19 2 Cor. 12.12 1 Cor. 2.4 Mark 6.20 required belief and submission to their doctrine and universal Tradition upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures delivering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures as are found in the Church So that a Pharisee searching and not finding in Scriptures by reason indeed that he searched them not aright such testimony of Jesus being the Messias as was pretended yet ought to have bin convinced and to have believed his doctrines from seeing his miracles and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search So a Berean searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Panl's doctrine suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ as was pretended yet ought to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul or from the authority he or the Council at Jer salem Act. 15. received from Jesus working Miracles and raised from the Dead as universal Tradition testified And the same may be said for the Churches Doctrines And therefore as there are some Scriptures that bid us search the Scriptures because if we do this aright we shall never find them to disagree from the Doctrines of the Church and beause some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scripture very evident so there are other Scriptures if those who are so ready to search them on other would search them also on this point that bids us hear the Church because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult In which case God having referred us to the judgment of those whom he hath appointed to be the expounders thereof Deut. 17.8 9 10. Matt. 18.17 Luk. 10.16 cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures to try whether their expositions be right Therefore that Text Gal. 1.8 9. is far from any such meaning If the Church or Churchmen shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures as you understand them let these he Anathema to you but rather it saith this If an Angel or I Apostatizing as some shall Act. 20.30 shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received that is from the Church let him c. which makes not against but for the Churches Authority very much § 61 To the former Texts then mentioned § 56. this briefly may be returned To the three first Texts That a search of Scriptures concerning our Lord's or his Apostles doctrines is both allowed and recommended because the Scriptures rightly understood and these doctrines perfectly agree But a dissent from these doctrines if upon a search thought to be disagreeing which the Objectors would infer is not allowed from the reasons formerly given In the fourth Text the Apostle speaks of private Spirits to be tried whether of God by their conformity to the common doctrines of the Scripture and of the Church See 1 Cor. 14.29 32. The 5th includes a general trial as well by the directions and expositions of the Spiritual Guides as dictates of the Scriptures the Rule The 6th is expounded before If an Angel shall teach you any thing contrary to the doctrine you have received from Christ's Ministers or from the Church confirmed with Miracles let him be Anathema § 62 As for those things which are urged for the failing of the visible Church or at least of the major part of the Guides and chief Professors thereof under the Gospel As in the Scriptures die Prophecies of our Saviour Matt. 24.11 12. 24.38 Luke 18.8 compared with 7. Luk. 17 25 26 27 c. 21.35 and of the Apostles 2 Thes 2.3 1 Jo. 2.18 2 Tim. 3.1 1 Cor. 11.19 2 Pet. 2.1 c. Rev. 20. c. 13.20.8 9. and other places speaking of the power of Antichrist and of his sitting in the Church of God and in the Church-story the prevalency of Arrianism In answer to the former the Scriptures It is granted that it seems in these latter times of the world there shall be a great falling away from the faith but that it is from Christianity it self and from the Church as indeed we have already seen all those flourishing Churches of Asia and other Eastern and Southern parts once Christian now over-run by the Doctrine of the Great Prophet of God as he stiled himself Mahomet who sits and triumphs in those same places which were once the chiefest Churches of God and the love of many to Christ waxen cold by the abounding of iniquity and the terrible persections of the Turkish Empire the Image of the former Persecutor the Heathen Roman Empire to which Imago Mahomet's doctrine hath given life and vigor and this decession we have seen and what more shall be seen hereafter God knoweth But this argues not that Truth shall fail in all or the major part of the Doctors who remain still in the Church and profession of Christianity but that the Church it self shall sail of having so great an extent in the world or her Guides of being so many at some times as at others yet at all times sufficiently apparent § 63 Again In answer to the prevalency of Arrianism it seems that in these later times there shall be a falling away too within the profession of Christianity from the faith i.e. from that faith which is orthodox by many dangerous Heresies and Schisms from time to time arising in the Church whilst many formerly members of it shall separate from it 1 Jo. 2.19 but shall always apparently be known by their departure from it but it follows not that any of these Sects within shall ever have so great or so long a growth as to be able to out-number the Body of the Church or the true Teachers Concerning which many are of opinion that the Orthodox Communion in all times shall exceed not Infidels but yet any other Sect especially of one Communion as it is professing Christianity both for the multitude of people and extent of several Nations See Tryal of doctrines § 30 31 c. and particularly concerning Arrianism in 2. Disc conc the Guide in Controversy § 26. As for Antichrist the story of whom hath given occasion of a contrary fancy especially amongst the Reformed I shall elsewhere I think sufficiently clear to you that he shall profess an Antichristianity and oppose the Gospel in general or if at some time such Sect shall out-number the Church it self yet as was said before it shall stand in an external Communion separate from the Church and also formerly expelled by the Church when these did not outnumber it and tho afterwards these shall grow never so numerous yet the remnant of Orthodox Believers how small soever continuing in the same body will not cease to be truly and only Catholick without them neither have these any right or will be permitted to vote in her Councils which Councils to be truly General need to be no larger than the Church
the Roman Bishops power now to look a little back into the former ages wherein by reason of the persecutions by heathen Princes the Church's discipline was not altogether so perfectly formed See Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Alexandrini § 23. n. 7. where he relates how Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria living above fifty years before the Nicene Council was accus'd by some of Pentapolis as erroneous in the Doctrine of the Trinity to Dionysius the then Bishop of Rome and thereupon writ an Apology to purge himself Quidam ex Ecclesia recte quidem sentientes sed tamen ignari c. Romam ascenderunt ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nominis Romanum Praesulem accusaverunt Re comperta Alexandrinus postulavit a Romano Praesule ut objecta sibi indicaret non rixandi animo sed sui purgandi Apologiam scripsit Here it seems A. D. 266. long before the cause of Athanasius his addresses were made by the Alexandrians to the Roman Bishop See St. Cyprian contemporary to Dionysius to procure the deposing of Marcianus Metropolitan Bishop of Arles in France because he sided with Novatian writes thus to Stephen Bishop of Rome about it Dirigantur in Provinciam ad plebem Arelatae consistentem a te literae quibus abstento Marciano alius in locum ejâ—s substituatur Where Dr. Field l. 5 c. 37. grams Cyprian rather writ to him to do this than did it himself because the Roman Bishop was Patriarch of the West And it appears from his 68th Epistle that in his time two Bishops of Spain Basilides and Martialis ejected for giving their consent to some Idolatry appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome to restore them to their Dignities Romam pergens i. e. Basilides Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum gestae rei ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit ut exambiret reponi se injuste in Episcopatum de quo fuerat juste depositus In which Epistle he censures Stephen indeed but not for receiving Basilides his appeal or hearing his cause but for judging it amiss yet some way excuseth him also as misinform'd Neque enim tam culpandus est ille saith he eui negligenter obreptum est quam hic execrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit But had Stephen had no just authority to judg this matter or reponere Basilidem in Episcopatum St. Cyprian would not have accused him of negligence i. e. in believing without seeking better information what Basilides or his friends said but of usurpation and intrusion and tyranny in judging in matters no way belonging to him But he allowing the Western Patriarchs authority over the Gallican Bishops as appears in the last instance could not rationally deny him the same over the Spanish Therefore that which this Father saith before that Basilides his appeal and Stephen's sentence ordinationem jure perfect am rescindere non potuit is to be understood with reference to the justness of the cause not of the authority For one may rightly be accus'd of injustice either who doth a thing and hath no just power to do it or who hath a just power to do a thing and hath no just cause And therefore the Spanish ought to seek a reversion of such sentence by presenting to their Patriarch perfecter informations Else surely his sentence who is granted to have the supreme authority to judg is to stand and he must give account thereof to God And yet higher before Cyprian's time about A.D. 200 we find in Eus Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 22 c. that in a controversie about the celebration of Easter whether on the Lord's day or on the same day with the Jews after many Provincial Councils in a peaceful time of the whole Christian Church call'd in several Countries as well of the East as Aegypt Palestine as of the West who all agreed with the Roman Bishop excepting Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and the Bishops of Asia minor who assembled in Council as the rest resolv'd to continue their custom of keeping it the same day with the Jews and in a Letter to Rome signified so much We find I say that Victor then Bishop of Rome either intended or also executed an Excommunication upon Polycrates and his party as pertinaciously retaining a Mosaical ceremony which might be an introduction to more Executed an excommunication not negative as Dr. Field would have it p. 558. by with-drawing his own communion from them but privative and authoritative by rejecting and debarring them from communion of the whole Catholick Church tho indeed debarring them from the Roman communion debars them also from all others that communicate with the Roman for those who may not communicate with an Heretick neither may communicate with any others who by communicating with such Heretick make themselves partakers of his sin This seems to me clear by the words of Eusebius Victor totius Asiae Ecclesias a communionis societate abscindere nititur tanquam in haeresin declinantes literas mittit quibus omnes simul absque discretione ab Ecclesiastico faedere segregaret Extant Episcoporum literae quibus asperius objurgant Victorem velut inutiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem Ecclesiae i. e. universalis And of Iraeneus who amongst the rest reprehended him quod non recte fecerit abscindens a corporis i. e. Christi not Romanae Ecclesiae unitate tot tantas Ecclesias Dei And by Polycrates his Letter Euseb l. 5. c. 22. to the Church of Rome wherein it appears both that he assembled his Asian Bishops at the Bishop of Rome's intimation and that some censure had been threaten'd him from thence upon non-conformity to which he answers That it were better to obey God than men His words are Sexaginta quinque â—nnos aetatis gerens non perturbabor ex his quae ad terrorem proferuntur quia majores mei dixerunt Obtemperare oportet Deo magis quam hominibus As for Irenaeus or other Bishops reprehending this fact or purpose of Victors it was not because he usurp'd or exercis'd an authority of Excommunication over the Asiaticks not belonging to him but that he used such authority upon no just or sufficient cause namely upon such a declination from Apostolical tradition vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam in so small a matter some compliance with the Jews to gain them partly excusing such a practice Thus a Prince who hath lawful power to inflict punishments upon his subjects when delinquent is reprehensible when punishing the innocent To this of Victor I may add another Excommunication not long after this by Stephen Bishop of Rome either inflicted or at least threatned to some of the Asian Churches in Cyprian's time that held the necessity or Rebaptization upon the Baptism of Hereticks Concerning which see Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 4. c. 4.6 See St. Austin's Epistle 162 the great care and superintendence which Melchiades Bishop of Rome before Sylvester in Constantine's time used over the African Churches in the Schism of
c. concluding Nec enim ignoramus unum Deum esse unum Christum unum Spiritum Sanctum unum Episcopum in Catholica Ecclesia esse debere Vnum i. e. I suppose unum supereminent in power to the rest the better to preserve the Church's Unity § 33 Lastly The passages of those Ancients who were in some difference with the Bishop of Rome which upbraid him for challenging such power seem to me good arguments that such power and authority over other Churches and Bishops was then so early assum'd by him So Tertullian de Pudicitia c. 21. living in the beginning of the third Age when now a Montanist and rigidly opposing the Absolution and restitution to the Church of lapsed Christians tho penitents which thing was practis'd by the Bishop of Rome mentions there in Irony his Titles of Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum and thus expostulates with him Vnde hoc jus Ecclesiae i. e. of absolving such sinners usurpas Si quia dixerit Petro Dominus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Tibi dedi claves regni Coelorum vel quaecunque alligaveris c. Qualis es evertens atque commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem c. But note that Tertullian here in the Protestants judgment errs absolution of sinners penitent being not personal to Peter or the Apostles but common not only to the Roman Bishop but all the successive Clergy for ever So Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea Cappadociae in his Epistle to St. Cyprian the 75th amongst Cyprian's when very passionate in the matter of Rebaptizing those formerly Baptiz'd only by Hereticks and as it seems by Eus Ec. H. l. 7. c. 4. either punish'd or threaten'd with Excommunication by Stephen Bishop of Rome for it and also being his opposite in the controversie about Easter thus inveighs against him Ego in hac parte juste indignor quod qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriatur se successionem Petri tenere contendit super quem fundamenta Ecclesiae collocata sunt multas alias Petras inducat Ecclesiarum multarum nova aedificia constituat dum esse illic i.e. Heretical Churches baptisma sua authoritate defendit Stephanus qui per successionem Cathedram Petri habere se praedicat nullo adversus haereticos zelo exeitatur c. i.e. in disallowing and nulling their Baptism Eos autem qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine tradita frustra Apostolorum authoritatem praetendere scire quis etiam inde potest c. where he blames their keeping of Easter differently from others in the Asian Churches Qui gloriatur qui praedicat qui praetendit therefore such titles and such gloriation there was and such authority challenged by the Roman Bishops which he calls in that Epistle ruptio pacis long before the Nicen Council and the judgments and the pretended Apostolical traditions of these Bishops tho by these mistaken men censured and opposed yet by the orthodox followed and embraced § 34 As for the two places urged out of S. Cyprian against the acknowledgment of any such power or superiority of one Bishop over another and consequently of the Bishop of Rome the one out of the Council of Carthage in his works wherein being President he saith Neminem judicantes aut a jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium tamque judicari ab alio non possit quam nec ipse potest judicare Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi qui unus solus habet Potestatem de actu nostro judicandi And the other in the close of his and the Councils Epistle to Stephen Epistle 72. where he saith Haec ad conscientiam tuam Frater Charissime i.e. Stephane pertulimus credentes etiam tibi pro religionis tuae fidei veritate placere quae religiosa pariter vera sunt Caeterum scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle disponere nec proposstum sâ—um facile mutare sed salvo inter collegas pacis concordiae vinculo quaedam propria retinere Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus cum habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium iberum unusquisque Praepositus or Bishop rationem actus sui Domino redditurus In the first of these places the Father speaks of all Bishops having their free votes in the Council none lording it over the rest nor they to give account of such vote save to God alone This seems clear from the words immediately preceding Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus neminem judicantes c. which words they are pleased not to mention with the rest In the second he only saith of himself and the Council That they did not vim facere nor legem dare cuiquam Collegarum By which colleagues he means not Stephen the Bishop of Rome or any foreign but only some African Bishops who having no such former custom of rebaptizing any dissented from that Council's judgment as may be collected both from the words preceding here credimus tibi placere and from the former Epistle 71. to Quintus where he saith Nescio qua praesumptione ducuntur quidam de collegis nostris ut putent eos qui apud haereticos tincti sunt quando ad nos venerint baptizari non oportere this being spoken of his collegues Et qui hoc illis patrocinium de authoritate sua praestat cedit illis consentit c. this being spoken of Stephen who countenanced his African collegues But be these collegues whom they please of them I ask Were they subordinate and subject to this Council or not If they were then legem non damus must not be made equivalent to non licet dare And in doubtful matters as this must needs be on Cyprian's side going against the former general practice of the Church except that of his Predecessors t is many times great prudence legem non dare where there is a legislative power or if they were not subordinate then indeed non licuit legem illis dare But this rule non licet c. cannot be extended to other Governors where there is a subordination of others to them Now as there are Bishops and Councils coequal who therefore may not give the law to one another as the Bishop of one Diocess or one Provincial Council cannot regulate another so there are Bishops and Councils superior to others as above an ordinary Bishop are Metropolitans Primats Patriarchs above Councils Provincial are Patria chal General Therefore either S. Cyprian's words must not be so far extended as to assert
disliked repealed 2. That tho Metropolitan Synods in some times were not unfrequent yet Patriarchal Synods were never nor never well could be so nor find we any set times appointed for calling them as for calling the other so that as t is plain by many former instances that the Patriarch ordinarily did so t is all reason that he should decide some appeals without them tho in some cases extraordinary and of great consequence such Councils also were assembled 3. Since where they speak of the Metropolitans judging matters alone to have bin a practice only of latter times yet they allow this to be done upon very rational grounds observe that there were the same rational grounds of doing it anciently and again that the practice they justify for Metropolitans in latter times they have much more reason to allow to Patriarchs in all times because the greater the Councils are with the more trouble are they conven'd and lastly that the reformed Metropolitans themselves who blame the Bishop of Rome's managing Ecclesiastical affairs by himself alone i. e. without a Patriarchal Synod yet themselves think it reasonable to do the same thing themselves alone i. e. without their Provincial Synod authorizing their High-commission Court and blaming his Consistory Now what is allowed to Patriarchal proceedings without Councils in respect of appeals from their several Provinces the same it is that in the differences and contests of Patriarchs themselves and of other greater Bishops since it is meet for preserving the Church's peace and unity that some person or assembly should have the authority to decide these and since it is unreasonable and for the great trouble thereof not feisible that a General Council or also Patriarchal in all such differences should be assembled the same I say it is that by ancient custom and Ecclesiastical canons hath bin conferred on the Bishop of Rome with his Council tho granted liable to error He being more eminently honourable than the rest by reason of the larger extent of his Patriarchy of the great power and ancient renown of that City which in Spiritual matters he governed but especially of the two greatest Apostles Peter and Paul there ending their days in the government of that See and leaving him there the Successor of their power Yet is this office of supreme judicature so committed unto him that his judgments only stand in force till such a meeting and may be reviewed and where contrary to former canons reversed by it concerning which see the saying of S. Austin quoted before § 22. Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesie universae Concilium c. and the saying of Zosimus quoted § 22. n. 2. and the Epistle of Gelasius quoted § 25. n. 3. and what is said § 22. Now all Metropolitan and Patriarchal authority in the intervals of Councils being limited to the execution of Conciliary Laws and Canons or at least to the acting nothing against them if the question be asked who shall judge whether so they do I answer none but a superior Council till which their judgment stands good For as I have largely shewed elsewhere if Litigants once may judge of this when their Judges judge rightly and not against the laws and accordingly may yeild or substract their obedience such obedience is arbitrary In civil Courts Princes or their Ministers are obliged to judge according to or not against the laws of the Kingdom may the litigant therefore reject their judgment when it seems to him contrary to these laws I believe not § 38. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by Ecclesiastical Canon and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by the power Secular Thus much having bin said of the authority and jurisdiction given by Ecclesiastical constitutions and ancient customs and practice to some Ecclesiastical persons above others and amongst them supereminently above all the rest to the Roman Bishop and given to these persons not only as joined with Councils but as single Magistrates in the vacancy thereof in the next place these Propositions also I think must necessarily be granted First That whatever authority is thus setled upon any persons by the canons and customs of the Church concerning the managing of affairs not civil but meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical cannot be annulled and dissolved nor cannot be conferred contrary to the Church's constitutions on any other person by any Secular power neither by Heathen and unbelieving Princes who were enemies to the Church nor by Christian much less because these are in Spiritual matters Sons and Subjects of the Church and now obliged to obey her laws neither by the one who so might easily hinder the propagation of Christianity nor by the other who if happening at any time to be Heretical or Schismatical might easily hinder the profession of the Orthodox faith or disturb the Church's peace Thus Grotius a great Lawyer in Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. Imperatorum Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est At non tale quale in saeculi negotiis Ad tutandos non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparatum est Nam cum Principes filii sint Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti Omne corpus sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligentur hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28 Heb. 13.17 where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani And Obedite Praepositis etiam Regibus dictum See this discoursed more largely in Success Clerg § 64 65. 2. And further That it is Schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power so established and never since by the same Ecclesiastical laws reversed I say here concerning matters Ecclesiastical not Civil therefore let that Proposition of Dr. Hammond schism 6. c. p. 129. for me stand good That a Law tho made by a General Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes i. e. of that time yet if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that Nation be repealed i. e. by that Prince's Successors provided only That the ordaining or confirming of inferior Governors and Officers of the Church the assembling of Synods and decision of controversies of Religion the ordering Church-service and discipline the Ecclesiastical censures upon delinquents and the like for preventing or suppressing of Heresie Schism and Faction and for preserving the Church in unity of doctrine and practice Provided I say that such things be not reckoned amongst civil rights as they may not be because all these were things used by the Church under the heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet could they not have bin lawfully so used if any of these had encroached on civil rights in any of which civil rights the heathen Prince might claime as much lawful power to prohibit them as the Christian