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

SECT. VI.

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

THe Advocate of W.B. not contēt with the testimonies of men in later times, leades us back to the testimony of Antiquity, and to the Ages long before. And though he(a) 1.1 confesse he had done it already, in mentioning some testimo∣nies of the most ancient times; yet notwithstanding to shew that he stands not for any Novelty, he professeth againe, he will shew that the best approved Authors, after the Apostles, are directly with them, in this thing, &c. Those which he alledgeth are these, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ierome, Am∣brose, Cyrill, Hilarie, Greg. Nazianzen, Augustine, Chrysostome, Basill, Socrates, Isidorus, Bernard. And with these he also makes mention of some Councells and Christian Emperours.

For answer hereunto, First in generall it is to be observed, that the thing which he here pretends to prove, viz. that everie particular visible Church of Christ, hath pow∣er to exercise Ecclesiasticall government, and all other Gods spirituall ordinances, in and for itself immediately from Christ; this comes short of the question betwixt us. For this being granted, it doth not follow hereupon that the power of Classes and Synods is an undue power, or that particular Churches may not therefore stand under the au∣thority of another superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of themselves. This their inference will never be made good from such a ground. This beggerly conse∣quence I have oft(b) 1.2 refuted before.

To come more particularly unto the testimonies of these Authours, which he promiseth to set downe according to the times in which they lived: And to beginne first with Ignatius; from him he alledgeth that it was then the manner of visible Chur∣ches(c) 1.3 to come together in one place, to worship God▪ having Bishops, Elders and Deacons unto their Officers, whom the people freely chose by voyces, or lifting up of hands. I answer: 1. All that is here sayd being granted, it followes not that they were independent, and refused to submit their controversies to the judgement of other Churches as∣sembled in Synods. Ignatius being Minister of the Church of Antiochia in Syria, which had of old submitted their controversy to the Synod held at Ierusalem, Act. 15. what reason is there to thinke they forgot their old practise, approved by the Apostles themselves? 11. Though it be probable, and we injudgement of cha∣rity are bound to thinke that the Officers, Bishops, Elders, and Deacons of this Church were chosen with the free consent of the people, according to the direc∣tion of the Apostles; yet is not so much specifyed in any of those three Epistles here mentioned in the margine, and therefore are they vainely alledged for the proof thereof. III. Ignatius labouring for the peace and establishment of the Church of Antiochia after his death, desired the Church of Philadelphia(d) 1.4 to choose a Bishop, which being sent thither as an Embassadour in the Embassage of God, it might be granted unto them to glorify God in their meeting together. He speakes there not of

choosing a Bishop to minister in their owne Church, but of choosing one to be their Deputy, to travell unto the Synod or meeting in Antiochia for settling of order in that Church. And in the same place to moove them the more, he shew∣eth what was the practise of the Primitive Churches in such cases, viz. that alwayes the neighbour Churches did send Bishops, and some of them Elders and Deacons. Againe, writing upon the same occasion unto Polycarpus, Bishop of Smyrna, he saith(e) 1.5 It was meet to gather a Synod comely in the Lord, and choose some dearly beloved and diligent person, which might be called Theodromos, [or one that should runne for God,] who might travell into Syria, and thereby celebrate their diligent love to the praise of God. And using many arguments to commend that businesse unto him as the work of God, he intreateth Polycarpus that he would write unto other Churches, that they would doe the same thing; that they which were able would send men to travell on foot, that others would send their letters to be conveyed by such as Polycarpus should send thither. From these testimonies of Ignatius, M^r Parker(f) 1.6 concludes that in those times, according to the practise of the Reformed Churches with us, neighbour Churches were combined together as it were Classically, for the mutuall communica∣tion of offices. And whereas D. Bilson(g) 1.7 confesseth that it was the manner of that time, if any Church was tossed with waves of discord, that neighbour Churches round about did send a Bishop, Elder or Deacon for appeasing that tempest: Mr Parker inferres justly thereupon, If neighbour Churches had right or authority in com∣pounding of strifes, why not also in moderating of elections? His conclusion in the same place is, Let this very right in compounding strife be a sufficient authorization for our Classes. Thus then it is apparant that Ignatius was not directly with M^r Canne, as he boa∣steth, but his meaning hath bene manifestly perverted contrary to his words.

Tertullian, that is next alledged (though misalledged, c. 29. being put for c. 39.) relating the manner of Christian assemblies in his time, saith in effect,(h) 1.8 They came together into the Congregation [it is not sayd into one Congregation, as M^r C. al∣ledgeth it] for to pray unto God, for to rehearse the Divine Scriptures, and with holy words yo nourish faith, stirre up hope, and fasten confidence. And they used exhortations, reproofes and divine Censure. I answer: I. Though particular Churches met together for such end, this hinders not but that the Deputies of those same Churches might meet together in Synods, for their mutuall assistance in the judgement of more weighty and difficult causes. It followes not because severall Congregations have their due power, that therefore the power of Classes is an undue power. II. that Tertullian himself intended no such thing, it appeares evidently by the great approbation and commendation which he gives unto Synods, in saying,(i) 1.9 The appoynted Synods are kept through the countries of Graecia in certaine places out of all the Churches, whereby both the deeper or more difficult matters are handled in common, & by that representation of the whole Christian flock they are celebrated with great reverence.

He alledgeth the words of Origen, writing much to the same purpose,(k) 1.10 Such as were brought in the third place, for sinne unto the Congregation; if they stood obstinate, by the judgement of the whole Church were excommunication from the body, the Elders of the Church pronouncing the sentence. And then in his owne words he sayth,(l) 1.11 Observe here, he saith not that the matter was caried to a Classis, and there first determined, &c. but

names onely the Congregation, and Elders thereof; notwithstanding had there bene any such superiour judicatorie Assembly, it is likely he would have omitted it, and mentioned a subordinate and inferiour one. ANSVV. I. The words which they alledge in ano∣ther letter in Origens name, as if they had bene his speech verbatim described, are not his words. He neither speakes of men brought unto the Church, nor of the judg∣ment of the Church, nor of Elders pronouncing the sentence: he shewes how all the peo∣ple might be polluted by the sinne of one man, when the Briefts which rule the people being unmindefull of priestly severity doe not rebuke, nor take away evill from them, nor make him as a Publicane and Heathen which hath despised the admonition of the Church; but not in such words and forme of speech as M^r Canne faineth. II. All that Origen there speakes is not repugnant to Classicall government: all that he there requireth is dayly performed by the Churches among us, which stand un∣der the government of Classes and Synods. Obstinate offenders having their names and offences divers times published before the whole Congregation, are with the consent thereof excommunicated, by the judgement of the Eldership going before. III. If Origen in his writings had expressely denyed the authority of Synods, it had bene of no great weight against the generall judgement of other ancient Fathers; the rather, seeing his writings are rejected and condemned by so many, especially by Epiphanius and Hieronie, the Authours hereafter alledged by M^r Canne. And see how vaine many of his glosses were even touching this poynt. Speaking of the keyes of the kingdome of heaven, Mat. 16. he there telles us of many keyes to open severall gates in heaven•• that(m) 1.12 Tempérance is one key to open the Gate of Temperance in heaven; that Iustice is another key to open another Gate, and so for all other vertues. And afterwards expounding the promise made Matt. 18.18. tou∣ching binding and loosing in heaven, & comparing it with the promise made un∣to Peter Mat. 16.19. because a word of the plurall number is used in the promise to Peter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in coelis, and to others a word of the singular number, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in coelo; Origen from thence(n) 1.13 teacheth us this Doctrine, that Peter did binde and loose in all heavens, whereas some others did but binde and loose in one heaven. And therefore he concludeth, Look how much better he is that bindeth, by so much is he that is bound, bound in more then one heaven: and by how much better he is that looseth, by so much the more blessed is he that is loosed, because he is loosed in all the heavens. Such are many of the interpretations of Origen. IV. As M^r Canne misalledgeth Origen to impugne the authority of Classes and Synods; so other more learned & judicious Writers alledge him on the contrary for proof thereof. D. Whitaker to vindicate the authority of Synods against the Papists, and to prove their power above the Pope, argueth(o) 1.14 from the greater assistance of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ governing his Church, to wit, in Synods: and for declara∣tion hereof brings the testimony of Origen, noting upon Rom. 15. that it is sayd to none of the Apostles singularly, and to none of the faithfull, I will be with thee; but unto a multitude of Churches plurally, I will be wish you. And M^r Parker(p) 1.15 from him repea∣teth againe the same Argument, taken from the testimony of Origen. And besides this it is noted by the(q) 1.16 Magdeburgenses how Origen himself was employed in di∣vers

Synods in Arabia, for the conviction of sundry heresies.

Cyprian is in like manner perverted: for when as her 1.17 reprooving those Elders that without consent either of the people, or of their Pastour, had rashly receaved unto the Communion againe such as were fallen and become Apostates, before their due confession of fault, doth shew that such things ought not to be conclu∣ded without common consent of the Church; and confesseth also thats 1.18 the peo∣ple chiefly have power to choose worthy Ministers, and to refuse unworthy ones; this we also assent unto, while that power is used aright. But in the same place he gives a cleare testimony for the warrant of Synods in deciding of weightier causes, when in that Synodall Epistle written by Cyprian. Caecilius. Primus. Poly∣carpus, and many others, in the name of the Synod then assembled together, it is sayd, thatt 1.19 it is to be observed and held by divine Ordinance and Apostolicall observation, which is also kept among us, and almost through all the Provinces, that for the right performing of or∣dination, all the next Bishops of that Province are to assemble together unto that people to which an Overseer is ordained, &c. And of this practise he there gives an instance in the ordination of Sabri••••, and in the deposition of Basilides, and shewes the reason thereof, that by the suffrages of the whole b••••therhood, and by the judgement of those Bishops, which were presently assembled together, the office of a Bishop might be conferred upon him, and that hands might belayd upon him instead of Basilides. And besides this, we finde there manyv 1.20 other pregnant evidences of the use, necessity and authority of Synods in those times. From thence S. Go••••••••tius in his answers to Pa••dius his annotations on Cyprian, dothx 1.21 confirme the liberty of Churches in maintayning yearely their Provinciall Synods, &c. From thence also Mr Parker confirmes the use of Classicall government in these Reformed Churches, and concludes,y 1.22 Why doe I spend time? There is nothing more evident to him that is acquainted with the ancient mo∣numents of history, then that neighbours (even besides the Synod) did eftsoone meet together for deciding of strifes, for ordinations, for dissolving of doubts, and in summe, for every meigh∣ty businesse. Of which assemblies the Epistles of Cyprian are full. And these assemblies what are they els but Classicall assemblies? And againe in the same place; Hereof we have examples every where in the Epistles of Cyprian. A little after, Who sees not here the lively portraiture of our Classes? And, Oh how doth the Hierarchy offend which hath ba∣nished this most pleasant combination of Classes? Hereby the Reader may judge whe∣ther it be not an absurd and senseles boasting of M^r Canne, who oppugning this Classicall government, is not ashamed to say of Cyprians testimony in these E∣pistles, What can be more full and absolute to our purpose then this? With what judgment doth this man read the writings of the Fathers?

It is sayd in thea 1.23 next place, Eusebius testifyeth that the Churches of the most fa∣mous Cities were in their constitution first, but one ordinary constant Congregation, as Jeru∣salemb 1.24, Ephesusc 1.25, Alexandriad 1.26, Hierapolise 1.27, Corinthf 1.28, Sardisg 1.29, &c. This being so, then it followes, that primitively they were independent; and stood not under any other Ecclestasticall authority, out of themselves. In the allegation of these testimonies out of Eusebius, there be divers mistakings and faylings of memory or attention; Hierapolis with reference to L. 4.1. where it is not mentioned, but in L. 3.32. Corinth with reference to L. 3.32. where it is not found, but after in L.

4.22. Sardis alledged with reference to L. 4.22. where there is no mention at all thereof, but there is such a mention of Athens as is intended for Sardis. These slips of memory are to be noted for help of the Reader that would examine the places, but may well be excused in such a number of quotations. To leave them and to come unto the great abuses here to be observed; I. In all the places here alled∣ged, Eusebius doth not testify that the Churches of these Cities, were in their consti∣tution first, but one ordinary constant Congregation; he hath no such words. He gives unto them the name and title of a Parish; but it is not proved that in every Parish there was but one ordinary constant Congregation. Whether they were so or not, this title of Parish proves is not. II. The consequence made from hence is more evidently false: for to admit these Churches were at the first but one ordinary con∣stant Congregation, yet doth it not at all follow that therefore primitively they were independent, and stood not under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves. Both our English Church here, and generally other Reformed Churches in these countries were in their first constitution, and for the most part still are but one ordinary Congregation; and yet from the first stood under the Ec∣clesiasticall authority of Classes and Synods, in which they were combined. III. Suppose some of the Churches either in Eusebius time or in later times, did not at their first constitution stand under the authority of Synods, when Churches being so few, and so farre distant, they wanted opportunity of combining themselves together for their mutuall assistance; this hinders not but that upon the encrease of neighbour Churches they might afterwards submit themselves unto this order. IV. That the Primitive Churches whereof Eusebius writes in his history, did stand under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves, and were subject unto their censures, he makes it evident by sundry instances. Heh 1.30 records how the errour of Montanus was judged and condemned by many Synods in Asia: howi 1.31 Novatus and the Catharists were excommunicated by a Synod holden at Rome, consisting of 60 Bishops, with many Elders and Deacons: howk 1.32 Paulus Samosa∣tenus was deposed and excommunicated by a Synod holden at Antioch. He de∣claresl 1.33 at large and celebrates the piety of Constantine, the great friend & main∣tainer of Christian religion, for assembling the Nicene Synod, wherein Arius was condemned. And in like manner he shewes them 1.34 impiety of the Emperour Li∣cinius, the enemy of God, who by a mischievous devise sought to ruinate the Churches of God by depriving them of their liberty in meeting together in Sy∣nods, for deciding of their controversies. So expressely and clearely doth Eusebius give testimony unto Synods.

That which is collected out of Athanasius, viz. that elections, excommunications, &c. according to the Apostles precept, ought to be done in the publick Congregation by the Ministers, they taking first the peoples voyce or consent; is such as I doe willingly assent unto. Neither was there ever any election, either of Minister, Elder, or Dea∣con, nor any excommunicatiō of any offender among us, but that the matter was first solemnely communicated with the Church, and declared severall times in the publick Congregation, & the consent of the people required & obtained before any such act was confirmed & finished among us. But what is this to the purpose?

Athanasius notwithstanding this doth witnesse unto us, that the causes and contro∣versies of particular Churches, were in his time submitted to the censure of other Churches, and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves. This Athanasius shewes in these very places here alledged against me: And in the first of them, havingn 1.35 made a lamentable narration of the miseries procured to the Church of Alexandria by the intrusion and cruelty of an Arian Bishop, he then most vehemently supplicates unto those that were members of the same body with them in other Churches, that as the former yeare their brethren at Rome were willing to have called a Synod, but that they were hindred; so they having greater occasion to vindicate the Church of God from new evills, would [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] by their suffrages condemne, and reject the Authors of such mis∣chiefes. And more plainely in the 2^d place, he declareso 1.36 at length that in the Synod holden at Sardica, where Hosius was President, and whither the accusers of Athanasius were cited, the cause being heard, the Synod did not onely advise and counsell what was meet to be done, but did give sentence touching the matters of controversy, absolved Athanasius, and deposed the Bishops that were found guilty, such as Stephanus, Menophantus, Acacius, Georgius, Vrsacius, Valens, Theodorus, Narcissus. As for the third allegation [Epist. cont. Nicae. c. 9. Ecc. Hist.] it seemes to be misquoted: I finde no such Title in all the works of Athanasius. Instead thereof therefore, let us see another testimonie of his, wherein he teacheth what the government of the Church was in those times, namely ruled by authoritie of Synods, where the weightier causes were judged & decided. Of this hep 1.37 gives instances in the Synods of Alexandria, Greece, and Spaine, where Euzoius, Eudo∣xius, and such principall offenders were deposed from their offices, and other upon their repentance retained. And the like Ecclesiasticall authority is in many other places throughout his writings by him commended unto us. Let us heare how M^r C. proceeds.

I. C. To these we will adde Epiphanius, Ierome, Ambrose, Cyrill, Hillarie and Greg. Nazianzen; writers in noe age. Touching Ecclesiasticall Government, these to this purpose speake: Particular Churches may lawfully ordaine their owne Bishops, without o∣ther Presbyters assisting them; Epiph. cont. Haer. 73. and among themselves ex∣communicate offenders. Id. l. 1. Haeres. 30. Tom. 2. Haer. 5. ANSVV. I. Here be three places at once misalledged: In the two latter, viz. Haer. 30. and Haer. 5. there is nothing at all spoken touching this poynt. In the first of them, viz. Haer. 73. he doth but catch at a shadow, and pervert the words of Epiphanius, and falsi∣fy them, by changing some and adding other, and omitting other that might give light unto the question. His words upon occasion of Meletius his confession and suffering for the trueth, are these; There are many people of this order of this Synod, which setting Bishops over themselves, doe make a marvellous confession touching the faith, & doe not reject the word Coessentiall. Yea and say they are ready, if there were a perfect Synod, to con∣fesse & not to deny it. Here is no mention of particular Churches or Congregations; nor of lawfully ordayning, nor of doing this without other Presbyters assisting them. But that which is recorded touching the acknowledgement of a lawfull or perfect Synod,

that is omitted. Thus he varyeth from the Latine translation of Epiphanius: the Originall Greek in divers Copies is further from the matter; having this beside other differences, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which made themselves to be Bishops, instead of lawfully ordaining their owne Bishops. Such are the Alle∣gations of M^r Canne. II. Suppose the words Epiphanius had bene the same that M^r C. relates, yet had not the authority of Synods bene any thing diminished thereby. Is it not the common and ordinary practise in these Reformed Chur∣ches, that where two or more Ministers are in one Congregation, there the newly elected Ministers are ordained and confirmed without any other Presbyters from other Churches to assist them? Yet this is no good argument to prove they want Classes and Synods. And though also they doe among themselves excommu∣nicate offenders; yet this hinders not but that Classes or Synods may exercise their authority in judging or censuring such as have unjustly excommunicated any, or proceeded contrary to their advise therein. III. That Epiphanius did approve the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, it is manifest by his practise. It isq 1.38 re∣corded of him that he being Bishop of Salamis or Constantia in Cyprus, procured a Synod to be called in that Iland, wherein the bookes of Origen were condemned, & a decree made that none should read his bookes. IV. Epiphanius did not one∣ly approve the lawfull authority of Synods; but he went further and did maintaine the unlawfull authoritie of particular persons over divers Churches. This appea∣reth in hisr 1.39 condemning of Aërius of heresie, that held Bishops & Presbyters to be the same by divine institution; whom D. Whitakers 1.40 doth justly defend against Bellarmine and others, and shewes that Hierome and other ancient Fathers were of the same minde with Aërius therein; and sayth that we are not to regard the ab∣surd men that doe so often object Aërius unto us: he sayth Epiphanius doth foolish∣ly and childishly answer the testimonies produced by Aërius, and wonders that such a Divine that tooke upon him to refute all Heretickes, did not see his owne foule errour. Yea it is furthert 1.41 recorded of Epiphanius, that he disorderly in∣truded himself into the charge of Chrysostome, contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Ca∣nons observed in those times, by celebrating the Lords supper & ordaining a Dea∣con in the Church at Constantinople. And thus we see M^r Cannes witnesses are in extremity opposite unto himself.

Another of his witnesses is Ierome, from whom he alledgeth, thatv 1.42 In every Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders. To this I answer, I. This is nothing against the authority of Synods. The Reformed Churches have in every Congregation such a Senate of Elders: and yet this hinders not but that they have & ought to have Classes & Synods also, both for direction and correction of Elderships, and for decision of the controversies arising in particular Churches. II. Though every Congregation ought to have a Senate of Elders; yet Ierome doth not avouch so much in the place alledged. His words are falsifyed: for in the place which they misquote (ad Gal. instead of ad Alg.) the words of Jerome are these,x 1.43 How great the traditions of the Pharisees are, which at this day they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and what old wives fables, I cannot expresse. For neither doth the greatnes of the

booke permit: and many of them are so filthy, that I blush to tell. And yet (saith he) I will tell one of them, to the ignominy of that envyous nation. They have Rulers in their Synago∣gues, of their wisest men, deputed unto a filthy work, &c. What this filthy work was, though Jerome expresse it, yet I thinke it shame to publish. And this which he saith in detestation of the Jewes, without approbation of their order, is all that he there saith for an assembly of Elders. So vaine and insufficient are the Allegations of M^r Canne. III. That Hierome allowed the authority of Synods above par∣ticular Churches, it may appeare by that he sayth,y 1.44 Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. If we seek for authority, greater is the world then the city; that is, as D. Whi∣taker expounds the same, the Churches dispersed through the world: he sayth,z 1.45 All the authority of the Church of Rome, is not so great as is the authority of all Churches every where. And thereby he acknowledgeth the authority of Synods arising from the deputation of many Churches, to be greater then the single authority of any one particular Church. Besides, whereas Damasus, Bishop of Rome, was a zea∣lous opposite to the Arian, Macedonian, and other heresies, and in divers Synods furthered the censure and condemnation of such as persisted in those errours, and wrote divers Synodicall Epistles which witnesse the exercise of that authority by Synods, Hieromea 1.46 confesseth that in the writing of those Synodall letters he did assist and help Damasus, which he could not with good conscience have done, un∣lesse he had allowed the authority of Synods. Lastly, if Hierome wrote that in every particular Congregation there ought to be a Senate or assembly of Elders; then is M^r Canne and his Congregation condemned by Hierome, because they have now for many yeares had no Senate nor assembly of Elders, to governe them; M^r Canne being sole governour of them, without an Eldership.

In the next place, touching this assembly of Elders, he addes, that The power of choosing them is in the people. And for this he alledgeth three Authours together,b 1.47 Hierome, Hilarie, Cyrill. I answer: For Hierome, ad Rusticum; there is nothing at all spoken touching the matter, but he is falsely alledged. For Hilary, I. He is also falsely alledged: he sayth nothing touching the Senate or assembly of Elders, of which M^r C. speakes. II. Though he entreat Constantius the Arian Emperour, who had banished many worthy Bishops, that he would permit the people to heare those Teachers and Ministers of the Sacraments, whom they would, whom they thought good, and whom they had chosen, that they might offer up prayers for his safety and felicity; yet doth he not hereby prejudice the authority and jurisdiction of Synods. This hinders not but that Synods might censure and judge of the elections made by the people, and of other controversies of particular Churches. III. Hilary alsoc 1.48 wrote a peculiar booke touching Synods, exstant among his workes, which he had tran∣slated out of Greek into Latine, wherein the Acts and decrees of divers Synods that censured and condemned the Arian heresy, are recorded. Had he thought with my opposites, that this jurisdiction of Synods had bene an usurped and un∣lawfull power; he ought not to have given so much approbation of them, in al∣ledging their authority for defense of his opinion, without some testification a∣gainst their power. Besides, what colour of reason hath M^r C. to shew that Hi∣larius should vary from the judgement of Orthodox Bishops, who in that age

d 1.49 ordinarily used to meet together in Synods for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction?

For Cyrill in Ioh. 20.21. whom he also brings to prove that the Senate or assem∣bly of Elders, ought to be chosen by the people, he is in like manner abused and falsely alledged by him. For I. Cyrill upon those words of Christ, As the Fa∣ther hath sent me, so send I you: sayth that Christ in those words ordained the Teachers of the world, and Ministers of the divine mysteries, &c. That therefore Paul is true, saying, No man takes this honour unto himself, &c. Heb. 5. &c. He shewes how Christ called his Disciples, but hath not a word, neither touching an assembly of Elders, nor of their choosing by the people. Such falshood and forgery there is in the Allega∣tions of M^r C. And yet if he had spoken as much as is here pretended, it had bene no empeachment unto the authority of Synods, as was shewed before. II. That this Cyrill, Bishop of Alexandria, did acknowledge the use of Synods, not onely for counsell and admonition, but for censure and judgement of causes, it appea∣reth evidently by his practise, while in thee 1.50 Synod holden at Ephesus, in the time of Theodosius, he being a principall member of that Synod, did together with o∣thers give sentence against Nestorius, and deposed him from his office, for his ob∣stinacy in refusing to appeare before them, and for his heresy whereof he had bene convicted.

The next witnesse abused by him is Ambrose, who is alledged to shew what the Senate or assembly of Elders is to doe, viz.f 1.51 These with spirituall bridles order men, &c. I answer: I. In the place alledged, there is not a word to be found, either touching a Senate of Elders, or touching spirituall bridles, or any thing to like purpose. II. If a Senate of Elders be spirituall bridles, then the Brownists with M^r C. that now want such a Senate, are an unbridled company, wanting order, &c. III. What though an assembly of Elders order men with spirituall bridles? Is there therefore no other spirituall bridle in the authority of Synods? What conse∣quence is this? IV. That Ambrose did allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods, it appeares, both by his practise, heg 1.52 himself being present with Da∣masus, Britto, Valerian and other Bishops at the Synod holden at Rome for the cen∣sure of Apollinaris and Timotheus his disciple; and by hish 1.53 exhortation given un∣to Theophilus and others, to judge the cause of Euagrius and Flavianus, being depu∣ted thereunto by the Synod of Capua: and againe by hisi 1.54 exhortation given un∣to Theophilus & Anysius, that they being chosen by the same Synod of Capua, would give sentence touching Bonosus and his accusers, forasmuch as the Synod had givē this authority unto them, and they did now supply the place thereof.

With Ambrose he joynesk 1.55 Nazianzen, to testify also that a Senate or assembly of Elders doe with spirituall bridles order men. But in the place alledged I finde no such testimony as is mentioned: and therefore the three first answers made be∣fore unto the testimony from Ambrose, may also serve for Nazianzen. And fur∣ther that Gregory Nazianzen did not limit all Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation onely, it may appeare, if we observe, I. Howl 1.56 he himself was made Bishop of Constantinople, by the suffrages of many Bishops met together, which is a further degree of Ecclesiasticall authority then that

which is exercised in the Classes or Synods of these countries. II. How he plea∣deth(m) 1.57 from a Synodall law, touching the receyving of those that were fallen. III. How he alloweth the order of convocating and assembling neighbour Bi∣shops about the creating of a new Bishop, affirming this to be(n) 1.58 right and accor∣ding to the Ecclesiasticall law. IV. How he in his counsell and exhortation unto the Synod at Constantinope,(o) 1.59 asscribes unto them authority and power for his owne dimission and translation, for the setting of another unblameable Bishop in his place, and thereby withall for the deposition and abdication of Maximus, which was accordingly performed.

That which might with more colour be objected out of Nazianzen against the use of Synods, and which is also alledged both by M^r Canne and by M^r Davenp. though not directly against the authority of Synods, is yet so brought in by the way as might cause a simple Reader to stumble thereat. The words of Nazianzen, as M^r Canne(p) 1.60 alledgeth them, are these,(q) 1.61 I am minded (saith he) to shunne all as∣semblies of Bishops, because I never saw any good event in any Councell, that did not rather in∣crease then diminish our evills: Their contention and ambition passeth my speech. ANSVV. I. Observe how M^r C. mistranslateth those words of Nazianzē, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he rendreth, as signifying, passeth my speech; whereas they signify: prevayled more then reason, as(r) 1.62 M^r Dav. doth rightly translate them. But it is no wonder that M^r Canne should mistake that which some more learned have done before. Grosser faults are more common with him. II. As for the testimony of Nazi∣anzen, the answer of D. Whitaker may give sufficient satisfaction; who sayth,(s) 1.63

It may seeme strange that Nazianzen denyes he had seene a good issue of any Synod. For in those two Synods, [viz. of Nice and Constantinople, which had beene mentioned before,] trueth got the victory, and heresy was put downe. And though it be certaine, that Arianisme was encreased and grew strong and trou∣bled the Church after the Synod of Nice, more then before, yet that is not to be imputed to the Synod, but to the contention and ambition of men. For as our corrupt nature doth more vehemently resist the knowne law of God, and rusheth headlong unto sinne: so falshood opposed itself more boldly unto the trueth then explained and openly defended, whereupon after that Synod, which none excelled, greater incōmodities did arise from the wickedness of men, &c. When Nazianz. saw so wicked dispositions of men, he was wholly turned from Councels. Although without doubt he disallowed not the thing itself, but the wicked indeavours of men. Now if any will reason after this manner, The issue of Synods is not good, or more evils follow thence; therefore Synods are to be avoyded: that man shall dispute deceitfully from a wrong cause, from acci∣dent, and from the fallacy of consequent. But Nazianzen was to be pardoned, because he lived in the worst and most turbulent times of the Church, when by meanes of Valens the Emperour that degenerated from the Catholick faith, He∣reticks did more prevayle, &c.

Againe he opposeth Augustine unto Nazianzene, and sayth,

It is most true which Augustine sayth, Epist. 118. that the authority of Sy∣nods in the Church of God is most wholesome, which certainly he would not have sayd, if he had bene of the same minde with Nazianzen.

And further he op∣poseth

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

Christ him∣self pronounceth and promiseth, Matt. 18.20. Where two or three are assembled to∣gether in his name, there he will be in the midst of them. In which words he signifyeth that the assemblies and Synods of godly and religious men, undertaken and ap∣poynted for godly causes, are not displeasing unto him.

III. The testimony of Nazianzen is as much against the opinion of M^r Can and M^r Dav. as against that which we hold touching Classes and Synods. For seeing they allow such mee∣tings for counsell and admonition, though not for exercise of any jurisdiction; and seeing the testimony of Naziā. doth extend itself to all kinde of assemblies of Bi∣shops, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] whether for counsell or censure, with∣out exception of one sort more then another: therefore he no more condemneth our Synods, then those which my opposites allow.

Augustine, his next witnesse, is in like manner perverted as the former. Though he in the place(t) 1.64 objected, doe write that the keyes were given to the Church; yet doth he not thereby exclude Synods gathered together in the name of Christ, from ha∣ving a keye of power in the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes. Had he proved that the title of the Church belongs onely to a particular Congregation in the full assembly thereof, and not at all unto a Synod, then had it bene something to the purpose; in the meane time, nothing. And that the minde of Augustine was other∣wise, it appeares by the great approbation which he(v) 1.65 gives unto the use and au∣thority of Synods, as being most wholesome in the Churches of God. D. Whitaker(x) 1.66 alledgeth often the presence of Augustine at divers Synods. And it is recorded in the Acts of the third Councell of Carthage, where Augustine was both present, and subscribed with the rest unto the decrees which were then agreed upon,(y) 1.67 that there should be kept a yearely Synod, unto which they were to repaire out of divers Provinces; that those which having controversies with others, being cal∣led unto the yearely Synod, did refuse to come, should be held guilty, and be ex∣cluded from the communion, or excommunicated. And it is(z) 1.68 noted further that the like decrees were made at another Synod held at Hippo, the place where Augustine lived, and that the same decrees were againe confirmed by another Sy∣nod at Carthage. Hence it appeares that Augustine as well as others in his time, did hold that the causes of particular Congregations were to be judged & decided by another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves.

After Augustine he alledgeth Chrysostome, whose name is also abused for confir∣mation of this opinion. For, I. Chrysostome in the place alledged, viz. De Sa∣cerd. l. 3. c. 4. speakes of no such matter as he pretends. In that whole third book I finde no one word against the authority of Synods. And for the fourth chapter, which M^r C. alledgeth, there is in the best editions of Chrysostome no such chap∣ter; they are not at all distinguished into any Chapters: and where there is a divi∣sion of Chapters found, yet there is no such matter to be found in that fourth Chapter. M^r Canne, it seemes, never read the Authours he alledgeth: for would he then have so falsely cited them? II. Chrysostome is plaine for the authority of Synods. For speaking of the honour due unto the Deputies or messengers of the Churches in Synods, he saith the Apostle,(a) 1.69 maketh his speech more terrible, saying in

the sight of the Churches. He saith it for the glory of the Churches, for their honour. For if ye honour them, ye shall honour the Churches which sent them, &c. And then he con∣cludeth, This shall be no small matter, for great is the power of a Synod, that is, of the Chur∣ches. III. When as a wrongfull sentence had bene given against Chrysostome, being unjustly procured by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, he then(b) 1.70 appealed unto a Synod of many Bishops, both before and after the sentence was pronounced. The summe of his defence afterward was this, that he was willing to be judged by a Synod. And he complaines that his adversaries dealt with him, contrary to the Ecclesiasticall Canons. In those Canons it had bene oft decreed, that there should be liberty of appeale unto Synods. IV. When Bellarmine pleading for the Popes authority, alledged the request of Chrysostome unto Innocentius, Bishop of Rome, desiring him to write for him, that those things which were unjustly done against him, might not prevayle, &c. Chamierus expounding the words of Chrysostome,(c) 1.71 distinguisheth betwixt admonition and giving of sentence; and shewes that Chry∣sostome desired an admonition should be given by Innocentius, but that he exspected sentence from a Synod. Chamier sayth, this is confirmed to be his meaning, because he appealed to the Synod, &c. And hereby he expressly and distinctly confes∣seth that Synods have jurisdiction to give sentence, and not onely a liberty of ad∣monishing. V. When after this, Chrysostome(d) 1.72 having bene both deposed from his place, and banished out of the city, was yet called back by the Emperour from his banishment, and was by the people desired to enter upon his ministery againe, he professed he might not doe it, untill his cause was further examined, & he pro∣ved innocent by greater judges, or in a greater judicatory,(e) 1.73 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; wherein he acknowledged a power of Synods, not onely above a particular Con∣gregation, but also of one Synod above another, as of a Generall Synod above a Nationall or Provinciall, &c. VI. The minde of Chrysostome touching Church-government, may further be knowne to us by this, that he(f) 1.74 will have those words, Tell the Church, to be understood of the Presidents or Governours of the Church. And againe, speaking of Priests or Bishops, the Ministers of the Go∣spell, he thus describeth their speciall power,(g) 1.75

It is granted unto them to dis∣pense the things that are in heaven: power is given unto them, which God would not have to be given either unto Angels or Arch-angels: For it was not sayd unto them, Whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Earthly Princes have also the power of binding, but of the bodies onely. But that binding by the Priests whereof I speake, remaineth unto the soule, & commeth up to the heavens: so that what∣soever the Priests doe below, that God ratifyeth above, & the Lord confirmeth the sentence of his servants. What els can you say this to be, but that all power of heavenly things is granted unto them of God? For the sayth, Whose sinnes ye retaine, they are retayned.

What power, I pray you, can be greater then this one? The next perverted witnesse is Basil, touching whom observe, I. Their three∣fold false allegation, in citing three severall bookes of his; viz. Constit. Monach. l. 4. 14. & 6.2. & 7. c. 35. whereas Basil wrote onely one booke with such a title: and as for the 4^th, 6^t, & 7^th, here mentioned by M^r C. there be none such. What grosse

dealing is this? II. Suppose it was the Printers fault that these bookes were thus misalledged, and that it was but M^r Cannes oversight to let them passe with∣out correction: yet even for that one book of Monasticall constitutions, which Basil did write, therein also is nothing to be found against the authority of Synods, nor any such matter as M^r C. pretends. It is a great forgery and abuse of the ancient Fathers, thus to pretend the vaile of their authority for covering of errour, when as the places pretended have not a word sounding to such purpose. III. That Basil allowed the authority of Synods for the judgement of Ecclesiasticall causes, it appeareth both by the praise which he(h) 1.76 gives unto the Nicene Synod, & that for the censuring of Hereticks, which was an act of jurisdiction, and not of admo∣nition or counsell onely: and againe in that he complaineth unto his great friend Nazianzen, touching the intermission of Synodall assemblies, and saith,(i) 1.77 If we had yearely met oftner together, both according to the ancient Canons, and according to that care and solicitude which we owe unto the Churches, certainely we had never opened a doore unto slanderers. And againe, writing unto Athanasius touching such meetings, he cal∣leth them,(k) 1.78 the way of help for troubled Churches. Thus also doe the Centurists(l) 1.79 understand him, and alledge his testimony to shew the consociation of many Churches in Synods, in that age.

The Author next objected, is also misalledged: The letter of reference in the line, leades us unto a book in the margine which was not written by Socrates: and what place he therefore intends in Socrates, he must tell us another time. In the meane time, let it be remembred that this Ecclesiasticall Historiographer doth plainely and plentifully record against my opposites, that the causes and contro∣versies arising in particular Churches were judged by another superiour Ecclesi∣asticall authority out of themselves, to wit, by the authority of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in Synods. This he shewes in the(m) 1.80 condemnati∣on of Arius by the Councell of Nice; in the(n) 1.81 deprivation of Photinus by the Sy∣nod of Si••mium; in the(o) 1.82 deposition of Nestorius by the Councell held at Ephesus; and in many other the like instances. If happily he intended those places misap∣plyed unto Basil in the former quotation; he is not thereby excused: seeing in the first place, viz. l. 4. c. 14. there is nothing at all spoken of this matter; and in the two latter, viz. l. 6. 2. & 7. 35. Socrates againe declares the authority of Synods in those times.

Isidorus, it seemes must owne the quotation [Lib. de Offic.] which by the mar∣ginall note is assigned to Socrates; he having written two bookes concerning Eccle∣siasticall Offices. These M^r Canne cites at large without specifying either book or chapter. But in those bookes of Isidorus, as there be many things, which M^r C. would not be bound to approve; so there is nothing that with any shew of rea∣son can be applyed against the authority of Classes and Synods. On the contrary, we may justly inferre that he did not there restraine all Ecclesiasticall power unto a particular Congregation, as from many other, so especially from these his words,(p) 1.83 Moreover that a Bishop is not ordained of one, but of all the Bishops of the Provinces, this is acknowledged to be appointed because of heresies; lest by the tyrannicall authority of some one ordaining, they should attempt any thing against the faith of the Church. Therefore they all

concurring, he is confirmed, and no lesse then three being present, the rest consenting by the te∣stimony of their letters. Againe, for other of his writings, to shew his judgement in this poynt, this Isidorus is(q) 1.84 sayd to have made a collection of all the Synods that were before his time; which booke is(r) 1.85 alledged in a Synodall Epistle of the Councell of Basil, to prove the authority of Councels above the Pope. For his practise, he is(s) 1.86 recorded to have bene President of a Synod at Sevill in Spaine, were he was Bishop, and as some relate, of two other at Toledo, wherein appeare divers actes of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, in the exercise whereof he joyned with others, after the manner of Synodall proceedings.

Bernard is in like manner misalledged through want of attentiō & diligence: not onely by a wrong note of reference, but by a defective mention of his writing, Ad Eugen. For Bernard having written 5 bookes of Consideration. Ad Eugen. and be∣sides them more then 30 Epistles Ad Eugen. he doth not specify which of these bookes, or which of these Epistles he meanes. But whether we consider those bookes, or Epistles, we finde Bernard in extremity opposite to Mr Canne, giving power not onely unto Synods, as the Ancient Fathers before mentioned, but even to the Pope himself, to judge the causes of all Churches. For living in a time of great blindenes, and height of Poperie, when the smoke of the bottomlesse pit had darkned the Sunne and the ayre, he was led aside through ignorance to exalt Antichrist; and writing unto Pope Eugenius that had bene his disciple, he gives him these most ambitious titles, and(t) 1.87 calles him the great Priest, the supreme High Priest, the Prince of Bishops, the heire of the Apostles, Abel in primacy, Noah in government, A∣braham in Patriarkship, Melchisedek in order, Aaron in dignity, Moses in authority, Samuel in judgement, Peter in power, Christ in unction, &c. the onely Pastour of all flockes and of all Pastours themselves, &c. the Vicar of Christ, &c. And though otherwise he gave many lively testimonies of a godly minde that was in him, yet not without cause is he(v) 1.88 taxed for blasphemy in these unrighteous titles given to the man of sinne. More particularly, in his first Epistle which he wrote unto Eugenius, af∣ter he was created Pope, upon occasion of the controversy that was betwixt the Archbishop of York, & the Archbishop of Canterbury, he puts this Pope in minde that he(x) 1.89 hath authority to judge the controversies that arise in other Churches, and wisheth him to use the same, and to give unto them according to their works, that they might know there is a Prophet in Israel. And writing againe(y) 1.90 of the same matter, he calles the Archbishop of York, that Idol of York, in regard of his intrusion (he might better have entitled Eugenius the Idoll of Rome)▪ & provokes the Pope, as having the fullnes of power, to cast his dart, to give peremptory sen∣tence of deposition against the Arch B. and as the phrase of Bernard is, to lighten or strike with the thunderbolt of his power. The like exercise of power over those in other Congregations is often elswhere(z) 1.91 allowed by him. And hereby it may appeare how grossely M^r Canne hath alledged these ancient Writers, quite con∣trary to their meaning, and Bernard in speciall, that subjects Congregations not onely to Councels and Synods, as the Fathers before alledged have justly done, but doth unjustly subject them to one person, even to the man of sinne.

With these testimonies of ancient Fathers M^r Canne alledgeth for his opini∣on,

that some Councels have granted so much, and Christian Emperours by their Lawes confirmed it. Two of these, viz. the Councell of Nice & Constantinople, he alledgeth at large, and specifyes no Canon which he intendeth for this purpose. And as for the 3^d Councell of Carthage, whereat Augustine was present, I have shewed* 1.92 before that it makes directly for us. That 22^th Canon which he alledgeth, viz.(a) 1.93 that no Clerk be or dained without examination by Bishops, and testimony of the people, empea∣cheth not the authority of Classes and Synods, but confirmeth the order establi∣shed by them. And that Christian Emperours have by their lawes confirmed the authority of Synods, it is plaine and undenyable. The(b) 1.94 Councell of Nice that condemned Arius, was authorised by Constantine the Great. The(c) 1.95 Councell of Constantinople that condemned Macedonius, was authorised by the Emperour The∣odosius the Elder. The(d) 1.96 Councell of Ephesus that condemned Nestorius, was au∣thorised by Theodosius the younger. The(e) 1.97 Councell of Chalcedon that condem∣ned Eutyches, was authorised by the Emperour Martianus. And as it was in these first Generall Councels, so may it be observed in many other. Instead of the rest, let the(f) 1.98 book of Canons suffice, confirmed by Iustinian the Emperour; there being contained in that book many Canons, which ordaine that the causes of par∣ticular Churches should be(g) 1.99 judged by Synods, and so decided by another su∣periour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves. At the end of these Canons there is added the sanction or decree of Iustinian,(h) 1.100 by which he doth not onely allow them, and give force of lawes unto them, but with an excessive & farre grea∣ter honour then is due unto them, would have the foure Oecumenicall Coun∣cels to be receaved even as the holy Scriptures. Now though he offended greatly in this his esteeme of them, yet this may serve to shew what little reason Mr Canne had to alledge the decrees of Councels for his opinion.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Ch. pl. p. 89.
• (b) 1.2

  P. 145, 146, 149. &c.
• (c) 1.3

  Ad Phi∣ladelph. ad Magnes. ad Trall.
• (d) 1.4

  Epist. ad Philadel. p. 76. edit. Pa∣ris. 1562.
• (e) 1.5

  Epist. ad Polyc. p. 97▪ 98.
• (f) 1.6

  Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. p. 356.
• (g) 1.7

  Perpet. Gov. c. 7.
• (h) 1.8

  Apol. c. 39.
• (i) 1.9

  De Jeju∣nüs advers. Psychi. c. 13
• (k) 1.10

  In Jos. Hom. 7.
• (l) 1.11

  Ch. pl. p. 90.
• (m) 1.12

  Orig in Mat. 16.
• (n) 1.13

  Idem in Mat. 18.
• (o) 1.14

  De Cōc. qu. 5. p. 183.
• (p) 1.15

  Pol. Ec∣cl. l. 3. c. 12. p. 89, 90.
• (q) 1.16

  Cent. 3. c. 9.
• r 1.17

  Lib. 3. Epist. 14. & 10.
• s 1.18

  L. 1. ep. 4
• t 1.19

  Art. 6, 7.
• v 1.20

  Cypt. L. 1. ep. 2. & 5 Firmil. ad Cyp. Ep. 75. p. 236.
• x 1.21

  P. 243. ad annot. 14
• y 1.22

  Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 24. de Classib. p. 356, 357.
• a 1.23

  Ch. pl. p. 90.
• b 1.24

  Eus. l. 3.11.
• c 1.25

  L. 3.28.
• d 1.26

  3.13.
• e 1.27

  4.1.
• f 1.28

  3.32.
• g 1.29

  4.22.
• h 1.30

  Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 14.
• i 1.31

  L. 6. c. 42.
• k 1.32

  L. 7. c. 29.
• l 1.33

  De vita Const. l. 3. c. 6, 7, &c.
• m 1.34

  Ibid. l. 1. c. 44.
• n 1.35

  Tom. 1. Epist. ad ubiq. Or∣thodoxos.
• o 1.36

  Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes.
• p 1.37

  Tom. 2. Epist. ad Rusinian.
• q 1.38

  Socrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 9.
• r 1.39

  Epiph. Haer. 75.
• s 1.40

  De Pont. Rom. q. 1. p. 104, 105, 106.
• t 1.41

  Soc. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 11.13.
• v 1.42

  Jer. ad. Gal. q. 10.
• x 1.43

  Ad Al∣gas. qu. 10.
• y 1.44

  Ad Eua∣griu ep. 85.
• z 1.45

  De Pont. Rom. qu. ••. p. 9••, 99.
• a 1.46

  Ad Ge∣rontiam.
• b 1.47

  Ad Rust. Hil. ad Cōst. August. Cyr. in Ioh. 20.21.
• c 1.48

  Cent. Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 10 col. 1134, 1135.
• d 1.49

  Ib. Cent. 4. c. 7. col. 519. & 528 &c.
• e 1.50

  Euagr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 4.
• f 1.51

  Amb. Offi. l. 1. c. 1
• g 1.52

  Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9.
• h 1.53

  Amb. Tom. 3. epi. l. 10. ep. 78. ad Theoph.
• i 1.54

  Ib. Epi. 79. ad The∣oph. & Anys.
• k 1.55

  In orat. fun. de patr.
• l 1.56

  Soc. Hist. Ecc. l. 4. c. 21. Sozom. Hist. Ecc. l. 6. c. 17.
• (m) 1.57

  Nazian. Epist. 1. ad Clidon.
• (n) 1.58

  Epi. 30. ad Caesariē.
• (o) 1.59

  Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 8.
• (p) 1.60

  Ch. pl. p. 93.
• (q) 1.61

  Ep. 42. ad Procop.
• (r) 1.62

  Apo. tep. p. 225.
• (s) 1.63

  De Cōc. qu. 1. c. 3. p. 13.14, 15.
• (t) 1.64

  DeDoct. Chr. l. 1. c. 17.
• (v) 1.65

  Epist. ad Ianuar. Ep. 118. De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 2. c. 3.
• (x) 1.66

  DePont. Rom. q. 4. p. 484. & 497
• (y) 1.67

  Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. co. 866, 867.
• (z) 1.68

  Ib. Col. 870, &c.
• (a) 1.69

  In 2. Cor. 8.24.
• (b) 1.70

  Tom. 5. Epist. ad Innocent.
• (c) 1.71

  Panstra. Cath. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. 23
• (d) 1.72

  Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14.
• (e) 1.73

  Edit. gr. R. Steph. l. 6. c. 16.
• (f) 1.74

  In Matt. 18.
• (g) 1.75

  De Sa∣cerd. l. 3. Col. 508. Edit. Basil.
• (h) 1.76

  Basil. Magn. Epi. 60. & 78.
• (i) 1.77

  Ep. 33.
• (k) 1.78

  E••. 48.
• (l) 1.79

  Cent. 4. c. 7. col. 522
• (m) 1.80

  Hist. Ecc. l. 1. c. 5
• (n) 1.81

  L. 2. c. 24.
• (o) 1.82

  L. 7. c. 33.
• (p) 1.83

  De Offi. Ecc. l. 2. c. 6
• (q) 1.84

  Cus. de Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 3. &c.
• (r) 1.85

  Concil. Tom. 2. p. 146, 147.
• (s) 1.86

  Magdeb. Cent. ••. col. 261-287. & 513.
• (t) 1.87

  De Cōsi. ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 8.
• (v) 1.88

  Whit. de Pont. Rom. q. 4. p. 425.426.
• (x) 1.89

  Bernar. ad Eugen. Epist. 237.
• (y) 1.90

  Ep. 238
• (z) 1.91

  Ad In∣noc. Epist. 189, &. 190.
• * 1.92

  Pa. 223.
• (a) 1.93

  Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. col. 868.
• (b) 1.94

  Sulp. Se. v S. Hist. l. 2
• (c) 1.95

  Sulp. S. Hist. con••in. ex Sleyd. p. 162.
• (d) 1.96

  P. 164.
• (e) 1.97

  P. 170.
• (f) 1.98

  Codex Canon. Ecc. Univ. edit. Christ. Just.
• (g) 1.99

  Can. 5▪ 80, 83, 85.
• (h) 1.100

  Novella consti. Just. Imper. 131.