receptacle of it and from it derived to others as the power of seeing is not onely given intuitu hominis as the end of it and the totum to whom it agreeth but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the Church For as all are sayd not to have been Apostles so not to have been Doctors But if the power of ordinarie teaching had been given to every beleever all should have been made Doctors though not to continue so in exercising the power Secondly were the power in the Church the Church should not onely call them but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe then should the Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers Besides there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly as women and children This conclusion in my judgement Victoria Soto and others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained Conclus 4. Fourthly ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it to the Senat or Presbyterie of the Church If any faile in any office the Church hath not power of supplying that but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant Conclus 5. Lastly though the community have not power given her yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her that all power is to be executed in such manner as standeth with respect to her excellencie Hence it is that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them Not that they have joynt power of the keyes with them but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with without open dishonour in such things which belong in common to the whole congregation Afterwards againe (h) P. 88. speaking of some derivation of power from the Church in taking in Officers he shewes that the Church doth this onely as an instrument in taking that person whom Christ describeth and would have to be placed in this or that office but hath not this power in herself either formally or virtually And from this Stewardlike power of the Church he declares that Officers in the Church are not to administer in the name of the Church but in the name of Christ As a Butler taken in by a servant doth execute his office not in master Stewards name but in his masters who onely out of power did conferre it on him By these sundry other assertions it is apparant that Mr Baynes was of a farre different opinion from Mr Dav. touching the state of particular Churches the authority of Synods Let us heare his next Author SECT VI. His Allegation of the Replyer upon D. Downam examined IO. DAV r Apol. reply p. 242. Part. 2. l. 2. p. 104 105. c. i With whom I might joyne the Replyer upon Dr Downams defence who not onely declareth his owne judgement herein concurring with the above mentioned but also joyneth with them the suffrages of divers others at the Centurists Illyricus D. Andrewes Bishop of Winchester Dr Fulke Willet Thom Bell Cyprian Augustine Gerson Ferus ANSVV. I. If this Authour did in his judgement concurre with the above mentioned and in speciall with Mr Baynes next above mentioned as Mr Dav. affirmes then did he allow the jurisdiction and authority of Synods for the censure of things done in particular Churches then did he judge each Congregation to be subject unto the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled II. This testimony of the Refuter of D. Downa is alledged also and more plainly by Mr Canne who expresseth his words and sayth (k) Churches 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 alledgeth another place where he sayth For this purpose he instanceth Cenchrea (m) Lib. 1. part 2. p. 22 23. howsoever it was the Port of Corinth and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lime-house to London yet is was a distinct Church from that of Corinth and alike indued with full power of Ecclesiasticall government But in all this the jurisdiction of Synods is not denyed as is manifest by a like instance here in these Reformed Churches The villages of Diemen and Sloten this on the one side and that on the other side of Amsterdam and not farre from it and in all apperance farre lesse in comparison of Amsterdam then Cenchrea was in respect of Corinth yet are these small Congregations distinct Churches from that of Amsterdam alike endued with full power of all Ecclesiasticall government That which Mr Canne by a Note in the margine would have specially to be marked may as well be observed touching these and many other little Churches hereabout that they have in themselves the administration of all Church-matters and the execution thereof by their Presbyteries as fully and as amply as the Church of Amsterdam or any other of the greatest Churches in these countries being alike combined together in the Classis and equally subject to one another in the Lord for their mutuall guidance III. Even this Replyer upon D. Downam Mr S. who now resteth in the Lord hath bene very carefull not to prejudice the authority of Synods as may appeare further if we consider what he answereth concerning those whom D. D. calleth the late Disciplinarians such as were of Mr Iacobs 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 royall authority ratified the Doctour can give neither more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their Protestation sheweth Art 8.12 13 14. Now as for the present Synods such as are in these Reformed Churches they are such as he mentioneth here called and assembled by authority of the Magistrates and their Acts approved confirmed and ratifyed by them This may be seen in the Records of that Nationall Synod holden at Dort Anno 1618. and 1619. where (o) Act. Synod Dordr Ses 138. the Decree of the States Generall which are the soveraigne and supreme Magistrates in these countries is inserted among the Acts of the Synod for the ratification thereof And this is not onely observed in Nationall Synods but in the Provinciall Synods also held every yeare where the States have also their Deputies Civill Magistrates which ordinarily are present in those Assemblies to see that all things be well ordered therein Thus farre therefore according to his relation there is an obedience and subjection due unto Synods Againe whereas he proceedeth to describe their opinion on this manner If they want
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 Authour in the latter dayes of his pilgrimage amidst sundry bodily weaknesses other necessary imployments There are now three yeares expired since he rested from this other his labours having served the will of God in his owne age entred 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 publick use It were to have been wished that his owne eye hand might have prevented the charge of an executour herein So shouldest thou have had this work farre more compleat 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 doest thou According to the trust therefore committed unto me I doe now at length set foorth this monument of his godly painfull labours touching this weighty point of Church-government I have forborne as much as might be to interpose my rude pencill in this master-piece The liberty allowed unto me for the persiting of what was wanting I have used no further then was requisite for the coupling of the parts together out of severall papers written at severall times for the filling up of a few gaps specially in Ch. 7. having had the opportunity to meet with some bookes which the Authour wanted I have withall added a small Supplement for answer unto what remained in Mr Cannes book touching this poynt according to the first edition the same which the Authour onely saw followed in this his Defence And thus I have also cast my mite into this Treasury before I opened it for publick benefit If my coine be not currant let not that prejudice the rich supply that may be had out of the Authours store the value whereof will sufficiently discover itself unto them that with understanding unpartiall mindes receive it Howbeit thou art allowed desired according to the Authours meaning to bring it to the touchstone of trueth 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 effectuall testimonie hath been given for the needfull authority of Synods with which testimony the Authour hath closed his writing touching this subject Where this his Treatise now comes to light which we hope may prove usefull to direct unto the like remedy where the like case may require it He that hath the Starres in his right hand so guide the beames of this Candle now set upon the Candlestick that it may give light unto all that are in the house that the darke corners of errour may be further disclosed the lustre of his owne Ordinances becomes more apparent With this suit I againe take leave requesting thee to joyne therein with him that desires to be Thine in trueth R. PAGET THE FIRST PART OF THIS TREATISE Touching The Povver of a particular Eldership CHAP. 1. The occasion of this vvriting and the State of the Question WHereas Mr Ainsworth was desired by the Authour (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 partâ—â—ular 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 c. Your Eldership sitteth judgeth matters apart from the Congregation c. Concerning which particular the Authour thus (c) Ibid. p. 33. replyed 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 debarre any from hearing seeing the conviction of any sinne that is either publique of it self or persisted in when they desire the same yea we our selves 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 judgment of excommunication hath bene 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 informe themselves of the matter and to deliberate ripely thereof c. Mr Ainsworth in his next having (d) Ibid p. 317. sayd I put you in minde that you have not as yet alledged any one word of God for your Consistory c. the Authour puts him in minde of his owne allowing the same by communicating therewith in some measure whereof he had bene told (e) Ibid. p. 32. before whereunto he answered not a word and addes (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 booke of Mr Iohnson wherein he hath written against your popular government what meane 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 refusall of communion upon these grounds that I would then give further answer unto you The errours 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 unlawfull 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 c. Hereupon and about the same time was written that which followes though not happily all that was intended By that which is sayd it may appeare that the Question is not whether the power of the keyes 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 peoples free consent c. All this may be granted and yet the point in controversy remaine undecided But the difference is about the execution judiciall exercising of this power Whether every offence to be judged or cause to be determined ought to be brought to the multitude or body of the Congregation and they to give their voyces therein together with the Officers of
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 Pastour in the Prime Church nor the Praesident in the Combined Church nor yet any Bishop is above the Church but under the power of every Church This distinction of the Church is more plainly declared by him afterward where he saith (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 severall faithfull persons into one Congregation and is called by a generall name the Church The Combined Church is a collection of more prime Churches into one company is called a Synod Now the jurisdiction which he speakes of he makes common to both and expressely applyes it to both to the combined Church or Synod as well as to the particular or prime Church And further that in the 12. chapter he spake generally of both these kindes of Churches he manifests in the first words of the 13. chapter where he begins thus (y) Ibidē Hitherto we have spoken of the Church in generall so farre as it is the subject of Ecclesiasticall politie now let us come to the divers kindes thereof II. Notwithstanding the superiority of the Church yet Mr Par. (z) Ibid. p. 77. acknowledgeth the authority of the Pastour to be very great as having it immediately from Christ and not onely the authority but also the exercise of the same authority and jurisdiction in which respect he saith he is superiour not to men onely but to the Angels themselves Gal. 1.8 as being in Christs stead 2. Cor. 5.19 20. so long as he useth this authority lawfully And repeating the same againe he proceeds further when he saith that if he doe not lawfully exercise his authority in the administration of the Word and Sacraments then he ceaseth to be a Pastour (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 sayd then in other cases the authority of many Pastours Elders especially meeting together in a Synod may exercise an authority superiour unto one particular Church I. DAV And in cap. 18.13 making a comparison between a particular Church and Churches combined in Synods and Classes he affirmeth that the difference between them is not in the intensive consideration of their power which the Congregation hath in reference to the Keyes within it selfe but in the extensive power onely wherein the Synod hath a power extended to more objects viz. to many Churches in things common whereas the power of a particular Church is confined and limited within its owne compasse ANSVV. In this 13. chap. for that number of 18. seemes to be mistaken Mr Parker doth againe give divers pregnant testimonies for the authority and jurisdiction of Synods I. In the place alledged his words are these (b) Pol. Eccl l. 2. c. 13. p. 121. I distinguish touching the power of the keyes which is intensive or extensive No prime Church no not the least of them doth want the intensive power but it wants that extensive which a Synod hath seeing the power thereof is extended to many Churches whereas the power of the prime or particular Church is not extended beyond her owne bounds The power of the keyes is a power of jurisdiction an Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing whether intensive or extensive this power he confesseth to be in a Synod and therefore the use of Synods is not onely for counsell or admonition but for jurisdiction also in the judgement of causes Whereas according to Mr D. his allegation the difference betwixt the power of a particular Church and of a Synod is in the extensive power onely therefore the Synod is also of greater power and jurisdiction in extension unto many Churches II. In comparing the power of a particular Church with a Synod he sayth expressely (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 parishionall Church But if Synods could onely counsell and admonish a particular Church besides that could censure and use Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then should a particular Church have greater power then a Synod and not onely greater intensive power but as great extensive seeing a particular Church yea or a particular person may give counsell or admonition either to a Synod or to many Churches as occasion shall require It is true indeed which Mr P. saith that all the parishionall Churches are greater then their Synods seeing by a new Synod they may abrogate that which was ordained amisse by their Deputies without their consent sentence and will This he proves by many arguments and this we willingly consent unto this is the practise of all the Reformed Churches But this is sufficient for the question in hand that a Synod hath the power of the keyes and jurisdiction and greater authority then any one Church III. This is another conclusion of Mr Parkers (d) Ibid. p. 120. We say there is one forme of government instituted of Christ in all Churches both prime and combined so that we may not dreame there is in the prime Church a different forme from that which is in the combined Church neither may we imagine that in the combined Church there is another different from that by which the prime Church is governed If this assertion be true then Mr Dav. and those of his minde do dreame when they imagine so different a forme of government to be instituted in the particular Churches and Synods which he calles the combined Churches that one sort of them should onely give counsell admonition the other exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction censure I. DAV (e) Apol. reply p. 241.242 The same authour in the 20 chapter speaking of the summity or supremacy of the power of particular Congregations propoundeth the due limits of it wherein he conceiveth it is to be understood and bounded as that the power of particular Churches is chief 1. in its owne matters not in things common to many Churches 2. in case it be able to transact its owne matters within it selfe as if a doubt or controversy arise the Church hath power to terminate it if it can as the Church of Antioch first disputed the matter among themselves and laboured to compose the difference within themselves but finding not a want of right to end it among themselves but need of more
prevaile to take away the offence either immediately or mediately for a meanes is so farre good as it makes to the obtaining of his end As though God did not blesse his owne ordinance above our hope and reason above all that we can thinke or as though we were not to use his meanes and leave the successe unto him He that begins a good work and proceeds so farre till he be stopped by others is accepted of God as if he had finished it SECT V. His Allegation of Mr Baynes examined IO. DAV (r) Apol. reply p. 242. Dioc. tryal p. 13. â—â— To him I may adde Mr Paul Baynes a man of singular noate for learning and piety in Cambridge where he succeeded Mr Perkins who freely expresseth his judgment for the right of particular Churches and their independence in this sense in his Diocesans tryall ANSVV. As Mr Baynes was a man of singular note for learning and piety so is his testimony of singular note to shew the right use power of Synods not onely for counsell but for authority to censure and judge Ecclesiasticall causes so that particular Churches may not doe within themselves what they would without their consent 1. After he had set downe 4 conclusions wherein we agree with the opposites he comes to speak of the poynt of difference and sayth (f) Dioces tryall p. 13. That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish-Churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues that Nationall Church of the Iewes and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches This doe I willingly assent unto And this is no other thing then that which is practised in these Reformed Churches with whom we are united Here is no one head-Church that hath more authority then another all Congregations are equall independent each of other here is no subjection to any one Diocesan all are equally and mutually subject to the Synod consisting of many their dependency is not upon one more then another but it is onely in regard of many combined notwithstanding which combination they have their government within themselves being subject to the Synod onely in some more weighty and difficult cases II. As for that other place when some had pleaded from the example of the Reformed Churches as if they had not bene distinct Churches c. Mr Bayes so explaineth their estate and practise as Mr Parker (t) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 23. p. 348 349. c. more largely had done before that therein he doth not at all prejudice their subjection to Synods for speaking of the 24 Churches at Geneva and of their combination and subjection unto one Presbytery he sayth (v) Dioc. tryal p. 21. They have power of governing themselves but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbyterie Secondly it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein they shall have no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherein themselves are members and judges with others After that againe he addeth Geneva made this consociation not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect and to make one Church by this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion Thus he notes not onely the counsell but the consent of others required And as at Geneva a particular Church proceeded not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring by their Deputies in a common Presbytery so in these Low-countries in weightier affaires they proceed not without or against the consent of many Churches concurring in their Classis III. Mr Baynes having shewed how every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body and having Governours every way equall there is yet no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracie especially when God ordaines it is a forme of government sufficient to preserve order hereupon he propounds this objection (x) Dioc. tr p. 68. But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it self And hereunto he answers thus Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches Synodically assembled and to the Civill Magistrate who in case of delinquencie hath directive and corrective power over it And thus we have his expresse testimony and confession that Synods have authority not onely to counsell and advise but to censure that particular Churches are subject to the censure of other Churches that consequently there is a double Ecclesiasticall Aristocracie one in particular Churches severally another in many Churches Synodically assembled that if a particular Church erre in matters of faith and religion that it is subject not to the power of the Magistrate alone but both to him and to another superiour Ecclesiasticall jusridiction arising from the combination of many Churches contrary to that assertion in the English Puritanisme chap. 2. IV. Speaking of Presbyters that is of Ministers and Elders and of their government he saith (y) Ibid. p. 67. There is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo but the Scripture doth asscribe it to them power of suffrage in Councell Act. 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to have bene in the Church of Corinth c. While he alledgeth Act. 15. for an evidence of the Presbyters power in Synods or Councels he doth hereby acknowledge that in Synods there is a lawfull exercise of jurisdiction and of the power of the keyes and that therefore they are not onely for counsell and advise To like purpose he saith afterwards againe (z) P. 82. The Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbyterie with them Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had receyved power of the keyes doing it ex officio and others from discretion and duety of confessing the trueth And a little after he there addeth It is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters had right of suffrage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therefore in Oecumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instruction of Bishops receyved from their Churches V. Whereas one errour useth to accompany another and commonly those that deny the authority of Synods doe also in
part deny the authority of particular Elderships as we see in the Brownists and therefore after private admonitions doe in a popular order referre the judgement even of lesser matters unto the publick examination and decision of the whole Church assembled together not permitting the same to the judgement of the Eldership Mr Baynes doth also impugne this practise For he speaking of the rule of Discipline Matt. 18. where Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many yet after some other observations touching the meaning of the word Church he further explaineth himself when he addeth these notes and sayth (a) Dioces tryall p. 80. Thirdly as Christ doth speak it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the Congregation For then Christ should give not some but all the members of the Church to be governours of it Fourthly Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderlie complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie as all but Morellius and such Democraticall spirits doe affirme And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church doth shew that often the number of it is but small For where two or three are gathered together in my name c. whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Againe shewing on the other side that Christ by the Church doth not meane the chief Pastour who is virtually as the whole Church and that the word Church doth ever signify a company and never is found to note out one person after other reasons he pleades from the example and practise in the old Testament saying (b) Ibid. p. 81. The Church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtuallie but an assembly of Priests sitting together as judges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie and joynt execution of a representative Church a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours And thus he concludes from Mat. 18. that there is a representative Church of one particular Congregation as before from Act. 15. he acknowledged a representative Church in the Synod for many Churches VI. Whereas Mr Dav. alledgeth out of Mr Parker that the power Ecclesiasticall do the essentially and primarily reside in the Church it self as in its proper subject although this be no ground for the refutation of that power and jurisdiction belonging to Synods as I have shewed (c) P. 89.90 before yet even this ground also is denyed by Mr Baynes who goes not so farre as Mr Parker (d) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 8. p. 28. c. touching the derivation of all Ecclesiasticall authority from a particular Church as from the fountaine but doth in some part oppose that opinion especially in respect of that influence of authority per intuitum viz. that which is in Ministers called immediately of Christ as the Apostles were yet in respect of the end and the whole is sayd to be from the Church mediately c. And therefore though Mr Parker was farre from the opinion of Mr Dav. yet was Mr Baynes farre further from it His judgement herein as being worthy the consideration of the Readers I have thought meet to set downe the more fully And first speaking by occasion of the power of jurisdiction in the Church he sayth (e) Dioc. tryal p. 69. Christ hath committed it originaliter exercitative to the representative Church that they might Aristocratically administer it And afterwards coming to intreat of the third maine question in his booke (f) Ibid. p. 98. Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any one singular person or to a united multitude of Presbyters he there sets downe his judgment more largely in divers conclusions (g) P. 83.84 on this manner Conclus 3. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof was not given to the communitie of the Church or to the whole multitude of the faithfull so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ and virtually deriving it to others This I set downe against the Divines of Constance our prime Divines as Luther and Melancthon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians errour for in his booke depudicitia he maketh Christ to haue left all Christians with like power but the Church for her honour did dispose it as we see The proportion of a politick body and naturall deceived them while they will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omni simile for then should it be the same with the analogatum True it is all civill power is in the body politick the collections of subjects then in a King from them And all the power of hearing seeing they are in the whole man which doth produce them effectually though formally and instrumentally they are in the eare and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the communitie or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the communitie in the King from them but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our King before any in the Church from him But to whom should he first commit this power but to his Queene Answ Considering this power is not any Lordly power but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole communitie which are the Queen of Christ For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herself properly but to have persons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in naturall bodies the power of seeing is first immediately in the man from the man in the eye and particular members In the mysticall body the faith of a beleever is not first immediately in all then in the beleever but first of all and immediately in the personall beleever for whose good it serveth more properly then for the whole every man being to live by his owne faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel so derived to the Priest but immediately from Christ seated in Aaron and his sonnes Object Yea they were given the Church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis totius Answ I but this is not enough that power may be sayd to be immediately received by the Church as the first
for counsell both because he allowes a distinction of them in the Synod which had the authority of a determining voyce from them that did onely dispute or consult and because he intimates a judiciall proceeding in the Synods by mentioning parties accused their citing or calling of them the condemning of them which imports a further matter then onely of admonition or counsell Whereas Bellarmine accuseth us that we allow any learned men though Laicks to have a determining voyce let their office be what it will Junius answereth (m) N. 4. These things have none of us sayd or thought as they are here layd downe This is that which we say such are to be taken into the Synod which are furnished with gifts and calling which for gifts are godly honest learned for their calling which are either ordinarily appointed to teach or extraordinarily sent for and brought by just authority Now this necessity of a calling which he so (n) See c. 16. n. 10. 18. 20. c. 17. n. 1. often urgeth and requireth to be in the members of a Synod doth argue a speciall power and authority belonging unto them by vertue whereof they may give sentence in the judgement of causes whereas to admonish or counsell requires no more power then that which every Christian hath in another for his good as Mr D. himself confesseth To the same purpose Junius shewes against Bellarmine that the meaning of Theodosius and Valentinian was not to admit Bishops onely but that (o) Ibid. c 15. n. 13. those onely might heare examine and give sentence in a Synod which being sent from the Churches unto the Synod were reckoned up of the Bishops according to their letters of publick authority which they were wont to exhibit Againe he sayth (p) N. 15. They which are present without the authority of the Church of them some may onely heare as the laicks or common people some may be used in consultations as the learned men especially Ecclesiasticall persons but they may not give definitive sentence And thus still by distinguishing those that gave counsell from those that gave sentence in the Synod it appeares he acknowledged a power of jurisdiction in Synods and that they were not onely for counsell So when Bellarmine sayth it was a fault in the Councell of Basill that Presbyters or other learned men besides Bishops were allowed to have not onely a consulting voyce but a deciding suffrage affirmeth that this was against the custome of all antiquity c. Junius answereth (q) N. 19. This we denye for it was the first institution Act. 15. and not onely the manner and custome Seeing therefore there was such an institution of the Apostles in their assembly what need was there to alledge custome c. When Bellarmine chargeth the Protestants as holding that a Synod is nothing but an inquisition and that Christ alone and his written word hath a determining voyce Junius sayth (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 ministeriall giving of sentence Though he shew there and in many annotations following that it is not lawfull for Christians to obey them further then they agree with the Scriptures that their sentence of it self is but a persuasion and not a constraint a ministeriall judgement not of absolute authority of itself c. yet he (ſ) N. 3. grants the Lord hath commanded that we should obey the sentence of a lawfull Synod assembled together in his name c. He sayth (t) N. 14. Synods have true judgements so farre as they are of God according to the tables of his trueth and commandement of themselves they are not judgements but declarations publications and ministeriall pronouncings of the trueth and judgements of God And more then this cannot be yeelded to any Ecclesiasticall judicatory whatsoever Herein he fully grants as much jurisdiction to Synods as belongs to any particular Congregation or Eldership either apart or joyntly together When Bellarmine blames the Protestants for their exception against the Councell of Trent Junius answereth (v) Ibid. in c. 21. n. 1. It is the ordinary way of right in every appeale that the judgement of Synods and the exequution of their sentence be suspended and stayed so long untill the matter be againe examined in another more free or greater Assembly c. This answer had bene needles and impertinent unlesse Synods had more power then of counsell and admonition onely He sayth (x) N. 7. Certainly in every just Synod Hereticks being cited heard present or willfully hiding themselves have bene condemned c. When Bellarm. objects that Protestants will have nothing to be determined in Synods and so strifes to be never ended Junius answers (y) N. 23. that he perverts their meaning and referres us to his preface nota 40. where the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods is plainely avouched IUnius proceeding to the examination of his second book touching Synods where Bellarmine repeats that Synods of Bishops may judge all controversies both of faith and manners Junius answereth (z) Animadv in Bell. l. 2. deCōcl c. 1. n. 1. We have granted it of those that are lawfull Synods When Bellarmine had sayd that nothing is greater then a lawfull and approved Generall Councell Junius answereth (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 c. But this answer had bene insufficient not direct enough if my opposites opinion were true For then according to their opinion he might more fitly have answered that the authority of a particular Congregation is greater then the authority of a Generall Synod because though the counsell and advise of the Synod was more to be reverenced in respect of many excellently learned and godly men from many Churches that were in it yet seeing Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is limited to a particular Congregation therefore the same is greater in the power of censuring and in the use of the keyes for binding and loosing of impenitent sinners seeing Synods have no jurisdiction at all over any other Churches Againe when Bellarmine sets downe this insolent proposition that the Pope cannot commit neither unto a Synod nor to any man the coactive judgement over himself but onely the discretive Iunius answereth (b) Ibid. in c. 18. n. 1. The proposition is most true he cannot commit because God hath committed it to the Synod and lawfull Councell Wherefore we say on the contrary neither can he commit it for if he be the servant of God God hath committed the judgement concerning him unto his Church neither can he reject it but though he be unwilling yet both the Church is bound to judge concerning him and he to undergoe the judgement thereof discretive and coactive howsoever it
please men to call it If Mr Dav. doe fully agree with Junius as he professeth then must he acknowledge that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Church that lawfull Synods have authority not onely to counsell and admonish the Pope himself and so other obstinate offendours but also to censure thē to give sentence both of directive coactive judgement against them as occasion requires Junius to make this more plaine repeats it againe and speaking of the Synods judging the Pope saith (c) N. 2. Truely we grant that he cannot appoynt judges in his owne cause because God hath already appoynted them by the Apostle saying The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14.32 and that he may appoynt Arbiters but we adde this withall that the judges which God hath ordained may by no right be rejected or refused of him When Bellarmine pretends that divers Popes as Sixtus the 3d Leo the 3d Symmachus and Leo the 4th being accused were willing to have their causes discussed in a Synod of Bishops c. Junius sayth (d) N. 6. And this ought so to be done of them for they are subjected of God to a Synod of Prophets by authority of the word When Bellar. addes that yet the Bishops durst not judge them affirming also that they left the whole judgement unto God Junius answers (e) N. 7. This is a fallacy from that which is not the cause as they call it For they did not therefore abstaine from judging because they wanted authority to judge but partly because they had rather that the Popes being guilty should be first judged of themselves and their owne conscience partly because they thought it better to have their cause examined in another more full Synod partly also because when they would examine it the matter was not evident enough c. Whereas the Popes that thus farre submitted their cause to tryall pretend that by this fact they doe not prescribe a law to their successours whereby they should be constrained to doe the same Junius sayth (f) Ibidē The impudency of these men is so much the greater who after they are delivered from judgement doe after this manner mock their judges and such as examined their cause and will have their ambitious licentiousnes to be esteemed for a lawfull order asscribing the lawfull order of judgements in their cause unto an extraordinary and voluntary dispensation as they call it But had Junius bene of my opposites minde he should have answered after another manner should have sayd The Bishops in the Synods which durst not judge the cause of the Popes but left the whole judgement unto God did well therein if they had knowne what they did and the right ground thereof for they did indeed want authority to judge Synods might advise and counsell but have no jurisdiction to give sentence in censuring either the Pope or any other Synods may onely direct particular Churches to use their power aright but have no power themselves to judge other Congregations or any member thereof c. How farre was Junius from giving such an answer Other examples and instances alledged to shew the power of Synods in the judgement of causes are avouched cleared and maintained by Junius against Bellarmines exceptions as appeares in the cause 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 Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction had bene shut up within the bounds of a particular Congregation he ought to have reprehended those Synods rather then to have spent time in vindicating their practise from the cavills of adversaries AS in these books de Conciliis alledged by Mr Dav. Junius hath plainely shewed his agreement with us so in his disputations against Bellarmine de Verbo Dei he hath likewise declared his consent with us touching the authority of Synods He writes there that (k) Animadv in Bell. contr 1. 〈◊〉 Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3. n. 9. there be two kindes of judgements in the Church one Private which belongs to all the faithfull universally and severally the other Publick depending upon a publick calling and authority the law and rule of both these judgements is the holy Scripture the authour and guide is the holy Ghost The publick judgement is either of a particular Church or of many Churches meeting together into one body or of all which body they call a Synod a Councell or an Assembly c. Seeing the Praesident and judge of the private judgement whereof the publick is compact is the Spirit of God and the Scripture the law there can be no other judge or law appoynted in the publick judgement of Synods without most hainous blasphemy against God and reproach to his Church And the Praesidents which are given to Synods have not the dominion and arbritement of the busines but the procuring of order committed unto them to determine matters by that one judge according to his law It is here to be observed that under the publick judgement of the Church he doth in like manner comprehend the authority of particular Churches and of Synods consisting of many Churches he speakes no otherwise of one then of the other as touching the kinde of power that they have he doth not attribute jurisdiction to one counsell to the other he notes both to depend upon a publick calling and authority for a ground of their proceeding And though in both the Spirit of God be the principall judge yet as he (l) Ibid. in c. 5. n. 3.5.28 afterwards notes more plainly he acknowledgeth a ministeriall judgment committed to them for the denouncing of his judgement against such as are guilty according to his word Afterward Junius (m) Ibid. in c. 6. n. 3. shewing how unlike the Councell of Trent was to the Nicene Councell where the Arian Bishops being present were heard convicted by the authority of Gods word and being convicted were condemned though he avoucheth the Bishops of Trent to have bene the enemies of the Gospel yet he sayth (n) N. 4. Otherwise as for lawfull Bishops or Elders and Deacons lawfully called into a Synod holding the same lawfully we acknowledge all these things When Bellarmine alledgeth Basilius Emperour who speaking of the judgment of Ecclesiasticall causes in a Synod sayd To try and search out these things it belongeth unto Patriarkes Bishops and Priests who have an office of government alotted unto them who have the power of sanctifying of loosing and binding who have obtained the keyes of the Church and not unto us which are to be fed which stand in need to be sanctifyed to be bound or loosed from binding Junius answereth (o) Ibid. in c. 7. n. 9. We allow this testimony of Basilius touching the lawfull order of Synods as before Herein we have the expresse confession of Junius touching the authority and jurisdiction of Synods in the use of the
keyes binding and loosing When Bellarmine sends us unto Damascene who sayth touching the controversies in the Church To determine and decree of these things it belongeth not to Kings but to Synods For where two or three saith the Lord are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them Christ hath not given unto Kings the power of binding and loosing but unto the Apostles and their successours to Pastours and Teachers Junius answereth (p) Ibid. in c. 8. n. 6. These things certainly are true and nothing for that famous principality of the Romane Bishop c. We also affirme the same thing as before cap. 3. nota 9. c. 10. Another evident affirmation touching the jurisdiction and power of Synods When Bellarmine saith that Prosper doth no otherwise proove the Pelagians to be Hereticks but because they were condemned of the Romane Bishops Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius Celestine Junius answereth (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 infinuated himself that there was great feare lest he should inflict a soarer wound upon the Church at Rome the Africane Bishops did prudently and religiously certify Innocentius by two letters both concerning the sentence of their Synods and concerning the imminent perill of the Romane Church unlesse according to the example of them in Africa they did provide for the publick safety c. Another example of Synodicall jurisdiction allowed by Junius AGaine in his disputations against Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano Junius doth often allow the authority and jurisdiction of Synods and shewes his judgement that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is not limited to a particular Congregation When Bellarmine speaking of a certaine decree made in a Synod of Africa mentioned by Cyprian sayth it was ordained thereby that a cause should first be judged where the crime was committed that it did not forbid but that it might be judged againe in another place Junius answereth (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 appeale to have a cause judged againe by another judicatory is denyed by my opposites in allowing no such Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Whereas Bellarmine condemneth the Magdeburgenses as being altogether absurd and ridiculous for their denyall of appeales Junius denyes the fact and saith (ſ) N. 5. his reasoning is inconsequent that all appeales should be altogether forbidden because the appeales to them beyond the sea were forbidden When Calvine alledgeth a certaine Canon of the Synod held at Milevis in Africa to refute the ambitious usurpation of the Pope and manifests thereby the jurisdiction of Synods in the judgement of causes because it was decreed that appeales should be made to the Africane Synods and not to the Bishop of Rome Junius (t) Ibid. in c. 24. n 2. c. maintaines this allegation and vindicates it against the exceptions of Bellarmine And he (v) N. 11. alledgeth further to this purpose the epistle which the Councell of Africa wrote unto Pope Celestine in these words After due salutation officiously premised we earnestly desire that hereafter you would not admit unto your audience those that come from hence and that you would not receive into your communion those that are excommunicated of us c. This request Junius calles a modest and brotherly prohibition to wit that the Pope should not receive appeales from them But if there were no superiour Ecclesiasticall power to judge the controversies of a particular Congregation then might these Africane Synods have bene accused of usurpation over particular Churches as transgressing the bounds of modesty and of their calling for exercising the power of the keyes in excommunicating some as well as the Pope for his usurped authority of the keyes in receiving appeales from the Synods Then had both the allegation of Calvine and the defence of Junius bene partiall and unjust condemning that in the Pope which they allowed in Synods When Bellarmine acknowledgeth that the Pope is bound to keep the Ecclesiasticall lawes made by Synods but quoad directionem non quoad coactionem according to the distinction of Lawyers touching the Prince meaning that the Pope may use their direction but is not under their correction or constraint which is indeed the same thing in effect which my opposites affirme of particular Churches that they are bound to use the counsell and direction of Synods but are not subject to their censure nor under their jurisdiction Junius (x) Ibid. in c. 27. n. 6. denyes this distinction for though saith he we should grant that it take place in foro soli in civill courts to wit for the judging of Princes yet is it of no force in foro coeli et conscientiae in Ecclesiasticall judicatories because the reason of them is not alike c. And in the next animadversion (y) N. 7. speaking still of those lawes canons made by Synods he affirmeth that as every other Bishop so the Pope also is subject unto them according to the order of the Church When Bellarmine sayth the Councell or Synod of the Greekes could not make a law for the Latines c. Junius (z) N. 16. See also n. 33. denyes the same and gives a reason because that Synod was Oecumenicall or universall Therein he acknowledgeth that they had a greater authority then onely to admonish or counsell Againe when Bellarmine answering the argument of Nilus saith that the Pope is not subject to Canōs viz. of Synods c. that he is subject to Christ not to the Fathers that he doth not contemne the Fathers nor their Canons but useth them for direction though he cannot be compelled by them c. 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 lawlesse person 2. Thes 2. Whereas some now adayes beginne to speak evill of the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods as of an Antichristian authority Junius is so farre opposite unto them that he accounts the Pope even in this regard to be Antichrist and the Man of Sinne because he refuseth to be subject unto the authority of Synods in their canons and decrees Moreover in comparing of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall estate Junius sayth (d) Ibid. in c. 29. n. 27. Kings have their authority in Civill matters Rom. 13. and the Synod in Ecclesiasticall matters above the Pope as it was defined in the Councell of Constance and Basel And their authority is so
certaine as it is certaine that he which by force repelleth force is armed with publick authority He distinguisheth their jurisdiction in respect of the causes judged by them and repeats this their authority againe in the (e) N. 28. next animadversion And though these two kindes of government Civill and Ecclesiasticall doe use a different manner of compulsion he sayth (f) N. 29. Nihil refert nos de rei substantia agimus coactionem uterque habet sed hic spiritualem ille temporalem c. It skilleth not we intreat of the substance of the matter both of them have a coactive power or a compulsion but the one spirituall the other temporall c. A most evident assertion of Synodall jurisdiction and that they are not to direct onely by way of counsell but to correct also by way of censure To these I might adde many other testimonies of Iunius but these evidences already cited may be sufficient to shew that he was not of this strange opinion touching the independency of Churches and that Mr Daven therefore hath abused his Readers and sought to blinde their eyes when for the credit of his cause he would have it thought that Iunius was of his minde while he professeth that he doth fully agree with him SECT X. His pretence of agreement with Dr Whitaker examined M R Dav. to colour his opinion as if it were no singular conceit of Mr Iacob and some few others makes mention of the Centuriatours as if they were of the same minde yet he alledgeth not their words to prove the same But instead of others he chooseth out Dr Whitaker as if he had bene a favourer of this opinion which it is likely that he never heard of and sayth (g) Apol. reply p. 237. 238. Whit. de Cōci quest 5. Argum. To these I may adde those who have handled the controversies concerning the necessity and authority of Councills amongst whom I will instance in Dr Whitaker who speaking of the fullnes of that delegated power which Christ hath given to the Church not to the Pope which he applyeth to the Keyes in binding and loosing shutting and opening retaining and remitting finnes sayth that this power belongeth primarily principally and essentially to the Church but to the severall Bishops onely accidentally secundarily and lesse principally and explaineth himself by a rule in Philosophy which is that when any power is in two in one necessarily essentially in another contingently and accidentally it is more principally in him in whom it is necessarily and essentially then in him whose it is onely contingently and accidentally As the heat is more principally in the fire then in the water because it is in the water by reason of the fire So sayth he seeing this jurisdiction and fullnes of power is given to the Church necessarily and primarily but to the Pope onely secundarily and by the Church it is manifest that it is more in the Church then in the Pope What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope holds in all other parallell instances ANSVV. First had Mr Dav. repeated this Argument of D. Whitaker fully and justly as it is set downe by himself then might the Reader have seen therein a plaine evident testimony for the authority of Synods but divers things being omitted in the beginning middle and end of it thereby the trueth is obscured and hidden from his Readers In the beginning of it D. Whitaker propounds it thus If the fullnes of power be in the Church not in the Pope then it is evident that it hath more authority then the Pope but the first is true therefore the second also Now by the Church in this place he meaneth the Generall Synod or Councell as appeares by the title of this Question noted in the beginning of it viz. (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 bene beside the Question And therefore while D. Whitaker here directly concludeth a fullnes of power in Synods and as he further calles it in this same place that highest authority and jurisdiction which Christ hath left unto his Church it is manifest hereby that he did not hold them to be onely for counsell admonition and so was farre from limiting all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto a particular Congregation In the middle in the confirmation of this Argument D. Whit. saith For if all this power were in the Pope or in any one man principally and essentially then he dying it should perish and so the Church should altogether loose it But it is not lost though the Pope dye a thousand times but it remaineth with the Church without which the Pope though living could have no part of this authority Now to argue on this manner against the authority we asscribe unto Synods by comparing them with particular Churches as he doth against the Pope compared with Synods would be inconsequent unequall and no parallel instance because the title of the Church is no where given unto the Pope or unto any one person as it is unto an assembly of Ministers Governours or Deputies of Churches met together in the name of Christ in Synods because though we asscribe unto Synods some jurisdiction yet we doe not say that all power is in them originally and so to be derived unto others as is sayd of the Pope and consequently because there is no such danger that the power of the Church should be lost and perish by the death of such as are members of the Synod as might be by the death of the Pope if all power were primarily and essentially in him alone And therefore it is a vaine assertion of Mr Dav. touching this argument of D. Whit. viz What that learned wrighter sayth of the Churches power in comparison with the Pope holds in all other parallell instances In the end of this Argument prosequuted by D. Whitak he concludeth thus Wherefore seeing it is certaine that this power is given unto the Church primarily and not unto the Pope but secondarily and by accident and seeing the Church is represented in the Synod it is of necessity that the Synod must be above the Pope And thus most evidently he grants unto the Synod as being a representative Church a power jurisdiction above the Pope a power which consists in binding and loosing shutting opening retaining and remitting of sinnes as himself here explaines it and so is directly contrary to them which allow no more unto Synods but counsell and admonition Why did Mr Davenp omit and refuse to name the Synod which D. Whit. so expressely mentioneth applying yeelding unto the Synod that power which he there pleades for Secondly as for that similitude of fire and water though it be granted that heat is more principally in the fire then in the water because it is in the water by reason of the
observe 1. How little Mr Canne understands what the Authors be whom he alledgeth not knowing whether they were Papists or Protestants placing Saravia in the number of Papists so well is he acquainted with the Authors he alledgeth at second hand such injury he doth to his witnesses So afterward (i) P. 93 98. againe in this same book he wrongeth Saravia by setting him among the Popish Writers and making him of their profession and religion by accusing me to make the same objection and to use the same reason that Papists doe and then giving instance in Saravia for one of them What a blindenes and inconsideratenes is this in Mr Canne 11. He perverts the meaning both of Saravia and Schola Parisiensis for what though they grant that all Ecclesiasticall authority belongeth to the Church primarily c. doth it follow hence that the power of Classicall and Provinciall Synods is an undâ—â— 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 alledge 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 asscribed not onely unto the Church but also unto Synods when he is (l) Ibid. p. 42. brought in saying Bishops Arch-bishops have no authority but what is conferred and bestowed upon them by the Church and Synods III. He perverts the meaning of Schola Parisiensis which speakes not of particular Congregations but of the Universall Church and specially as it is represented in a Generall Councell This is plaine and evident throughout that whole writing IV. He doth deale deceitfully in his translation of that testimony of Schol. Paris for the Doctours of Sorbon doe there say that all Ecclesiasticall authority doth belong to the Church primarily properly essentially but unto the Romane Pope and other Bishops instrumentally ministerially and for execution onely c. instead of the Romane Pope and other Bishops he puts in the word Officers onely to blinde the eyes of the Readers who if those words had not bene left out might easily have seene that they spake of such transcendent and usurped authority as is exercised by the Pope and his Bishops c. Hence it may appeare what is to be judged of that which he inferres from this testimony to make it serve his purpose in oppugning of Synods As for Alphonsus de Castro and Franciscus Victoria 1. It is an errour to approve their testimony there (m) Ch. pl. p. 78.79 alledged viz. that all Bishops doe receive jurisdiction and power immediately from God for then should they all have an extraordinary calling such as the Apostles had Gal. 1.1 15 16. whereas all ordinary Ministers have their jurisdiction not immediately from God but mediately by men and from the Church How erroneously doe W.B. and Mr C. put light for darknes and darknes for light when they avouch that thus God ordered these mens tongues to give witnesse unto his trueth 11. All the shew of help which they pretend to have from this testimony is grounded upon that groundlesse consequence whereby they inferre that Classes Synods have no authority over particular Congregations because all Churches Elderships and Officers are equall This their assertion remaines yet to be proved which we doe expressely deny as I have (n) P. 159. shewed in my answer unto his first Reason The testimonies of the three next Popish Authors viz. Cusanus de concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11 c. Sanders de visib Mon. l. 1. c. 6. Scultingius Hierarch Anarch l. 4. pag. 103. are all of them before alledged by (o) Pol. Eccl l. 3. c. 1. p. 2. c. 3. p. 11. Mr Parker from whence it seemes Mr Canne hath taken them but without judgement not applying them aright for 1. When they affirme that Christs promise of giving the keyes unto Peter must be referred unto the whole Church as also that Peter in person presented the body of the Church though these speeches shew the power of binding and loosing to be in the Church yet can it not hence be inferred that a particular Congregation ought not to be subject unto the censure of Classes and Synods or to stand under the authority of any Ecclesiasticall judicatory out of itself when that Congregation is complained of for errour or wrong doing It is a perverting of these speeches and a false consequence which is drawne from hence that because a Congregation hath power to judge the members thereof therefore no other have power to judge of it 11. When Mr Canne inferreth hence that the power of electing Ministers is not in Classes or Synods he beates the ayre erres from the Question When did I ever affirme any such matter or when did the Classis ever offer to obtrude a Minister upon us III. These testimonies touching the Keyes given unto the Church shew what power is in the Church originally and primarily but yet they doe not import that the execution and exercise of this power is in the whole Church Preaching and administration of the Sacraments are a part of that Ecclesiasticall authority comprehended in the power of the Keyes and yet the exercise thereof is not permitted to the whole Church by the confession of the Brownists themselves For his next witnesse having alledged the words of Ferus upon Act. 11. that the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also depose them and reject them altogether if they be not fit c. he insulteth hereupon and gloryeth saying What can be more for us then this I answer This might have bene more for you if he had sayd that when a Congregation hath deposed their Minister there is no other Ecclesiasticall judicatory that may judge whether they have done well or ill This had bene to the purpose then had he absolutely granted you the thing which the Brownists stand for but this he doth not When Mr Canne was deposed from his ministery by them of the Separation and when they rejected him altogether and left both his ministery and the fellowship of all that took part with him was it not his their misery that there was none to judge betwixt theÌ„ When he alledgeth the names of Gratian Gregorie P. Aeneas Sylvius Pope Anacletus Sixtus Senensis Thomas of Aquine Alexander of Ales Iohn Scot c. some of them affirming that the greatest authority is in the Church that the keyes were given to all the Apostles others that all Bishops are equall in power and the like these and the like speeches being alledged to prove the undue power of Classes and Synods they are all perverted neither can the question in controversy be ever concluded from hence against us
man of sinne With these testimonies of ancient Fathers Mr Canne alledgeth for his opinion 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 3d Councell of Carthage whereat Augustine was present I have shewed * Pa. 223. before that it makes directly for us That 22th Canon which he alledgeth viz. (a) Magdeb. Cent. 4. c. 9. col 868. that no Clerk be or dained without examination by Bishops and testimony of the people empeacheth not the authority of Classes and Synods but confirmeth the order established by them And that Christian Emperours have by their lawes confirmed the authority of Synods it is plaine and undenyable The (b) Sulp. Se. v S. Hist l. 2 Councell of Nice that condemned Arius was authorised by Constantine the Great The (c) Sulp. S. Hist conâ—in ex Sleyd p. 162. Councell of Constantinople that condemned Macedonius was authorised by the Emperour Theodosius the Elder The (d) P. 164. Councell of Ephesus that condemned Nestorius was authorised by Theodosius the younger The (e) P. 170. Councell of Chalcedon that condemned Eutyches was authorised by the Emperour Martianus And as it was in these first Generall Councels so may it be observed in many other Instead of the rest let the (f) Codex Canon Ecc. Univ. edit Christ Just book of Canons suffice confirmed by Iustinian the Emperour there being contained in that book many Canons which ordaine that the causes of particular Churches should be (g) Can. 5 80 83 85. judged by Synods and so decided by another superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves At the end of these Canons there is added the sanction or decree of Iustinian (h) Novella consti Just Imper. 131. by which he doth not onely allow them and give force of lawes unto them but with an excessive farre greater honour then is due unto them would have the foure Oecumenicall Councels to be receaved even as the holy Scriptures Now though he offended greatly in this his esteeme of them yet this may serve to shew what little reason Mr Canne had to alledge the decrees of Councels for his opinion SECT VII Touching the Testimonies of Reformed Churches FRom ancient times they come back to the later times of Reformation and 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 vainely imagine are these according to their order in alledging of them The Bohemian Churches Churches under the Palsgrave the Helvetian Churches the French Churches Churches of the Auspurge Confession of the Low-countries of Nasovia But the trueth is both these and other Reformed Churches doe condemne my oppisites in allowing of Synods to judge the causes of particular Congregations The Confession of the Bohemian Churches say they hath these words (b) Harm Conf. c. 14. The keyes that is Ecclesiasticall Government are given in trust and granted to the Pastours and to each severall Ecclesiasticall society that is ordinary Congregation whether they be small or great I answer I. This testimony is clipped by Mr Canne who leaves out the words of order which shew their opinion touching the originall and derivation of this power The words of this Bohemian Confession are that the keyes of the Lord or this administration and power of the keyes is granted and delivered first unto the Governours and Ministers of the Church and then unto every Christian Congregation c. Therein they doe not consent with Mr Canne but with the opinion of Mr Baines noted (c) P. 114 115. before And they doe there also apply these words unto absolution given by the Priest of the Church as they call him To this end they alledge those places Ioh. 20.23 Luk. 10.16 Their meaning is declared more fully before where they (d) Harmo Confes Art 5. de Poenit. p. 241. edit 1612. teach that the poenitent are to come unto the Priest and to confesse their sinnes unto God before him c. and to desire absolution of him by the keyes of the Church that they may obtaine remission of sinnes by such a ministery so instituted of Christ. This order seemes to agree with that forme of absolution described and appointed in the English booke of Common prayer at the visitation of the sick 11. It is acknowledged by the Ministers of the Church of the Picards so called in Bohemia and Moravia in the (e) P. 219. preface to the forementioned Confession of their fayth that their fathers had appealed unto a Synod c. where if any thing should be found dissonant from the Scriptures they were willing from the heart and lovingly to be subject and obedient to the censure and appointment of the Synod in all things This shewes their dissent from Mr Canne and his people III. The Combination of the Christian and Orthodox Churches in Bohemia and Moravia called by themselves The Vnitie of the brethren in Bohemie doth give a cleare testimony unto the trueth touching the authority of Synods for the government of particular Churches and judgement of their causes by a superiour Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves as appeareth in the booke of their Discipline where they (f) Ratio Discip ordinisq Ecc. in Unitate frat Bohem. c. 2. p. 33.34 38. professe that for weighty causes in providing for the necessities of the whole Vnitie or some Diocesse therein they use to hold Synods either Generall or Particular c. They alledge these 5 ends To confirme brotherly love and concord To strengthen them in the work of the Lord To preserve the vigour of Discipline To exclude scandalous persons out of the number of their Ministers c. To ordaine Ministers c. and for 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. c. Visitations of the Churches which are in their Vnitie or consociation This example of these brethren of the Vnitie is so much the more to be regarded of us in respect of the singular providence blessing of God in preserving them to this day in the midst of so many persecutions as they have endured being more ancient then other Reformed Churches having continued from the dayes of Iohn Husse and being holpen by the Waldenses that were scattered into those parts so that they (i) Ib. pref p. 2 3. were increased to almost 200 little Congregations in Bohemia Moravia about the yeare 1500 before the time of Luther Their piety love concord and zeale of religion notwithstanding some imperfections appeares by their orders to be very great in speciall their care of sanctifying the
Sabbath bestowing it wholly in divine and religious exercises resorting (k) Ib. cap. 3. p. 54. 72 73. foure times a day to the publick assemblies of Gods worship even in the Winter time and in Summer five times a day c. The bond of that perfection which they seek for and have in some measure attained unto seemes to be their combination in Synods and that unity therein whereupon they are denominate Their government and the fruits thereof have bene such that many of the speciall lights of Christendome since the time of Reformation have admited and commended the same and sundry of them have wished for the like Discipline and order in the Churches where they lived as appeares by the testimonies of Luther Melancthon Bucer Pet. Paulus Vergerius Beza Zanchius Olevian Vrsinus Chytraeus Pet. Martyr Calvin Polanus Bucholcerus which testimonies are (l) 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 cōmon 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 alledged out of the Bohemian Confession Mr Canne saith the Churches under the Palsgrave likewise consented and to this end he citeth their Publick Catechisme in the end of part 2. For answer hereunto 1. If these Churches consent unto that which the Bohemian Churches have professed then they doe not agree with Mr Can. as appeares by what hath bene sayd in the foregoing Answers 11. The place here alledged hath nothing touching the persons to whom the Keyes are given which is the thing for which it is produced it speakes onely of the use of the Keyes and the ordinary exercise of Discipline in the Church without restraining the same unto the sole jurisdiction of a particular Congregation or excluding the authority of Classes and Synods either for advise consent before hand or for the correcting of abuses committed in the administration of it And that the power of a superiour Ecclesiasticall judicatorie exercised in such cases is agreeable unto the doctrine and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate may appeare from the testimonies (n) P. 191.192.193 before noted out of Vrsinus Tossanus Paraeus Divines of speciall eminencie in those Churches III. Whereas it is sayd in this Catechisme (o) Qu. 85. concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline that offenders after other admonitions persisting in their errors and wickednes are to be made knowne unto the Church lest this should be understood of the whole multitude it is added presently or to them that are appoynted for that matter and purpose of the Church and if neither then they obey their admonition are of the same men by forbidding them the Sacraments shut out from the assembly of the Church c. The meaning is as it is explained (p) Explic. Catech. ad Qu. 85. by Vrsinus who also yeelded speciall help for the compiling of that Catechisme that when any is to be excommunicated the matter be first heard tryed and judged by the whole Presbyterie and that their judgement be approved by the Church that it be not undertaken by the private authoritie of one alone or of the Ministers alone This serves to justifie what we teach and practise and to condemne both the tyrannicall and popular courses of others IV. Moreover for the judgement and practise of the Churches in the Palatinate concerning the authority of Classes Synods which is the poynt in controversy it is to be observed that all the Ministers which according to order are there confirmed in the Ministerie are as a Jurie of so many sworne men bearing witnesse against the Independencie of Churches For at their ordination they doe not onely testify and promise by subscription and giving of of the hand but withall they doe binde themselves by a solemne oath among the rest (q) Churf Psaltz Kirchendi bestall punct Art 16. to obey the Politicall and Ecclesiasticall Lawes the Officers and Inspectors there appointed c. to referre or submit Church-affaires unto the Ecclesiasticall Senate set over them c. and also according to the appointment of their Inspector to frequent the Classicall assemblies in whatsoever place or quarter they are held willingly and freely to subject themselves unto the censure of their brethren to deale faithfully uprightly and quietly in their censures votes to doe nothing neither for feare nor favour of any but what they judge to be profitable for the edification of the Churches and Schooles The Confession of the Churches of Switserland or Helvetia is notably falsifyed by Mr C. They confesse in the place (r) Confes Helvet Art 16.17 alledged by him that the power of the Keyes ought to be committed unto select and fit persons either by divine or by certaine and required suffrage of the Church or by the sentence of those to whom the Church hath delegated this office in which latter disjunction omitted by Mr C. they acknowledge another Ecclesiasticall 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 goe further astray by a godly agreement of such as be chosen out of the Ministers and Magistrates to be excluded by Discipline or punished by some other convenient meanes so long untill they may repent and be saved Such an Ecclesiasticall Senate it seemes was among them for the government of particular Churches And further the authority of Synods for such purpose is likewise specifyed and justifyed in the larger (t) Cap. 18. p. 63. Helvetian Confession Besides this we have a particular story hereof related by Walaeus out of Beza who recordes that (v) Ampt der Kerckēdien p. 214 out of Bez. Apol. pro Justif ex sola fide p. 263. c. when a controversy arose at Berne betwixt Huberus and Abrah Musculus the sonne of Wolfg. Musculus touching the doctrine of Praedestination the Rulers of Berne following the order of the Apostles did appoynt a Synod out of all the Classes within their jurisdiction who together with the help of other excellent Teachers called from Zurich Basel Schaphuysen and Geneva did take cognition of the differences and after due triall according to the word of God made a conclusion so that thereby the Churches were brought unto their former peace That which is next alledged by 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 hindred by that authority which is exercised in Synods seeing all the particular Churches united in Synods are in like manner and equally
acknowledge one another to be in that way IV. This company of Brownists whereof Mr Canne is the sole Governour was formerly governed by an Eldership and now since their division they have no Eldership to rule them Whether it be because they thinke they have none among them fit to be Elders or whether they doe wilfully refuse such as they cannot deny to be fit or whether there be any other cause I leave it to themselves Alwayes this we know that there be some Churches in remote countries that want the benefit of Classicall government because there be no other neighbour Churches neere unto them with whom they may combine themselves for their mutuall guidance and edification But now if the want of an Eldership among the Brownists such as they once had doe not warrant us to say that they hold two distinct formes of Church-government to be lawfull one with an Eldership another without an Eldership consequently that they hold two wayes unto heaven then much lesse can the want of a Synod in respect of the different consideration of the times places occasions and oportunities of severall Churches be any warrant for Mr Canne to object unto us two formes of government or two wayes to heaven c. REAS. V. Let it be observed that for this reason among others the Learned (x) Whit. Cont. 4. qu. 4. Chamier l. 6. cōject 2. say the Pope is Antichrist viz. because he will have men to appeale from their owne Churches unto him and to stand under his sentence and decree And doe not the Classicall assemblies and Synods take upon them an authority much like to it in subjecting many Congregations to them requiring appeales to be made to them and that the Judicatory as Mr Pagets * In his Letter c. phrase is belongeth to them as if their power above all Churches ANSVV. I. Let it be observed how Mr Canne speaking here against appeales made unto Classes and Synods brings no Scripture no word of God to condemne them but onely the testimonies of men he needed not to have reserved hereafter a peculiar Section onely 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 appeales as being both of divine and naturall right Chamier whom Mr Canne doth misquote without the title of the book alledged sayth that appeales (z) Panstrat Catho tom 2. l. 13. c. 17 are of common equity and truely without them the Church could hardly or not at all subsist speaking of appeales unto Synods That which learned and orthodox Writers blame in appeales 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 speciall for this that the Pope allowes no appeales to be made from him unto a Synod This is the Antichristian pride that they condemne in the Pope And herein the Church of the Brownists doth plainly resemble the Pope seeing their Congregation also their Democraticall judicatory allowes no appeale to be made from them unto Classes or Synods unto any Ecclesiasticall judges besides themselves These are two of the most monstrous propositions of the Papists touching the Popes authority viz. that (a) Bellarm. de Conc. l. 2. c. 17. 18. the Pope is above a Generall Synod and acknowledgeth no judgement on earth above him and againe that the Pope cannot commit the coactive judgement over him neither unto a Synod nor unto any man but onely the discretive this discretive judgement they expound to be such a kinde of arbitrement as doth not binde him further then it pleaseth him Now so farre as concernes Ecclesiasticall judgement the Brownists and the maintainers of the single uncompounded policie doe 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 alledged against himself to shew their unlawfull government then this their denyall of appeales III. Let it be observed how foolishly Mr Canne cavills at my speech touching Classicall 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 sayd 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 appeare by the writing I made which is yet to be seene Note Mr C. his rashnes in receyving such things REAS. VI. What more meet and reasonable then that every mans case be there heard and determined where the fault was committed So sayth (b) Cypr. li. 1. Epist 3. Cyprian It is not fit that they over whom the Holy Ghost hath made us overseers should goe too fro He speaketh of carying matters away from their owne Church unto others ANSVV. I. Though it be meet and reasonable that every mans 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 appeale from their oppressours or if the case be difficult and weighty that the matter be at first brought unto Classicall assemblies according to the order of Reformed Churches II. For confirmation of this reason he brings no word of God but onely the testimonie 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 onely such as did inordinately run too and fro such as were not content with the Synods in Africa but sayled over the sea unto the Church of Rome Of such he there speakes And even in the same Epistle Cyprian shēwes both the use of Synods allowed in the Churches of Africa and the authority of Synods in censuring offendours He there gives (c) Lib. 1. e. 3. § 11.12 instances of Privatus condemned in an assembly of 99 Bishops of Foelix of Iovinus Maximus excluded from the communion of the Church by a Synod of Repostus also censured in like manner Their Synods were not onely for counsell but exercise a jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall And as they exercised the power of the keyes in binding obstinate sinners so also loosing and absolving those that repented as appeares in (d) Lib. 1. Ep. 2. § 1. another Epistle going immediately before this alledged and written by the Synod itself In the inscription of that Epistle are prefixed the names of Cyprian Liberalis Caldonius Nicomedes and Caecilius c. as being speciall members of that Synod and writing joyntly together that Synodicall Epistle (e) Ibid. n. 6.
It is a most false consequence to inferre that because all Bishops are equall in power therefore Synods have no power to judge and as false it is to inferre that because the Keyes were given to all the Apostles therefore there is no Ecclesiasticall power to judge the actions of a particular Congregation In summe Mr Canne doth most ignorantly and grosly abuse all these Papists against their words their writings and their continuall profession and practise For though there be this maine difference betwixt the Papists that some of them doe asscribe the greatest authority unto the Church that is unto a Generall Synod or Councell maintayning that they have infallibility of judgement above the Pope power to depose the Pope others of thē asscribing more authority and infallibility of judgement unto the Pope rather then unto the Church or a Generall Councell representing the same yet doe they all agree in this that there is a superiour power above particular Congregations to judge the same The University of Paris and the Doctours of Sorbon have in speciall manner from time to time maintayned the authority of a Generall Councell above the Pope they (p) De Eccl. Polit. Pot. pag. 1. c. edit 1612. Paris bring many arguments from Scripture and other reasons to prove the same They alledge the sentence of Pope (q) Ibid. p. 16. Zozimus confessing himself to be inferiour unto the Councell 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 certaine Frier Ioannes 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 solemne decree made by the Theologicall faculty of that University whereby he was appointed to revoke his opinion and a forme of recantation was prescribed according to which he confessed his fault acknowledged the power of Synods above the Pope The (t) Acts Monum p. 546 547. An. D. 1414. c. Councell of Constance did not onely exercise Ecclesiasticall authority in condemning of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage but also decreeing the authority of Synods and Councells to be above the Pope did actually depose divers Popes as Iohn the 23th and Benedict who was likewise excommunicate by them even as the Councell 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 Iesuites in speciall that maintaine the authority of the Pope to be above all Synods Councells whatsoever that their decrees are not of force unlesse they be approved by the Pope these doe evidently teach that the affaires and controversies of particular Congregations are subject to the judgement of superiour judicatories out of themselves This is to be observed in Bellarmine throughout his writings where he shewes (y) Tom. 2. Contr. 1. de Concil l. 1. c. 9 10 11. l. 2. c. 2. c. the causes the necessity and the authority of Generall and Provinciall Synods the (z) Tom. 2. Contr. 2. l. 1. de Cler. c. 7 8 9 10. 14. c. power of elections and the distinction of a Bishop from a Presbyter The same is maintayned by him in his (a) Tom. 3. Contr. 4. de Indul. l. 1. c. 11.14 l. 2. c. 1 c. treatise of Pardons or Indulgencies plenary or for a certaine number of dayes for the living or for the dead And the like is to be found in (b) Tom. 3. Contr. 5. de Sacr. Ord. l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 c. Tom 1. Contr. 3. de Sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 1 2 3 c. sundry other of his writings And to these might be added more then an hundred of other witnesses of the Romish Church acknowledging that there is a due and lawfull power of Synods and of other judges to decide the causes controversies of particular Churches Instead of many other the Councell of Trent called by (c) Concil Trid. Bul. Indict p. 8. Pope Paulus the third continued by (d) Bul. Resumpr p. 66.67 Pope Iulius the third and confirmed by (e) Bul. Confirm p. 243 c. Pope Pius the fourth together with the consideration of many conclusions and decrees made in severall Sessions of that Councell doe give plenteous testimony hereof throughout that whole book of their Acts. Onely to conclude this Section let it be remembred how of old in our owne countrie the like testimony hath bene given to shew the authority of Synods We read (f) Act. Mon. p. 112. col 2. art 7. of a Provinciall Synod at Thetford in the time of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury Anno D. 680. where it was ordained that Provinciall Synods should be kept within the Realme at least once a yeare Another 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 c. This being the continuall and universall practise of the Papists what sense was there in Mr Canne to alledge their testimonies in such a poynt wherein they are so full and pregnant against him It is the fault of Papists that they give too much authority unto Synods and it is as grosse a fault of these my opposites to pervert their testimonies contrary to their meaning practise further then their words will beare SECT II. Touching the Testimonies of Lutheranes IN their first allegation taken from Lutheranes they say It is affirmed by the Centuries of Meydenburg that from Christs ascension unto Trajans time which is about a 100 yeares every particular Church was governed by the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the same Cent. 1. c. 4. To this I answer This allegation comes short of the question in hand and is therefore insufficient and perverted to prove that the Churches then did not stand under any other Ecclesiasticall authority for it is not affirmed by them of Meydenburgh in their Centuries that the Churches were governed by them alone or that there were no Synods in those times to judge of the actions of Bishops Elders and Deacons in cases of controversy which could not be well ended in particular Churches but the contrary is expressely taught by the same (i) Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 9. de