Gou. p. 84.  There aught to be in every Church an Eldership, which ought to have the hearing, examination and determining of all matters, pertaining to the Discipline & Government of that Congregation. Hereunto I answer, that such authority is to be exercised by the Eldership, yet so as that the judgement and consent of the Congregation in weightier matters be not excluded: and so also that the judgement of the Classis or Synod be not refused or denied. This Author will have the Eldership to determine all matters, if they be able to do it; & so he expounds himself, showing afterward that there be divers matters which the Eldership is not able by themselves to finish without help of a Synod.  
And because Mr Can in the margin of his book sets his mark over against this place, desiring us to Note this: so I desire both him and others to note well what this Author writes concerning the authoriy, necessity, and use of Synods. I am glad to hear Mr C. to give so great commendation unto this indeed Learned Author, who is so pregnant a witness for me and for Synods against the Brownists. This is that which he 
(b) Ibid. p. 82.83.  saith:  
Seeing our Saviour Christ promised his presence and authority to every Church indifferently, Matt. 18.19.20: None may challenge any such prerogative afore other: but as the Churches are limited out for order and conveniency, so is every one of them of like authority in itself: but because they make all but one Church, and one body of Christ, therefore there is but one authority in them, to determine of matters concerning them all. By which there appeareth to be a double authority of the Pastor: one with the several Congregation, in which he is Pastor, the other with the whole Synod or assembly, whereof he is a member, and both these authorities, we find sufficiently authorised in the Scripture, etc.  
Again, 
(c) Ibid. p. 111. 112.  There is a double authority of the Pastor, the one joined with the Elders of the Church whereof he is Pastor: 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, pertaining to the state of the whole Church, then by a general assembly of all the Pastors of that Church, which is called a Synod or General Council. Also there be divers cases, wherein the several Churches, are driven to pray the aid 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 Pastor hath authority to determine, concerning regiment of the Church.  
Again, 
(d) P. 115, 116. 117.  Let us return to the authority of the Synod, which consisteth in deciding and determining such matters as cannot otherwise in particular Churches be concluded, either because they concern the common state of all Churches, or because they lack sufficient authority in some one Church. First therefore the lawful Synod hath to consider, if any controversy of doctrine do arise, that it be determined by the word of God: etc. 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 comeliness and edification. So did the Synod of the Apostles and Elders, command for a time abstinency from meat offered to Idols, otherwise lawful in itself, for offences sake, etc. Also for order and comeliness, and best edification, the Synod hath to determine, what shall be observed in particular charges: as of the time, place, and form of preaching and praying, and administering of the Sacraments. For who should be able to know what order, comeliness and edification requireth according to God's word, but they that be teachers and preachers of the same unto all others? For it is absurd, that they should be taught by such in these small things, as aught to learn the truth of them in all matters, etc. 
(e) P. 118.  It is out of all controversy, that before there were any Christian Magistrates (—) this authority was proper unto the Synod. Which authority we know to be granted to the Church by our Saviour Christ: practised by his Apostles: continued by their successors three hundred years, before there were any Christian Emperors (—) and long time after there were Christian Emperors, even as long as any purity continued in religion, until both Emperors and Synods were thrust out of all lawful authority, which they ought to have in the Church, by the tyranny of Antichrist.  
In the same learned Discourse of Ecclesiastical Government, it is further added: 
(f) P. 122. 123. 124.  The Synod hath further authority concerning Discipline, to reform and redress by Ecclesiastical Censure, all such defaults and controversies, as cannot be determined in the particular Churches: as for example: If the Pastor himself, have need to be severely punished, where there is but one Pastor in a Church: or if Elders, which should be reformers of others, have notoriously misgoverned themselves: or if they have been led by affection to condemn 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 Schismatics, that withstood Paul and Barnabas at Antiochia, were constrained to yield by authority of the Council, and Paul and Barnabas restored to their credit. For which causes Synods ought oftentimes to be assembled, though not general of the whole Realm, but particular of every Province or Shire, as it may be most conveniently, that such things as are to be reform, may be redressed with speed.  
These and many other such like assertions in allowance of Synods and their authority, hath this learned Author, whom yet they have alleged against me. Had Will. Best but had so much wit or conscience as to have duly 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 blindly upon the fidelity and skill of a Brownist, therefore is he run into Scandal, having published many slanders against the Churches of Christ, and wrested so many witnesses against their meanings.  
In the next place the Testimony of Mr Fenner doth fitly offer itself to be examined of us: for seeing he took upon him the Defence of the former Author against Bridges, who impugned that learned Discourse of Eccles. Gou. we have reason to expect that he also will defend the authority of Synods in like manner. As for the two pages which Mr Ca 
(g) Against Bridges p. 15, 16.  allegeth, he neither specifyeth his words, neither do I find in either of those pages any one word against the use of Classes or Synods amongst us, but on the contrary a clear testimony which he gives unto them. For speaking there [in pag. 16.] of the form of Discipline apppointed of God, and of the several points thereof particularly set down in the word of God, with other he reckoneth up these, the joint care of Elderships and Synods. Afterwards he speaketh more fully in praise of this government, and saith, 
(h) Def. of Ecc. Disci. ag. Bridg. p. 105.  The nature of this order itself, which admitteth no Minister but learned, nor any decision of weight, but by advise of many, & with appointed conferences and Synods of learned men for such purposes: besides the assurance of God's favourable blessing of his own ordinance, and the experience of the Synods of the Reformed Churches, the comparison of their judgements, Canons, and other constitutions, with the like of the other in any part, beareth witness, whether the want of learning and piety both, must needs be greater in it, then in the other. Whereas D. Fulk had given unto these Churches which have a Classical and Synodall government, the title and praise of 
(i) Learn. Disc. of Ecc. Gou. p. 7.  rightly reformed Churches; when D. Bridges was offended therewith, Mr Fenner maintains that praise to be due unto them, and commends (k) their entire and whole obedience which they yield to God, in receyving all the holy doctrine of our Saviour Christ, both concerning things to be believed, and also concerning the spiritual policy, Discipline and order, for guiding of his Church. And further, in the same place he repeats and undertakes to defend D. Fulkes words, persuading to embrace that most beautiful order of Ecclesiastical regiment, which God doth so manifestly bless and prosper in our neighbour's hands. Hereby it may appear how fare Mr Fenner was from that erroneous and slanderous spirit of Mr C. and W.B. And here by the example of W. Best all simple & ignorant men are to be warned of publishing such false things as he hath done, upon the credit of other men that are strangers from the Churches of Christ. Moreover, the judgement of Mr Fenner in approving this use of Synods for the government of Churches and judgement of causes, may be clearly seen in sundry other testimonies which he hath given to this purpose, and which I have 
(l) P. 84-88.  before noted: where among the rest, when having maintained the right of Synods to be jure divino, alleging many Scriptures for the warrant thereof, he inferreth from hence this common law that other members of the Church which have no Ecclesiastical office, are to be subject to this government, and aught to advance the same according to their power, etc. it is thereby evident that he could not like the course of W. B. or any such other schisming from the Church for this cause, and complaining 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 alleged before out of that treatise of English Puritanisme, against the authority of Classes and Synods: neither is it to be found in any part of that Demonstration, that Christ hath not subjected any Congregation unto any other superior Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, then unto that which is within itself, etc. And therefore it is untruly affirmed of Mr Can, that there is nothing there said, but Mr Udall with others above mentioned, hath said the like. On the contrary, in that writing ascribed to Mr Udall, there be sundry testimonies showing the authority of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations. As it was 
(m) P. 204.  before noted out of D. Fulke that there is a double authority of the Pastor; one with the several Congregation in which he is Pastor, the other with the whole Synod or Assembly whereof he is a member, and both these authorities sufficiently authorized in the Scriptures: so saith Mr Udall to like purpose, 
(n) Demōst. of Discip. c. 1.  The word of God hath described sufficient ministers & ministeries for doctrine, exhortation, overseeing, distributing, and ordering of every particular Church or general Synod. And again, he saith of Bishops or Pastors, that 
(o) Ib. c. 10  they are of equal authority in their several charges, and in the general government of the Church. And in the same chapter he allegeth the decrees of divers 
* 2. Concil. Carth. tom. 1. c. 10. & 3 Conc. tom. 1. cap. ●.  Counsels, showing how the causes of one Church or Congregation were judged by many Bishops of other Congregations meeting together. In special, when some 
(p) Demōst. of Disc. c. 14  objected that there would be so many Elderships, so many divers fashions, seeing one may not meddle with another: Hereunto he answers, The Government desired is uniform for every Church and admitteth no change, no not in outward ceremonies, without a Synod of the choice men of several Elderships. Hereby he plainly 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 Frankford in Queen Mary's days, is also alleged as a proof of the Non-conformists dissenting from me; whereunto I answer: I. Those three Articles of their Discipline objected; the one, that the Ministers and Seniors, severally and jointly, shall have no authority to make any manner of Decrees or Ordinances to bind 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, until the matter be first heard by the whole Church: And further, that Ministers and Seniors, and every of them, be subject to Ecclesiastical discipline, as other priuáe members of the Church be; these do not at all concern the question betwixt us. For these things being granted, it doth not follow that then the authority of Synods is overthrown, 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 denied and condemned such a Classical 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 alleged without any quotation at all, either of page, or number of Article specified in the book; and both are joined together as if they were but one Article. And in the second Article there is omitted that disjunction, which affords an exception touching the strict observation thereof. For whereas Mr Can allegeth it simply thus, None shall be excommunicated until the matter be heard by the whole Church; the 
(q) Disc. of troubls. at Frankf. p. 129.  book itself admitteth the liberty of a different practice by adding this clause, or by such as it shall specially appoint thereunto. This falsification is so much the greater, in that Mr Horn objecting against this Article, and arguing that thereby 
(r) P. 163, 164.  the authority of the Pastor and Seniors is all wiped away; for every thing is referred to the confused multitude of the Congregation: Mr Whithead in the same book answereth him on this manner, Where he saith, all things is referred to the confused multitude, it is manifestly false. For it is always added, by such as the Congregation shall appoint thereto: as it is also in the 54 Article added in plain words. Let the Reader observe this deceitful allegation, both against the express words of the Article, & against the plain explication thereof by Mr Whit. in the name of that English Church at Frankford.  
Whereas Mr Can 
(s) Chu. pl. p. 36.  objecteth further from Art. 26. & 67. that in some cases the forenamed English Church agreed that appeals should be made unto the body of the Congregation; I answer, that in such cases as are there specified, If the Ministers and Seniors which have authority to hear & determine, etc. (as it is elsewhere specified, though not in this Article) be suspected or found to be parties, that then they had reason to appeal rather to the body of the Congregation, than that parties should be suffered to be judges in their own cause. And no marvel, considering what I have noted 
(t) P. 121-125.  before touching the state of that Church; where the Reader may see a further answer unto these objections. But then he asks me what I say to this, and hopes I will not say that they were Brownists: I answer, His hope is right in this point, I may not say they were Brownists, nor their practice the same with the Brownists: 1. Because they made this agreement through necessity, when they wanted a Classis, whereas the Brownists wilfully oppugn and refuse Classical combinations. 2. Because the Brownists deny authority of judgement unto Ministers and Elders, in such cases where they are no parties, which this 
(v) Art. 59.63.  Church at Frankford did not. 3. Because the English Church at Frankford did not teach the doctrine of Separation, as the Brownists do, but when they could not obtain the reformation desired, did 
(x) Disc. of troub. Frankford, p. 187-191.  still hold one another brethren in the Lord, though greeved for the defects among them.  
But it is wonder that Mr Can is not ashamed to allege the example of this English Church at Frankford: for whereas G. johnson in a peculiar 
(y) Disc of troub. in the banish. English Church at Amsterd. p. 21-73.  treatise which he wrote against his brother Franc. johnson, and that Church of the Brownists whereof he was Pastor, 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. Mary's days, and some troubles in the banished English Church at Amsterdam in Q. Elizabeth's days; he brings more than an 100 several instances to show that where any disorder, scandal or offence was in the English Church at Frankford, the like evils, 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) Ibid. p. 73-93.  Differences between the Pastor, Elders & people in the troubles at Frankford in Q. Mary's days, and the Pastor, Elders and people in the troubles at Amsterdam in Q. Elizabeth's days; he brings more than 20 several instances to show that the English Church of the Separation was worse than the other, and that where divers good orders and practices were in the English Church at Frankford, the same were wanting in the Church of the Brownists at Amsterdam. And in particular, let this be observed, that concerning the English Church at Frankford G. johnson 
(a) P. 74.  allegeth, that there was agreement among them, that the matter should be decided by learned men. But concerning those at Amsterdam he saith, These differ fare from them herein, they will not consent hereunto, they will not be persuaded, or entreated to let the Reformed Churches hear, try, judge, and end the controversy between them and us. For proof hereof he notes in his margin, This is witnessed by the testimony of the Dutch Preachers, given to the Pastor's father. Now instead of pleading from the orders of that Church at Frankford, it had been fit for Mr Can to have taken warning from these unparallelled offences of his predecessors, not to maintain the like disorders; or else to have answered these parallels and censures of G. johnson, and so to have removed (if he could) the scandal and blame which hath so long lain upon his fellows for not answering this book.  
HAving considered the particular testimonies of Non-conformists, and how they have been perverted by Mr Can, in applying them against the authority of Synods; it shall not be amiss to add yet further a threefold Testimony, to manifest this point more clearly and fully, and so to conclude this Section: namely by the Petitions of Non-conformists to Qu. Elizabeth, and to the Parliament; the opposition of the Prelates to the Non-conformists; & the scorn of the Brownists against Non-conformists.  
First, when as the Ministers have made request unto Q. Elizabeth for reformation of things amiss, showing how controversies may be compounded, they say, 
(b) Petit. to the Q. most excel. Maj. p. 3.  that a free Nationall or Provincial Council at home were much to be wished, etc. 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) Ibid. § 19 p 57  That if any dissension grow or cause of grievance be given in any particular Church by the Minister or Officers, the party grieved might appeal to a particular Synod; from the particular Synod to a Provincial Synod; from a Provincial 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 behalf and at the direction of the rest, etc. And a little after again, 
(d) § 21.  they do profess and protest, that they can and will avow this Reformation which they desire, to be most agreeable to the Scriptures, to have the testimony of the best & most learned men that have been since the Apostles, etc. If Mr Ca will not wink with his eyes, he may here see what reformation hath been sought and held needful, and that jure Divino.  
In like manner Mr Travers testifieth of these conferences, or Classes & Synods, 
(e) Eccles. Disc. p. 98. with p 103. 104. reprin. 1617.  that nothing could be more profitable than these Assemblies, being so used as they are appointed to be used by the word of God, and used by other purer and better reformed Churches, etc. and concludes that his treatise of Discipline with an humble supplication unto Qu. Elizabeth of happy memory, for the establishing of such a Discipline in her dominions.  
To like purpose do they write which were the Authors of the Admonition to the Parliament, holden in the 13. year of Q. Eliz. begun Anno 1570, and ended 1571. They 
(f) Admon. to Parl. p. 51 52. ed. 1617.  describing the platform of 2 Church reform, and presenting their desire to the consideration of the Parliament, do therein commend the use of Conferences, and of Synods Provincial, Nationall and General, for determining the weighty causes which could not be ended in particular Churches. And they require that men should stand unto these determinations, unless they can be showed to be contrary to the Scriptures.  
Secondly, such as have been special maintainers of the Prelacy do confess 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 counsel only, 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 special 
(g) Danger. Positio. for Presbyteri. Governm. l. 3. c. 2-15  Record, that when divers Ministers not conforming were cast into prison, and some of them brought into the Star-chamber and examined upon their oaths, they declared the earnest endeavours of many Ministers for the obtaining of Classes.  
And there among such as gave pregnant testimony in allowance of Classical 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 jackson, Mr Bonham, Mr Crane, Mr S●inctloe, Mr Edward's, 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, etc. And about Northamptonshire alone are 
(h) Ib. p. 77  recorded more than 20 of this mind. About Northampton; Mr Snape, Mr Penrie, Mr Sibthorp, Mr Edward's, Mr Litl●ton, Mr Bradshaw, Mr Lark, Mr Fleshware, Mr Spicer, etc. About Daventrie; Mr Barbon, Mr Rogers, Mr King, Mr Smart, Mr Sharp, Mr Promdlos, Mr Elliston, etc. About Kettring; Mr Stone, Mr Williamson, Mr Fawsbrook, Mr Patinson, Mr Massey, etc.  
The laws, rules and order, both in Classes and in Synods, described in that 
(i) Ibid. p. 109, 110, etc.  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 Ecclesiastical government. The agreement and consent of these men in their desire of Classes and Synods, according to the order and practise observed also in Scotland & at Geneva, is therefore by the Recorder thereof noted & styled over the head of many pages in that book, English Genevating for Reformation: And again, English Scottizing for Discipline by practice. Even these reproaches do justly serve for the reproof of Mr Can, who denies that which other opposites do 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 scorn & reproach they speak of Synods, yet that very scorn and reproach is a witness against Mr Can. and W. B. to show the consent of former times with me. Hen. Barow speaking of the censures of evil, and condemning both Conformists and Non-conformists together, he saith; 
(k) H. Bar. Discov. of False Chur. p. 165.  Yea all the Priests of the land, both Pontifical and Reformists agree in this point, & conclude that the lay people (as they term 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 Provincial or Classical Synod or permanent Council of Priests, etc. Amongst whom all these affairs must be debated, and after they are agreed upon the point, than their decrees to be brought forth, solemnly published and pronounced to the people, who must attend upon, wait, and receive these Oracles as most holy and Canonical. They have no remedy if they also be contrary to the truth, but to appeal to a Council, etc. And this he calleth a devilish forgery, etc.  
After that to like purpose he saith, 
(l) Ibid. p. 169.  These Priests, they will not only not submit their persons and doctrine to the censure of the Church where they administer (for they must have a Jury of Clerks, a Classis of Priests to go upon them) but they bind their poor Church to their lips & build it upon themselves, and with their blazing light strike all the rest of their hearers & followers stark blind. Again, 
(m) P. 169, 170.  By their Prophetical Conventicles and Classical Synods they assume into their own hands the key of all knowledge, and shutting up the Scriptures, yea all God's graces, even the Holy Ghost itself among themselves in these their Schools of Prophets: as also into their Classes of select Priests the sceptre of Christ and absolute government of all Churches, to whom it is left but to receive and execute the reverend decrees of this famous Classis of Priests.  
In another place, having told how the Pontificals have opened their mouths unto accursed blasphemy, than he returns unto the Reformists, and speaks on this wise, 
(n) P. 189, 190.  The Pharisees of these times, I mean these your great learned Preachers, your Good men that sigh and groan for Reformation, but their hands with the sluggard deny to work. These counterfeits would raise up a second error, even as a second Beast, by so much more dangerous by how much it hath more show of the truth. These men instead of this gross Antichristian government which is now manifest and odious unto all men, would bring in a new adulterate forged government in show, or rather in despite of Christ's blessed government, which they in the pride, rashness, ignorance and sensuality of their fleshly hearts most miserably innovate, corrupt and pervert, etc. The thing itself they innovate and corrupt, in that they add new devises of their own; as their Pastoral suspension from their Sacraments, their set continued Synods, their select Classes of Ministers, their settled supreme Council, etc.  
That which Mr johnson and others with him do require, is more general and ambiguous, viz. 
(o) Apol. of Brown. Pet. 3 pos. 9 p. 64.  that the Church be not governed by Popish Canons, Courts, Classes, Customs, or any humane inventions, but by the laws and rules which Christ hath apppointed in his Testament. But that which H. Barow writes is more plain, and more particularly applied to the Ministers of England, whom he calleth the Reformists. Of them he saith, 
(p) Discov. p. 191.  Their permanent Synods & Counsels also which they would erect (not here to speak of their new Dutch Classes, for therein is a secret) should only consist of Priests or Ministers as they term them; people of the Churches be shut out, & neither be made acquainted with the matters debated there, neither have free voice in those Synods and Counsels, but must receive and obey without contradiction whatsoever those learned Priests shall decree. These Synods, and Counsels shall have absolute power over all Churches, doctrines & Ministers, to erect, ratify or abrogate, to excommunicate or depose at their pleasures: Their decrees are most holy without controlment, unless it be by the Prince or the high Court of Parliament: Not here to speak of their solemn orders observed in these Councils and Synods, as their choice by suffrage amongst themselves of their Archisynagogon, or Rector Chori, their Precedent (as they call him) propounder or moderator of their Council; about which their predecessors have had no small stir, until their holy Father the Pope put an end to the strife by getting the chair. This stuff they would bring in again under colour of Reformation, these and many more their leavened corrupt writings of Discipline, and their supplications unto the Parliament, declare: etc.  
Again he saith, 
(q) Ib. P. 193  These Reformists, howsoever for fashion sake they give the people a little liberty to sweeten their mouths, and make them believe that they should choose their own Ministers (for further right in the censuring their Ministers, or in the ordering the affairs of their Churches they allow not, as hath been said) yet even in this pretended choice do they cousin & beguile them also, leaving them nothing but the smoky windy title of election only; enjoining them to choose some University Clerk, one of these College birds of their own brood, or else comes a Synod in the neck of them, & annihilates the election whatsoever it be. They have also a trick to stop it before it come so fare; namely in the ordination, which must (forsooth) needs be done by other Priests: for the Church that chooseth him hath no power to ordain 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 & received as Angels in hell, and shine as bright stars in these smoky Egyptian fornaces, wherein the miserable people of the land are kept in most hard servitude, etc.  
These scornful and reproachful speeches of H. Barow do 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 Classical government. Though H. Barow according to his manner do overlash, and utter much falsehood; yet he is not guilty of so great fallhood as Mr Can, in denying what the Ministers and forward professors in England (as he calls them) did heretofore seek, and sue for. It is certain and evident that the Non-conformists have 
(r) Demōst. of Disc. c. ●. pr. 3. & p. 24, 25. Mr Travers of Ecc. Disc. p. 19 20. Admon. to Parl. p. 15. edit. 1617.  held that unto the just calling of a Minister there is required the calling of a particular and certain Church where he is to administer: Yea so much is also confessed touching them by the 
(s) Dang. pos. l. 3. of Engl. Scoti. c. 3. p. 46. etc. 14. p. 114. 115.  Prelatists, when by them it is recorded as a decree of the Synodical Discipline, that none should take upon him an uncertain and vague ministry, though it be offered unto him; but such as be called to the ministry by some certain Church, etc. And again, that none is to be accounted a full Minister until some particular Congregation had chosen him, etc. For though as in these Churches, after due examination & approbation by a Classis, men are allowed to preach and to exercise their gifts occasionally, yet are not such esteemed Ministers, until they be called by some Church, and confirmed therein. But H. Bar. as in divers other things so in this, speaks slanderously of the Classes, and of the Ministers approving them, when as he saith, 
(t) Discov. p 175.  Both sides, both Bishops and this new Classis take upon them to make Ministers without the people, without any charge, place, or office certain. Though the falsehood of H. Bar. be manifest herein, yet Mr Can goes a degree beyond him, when he shames not to deny the approbation which the Nonconformists have given to the Dutch Classes and Synods, which H. Bar. could not deny for the fact, though he impugn them as erring therein.  
Let the Reader now observe here the palpable untruth of Mr C. & of W.B. in their Apish imitation of my words, which they so falsely apply against me, saying, 
(v) Chu. pl. p. 88, 89.  As Herod to kill one infant spared not to kill a multitude of other infants: so he, that he might undermine us and blow us up into the air, he cared not, nor spared not with the gunpowder of his fiery contention and reproaches to blow up with us a multitude of Godly and learned Ministers being of the same judgement with us. I desire the Readers to look upon my former 
(x) Answ. to W.B. p. 71, 72, 73. & 18, 29.30, etc.  writing, and then to judge whether I had not just cause to complain of their wounding the Classis through my sides, and of their reproaching the Ministers of these Reformed Churches under my name, in regard of their consent and practise agreeable to mine. I desire that the testimonies, confessions, and petitions of the ancient Non-conformists above mentioned, in allowance of a Classical & Synodall government, may be duly pondered; & then let any indifferent Reader judge, whether I undermine them and blow them up into the air, etc. while I confirm their testimonies both by word and practice. But these opposites, Mr Can and his client have so little conscience of truth, that they have not cared to utter the grossest falsehood, so that they might but contradict me. Let them remember, Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 12.22.   

SECT. VI  
Touching the Testimonies of Ancient fathers, Counsels, and Emperors.  
THe Advocate of W.B. not content with the testimonies of men in later times, leads us back to the testimony of Antiquity, and to the Ages long before. And though he 
(a) Ch. pl. p. 89.  confess he had done it already, in mentioning some testimonies of the most ancient times; yet notwithstanding to show that he stands not for any Novelty, he professeth again, he will show that the best approved Authors, after the Apostles, are directly with them, in this thing, etc. Those which he allegeth are these, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose, Cyrill, Hilary, Greg. Nazianzen, Augustine, chrysostom, Basill, Socrates, Isidorus, Bernard. And with these he also makes mention of some Counsels and Christian Emperors.  
For answer hereunto, First in general it is to be observed, that the thing which he here pretends to prove, viz. that every particular visible Church of Christ, hath power to exercise Ecclesiastical government, and all other Gods spiritual ordinances, in and for itself immediately from Christ; this comes short of the question betwixt us. For this being granted, it doth not follow hereupon that the power of Classes and Synods is an undue power, or that particular Churches may not therefore stand under the authority of another superior Ecclesiastical judicatory out of themselves. This their inference will never be made good from such a ground. This beggarly consequence I have oft 
(b) P. 145, 146, 149. etc.  refuted before.  
To come more particularly unto the testimonies of these Authors, which he promiseth to set down according to the times in which they lived: And to begin first with Ignatius; from him he allegeth that it was then the manner of visible Churches 
(c) Ad Philadelph. ad Magnes. ad Trall.  to come together in one place, to worship God▪ having Bishops, Elders and Deacons unto their Officers, whom the people freely chose by voices, or lifting up of hands. I answer: 1. All that is here said being granted, it follows not that they were independent, and refused to submit their controversies to the judgement of other Churches assembled in Synods. Ignatius being Minister of the Church of Antiochia in Syria, which had of old submitted their controversy to the Synod held at jerusalem, Act. 15. what reason is there to think they forgot their old practice, approved by the Apostles themselves? 11. Though it be probable, and we injudgement of charity are bound to think that the Officers, Bishops, Elders, and Deacons of this Church were chosen with the free consent of the people, according to the direction of the Apostles; yet is not so much specified in any of those three Epistles here mentioned in the margin, and therefore are they vainly alleged 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) Epist. ad Philadel. p. 76. edit. Paris. 1562.  to choose a Bishop, which being sent thither as an Ambassador in the Embassage of God, it might be granted unto them to glorify God in their meeting together. He speaks there not of choosing a Bishop to minister in their own Church, but of choosing one to be their Deputy, to travel unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for settling of order in that Church. And in the same place to move them the more, he showeth what was the practice of the Primitive Churches in such cases, viz. that always the neighbour Churches did send Bishops, and some of them Elders and Deacons. Again, writing upon the same occasion unto Polycarpus, Bishop of Smyrna, he saith 
(e) Epist. ad Polyc. p. 97▪ 98.  It was meet to gather a Synod comely in the Lord, and choose some dearly beloved and diligent person, which might be called Theodromos, [or one that should run for God,] who might travel into Syria, and thereby celebrate their diligent love to the praise of God. And using many arguments to commend that business unto him as the work of God, he intreateth Polycarpus that he would write unto other Churches, that they would do the same thing; that they which were able would send men to travel on foot, that others would send their letters to be conveyed by such as Polycarpus should send thither. From these testimonies of Ignatius, Mr Parker 
(f) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. p. 356.  concludes that in those times, according to the practice of the Reformed Churches with us, neighbour Churches were combined together as it were Classically, for the mutual communication of offices. And whereas D. Bilson 
(g) Perpet. Gou. c. 7.  confesseth that it was the manner of that time, if any Church was tossed with waves of discord, that neighbour Churches round about did send a Bishop, Elder or Deacon for appeasing that tempest: Mr Parker infers justly thereupon, If neighbour Churches had right or authority in compounding of strifes, why not also in moderating of elections? His conclusion in the same place is, Let this very right in compounding strife be a sufficient authorization for our Classes. Thus than it is apparent that Ignatius was not directly with Mr Can, as he boasteth, but his meaning hath been manifestly perverted contrary to his words.  
Tertullian, that is next alleged (though misalledged, c. 29. being put for c. 39) relating the manner of Christian assemblies in his time, saith in effect, 
(h) Apol. c. 39  They came together into the Congregation [it is not said into one Congregation, as Mr C. allegeth it] for to pray unto God, for to rehearse the Divine Scriptures, and with holy words you nourish faith, stir up hope, and fasten confidence. And they used exhortations, reproofs 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 mutual assistance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult causes. It follows not because several Congregations have their due power, that therefore the power of Classes is an undue power. II. that Tertullian himself intended no such thing, it appears evidently by the great approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods, in saying, 
(i) De Jejunüs advers. Psychi. c. 13  The appointed Synods are kept through the countries of Graecia in certain 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 allegeth the words of Origen, writing much to the same purpose, 
(k) In Jos. Hom. 7.  Such as were brought in the third place, for sin 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 own words he saith, 
(l) Ch. pl. p. 90.  Observe here, he saith not that the matter was carried to a Classis, and there first determined, etc. but names only the Congregation, and Elders thereof; notwithstanding had there been any such superior judicatory Assembly, it is likely he would have omitted it, and mentioned a subordinate and inferior one. ANSW. I. The words which they allege in another letter in origen's name, as if they had been his speech verbatim described, are not his words. He neither speaks of men brought unto the Church, nor of the judgement of the Church, nor of Elders pronouncing the sentence: he shows how all the people might be polluted by the sin of one man, when the Briefts which rule the people being unmindful of priestly severity do not rebuke, nor take away evil from them, nor make him as a Publican and Heathen which hath despised the admonition of the Church; but not in such words and form of speech as Mr Can feigneth. II. All that Origen there speaks is not repugnant to Classical government: all that he there requireth is daily performed by the Churches among us, which stand under the government of Classes and Synods. Obstinate offenders having their names and offences divers times published before the whole Congregation, are with the consent thereof excommunicated, by the judgement of the Eldership going before. III. If Origen in his writings had expressly denied the authority of Synods, it had been of no great weight against the general judgement of other ancient Fathers; the rather, seeing his writings are rejected and condemned by so many, especially by Epiphanius and Hieronie, the Authors hereafter alleged by Mr Can. And see how vain many of his glosses were even touching this point. Speaking of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Mat. 16. he there tells us of many keys to open several gates in heaven's that 
(m) Orig in Mat. 16.  Tempérance is one key to open the Gate of Temperance in heaven; that justice is another key to open another Gate, and so for all other virtues. And afterwards expounding the promise made Matt. 18.18. touching binding and losing in heaven, & comparing it with the promise made unto Peter Mat. 16.19. because a word of the plural number is used in the promise to Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in coelis, and to others a word of the singular number, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in coelo; Origen from thence 
(n) Idem in Mat. 18.  teacheth us this Doctrine, that Peter did bind and lose in all heavens, whereas some others did but bind and lose 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 than 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 Mr Can misalledgeth Origen to impugn the authority of Classes and Synods; so other more learned & judicious Writers allege 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) De Conc. qu. 5. p. 183.  from the greater assistance of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ governing his Church, to wit, in Synods: and for declaration hereof brings the testimony of Origen, noting upon Rom. 15. that it is said to none of the Apostles singularly, and to none of the faithful, I will be with thee; but unto a multitude of Churches plurally, I will be wish you. And Mr Parker 
(p) Pol. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 89, 90.  from him repeateth again the same Argument, taken from the testimony of Origen. And besides this it is noted by the 
(q) Cent. 3. c. 9  Magdeburgenses how Origen himself was employed in divers Synods in Arabia, for the conviction of sundry heresies.  
Cyprian is in like manner perverted: for when as he 
r Lib. 3. Epist. 14. & 10.  reproving those Elders that without consent either of the people, or of their Pastor, had rashly received unto the Communion again such as were fallen and become Apostates, before their due confession of fault, doth show that such things ought not to be concluded without common consent of the Church; and confesseth also that 
s L. 1. ep. 4  the people chief 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 clear testimony for the warrant of Synods in deciding of weightier causes, when in that Synodall Epistle written by Cyprian. Caecilius. Primus. Polycarpus, and many others, in the name of the Synod then assembled together, it is said, that 
t Art. 6, 7.  it is to be observed and held by divine Ordinance and Apostolical observation, which is also kept among us, and almost through all the Provinces, that for the right performing of ordination, all the next Bishops of that Province are to assemble together unto that people to which an Overseer is ordained, etc. And of this practice he there gives an instance in the ordination of Sabri●●, and in the deposition of Basilides, and shows the reason thereof, that by the suffrages of the whole brotherhood, 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 belayed upon him instead of Basilides. And besides this, we find there many 
v Cypt. L. 1. ep. 2. & 5 Firmil. ad Cyp. Ep. 75. p. 236.  other pregnant evidences of the use, necessity and authority of Synods in those times. From thence S. Go●●●●tius in his answers to Pa●dius his annotations on Cyprian, doth 
x P. 243. ad annot. 14  confirm the liberty of Churches in maintaining yearly their Provincial Synods, etc. From thence also Mr Parker confirms the use of Classical government in these Reformed Churches, and concludes, 
y Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. de Classib. p. 356, 357.  Why do I spend time? There is nothing more evident to him that is acquainted with the ancient monuments of history, than that neighbours (even besides the Synod) did eftsoon meet together for deciding of strifes, for ordinations, for dissolving of doubts, and in sum, for every meighty business. Of which assemblies the Epistles of Cyprian are full. And these assemblies what are they else but Classical assemblies? And again in the same place; Hereof we have examples every where in the Epistles of Cyprian. A little after, Who sees not here the lively portraiture of our Classes? And, Oh how doth the Hierarchy offend which hath banished this most pleasant combination of Classes? Hereby the Reader may judge whether it be not an absurd and senseless boasting of Mr Can, who oppugning this Classical government, is not ashamed to say of Cyprians testimony in these Epistles, What can be more full and absolute to our purpose then this? With what judgement doth this man read the writings of the Fathers?  
It is said in the 
a Ch. pl. p. 90.  next place, Eusebius testifieth that the Churches of the most famous Cities were in their constitution first, but one ordinary constant Congregation, as Jerusalem 
b Eus. l. 3.11. , Ephesus 
c L. 3.28. , Alexandria 
d 3.13. , Hierapolis 
e 4.1. , Corinth 
f 3.32. , Sardis 
g 4.22. , etc. This being so, than it follows, that primitively they were independent; and stood not under any other Ecclesiastical authority, out of themselves. In the allegation of these testimonies out of Eusebius, there be divers mistake and failings 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 alleged 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 alleged, Eusebius doth not testify that the Churches of these Cities, were in their constitution first, but one ordinary constant Congregation; he hath no such words. He gives unto them the name and title of a Parish; but it is not proved that in every Parish there was but one ordinary constant Congregation. Whether they were so or not, this title of Parish proves is not. II. The consequence made from hence is more evidently false: for to admit these Churches were at the first but one ordinary constant Congregation, yet doth it not at all follow that therefore primitively they were independent, and stood not under any other Ecclesiastical 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 Ecclesiastical 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 fare distant, they wanted opportunity of combining themselves together for their mutual assistance; this hinders not but that upon the increase 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 Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves, and were subject unto their censures, he makes it evident by sundry instances. He 
h Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 14.  records how the error of Montanus was judged and condemned by many Synods in Asia: how 
i L. 6. c. 42.  Novatus and the Catharists were excommunicated by a Synod holden at Rome, consisting of 60 Bishops, with many Elders and Deacons: how 
k L. 7. c. 29.  Paulus Samosatenus was deposed and excommunicated by a Synod holden at Antioch. He declares 
l De vita Const. l. 3. c. 6, 7, etc.  at large and celebrates the piety of Constantine, the great friend & maintainer of Christian religion, for assembling the Nicene Synod, wherein Arius was condemned. And in like manner he shows the 
m Ibid. l. 1. c. 44.  impiety of the Emperor Licinius, the enemy of God, who by a mischievous devise sought to ruinated the Churches of God by depriving them of their liberty in meeting together in Synods, for deciding of their controversies. So expressly and clearly doth Eusebius give testimony unto Synods.  
That which is collected out of Athanasius, viz. that elections, excommunications, etc. according to the Apostles precept, aught to be done in the public Congregation by the Ministers, they taking first the people's voice or consent; is such as I do willingly assent unto. Neither was there ever any election, either of Minister, Elder, or Deacon, nor any excommunication of any offender among us, but that the matter was first solemnly communicated with the Church, and declared several times in the public 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 witness unto us, that the causes and controversies of particular Churches, were in his time submitted to the censure of other Churches, and to another superior Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. This Athanasius shows in these very places here alleged against me: And in the first of them, having 
n Tom. 1. Epist. ad ubiq. Orthodoxos.  made a lamentable narration of the miseries procured to the Church of Alexandria by the intrusion and cruelty of an Arian Bishop, he then most vehemently supplicates unto those that were members of the same body with them in other Churches, that as the former year their brethren at Rome were willing to have called a Synod, but that they were hindered; so they having greater occasion to vindicate the Church of God from new evils, would [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] by their suffrages condemn, and reject the Authors of such mischiefs. And more plainly in the 2d place, he declares 
o Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes.  at length that in the Synod holden at Sardica, where Hosius was Precedent, and whither the accusers of Athanasius were cited, the cause being heard, the Synod did not only advise and counsel 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. count. Nicae. c. 9 Ecc. Hist.] it seems to be misquoted: I find no such Title in all the works of Athanasius. Instead thereof therefore, let us see another testimony of his, wherein he teacheth what the government of the Church was in those times, namely ruled by authority of Synods, where the weightier causes were judged & decided. Of this he 
p Tom. 2. Epist. ad Rusinian.  gives instances in the Synods of Alexandria, Greece, and Spain, where Euzoius, Eudoxius, and such principal offenders were deposed from their offices, and other upon their repentance retained. And the like Ecclesiastical authority is in many other places throughout his writings by him commended unto us. Let us hear how Mr C. proceeds.  
I. C. To these we will add Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose, Cyrill, Hilary and Greg. Nazianzen; writers in no age. Touching Ecclesiastical Government, these to this purpose speak: Particular Churches may lawfully ordain their own Bishops, without other Presbyters assisting them; Epiph. count. Haer. 73. and among themselves excommunicate offenders. Id. l. 1. Haeres. 30. Tom. 2. Haer. 5. ANSW. 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 point. In the first of them, viz. Haer. 73. he doth but catch at a shadow, and pervert the words of Epiphanius, and falsify them, by changing some and adding other, and omitting other that might give light unto the question. His words upon occasion of Meletius his confession and suffering for the truth, are these; There are many people of this order of this Synod, which setting Bishops over themselves, do make a marvellous confession touching the faith, & do not reject the word Coessential. Yea and say they are ready, if there were a perfect Synod, to confess & not to deny it. Here is no mention of particular Churches or Congregations; nor of lawfully ordaining, nor of doing this without other Presbyters assisting them. But that which is recorded touching the acknowledgement of a lawful or perfect Synod, that is omitted. Thus he varyeth from the Latin translation of Epiphanius: the Original Greek in divers Copies is further from the matter; having this beside other differences, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which made themselves to be Bishops, instead of lawfully ordaining their own Bishops. Such are the Allegations of Mr Can. II. Suppose the words Epiphanius had been the same that Mr C. relates, yet had not the authority of Synods been any thing diminished thereby. Is it not the common and ordinary practice in these Reformed Churches, that where two or more Ministers are in one Congregation, there the newly elected Ministers are ordained and confirmed without any other Presbyters from other Churches to assist them? Yet this is no good argument to prove they want Classes and Synods. And though also they do among themselves excommunicate offenders; yet this hinders not but that Classes or Synods may exercise their authority in judging or censuring such as have unjustly excommunicated any, or proceeded contrary to their advice therein. III. That Epiphanius did approve the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, it is manifest by his practice. It is 
q Socrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 9  recorded of him that he being Bishop of Salamis or Constantia in Cyprus, procured a Synod to be called in that Island, wherein the books of Origen were condemned, & a decree made that none should read his books. iv Epiphanius did not only approve the lawful authority of Synods; but he went further and did maintain the unlawful authority of particular persons over divers Churches. This appeareth in his 
r Epiph. Haer. 75.  condemning of Aërius of heresy, that held Bishops & Presbyters to be the same by divine institution; whom D. Whitaker 
s De Pont. Rom. q. 1. p. 104, 105, 106.  doth justly defend against Bellarmine and others, and shows that Jerome and other ancient Fathers were of the same mind with Aërius therein; and saith that we are not to regard the absurd men that do so often object Aërius unto us: he saith Epiphanius doth foolishly and childishly answer the testimonies produced by Aërius, and wonders that such a Divine that took upon him to refute all Heretics, did not see his own foul error. Yea it is further 
t Soc. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 11.13.  recorded of Epiphanius, that he disorderly intruded himself into the charge of chrysostom, contrary to the Ecclesiastical Canons observed in those times, by celebrating the Lords supper & ordaining a Deacon in the Church at Constantinople. And thus we see Mr Cans witnesses are in extremity opposite unto himself.  
Another of his witnesses is Jerome, from whom he allegeth, that 
v Jer. ad. Gal. q. 10.  In every Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders. To this I answer, I. This is nothing against the authority of Synods. The Reformed Churches have in every Congregation such a Senate of Elders: and yet this hinders not but that they have & aught 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 Jerome doth not avouch so much in the place alleged. His words are falsifyed: for in the place which they misquote (ad Gal. instead of ad Alg.) the words of Jerome are these, 
x Ad Algas. qu. 10.  How great the traditions of the Pharisees are, which at this day they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and what old wives fables, I cannot express. For neither doth the greatness of the book 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 envious nation. They have Rulers in their Synagogues, of their wisest men, deputed unto a filthy work, etc. What this filthy work was, though Jerome express it, yet I think it shame to publish. And this which he saith in detestation of the Jews, without approbation of their order, is all that he there saith for an assembly of Elders. So vain and insufficient are the Allegations of Mr Can. III. That Jerome allowed the authority of Synods above particular Churches, it may appear by that he saith, 
y Ad Euagriu ep. 85.  Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. If we seek for authority, greater is the world than the city; that is, as D. Whitaker expounds the same, the Churches dispersed through the world: he saith, 
z De Pont. Rom. qu. ●. p. 9●, 99  All the authority of the Church of Rome, is not so great as is the authority of all Churches every where. And thereby he acknowledgeth the authority of Synods arising from the deputation of many Churches, to be greater than the single authority of any one particular Church. Besides, whereas Damasus, Bishop of Rome, was a zealous opposite to the Arian, Macedonian, and other heresies, and in divers Synods furthered the censure and condemnation of such as persisted in those errors, and wrote divers Synodical Epistles which witness the exercise of that authority by Synods, Jerome 
a Ad Gerontiam.  confesseth that in the writing of those Synodall letters he did assist and help Damasus, which he could not with good conscience have done, unless he had allowed the authority of Synods. Lastly, if Jerome wrote that in every particular Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders; then is Mr Can and his Congregation condemned by Jerome, because they have now for many years had no Senate nor assembly of Elders, to govern them; Mr Can being sole governor of them, without an Eldership.  
In the next place, touching this assembly of Elders, he adds, that The power of choosing them is in the people. And for this he allegeth three Authors together, 
b Ad Rust. Hil. ad const August. Cyr. in joh. 20.21.  Jerome, Hilary, Cyrill. I answer: For Jerome, ad Rusticum; there is nothing at all spoken touching the matter, but he is falsely alleged. For Hilary, I. He is also falsely alleged: he saith nothing touching the Senate or assembly of Elders, of which Mr C. speaks. II. Though he entreat Constantius the Arian Emperor, who had banished many worthy Bishops, that he would permit the people to hear 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 also 
c Cent. Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 10 col. 1134, 1135.  wrote a peculiar book touching Synods, exstant among his works, which he had translated out of Greek into Latin, 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 been an usurped and unlawful power; he ought not to have given so much approbation of them, in alleging their authority for defence of his opinion, without some testification against their power. Besides, what colour of reason hath Mr C. to show that Hilarius should vary from the judgement of Orthodox Bishops, who in that age 
d Ib. Cent. 4. c. 7. col. 519. & 528 etc.  ordinarily used to meet together in Synods for the exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction?  
For cyril in joh. 20.21. whom he also brings to prove that the Senate or assembly of Elders, aught to be chosen by the people, he is in like manner abused and falsely alleged by him. For I. cyril upon those words of Christ, As the Father hath sent me, so send I you: saith that Christ in those words ordained the Teachers of the world, and Ministers of the divine mysteries, etc. That therefore Paul is true, saying, No man takes this honour unto himself, etc. Heb. 5. etc. He shows how Christ called his Disciples, but hath not a word, neither touching an assembly of Elders, nor of their choosing by the people. Such falsehood and forgery there is in the Allegations of Mr C. And yet if he had spoken as much as is here pretended, it had been no impeachment unto the authority of Synods, as was showed before. II. That this cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, did acknowledge the use of Synods, not only for counsel and admonition, but for censure and judgement of causes, it appeareth evidently by his practice, while in the 
e Euagr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 4.  Synod holden at Ephesus, in the time of Theodosius, he being a principal member of that Synod, did together with others give sentence against Nestorius, and deposed him from his office, for his obstinacy in refusing to appear before them, and for his heresy whereof he had been convicted.  
The next witness abused by him is Ambrose, who is alleged to show what the Senate or assembly of Elders is to do, viz. 
f Amb. Offi. l. 1. c. 1  These with spiritual bridles order men, etc. I answer: I. In the place alleged, there is not a word to be found, either touching a Senate of Elders, or touching spiritual bridles, or any thing to like purpose. II. If a Senate of Elders be spiritual bridles, than the Brownists with Mr C. that now want such a Senate, are an unbridled company, wanting order, etc. III. What though an assembly of Elders order men with spiritual bridles? Is there therefore no other spiritual bridle in the authority of Synods? What consequence is this? iv That Ambrose did allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, it appears, both by his practice, he 
g Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9  himself being present with Damasus, Britto, Valerian and other Bishops at the Synod holden at Rome for the censure of Apollinaris and Timotheus his disciple; and by his 
h Amb. Tom. 3. epi. l. 10. ep. 78. ad Theoph.  exhortation given unto Theophilus and others, to judge the cause of Euagrius and Flavianus, being deputed thereunto by the Synod of Capua: and again by his 
i Ib. Epi. 79. ad Theoph. & Any's.  exhortation given unto Theophilus & Anysius, that they being chosen by the same Synod of Capua, would give sentence touching Bonosus and his accusers, forasmuch as the Synod had given this authority unto them, and they did now supply the place thereof.  
With Ambrose he joins 
k In orat. fun. de patr.  Nazianzen, to testify also that a Senate or assembly of Elders do with spiritual bridles order men. But in the place alleged I find no such testimony as is mentioned: and therefore the three first answers made before unto the testimony from Ambrose, may also serve for Nazianzen. And further that Gregory Nazianzen did not limit all Ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation only, it may appear, if we observe, I. How 
l Soc. Hist. Ecc. l. 4. c. 21. Sozom. Hist. Ecc. l. 6. c. 17.  he himself was made Bishop of Constantinople, by the suffrages of many Bishops met together, which is a further degree of Ecclesiastical authority then that which is exercised in the Classes or Synods of these countries. II. How he pleadeth 
(m) Nazian. Epist. 1. ad Clidon.  from a Synodall law, touching the receyving of those that were fallen. III. How he alloweth the order of convocating and assembling neighbour Bishops about the creating of a new Bishop, affirming this to be 
(n) Epi. 30. ad Caesarien.  right and according to the Ecclesiastical law. iv How he in his counsel and exhortation unto the Synod at Constantinope, 
(o) Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 8.  asscribes unto them authority and power for his own dimission and translation, for the setting of another unblameable Bishop in his place, and thereby withal 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 alleged both by Mr Can and by Mr 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 Mr Can 
(p) Ch. pl. p. 93.  allegeth them, are these, 
(q) Ep. 42. ad Procop.  I am minded (saith he) to shun all assemblies of Bishops, because I never saw any good event in any Council, that did not rather increase then diminish our evils: Their contention and ambition passeth my speech. ANSW. I. Observe how Mr C. mistranslateth those words of Nazianzen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he rendereth, as signifying, passeth my speech; whereas they signify: prevailed more than reason, as 
(r) Apo. tep. p. 225.  Mr Dau. doth rightly translate them. But it is no wonder that Mr Can should mistake that which some more learned have done before. Grosser faults are more common with him. II. As for the testimony of Nazianzen, the answer of D. Whitaker may give sufficient satisfaction; who saith, 
(s) De Conc. qu. 1. c. 3. p. 13.14, 15.  It may seem strange that Nazianzen denies he had seen a good issue of any Synod. For in those two Synods, [viz. of Nice and Constantinople, which had been mentioned before,] truth got the victory, and heresy was put down. And though it be certain, that Arianisme was increased and grew strong and troubled the Church after the Synod of Nice, more than 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 known law of God, and rusheth headlong unto sin: so falsehood opposed itself more boldly unto the truth then explained and openly defended, whereupon after that Synod, which none excelled, greater incommodities did arise from the wickedness of men, etc. When Nazianz. saw so wicked dispositions of men, he was wholly turned from Counsels. Although without doubt he disallowed not the thing itself, but the wicked endeavours 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 avoided: that man shall dispute deceitfully from a wrong cause, from accident, and from the fallacy of consequent. But Nazianzen was to be pardoned, because he lived in the worst and most turbulent times of the Church, when by means of Valens the Emperor that degenerated from the Catholic faith, Heretics did more prevail, etc. Again he opposeth Augustine unto Nazianzene, and saith, It is most true which Augustine saith, Epist. 118. that the authority of Synods in the Church of God is most wholesome, which certainly he would not have said, if he had been of the same mind with Nazianzen. And further he opposeth unto the speech of Nazianz. the testimony of Christ, saying, Christ himself pronounceth and promiseth, Matt. 18.20. Where two or three are assembled together in his name, there he will be in the midst of them. In which words he signifieth that the assemblies and Synods of godly and religious men, undertaken and apppointed for godly causes, are not displeasing unto him. III. The testimony of Nazianzen is as much against the opinion of Mr Can and Mr Dau. as against that which we hold touching Classes and Synods. For seeing they allow such meetings for counsel and admonition, though not for exercise of any jurisdiction; and seeing the testimony of Nazian. doth extend itself to all kind of assemblies of Bishops, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] whether for counsel or censure, without exception of one sort more than another: therefore he no more condemneth our Synods, than those which my opposites allow.  
Augustine, his next witness, is in like manner perverted as the former. Though he in the place 
(t) DeDoct. Chr. l. 1. c. 17.  objected, do write that the keys were given to the Church; yet doth he not thereby exclude Synods gathered together in the name of Christ, from having a key of power in the judgement of Ecclesiastical causes. Had he proved that the title of the Church belongs only to a particular Congregation in the full assembly thereof, and not at all unto a Synod, than had it been something to the purpose; in the mean time, nothing. And that the mind of Augustine was otherwise, it appears by the great approbation which he 
(v) Epist. ad januar. Ep. 118. De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 2. c. 3.  gives unto the use and authority of Synods, as being most wholesome in the Churches of God. D. Whitaker 
(x) DePont. Rom. q. 4. p. 484. & 497  allegeth often the presence of Augustine at divers Synods. And it is recorded in the Acts of the third Council of Carthage, where Augustine was both present, and subscribed with the rest unto the decrees which were then agreed upon, 
(y) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9 co. 866, 867.  that there should be kept a yearly Synod, unto which they were to repair out of divers Provinces; that those which having controversies with others, being called unto the yearly Synod, did refuse to come, should be held guilty, and be excluded from the communion, or excommunicated. And it is 
(z) Ib. Col. 870, etc.  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 again confirmed by another Synod at Carthage. Hence it appears that Augustine as well as others in his time, did hold that the causes of particular Congregations were to be judged & decided by another Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves.  
After Augustine he allegeth chrysostom, whose name is also abused for confirmation of this opinion. For, I. chrysostom in the place alleged, viz. De Sacerd. l. 3. c. 4. speaks of no such matter as he pretends. In that whole third book I find no one word against the authority of Synods. And for the fourth chapter, which Mr C. allegeth, there is in the best editions of chrysostom no such chapter; they are not at all distinguished into any Chapters: and where there is a division of Chapters found, yet there is no such matter to be found in that fourth Chapter. Mr Can, it seems, never read the Authors he allegeth: for would he then have so falsely cited them? II. chrysostom is plain 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) In 2. Cor. 8.24.  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, etc. And then he concludeth, This shall be no small matter, for great is the power of a Synod, that is, of the Churches. III. When as a wrongful sentence had been given against chrysostom, being unjustly procured by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, he then 
(b) Tom. 5. Epist. ad Innocent.  appealed unto a Synod of many Bishops, both before and after the sentence was pronounced. The sum of his defence afterward was this, that he was willing to be judged by a Synod. And he complains that his adversaries dealt with him, contrary to the Ecclesiastical Canons. In those Canons it had been oft decreed, that there should be liberty of appeal unto Synods. iv When Bellarmine pleading for the Pope's authority, alleged the request of chrysostom unto Innocentius, Bishop of Rome, desiring him to write for him, that those things which were unjustly done against him, might not prevail, etc. Chamierus expounding the words of chrysostom, 
(c) Panstra. Cath. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 23  distinguisheth betwixt admonition and giving of sentence; and shows that chrysostom desired an admonition should be given by Innocentius, but that he expected sentence from a Synod. Chamier saith, this is confirmed to be his meaning, because he appealed to the Synod, etc. And hereby he expressly and distinctly confesseth that Synods have jurisdiction to give sentence, and not only a liberty of admonishing. V When after this, chrysostom 
(d) Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14.  having been both deposed from his place, and banished out of the city, was yet called back by the Emperor from his banishment, and was by the people desired to enter upon his ministry again, he professed he might not do it, until his cause was further examined, & he proved innocent by greater judges, or in a greater judicatory, 
(e) Edit. gr. R. Steph. l. 6. c. 16.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; wherein he acknowledged a power of Synods, not only above a particular Congregation, but also of one Synod above another, as of a General Synod above a Nationall or Provincial, etc. VI The mind of chrysostom touching Church-government, may further be known to us by this, that he 
(f) In Matt. 18.  will have those words, Tell the Church, to be understood of the Precedents or Governors of the Church. And again, speaking of Priests or Bishops, the Ministers of the Gospel, he thus describeth their special power, 
(g) De Sacerd. l. 3. Col. 508. Edit. Basil.  It is granted unto them to dispense the things that are in heaven: power is given unto them, which God would not have to be given either unto Angels or Archangels: For it was not said unto them, Whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Earthly Princes have also the power of binding, but of the bodies only. But that binding by the Priests whereof I speak, remaineth unto the soul, & cometh up to the heavens: so that whatsoever the Priests do below, that God ratifyeth above, & the Lord confirmeth the sentence of his servants. What else can you say this to be, but that all power of heavenly things is granted unto them of God? For the saith, Whose sins ye retain, they are retained. What power, I pray you, can be greater than this one? The next perverted witness is Basil, touching whom observe, I. Their threefold false allegation, in citing three several books of his; viz. Constit. Monach. l. 4. 14. & 6.2. & 7. c. 35. whereas Basil wrote only one book with such a title: and as for the 4th, 6t, & 7th, here mentioned by Mr C. there be none such. What gross dealing is this? II. Suppose it was the Printers fault that these books were thus misalledged, and that it was but Mr Cannes oversight to let them pass without correction: yet even for that one book of Monastical constitutions, which Basil did write, therein also is nothing to be found against the authority of Synods, nor any such matter as Mr C. pretends. It is a great forgery and abuse of the ancient Fathers, thus to pretend the veil of their authority for covering of error, 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 Ecclesiastical causes, it appeareth both by the praise which he 
(h) Basil. Magn. Epi. 60. & 78.  gives unto the Nicene Synod, & that for the censuring of Heretics, which was an act of jurisdiction, and not of admonition or counsel only: and again in that he complaineth unto his great friend Nazianzen, touching the intermission of Synodall assemblies, and saith, 
(i) Ep. 33.  If we had yearly met oftener together, both according to the ancient Canons, and according to that care and solicitude which we own unto the Churches, certainly we had never opened a door unto slanderers. And again, writing unto Athanasius touching such meetings, he calleth them, 
(k) E●. 48.  the way of help for troubled Churches. Thus also do the Centurists 
(l) Cent. 4. c. 7. col. 522  understand him, and allege his testimony to show the consociation of many Churches in Synods, in that age.  
The Author next objected, is also misalledged: The letter of reference in the line, leads us unto a book in the margin which was not written by Socrates: and what place he therefore intends in Socrates, he must tell us another time. In the mean time, let it be remembered that this Ecclesiastical Historiographer doth plainly and plentifully record against my opposites, that the causes and controversies arising in particular Churches were judged by another superior Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves, to wit, by the authority of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in Synods. This he shows in the 
(m) Hist. Ecc. l. 1. c. 5  condemnation of Arius by the Council of Nice; in the 
(n) L. 2. c. 24.  deprivation of Photinus by the Synod of Si●mium; in the 
(o) L. 7. c. 33.  deposition of Nestorius by the Council held at Ephesus; and in many other the like instances. If happily he intended those places misapplyed unto Basil in the former quotation; he is not thereby excused: seeing in the first place, viz. l. 4. c. 14. there is nothing at all spoken of this matter; and in the two latter, viz. l. 6. 2. & 7. 35. Socrates again declares the authority of Synods in those times.  
Isidorus, it seems must own the quotation [Lib. de Offic.] which by the marginal note is assigned to Socrates; he having written two books concerning Ecclesiastical Offices. These Mr Can citys at large without specifying either book or chapter. But in those books of Isidorus, as there be many things, which Mr C. would not be bound to approve; so there is nothing that with any show of reason can be applied against the authority of Classes and Synods. On the contrary, we may justly infer that he did not there restrain all Ecclesiastical power unto a particular Congregation, as from many other, so especially from these his words, 
(p) De Offi. Ecc. l. 2. c. 6  Moreover that a Bishop is not ordained of one, but of all the Bishops of the Provinces, this is acknowledged to be appointed because of heresies; lest by the tyrannical 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 less than three being present, the rest consenting by the testimony of their letters. Again, for other of his writings, to show his judgement in this point, this Isidorus is 
(q) Cus. de Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 3. etc.  said to have made a collection of all the Synods that were before his time; which book is 
(r) Concil. Tom. 2. p. 146, 147.  alleged in a Synodall Epistle of the Council of Basil, to prove the authority of Counsels above the Pope. For his practice, he is 
(s) Magdeb. Cent. ●. col. 261-287. & 513.  recorded to have been Precedent of a Synod at Sevill in Spain, were he was Bishop, and as some relate, of two other at Toledo, wherein appear divers acts of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in the exercise whereof he joined with others, after the manner of Synodall proceed.  
Bernard is in like manner misalledged through want of attention & diligence: not only by a wrong note of reference, but by a defective mention of his writing, Ad Eugen. For Bernard having written 5 books of Consideration. Ad Eugen. and besides them more than 30 Epistles Ad Eugen. he doth not specify which of these books, or which of these Epistles he means. But whether we consider those books, or Epistles, we find Bernard in extremity opposite to Mr Can, giving power not only 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 blindness, and height of Popery, when the smoke of the bottomless pit had darkened the Sun and the air, he was led aside through ignorance to exalt Antichrist; and writing unto Pope Eugenius that had been his disciple, he gives him these most ambitious titles, and 
(t) De Consi. ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 8.  calls him the great Priest, the supreme High Priest, the Prince of Bishops, the heir of the Apostles, Abel in primacy, Noah in government, Abraham in Patriarkship, Melchisedek in order, Aaron in dignity, Moses in authority, Samuel in judgement, Peter in power, Christ in unction, etc. the only Pastor of all flocks and of all Pastors themselves, etc. the Vicar of Christ, etc. And though otherwise he gave many lively testimonies of a godly mind that was in him, yet not without cause is he 
(v) Whit. de Pont. Rom. q. 4. p. 425.426.  taxed for blasphemy in these unrighteous titles given to the man of sin. More particularly, in his first Epistle which he wrote unto Eugenius, after he was created Pope, upon occasion of the controversy that was betwixt the Archbishop of York, & the Archbishop of Canterbury, he puts this Pope in mind that he 
(x) Bernar. ad Eugen. Epist. 237.  hath authority to judge the controversies that arise in other Churches, and wisheth him to use the same, and to give unto them according to their works, that they might know there is a Prophet in Israel. And writing again 
(y) Ep. 238  of the same matter, he calls the Archbishop of York, that Idol of York, in regard of his intrusion (he might better have entitled Eugenius the Idol of Rome)▪ & provokes the Pope, as having the fullness of power, to cast his dart, to give peremptory sentence of deposition against the Arch B. and as the phrase of Bernard is, to lighten or strike with the thunderbolt of his power. The like exercise of power over those in other Congregations is often elsewhere 
(z) Ad Innoc. Epist. 189, &. 190.  allowed by him. And hereby it may appear how grossly Mr Can hath alleged these ancient Writers, quite contrary to their meaning, and Bernard in special, that subject's Congregations not only to Counsels and Synods, as the Fathers before alleged have justly done, but doth unjustly subject them to one person, even to the man of sin.  
With these testimonies of ancient Father's Mr Can allegeth for his opinion, that some Counsels have granted so much, and Christian Emperors by their Laws confirmed it. Two of these, viz. the Council of Nice & Constantinople, he allegeth at large, and specifyes no Canon which he intendeth for this purpose. And as for the 3d Council of Carthage, whereat Augustine was present, I have showed 
* Pa. 223.  before that it makes directly for us. That 22th Canon which he allegeth, viz. 
(a) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9 col. 868.  that no Clerk be or dained without examination by Bishops, and testimony of the people, impeacheth not the authority of Classes and Synods, but confirmeth the order established by them. And that Christian Emperors have by their laws confirmed the authority of Synods, it is plain and undeniable. The 
(b) Sulp. Se. v S. Hist. l. 2  Council of Nice that condemned Arius, was authorised by Constantine the Great. The 
(c) Sulp. S. Hist. con●in. ex Sleyd. p. 162.  Council of Constantinople that condemned Macedonius, was authorised by the Emperor Theodosius the Elder. The 
(d) P. 164.  Council of Ephesus that condemned Nestorius, was authorised by Theodosius the younger. The 
(e) P. 170.  Council of Chalcedon that condemned Eutyches, was authorised by the Emperor Martianus. And as it was in these first General Counsels, so may it be observed in many other. Instead of the rest, let the 
(f) Codex Canon. Ecc. Uniu. edit. Christ. Just.  book of Canons suffice, confirmed by justinian the Emperor; there being contained in that book many Canons, which ordain that the causes of particular Churches should be 
(g) Can. 5▪ 80, 83, 85.  judged by Synods, and so decided by another superior Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. At the end of these Canons there is added the sanction or decree of justinian, 
(h) Novella consti. Just. Imper. 131.  by which he doth not only allow them, and give force of laws unto them, but with an excessive & fare greater honour than is due unto them, would have the four Ecumenical Counsels to be received even as the holy Scriptures. Now though he offended greatly in this his esteem of them, yet this may serve to show what little reason Mr Can had to allege the decrees of Counsels for his opinion.   

SECT. VII.  
Touching the Testimonies of Reformed Churches.  
FRom ancient times they come back to the later times of Reformation, and say 
(a) Ch. pl. p. 91.  Touching Reformed Churches; if we may take the Confession of their faith, for testimony, then surely we have their consent also with us. The Churches consenting with them (as they vainly imagine) are these, according to their order in alleging of them: The Bohemian Churches, Churches under the Palsgrave, the Helvetian Churches, the French Churches, Churches of the Auspurge Confession, of the Low-countries, of Nasovia. But the truth is, both these and other Reformed Churches, do condemn my oppisites, in allowing of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations.  
The Confession of the Bohemian Churches (say they) hath these words, 
(b) Harm. Conf. c. 14.  The keys (that is, Ecclesiastical Government) are given in trust, and granted to the Pastors, and to each several Ecclesiastical society, (that is, ordinary Congregation) whether they be small or great. I answer: I. This testimony is clipped by Mr Can, who leaves out the words of order, which show their opinion touching the original and derivation of this power: The words of this Bohemian Confession, are that the keys of the Lord, or this administration and power of the keys is granted and delivered first unto the Governors and Ministers of the Church, and then unto every Christian Congregation, etc. Therein they do not consent with Mr Can, but with the opinion of Mr Baines, noted 
(c) P. 114, 115.  before. And they do there also apply these words unto absolution given by the Priest of the Church, as they call him. To this end they allege those places, joh. 20.23. & Luk. 10.16. Their meaning is declared more fully before, where they 
(d) Harmo. Confess. Art. 5. de Poenit. p. 241. edit. 1612.  teach that the penitent are to come unto the Priest, and to confess their sins unto God before him, etc. and to desire absolution of him by the keys of the Church, that they may obtain remission of sins by such a ministry, so instituted of Christ. This order seems to agree with that form of absolution described and appointed in the English book of Common prayer, at the visitation of the sick. 11. It is acknowledged by the Ministers of the Church of the Picards (so called) in Bohemia and Moravia, in the 
(e) P. 219.  preface to the forementioned Confession of their faith, that their fathers had appealed unto a Synod etc. 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 shows their dissent from Mr Can and his people. III. The Combination of the Christian and Orthodox Churches in Bohemia and Moravia, called by themselves, The Unity of the brethren in Bohemia, doth give a clear testimony unto the truth touching the authority of Synods, for the government of particular Churches, and judgement of their causes by a superior Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves, as appeareth in the book of their Discipline; where they 
(f) Ratio Discip. ordinisq. Ecc. in Unitate frat. Bohem. c. 2. p. 33.34, & 38.  profess that for weighty causes, in providing for the necessities of the whole Unity, or some Diocese therein, they use to hold Synods, either General or Particular, etc. They allege these 5 ends: To confirm 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, etc. To ordain Ministers, etc. and for the 
(g) Ib. p. 41.  examination of Ministers before they be confirmed. The exercise of this authority is also declared in their 
(h) Ib. cap. 6. p. 87, 88 etc.  Visitations of the Churches which are in their Unity or consociation. This example of these brethren of the Unity, is so much the more to be regarded of us in respect of the singular providence & blessing of God, in preserving them to this day, in the midst of so many persecutions as they have endured, being more ancient than other Reformed Churches, having continued from the days of john Husse, and being helped by the Waldenses that were scattered into those parts; so that they 
(i) Ib. pref. p. 2, 3.  were increased to almost 200 little Congregations in Bohemia & Moravia, about the year 1500, before the time of Luther. Their piety, love, concord, and zeal of religion, notwithstanding some imperfections, appears by their orders to be very great; in special, their care of sanctifying the Sabbath, bestowing it wholly in divine and religious exercises, resorting 
(k) Ib. cap. 3. p. 54. & 72, 73.  four times a day to the public assemblies of God's worship, even in the Winter time, and in Summer, five times a day, etc. The bond of that perfection which they seek for, and have in some measure attained unto, seems to be their combination in Synods, and that unity therein whereupon they are denominate. Their government and the fruits thereof have been such, that many of the special lights of Christendom, since the time of Reformation, have admitted and commended the same, and sundry of them have wished for the like Discipline and order in the Churches where they lived; as appears by the testimonies of Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Pet. Paulus Vergerius, Beza, Zanchius, Olevian, Vrsinus, Chytraeus, Pet. Martyr, Calvin, Polanus, Bucholcerus, which testimonies are 
(l) P. 106-122.  affixed unto the end of that book of their Discipline. Yea the printing of this book of their Discipline (according to their common order in such cases) was not done without the 
(m) Pref. p. 8. & 16.  authority of a Synod, & namely of that which was celebrated at Lessna in Poland, anno 1632. they being by the present troubles dispersed abroad into those parts.  
Unto that which he had alleged out of the Bohemian Confession, Mr Can saith the Churches under the Palsgrave likewise consented: and to this end he citeth their Public Catechism in the end of part 2. For answer hereunto; 1. If these Church's consent unto that which the Bohemian Churches have professed, than they do not agree with Mr Can. as appears by what hath been said in the foregoing Answers. 11. The place here alleged hath nothing touching the persons to whom the Keys are given, which is the thing for which it is produced; it speaks only of the use of the Keys, and the ordinary exercise of Discipline in the Church, without restraining the same unto the sole jurisdiction of a particular Congregation, or excluding the authority of Classes and Synods, either for advise & consent before hand, or for the correcting of abuses committed in the administration of it. And that the power of a superior Ecclesiastical judicatory, exercised in such cases, is agreeable unto the doctrine and practice of the Churches in the Palatinate, may appear from the testimonies 
(n) P. 191.192.193.  before noted out of Vrsinus, Tossanus, & Paraeus, Divines of special eminency in those Churches. III. Whereas it is said in this Catechism, 
(o) Qu. 85.  concerning Ecclesiastical discipline, that offenders after other admonitions persisting in their errors and wickedness, are to be made known unto the Church; lest this should be understood of the whole multitude, it is added presently, or to them that are apppointed for that matter and purpose of the Church: and if neither than they obey their admonition, are of the same men, by forbidding them the Sacraments, shut out from the assembly of the Church, etc. The meaning is, as it is explained 
(p) Explic. Catech. ad Qu. 85.  by Vrsinus (who also yielded special help for the compiling of that Catechism) that when any is to be excommunicated, the matter be first heard, tried, and judged by the whole Presbytery, and that their judgement be approved by the Church; that it be not undertaken by the private authority of one alone, or of the Ministers alone. This serves to justify what we teach and practise, and to condemn both the tyrannical and popular courses of others. iv Moreover for the judgement and practice of the Churches in the Palatinate, concerning the authority of Classes & Synods, which is the point in controversy, it is to be observed, that all the Ministers which according to order are there confirmed in the Ministry, are as a Jury of so many sworn men, bearing witness against the Independency of Churches. For at their ordination they do not only testify and promise by subscription and giving of of the hand, but withal they do bind themselves by a solemn oath, among the rest, 
(q) Churf. Psaltz Kirchendi. bestall. punct. Art. 16.  to obey the Political and Ecclesiastical Laws, the Officers and Inspectors, there appointed, etc. to refer or submit Church-affaires unto the Ecclesiastical Senate set over them, etc. and also according to the appointment of their Inspector, to frequent the Classical assemblies, in whatsoever place or quarter they are held; willingly and freely to subject themselves unto the censure of their brethren, to deal faithfully, uprightly, and quietly in their censures & votes, to do nothing neither for fear nor favour of any, but what they judge to be profitable for the edification of the Churches and Schools.  
The Confession of the Churches of Switserland or Helvetia, is notably falsifyed by Mr C. They confess in the place 
(r) Confess. Helvet. Art. 16.17.  alleged by him, that the power of the Keys ought to be committed unto select and fit persons, either by divine or by certain 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 Mr C.) they acknowledge another Ecclesiastical authority besides that of a particular Congregation, about the election of Ministers. And a little after 
(s) Art. 19  this is further declared, when they acknowledge that the faulty are to be admonished, reprehended, restrained, and those that go further astray, by a godly agreement of such as be chosen out of the Ministers and Magistrates, to be excluded by Discipline, or punished by some other convenient means, so long until they may repent and be saved. Such an Ecclesiastical Senate, it seems, was among them for the government of particular Churches. And further, the authority of Synods for such purpose, is likewise specified and justified in the larger 
(t) Cap. 18. p. 63.  Helvetian Confession. Besides this, we have a particular story hereof related by Walaeus out of Beza, who records that 
(v) Ampt der Kerckendien. p. 214 out of Bez. Apol. pro Justif. ex sola fide. p. 263. etc.  when a controversy arose at Berne, betwixt Huberus and Abrah. Musculus, the son of Wolfg. Musculus, touching the doctrine of Praedestination, the Rulers of Berne, following the order of the Apostles, did appoint a Synod out of all the Classes within their jurisdiction, who together with the help of other excellent Teachers, called from Zurich, Basel, Schaphuysen, and Geneva, did take cognition of the differences, and after due trial according to the word of God made a conclusion; so that thereby the Churches were brought unto their former peace.  
That which is next alleged by Mr C. from the Confession of the French 
(x) Art. 30.  Churches, viz. the equality of all true Ministers and Churches, so that none may arrogate dominion over another, is not at all hindered by that authority which is exercised in Synods; seeing all the particular Churches united in Synods, are in like manner and equally subject unto one another, and unto that which is concluded by all. Yea this equality is confirmed by the Synodical decree in this very Article. Whereas there be many evidences of the Reformed Churches in France, which show what their judgement and practice is touching the subjection of particular Congregations unto a superior Ecclesiastical power; yet instead of many, one for the rest may suffice, which is from the 
(y) Oordeel en vyrsprake, met den Eed van Approbatie van het Synod Nation. der Gereform. Kercken van Vrancrijck, gehouden tot Alice in de Cevennes, besloten en gearresteert den 6. Oct. 1620.  Nationall Synod of Alice, translated and published in divers languages, containing a most pregnant testimony touching this point of our controversy. Mr C. and W. B. do falsely tell me of a jury of more than 24 men, which condemn my position for an error and untruth: but as we have seen before in the Ministers of the Palatinate, so lo here again a Jury indeed of more than twice 24 men, and of the most choice Ministers and Elders of all the French Churches, and all sworn to submit unto the resolution and sentence concluded by authority of that Synod. After a proposition 
(z) P. 3. ●.  made in this Synod by Monsr Turretin, touching some means to hinder the Arminian Errors: etc. the Assembly liking well of that motion, and much commending the Synod of Dort, as an effectual remedy to purge the Church, and to root out the heresies touching the point of praedestination, etc. 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 universal consent approved, as agreeable to God's word, etc. Hereupon all the Ministers and Elders deputed unto this Assembly, did each of them severally swear and protest, that they consented and accorded with this doctrine, and that they should maintain and defend it with all their might unto the last breath. And to 
(a) P. 4.5.  make this concordant agreement the more authentic, and to bind all the Provinces thereunto, the Assembly ordained that this present Article should be printed and joined with the Canons of the mentioned Synod, and that the same should be read in the Provincial Synods, and in the Universities, that there it might be approved, sworn and subscribed unto by the Ministers, Elders and Professors of the Universities, as also by those that desired to be admitted unto the holy Ministry, or unto any Academical profession. And if 
(b) P. 5.  any man should reject, either in whole or in part, the doctrine contained in the foresaid Synod, and defined by the Canons thereof, or should refuse to take the Oath of consent and approbation, the Assembly ordained that the same should not be received unto any ministry in the Church, or unto any office of Schoolmaster.  
The form of oath taken first in the Nationall Synod, & afterward to be taken in the Provincial Synods, was 
(c) P. 6.  this,  
I N. swear and protest before God and this holy Assembly, that I receive, approve, and embrace the whole doctrine taught and decided in the Synod of Dort, as being wholly conformed unto the word of God and the Confession of our Churches. I swear and promise during my life to continue in the profession of this doctrine, and to defend the same according to my utmost power, & that I neither in preaching nor teaching in the schools, nor in writing will ever departed from this Rule. I declare also and protest that I reject and condemn 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 down from above, brings in again Pelagianisme, excuseth Popery, and overthrows the certainty of salvation. So truly let God help me and be merciful unto me, as I do before him swear that which is aforesaid, without any equivocation, or evasion, or inward mental reservation.  
After this follows the 
(d) P. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.  subscription of the names of the principal lights & stars of the French Churches, the Ministers and Elders deputed and sent unto that Nationall Synod from the Churches in the several Provinces of France, as of Picardy, Champagne, the French Island, Normandy, Bretagne, Dauphine, Burgundy, Languedoc, Guienne, Poictou, Anjou, and many others. Hereby the Reader may perceive what power and authority is exercised in the Reformed Churches of France; that they do not observe their Synods for to conclude matters by way of advice and counsel only, but by their decrees and ordinances do bind men to submit unto their sentence and judgement, excluding those from the ministry, & professions in Universities or Schools, that refuse to consent and yield unto their resolutions. Hereby it appears how vainly Mr Can allegeth their Confessions, & perverteth them quite contrary to their meanings.  
That which is alleged out of the Confession of Augsburg, comes not near the question betwixt us. For what though it be there affirmed 
(e) Confess. August. Art. 14.  that no man ought to teach publicly in the Church, or to administer the Sacraments, unless he be lawfully called? This proves not that calling to be unlawful, which is directed by an Ecclesiastical authority out of a particular Congregation; or that Classes and Synods have no right to hinder the disordered callings of unfit persons, when particular Churches do offend therein. And that the Authors of that Confession did approve of the authority of Synods, for the judgement of Ecclesiastical causes, it appeareth both by 
(f) Syntag. Confess. par. 2. p. 7.  their Appeal unto a general, free, Christian Council, which they humbly request and seek in their preface unto the Emperor, Charles the fift: and afterwards again, speaking of the means to purge the Church from abuses, they say that 
(g) Ib. p. 28.29. Confess. August. Art. 21.  now long ago all good men in all nations do desire a Synod: And further, This is the usual and lawful way to end dissensions, namely, to refer Ecclesiastical controversies unto Synods. This manner the Church hath observed even from the Apostles. And the most excellent Emperors, Constantine and Theodosius, even in matters not very obscure, and in absurd opinions, would yet ordain nothing without a Synod, that they might preserve the liberty of the Church in the judgements of doctrines. And it is most honourable for the Emperor to imitate the example of those the best Princes, etc. And therefore as in the times of Constantine and Theodosius, particular Churches were subject unto another superior Ecclesiastical power, that judged their causes and censured offenders; so they of the Ausburg Confession, desired the like of Charles the fift.  
The public order set forth in these Low countries, is in the next place alleged against me. But the 
(h) Art. 31.  Article of the Belgic Confession which is pointed at, hath nothing that serves their turn against me, neither do they show what clause therein they intent for their purpose. And what seems most to accord with their former allegations, I have answered before. But for the Synods of these Countries, whereas Mr C. saith, 
(i) Ch. pl. p. 91.92.  What those Synods were of whom Mr Paget speaketh in pag. 66. who decreed that particular Congregations should not practise among themselves, all God's ordinances; I do not yet know: but this I know, that no Reformed Church hath made this an Article of their faith. And therefore it is certain, if such a thing be, it was only the invention of some particular men. It is here to be observed, 1. That Mr Can falsifyeth my words: that which I said, was this, 
(k) Answ. to W.B. p. 66.  When the business is so weighty, that by former general consent of Churches, testified by their Deputies, meeting together in their Synods, it hath been 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, etc. Now this voluntary agreement, not to proceed without advice of the Classis, before matters of so great weight were determined, was not to hinder particular Congregations from the practice of all God's ordinances among them; but only to prevent and restrain abuses in the manner of doing, and to direct them for the better performance thereof among themselves. 11. What those Synods were, wherein such agreements were made, it had been easy for Mr C. to have known, if he had used diligence in enquiry and search for them. To help him herein, let him consider these 
(l) Kercken-ordeningen der Gerefo. Nederlantsc. Kercken, Nation. Syno. tot Embden. 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.  plain evidences recorded in divers Synods; viz. that men shall not proceed to election or deposition of Ministers, or excommunication of offenders, without the advice and judgement of a Classical assembly. And besides the decrees of these Nationall Synods, the like agreements and resolutions have been made in sundry 
(m) Provinc. Syn. tot Dordr. An. 1574. Art. 12. Prov. Syn. tot Middelb. An. 1591. Art. 3, 4, 9, 58, 68, 69.  Provincial Synods: so that from time to time, after ripe deliberation & long experience, these Acts of their Synods have still been renewed and confirmed, from the beginning of their Reformation even unto this day.  
III. Besides these general acts and agreements of several Synods, we have their practice also for confirmation hereof, to declare that the causes of particular Churches were judged by another Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. Thus it is witnessed, 
(n) Trigland. van de Mother. p. 56.57.  that Caspar Coolhaes was excommunicated by the Provincial Synod of Holland, holden at Haerlem, Anno 1582. that the cause of Hermannus herbert's was judged, and he suspended from his Ministry by a particular Synod of South-Holland, holden in the Hague. Anno 1591. Novemb. 6. that Cornelius Wiggertsz. was also judged and excommunicated by a particular Synod of North-Holland, by reason of the errors holden by him: that 
(o) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. An. 1618. Sesse. 22.  Nicolaus Grevinchovius, Minister at Rotterdam, was removed from his ministry by the sentence of the South-Holland Synod holden at Delft: that 
(p) Ib. pref.  Adolphus Venator, Minister at Alcmaer, that joannes Valesius, joannes Rodingenus, and Isaacus Welsingius, Pastors of the Church at Horn, were suspended from their ministry by the North-Holland Synod. and that divers others in Gelderland, were in like manner censured by the Synods holden in that Province at Arnhem, is also recorded in that historical preface, prefixed before the Acts of the last Nationall Synod at Dort. And in the 
(q) Sesse. 22, 23.  book itself it is likewise testified, that Simon Goulartius, Minister of the Gallo-belgic, or Walloens' Church at Amsterdam, was removed from his place by the Gallo-belgic 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 only for counsel and admonition, but for the exercise of jurisdiction in censuring offenders, & judging of controversies; & that their meaning is perverted, when their Confession of faith is objected against me.  
That which Mr Can 
(r) Ch. pl. p. 91.  allegeth from the Synod of Middelburgh, An. 1581. is also mistaken by him; there being no such thing found in that Synod as he mentioneth, touching election done by voices publicly in the Temple. And if it had been there, yet should not that prejudice the authority of Synods or Classes, in allowing or censuring such elections, either before or after they were made.  
Again it is objected, The Synod of Tilleburgh in Nasovia, determined the like, as Zepperus 
(s) Pol. Ecc. p. 831.  writeth. ANSW. 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, tells us how the Earl of Nassau having seen the Articles of the Synod held in Middelburgh, Anno 1581. he took such liking thereof, that in the year following he called the special Ministers of his country together unto a Synod in Tilleburgh, requiring that the agreements of the aforesaid Synod might be applied unto the use of the Churches under his dominion, so fare as they well could. Hereupon the principal conclusions thereof were received and confirmed among them, and so fare as doth show their full consent in the point of our controversy, viz. that particular Congregations are to be subject unto an Ecclesiastical authority of Synods and Classes. Therefore it was agreed, 
(t) Ib. p. 833 Art. 4.  that the calling of Ministers should be made by the judgement of the Classis, etc. That 
(v) P. 834.  where divers examined of the Church, or of it & the Classical assembly together, were judged to be fit, than the election was to be in the power of the Church, and to be done by suffrages publicly in the temple: and if they were equal, then to use lots, etc. This seemeth to be the Article which Mr C. stumbled at before, as if it had been so written in the Synod of Middelb. 1581. which yet doth not exclude the precedent allowance of the Classis in such elections. Moreover it was there agreed, 
(x) P. 837. Art. 23.  that if any complain of wrong done in a lesser assembly or Synod, he may refer the matter by appeal unto a superior Synod: 
(y) P. 843. Art. 61.  that no man be excommunicated without the consent of a Classical assembly: 
(z) Art. 63.  that the deposition of Ministers be done by the judgement of a Classical assembly, and consent of the Magistrate. These and the like Articles there concluded, do show how fare the Nassovian Churches were from that opinion of the Brownists, and some other, in denying the subjection of particular Congregations unto any Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. Where could Mr C. find more pregnant testimony against himself, then in such resolutions of Reformed Churches as these be?  
With the former Reformed Churches alleged by Mr Can, do agree all the other, so fare as I can learn by any enquiry. For the Church of England, B. Jewel testifveth, 
(a) Def. of Apol. of Ch. of Engl. par. 6. c. 17. div. 1. & 2.  that we have had ere now in England Provincial Synods, and have governed our Churches by home made laws: and he maintaineth that without waiting for a General Council, it was rather thought good to do that which both rightly might be done, and hath many a time been done, as well of other good men, as also of many Catholic Bishops, that is, to remedy our Churches by a Provincial Synod. And besides other examples, there is a 
(b) Syntag. Confess. p. 125, & 136  special monument recording the Acts and Articles agreed upon in the Synod holden at London, Anno D. 1562. and again of another Synod, Anno 1571. confirming the Articles of the former Synod; ratifyed by the approbation of Qu. Elizabeth, to be observed through the whole Kingdom, &c, Now howsoever there be great difference in divers Churches, touching the manner of celebrating these Synods; yet herein (which is the point of our present controversy) they do all agree, viz. that there is a superior Ecclesiastical authority of Synods, to judge and determine the affairs of particular Congregations.  
The testimony of the Church of Scotland for the authority of Presbyteries and Synods in judging the causes of particular Congregations is most clear. In the admission of Ministers to their offices there was 
(c) First book of Discipline, p. 29. ed. 1621.  required not only the consent of the people and Church whereunto they should be apppointed, but also approbation of the learned Ministers appointed for their examination. Touching all sorts of Synods among them it was concluded, that 
(d) Sec. b. of Discip. ch. 7. p. 80.  they have power to execute Ecclesiastical discipline and punishment upon all transgressors and proud contemners of the good order and policy of the Kirke, and so the whole Discipline is in their hands.  
Touching Provincial Synods, which they call the lawful conventions of the Pastors, Doctors, and other Elders of a Province, gathered for the common affairs of the Kirkes' thereof, etc. they 
(e) Ib. p. 81.  say,  
Their assemblies are institute for weighty matters, to be entreated by mutual consent and assistance of the brethren within that Province, as need requires.  
This Assembly hath power to handle, order, and redress all things committed or done amiss in the particular assemblies.  
It hath power to depose the office-bearers of that Province for good and just causes deserving deprivation.  
And generally their Assemblies have the whole power of the particular Elderships whereof they are collected.  
Besides these Canons and rules of their Discipline, there be also divers Acts of their General Assemblies prefixed before the foresaid First and Second books of their Discipline, which by many instances do show how that power of Synods was exercised and put in practice in the Church of Scotland. For example; we read 
(f) P. 14. Edinb. jul. 5. 1570.  that there was an Excommunication directed against Patrick, called B of Murray, to be executed by M. Robert Pont Commissioner their, with the assistance of the Ministers of Edinburgh. We find there in another Assembly, 
(g) P. 15. Edinb. Aug. 6. 1573.  that Alexander Gordoun, B. of Galloway, being accused of divers offences, it was concluded, that he should make public repentance in Sackcloth three several Sundays, first in the Kirk of Edinburgh; secondly, in Halyrudhous; thirdly, in the Queen's College, under the pain of Excommunication. We find in another Assembly, 
(h) P. 16. Edinb. Mar. 6. 1573.  that the B. of Dunkell was ordained to confess his fault publicly in the Kirk of Dunkell, for not executing the sentence of the Kirk against the Earl of Athol.  
For the confirmation of this Synodall authority, there is added in the same place an Act of Parliament, 
(i) P. 19 20, etc. The 12 Parl. at Edinb. jun. 5. 1592.  prefixed also before the said books of their Discipline, having this Title, Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk: of general and Synodall Assemblies: of Presbyteries; of Discipline, etc.  
The Confession of faith made by the Church of Scotland, both for the Doctrine and for the Discipline thereof, is yet further confirmed unto us both by general Subscription, and by a most Solemn Oath. The formal words of that Subscription and Oath, are thus recorded unto us: 
(k) Syntag. Confess. p. 158, 160.  We believe with our hearts, confess with our mouth, subscribe with our hands, etc. 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 days of our life, under pain of all the curses contained in the law▪ & danger of body and soul in the day of that dreadful judgement of God. Hereunto is annexed in the same place the Mandate of the King's Majesty, whereby he enjoineth all Commissioners and Ministers of the Word throughout his kingdom, that they require this confession of all their Parishioners, etc. And so fare as I can learn, even unto this day, there is still observed this substantial and main point of Discipline, namely a power in Synodall assemblies to judge the controversies that do arise in particular Congregations. Here Mr Can instead of a jury of 24 men to condemn my position for an error and untruth, as he 
(l) Ch. pl. p. 83.  speaks, may see a jury of more than thrice 24 Congregations in Scotland, maintaining my position, and condemning his error by their example.  
The Reformed Churches in Savoy, as that of Geneva, 
(m) Kerckel, Ordon, der gemeente van Geneven, p. 9, 10▪ etc.  and the Churches in the villages thereabout, standing under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in Geneva, were combined together for their mutual guidance, and the Ministers of those Churches meeting weekly together were subject to the censure of such Ecclesiastical assemblies, and the affairs of those Churches judged therein. The knowledge of this, is so common a thing, that in appearance hereupon grew the reproach, reported by Mr Can himself, that 
(n) Ch. pl. p. 94.  at Geneva subjecting of Churches to this order first began.  
The Evangelicall Churches in the greater and lesser Poland, in Lithuania, Russia and Samogitia have likewise shown their consent with us in this point of subjecting particular Churches under the Ecclesiastical authority of Synods, and have witnessed the same in divers solemn assemblies. They profess 
(o) Syntag. Confess. par. 2. p. 294. Syn. Posna. 1570. Art. 19  that when controversies arise which cannot be compounded among themselves, the judgement and decree of a general Synod of all their Churches is then to be required, and to be submitted unto. They agreed 
(p) Ib. p. 300 303. Syn. Crac. Xans. Wlodisl.  that divers kinds of Synods were to be held among them, some greater & some less; that their Synodical constitutions were to be put in execution; that the violatours thereof were to be subject unto the censures of deposition and excommunication, etc. They ordained 
(q) P. 320-326. Syn. Toru 1591. Art. 2▪ 3▪ 7.14▪ 17.  that every Evangelicall Minister was not only to have and to read the Canons of their Synods, but also to carry himself, and to govern the Church committed unto him according to the prescript thereof, and that under pain of Ecclesiastical censure: that the censure of excommunication was to be administered publicly, either in the Congregation, or in the Synod, etc.  
Moreover it is worthy to be remembered, how the Churches of the Netherlands, even at that time when they were scattered abroad in High-dutchland, and Eastfriestand, in that time of most bloody persecution, under the government of Duke d' Alva, did then in their banishment, and with danger of their lives at home, combine themselves in Classes for their mutual guidance, and submitted themselves unto the judgement of such assemblies. The distribution of these Churches into several Classes 
(r) Synod. Embd. An. 1571. Art. 10.11.  recorded publicly, as followeth. I. Classis: The two Churches at Frankford, 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 Delft, other Churches of Holland, of Overyssel, of West-Friesland. The faithful Ministers and people of these primitive Reformed Churches, the Martyrs & witnesses of Christ, like the woman that fled into the wilderness from the rage of the Dragon, have given special testimony unto this Classical government, whereunto they submitted themselves even in those hard times, when it was difficult & dangerous for them to meet together.  
As the Dutch Churches practised among themselves of old, so they in the forementioned Synod by common advise agreed 
(s) Synod. Embd. art. 12.  to exhort the English that they would combine their Churches into a Classis. And accordingly this order of government was approved by them, as appears in that book of their Discipline, framed for the use of the English Churches in these countries; where it is said in the end, 
(t) Form of Comm. prayer, Administr. etc. printed at Middleb. 1602, the 4. edit.  This may be sufficient for particular Congregations: for the visitation whereof and decision of causes which cannot be ended among them, and such like; Meetings, Conferences & Synods of Minister and Elders, chosen by particular Churches and meetings, are to be held, as the Ministers for time and place and other circumstances shall think meet. With 
(v) Ibid. p. D 7. b. & 8. a, b. & F 3. a.  consent and allowance of these Ministers of such Classes or Conferences, together with consent of the Eldership, were the Pastors and Teachers of particular Congregations to be elected: and then the names of such being signified to the Congregation, for inquiry after their fitness, warning was given that if within twenty days no just exception were taken, than their silence should be accounted as the free consent of the Congregation, etc.  
To conclude, beside the testimony of Reformed Churches severally & apart, it shall not be amiss to behold the Harmony of their joint consent in the Deputies of the said Churches, assembled together in the Nationall Synod of Dort, than which it is rightly judged, that 
(x) Molin. Anat. Armin. praef. A 3.  there hath not been for many ages past, any Synod more renowned, or more holy, or more profitable to the Church. When as the Remonstrants upon pretence of partiality & schism in their judges, sought to decline the Authority & sentence of this Synod; the Divines of other nations, deputed from several Churches, have given such judgement thereof, as shows a plain condemnation of my opposites opinion.  
The judgement of the Divines of Great Britain, who alleged the perpetual practice of all Churches, was this, that 
(y) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 29. p. 97.  the highest power of determining controversies in every Church is in the Nationall Synod lawfully called together & framed etc.  
The judgement of Divines out of the Palatinate, was like unto the former: They 
(z) Ibid. p. 98.  allege the practice of the Church both in the old & new Testament, for confirmation thereof; and show their own practice to have been such, that some authors of novelties being admonished first of their Classis, and then of the Ecclesiastical 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) Ibid. p. 100  show the practice of their own Churches; that for the repressing of the error of the Vbiquitarians, divers Nationall Synods had been held by authority of the four brethren, Princes of Hassia; and that since again the Prince Maurice, Landgrave of Hassia, had called another general Synod of Hassia, wherein the former Synodical decrees were confirmed, & sentence pronounced against such as maintained contrary errors.  
The Divines of Switzerland or Helvetia, consent hereunto, and 
(b) Ibid. p. 102.  allege the perpetual practice of ancient & later Churches, together with the practice of those in Berne, in the cause of Huberus, in their own country; and testify that by such means peace was obtained.  
The Divines of Geneva also 
(c) Ibid. p. 102. 103.  avouch, that in the Church, the supreme power of judgement is in a Synod lawfully called, etc. That God hath established this order & sanctified it by the example of the Apostles and all ages of the Church, according to the saying of Christ, Tell the Church, etc.  
The Divines of Breme 
(d) Ibid. p. 104.  maintain the same thing, and hold that if his order of Synods may be refused by such as deserve Ecclesiastical censures, that then a door should be opened to all heresies & sects, & all the judgements of the Church whereunto Christ sendeth us, should be subverted, etc.  
The Divines of Embden 
(e) Ibid. p. 1●7.  accord with the rest, and besides other reasons for confirmation of Synodall Authority in the judgement of Ecclesiastical causes, they allege that very place of Scripture, Act. 20.28. which my opposites pervert to a contrary end against me.  
Neither have they only in general showed what the authority of Synods is, and also what this Synod may do; but the Synod goes further, and proceeds unto the exercise of this power, and pronounceth sentence against those that persisted in their errors. In the Copy of that Sentence 
(f) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 138. p. 280.  there be divers acts of their power to be observed in the several expressions & forms 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, & enjoin all & every one of the Pastors in the Churches of the United Provinces, Doctors, Rectours, Masters in the Universities & Schools, etc. The Synod, after invocation of the holy name of God, being in conscience well assured of their authority from the word of God, following the steps of Ancient & late Synods, etc. 
(g) P. 281.  Doth interdict the persons cited unto this Synod, from all Ecclesiastical charge, and deposeth them from their offices, and also judgeth them unworthy of Academical functions, until by earnest repentance, etc. For the rest, whose cognition is not come to this Nationall Synod, it committeth unto Provincial Synods, Classes & Presbyteries, according to the order received, that with all care they procure, etc. That they diligently take heed unto themselves, that they admit not any man to the holy ministry, which refuseth to subscribe unto the doctrine declared in these Synodical constitutions, and to teach the same: that they also retain no man by whose manifest dissension, etc.  
This judgement & Sentence of the Synod was afterward in most full & ample manner 
(h) Ibid. p. 282.  approved & confirmed by the Illustrious Lords, the State's General of the United Provinces, acknowledging also the business of this Synod to be agreat & holy work, such as heretofore the Reformed Churches never saw, etc.  
Besides this Sentence pronounced against those twelve or thirteen of the Remonstrants, that by authority of the Synod were 
(i) Ibid. p. 16, 17.  cited to appear before them; there is also another special sentence, 
(k) P. 204, 205.  of suspension from their function, concluded & pronounced against Everhardus Vosculius, and johannes Schotlerius, Ministers at Campen, because of their contumacy in not appearing before, the Synod, being lawfully cited thereunto.  
Moreover it is memorable, that the members of this Synod, the Deputies of several Churches, did all & every one of them take a most solemn oath, in testimony of the good conscience which they had in the exercise of this authority: The form of the Oath was 
(l) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 23. p. 61.  as followeth;  
I do promise before God, whom I believe and reverence as the present searcher of the reins and hearts, that in this whole Synodall action, wherein shallbe undertaken an examination, judgement & decision, both touching the five known Articles and the difficulties thence arising, and also touching all other matters of doctrine, I will not take any humane writings, but only the word of God for the certain & undoubted rule of faith; and that in this whole cause I shall propound nothing to myself, but the glory of God, the peace of his Church, and in special the conservation of the purity of doctrine. So let my Saviour Jesus Christ be merciful 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 Precedent of the Synod, all the other Professors, Pastors & Elders of the Netherlands, deputed unto the Synod, and then all the Divines of other nations, standing up in order, did with a loud voice every one of them declare, that they did holily promise and swear before God the same thing: and testified that they came with such mind unto the Synod; had hitherto sit down 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 again to put Mr Can in mind of his vain boasting 
(m) Ch. pl. p. 83.  touching a jury of more than 24. men condemning me of error. Here may he see a Jury of more than thrice 24 sworn men, and of the most excellent servants of God in so many Reformed Churches and Universities, the lights of Christendom, the flower of the Churches, and the select crown of learned men, as they of Geneva do 
(n) Act. Syn. Nat. Dordr. Sess. 3. p. 12.  stile them, all testifying both by word and practice against him, and against the opinion of Mr Dau. touching the jurisdiction of Synods.     

A Supplement, annexed by the Publisher, for answer unto that which followeth in Mr Cannes book.  
THus fare, good Reader, the Author hath traveled through those tedious ways, which Mr C. though with less trouble, yet with more prejudice to his own cause, hath first opened unto him. The sum of all is, that wading through those streams of Arguments and Reasons which Mr C. had let out upon him, he hath found such as were of any depth, to run another way; & the other too shallow to hinder the passage of truth in this controversy. And marching through those several ranks & files of learned Authors, which Mr C. had mustered, & 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 plainly in their own words, & in the words of sundry others with them, that against their wills they were forced to appear under his banners. And therefore in the same order that he marshaled them against the Authority of Synods, they now stand in array against the Independency of Churches. There remained yet one part of Mr Can. opposition in this cause to be encountered, wherein he pretends to disappoint and conquer such forces as might seem to be used in defence of that Classical and Synodall government which he hath hitherto oppugned. To this end he 
(a) Chur. plea, p. 92.  undertakes to answer certain Reasons or Objections, picked out of divers passages in the Authors 
(b) Answ. to W.B. &c  first book, supposing by this means 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 himself from what hath been said already in the foregoing Treatise: yet lest Mr C. should plead there was aught left untouched, that with any show of reason required an answer; & for their help to whom such directions may be useful, I have here briefly noted what he hath said, and to what purpose.  
The Reasons or Objections which in this latter part of his book he assayeth to answer, are 1. Concerning the evil consequents of Independency: 2. The ancient exercise of the power used in Synodall combinations: 3. The liberty & freedom hence arising unto Churches & the members thereof: 4. The determinations of Synods, and consent of Reformed Churches in this matter: 5. The Authors alleging the former practice of the Church where he was Minister. In the sixth place he mentioneth some objections, of which he 
(c) Church. pl. p. 100  saith he will not stand to make any particular answer thereto; but referreth us in general to the writings of others, which whosoever shall compare with the Authors words against which they are applied, and duly weigh the several circumstances on both sides, may easily discern that this his general answer needs no reply. In the end lest we should doubt with what affection all the rest was written, he graceth his book with this Conclusion, and disireth it may be noted, when out of the abundance of his charity he saith, Mr Paget would feign have the Classical Discipline advanced, that he by it might have worldly credit also: These are his last words, ushered with others of the same stamp; that he seeks to disgrace Christ's government, & to have his own honoured & embraced, etc. A vile slander, & not worthy to be answered.  
For the other objections which Mr Can pretends to answer, it is to be observed that the Author in his former writing hath not framed any Reasons for proof of this point in controversy, as he hath often 
(d) Pag. 40, 73. 168.  before noted in this Treatise. It was not his purpose at that time to propound any Argument, first or last, but being the Defendant or party accused, to wait for the Arguments of his Accusers. And so much was also signified in his 
(e) Answ. to W. B. p. 71. 88  other book, which Mr C. had read, and from whence those Reasons or pretences, as he calls them, are taken, unto which here he shapes his Answers. Yet notwithstanding he will take no notice of this, but runs into two contrary extremes: before he affirmed that he brought no proofs, because he had none to bring; intimating 
(f) Chur. pl. p. 15. 16.  that he hath not left this point unprooved, out of forgetfulness; but rather of mere poverty, as not having any authentical records, etc. Here again he makes him to bring Reasons & Arguments, when as he professed that at that time he intended to bring none: not out of forgetfulness, or want of ability; for he had said in the place before mentioned, that he had to this purpose in his Sermons divers times alleged sundry evidences & grounds of holy Scripture, etc. And Mr C. knew that he was able to produce such evidences, by the occasional mentioning of those two places, Deut. 17. & Act. 15. which he hath also undertaken to answer. Come we now to the particulars.  
THe first pretended Reason is set down by Mr C. in these words: If particular Congregations should not stand under any other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves, manifold disorders, confusion and dissipation of Churches would follow. Thus he perverts the Authors words, which were not set down by way of Argument, but merely 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) Answ. to W. B. Pref.  That single uncompounded policy (as Mr jacob calls it) whereby particular Congregations are made to be independent, not standing under any other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves, that I conceive to bring with it manifold disorders, confusion and dissipation of Churches. That which the Author thus set down as his own opinion, which he held concerning the safety of this government, for the maintaining of order & settled peace in Churches; that Mr C. transforms into an Argument, & calls it his first reason. The Author had just cause to mention that consideration in such manner as he did, to show the importance of this point in controversy, by which he there also hoped that others would be warned, to take heed what new forms 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 Utopian Commonwealths men; going to work according to their own Ideas, they have begun a work which they were not able to finish; not unlike unto that builder of whom our Saviour speaks, Luk. 14.28, 29, 30. And therefore, as before more briefly, so now 
(h) Pag. 32, 33.  at his entrance into a more full and professed handling of this question, the Author hath hereby declared of what importance this controversy is, and given instance in the disorders, confusions and dissipations which have happened unto that Church of the Brownists at Amsterdam, the rather because of their neglect and contempt of such remedies, as from Classical and Synodall government might have been afforded unto them. If those that pretend such accurate exercise of Discipline, have fallen into so great and manifold scandals, such rash and offensive excommunications, schisms, & depositions, as are there mentioned; how can it be expected that others, in outward appearance more unable to manage such a kind of government, should be free from running into the like or greater offences? If some few single Churches, within a few years, have bewrayed to their loss and shame, the great want of a combined government, for the establishment of peace and order among them; how many instances and examples of the same kind might we look for in process of time, where many Churches together should be erected according to this model of Independent polity? To this purpose the Author hath applied that observation touching these evil consequents of Independency; not by way of argument, as Mr C. hath set it down. If he had intended to propound an Argument, he would have framed it after another manner, for the aggravation of their error; as thus for example: That independency of Churches, which not being prescribed of God, doth occasion manifold disorders, etc. that is so much the more to be avoided: But such is that Independency which is required of these Opposites: Ergo. Or thus; That Independency of Churches, which not by accident only, 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 Argument 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 Scripture 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) Pag. 109.  before; and seeing God is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the author of confusion, or of unquietness, 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 forms of government as do avoidable 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 practice of all times and places, do teach that no humane societies can subsist together without these bonds of combination & confederacy; whereby it comes to pass that families unite themselves and grow together into greater Corporations, Cities, Provinces, Commonwealths, and Kingdoms, for their mutual peace and safety in the way of government. The subordination of Courts in Civil government, while they are framed according to an Aristocratical temper, is not repugnant unto the nature of Ecclesiastical polity. These things thus premised, and applied unto Classical and Synodall combinations, it may hereby appear how Mr C. hath played the trifler in so many idle and impertinent answers which he hath made unto his own frame of reason obtruded upon the Defendant. But for further satisfaction, behold the substance of his Answers.  
I. C. ANSW. I. When God hath established an order for the administration of his own house, what presumption of man dares change it? Thinks he that he is wiser than the Almighty? etc. REPL. I. This answer saith nothing to any part of the proposed argument, even as he himself hath framed it; unless it be a denial of the Conclusion. For of changing an order that God hath established, there was no mention, nor colour of any such meaning, in the Author's words which he undertakes to refute. Only the question is whether Independency be that form of administration which God hath appointed unto his Churches: This Mr C. with vehement asseverations affirms, and complains of them that deny it. If this reasoning were good, he might easily beat down 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 point blank against that which they saw to be the ordinance of God. Did he think the Author or others of his mind, meant to plead in such manner for their judgement & practice touching Classes and Synods? Sure Mr C. knew it to be otherwise; at least by those places of Scripture, which he saw mentioned in their defence. But herein also he shows himself to be a disciple and follower of H. Barrow, who for the same thing reproaching the Reformists, saith 
(k) Discov. p. 189. 190.  they would bring in a new adulterate forged government in show, or rather in despite of Christ's blessed government, which they in the pride, rashness, ignorance, and sensuality of their fleshly hearts, most miserably innovate, corrupt and pervert, etc. Mr C. doth here in like manner multiply words to the same purpose.  
I. C. ANSW. II. Be it well considered, that God always abhorreth all good intentes of men, that are contrary to the good pleasure of his will, revealed in his word, etc. REPL. I. There is no mention made of any intentes in the supposed Reason: it is only said that Independency will be attended with disorders and confusion, etc. Mr C. therefore disputes with his own intentes in these his impertinent answers. II. How can God be said to abhor good intentes? Or how can those be said 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 aims, and the means by which it endeavours to attain that end. If both these be good & lawful, the intention also is absolutely good. Yet if the end be good, though the means be unwarrantable, the intention is not presently abhorred, but sometime 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 maintain Classical and Synodall combinations, not only the end they aim at, to wit, peace, order, and the establishment of Churches; but the means also, or the practice of such combinations, is allowed by the word of God: neither doth Mr C. prove aught to the contrary.  
I. C. ANSW. III. This objection taken up here by Mr Paget, is the very same which the Papists, and those that way affected use, etc. REPL. I. If Papists use the very same objection, that is, if from the same Premises they make the same Conclusion, rejecting Independency & Anti-Synodall courses, because of the confusions and disorders which do follow the same; then herein they are no Papists, forasmuch as Protestants have reasoned in like manner, as may be seen in sundry Testimonies before 
(l) Ch. 7. Sect. 2-7.  alleged. II. When Papists dispute against any lawful form of government, with the same argument which we use against that which is unlawful; this can no more prejudice our reasoning then it doth Mr Cannes, while both he & they reason against lawful 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 do 
(m) Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 4. c. 1. & de Verb. Dei. l. 3. c. 5.  to the Pope, viz. the supreme Ecclesiastical judgement of all controversies; and both pleading from the same grounds of Scripture, Math. 16, & 18, etc. Men may use the like arguments, & yet their conclusions be fare unlike & contradictory.  
I. C. ANSW. IU. If particular Congregations must lose 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 down that superior 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 Mr C. is a mere fiction and forgery of his own. The Author never reasoned on this manner: he never said, never thought to say, that particular Congregations must lose their right & power, etc. There is no shadow of any such thing in those words which Mr C. hath here set down for himself to answer. II. Particular Congregations do still retain their due right & power, even while they are subordinate unto the superior authority of Classes and Synods, as hath been often showed 
(n) Pag. 156. 157. etc. 164. etc.  before. III. If he would have spoken to the purpose, he should have showed, that particular Congregations, standing under no other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves, are not thereby exposed to manifold disorders, confusion, and dissipation: Or if he would have retorted this argument upon the Defendant, he ought to have proved that Classical and Synodall government, of its own nature, brings with it manifold disorders, confusion, and dissipation of Churches. But instead of this, he mentioneth only the offences which in many things, many times have been observed, in & about the execution. And behold what he saith for proof hereof.  
I. C. And this I am sure no good Christian will deny, I could give divers instances for it; but it needs not: Only it is not amiss to set down Nazianzens 
(o) Epist 42. ad Proc.  words; who was an Elder or Bishop: I am minded, saith he, to shun all assemblies of Bishops, because I never saw any good event in any Council, etc. Whither things are better carried now, than they were in his time. I will not, nor am able to judge. ANSW. I. If he will not nor cannot judge whether the same abuses be now committed which Nazianzen complained of; it follows that he ought not to have the will nor ability to conclude that this government should now be remooved, as it seems he would infer 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 answered 
(p) P. 222. 223.  before out of D. Whitaker, where it hath been also showed, that it makes as much against those Assemblies of Bishops which Mr C. himself allows, as against any other. But to make it appear that this is no new objection, & that we need not seek any further answer unto it, lo hear what others have said touching the same testimony. Beza, among other counsels to the Emperor & 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 only answer the foresaid exception, but withal notably declare the lawful, ancient, and profitable use of Synodall authority, I have here set down his words at large, as worthy our observation for this purpose. Churches, 
(q) Cons●l. ad Caes. & Stat. etc. Tract. Theol. vol. 2. p. 111. 112.  saith he, cannot be rightly governed by their Pastors, unless beside the sowing of good seed, they do also by the word of God, as with a sickle cut down evil herbs, yea & root them out according to their power. But because that cannot oftentimes be performed 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 together 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 Acts of the Apostles, is well known. Afterwards followed that first Ecumenical Synod of Nice, where Ecclesiastical Provinces being more accurately then happily divided, this also was ordained, that every year two Provincial Synods should be gathered by the metropolitans: which custom if it had been diligently observed, certainly it is likely that many and most great calamities of the Church might have been prevented. But here some do 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 certain sentence of his hath as it were, condemned all those assemblies. But we make no doubt to oppose unto this opinion, partly that Apostolical example, and partly also the history 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 do abundantly reap? Yea that Apostolical Synod hath not altogether restrained 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 concern Synods rightly ordered, unless we think that he would detract from the Synod of Nice: which indeed is very absurd, seeing it is well known how great a defender he hath been thereof. If nevertheless Arians ceased not to rage's through the world, how much the more may we think that they would have done it, if the authority of that holy Synod agreeing which 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 Ecumenical Synods, if not with one wound, yet with reiterated blows have by the word of God stricken down, insomuch that they do afford us arms against the same, springing up again in this our age. Yet when we say these things, we do not hold that the Church is grounded upon the authority 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 entreated by us in these calamities of the Church, that we may duly and holily use these remedies also which are given unto us of God. Thus fare Beza. The same objection out of Nazianzene is to like purpose answered by Vrsinus, when he saith, 
(r) Admon. de lib Concord. c. 12. Op. tom. 2. col. 686.  The complaint of Nazianzene, that he saw no good issue of any Synod, we make no general rule; unless we would condemn the Orthodox Ecumenical Counsels of the ancient Church, to have had an evil event; which Nazianzene doth not say, who speaks 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 testimony of Nazianzene, saying, 
(s) De Concil. l. 1. c. 1.  This unhappiness of the events must not be ascribed unto the Counsels themselves; but to the ambition & desire of command in those that assemble, as the same Nazianzene doth also testify.  
I. C. ANSW. V If the infirmities of the people, be a good reason to take away their liberty, in practising among themselves all God's ordinances: then the contrary virtues, which oftentimes have been found in them (as in staying the rage of the Scribes & pharisees 
(t) Mat. 21.26. Act. 3.26. ; in preferring sincere Christians before Arrians 
(v) Zezom. l. 7. c. 7. ; & being themselves sound in the faith 
(x) Theod. l. 2. cap. 7. ; when their Ministers have been Heretics:) is a good reason to maintain their liberty still. REPL. 1. This answer is beside the question, which is not here touching the people's liberty, as they are distinguished from their Ministers; but concerning particular Congregations and their subjection to Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. Though Mr C. and some others that now strive for the Independency Churches, do also affect a popular way of government in the Church; opposing not only the power of Classical Presbyteries, but also of particular Elderships; yet Popularity doth not necessarily follow upon Independency, neither have they always both the same Patrons. Mr jacob, though he pleaded for a single uncompounded policy, in opposition to Synodall authority; yet he utterly disliked those popular circumstances held by the Separation, as hath been noted 
(y) Pag. 176.  before. Again, the Anabaptists, though they maintain and practise those popular ways of judging causes among them, and 
(z) Protoc. Embd. Act. 101. n. 1. q. 7. Cl. Cl. Bekent. p. 218. Cloppenb. Cancer der Weder-doop. p. 535.  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 Independency, so as Mr C. pleads for it: seeing, 1. They have 
(a) Faukel. Babel der Weder-doop. pag. 166, 167, 190.  their Bishops, as they call them, distinct from their other Preachers, by them termed Vermaenders, that is, Admonishers; and by some of them 
(b) Protoc. Embd. Act. 78. n. 4. & Act. 80. n. 2.  held to be Deacons: these acknowledge themselves 
(c) Gesprec to● Zierickz. p. 21.  to be inferior to their Bishops in the ministry. The Bishops belong to some more eminent Congregations of that Sect, do at certain times visit the other lesser Congregations, and administer the Sacraments among them. 2. The Anabaptists 
(d) Protoc. Embd. Act. 99 n. 1. Fauk. Babel der Wederd. D a. & p. 215.  use to excommunicate whole Congregations at once, when having been of the same profession with them, they witness their dissent from them in such matters as for which particular persons are excommunicated by them. 3. The causes that cannot be determined in their particular Congregations, are by them sometimes 
(e) Babel der Wederd. C4. a. & C6. b.  referred to the judgement of Arbiters, men of several Congregations, chosen by both parties, with promise to stand to their sentence, & sometimes also to the meetings of the Officers of sundry Churches. This shows that though they plead for Popularity, yet they do not simply allow of Independency. 11. Suppose that consideration had been alleged by the Author against Popular government also, as justly it might, in regard of the manifold disorders, confusion, and dissipation of Churches, which it is known to bring with it; yet this answer cannot prove it to be insufficient, because it runs upon a twofold false supposition; 1. That this appertains 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 liberty is acknowledged to have been taken from them, as if they had been once in full possession of it; or that this is the main reason for denying that pretended liberty 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 maintain on the other side, that this is no part of the people's privilege, 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 undeniable experience, in the Anabaptists, Brownists, & others, attended with manifold disorders, confusion & dissipation of Churches. 111. Though it were granted that the people have been oftentimes wiser in their choice, & sounder in the faith then their Ministers (which yet three of those places 
(f) Act. 3.26. Zozo. l. 7. c. 7. Theod. l. 2. c. 7.  here alleged do not prove, there being nothing in them to that purpose for which they are cited;) yet that is not enough to disprove the foresaid assertion, unless he could show that ordinarily they are so qualifyed, & endued with such abilities as are requisite for the orderly exercise of judiciary power in the Congregation. This is not only contrary to experience, but also to the revealed will & wisdom of God, in dispensing his gifts severally unto the members of the mystical body of his Church, appounting 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 than Christ himself hath allowed us, by shutting the weak & feeble out of his fold; or else acknowledge that all the members are not fit to be used in the judicial trying & determining of causes.  
THe next thing that Mr C. 
(g) Chur. pl. p. 94.  pretends to answer, is touching the Antiquity of Classical and Synodall government, from those words of the Author, that the power which the Classis exerciseth is ancient, etc. that he names it the old beaten path, etc. The Author indeed had used these words, upon just occasion; not as any reason or argument, to justify the lawfulness of this power, as Mr C. seems to insinuate; but to declare the truth in the matter of fact, rather than in the controversy of right: and this may easily appear to those that look upon the places 
(h) Pag. 72. & 105.  alleged out of the Authors book. When an unjust complaint was made, that he had subjected the Church under an undue power of the Classis, that he brought it under, etc. 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; etc. Again when there was mention made of those of his side, he answered, For my part I abhor this siding; I desire to walk in the old beaten path of that discipline and government, practised by these Reformed Churches, and established in their Classes and Synods: etc. Was not here just cause to use these words to this purpose for which they are applied? He speaks chief of the antiquity of this government, in regard of the state of that particular Church, & of those with which it is combined; concerning which Mr C. himself cannot deny but that he hath spoken the truth. But suppose it were uttered in general, with reference unto the joint 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 hear what Mr C. saith to this.  
I. C. ANSW. I. Sundry errors are as ancient as the Apostles time, etc. REPL. 1. This doth not prejudice the constant practice of this or any other truth, nor the regard that is to be given unto the custom of the Churches of God, according to the direction of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11.16. To what end else are those manifold proofs and Allegations, which Mr C. hath taken from Authors of all times, to show, as he 
(i) Ch. pl. p. 77-81-89. etc.  pretends, their consent with him, and that his opinion may not be thought a Novelty? 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 lawfulness thereof: It is only alleged to show 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 Antiquity whereupon the lawfulness of this combined polity doth rest, is that which it claimeth from the Law and the Gospel, as hath been showed 
(k) Ch. 2.3, 4.  before.  
I. C. ANSW. II. Housoever Mr Paget for the credit of his cause, names it the old & ancient Discipline; yet sure I am, to prove it so, he never will nor can. There are many (and I think he knows it) which do affirm that the Ecclesiastical government by Classes and Synods, is a weed that grew many years after the Apostles, A late devise 
(l) Bilson perp. gov. c. 16. p 387 , and that in all antiquity there doth not appear any one step thereof 
(m) Sutclif. Discipl. c. 8. p. 138. ; Also that at Geneva, subjecting of Churches to this order first began 
(n) Bancrost surv. c. 22. p. 353. Comp. Ch. p. 91, 93, 94. . And before Calvin came there, every Congregation was free in itself 
(o) Hook. Ecc. Polit. Pref. . REPL. 1. These testimonies do not speak of Synods, and the Ecclesiastical authority exercised by them. What truth is there then in Mr Cannes words when he saith, they affirm that the Ecclesiastical government exercised by Classes and Synods is a weed, etc. 11. The distinction which these Authors make betwixt Classes and Synods, as it is ungrounded and insufficient to prove the one less lawful or ancient than the other; so it can least of all serve Mr Cannes purpose: seeing the chief cause why they disallow Classes, is because they exclude hierarchical authority; not simply because they exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which is the main ground whereupon Mr C. doth oppose them. III. The place quoted out of D. Bilson, where he objecteth unto some their own device, is not properly directed against Classical government; and he seems to intent it principally against Lay-Elders, as they call them, as appears by that which followeth 
(p) Perpet. Gou. p. 388  in his book. But to show how fare he was from uttering any thing, that might either disprove the ancient use of Synods, or favour independent Church-government, and the pretended antiquity thereof, mark what he saith elsewhere; 
(q) Ibid. p. 376.  There is no Christian Realm nor Age, wherein the use of Synods hath not been thought needful, etc. as appeareth by the Councils that have been kept in all kingdoms and countries since the Apostles times, when any matter of moment came in question, which are extant to this day; and likewise by the Synods that every Nation and Province did yearly celebrate, according to the rules of the great Nicene & Chalcedon Councils, which cannot be numbered, & were not recorded, etc. And unless you give the Pastor and Presbyters of every Parish full & free power to profess what religion they best like, to offer what wrongs they will, to use what impiety and tyranny they themselves lift, without any restraintor redress, which were an heathenish, if not an hellish confusion; you must where there is no Christian Magistrate, etc. yield that liberty 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 Synod cannot be done. Again he professeth his judgement touching the danger and novelty of Independency, when he saith, 
(r) Ibid. p. 378.  In questions of faith, matters of faction, offers of wrong, breach of all order & equity, shall each place & Presbytery be free to teach & do what they please, without depending on or so much as conferring with the rest of their brethren? Call you that the Discipline of Christ's Church, & not rather the dissolution of all peace, and subversion of all truth in the house of God? I think you be not so fare beside yourselves, that you strive for this pestilent kind of anarchy to be brought into the world. Our age is giddy enough without this frenzy to put them forward. Howbeit we seek not what new course you can devise after fifteen hundred years to govern the Church; but what means the ancient and primitive Church of Christ had, before Princes embraced the truth, to assemble Synods & pacify controversies, as well touching Religion as Ecclesiastical regiment, etc. iv The words cited by Mr C. out of D. Su●cliffe, against Classes, are expressly answered by Mr Parker, when having fet down the objection here mentioned, viz. that in all antiquitle there doth not appear one step of these Classical assemblies, he saith, 
(s) De Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. p. 355.  What, not so much as a step 〈◊〉 there is a step at least extant in the Canonical 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 custom neighbour Bishops were always wont to come together, in all sorts of difficult cases: which the Presbyters at Rome judged to be so necessary, that a firm decree could not be made in the farre-spread cause of those that were fallen, without the assembling of those that were near unto them. Cypr. L. 2. Epist. 3. which course Cyprian himself also followed, L. 1. Ep. 8. & Cornelius Romanus, L. 3. Epist. 11. Why do I spend time? There is nothing more evident to him that is acquainted with the ancient monuments of history, than that neighbours (even besides the Synod) did est soon meet together for deciding of strifes, for ordinations, for dissolving of doubts, & in sum●●●, for every weighty business. Of which assemblies the Epistles of Cyprian 〈◊〉 full. And these assemblies what are they else but Classical assemblies? The exceptions that might be made against these things are further answered by Mr Parker in the same place. It had behoved Mr C. to have refuted Mr P. herein, if he would have us give credit to this assertion of D. Sutcl.? V The testimonies next alleged touching Geneva, as they are untrue in regard of the state of those Churches, so they are unjustly applied against Classes and Synods; seeing as Mr Par. saith, and acknowledgeth with D. Sutcl. that 
(t) Ibid. p. 361.362.  Geneva hath neither Classes nor Synods, because their territory is so small that it is not capable of them. Yet that they of Geneva do 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 appear by their practice, while their joint Presbytery doth not greatly differ from a Classis. But to speak properly, it is not a Classis, and to speak truly, they are not the first that have approved and practised such kind of combined government. But jest Mr C. should seem to urge us with the testimonies of these Authors, behold what proofs he adds to this purpose.  
I. C. Touching these Assertions: I cannot see how Mr Paget, or any other is able to disproove them. It is acknowledged, on all sides, that in the first hundred years after the Apostles, Ministers and Brethren of sundry Congregations, met sometimes, to confer mutually together of common Church-affaires; yet so as every particular Congregation, had always (as the Centuries 
(v) Cent. l. 2. c. 4. p. 391.  writ) power and authority in themselves, to choose their Officers, reject Heretics, excommunicate offenders, and the like. ANSW. 1. There is nothing here said to prove the foresaid assertions, but what is grounded upon a false supposition, which the Authour-hath before 
(x) Pag. 30.156, 157, 164, etc.  often discovered; viz. that particular Congregations have not still their power & authority in elections and censures, when they are combined with others, & subject to the power belonging to such combinations, for their direction, & correction, in case they offend. Mr C. leaving this without proof, the assertions which he offers to maintain, are in like manner left without defence, for aught he hath here said. II. The Magdeburgenses 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 showed 
(y) P. 173.174, 175.  before out of other places of the same Authors, according to which the place here quoted must be explained; where they speak only of the Apostles times, and of particular Congregations considered in themselves, without excluding their confederacy with others, for their mutual help in judging and deciding of causes.  
I. C. So again, for a hundred year's next after; we read in Eusebius 
(z) L. 3. c. 22. L. 5. c. 16. L. 3. c. 19 , Iraeneus 
(a) L. 3. c. 1.2.3. , Nicephorus 
(b) L. 4. c. 23. , and others, that neighbour Ministers came often together, when there was any dangerous error broached, or weighty points to be determined, serving for general good: but this they did of liberty, not of duty; partly to preserve mutual society; as Zipperus 
(c) L. 3. c. 7.  saith) & partly that they might hereby be the more able, to resist adversaries as, Mr Parker 
(d) Eccl. Pol. p. 329, 330.  saith. ANSW. His quotations here, as they use to be, are either misprinted or impertinent: howbeit the things themselves for which they are alleged, may easily be granted. But the question is, whether the Synods or meetings of Ministers, held in that age did not exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in determining of weighty points, and deciding of controversies. If so be they did, which cannot be denied, seeing (as hath been 
(e) Prof. Leyd. Censur. Confess. Remonstr. Pref. § 14. Vedel. de Arcan. Armin. l. 2. c. 6. p. 186.  noted against the Arminians) such a deciding of Ecclesiastical controversies was used in all the Synods of the ancient Orthodox Church: than it must needs follow that those times have given testimony unto such Synods as are here maintained. But to avoid this Conclusion, Mr C. puts in this shift, which we must take upon his own credit, saying, this they did of liberty, not of duty. But to what purpose is this evasion? 1. The opposing of dangerous errors, the preserving of mutual society, and seeking help for the resisting of adversaries, the things here spoken of, are necessary duties; and therefore to be done of duty, and not of liberty. 
See before, p. 78.  Men are bound to the performance itself, though there may be liberty used in the choice of the circumstances. 11. Mr Parker saith expressly in the very place here cited by Mr C. that 
(f) De Pol. Eccl. l. 3. p. 329.  the ground of the combination of Churches is the duty of maintaining mutual society, etc. and that bond of mutual help which Moses mentioneth Num. 32.6. where the Reubenites and Gadites are urged to their duty, not left to their liberty.  
In the next place he tells us his opinion touching the limits of Synodall actions, to wit, that 
(g) Ch. pl. p. 95.  Ecclesiastical Officers may conclude what they judge meet & good, but not make a Church-act or sentence, unless the Church first know it, & give their free consent unto it. As if to any effectual purpose weighty points could be determined, mutual society preserved, and adversaries resisted, when dangerous errors are broached (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 & authority to make Church-acts is in the body of the Congregation. The proof hereof, as it is understood & applied by him, is yet to be expected. _____ Coming down to the next hundred years, he seems to acknowledge the practice of those times to be against him: but to excuse the matter, he allegeth 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, etc. 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 Authors 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 happiness of those times, that the Churches had more liberty to assemble in Synods, than they could have before, in the times of persecution under Heathen Emperors. 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 wickedness of Licinius is noted by his forbidding the use of such Assemblies. Though Episcopal dignity grew to a greater height in those times then before, yet Synodall jurisdiction was the same that had been used formerly, save only that the favour of the Emperors, public liberty, and the increase of offences together with the enlargement of the Churches are 
(h) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 10. c. 3. jun. Animadv. in Bellarm. de Concil. l. 1. c. 10. n. 2. Camerar. Hist. Syn. Nic. p. 212. edit. Niceph.  observed to have made the Assemblies more general and frequent then in former ages. And therefore whatsoever Mr C. affirm, there is no reason why we should descent from what was before 
(i) P. 204.  alleged out of D. F. whom he had cited for his witness, who speaking of the authority of Synods, saith, Which authority we know to be granted to the Church by our Saviour Christ; practised by his Apostles; continued by their successors 300 years, before there were any Christian Emperors.  
Afterwards falling again to the point of Popular Government, he saith, 
(k) Ch. pl. p. 95.  Mr Beza is very strait to the people, hardly granting the liberty which the very jesuits do: he should have showed wherein; for the jesuites are known to 
(l) Bellarm. de Verbo Dei, l. 3. c. 5. Mariana & Em. Sa, in Mat. 18.17.  expound the word Church by Prelates, in the place whereunto he sends us in Maldonate. To evince the late rising of Presbyterial authority in elections, he argueth from the 13th Canon of the Synod of Laodicea, mentioned 
(m) Responsi. ad Tract. de Ministr. Evang. grad. c. 22. p. 154, 155.  by Beza, where it was ordered 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 prohibited the body of the Congregation, from using that liberty and power, which they before always had in Ecclesiastical government. For as Beza saith in the place by him quoted, the manner of election here forbidden was not essential but accidental: Chemnitius also 
(n) Exam. Concil. Trident. par. 2. p. 411, 412. ed. 1606.  shows 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 people's abusing their right unto tumults, seditions and divers confusions. 2. By a like inference he might conclude that other erroneous opinions and disordered practices, condemned in the Councils and Synods of those times, were before allowed and used in the Church.  
THat which he pretends to answer in the third place, is taken from this expression which the Author used in his Preface, saying, That which some will have to be the slavery & bondage of a Church, that I esteem to be the liberty, safety and preservation of Churches. That which they count a Tyrannical government, that I believe to be a Sanctuary against Tyranny▪ and afterwards in the book itself, 
(o) Pag. 83.  If I should in doctrine oppugn, and in practice deny unto the members of this Church, this liberty of appeal unto the Classis, as they do here condemn it in me, than might they justly complain of tyrannical government and corrupt doctrine, than had they cause to bewail their slavery and bondage. Thus he declared his judgement touching the benefit of this kind of government in opposition to the Title prefixed unto the printed Complaints, which Mr C. knew best who framed. The matter of Argument couched in these words is sufficiently explained and vindicated 
(p) P. 36- 41.  before, where the liberty of Appeals, suitable to common equity, and instituted in the Law, is proved to be agreeable unto the doctrine of the Gospel.  
I. C. ANSW. 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 usefulness of the opinions, or practices questioned. As if because a thing is useful, therefore it is to be concluded it is true: etc. REPL. 1. It is strange Mr C. did not discern, that there is no other course of reasoning in the Authors holding Classical government to be a Sanctuary against Tyranny, & the denial of Appeals a matter of slavery & bondage; then in Mr Cannes & others, accounting Independency to be the liberty & freedom of a Church, & subjection to Classical government slavery & bondage. What is here said unto the one, may as fitly be applied against the other. If his answer be found, he doth plainly overthrow his own 
(q) Ch. pl. p. 71. & 76. Arg. 9 & Reas. 7.  Arguments, built upon the same foundation which here he seeks to destroy. There was no usefulness mentioned in the Authors words, nor any other to be understood, than such as is employed in the said & other the like expressions and reasonings of Mr C. 11. Though it be certain that every truth of God is useful, & to be used without gainsaying, when it appeareth to be such; yet when this truth is denied, and the point controverted, it is no strange course to prove it to be law by the agreement which it hath with that which is confessed to be law. This the Author hath done in the place above mentioned. And besides, seeing according to that 
* Salus populi suprema lex esto.  law of laws commonly received, the safety of the people is the highest law; and that Appeals are 
(r) Luth. Tom. 1. f. 231.  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 Sanctuary against Tyranny, and in this respect rather to be embraced then Independency, where the same are denied?  
I. C. ANSW. II. The Papists and Hierarchy for their Discipline give the very same reason; viz. that there may be no Tyranny and oppression among brethren, etc. REPL. And so doth Mr C. for Independency, 
(s) Ch. pl. p. 76.  that a particular Congregation may not of a Mistress become a servant; instead of being a superior wilfully vassal & enslave herself, etc.  
I. C. ANSW. III. I do deny that this government by Classes & Synods serves better for the Church's welfare, then that which the Apostles instituted, etc. REPL. And so will we, when he hath proved that Independency is the government instituted by the Apostles.  
I. C. ANSW. IU. If it should be granted that particular Congregations by this kind of government, shall have peace, profit, credit & other worldly respects: yet this is no sufficient reason, etc. REPL. The Defendant never used such a reason: this is a skarre-crow of his own setting up, and therefore we must give him leave to please himself in that fivefold shot which he makes as it.  
THe fourth reason which he supposeth he hath found in the Authors book, is the mention which he made of the determinations of Nationall Synods concerning the power exercised by the Classis, and the consent of all Reformed Churches. Hereunto he answers, I. Councils may err, etc. II. These testimonies are all human, etc. III. This reason is the same which the Papists use, etc. REPL. I. The Decrees of Synods were not alleged to prove the lawfulness of this government, but to show 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 Councils may err, yet it doth not therefore follow that they do always err & that they may not make decrees for the deciding of controversies, as Vedelius 
(t) De Arcan. Armin. l. 2. c. 6. p. 183.184.  showeth against the Arminians. III. Though the decrees of Synods have no absolute authority, yet being framed according to the word of God, they do specially bind the Churches that are in combination with them: as when a Church-act or sentence is made so as Mr 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.  
IN the next place he undertakes to answer what was objected touching the long continuance of that which some of later times only did complain of. Here Mr C. brings in W.B. pretending ignorance of the former state of that Cogregation, yet in such terms as might hid the point in question from the inconsiderate Reader. But not to speak of what hath been frequently noted before, the colour given to this pretence, which W.B. probably never dreamt of till it was suggested by Mr C. is when he makes him say, The thing specially, which induced me so to think was his own words, written to Mr Ainsworth; reporting how he was first made our Minister: he saith, 
(v) Arrow ag. Separ. p. 116.  The Dutch Eldership in this City being desired, both for their counsel & help in his ordination; deputed three of their brethren to assist us in this business, etc. this they did not as assuming authority 
* Note.  to themselves over us: but in our name, & by our request, etc. If the Classis assumed not then any authority unto themselves over us, how comes it to pass that they do it now? Or how will it hang together, that their power is ancient; and yet 20 or 30 years past, they used it not. This to me seems gross contradiction, etc. REPL. This his conceit of a gross contradiction, which he is so taken with that he spends almost a whole page of his Rhetoric upon it, is no better than a gross mistake of his own, which he hath blindly run 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 too distinct assemblies, there can be no contradiction in affirming that of the one which is denied of the other. The Dutch Eldership is not the Classis, no more than the English Eldership of the same city. They are both members of the Classis, together with other Congregations of the neighbour towns & villages. Now the Elderships of particular Churches are not subject one to another, neither doth one exercise authority over another, as hath been showed 
(x) Pag. 29, 30, & 159.  before. It is the Classis, or combination of more Churches or Elderships, sending their Deputies thither, to whom is ascribed the power of determining the matters of particular Congregations. And this is so evident that if Mr C. had but consulted hereabout with W. B. in whose name he pleads on this manner, he might have been sufficiently informed of this truth. Yea he might easily have learned it out of the Authors former book, where he saith of the same Dutch Consistory, 
(y) Answ. to W. B. p. 70, 71.  Though they had no power to judge & determine the matter by their sentence, yet they refused not to give their counsel etc. 11. Though it had been spoken of the Classis, which was said of the Dutch Consistory, yet there had been no contradiction in the Author's 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 & acknowledged to be their due by the Congregations that either at first or afterwards enter into this confederacy for the submitting of themselves unto such an assembly in all requisite cases. 2. The orders according to which the Classes do here exercise their authority, 
(z) Kercken. Orden. Nat. Syn. Dordr. Art. 4.  do not in ordinary cases require the manifestation thereof in the Ordination of Ministers; which being only 
(a) Ames. Medul. l. 1. c. 39 th'. 34.  the solemn 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 choice 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 do yield unto their desire, do not exercise authority over that Congregation where the Minister is ordained: seeing they perform that work in the name & at the request of the said Congregation. Whatsoever power & authority 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 Author had before explained himself in the 
(b) Arrow ag. Separ. p. 111, 112.114.  same book. And therefore he hath herein no way contradicted himself, neither can this excuse W.B. from that which was objected unto him.  
But by the conclusion of this plea it seems Mr C. did not so much intent thereby the defence of his client, as the casting of some disgrace upon the Authors 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 air is apparent to those that observe his blows, & mark where they light. From what is now said it is manifest how vainly he hath here applied against the said book, what the Author had said touching Mr Robinson's justification of Separation, viz. that it was sick of King jehorams incurable disease, etc. which Mr C. himself hath 
(c) Stay against straying. p. 142.  elsewhere in his wont language, acknowledged to be true. But to hasten to an end, & to oppose somewhat unto this censorious & the forementioned slanderous conclusion of Mr C. that the Reader may partly understand what entertainment that Arrow against the Separation hath had among the godly learned, & what they have judged of the Author's pains therein; I have here set down the testimony of that worthy servant of Christ, 
From Bunb. jul. 8. 1619.  Mr Hy. as it was written by himself to the Author in these words. I thank you for the Arrow of your own Quiver, which now of late I have received, according to your letter. You have fashioned & feathered it so well, headed & pointed it with such diligence & care, drawn it up to the head with such strength, directed & discharged it with such & so sure aim & skill, that it hath pierced, not only the head, but the heart of the Brownists cause, & Rabbins fancies & forgeries; wherein I profess you have given me better satisfaction both of your own sufficiency for polemical employment in the Lord's service (whereof notwithstanding I ever held a very good opinion) & of the weakness & vanity of all their forces & fortresses, raised & advanced against either God's Church, or God's word, than hitherto I ever had, or could ever by any thing that I have heard or seen, attain unto. Which if I might not speak as truly, as freely; or did not think as unfeignedly, as I writ it willingly, I should fear this might savour of some spice of flattery, which I have, & (I know) you neither love, nor look for at my hand. The substance of this his judicious & unpartial approbation, hath been confirmed by sundry others, in like manner eminent for learning & piety, & shall doubtless be further verified hereafter, according to His gracious disposing, who hath said, 
* Prov. 10.7. Psal. 112.6.  The memory of the just is blessed: and, The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.   


The Contents of THE FIRST PART, Touching a Particular Eldership.  

CHAP. I. The occasion of this writing, and the State of the Question. PAG. 1.  
CHAP. II. Arguments to prove the power of the Eldership in judging, and ending some cause without the knowledge of the Congregation. PAG. 2.  
CHAP. III. A Refutation of sundry Errors, whereupon Mr Ainsworth grounds their Popular Government. PAG. 7.  
CHAP. IU. Whether the people be bound to be present at the proceed against offenders. PAG. 19    

THE SECOND PART. Touching Classes and Synods.  

CHAP. I. The State of the Question, and the importance thereof. PAG. 29.  
CHAP. II. The first Argument, taken from the words of the Law, Deut. 17. 8-12. PAG. 34.  
CHAP. III. The second Argument, taken from the words of Christ, Math. 18. 15-20. PAG. 42.  
CHAP. IU. The third Argument, taken from the practice of the primitive Churches, in the Apostles times. PAG. 61. 

Mr Dau. his Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered. PAG. 66.  
Mr Cannes Exceptions touching Act. 15. answered. PAG. 81.    
CHAP. V An Answer to the Allegations of Mr Davenport, touching the Authority of Synods. 

SECT. I. His Allegation of Mr Cartwright answered. PAG 81.  
SECT. II. His Allegation of Mr Fenner examined. PAG 84.  
SECT. III. His Allegation of Mr Parker examined. PAG. 88  
SECT. iv His Allegation of Dr Ames examined. PAG. 106.  
SECT. V His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined. PAG. 111.  
SECT. VI His Allegation of the Rep●●● upon Dr Do●man examined. PAG. 116.  
SECT. VII. His Allegation of Dr Voetius examined. PAG. 118.  
SECT. VIII. Touching the English Church at Francford in Q. Mary's time. PAG. 121.  
SECT. IX. Mr Dau. his pretence of agreement with junius examined. PAG. 125.  
SECT. X. His pretence of agreement with Dr Whitaker examined. PAG 133.  
SECT. XI. His Allegation of Chamierus examined. PAG. 141.    
CHAP. VI An Answer to Mr Cannes Arguments. PAG. 145.  
CHAP. VII. The Allegations of Mr Can examined. PAG. 16●. 

SECT. I. Touching the Testimonies of Papists. PAG 169.  
SECT. II. The Testimonies of Lutherans. PAG. 173.  
SECT. III. The Testimonies of Calvinists. PAG. 184.  
SECT. iv The Testimonies of English Conformists. PAG. 196.  
SECT V The Testimonies of English Non-Conformists. PAG. 200.  
SECT. VI The Testimonies of ancient Fathers, Counsels, and Emperors. PAG. 213.  
SECT. VII. The Testimonies of Reformed Churches. PAG. 227.    
A Supplements, for answer unto that which followeth in Mr Cannes book, touching the evil consequents of Indepudency, the Antiquity of Classes and Synods, etc. PAG. 240.    
FINIS.