and ceaseth to be any longer Catholick If then the former or present differences between the Roman and Greek Churches are such as have been by former Church-Authority superior to both Canonically decided and determin'd as suppose by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. or of that of Lions under Gregory X. or that of Florence under Eugenius IV. and the Eastern Churches disobeying these Acts have separated from or thereupon been rejected by the Roman Communion observing them Or again If the Greek Church have made a discession and rent from the Prime Patriarch of the Church and the Chair of St. Peter in denying any of those Priviledges and that Authority which rightly belongs to him over the whole Church of Christ in order to the preserving the perpetual Peace and Unity thereof things which it concerns me not here to determine the Greek Churches by this Separation from the Roman must stand guilty of a Schism from the Catholick Church and cease to be any true Members thereof Neither indeed have these Churches since this Division like wither'd branches retain'd any Dignity Authority Growth or Extent equal to the Roman or such as they had formerly this indeed hap'ning to them from the opression of an open enemy to Christianity but yet perhaps the same also an Instrument of God's displeasure against them § 79 Lastly As for the latest Division of the Reforming Party in the West much-what the same may be said of it as was but now of the Arian It is known when that single person stood alone who began it and it spread afterward by the support of the Secular power against Church-authority and when in its greatest growth but an inconsiderable part in comparison of the Whole Which also hath cast it off from her Communion condemn'd it by her Councils and permits not any of her Members to have any external Communion with it And tho at first by reason both of foreign Invasions from the Turk and many Civil Wars in Christian States it made especially in climates more remote from the residence and superintendency of the chief Hierarchy of the Church a very great and speedy increase yet the vigour of its age may be thought already past and it is a long time that it seems to be in its Wane and decadency expecting still and prophesying to it self the fall of Antichrist till it self by little and little be sunk down into its grave So many parts therefore as fall off once from their union with the main Body can be accounted no longer any members of the Church-Catholick nor yet lawfully continue a Church-Communion or Succession of Clergy among themselves Because there can be but unum Corpus as unus Dominus Christus Eph. 4.5 from which Body any part separated strait withereth and separated from the Body is so also from the Head Christ Tho all among these are not really cut off from the Head or Body that the Church externally separates from it by her Censures Which proceed upon these according to the outward profession which only the Church sees but cannot discern the inward affection and disposition which secretly may still continue some of those to the Body whom her Censures removes from it Such are the invincibly ignorant or those that without malice are involv'd in such Schism especially where the fundamental Faith is not diminish'd by any Heresie added to Schism But tho this plea of Ignorance invincible do seem good and credible for many in the present Greek Churches if these Churches may be concluded Schismatical kept in so much slavery illiterature and darkness yet it is to be fear'd it will fail many in the Reform'd Churches where too much presumption of Knowledg seems to be the chief thing that hath destroy'd their Obedience and Conformity to the whole FINIS THE THIRD TREATISE OF THE FIRST PART OF ANCIENT Church-Government REFLECTING On the late writings of several Learned Protestants Bishop Bramhall Dr. Field Dr. Fern Dr. Hammond and others on this Subject OXFORD Printed in the year M.DC.LXXXVIII CONTENTS SVbordination of Glergy § 1. Three Patriarchs only at the first § 2. The first of these the Bishop of Rome § 3. The extent of his Patriarchate The 2d the Bishop of Alexandria § 4. The 3d. the Bishop of Antioch § 5. From whence their Superiority over other Bishops § 6. The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome § 7. The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place § 8. The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors § 9. Where concerning the authority of the Council of Sardica § 11. A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Appeals § 12. Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary § 14. Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination yet subjected for decision of controversies § 18. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch § 20. The power of Jurisdiction not only Primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops ib. This power exemplified in the Primitive time to the end of the 6th age the days of Gregory the Great § 21 to 31. A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum § 22. A Digression concerning the Title of Universalis Epipiscopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops § 26. A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Ravenna and Justiniana prima urged by Dr. Hammond § 30. The authority of this See of Rome by Protestants allowed to be the more orthodox in all other divisions that have bin made from it save only their own § 31. n. 2. By the former clear allegations some other controverted sayings of the Fathers expounded § 32. c. The Protestants ordinary replies to the authorities above cited to me seeming not satisfactory § 36. That such power which was anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome was not exercised by him jointly only with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended § 37. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by the Ecclesiastical Canons and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by any power secular § 38. The concessions of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this matter § 39. Several pretences to weaken such Canons to me seeming invalid § 41. That obedience due may not be withdrawn upon Governors undue claimes § 47. That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Ecclesiastical Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not change them § 48. That Prelats and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Council shall reverse them § 49. Reflections upon what hath him said That the
the are a part and to their own But when these three titles are pretended by three several persons but one of them can stand in force Or if any one will say that possession can never relate save only to one single title yet if this be granted that there may be several titles inherent in the same person of which the one failing the possession may still justly relate to another And will come to one namely this That no other can dispossess this person unless he first prove not only one but all his titles faulty Thus much that a Primatship a Patriarchiship and an Universal Headship may be well consistent in one person This rub being removed now to go on But tho the fore-nam'd Writers much straiten the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction § 3. n. 4. and make his Primateship and Patriarchship both one yet Balsamon in his Explication of the Nicene Canons and Nilus in his Book against the Primacy no great Friends to the Greatness of Rome looking upon that authority which he always exercis'd over the other Metropolitans of the West of which more hereafter besides that which he had over his own more particular Suburbican Diocess do enlarge this his Patriarchship to all the West Quoniam Romanus Episcopus praeest Occidentalibus Provinciis saith Balsamon Balsamon and Nilus interpret the words of the Nicene Decree saith Dr. Field l. 5. c. 31. that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have the charge of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the Confirming of the Metropolitans in those parts because the Bishop of Rome who hath care of the West Confirmeth the Metropolitans of the West And before these Zomaras a Greek Writer likewise on Conc. Sard. can 5. granteth the more Westernly of the Eastern Provinces at that time to have belong'd to the Roman Church To the Roman Church saith he were the subject all the Western Churches namely those of Macedonia Thessalia Illyricum Epirus which were afterward subjected to the Church of Constantinople And likewise Dr. Field being press'd with many instances not denyable concerning the Bishop of Rome's authority most anciently exercis'd over the Bishops not only of Spain France Africk c. in the West but also of some parts of Greece Thebes Thessalonica Corinth c. in the East whereby they endeavour'd to prove his Universal Vicaria Headship over all the Church is glad to plead That the Roman Bishop used such authority not as Head of all the Church but as Patriarch of the West embracing Balsamon's opinion and proving out of Cusanus that such places as are urged by the Romanists do belong to the Roman Patriarchship Which Patriarchship the other Doctors labouring to straiten how they will avoid another Universal Super-intendentship of the same Bishop urg'd by the Roman party I see not See Field l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. c. 38. p. 560. c. 39. p. 570. and p. 568. where he hath these words Appeals of ancient time wont to be made out of France to Rome no way prove the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop unless we will acknowledg every one of the Patriarchs to have been so too it being lawful to appeal unto them out of any the remotest Provinces subject to them And c. 38. p. 560. where Dr. Field confesseth that Leo who liv'd in the time of the fourth General Council constituted Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicegerent for the parts thereabouts as others his Predecessors had done former Bishops of that Church which saith he causing great resort thither upon divers occasions may be thought to have been the reason why the Council of Sardica Can 20. provideth that the Clergy-men of other Churches shall not make too long stay at Thessalonica this Council of Sardica was about twenty years after that of Nice So the same Leo made Potentius the Bishop his Vicegerent in the parts of Africa Hormisda Bishop of Rome about ann 500. Salustius Bishop of Hispalis in Baetica and Lusitania and Gregory Virgilius Bishop of Arles in the Regions of France all these places being within the compass of the Patriarchship of Rome And the same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana prima who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts upon signification of the Emperor's will and desire that it should be so Thus he To this I will add the testimony of Innocent I. Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time who Epist 1. Decentio Episcopo Eugubino prescribing some Roman Orders to be observ'd in the Western Churches there gives a more particular reason of their obedience to observe the Rules and Customs of the Roman See namely their conversion to Christianity by it Quis enim nesciat saith he aut non advertat id quod a Principe Apostolorum Petro Romanae ecclesiae traditum est ac nunc usque custoditur ab omnibus debere servari c. praesertim cum sit manifestum in omnem Italiam Gallias Hispanias Aphricam atque Siciliam insulasque interiacentes nullum instituisse Ecclesias nisi eos quos venerabilis Apostolus Petrus aut ejus successores constituerunt sacerdotes c. And afterward he saith Quibus i.e. Decentius his proposals idcirco respondimus non quod te aliqua ignorare credamus sed ut majori authoritate vel tuos instituas vel si qui a Romanae ecclesiae institutionibus errant aut commoneas aut indicare i. e. to the Bishop of Rome non differas ut scire valeamus qui sint qui aut novitates inducunt aut alterius ecclesiae quam Romanae existimant consuetudinem esse servandam The sufficiency of the reason given here I will not now dispute but this appears that over all those Churches he then exercis'd some authority And see below § 23. and elsewhere many instances of the Roman Bishops authority exercis'd over the Bishops of France of Spain and other Western Provinces before the sitting of the first Council of Nice to all which therefore and not only to the regiones suburbicariae must the 6th Nicene Canon Mos antiquus perduret be extended § 4 Thus much of the first Patriarch The second was the Bishop of Alexandria The second the Bishop of Alexandria containing under his Patriarchship all the Archbishops and Bishops of Egypt and Lybia § 5 The third of Antioch containing under him all the Archbishops and Bishops of the East The third the Bishop of Antioch and amongst the rest the Bishop of Jerusalem whose Metropolitan as also of all Palestine was the Bishop of Caesarea But he subject to the Antiochian Patriarch See Hierom's Epistle to Pammachius against John Bishop of Jerusalem Ni fallor hoc ibi i. e. in Concilio Niceno ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit totius Orientis Antiochia Aut igitur ad Caesariensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras cui spreta communione tua communicare nos noveras aut si procul expetendum judicium erat Antiochiam potius literae dirigendae § 6 And these
est Ipse decoravit sedem in qua Evangelistam discipulum misit Ipse firmavit sedem in qua septem annis quamvis discessurus sedit Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes cui ex authoritate divina tres nunc Episcopi praesident quicquid ego de vobis boni audio hoc mihi imputo Concil Gen. 8. at Constantinople can 21. Quisquis autem tale facinus contra sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare c. By these passages you see he Primacy and Priviledges whatever they were of the Roman Bishop anciently imputed to his Succession in the See of S. Peter and S. Paul and not or not chiefly or only to the Secular eminency of Rome But a chief reason also of the so high advancement of these three cities above all the rest notwithstanding that there were some other Apostolical Seats Hierusalem Ephesus preferable before Alexandria and many other cities more dignified as was urged by the Roman Bishops against that clause in Conc. Chalced. propter imperium civitatis Romae than either Alexandria or Antioch seems to be because these cities in the begining and first spreading of Christianity in those several quarters of the world the East the West and the South were replenished with a much greater number of Christians than others and were the Mother-churches of all the rest These three cities as Dr. Hammond notes Schism 3. c. p. 58. having the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations For the Churches of Asia were converted by Emissaries from Antioch Act. 13.2 4. and those of Egypt c from Alexandria and the Western from Rome Concerning which see the testimony of Innocentius the first Pope A. D. 408. in his Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium quoted before 3. § Tho I do not deny that Alexandria in Egypt having bin the Seat of the Successors of Ptolomy and Antioch in Asia of the Successors of Seleucus and under the Romans being the place of Residence of those their Governors who were set over the adjacent Provinces this might somewhat advance the propagation of Christianity more from these cities of so great resort than from others § 7 In the 2d General Council The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome A. D. 381. Constantinople being now made great by the Seat of the Empire translated thither its Bishop was advanced into a fourth Patriarch and that in the second place next to Rome which thing was also confirmed in the 4. Gen. Conc. Chalced granting him Act. 16. aequa senioris regiae Romae privilegia i.e. as they there and in their Letter to Leo Act. 3 explain themselves to exercise in such a sence as the 2d General Council had decreed before them a Patriarchal authority in ordaining the Metropolitans of certain Provinces and the Bishops also in some others as also to have the last place of Appeal Can. 9. in respect of those parts of the Church with this salvo annexed in behalf of the Roman Bishop omnem quidem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum Canones Antiquae Romae Archiepiscopo conservari and as it is said in the 2d General Concil 5th Can. to which former Canon they refer Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportere primatus honorem post Romanum Episcopum propter quod sit Nova Roma tho this priority of the Bishop of Constantinople to Alexandria and Antioch was in this Council of Chalcedon much opposed in the behalf of those two Sees Dioscorus then Bishop of Alexandria being excluded from this Council for Heresy and so at this time uncapable of pleading for himself by Leo the then Bishop of Rome And it seems that the former 5th Canon but now recited made by the Bishops in that part of the 2d General Council which was assembled at Constantinople as also the three other Canons there preceding it which were recited in Concil Chalced. Act. 16. were either unknown or not at all regarded by the other part of the 2d General Council the Western Bishops who were assembled shortly after that time at Rome For thus saith Leo of these Canons or Acts in Ep. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Nunquam a praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostolicae Sedis transmissa notitiam and thus his Legats in Conc. Chalced. 16. Act. Quae in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur Neither indeed was any such Canon mentioned by the Constantinopolitan Bishops of the 2d General Council when they writ to Damasus concerning its Acts. See 1. conc Constantinop Nor was this foresaid 5th Canon when most opportunely it might but only the Nicene 6th Canon pleaded by S. Chrysostom against Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria offering to judge and depose him Wherefore Baronius conceives it to be made only by a part of that Council after Timotheus the Bishop of Alexandria was departed thence But however this Patriarch was not long after that contention of Leo's rather by their not contradiction than approbation indulged that honour also by the Roman Bishops themselves doubtless as conceiving it no abridgment of their own authority some Metropolitans being taken from the other Patriarchates The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times and subjected to it The great extent of which Patriarchy in latter times especially if you be curious to know see Dr. Field 3. l. 1. c. where he assigns for one reason of such an enlargment of its jurisdiction the conversion of sundry nations and people to the Christian faith by that Bishops Suffragans and Ministers § 8 Again in the 5th Gen. Council abou A. D. 550. the Bishop of Hierusalem out in honour to the Holy City The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place was made the 5th Patriarch after some honour and respects beyond other Bishops first given or rather wished to him by the Nicene Council see 7. Canon some Bishops both from that of Alexandria and Antioch being translated to his Jurisdiction § 9 Amost these above-named Dignities Ecclesiastical the Metropolitans were to ordain or confirm the Bishops of their Province The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors and the Patriarch was to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans subject unto him either by imposition of hands or by mission of the Pall. See Concil Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Action where advancing the Constantinopolitan Bishop to Patriarchal authority in the second place to Rome they conclude oportere ipsum potestatem habere ordinare Metropolitanos c. ut penes eum sit hunc qui electus est confirmare repudiareve See 8. Gen. Conc. Constant 17. c. See Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 518. Patriarchs were by the order of the 8. General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And 5.
l. 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And What the bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the precinct of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had and that therefore he might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece France and Spain as Bellarmin alledgeth being all within the compass of his Patriarchship See Bishop Bramhal vindic 9. c. p. 257. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterwards Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority in ordaining their Metropolitans for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall in convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them c when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent differences or difficulties Thus he Neither might any Metropolitan upon any cause separate himself from the communion of his Patriarch before the examination and sentence of a Council first passed in his behalf See 8. General Council 10. c. whose words are Nullus Clericus ante diligentem examinationem Synodicam sententiam a communione proprii Patriarchae se separet licet criminalem quamlibet causam ejus se nosse praetendat nec recuset nomen ipsius referre inter divina mysteria Idem statuimus de Episcopis erga proprios Metropolitas similiter de Metropolitis circa Patriarcham suum Qui vero contra fecerit ab omni Sacerdotali operatione honore decidat Ante Synodicam sententiam i. e. of a Council superior to the Metropolitan for the lower cannot judge the higher no not tho assembled together in a council See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 567. as an Episcopal Synod cannot judge the Metropolitan And the firmlier to bind and confine the inferior to the judgment of the superior orders of the Clergy the Church made frequent Canons against their starting aside by appeals to the judgment of Seculars whether of others or also of the Emperor himself See Concil Antiochen 11. c. 12. c. Concil Sardica 8. c. Concil Chalced. 9. c. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non relinquat suum Episcopum ad saecularia judicia non concurrat c. Conc. Melevitanum 19. c. Placuit ut quicunque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum i.e. Ecclesiasticorum petierit honore proprio privetur c. And see Conc. Generale 8. c. 17. 21. This for Patriarchs superiority over and their cotfirmation of Metropolitans Next amongst the Patriarchs themselves § 10 it seems the lower received no ordination from the higher But yet some confirmation or approbation they seem ordinarily to have had from their Superiors or at least from the Roman Patriarch by those words of Leo Ep. 54. ad Martianum the then Emperor concerning Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Satis est quod praedicto vestrae pietatis auxilio mei favoris assensu Episcopatum tantae Vrbis obtinuit And custodire debuit ut quod nostro beneficio noscitur consecutus nullius pravitatis cupiditate turbaret Nos enim vestrae fidei interventionis habentes intuitum cum secundum suae consecrationis authores ejus initia titubarent benigniores circa ipsum quam justiores esse voluimus quo perturbationes omnes quae operante Diabolo fuerunt excitatae adhibitis remediis leniremus Thus discourseth the Pope to the Emperor conscious of all those proceedings concerning his establishing of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch and by the suit made to the Pope concerning the settlement of Flavianus in the Patriarchy of Antioch of which see Theodoret hist Eccles 5. l. 23. c. Likewise concerning the confirming of superior Patriarchs by the inferior that is true which Dr. Field 5. l. 37. c. p. 551. saith in answer to such places urged by Bellarmin That the manner was that the Patriarchs should upon notice given of their due Ordination and Synodal letters containing a profession of their Faith mutually give assent one to another Therefore Cyprian Antoniano Ep. 52. speaks thus concerning the legitimate election of Cornelius Bishop of Rome whom Novatianus endeavoured to supplant Factus est Cornelius Episcopus cum Fabiani locus vacaret quo loco occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato quisquis jam Episcopus Romae fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est c. But that which Dr. Field adds there viz. That the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained no otherwise to the Bishop of Rome than the right of confirming Him pertained unto Them cannot justly be defended even from his own concessions elsewhere 5. l. 34. c. p. 528. c. of which see more below § 24. For no other Bishop could be a lawful Patriarch without the approbation of the Bishop of Rome the prime Patriarch whose withdrawing his communion from any was withdrawing the communion of the whole Church which hath always continued united to this Apostolick chair and yet the Bishop of Rome was lawfully such without the approbation of every other Patriarch so long as his election is not disallowed by the conjunct Hierarchy or the whole representative of the Church gathered togegether in a Council as it happened in the Council of Constance He may have an authority over other Bishops or Patriarchs single which none of them singly hath over him and yet all of them conjoin'd may have the same authority over Him as he hath over any of them single one singulis major may be minor universis Of which see more below § 22. n. 2. and in 2. Part. § 20. § 11. n. 2. Likewise Appeals were permitted from inferior Ecclesiastical to superior Judges and Courts but not of all causes and persons whatever to the supreamest Court lest so should be no end of contentions So the inferior Clergy in their differences might appeal from their Bishop to their Metropolitan and his Council Provincial or National who were finally to determine such controversies and such persons to acquiesce in them Again Bishops might appeal from their Metropolitan or from any inferior Courts to their Patriarch and his Council whose final decision in ordinary contests they were to rest in and who from the remotest of his Provinces upon appeal might either bring the cause to be heard by himself if the moment of the business so requir'd or send e latere suo presbyteros to use the expression of the 7th can of Sardic Conc. or depute some other Bishops of that or some other neighbouring Province to hear the matter where it was acted Or lastly command the Appealant to acquiesce in the former sentence given See for both these the Appeals of inferior Clergy and also of Bishops Conc. Chalced. can 9. compar'd
he found him wrongfully Suspended and therefore t is true also that the 6th canon Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commisit but not in every case unappealably to Superiors as appears by the African Bishop's qualification in that Epistle Ne festinato ne praepropere quoted before As for the several Reasons they give to these it may be replied on the other side That the Patriarch tho he were neither more prudent nor better informed from others in difficult matters nor more assisted from Heaven yet t is probable that such might as having a more choice election both be more knowing and according to the eminency of his place assisted both with a wiser Council and a greater portion of God's Spirit yet must he needs be a less partial Judge in such matters because not so nearly interessed in the cause nor in the persons as the Metropolitan often must be or also other Bishops who live upon the place and are subject to his power That the Provincial Councils which they mention tho their judgment were never so entire were not always to be had and were much seldomer assembled than the Canons appoint much rarer yet Councils universal neither of them by reason of the great trouble fit upon every such difference to be called And hence fails that Apology which Dr. Field 5. l. 39 c. p. 563. makes for the Africans in these words The Africans tho within the Patriarchship of Rome disliked the Appeals of Bishops to Rome because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a general Synod of Africk wherein the Primat sate as President for otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the canons appeal to their own Patriarch Thus far he Therefore the Africans denying this went against the canons That the canons of the Council of Sardica which the African Bishops then knew not of were sufficient to warrant his receiving of such appeals and if any former African decrees be pleaded against him much more may these of Sardica for him That many cases are not matter of fact where witnesses are necessary but questions de jure where the fact is confessed and that in such no more plea can be made to have them tried at home than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have demanded not to have this matter arbitrated at Jerusalem or Arius of Alexandria at Nice That for the conveniency of hearing witnesses where necessary in such appeals it was ordered indeed anciently that whensoever it could safely be done such causes should be arbitrated in the same or some adjoining Provinces by some Judges either sent thither or there delegated by the Patriarch of which the 7th canon of Sardica seems to take special care in the non-observance of which canons some Roman Bishops perhaps may have bin culpable and caused great affliction to their subjects but yet that other exigencies might occur every cause not being fit to be decided by delegates which required the trial to be at the Patriarchal residency to which the trouble of witnesses must give place which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council see Conc. Sard. can 4. And this grave Assembly we have no reason to think but that they weighed the troubles of such appeals as well as the Africans afterward or we now but thought fit to admit smaller inconveniences to avoid greater mischiefs namely in the intervals of Councils schisms and divisions between Provincial and between National Churches by the Church her having thus so many Supremes terminating all Spiritual causes within themselves as there were Provinces or countries Christian See Dr. Field allowing such appeals below § 20. and especially S. Austin Ep. 162. where he justifies the appeal of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage wronged by a Council of 70. Bishops held in Africk whereof was President the Primat of Numidia whose power and authority Dr. Hammond equals to that of Patriarchs Schism 3. c. p. 58. to a transmarine judgment tho Donatus his party much crying out against such appeals and tho it was in a matter meerly of fact namely whether Caecilian was ordained by some who were traditores sacrorum Codicum igni in time of persecution because such judgment was dis-engaged in the quarrel His words are Sibi i.e. Caeciliano videbat apud Ecclesiam transmarinam a privatis inimicitiis ab utraque parte dissensionis alienam incorruptum integrum examen suae causae remanere And again Qui i.e. Caecilianus posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimicorum i.e. in Africk cum se videret Romanae Ecclesiae in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus caeteris terris per communicatorias literas esse conjunctum ubi paratus esset causam suam dicere for all Churches had power to clear and examin his cause in respect of entertaining communion with him and sending their communicatory letters c. tho all Churches had not such power in respect of righting him against his adversaries but only his superior Patriarch Again An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primas Numidiae Tigisitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum Quid quod nec usurpavit Rogatus quippe Imperator Judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent This transmarine judgment here you see S. Austin justifies notwithstanding the Donatists might have used the foresaid § 12. plea of the African Fathers of the 6th Council and of Cyprian especially in the trial of a matter of fact § 15 But concerning this foreign judgment of Caecilians cause before I leave it I must not conceal to you what Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 7. s 10. relates thereof in prejudice of the Pope's authority objecting there That Caecilian had his cause tried indeed by the Bishop of Rome but by him only as the Emperor 's Delegate and not by him singly but with other special Delegates join'd with him that from this judgment an appeal being made by Caecilian's adversaries then the Emperor Constantine so great an honorer of the Church's privileges appointed the Bishop of Arles in France Qui sedet Judex saith he ut post Roman Pontificem quod visum fuerit pronunciet And again an appeal being made from him also 't is further urg'd That the Emperor judg'd the cause after all himself For answer to which I refer you to the relation of this story by St. Augustin against the Donatists Epist 162. where you will find those Assessors to be join'd by the Emperor to the Bishop of Rome ad preces Donatistarum who well knew Melchiades much favouring Caecilian's cause You may see Constantine's Letter to Melchiades and Marcus one of his Assessors in Eus l. 1. c. 5. The Donatists here cast pretending some new evidence requested of the Emperor yet another hearing of their cause upon which dedit Ille
reformare judicia quae putabantur Romam esse deferenda leviora absolvere graviora Domino Papae referre Thus He. And indeed § 20. n 2. frequent examples there are of the Bishop of Rome's using a judicial authority in some maters over the chiefest members of the Universal Church Frequent examples of wronged both Bishops and Patriarchs appealing and repairing unto him for redress even in early times when his power is said to have bin so great Which redress he afforded them By summoning their adversaries also tho under another Patriarchat to appear before him By examining their cause and declaring them innocent by and with his own Patriarchal Council or with so many Bishops as could well be conven'd if the cause were of moment By allowing and retaining them in his communion By declaring the proceedings and acts of their adversaries when discover'd by him to be against the former Ecclesiastical Canons null and void Whilst He as the prime Bishop of the world seemed to have a superintendency in the interval of General Councils for the observation of the Ecclesiastical Canons established by former Synods not only if we may judge by the practice of those ancient and holy Bishops of Rome over his own Patriarchat but over the whole Church of which see more § 21. and 25. c. by writing to other Patriarchs and Synods to do the same and to permit them quietly to enjoy their Dignities by pronouncing the sentence of Excommunication upon refractory offenders tho it were those of the highest Dignity see below § 23. n. 5 6. § 25 c. And lastly if the greatness of the cause and of the opposition and their non-acquiescence in his judgment so required by calling other Bishops of what Dignity soever before him and his Council or by citing a General Council for their relief See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 35. p. 536 538. Now why such repair was made to him and such primacy and power given him beyond all other Bishops by ancient Church-custom and Canons whether from the Dignity of the imperial City where he was Bishop or whether from St. Peter and St. Paul's last residence in this their most eminent seat and Martyrdom there leaving the Regiment of the Church of God which they both finally exercis'd in this place in that Bishop's hands when they died for some reason there must be that Antiquity so specially applied Sedes Apostolica when-as many others were so too to that See beyond all others and that the Appealants and others made their honourable addresses to it not as Sedes Imperialis for such addresses to Rome ceased not to be still when the Emperor 's chief residence was in the East but as Sedes Apostolica or whether for both these for both these are compatible enough it little concerns me to examine Only de facto such honour and respect to be given him is most evident So those famous Worthies of the Church amongst others Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paulus and Chrysostom Bishops of Constantinople and Theodoret a Bishop in Syria when oppressed at home appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synods see Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 570. In which Appeals what the Pope's power in those times was accounted to be and what interest his Authority challeng'd in respect of the Eastern parts of the Church I think you will remain partly well satisfied notwithstanding the great contests in this matter if you please to read these quotations which travelling thro by five or six of the first Ages with some trouble to my self I have transcribed to save your pains lest perhaps you should not have the opportunity or the leisure or at least the curiosity to seek them in their several Authors Wherein yet I could wish if you seriously seek satisfaction in this matter you would review them I being forc'd for avoiding further tediousness to omit many circumstances § 21 See the testimony of the Ecclesiastical Historians The seventh Chapter of the third Book of Sozomen This power exemplified in the primitive times to the end of the 6 Age the days of Gregory the Great extending to § 36. who liv'd in the fifth Age contemporary to St. Leo where concerning Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria their repair to the Bishop of Rome Julius he saith Cum propter Sedis dignitatem cura omnium ad ipsâ—m spectaret singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit scripsitque ad Episcopos Orientis eosque incusavit c. deditque mandatum ut quidam illorum omnium nomine ad diem constitâ—tum accederent Quinetiam minatus est se de reliquo non passurum c. The 11th Chapter of the second Book of Socrates where he saith Julius Bishop of Rome sent Letters to the Oriental Bishops c. quoniam Ecclesia Romana privilegium praeter caeteras obtinebat and that Paulus and Athanasius ad suas ipsorum EcclesiaÌ„s redibant literis Julâ—â— confisi concerning which priviledg we have less reason to rely on the judgment of those Arrian Bishops opposing and scoffing at them than on the orthodox Paulus and Athanasius acknowledging and seeking relief from them See the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arrians wherein he saith Judicatum est non semel secundum nos sed saepius ac saepius primum quidem in nostra Provincia c. Secundo Romae nobis caeterisque adversariis Eusebii ad ejus criminosas literas in judicio comparentibus Fuere autem in eo consensu plures quam 50 Episcopi the Pope with 50 of his Western Bishops hearing his cause The Epistle of Julius to the Oriental Bishops assembled at Antioch written before the Council of Sardica and so before the 7th Canon thereof was compos'd and publish'd by Athanasius in that his second Apology wherein are such passages as these unto them Quum iidem illi those sent from the Eastern Bishosp authores mihi fuerunt ut vos convocarem certe id a vobis aegre ferri non debuit sed potius alacriter ad citationem occurrere Cur igitur in primis de Alexandrina civitate nihil nobis scribere voluistis An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit qua propter si istic hujusmodi suspicio in Episcopum concepta fuerat id huc ad nostram Ecclesiam referri oportuit Quae accepimus a Beato Petro Apostolo ea vobis significo And the same thing which Julius mentions here An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse c. and before it Oportuit secundum Canonem non isto modo judicium fieri c. is also found urg'd by Innocentius amongst S. Austin's Epistles Ep. 91. Quod illi i. e. Patres non humana sed divina decrevere sententia ut quicquid de disjunctis remotisque Provinciis ageretur non prius ducerent finiendum nisi ad hujus sedis notitiam perveniret
Donatus Qualis saith he ipsius Melchiadis ultima est pâ—rlata sâ—ntentia i. e. in judging the cause of Donatus qua neque collegas i. e. the African Bishops in quibus nihil constiterat de collâ—gio suo from his Communion ausus est removere Donato solo quem totius mali principem invenerat maxime culpato sanitatis recuperandae optionem liberam caeteris fecit parâ— tus communicatorias litteras mittere etiam iis quos a Majorino a Donatist Bishop ordinatos esse constaret ita ut quibuscunque in locis in Africk dâ—o essent Episcopi quos dissâ—nsio geminasset eum confirmari vellet qui fuisset ordinatus prior c. alteri autem eorum plebs alia regenda provideretur O filium Christianae pacis patrem Christianae plebis Thus St. Austin of Melchiades Bishop of Rome his ordering the African affairs See the Council of Arles call'd by Constantine before Nice see in Euseb l. 10. c. 5. his Epistle summoning the Bishop of Syracuse to it in which were some Bishops from England see Bishop of Derry Vind c. 5. p. 98. Hammond Sch s c. 6. p. 110. sending their Decrees to Sylvester then Bishop of Rome and in their first Canon thus bespeaking him Quae decrevimus significamus c. De observatione Paschae Domini ut uno die tempore per omnem orbem observetur juxta consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas Now to go on in the occurrences of the fifth Age. See the Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome before and in the time of the fourth General Council the 53d Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople § 23. n. 8. the 54th to the Emperor Marcianus the 55th to the Empress Pulcheria wherein he vindicates the derivation of his authority not from the Imperial City but the Apostles and concerning that Act of the Bishops in Conc. Chalc. advancing the Bishop of Constantinople above the second Patriarch of Alexandria which he judg'd contrary to the Nicene Canons he saith Epistle to Pulcheria Consensiones vero Episcoporum sanctorum Canonum aepud Nicaenum conditorum regulis repugnantes unita nobiscum vestrae fidei pietate in irritum mittimus per authoritatem Beati Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassemus c. His Epistle 84. to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica Sicut Praedecessores mei Praedecessoribus tuis ita etiam ego dilectioni tuae priorum secutus exemplum vices mei moderaminis delegavi ut curam quam universis Ecclestis principaliter ex divina institutione debemus adjuvâ—res longâ—nquis ab Apostolica Sede provinciis praesentiam quodammodo nostrae visitationis impenderes see below § 25. n. 13. where the same things are said of the Bishop of Constantinople as here of Thessalonica promptum tibi agnoscere quid vel tuo studio componeres vel nostro judicio reservares And in the close of the Epistle Magna dispositione provisum est ne omnes sibi omnia vendicarent sed essent in singulis Provinciis singuli quorum inter Fratres haberetur prima sententia Metropolitans rursus quidam in majoribus urbibus constituti solicitudinem susciperent ampliorem Primats or those amongst them deputed by the Patriarch per quos ad unam Petri Sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret nihil unquam a Capite suo dissideret This is spoken of the Church Universal To which may be added that expression of his quoted before § 6. Caput orbis effecta latius praesides religione divina now quam dominatione terrena formerly Seconded by Prosper 2. l. de vocatione Gentium Roma per Sacerdotii Principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis quam solio Potestatis and lib. de Ingratis Sedes Roma Petri quae Pastoralis honoris Facta Caput mundo quicquid non possidet armis Relligione tenet c. To the latter of these places Dr. Field 5l 34. c. p. 529. c. answers That more were subject to it than ever were under the Roman Empire as it had a presidency amongst them of Order and Honour not of Supreme power To the other he saith The care of the Universal Church is to be understood only in respect of things concerning the common faith and general state of the Church or of the principal most eminent and highest parts and members of the same Be it so for of such only we speak none of which things might be proceeded-in without the Bishop of Rome and his colleagues So a little before p. 528. he saith All things generally concerning the whole Church were either to take beginning or at the least to seek confirmation from the Roman Bishops before they were generally imposed and prescribed But Quaere whether if this Bishop denied his consent the rest might proceed no further without it and whether if he refused to confirm such acts they might not be at all imposed and whether as the eminentest persons in their differences might be judged by Him so they were bound to submit to his as to their Superior's judgment Else if he mean only that they were first to ask his consent or judgment but upon a denial or a displeasing sentence might proceed to establish things against it how consists this with that conclusion ut nihil unquam a capite suo dissideret To search a little further to see if the Dr. speaks plainer Below in the p. 530. he saith In cases which concerned the principal Patriarchs whether they were differences between them and their Bishops or between themselves the chief See as the principal part of the whole Church might interpose it self So as other Patriarchs likewise of the higher thrones might interpose themselves in matters concerning Patriarchs of the lower thrones But I ask How interpose by judging and determining the causes of their inferiors by excommunicating and deposing c the persons obnoxious noxious and criminal But then the Presidency of Rome will be a presidency of Power over the rest of the Church and not of Honour only And must not he mean some such thing by interpose since in his instances there this interposing proves to be judging excommunicating deposing c and so he grants that the ordering and setling of things of the Church of Antioch the 3d. See did pertain to the Patriarch of Alexandria the 2d See and he goeth on and saith That the Bishops of inferior thrones might not judge the superior and therefore That John of Antioch of the 3d. See is reprehended Act. Conc. Ephes for judging Cyril Bishop of the 2d See and Dioscorâ—s Bishop of the 2d See is condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in their Ep. ad Martian Imp. and ad Leonem Act. 3. for this thing among others That he presumed to judge the first See i. e. the Bishop thereof Leo. Where note That both John's and Dioscorus his judging was excommunicating their superior Bishops and done not singly but with their Council of Bishops And again observe That had
sibi tentet ascribere omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per electionem Pompatici sermonis i.e. Universalis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare Si enim dici hoc licenter permittitur honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur fortasse is in errore perit qui Vniversalis dicitur nullus jam Episcopus in statu veritatis invenitur I say as he hath these passages for which he is quoted by the Reformed as making much against the power which the Bishops of the Roman See claim so hath he other as it were an Antidote in the very same Epistle wherein he establisheth clearly that authority of the Roman Bishop which they oppose Whence it follows either that these places are urged by the Reformed in a mistaken fence or that he palpably contradicts himself and that with the same breath as it were Thus therefore saith he in the same Epistle Relatum est ergo ad Apostolicam Sedem Johannem vos ex hac sua praesumptione ad Synodum convocare Generalem cum Generalium Synodorum convocandi authoritas Apostolicae Sedi B. Petri singulari privilegio sit tradita nulla unquam Synodus rata legatur quae Apostolica authoritate non fuit fulta Quapropter quicquid in praedicto vestro Conventiculo statuistis ex authoritate S. Petri Apostolorum Principis Domini Salavatoris voce qua B. Petro potestatem ligandi atque solvendi ipse Salvator dedit quae etiam potestas in Successoribus ejus indubitanter transivit Praecipio omnia quae ibi statuisti vana cassata esse Multis denuo Apostolicis Canonicis atque Ecclesiasticis instruimur regulis non debere absque sententia Romani Pontificis Concilia celebrari Orate Fratres ut honor Ecclesiasticus nostris diebus non evacuetur nec unquam Romana Sedes quod instituente Domino Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum Privilegiis suis usquam careat aut exspolietur Haec Fratres valde cavenda sunt praecepta Domini atque sanctae Sedis Apostolicae quae vice Domini Salvatoris legatione fungitur monita fideliter amplectenda peragenda Lastly being consulted by them concerning the subordinate judgments of the Church he writes thus Non oportet ut degradetur vel dehonoretur unaquaeque Provincia sed apud semetipsam habeat judices i. e. for its judges Sacerdotes Episcopos singulos viz. juxta ordines suos quicunque causam habuerit a suis judicibus judicetur non ab alienis id est a suae justis judicibus Provinciae non ab exteris nisi ut jam praelibatum est a judicandis fuerit appellatum Si vero inter ipsius Provinciae Episcopos discrepare coeperit ratio c ad majorem tunc Sedem referantur As to the Constantinopolitan or Antioch Et si illae facile juste non discernuntur i.e. which is the major Sedes in respect of that Province ubi fuerit Synodus regulariter congregata Canonice juste judicentur Majores vero difficiles quaestiones ut sancta Synodus statuit beata consuetudo exigit ad Sedem Apostolicam semper referantur Whereby you see that the first See of Rome interessed her self not in all but the highest and difficultest matters of controversie where former judgments were ununanimous or were appealed from Likewise by the former passages t is plain that Pelagius challengeth that Supremacy to the Roman See which is denied by Protestants and alloweth the term of Summus Patriarcha as Summus implies some power and jurisdiction over all the rest whereby they become subordinate but not of Vniversalis Patriarcha as Vniversalis implies that there can be none besides for that only is universale extra quod nihil and is a term whereby all the rest are degraded And in this fence also afterward Gregory Pelagius his Successor arguing against the same John Constant took the same word when he saith Ep. 34. Constant Augustae Despectis omnibus praedictus Frater Coepiscopus meus solus conatur appellari Episcopus See the same again Ep. 38. Johanni Episcopo Constant And Ep. 32. Vniversa Ecclesia cum statu suo corruit quando is qui appellatur Vniversalis cadit But neither Gregory nor Pelagius denied it at least as applied to the Roman Bishop in that sense in which the Reformed urge it i.e. as it implies a Supreme power in some one Bishop over all the rest and as it intimates not praeter quem nemo sit but qui remanentibus partibus integris ipse caeteris superemineat as Baronius hath it Since in the same place where they deny the one as it were with the same breath they maintain the other and since in that sense this Title was sometimes given to the Roman Bishops tho Pelagius and Gregory do not like the name because so easily interpretable in a sense not justifiable or rather jealous that the Constantinopolitan Bishop as presiding in the Imperial City in using that word unjustly sought to undermine them in their Primacy at least for the Eastern parts of the Church they extend the sense of the word to its whole latitude and further than in all probability he meant it to make it be the sooner laid aside But not long after within two or three years of Gregory's death by the Emperour Phocas offended with Cyriacus the then Patriarch of Constantinople as this title was taken from the Constantinopolitan so was it inoffensively applied to the Roman See Yet without the attribution or access of any authority to that See which cannot be shewed to have bin formerly practised by it as also this title had bin aforetime in the Council of Chalcedon given that Bishop without any contradiction of those Fathers See Concil Chalced. Act. 3. Thus much concerning the Title of Oecumenicus or Vniversalis § 27 In the last place for the anciently-great authority of the Roman Bishop see the Epistles of Gregory the Great who tho with Pelagius his Predecessors he much disrellished the name of Vniversal Bishop or Pastor yet it appears out of these that he both claimed and exercised such an universal superiority and jurisdiction over other both Bishops and Patriarchs as the Reformed will by no means approve and as we may gather by his words 4. l. 37. Ep. thought a vindication of his just authority well consistent with true humility There he saith Dum Praedicator egregius dicat Ministerium meum honorificabo Rom. 11.13 qui rursus alias dicens facti sumus parvuli in medio vestrum 1 Thes 2.7 exemplum proculdubio nobis se sequentibus ostendit ut humilitatem teneamus in mente tamen ordinis nostri dignitatem servemus in honore quatenus nec in nobis humilitas timida nec erectio sit superba This premised see what follows in the same Epistle Johannes Constantinopolitanus in Constantinopolitana urbe Synodum secit in qua se Vniversalem appellare conatus est quod
of that Church for such priviledges on the See of Rome and with the Emperor's conferring these priviledges to all succession without any joint authority of the Pope and bringing in provocatus antiquae consuetudinis ordine without mentioning the words immediately before Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia atque antiquae consuetudinis ordine provocatus he makes these words refer not to the Popes but to the Emperor 's former grant But meanwhile judge you if the Emperour might of his own accord erect Patriarchies or confer such priviledges without the Bishop of Rome's authority whether authoritate nostra firmamus illibata decernimus c and Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia be not not only needless but also ridiculous But if the Patriarch of the West's authoritate nostra firmamus was necessary to what the Emperour did then are all such instances rendred useless to the Doctor who can shew no such firmamus to the late erected Patriarchats And were not such testimonies extant yet the rescript of the same Emperour Valentinian quoted before p 86. seems a sufficient proof that no such priviledges as were prejudicial to the Roman See were granted by him 2. For the Bishop of Justiniana 1ª that he continued to receive the Pall as other Primats from the Bishop of Rome and that he had locum Apostolicae Sedis not the place of a but of the Apostolick See namely as the Pope's standing delegate for those parts subordinate to him the phrase being frequently used in this but I think never in the other sence lastly that the Bishop of Rome deputed the judgment of causes to him and for some misbehaviour in his place passed Ecclesiastical censures upon him I say for these things see 4. l. Indict 13. Ep. 15. Johanni Episcopo 1 ae Justinianae newly elected Pallium vero ex more transmisimus vices vos Apostolicae Sedis agere iterata innovatione decernimus Iterata innovatione which argues the first concession that he should have locum Apostolicae Sedis was from the Roman Bishop which Baronius Anno 535. saith Justinian with much importunity obtained of Vigilius after Agapetus his Predecessor had made a demur to grant it as being a thing too prejudicial to his Neighbour-Metropolitans And see 10. l. 5. Indict 34. Ep. where he refers the cause of Paulus Bishop of Dyaclina to the examination of the Bishop of Justiniana 1a. And see 2. l. Indict 11. Ep. 6. to the same Bishop where reprehending him for a singular act of injustice he saith Quod vero ad praesens attinet cassatis prius atque ad nihilum redactis praedictae sententiae tuae decretis ex Beati Apostolorum Principis authoritate decernimus triginta dierum spatio sacra te communione privatum ab omnipotenti Deo nostro tanti excessus veniam cum summa poenitentia ac lachrymis exorare Quod si c contumaciam fraternitatis tuae cognoscas adjuvante Deo severius puniendam After these see Justinianan's Constitution it self Novell 131. cap. 3. which runs thus Per tempus autem Beatissimum 1 ae Justinianae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae c. in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio Which last words how reasonably Dr. Hammond Reply to Cath. Gentl. p. 96. interprets that Vigilius defin'd that the Bishop of Justin 1ª should be for ever after an absolute and free Patriarch independent on the Bishop of Rome or why the Emperour should require such a definition from Vigilius who as the Doctor holds had no right to hinder it I leave to your judgment after that you have well considered what is here alledged And see likewise this confessed by Dr Field 5. l. 38. c. p. 561. The same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana the first who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts upon signification of the Emperour's will and desire that it should be so Thus he And hence was this power conferred upon him finally to determine causes namely as the Pope's Delegate for that purpose and this exclusively not to Rome but to other Metropolitans within those Provinces newly subjected to him from whom to him not so from him to them might be Appeals 3. As for the third Primate of Carthage he is pretended only to be admitted to the like priviledges with Justiniana 1a. Thus have I set you down to save you the pains § 31. n. 1. or to prevent the usual neglect of searching them in the Authors some of the most notable passages for the first 600 years wherein you may find Calvin's confession Instit 4. l. 7. c. true nullum fuisse tempus quo non Romana Sedes imperium in alias Ecclesias appetiv rit but I add more obtinuerit too shewing as I think several ways not only the honour and dignity before but the authority and power of the Roman See over other Churches not only those under its Patriarchy but the Eastern also the Eastern not only single but joined in Councils power not only which Roman Bishops claimed but which Councils allowed testified confirmed and established and the greatest Bishops in the world repaired to for justice the most of those Roman Bishops whose authorities I have cited being eminent for sanctity and having the same title and reputation of Saints as the other ancient Fathers and the two last of them being quoted by Protestants as inveighers against an Universal Bishop as a forerunner of Antichrist that you may fee how much authority even the most moderate have assumed and all these transactions being before the times of the Emperour Phocas who by some Reformed see Dr. Hammond reply to Cathol Gentl. 3. c. 4. s. 14. n. is said to have laid the first foundations of the modern Roman Greatness in declaring him Episcopum Oecumenicum Caput omnium Ecclesiarum tho indeed Phocas his act was only in a quarrel of his against Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople adjudging the stile of Oecumenicus before much disputed between those two Bishops as you have seen not fit to be used by the Bishop of Constantinople and due only to the Bishop of Rome and that Paulus Diaconus de gestis Romanorum 18. l. quoted by Dr. Hammond meant no more see what the same Paulus saith de gestis Longobardorum 4 l. 37. c. and being of those ages wherein Dr. Field thro his 5th book denies to have bin any Roman Supremacy of power If it be said that the Roman Bishops out of whose writings many of these authorities are produced then claimed what others denied I think some other quotations intermingled out of those who were no Roman Bishops will shew this to be untrue Besides §. 31. n. 2. In the chief causes of all other divisions from the Roman Church excepting that of the late Reformation the Roman Church in the judgment of the Reformed the
visa fuerit non eis obsit quod contra honores eorum in transmarino Concilio statutum est Then contracting what is formerly said they conclude thus id est ut ordinati in parte Donati si ad Catholicam correcti transire voluerint non suscipiantur in honoribus suis secundum transmarinum Concilium exceptis his per quos Catholicae unitati consuletur Now some difference there is between their writing to the Pope and the Bishops of the former Council ne obsit for some and maneat for the rest and their decreeing against the Pope and that Council ne obfuerit for any Now this close is thus English'd by the Doctor our of Balsamon That they that have bin Ordain'd on the part of the Donatists shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod but shall the rather be receiv'd as those that take care for the Catholick Unity How well I leave to your judgment § 36 The Protestants ordinary Replies to these to me seeming not satisfactory Now to these several instances which I have drawn out of the primitive times the answers which are usually made by some for you must expect that nothing is said by any side which is not reply'd to by the other are such as these That such places as speak of the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Bishop speak only of that of Order and Dignity not of Power or Authority Apostolicae Cathedrae Principatus i. e. say they quoad dignitatem non quoad potestatem Rector domus Dei Ecclesiae Catholicoe or universalis Episcopus i.e. say they Vnus erectoribus domus Dei unus ex Episcopis c. That such places as mention appeals to the Bishop of Rome speak of them as made to him non ut ad Judicem sed ut ad ejusdem fidei fautorem ut ejusdem fidei professores in communionem suam admitteret non ob aliquam jurisdicendi authoritatem sed ob amicam communionis ejusdem societatem That the like addresses were made to other Patriarchs and Bishops for their communion and assistance as to him and that his Letters were requested and in behalf of sufferers directed to all parts of Chcistianity not by vertue of any authority he had to correct but by reason of the power he had from the reverence they gave to the dignity of his place every where to perswade That such places of Fathers or Councils as affirm that no publick affairs of the Church may be transacted without the Bishop of Rome are not appropriate therefore only to him but verified as much of the rest of the Patriarchs as of him That those places which mention his censuring excommunicating deposing Clergy that were not under his own Patriarchy speak not of any authoritative or privative excommunication to use the Bishop of Derry's expression Vind. c. 8. by way of jurisdiction excluding such from the communion of Christ but only of a negative in the way of Christian discretion by with-drawing him or his from communion with them for fear of infection for declaring his non-currence with or countenancing of their fault c. There being great difference as Dr. Field observes p. 558. between excommunication properly so nam'd or authoritatively forbidding all men to communicate with such and such and the rejecting only of them from our communion and fellowship And I also confess and grant such negations of communicating with others anciently used and amongst rest used also by the Bishop of Rome who often prohibited his Legates and others from communicating with some other Bishop as with the Bishop of Constantinople when he used the stile of Vniversalis or from going to and being present at their celebration of Divine Service when he did not excommunicate the other nay when also he admitted the ministers of the other and those who communicated with the other to come to his communion and celebration of Divine Service See Gregory 6. l. 31. Ep. to Eulogius and Anastasius indulging this to those who were sent from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople to him But that all the Bishops excommunications of those without his Patriarchy were only such this is the thing denied That the like may be said of his confirming or restoring his fellow-Bishops that it was done not by way of forensical justice but fraternal approbation and that all other Patriarchs used excommunicating deposing acquitting and restoring in the same manner allowing or withdrawing their communion from their fellow-Bishops as they saw fit and that they confirmed the Roman Bishop by their communicatory letters as he them Which things how well they agree with the above said forms of such Ecclesiastical censures and with other practices of the Roman Bishops towards others much differing from the practices of other Patriarchs either towards him or towards others how well they agree with the addresses made from both Church-governors and Councils upon differences and contentions in the Church to Rome addresses not used in the same manner to the other Patriarchs yet would have bin done equally to them also had all Patriarchs bin esteemed in their power equal especially how they agree with what is said § 24. and § 18. upon reviewing the instances I have given I leave to your judgment That the places which speak of his judging causes and inflicting such Ecclesiastical censures c speak not of him singly but as joined with his Western Bishops they meaning by this not some of his Western Bishops only whose assistance the Roman Bishop ordinarily useth in all his judgments but his whole Patriarchal Council That those places which do argue joining-with the Roman to be joinning with the Catholick communion see before § 23. n. 2. and n. 3. and § 32. as it must needs be that if God hath appointed any person or Council as a supreme Guide whom the rest ought to obey such members as do not obey cannot be Catholick are spoken only with respect to such a Roman Bishop at such a time who in their opinion held the true Profession and not that all the Roman Bishops at any time have or shall hold it those who made these expressions accounting the Roman Bishop orthodox and catholick because he then was of such a faith as they approved not the faith orthodox and catholick because it was the faith of the Roman Bishop or which he approved So Spalatensis in answer to the places produced out of S. Hierom. in 23. § saith 4. l. 10. c. 23. n. Quod Hieronymus Damaso hoc est Petri cathedrae consociari velit significat privilegium illius Cathedrae adhuc Hieronymi tempore vigens circa fidei puritatem and 88 n. Quasi dicat quia nunc not perpetuo in terris video Apostolicam doctrinam Romae maxime puram conservari ideo in his dissensionibus volo tibi adhaerere Which answer circularly makes him to judge first in what Church the true doctrine is who is to seek what Church to adhere to to be guided by it to
the true doctrine Whereas those who submitted to the Roman as the most orthodox gathered it to be orthodox as being S. Peter's Seat and the prime Apostolical See That most of these testimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times non esse ex prima antiquitate sed post Nicaenam Synodum cum schismata partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt Yet then that as their pride claimed much as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed and what they decreed seldom executed And lastly That much more dominion over the Church of God than is shewed here to have bin then practised is now assumed but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice and That were it not assumed yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals But see concerning this what is said before § 14. To such exceptions as these I will trouble you with no reply If you do not find the former passages reviewed sufficiently to justifie themselves against these limitations and restrictions and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed §. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended for me you may admit them for good answers Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy for regular Ordinations for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church and for deciding differences and amongst these from § 11. the great power given to Patriarchs and amongst and above them from § 21. more particularly the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged or others yeilded to it In the next place observe That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop or other Patriarchs only as joined with or President in a Patriarchal Synod nor in Primates and Metropolitans only as President in a Provincial a refuge which many willingly fly to in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present to the ancient Government of the Church by them but in them as using only their private council or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops as could without much trouble be convened Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Field who have made it up to my hand Thus then Dr. Field 5. l. 30. c. p. 513. Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year It is very necessary say the Fathers of the Council of Nice that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business and the determining of matters in controversy we think it were fit say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon Apostol 38. But in process of time when the Governours of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed Can. 8. that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions Likewise the Seventh General Council can 6. decreeth in this sort Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed we renew this latter canon But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings we shall find that they met not so often and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year and Provincial at least once in three years and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componends c. which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo Metropolitan of Millain And so in time causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own particular Diocess without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences I confess that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops and keeping them so long together until all causes were heard and determined and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice to once in the year and afterwards to once in three years And in process of time the hearing of Appeals and such-like causes and the execution of the canons in that behalf were referred to Metropolitans until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops Thus the Bishop Now concerning what they have said note 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled in the time of whole sitting as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan so neither he without them yet in the intervals of such Synods which intervals were too long to leave all matters of controversy whatever till then in suspence and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted the Metropolitans authority was not void but they limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods were trusted with the execution thereof and with the doing of many things especially in ordinary causes by themselves alone but so as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council and if
can And because all these were continued to be used by the Church also under Christian Emperors without asking their leave to decree such things or subjecting them to their authority or depending on their consent only with humbly desiring their assistance yet so as without it resolv'd to proceed in the execution thereof as under Heathen as clearly appeared under the the Arian Emperors yet which thing she could not lawfully have done were any of these entrenching upon anothers right For example the 6th Canon of Nice and 5. Can. of Constant Council would have bin an usurpation of an unjust authority if the subordination of Episcopal Sees and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince Upon the same grounds let also those instances collected by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. 7. c. of several Princes and States on many occasions opposing the Pope's authority stand good and be justified so far as he doth not shew these Secular powers to have opposed him in any right belonging to him by Church-canons in Ecclesiastical matters But if in any of those examples they are also found to oppose him in these the proving of such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done Tho also he confesseth that this fact of Hen. 8. in abolishing the usurped as he calls it jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions he cannot fellow abroad See what he saith Vindic. 7. c. p. 184. Neither do such facts as he urgeth to be done abroad hinder such Princes for living still in the external communion with the Church of Rome which facts he urgeth as a defence of the Reformed's necessary relinquishing this communion Again I said That no such Spiritual authority can he conferred or translated to others contrary to such Church Canons c. Else whenever it is not contrary to these Canons I grant that Inferior Councils or Church-governors or also Secular powers with their consent may change and alter many things both in respect of Ecclesiastical persons and affairs therefore many cases concerning the Kings of England with such consent of inferior Councils or Church-governors erecting or translating Bishopricks c. instanc'd in by D. Hammond or Bishop Bramhall are justifiable where any wore not contrary to the Laws of the Church i. e. of superior Councils but in any other examples where such Laws are transgressed either by the Prince or also by their particular Clergy the proving such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done tho such acts were done without any express or present controul Things being thus explain'd I say to give a particular instance of the former proposition No Prince or Emperor Heathen or Christian c. can for his own Dominions dissolve or abrogate the authority concerning Ecclesiastical affairs of those Patriarchs or Primates constituted or confirm'd in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice the Church not commanding obedience to Patriarchs at random or to such as the Secular Prince should set over us but also nominating and constituting from time to time the Sees which had or should have such preeminence if these be since by no other General Council revers'd nor can any who by that Canon is subjected for instance to the Patriarch of Alexandria deny obedience in such Ecclesiastical matters to him without Schism tho his Secular Prince should command the contrary or subject him to another And if these things here said be true then also so far as the Bishop of Rome's Authority is found to be confirm'd in matters Spiritual by the Church's Canons and ancient custom over any Churches Provincial or National it will be Schism for any such Christian Prince or People to oppose it so long till the like Council reverseth it Hence to those three pretended rights of the Roman Bishop over the Church of England whereby Schism is said to be incurr'd mention'd by Dr. Hammond see Schism p. 138. namely his right 1. As St Peter's Successor or 2. By conversion of the Nation to Christianity or 3. By the voluntary concession of Kings I suppose I may add a 4th with his good leave namely his right by ancient Constitutions and Canons of the Church and may rightly affirm that if any such right could be prov'd the English Clergy must be Schismaticks in opposing it tho all the other pretences be overthrown For such a sort of Schism Dr. Hammond mentions p. 66. It may be observ'd indeed in our writers That they freely determine 1. That the Secular Prince hath a just external authority in Ecclesiastical affairs committed to him by God to enforce the execution of the Church's Canons upon all as well Clergy as Laity within his Dominions a thing denied by none 2. Again That the Secular Prince hath no internal Ecclesiastical authority delegated to him by God as to Administer the Sacraments to Absolve Excommunicate c. 3. Again That the Secular Prince hath no just authority to determine any thing concerning Divine Truths or perhaps other Ecclesiastical affairs without the Clergy's help and assistances But whether such Ecclesiastical Determinations or Laws are obligatory when the Prince makes these being assisted only with some small portion of the Clergy and oppos'd by the rest or also by a superior Council or Court Ecclesiastical Or whether the Prince against these provided that he have some lesser number of Clergy on his side may reverse former Canons or enact new to oblige the Clergy and Laity under his Dominion This they seem to me not freely to speak to most what to pass over and some of our later Writers when they are forc'd upon it rather to deny it And indeed neither is there any thing in the Oath of the King's Supremacy except it be in that general clause I will defend all Jurisdictions c. granted nor in the 37 Article of the Church of England which treats of the King's power in Ecclesiasticals that may seem to affirm or determine it For whereas the Oath in general makes the King only supreme Governor in Ecclesiasticals he may be so for some thing and yet not for every thing not therefore the supreme decider of all Divinity controversies And whereas the 34th Article expounds the Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All this he may do and yet be ty'd in all things to the Laws of the Church and to leave to the Church's sole judgment who are evil-doers or Heretical persons c. when any controversie ariseth in Divine matters about the lawfulness of some Practice or truth of some Tenet § 39 Now let us search therefore how far the concessions of Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Hammond may extend to the confirmation of the foresaid assertions The Concessions of B. Bramhall und of Dr. Hammond in this matter The Bishop Vindic. c. 8. p. 232. hath this proposition
things streight The Doctors proofs for what he saith are these § 44 The Emperor Justinian's erecting Justiniana Prima into a Patriarchate with independency on Rome and afterward Carthage to the like priviledges And the Emperor Valentinian's constituting Ravenna an independant and Patriarchal Seat To which instances see what I have said before in this Discourse § 30. and what authority the Western Patriarch exercised over the Doctor 's Patriarchs both after Justinian's days and before which argues either them not made Patriarchs in such an independency on any superior as the Doctor imagines or the Emperor's act disobey'd by the Western Patriarch as contrary to the Canons As for the reason he gives to secure the lawfulness thereof Answ to Schism Disarm'd p. 112. because never check'd at nor noted as an intrenchment on the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome that we discern or is pretended either by any Council or by any Bishops of the Church then living It seems many ways insufficient because if there be a Canon prohibiting it hence it will become unlawful and many things may be unlawfully done and yet not actually question'd and condemn'd And again may be condemn'd and yet not this condemnation recorded Yet is there record enough of the condemning of any such Supremacy in those Bishopricks in the authority we find used over them still by the Roman Patriarch Next he urgeth the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon as intimating that this Prince's making Patriarchs was a frequent I suppose he means and allow'd of by the Church usage in the East at that time And after this the 17th Canon Conc. Chalc. and Can. 38. Conc. Constant in Trullo Which Canons he saith Schis p. 119. do more expresly attribute this power to the Prince or yeild it to be a power belonging to the Prince But being a little exagitated for this by the Replier especially when Balsamon whose judgment the Doctor much followeth saith the Church by these Canons conferr'd this power on the Prince he in his Answer to him p. 174 saith thus Whether it were from God immediately conferr'd on them and independantly from the Church or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclined either to enquire or take upon me to determine Now to see what may be deduced from them in this matter of no small moment I will transcribe you these three Canons Conc. Chalc. can 12. Pervenit ad nos quod quidam praeter Ecclesiasticos ordines affectantes potentiam per pragmaticam sacram i. e. by an Imperial Constitution unam Provinciam in duas dividant ita ut ex hoc inveniantur duo Metropolitani Episcopi in eadem una esse Provincia Statuit ergo sancta Synodus deinceps nihil tale attentari a quolibet Episeopo Eos vero qui tale aliquid attentaverint de proprio gradu cadere Si quae vero antea civitates per pragmaticum alias literis Imperialibus Imperialem Metropolitani nominis honore decoratae sunt nomine solo perfruantur qui Ecclesiam ejus Civitatis regit Episcopus i. e. nomine solo Metropolitani perfruatur Salvis scilicet verae Metropoli privilegiis suis Privilegio Metropolitano Episcopo jure proprio reservato Can. 17. Statutum est or decrevimus alias singularem Ecclesiasticarum rusticas Parochias Per singulas Ecclesias rusticanas Parochias sive possessiones manere immobiles apud eos Episcopos qui eas retinent c. Si vero quaelibet Civitas per authoritatem Imperialem renovata est aut si renovetur in posterum civilibus publicis ordinationibus etiam Ecclesiasticarum Parochianarum sequatur ordinatio In another Copy Si qua vero civitas potestate Imperiali novata est i. e. noviter constructa aut si protinus innovetur civiles dispositiones publicas Ecclesiarum quoque Parochiarum ordines subsequantur Conc. Constant in Trullo can 38. Canonem qui a Patribus factus est referring to this Canon Conc. Chalc. Nos quoque observamus qui sic edicit Si qua civitas a regia potestate innovata est vel innovabitur civilem ac publicam formam Ecclesiasticarum quoque rerum ordo consequatur In the first of these Conc. Chalc. c. 12. there is the Emperor by his Letters making another City upon the ambition and solicitation of the Bishop thereof Metropolitan in a Province wherein there was a Metropolitan already but this fact of the Emperors disallow'd by the Council as a thing against Canon which Canon was as the Doctor acknowledges That there should be but one Metropolitan of one Province and order'd that for the future whatever Bishop sought such a thing should be degraded and for what was already past that the City and Bishop should enjoy the Title of Metropolitan but none of the Priviledges but that these be still retain'd to the former Metropolitan When-as the Doctor pretends it was the Prince's right both to confer the Title and the Priviledges of Metropolitan on what City he pleased One would think then according to this the Doctor saith That the Council if the Bishop were faulty and offended against the Canon in soliciting such a thing should punish him only another person whom they approv'd being substituted in his place to enjoy the rights which the Prince had conferr'd upon it and not that they should by their authority as if these things were in their disposal not in the Prince's continue the Title only and reverse the Priviledges and fix them to their former possessors The Bishop might have been punish'd and yet not the Emperor's act rescinded by them as to the new Metropolitans power or priviledges as it is plain it was Yet Dr. Hammond makes use of this Canon by shewing such things were then done by Princes to prove that suppose the Bishop of Rome were Patriarch of France yet the King of France might lawfully make the Bishop of Paris Patriarch and confer the Pope's priviledges on him This S. W. replying upon his Treatise of Schism wonders at and the Doctor endeavours to clear all in following Balsamon's judgment and distinguishing between the Prince's erecting such a Metropolitanship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own motion when he saith it stands good Or upon base solicitation when the Council it seems may reverse it But I ask when such a thing is done of his own inclination stands it good if against the Canon that there should be but one Metropolitan in one Province if so what means he to say Answ p. 164. A Prince's power to erect Metropoles if exercised so by him as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse And again p. 165. ' Such power stands valid to all effects if duly exercis'd by him without wrong to any i. e. other Metropolitan As for that which is urged from the Canon of a Council held under Alexius Comnenus an Eastern
of Temporal States If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded it excuseth us not from paying justs debts The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person Neither can never so many examples brought for such things done by Princes § 48 That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Eccl. Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not be a sufficient warrant to any Prince to do the like much less to advance beyond such patterns and do something more See before § 42. After these a third proposition must also be granted That tho Seculars Princes or others cannot yet Councils may change some former Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs and when they do so are to be obey'd in their change Therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Council and Jura quae jam inde ab initio habent serventur and nullus invadat Provinciam quae non prius atque ab initio sub illius fuerat potestate in the Ephesine Council frequently press'd by Dr. Hammond see Sch. p. 61 65 100. so far as these refer not to Apostolical traditions but Ecclesiastical constitutions must be understood to oblige all the Church's subjects only so long till the Church shall think fit to change any thing in them Nor did they hinder but that afterward she advanc'd the Roman Church at last yeilding also her consent the See of Constantinople contrary to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both before Alexandria and Antioch into a Supremacy the next to Rome In whose power it is as in Secular Law-givers to alter her Laws at pleasure Nor can any G. Council decree that no General Council after them in matters of humane institution shall change their Decrees § 49 Nor can any particular Church claim that liberty unto them by any former Canons That Prelates and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Councils shall reverse them of which by later Canons made by the same authority they receive a restraint The truth of this fourth proposition also I think ought not to be doubted of That where the Bishops or Metropolitans suppose subjected to no Patriarch yet are present in Councils presided in by one or more Patriarchs and do consent to the Decrees thereof such Provinces and the Prelates thereof stand obliged to those Decrees and cannot afterward at pleasure reverse them and restore to themselves their former liberty Else Metropolitans who are under no Patriarch will be liable to the Decrees of no Councils at all no not of such wherein they appear wherein they vote wherein they oblige themselves But supposing they are as free as Patriarchs themselves yet where in Councils many Patriarchs meet the vote of the major part obligeth all Review what is said before § 18. § 50 Now to make some Reflections if you have not made them already upon what hath been discoursed here Reflections on what hath been said in relation to the Church of England § 51 1. It cannot reasonably be denied that supposing she had not receiv'd her Conversion from the See of Rome That the Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Roman See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it nor the Nicene or other Canons had constituted the Bishop of this City sole Patriarch of the West of which thing review what is said before § 3. yet she is bound to render so much not only honour but submission also to that See for what cause soever it was that such was given to that last Seat of the two great Apostles Peter and Paul as it hath been shew'd by the instances made above in those primitive times that the whole Church of God the Oriental Churches and Bishops the Patriarchs themselves and even Cyprus so much pleaded concerning which review § 18. have render'd unto him in appeals decision of controversies approbation of Prelates Ecclesiastical censures c. For example If the rule spoken of § 22. praeter or sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum have any obligation upon the Oriental the same it will have upon the English Bishops or Synods And the same power the Roman Bishop hath of receiving or hearing Appeals suppose from Alexandria as in Athanasius his cause review § 21. the same he hath in those from England For what exemptions can England plead more than Alexandria § 52 2. Yet farther There seems to be the same ground of her submission to him as Patriarch however this submission be founded as of other Western Provinces That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon her Neighbours who still continue obedience to that See And the Mos antiquus obtineat seems to put all the Occidental coast of the world who ever were then already or whoever thenceforward should be converted under his jurisdiction see § 3 In which Canon as not Brittain so no other Western Province is particularly nam'd tho it appears from some instances above that before Nice both Spain and France and Africk were Christian and subject to the Roman See see § 6. And then was the Brittish Nation also already Christian three of its Bishops being present at the Council of Arles in France ten years before this of Nice see Hamm. Sch. p. 110. and many suffering Martyrdom here in Dioclesian's days amongst the rest the famous St. Alban And the Arms of Lichfield representing many mangled Bodies are said to be born in remembrance of the many Christians who in that persecution suffer'd there Christian yet higher before Tertullian's and Origen's time who testifie so much of it Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 4. Quando terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem Quando terra Maurorum c. Nunc vero propter Ecclesias quae mundi limites tenent universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Dominum Israel Tertull. adv Judaeos c. 7. Cui Christo crediderunt jam Getulorum varietates Maurorum multi fines Hispaniarum omnes termini Galliarum diversae nationes Brittannorum inaccessa Romanis loca Christo vero subd ta see also his Apologet. Christian in the days of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome A. D. 183. saith Venerable Bede Hist Ang. l. 1. c. 4. At which time Christianity by the late favourable Edicts of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius enjoying much tranquillity one Lucius or Leuer Maur a King of some part of Brittain bearing some affection to the Religion or Christians from their good conversation which recommended it and also for the miracles which confirm'd it is said to have sent two learned men Elvanus Avalonius or of Glastenbury and Medvinus de Belga or of Wells to the Bishop of Rome to desire from him some holy men to instruct him in Religion and some Roman Imperial Laws to direct him in his Civil
calls General rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminency of Power and not only a precedence of Rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 29. l. 7. else he would Page 55. l. 80. thro five or six Page 115. l. 3. except that of one or two of his Predecessors CONCERNING ANCIENT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT PART I. Of the Authority and Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Governors § 1 FOR the better Governing of the Church of Christ in Truth Unity Uniformity and Peace Subordination of Clergy and for the easier suppressing of all Errors and Divisions and for rendring all the Church of God tho dispers'd thro several Dominions but one visible compacted Society we find anciently these Subordinations of superior Clergy 1. Presbyters 2. Bishops 3. Metropolitans and amongst Metropolitans Primates 4. Patriarchs and amongst these Patriarchs a Primate § 2 Of these Patriarchs in the first General Council of Nice held A. D. 325. there were only Three call'd Three Patriarchs only at the first at the first by the common name of Metropolitants tho with a distinct authority from the rest Then by the name of Primates 2. Gen. Con. Const can 2.5 this name also being common to some others Afterward by the name of Patriarchs Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. 8 Gen. Conc. can 10 Neither was this name tho most frequently always applied only to the Patriarchs of the first Sees But we find in the East the Primates of Asia minor Pontus Thrace and many others to the number of nine or ten call'd by Socrates who writ in the fifth Age Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 8. Patriarchs call'd so as well as by the name of Primates in respect of some other Bishops or also Metropolitans subject to them yet which Patriarchs had also a subordination and subjection to some of these prime or major Patriarchs of whom we here speak as appears in the Church-History and especially in Conc. Chalced. Act. and Act. 16. And we find also in the West after A. D. 500. several Primates in France Italy Spain call'd Patriarchs as the Primate of Aquileia Gradus Lions see Conc. Matiscon 2. in praefat Priscus Episcopus Patriarcha dixit c. See Greg. Turon 5. hist 10. Paul Diacon l. 2. c. 12. Greg. Epist l. 11. ep 54. yet over whom the Roman Bishop the major Patriarch of the West exercis'd a superiority and Patriarchal jurisdiction both before and after that we read this name given to them as will appear hereafter in this discourse and more particularly in the matter of the Letters of Leo and Gregory and other Popes written upon several occasions to divers of them This I note to you that the commonness of the name may not seem to infer an equality of the authority Now to go forward § 3. n. 1. The first of these the Bishop of Rome The first and chief of these was the Bishop of Rome whose Patriarchship the Bishop of Derry Vind. Ch. Eng. c. 5. p. 62. and Dr. Hammond of schism c. 3. p. 51 52. following Ruffinus Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 6. one less to be credited in this matter because by the Bishop of Rome formerly excommunicated see Anstasius 1. ad Johan Hierosol make very narrow and much inferior to that of the two other Patriarchs whereof one had subjected unto him all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the other all Syria and the Oriental Churches allowing to the Bishop of Rome only regiones suburbicarias in the Eastern parts of Italy and the Islands of Sicily Sardinia The extent of his Patriarchate and Corsica near adjoining to it But over these Churches that Bishop might have some more immediate superintendency and Metropolitan or Primat-ship contradistinct to other Metropolitans as to that of Millan c. So the Primat of all England hath yet a particular superintendency over one Diocess more than over the rest of which more particular superintendency over the regiones suburbicariae as he was their Primate or Metropolitan Ruffinus seems to speak and perhaps the 6th canon of Nice Mos antiquus perduret in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habet potestatem quoniam quidem Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam caeterasque Provincias honor suus unicuique servetur Ecclesiae may be thought partly to intend it for which consider those words in that 6th Canon caeterasque Provincias compared with Concilium Constantinopolitan 2. Can. and Conc. Ephes 8. can Yet do not these Canons therefore abrogate and superior rights of any Bishop quae prius atque ab initio sub illius seu antecessorum suorum fuerit potestate to use the phrase of the forementioned 8th Canon of Ephesus but confirm them not only the Metropolitan but also whatever Patriarchal Rights they held formerly as appears in those first words of the 6th Nicene Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which see more below § 19. from which the Roman Primacy was both urged by Paschasius a Legat of the See Apostolick in the 4th General Council and also acknowledged by the Council in their Epistle to Leo. See below § 25 n. 2. And again on the other side as Bellarmin de Rom. Pontif. 2. l. 18. c. observes the Pope's being Caput Ecclesiae universae supposing him to be so in some general way of superintendency or for some particular acts and offices as suppose for receiving appeals deciding controversies between the chief Governors of the Churches admitting them to and deposing them from their places obliging them pro tempore with his decrees hinders not but that he may be also a Patriarch a Metropolitan a Bishop in respect of some other more immediate super-intendencies and offices divers from the former which he doth actually exercise over some particular Church or Churches but doth not so over others or which also he cannot exercise over the whole as he doth over those particular Churches as suppose for ordaining the inferior Bishops and Presbyters and hearing their causes personally officiating in the Word and Sacraments receiving and distributing the Ecclesiastical revenue thereof c. Nor again e converso as Cardinal Perron in answer to K. James observes doth his governing only the Roman Province as their Metropolitan or only Italy as their Primate hinder that he should govern the West also as their Patriarch Nor again doth his governing the West as their Patriarch because he was Bishop of Rome the chiefest city of the West hinder that he may not also as S. Peter and S. Paul's Successor there to one of whom the Jew and to the other the Gentiles were committed Gal. 2.7 9. have some special superintendency over all the Church Jew and Gentile I know § 3. n. 2. it is earnestly pleaded by Bishop Bramhal Vind. 8. c. p. 251. and Rep. to S.W. 10. s. p. 69. That to have an universal Headship over the Church and to have a
with Conc. Nic. 6 can and Conc. Const 1. can 5. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habet negotium agitetur apud proprium Episcopum Si Clericus adversus suum vel alium Episcopum habeat causam apud audientiam Synodi Provinciae conqueratur Si vero contra ipsius Provinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam pergant ad ipsius Diocesis a word in those times of larger extent than that of Province one Diocess containing in it many Provinces Primates aut certe ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem Ad Constant sedem because by the Eastern Bishops both in this and in the second General Council the second Dignity amongst the Patriarchs or Primates after Rome was conferr'd on him and therefore by this Canon we may gather That the same repair as was in such causes permitted to be made in the East to the Constantinopolitan might as Canonically be made in the West to the Roman Patriarch For whatever priviledge the Constantinopolitan Bishop had the Roman had in the first place See Conc Sard. can 3 4 7 17. Can. 3. proposed by Hosius President formerly in the Nicene Council Si in aliqua Provincia aliquis Episcopus contra fratrem suum Episcopum litem habuerit unus de duobus ex alia Provincia advocet Episcopum cognitorem Quod si aliquis Episcopus judicatus fuerit in aliqua alia causa putat se bonam causam habere ut iterum Concilium renovetur si vobis placet S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus ut scribatur ab his qui causam examinarunt Julio Romano Episcopo si judicaverit renovandum esse judicium renovetur det Judices Si autem probaverit talem causam esse ut non refricentur ea quae acta sunt quae decreverit confirmata erunt si hoc omnibus placet Synodus respondit Placet Can. 4. Cum aliquis Episcopus depositus fuerit eorum Episcoporum judicio qui in vicinis locis commorantur proclamaverit agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma alter Episcopus in ejus Cathedra post appellationem i. e. to Rome ejus qui videtur esse depositus omnino non ordinetur nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata Can. 7. Si Episcopus accusatus fuerit congregati Episcopi regionis ipsius judicaverint de gradu suo eum dejecerint si appellaverit qui dejectus est confugerit ad Episcopum Romanae Ecclesiae voluerit se audiri which was the course which Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople had take just before this Council tho the no Bishops of the Western Patriarchy who also were members of this Council si justum putaverit i.e. Romanus Episcopus ut renovetur judicium vel discussionis examen scribere dignetur his Episcopis qui in finitima propinqua Provincia sunt ut ipsi diligenter requirant juxta fidem veritatis definiant Quod si is qui rogat causam suam iterum audiri deprecatione sua moverit Episcopum Romanum ut e latere suo Presbyterum mittat fit in potestaâ—e Episcopi i.e. Romani quid velit quid aestimet Et si decreverit mittendos esse qui praesentes cum Episcopis judicent habentes ejus authoritatem a quo destinati sunt erit in suo arbitrio Si vero crediderit Episcopos sufficere i.e. without his Legats ut negotio terminum imponant faciet quod sapientissimo consilio judicaverit Can. 17. Si Episcopus forte iracundus quod esse non debet cito aspere commoveatur adversus Presbyterum sive Diaconum suum exterminari eum de Ecclesia voluerit providendum est ne innocens damnetur aut perdat communionem ideo habeat potestatem is qui abjectus est ut Episcopos finitimos interpellet causa ejus audiatur ac diligentius tractetur quia non oportet ei negare audientiam roganti c. Thus probably with some eye to the Justification of Julius his proceeding concerning Athanasius § 11. n. 2. which were reproach'd by the oriental Arian party this great Council assembled about twenty years after the Nicene and establishing the Decrees thereof having the same President or chief Prolocutor in it with the Council of Nice Hosius Bishop of Corduba and several other Bishops of the Nicene Council and men eminent in sanctity to omit Athanasius Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem Paphnutius Serapion Spiridion and other call'd Oecumenical by Socrates l. 2. c. 17. both the Emperors concurring in the calling thereof and it being subscrib'd tho not by the Arrian party a few in comparison bearing the proportion of 76 to about 300 who seeing they should be over-voted departed from the Council yet by the Orthodox Oriental as well as Western Bishops namely by Athanasius by Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem and by the Bishops of Palestine who most-part adher'd to and the Athanasius and the Nicene Decrees by Diodorus Bishop of Asia minor c. see the Council Notwithstanding all which some have endeavour'd to disauthorize the Canons thereof as giving the Roman Bishop too great an authority See Spalatensis l. 4. c. 8. n. 34. where against these Canons he urgeth α. That in corpore antiquo Canonum universalis Ecclesiae quo Oriens semper usus est nullus Sardicenfis Canon locum habuit β That Patres Africani Canoni Sardicensi nihil deferre voluerunt ubi enim cognoverunt Canonem non esse Nicaenum illum contempserunt That Zosimus si Sardicenses tunc Canones fuissent alicujus authoritatis non eum dixisset esse Nicaenum sed id quod erat aperte dixisset esse Canonem Sardicensem servandum γ Lastly that Photius about Anno D. 860 expresse negavit Nicolao Papae Canonem Sardicensem 13 um ejus ordinationi objicienti se Sardicense Concilium aut alia Pontificum decreta habere vel recipere But in answer to these To α I oppose 1. What Cardinal Perron replied long since to Causaubon 1. l. 53. c. That the leaving these Canons out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae universalis is against the Faith of all the Greek Canonists Photius Zonaras Balsamon Harmenopulus and against the Greek impressions even of Basil Wirtenberg and other Protestant towns and in sum against the verity of all the Greek Codes as well Printed as Manuscripts of all the Libraries Occidental and Oriental Thus Perron 2. What just cause can be alledged for the rejection of these Canons Spalatensis alledgeth this ibid. quia Sardicae factum est schisma But this Schism and departure being made by an inconsiderable party these some 76 and the other some 300 with the prime Patriarch joined with them and some eminent Oriental Bishops amongst them lest they should be overpowred how could they do more to disauthorize these Canons by being divided from the Council than they could have done by residing in it and voting against them But the dissenting votes of
so few in the council surely could not weaken its acts which receive force not from all for what acts almost have such universal consent but from the much major part thereof But if these Canons without the concurrence of those persons were invalid so was also the Anti Arrian Creed of this Council and their sentence in the behalf of Athanasius And indeed hence where there is any Schism by some part no act of the Church can thence-forward be valid For example What act of the Church Catholick could be valid at that time against the Arians if these of Sardica were not 3. Let it be granted that these Canons rejected at first by these Schismaticks were afterward for some time in the East omitted by the Catholicks in their collections of the Churches Canons yet it seems sufficient that the Oriental Church of latter times when the Arians were crushed acknowledged them as well as the West which we find done by the Concil Constantinopolitan in Trullo Can. 2. Obsignamus reliquos omnes Canones qui a sanctis nostris Patribus c expositi sunt similiter ab eis qui Sardicae convenerunt 4. For the equity of these Canons if we consider any obligation which they lay upon these Western parts of the Church in respect of the Bishop of Rome it is no greater than the acknowledged-General Council of Chalcedon layeth on the East in respect of the Bishop of Constantinople Can. 9. 5. However it be the acts of such a Council wherein the Western Bishops are conceded to have unanimously agreed are obligatory to the West and particularly to Africk from whence were present therein 35 Bishops consenting thereto and no dislike thereof afterwards profest by the African Church of that present time Nay Gratus Primat of Carthage who was present in this Council quoteth the authority thereof in 1. Conc. Carthag 5. Can. Mamini in sanctissimo Concilio Sardicensi statutum c But had its Canons bin disallowed by the African Church his quoting them would have prejudiced his matter Therefore To β I say neither were these Canons opposed by the African Council which contested with Zosimus about them above 60 years after as known to them to be Sardican Canons but only because they were utterly ignorant thereof for t is clear by S. Austin's words contra Crescon 3. l. 34 c. and Ep. 163. ad Eleusium that he who may be presumed as knowing as any other of that Synod knew of no Sardican Decrees at all save those made by the separated Arians I know not where and called by them Sardican Canons of which he came to have notice only casually from the Donatists and perusing the Book they shewed him found them to be made by the Arians because saith he legi Athanasium Julium illo Conc. Sardicensi fuisse improbatos Ep. 163. But it had bin some advantage to his matter then in hand had he produced any true and Orthodox Council of Sardica opposit to this who defended Athanasius but of this he is silent Neither will this altogether seem so strange when as in another matter we find him confessing himself ignorant also of a Canon of Nice that There may not be two Bishops resident of the same place at once See Austin Epist. 110. Quod Concilio Nicaeno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam nec ipse Valerius the former Bishop of Hippo sciebat Neither did Zosimus in all probability know these Canons which he urged to the Africans as the Nicene to have bin the Canons of Sardica for else we would have pressed them for such being thus as obligatory to the Africans as if they had bin the Nicene To ◠Photius a single person his rejecting these Canons when opposite to him in a matter so nearly concerning himself 200 years after the Eastern Council in Trullo had acknowledged them amongst the rest is to be looked on as a piece of passion and his own putting these Canons also amongst the rest in his Nomo-canon see Balsam in Nomo-can Photii is a sufficient self-condemnation Thus much for vindicating the authority of this Council Of which thus Mr. Thorndike Epilog 3. l. 20. c. p. 181. This difference came afterward to be tried by a General Council at Sardica c. For surely the Council of Sardica was intended for a General Council as the Emperor Justinian reckons it being summoned by both the Emperor Constantius and Constance out of the whole Empire and when the breach fell out and the Eastern Bishops withdrew themselves to Phillopopolis the whole power in point of right ought I conceive to remain on that side which was not the cause of the breach But the Success sufficiently sheweth that it did not so prevail was not obeyed and submitted to by all as a General Council for many a Council which followed after this about the Arian opinions might have bin spared The sovereign regard of peace in the Church suffered not those that were in the right to insist upon the acts of it as I suppose In the mean time the Canons thereof whereby Appeals to the Pope in the causes of Bishops are setled whether for the West which it represented or for the whole Church which it had right to conclude those Bishops that voted in it not having caused the breach shall I conceive them to be forged because they are so aspersed they having bin acknowledged by Justinian translated by Dionys Exiguus added by the Eastern Church to their Canon-law Or shall I not ask rather what pretence there could be in these Canons to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminence of power and not only a precedence of rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome Thus Mr. Thorndike candidly of this Famous Council § 12 The 7th and 17th Canons of this Council above recited the Bishop of Rome urged A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Appeals by mistake to the 6th Carthaginian Council contesting with him about Appeals for Canons of Nice By mistake I say For these two Canons are found verbatim the same with those which the Pope sent to the African Bishops as appears by their Epistle to Boniface wherein the Canons are set down And the 17th Canon it seems was understood I say not whether rightly by the Bishop of Rome in such a sence as that it established his as well as the finitimi Episcopi's receiving the appeals of Presbyters which appears by his pressing that canon to them by his admitting the appeals of Apiarius only a Presbyter the occasion of this controversy and by the African Bishops opposing him in their Epistle to Celestine as well concerning Presbyter's as Bishops appeals to Rome These canons of Sardica as I have shewed out of S. Austin t is probable that the African Bishops had not seen tho they had the consent also of their predecessors there being no less than 35 Bishops from Africk in
Novelae Const 123. c. 22. Lastly see Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 24. confessing a restraint of some appeals not allow'd to be made to the Patriarch where he saith Quaestio de Apellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appellationibus Presbyterorum minorum Clericorum sed de appellationibus Episcoporum c. Therefore in that ' foremention'd contention between Zosimus Bishop of Rome and the African Bishops met in the 6th Council of Caerthage about the appeal made to Rome of one Apiarius an African Presbyter who had a controversie only with his Bishop the deciding of which by Canons is referr'd to the Metropolitan and his Council or to the Episcopi finitimi Conc. Sard. can 17. it may be made a question whether the Pope was not mistaken in it if he contended not only for appeal of Bishops having controversie with their Metropolitans but also countenanc'd that of Apiarius considering what was deliver'd in the Canons above-cited § 18 Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination yet subjected for decision of Controversies and what is also conceded by the Cardinal As for those Churches who were under no Patriarch i. e. in respect of their Metropolitan's receiving his Ordination from any Patriarch as Cyprus is conceiv'd by some to be from Conc Ephes can 8. and Conc. Const in Trullo can 39. If these Canons do not prohibit rather the Patriarch of Antioch from hindering the Metropolitans of Cyprus to ordain other Bishops without his concurrence or consent as the Rem novam in the beginning of the 8th Canon of Ephesus and other expressions seem to import see below § 19. Yet 1. They were not free and exempt from all foreign judgments when any differences and contentions arose in any such Churches but to them or at least the principal of them were when question'd to give account of their Orthodox Faith and Canonical Obedience if they meant to retain any Communion with the rest of the Church Catholick and to receive communicatory Letters as testimonials thereof See for this St. Aug. Epist 162. where he hath discours'd it at large 2. Neither were they free from the jurisdiction of some Patriarch or other so far as the Canons of any General Council subjected them thereto For example That 7th Canon of Sardica Si Episcopus c. being deliver'd indefinitely oblig'd the Cyprian Bishops as much as any other For the Law of a Legislator who hath power to oblige all obligeth all if none be therein excepted Now General Councils have just authority of decreeing a subordination as they please of Ecclesiastical Persons and Courts for the unity and peace of the Church or else their common practice hath mistaken the right The same may be said of the obligation of the 9th Canon of Chalcedon c. According to which Canons since experience hath shew'd and you may see it in Dr. Field's concessions that many of those whom the Protestants make independent Primates as those of Carthage Millain c. have yeilded to the Patriarchal jurisdiction the practice of these Primates if allow'd by them infers the duty of the rest if disallow'd they must charge such Primates not to have known or maintain'd their own privileges But 3ly such non-subordinate Churches can plead no more privilege than absolute Patriarchs have being if equal to yet not advanc'd above these But amongst Patriarchs themselves in matters of difference and appeal the inferior were liable to the judgment of the superior Patriarchs as shall be shew'd presently therefore must the Cyprians or other be the like there being the same reason of all the preserving of the unity and communion of the whole Church Catholick in which one Church is not more concern'd than others Therefore Dr. Field l. 5. c. 30. p. 513. where in answer to Bellarmin's pretending a Monarchical Government of the Church as necessary he goes to shew how her unity might well be and was anciently preserv'd without it by several subordinations which were in the Church discourseth thus If a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom or State only the chief Primate was Moderator If of many Kingdoms one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishops of the whole world was Moderator every Church being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the Unity of it 3ly The actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Oecumenical And l. 5. c. 39. p. 563. he quotes the Emperor's Decree Novel 123. c. 22. that Bishops being at variance were finally to stand to and not to contradict their own Patriarch's judgment And Gregory's l. 11. ep 54. addition to it That if there be no Patriarch then the matter must be ended by the Apostolick See the Head of all Churches And accordingly we find in the Patriarchal Councils of the West all the Western Churches whatever I dispute not here whether subject or no to the Patriarch assembling in them and subject to the prevailing Votes and Decrees § 19 Against what is said above is much urged by the Reformed the second and third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople Every Province not supreme for finally determining the differences arising therein The words are these Episcopi qui extra Dioecesim sunt ad Ecclesias quae extra terminos earum sunt non accedant neque confundant permisceant Ecclesias Alexandriae quidem Episcopi solius Orientis Aegypti saith another Translation curam gerant servatis honoribus Primatus ecclesiae Antiochenae qui in regulis Nicaenae Synodi continentur Sed Asianae Dioecesis Episcopi ea quae sunt in Asia quae ad Asianam tantummodo Diaecesis habeant curam Thraciae vero c. And c. 3. Non invitati Episcopi ultra Dioecesim accedere non debent super ordinandis aliquibus vel quibuscunque disponendis Ecclesiasticis causis Manifestum namque est quod per singulas quasque Provincias Provincialis Synodus administrare gubernare omnia debeat secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita 5. c. Veruntamen as it is in one Translation Constantinopolitanus Episcopus habeat honoris primatum post Romanum Episcopum c. The title to which Canons being all joined into one in one Translation is De ordine singularum Dioeceseon de privilegiis quae Aegyptiis Antiochenis Constantinopolitanisque debentur These Canons are urged to prove That all Provinces are for power absolute and supreme That every cause and controversy between any persons should be determined finally within the Provinces where the matters did lie and that by the Bishops of the same Provinces from whom might be no further appeal and That no Bishop should exercise any power out of his own Diocess or Province and consequently neither the Roman Bishop out of his Province in Italy And because here follows some preeminence granted to the Constantinopolitan Bishop post Romanum that this may not be thought to contradict
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
indeed with application thereof to the Pope as guilty therein To rebel against the Catholick Church and its representative a General Council which is the last visible Judg of controversies and the supreme Ecclesiastical Court either is gross Schism or there is no such thing as Schismatical pravity in the world To rebel against such a Council i. e. against the constitutions thereof in affairs meerly Spiritual therefore if their Canons establish such and such Patriarchates to rebel against these will be Schism So p. 269. he saith In cases that are indeed Spiritual or meerly Ecclesiastical such as concern the Doctrine of Faith or Administration of the Sacraments or the Ordaining or Degrading of Ecclesiastical persons I add or those mention'd but now § 38. which relate not to the Civil State but meerly to the well governance of the Church Soveraign Princes have and have only an Architectonical power to see that Clergy-men do their duties i. e. according to such Church-decrees Else had Princes in such matters a negative or destructive power this would be the right of Heathen Potentates also and the primitive Church guilty of Rebellion in disobeying in these things their strictest prohibitions Again p. 257. he saith Thus neither the Papal power which we have cashier'd nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons and by consequence the separation is not Schismatical Therefore it seems it had been Schismatical had such power been given him by the Canons § 40 Now to view Dr. Hammond c. 3. p. 54. he saith It is manifest that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches and over the Presbyters Deacons and People under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schism so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities were for the preserving of unity and many other good uses subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitans Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs the division of which is thus clear'd c. And p. 60. The uppermost of the standing powers in the Church are Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are appointed in many things to be subject and this power I add and the particular Sees to whom it shall belong and subjection defin'd and asserted by the ancient Canons and most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and custom is avouch'd for it I add especially for the eminency of the Roman See as may appear Conc. Nicaen Can. 4 6. Conc. Antioch c. 9. c. 20. Conc. Chalc. c. 19. c. After all which p. 66. of the same Chapter the Title of which is Of the several sorts of Schism he concludes That there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schism even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the Authority which these have by Canon and primitive custom over them Which was therefore to be added to the several species of Schism set down in the former Chapters Where tho the Doctor is pleased not to name particularly Patriarchs yet the quotation p. 54. We must yet ascend c. and p. 60. shews you that he upon the same reason of Church-Canons and primitive Custom doth and must hold that there may be a Schism also in the Metropolitans and consequently in all those under the Metropolitans in respect of their Patriarch The uniting as of several Diocesses in one Metropolitan and of several Provinces and Metropolitans in one Primate so of many Nations and Primates in one Patriarch exceedingly conducing to the peaceable government and cohesion of the Church Catholick and suppression of Heresies and Schisms oft'ner National than Diocesan only or Provincial Quae vero est causa saith Grotius in his first Reply upon Rivet ad Art 7. cur qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholicos maneant in eodem corpore non rupta communione contra qui inter Protestantes dissident idem facere nequeant utcunque multa de dilectione fraterna loquantur Hoc qui recte expender it inveniet quanta sit vis Primatus Which Primacy St. Hierom observes even amongst the Apostles themselves adversus Jovinianum l. 1. c. 14. Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regnorum Coeli accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatum tollatur occasio Capite that is not only in dignity but also in some authority else can such Head not remedy Schisms Patriarchs therefore as well as Metropolitans much conducing to the removing of Schisms and preserving the Church's unity I suppose whatever the Prince or Emperor should attempt against such Metropolitan or Patriarch either to oppose him in the managing of those spiritual matters and to deny him to exercise either by himself or his Ministers his jurisdiction in any Province which is by Church Canons subjected unto him or to depose him from his See or to transfer his authority and jurisdiction on some other whom he more approves of as if Valentinian much affected to the Arrians should have transferr'd St. Ambrose his Archiepiscopal jurisdiction upon Auxentius an Arrian Bishop whom he much affected as his Mother Justina I think actually did wanting only possession of the Church which Ambrose assisted also by the people stoutly resisted yet still according to Dr. Hammond's judgment as long as the Canons of the Church remain the same it would be Schism in any to disobey such Metropolitan or to side with the Prince and Schism in the Prince himself as well as in the rest Again S. W. replying thus upon these words of his Schis p. 125. the Canons of Councils have mostly been set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors That never was it heard that an Emperor claim'd a negative Voice in making a Canon of a Council valid which concern'd matters purely spiritual nay not disaccepted them decreed unanimously by the Fathers but all the world look'd upon him as an unjust and tyrannical Encroacher To this Dr. Hammond Ans to Schism Disarmed p. 203. speaks thus For the appendage c. I need not reply having never pretended or seem'd to pretend what he chargeth on me concerning the Emperor's negative Voice in the Council what I pretended I spake out in plain words that the Canons have bin mostly set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors and this receiving their authority is I suppose in order to their powerful reception in their Dominions and this he acknowledgeth and so we are Friends Thus Dr. Hammond Now all that which S. W. there acknowledgeth is That the supreme Secular power is oblig'd to see that the Church's Decrees be receiv'd and put in execution By Dr. Hammond's consent then a negative
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third Book is made up of Justinian's i. e. the Emperor's constitutions De Episcopis Clericis Sacris And the Canons of Councils have mostly bin set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors Concerning the first instance here of the Kings of the Jews I must remind you of what Dr. Hammond hath conceded set down before § 40. That Kings are so Supremes in Ecclesiastical matters that they have no negative voice in the decrees of Councils so that David Hezekiah c if we speak only of their Kingly not of a Prophetical power did nor could lawfully do nothing of all that they did about the Priests or the Temple contrary to the orders and rules of the Priests but only according to these in which they had always the Priest not opposing but concurring with them in all their new models or reformations as is shewed elsewhere in Authority of Clergy derived from Christ p. 47. tho the King as the chief Executioner and perhaps first motioner also of such designs is singly named But if Dr. Hammond callenge to the Prince more authority than this for some Ecclesiastical matters namely those of external order as he calls them Answ to Schis disar p. 187 and 195. and urgeth Schis p. 124. a saying of Constantine's to that purpose Euseb de vita Constant 4. l. 24. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he translates Ye are Bishops of the Church for those things which are celebrated within it but for external things I am constituted Bishop by God As if Princes may govern and administer these without or against the judgment of the clergy then I demand Whether erecting Patriarchates subordination of Bishops Metropolitans Primates c ordering of their Councils how often to be kept by whom called directing of Appeals Fasts Festivals c be reckoned by him such things of external order If they be then General Councils in ordering these things for example the Nicene Council in composing their 6th Canon either were only the Prince's deputies and instruments and all such canons were void without his ratification or else they usurped an authority not belonging unto them for their canons we find full of such orders But if they be not then Dr. Hammond's external orders will be nothing to the matter he is discoursing of As for the words of Constantine it seems plain to me by the chapter preceding that he speaks here of his playing the Bishop over those persons who were without the Church both gentes subjectas Romano imperio legiones quibus saith Eusebius by the Emperor's injunctions Idololatriae fores clausae erant repressumque quodvis idolis sacrificandi genus c over which persons the Bishops of the Church had no authority and I conceive the words ought to be rendred thus Ye are Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or amongst those persons I say S. W. saith affairs which are within the Church but I am Bishop for the persons or affairs without the Church But the Doctor 's translation seems forced both to the words and to the context in which I appeal to any that will take the pains to consider the words and to view the place Besides that I see not how the Emperour can call the prohibition of sacrificing to Idols the observing of the Lord's day c things of external order as the Doctor will have them Concerning the second S. Paul's appeal from the the High-Priest and the Sanedrim to Caesar by which the Doctor seems to justifie such Supremacy of the Prince above the clergy that from the highest court of Ecclesiasticks in matters Ecclesiastical appeals may be made to him and to him tho an infidel I demand Whether the H. Priest and Sanedrim were the highest Ecclesiastical Court or Council by God at that time appointed for deciding the controversies of Religion such as S. Paul's is by him supposed to be or no. If it were then ought the controversy at Antioch to have bin brought before them and not before the Council of the Apostles If it were not then the Doctors instance fits not his purpose But the Apostle here accused of sedition and before any judgment given laid wait for to be killed by his very Judges who justified him in some part for his religion the tenent of the resurrection appeals to the Sovereign power for his necessary protection from the violence of those who in Spiritual matters had no reason to judge him As for any appeal in these matters from the highest Ecclesiastical court to secular Princes it hath bin often prohibited to the clergy in several Councils see before § 9. and is so as I conceive by S. Paul 1 Cor. 6.1 6. to unbelieving Princes such as Caesar was To the third the Emperors constitutions such as are in matters purely Ecclesiastical t is sufficient to say that such never were contrary to any laws of the Church or when they were so were so often void in Dr. Hammond's judgment who grants the Emperor to have no negative voice in Councils i.e. to annull any of their constitutions but surely he annulls them who lawfully enacts contrary Such therefore were his Ecclesiastical constitutions so far as lawful as that the clergy consented to or at least dissented not from them Which shews the legislative power primarily in them not in him For there cannot be two Lawgivers in the same matters over the same persons both whom they shall be obliged to obey unless they can obey contradictions Therefore if the Emperor in these Church-matters have no negative voice in respect of the decrees of Councils they must needs have a negative voice in respect of the decrees of Emperors and so how much of his laws they disallow or deny is cancelled As for the other expression that Canons of Councils mostly receive their authority by Emperors see before § 40. how S.W. hath caused the Doctor to explain himself in his answer to Schism disarmed § 47 Thus much from § 38. concerning that proposition That whatever Authority the Church Canons and Customs have given to any Ecclesiastical person That obedience due may not be withheld upon Governors undue claims cannot be annull'd c. by Seculars and That it is Schism to oppose any authority so established Next This proposition also I think undeniable That none may substract obedience from any in matters where it is due because such person requires also obedience in matters where it is not due But that whilst the one is opposed the other ought to be yeilded Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil rights of Princes or their Subjects these may not hence invade his Ecclesiastical And if the Priest Patriarch or Bishop would in some things act the Prince therefore may not the Prince justly take upon him to act the Priest or to alter any thing of that Spiritual Hierarchy establish'd by Christ or by the Church much to the good but nothing at all to the damage
least being pass'd by the major part of that Occidental Council to oblige them Now what honour these Canons give to the Roman Bishop how they constitute him supreme in Appeals see before § 11. Against this urg'd by S. W. Bishop Bramhall Rep. to S.W. § 4. p. 24. replies 1. That it doth not appear §55 n. 2. that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon 2. That the Council of Sardica was no G. Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed as they were before the making of that Canon 3. That the Canons of the Council of Sardica were never receiv'd in England or incorporated into the English Laws and that without such incorporation they did not bind English Subjects 4. Lastly That this Canon was contradicted by the great General Council of Chalcedon To which I answer That this Council at least was a full and compleat Occidental Council That Canons pass'd by the most part of such a Council are obliging to the rest contradicting whether Persons Churches or Christian States That where no contradiction of any person Church or State appears they are presumed to assent in justification of which see a more large discourse in Par. 2. § 4. and 24. That if the Canons of Councils only receive force in a Christian State by being incorporated into their Laws then by being expung'd again at pleasure out of these they lose their force And then where is the Church's authority in her Decrees which are valid only till any particular State pleaseth to eject them That thus he will find either not all Canons which he grants obliging incorporated into the English Laws I mean those before the Reformation or more namely those of Councils held since the first four or seven or eight Oecumenical ones Lastly that the Council of Chalcedon no-where contradicts or reverseth this Canon for the Western Provinces at least but rather establishes it in giving the Patriarch of Constantinople like priviledge in the East even the Cypriots not being exempted therefrom See before § 11. From this Council § 55. n. 3. twenty years after Nice let us ascend to the Council of Arles in France convocated by Constantine the Emperor ten years before that of Nice of which see before § 23. n. 7. and in this also we find the presence and subscription of Brittain Bishops see Hammond Schis p. 110. Bramh. Vind. p. 98. of which Bishops thus Sir Hen. Spelm. A. D. 314. Aderant e Britannia celebriores ut videtur tres Episcopi surely in Dignity much preceding and much ancienter than the Bishop of Carleon nempe Eboracensis Londoniensis de civitate Coloniae Londinensium quae alias dicitur Camelodunum una cum Sacerdote Presbytero Diacono qui canones assensu suo approbabant in Britannia redeuntes secum deferebant observandos Now there you may review the first Canon thereof setling the matter of Easter to be kept through all Churches on the same day and the divulgation of this thro all Churches committed to the Bishop of Rome secundum consuetudinem Therefore the speech of the Abbot of Bangor urg'd by Dr. Hammond Schis p. 111. §56 n. 1. and B. Bramhall Vindic. p. 103. that he knew no obedience due to him whom they call'd the Pope but the obedience of Love where B. Bramhall saith Observe what strangers the Brittains were to the Papacy that man whom they call the Pope seems if perhaps authentick full of ignorance who after all that power exercis'd by this man call'd the Pope over the whole Church of God especially over the Western Provinces and so much respect return'd him from them as is set down above in this discourse for I have made scarce any quotation but before or in this Abbot's time after the presence of the Brittain Bishops at so many famous Councils after so many holy Bishops sent for the conversion of these Islands by the Bishop of Rome's delegation should be such a stranger to his Person or Authority or his Titles the like Titles to which given him in this Abbot's see given him in Cyprian's time § 33. after A. D. 600. Where also you may observe That the Irish Bishops yeilded all obedience to this Roman Bishop at this very time when the Brittish thus denied it as appears both in that they are said by Bede the South Irish at least to have return'd very early to a right observation of Easter ad admonitionem Apostolicae Sedis Antistitis Hist l. 3. c. 3. And also in that about this time they sent Letters to St. Gregory then Bishop of Rome to know after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were converted from Nestorianism to whom he sends his orders concerning it directed Quirino Episcopo caeteris Episcopis in Hibernia Catholicis Epist 61. of l. 9. And as for this plea § 56. n. 2. of the Brittain's subjection only to the Archbishop of Caerleon you may note That the first Archbishop of this City that is known or spoken of is Dubricius who after much service done by him against Pelagianism was consecrated Archbishop by Germanus and Lupus sent from Rome as is said above § 54. n. 2. the third or fourth from whom possess'd that Chair when Austin came Meanwhile before Austin's coming the Brittains had other Bishops preeminent to Caerleon a Bishop of York the chief Bishop of the whole Nation as that City then was the principal City the Roman Praetorium being there See Spelm. Appar p. 22. a Bishop of London and of some other places who were present at the Council of Arles where is no mention of Carleon's Bishop of which Bishops Todiacus Archbishop of York and Theonus Bishop of London being persecuted by the Saxons fled into Wales with their Clergy A. D. 586. Within eleven years after whose flight thither Augustin came into England and upon it their persecution in part ceas'd Now there being no mention of any opposition made by any of these Bishops or their Clergy which in eleven years space could not all be deceas'd to Augustin but only by the Welch under Caerleon it is probable that they conform'd to the rest of the West in such submission to it's Patriarch as was due to him by the Canons of those Councils which their predecessors had allow'd and was render'd to him by their neighbour-Prelacy of Ireland see Greg. l. 9. Ep. 61. as likewise that they celebrated Easter according to those Conciliary Canons and the Roman manner and lastly that returning into some of those parts of Brittain from whence they fled § 57. n. 1. The Brittain's observation of Easter different from Rome not agreeing with the Orientals and no argument that they receiv'd Christianity from thence they aided Augustin in the conversion of the Saxons 2. That Argument That the Brittains were not formerly converted by any sent from Rome but rather by Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes or some other Eastern Doctors because their observation
THE SECOND and THIRD TREATISES Of the First Part of Ancient CHURCH-GOVERNMENT THE SECOND TREATISE Containing a Discourse of the SUCCESSION OF CLERGY OXFORD Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVIII TO THE READER IN the First Treatise of the First Part of Church-Government Printed A. D. 1662 and Reprinted 1685 is contain'd the Succession of the Apostles to our Lord in his Pastoral Office and the Primacy of St. Peter then the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles their Authority and the Subordination to them of Presbyters In this Second Treatise is discoursed the Indeficiency of the Clergy and of the Evangelical Doctrine deliver'd to them by our Lord. In the Third is contain'd the Subordination of Bishops their several Jurisdictions and tho Primacy and Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 6. l. 7. ought not to do the page should be 14. P. 24. l. 28. Mat. 23.2 3. P. 42. l. 30. Bishop Andrews in answer SUCCESSION OF CLERGY § 1 THese two things having been as I suppose sufficiently prov'd in a Treatise of Ancient Church-Government already published First Our Lord 's deriving his Authority and Pastoral Office here on Earth upon his Apostles and this not with an equal parity Secondly And again the Apostles transferring the same Office to others And this also for preventing Schisms and preserving Order and Peace in the Church done as before not with an exact equality amongst all the Clergy but with a certain preeminence and superiority of some above the rest the Bishops above the Presbyters and this a superiority too not only of precedence or honour which would not have cured Schisms but of Office and Authority I now proceed to shew more at large That Christ hath left the same his Ministers 1. The infallible Preservers of all necessary Faith and the supreme Judges to be submitted-to in all spiritual doubts and controversies 2. These in this their Government independent-on and not dissolvable by any external secular power 3. Firmly united among themselves in one external Profession and Communion not ruinable by any intestine Division § 2 For the first of these I shall shew you 1. That considering men's ordinary frailties and passions there is a clear necessity of such a Judg to decide Controversies resolve Doubts suppress false Doctrines c. And 2. That there hath always been appointed in the Church of God besides the Rule such a Judg both under the Law and under the Gospel and men never left to their own Conduct in Religion § 3 1. A necessity of such a Judg sufficiently appears from this 1. That never any Body of Laws hath been so punctually set down but that many doubts and questions do arise in the practice of it a thing which experience hath verified in as many such Bodies as have been made But 2. Could such a Law be yet that the Canon of Scripture is far from being such as to every part thereof is evident from the many Controversies of Religion that are on foot amongst those who all acknowledg the same Canon and who must be said at least some of them on all sides to be both of quick capacity and sober judgmemt and sufficient integrity seeing that almost whole Nations have thus opposed one another all whose capacities or integrities it were too much uncharitableness and pride to question Here therefore whereas frequently both the contrary parties use to say the Scripture is plain on their own side they both shew that it is difficult and whereas both also could wish an Arbiter of Controversies at least to silence their Adversary they mutually confess One necessary for them both And so long as sober Judgments contradict in their expositions of Scripture tho both should say that the Scripture is clear yet neither can say that in respect of all men it is so And so long there is necessary another Judg besides Scripture especially when none in Religious matters will confess that they contest about a Controtroversie which is not necessary to be decided Indeed this happens ordinarily that some sentences of Scripture seem plain on one side and other sentences thereof plain on another but since all parts of Divine truth must cohere and accord the more plainness in this manner makes it the more difficult And therefore we commonly see that in their not well-comparing of several Scriptures but fastning their thoughts only on some parcel thereof to which their fancy or interest specially guides them the more ignorant are the more confident and lest doubting and they who have least compar'd things soonest decide them And thus those who have the Scriptures the more common and open to each man's comment without dependance on any other Judg than themselves run into great varieties of Opinions and Sects 2 St. Pet. 3.16 takes notice concerning a chief part of the Scriptures and that written purposely for instruction St. Paul's Epistles but not only concerning these but the other Scriptures too see the end of v. 16. that in them there were some things hard to be understood which they that were unlearned and unstable did wrest to their own destruction These things then of consequence the mistaking of which tended to the Mistaker's destruction which yet men even in his days mistook by being unlearned i. e. not well taught in Christianity which teaching they must have from their Pastors and unstable which must be by departing from the Doctrines receiv'd from their Pastors as the words following v. 17. also imply Now I see not why the same accident concerning the same Scriptures should not happen still to the illiterate and unstable disclaiming any other Judg save these Scriptures and conceiting that God's Written Word hath render'd his Ministers useless This is said for the necessity of a Judg in matters of Religion where Scriptures indeed as St. Peter saith of them have some difficulty But 3. Since Controversies may be raised and maintain'd by the peevishness and perversness and passion of a Party even where Scriptures are clear enough here also no less necessary is a Judg juridically to suppress and silence those who irrationally and many times with autocatacrisie thus offend But 4. It is possible also that some very material Controversies there may be in Religion wherein the Scriptures have either been silent or have not spoken to them so expresly and openly but that they must be drawn out from thence by several deductions Here then also some other Judg is necessary § 4 Such a Judg therefore is necessary to be And therefore such a Judg there always hath been appointed by God to be consulted and submitted-to by his people both before the Law Written and under the Law Written and under the Gospel First In the times before the Law Written even from the very infancy of-the World God ever had a Church contradistinct after Adam's Fall of whose Sons as some were good so others were impious to the rest of the world serving God in a publick external Communion and
4.19 And he must give account to the same King of Kings for killing his Subjects in their obeying their Lords commands who sent them to all Nations without asking any man's leave as they could not in doing their duty possibly wrong any man's right § 66 And if any here argue That a Spiritual Supremacy thus describ'd cannot consist with another Temporal but that one will ruine the other and probably the Ecclesiastical denouncing eternal torments the Civil threatning death temporal experience is enough to confute him which hath long shew'd the contrary Those Kingdoms where these two Scepters are set up having flourish'd I mean for any occasion of disturbance or war arising from the opposition of these two powers in long peace and prosperity whilst others where one of them hath been beaten down have either ever since been miserably afflicted with Civil Wars I mean about Religion unsetled or quite over-turned 1. Partly by reason that every one gives not the spoils of the Church's ruin'd power I mean the judging and deciding spiritual matters to another the Civil Magistrate but takes them to himself And secondly partly because one main doctrine of the Spiritual power which hath most command over men's consciences Namely this that resistance in any things by Arms to the Temporal power is unlawfu is faln together with that power And thirdly perhaps partly I may add because that where the Church-Authority is crush'd Religion and Goodness in general withers and decays and consequently with these Allegiance and Fidelity That which makes good men making good Subjects 4ly And again because That where any takes away another's right both Divine Justice sentences him to loose his own and his Example teaches others to invade it § 67 Hence it is That these Substitutes of Christ as himself being under Herod's jurisdiction yet was hindred by no threats for exercising the commission of his Father in his Dominions Luke 13.31 32. did exercise their Authority as much as ever and that for some hundreds of years even when all the temporal Magistrates and their Sovereigns opposed it for then they were sustained unarmed against all force by the power of the King of Kings JESUS and so shall be till his second coming in which time we find they had their Publick Assemblies for God's Worship revenged by Excommunications and Penance all disobedience called Councils for enacting Ecclesiastical Canons and Laws which therefore it is not absolutely necessary very convenient I grant that the Secular power should either call or assist neither may he annull them or any part thereof if purely concerning Ecclesiastical affairs but as a member also himself of the Church ought to become subject unto them and as a Prince to maintain them And hence it seems to follow That no Prince can lawfully abrogate the Authority of Patriarchs supposing it only founded on Ecclesiastical Constitutions over those who are the Churches as well as His Subjects no more then he can any other Ecclesiastical Decrees Again in which times we also find that as fast as any suffer'd by persecutions in their places they ordained others multiplied by their slaughters and ordained them without any order or nomination from the civil power who for ever neither can himself neither can cause them to lay hands on any but whom they approve nor to be partakers by this of other mens sins or errors 1 Tim. 5.22 § 68 And all this they did without the Emperour's leave nay contrary many times to their Edicts Now what Authority they had before amidst the oppositions of Secular power they cannot lose it nor any part of it since by this Powers submitting it self unto Christ's Scepter and to the Church Greater then this Church-authority might be made many ways by Princes by granting the Church now some temporal priviledges by making the Acts of the Church their Law also and by enforcing it on all their Subjects as well Clergy as Laiety with corporal punishments and the temporal sword further than the other could singly with his Spiritual which yet experience shews was able alone both to preserve order and discipline amongst its Subjects With the temporal sword I say which tho the Clergy may not use in the behalf of Religion yet He that hath it committed to him Rom. 13.4 the Civil Magistrate as a Son of the Church and the Servant of Christ upon his own subjects may and ought to use that weapon in maintaining of Christ's Laws which he may in defence of his own as who also may make Christ's Laws his own Hence Calvin Instit 4 l. 11. c. 16. sect speaking of the Primitive Governours of the Church Non improbabant saith he si quando suam authoritatem interponerent Principes in rebus Ecclesiasticis modo conservando Ecclesiae ordini non turbando disciplinae stabiliendae non dissolvendae of which I suppose the Spiritual Governors not the Princes were to judge hoc fieret Nam cum Ecclesia cogendi non habet potestatem c Principum partes sunt legibus edictis judiciis religionem sustinere But these Princes may do only according to the Priests directions Therefore all the establishing and restoring of Religion by the Kings of Judah from whose having power in advancing Religion t is strange to see how some argue their having the sole power were only by and in assistance of the Priest never against him and they commanded often the Priests to perform what the Priests together with them consented to be their duty See 2 Chr. 29.4 11. c. 17.6 8. 24.6 26.17 19.8 10. 13.9 34.5 9 14. Ezra 1.5 3.2 1 Chr. 25.1 compared with 24.31 see Deodat 2 King 23.5 2 Chr. 35.10 18. And see Deut. 17.18 19. the end of the Kings having a copy of the Law allowed him but another end of the Priests having the custody of it Deut. 17.9 and 2 Chr. 19.8 But no where can we find that they decided controversies against the Priests or that the succession of Priests maintaining a false Religion the King against them vindicated the true or in their stead because erroneous appointed and made new Priests because indeed the Succession of Priests never apostatized from the whole body of true Religion nor ever shall but should they yet why not the Prince rather and whom then finally is it fit to rely on for Religion But for those parts of true Religion wherein the Clergy was defective as it happened under the later Kings of Judah and in the times of our Saviour they were reformeable only by extraordinary Prophets sent from God whom in all times the people lawfully consulted and repaired to for judgment as they did to the Priests fee before but neither people nor Princes reformed Priests upon this pretence and therefore those Texts wherein the Prophets blame the errors of the Priests do no way warrant the Laities reforming them lest so the errors of the second be worse than that of the first See this spoken of more at large before But
for a false Religion we find this done in wicked Jeroboam and consequently we read of his making for his new Religion also new Priests § 69 Thus I say the Temporal authority may much advance and further the Spiritual but no Secular power hath the least authority in Spiritual matters to act contrary to those who are Ministers of Christ's power and unreasonable it is to think that he may do more against them who is part of their flock than the Heathen Princes might do who had no relation and if Christianity entring into any country changeth not any laws thereof but confirms all obedience thereto then neither may the civil Government admitted into Christianity abridge any of its priviledges which priviledges may as well subsist with a Christian Sovereignty as they have done with a Heathen But if they offer any violence unto it the Church to whom not to them God hath committed his flock may and ought as it also often hath with the weapons Christ hath given her to oppose them and tho not to fight yet to speak to profess to suffer and die for the cause See the opposition the Priests made to Vzziah generally a good Prince 2 Chron. 26.18 and that of Athanasius and Alexander Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople to Constantine requiring the restoring of Arius Excommunicated and that of Ambrose to Theodosius Neither can the Bishops at any time excuse their not governing and defending and patronizing the flock of Christ under pretence either of the care that Christian Princes their Sovereigns have of it or enmity they have to it For either these Princes second their authority and then they have all encouragement to exercise it or else they oppose and persecute it and then they are to do no less than their Predecessors did in the Primitive bloody times taking up their Cross and following Christ and their Leaders which had they not done Christianity had not descended so far as us and if these do not the same it cannot be propagated to posterity See more of this subject in Church-government part 1. § 70 Obj. But what if all or the much greater part of the Clergy run into error may not the Temporal Magistrate then Reform it I answer 1. That concerning points or truths necessary to salvation the Supposition is impossible until our Saviour shall cancel his promise of their indefectibility in such necessaries 2ly That for any other Spiritual matters wherein perhaps they may err yet the Temporal Magistrate may not reform because he that in Spiritual things is to learn of them what is truth and what error can never judge when they err unless they first tell him so What you will say cannot judge when as he hath the Holy Scriptures left to demonstrate to him truth and error I ask were they left to him alone or hath he any evidence therefrom which the Clergy hath not Or doth the Secular man study them more than they who make this their employment and trade Yes but their eyes are blinded in many things with self-interest namely in those which some way concern their own priviledges c. 1. Then in all Doctrines no way advancing the priviledges of the Church the Prince may not swerve from its judgment Well it were if but so much were observed But 2ly For these matters of interest it were something that were said if where the Ecclesiastical power were interested on the one side of the controversy the Secular power which claims right to judge were not as much on the other and whatever priviledges were taken from the one were not devolved upon the other For example If Henry 8th and his Lords had took the Supremacy in Church-affairs from the Pope and not transferred on themselves it were something tho not sufficient that were said but in such concernments men being equal judge in which we have reason to expect the more integrity that they will not claim more than their due But 3ly Suppose that our Saviour had granted his Church some great priviledges as such a thing is possible either these priviledges by them must not be maintained or such a cavil cannot be prevented But methinks this is enough to preserve truth in their sentence who are most accounted men of conscience tho in matters concerning themselves That by a false judgment a greater interest hereafter is lost than is for the present gained § 71 But here observe of those who upon many such-like pretences rob the Church of her Legislative power for Spiritual matters that they cannot place it else where tho they try several ways nor yet deny any such power at all but with great absurdities and mischief sometime or other to truth and the Christian profession Some of them bestow it on the Civil Magistrate without limitation so as to oblige all men without disputing to obey whatever in these things he determines as a Country-man of ours But this is so gross a tenent I need spend no labour to shew the many horrible consequences thereof Some again bestow it upon the same supreme Magistrate so as to oblige men only to obey him I mean actively in what they think not contrary to the Divine Laws and for other things which they think contrary not to resist any punishment inflicted on them for not obeying actively i. e. in believing and practising as that Magistrate appoints Thus G. Vossius H. Grotius Jus Imp. circa Sacra and ordinarily Protestants Vossius represents the matter briefly thus in an Epistle inserted in Praestantium Virorum Ep. p. 167. Synodi falli possunt Magistratus non debet iis credere propter se sed quia consentiunt cum Scripturis Canonibus antiquis Et haec Synodus et ille errori est obnoxius sed hoc non impedit quo minus Synodi Officium sit dirigere intellectum in cognitionem veri tum magistratus imperare quod rectum est salutare Quodsi illa dirigit male non ideo hic imperabit male si hic imperet malum non ideo subditi parere debent in malo Sed Magistraetus subditus unusquisque aget quod sui esse officii Scriptura Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus recta ratio persuaserit i. e. what Scripture Church or Reason seems to him to perswade But may the Magistrate then punish here those that disobey his commands Yes saith he Rex illud imperare debet quod in verbo jussit Deus paenarum comminatione obstringere ad illud subditor potest nec in his imperium detrectare cuiquam licet In his if he means which both Prince and Subject are agreed to be God's Word this is certain But mean-while if the Subject apprehends that contrary to God's Word which the Magistrate saith is not and commands as his Word here the Subject may and ought to disobey him And upon this the question still proceeds How the Magistrate may justly punish the Subject for not doing a thing where the Subject
also may lawfully disobey and not do it One would think either the Magistrate ought to be certain that what he commands is right before he may punish any for disobeying his command or the Subject ought to be certain that what he commands is not right before he may disobey it But yet neither is the one or the other held any certain Judg in these matters we speak of Nor yet do these men leave any third person that being so may guide and regulate them But the one lawfully commands and punishes him for that which the other lawfully disobeys Where in effect every one in things Spiritual is finally committed to his own Judgment whilst they leave none at all above others that may so decide what is contrary to God's Law what not as to constrain submission thereto further than their private judgment concurs And the only absolute obligation we have to any of their commands is to non-resistance of the punishment But then suppose one thinks this also namely that we should be bound in all cases even where we are innocent or also truly religious to non-resistance c. to be a thing contrary to Scripture as there want not many of late who have been so perswaded then their commands will oblige such an one in no sense at all and so indeed will be no commands as to such a person for effectus imperii est obligatio Lastly the authority these men do give to the Church is except that which she derives from the Civil power only regimen suasorium or declarativum and so sine obligandi jure But this is making our obedience to her if it may be so call'd at all no more than that we give to any other private man administring as we think good Counsel to us which is sufficiently confuted before Only in all this you may observe That whilst these wary Factors for Truth are afraid to acknowledg such an obedience enjoin'd to the Church as to believe that to be the meaning of the Divine Law or not to be truth or error that she tells them to be so then much less can allow such an obedience to Secular power they in avoiding these two yeild this judgment of what is truth what is not in these matters of highest concernment to be left by God to every one which exposeth the Christian world to far more and grosser errors as daily experience thereof sheweth than would in probability either of the other But yet this pleaseth because thus the staters of the question make themselves also Judges See more of this subject in Ancient Church-Government c. § 72 Christ therefore to avoid such confusion hath establish'd his Church for guiding the World for ever in his truths upon such firm Laws and Canonical Orders that no Civil Authority may be admitted at any time to meddle in stating any Church-affairs against the major part of the Clergy and its Governors And if secular Princes anciently in a Council even when they generally agreed in opinion with the Bishops had in Ecclesiastical affairs no defining but only a consenting suffrage how come they enabled to define any thing in these when they are against the Bishops See St. Ambrose his words l. 2. ep 13. quoted by Dr. Field l. 5. c. 53. when he was cited to be judg'd in a matter of Faith by Valentinian the Emperor which conclude it cannot be without usurpation of that which no way pertaineth to them that Princes should at all meddle with the judging of matters of Faith neither had it been heard of but on the contrary that Bishops might and had judg'd Emperors in matters of Faith Quando saith he speaking to Valentinian audisti clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse Ita ergo quadam adulatione curvamur ut sacerdotalis juris simus immemores quod Deus donavit mihi hoc ipse aliis putem esse credendum Si docendus est Episcopus a Laicis quid sequetur Laicus ergo disputet Episcopus audiat Episcopus discat a Laico At certe si vel Scripturarum seriem divinarum vel vetera tempora a tractemus Quis est qui abnuat in causa sidei in causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare Pater tuus Valen. sen Imp. vir maturioris aevi dicebat non est meum judicare inter Episcopos See the like in Athanasius Epist ad solitariam vitam agentes Quando unquam judicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit See many more like testimonies collected by Champney De Vocatione Minist c 15. And see the Concessions of Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. p. 29 332. And of Calvin no zealous Vindicator of the Church's Authority Inst l. 4. c. 11. § 15. And of many others cited in Church-Government Par. 5. And see more of this matter in Church-Government Par. 1. And if the Church to use some of Mr. Thorndikes words subsisted before any secular power was Christian extended beyond the bounds of any one's Dominion in one visible Society with equal interest in the parts of it through several Dominions endow'd with such power in Spiritual matters as is set down before what Title but Force can any State have whilst this Body continues to exercise its power not only without but against it Dr. Field in Answer saith That such power belongs to the Clergy regularly but may be devolv'd to Princes in cases of necessity In what case i.e. If the Clergy through malice or ignorance fail c. That the Prince having charge over Gods people c. may condemn them falling into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into Heresie formerly condemn'd l. 5. c. 53. formerly condemn'd For saith he we do not attribute power to a Prince or Civil state to judge of things already resolved on in a general Council no not if they err manifestly and intolerably but only to judge in those matters of faith that are resolved on and that according to former resolutions From which I gather That Princes can define nothing against the Clergy i. e. the more considerable part thereof else there was never any thing so absurd a Prince can propose but that he may find or make some of the Clergy to join with him but protect what is already first defined by the Clergy in a former General Council But if so then his power with hardly extend to the points of Reformation since how few are those Heresies amongst the many points of the Roman Church from which the Reformed have departed which are solemnly condemned some of them they say are defined by General Councils I suppose therefore we must found the Princes Ecclesiastical authority on the other member if the Clergy err against the common sence of Christians or as Mr. Thorndike expresseth it when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters already determined by our Lord and his
Apostles for all such are law given to the Church c. But alass who must judge when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters c for the Pastors of the Church at the same time affirm and will die for it that neither against the Scriptures neither against Traditions of former Church have the transgressed nor do abolish but establish them and as for the people whom should they rather follow in matters of Divinity their Pastors or their Prince God hath given charge to the Clergy over the flock but where hath he committed the charge of the Clergy to the Prince Perhaps the common sence of Christians shall judge But are the Guides of the Church then only void of it and that in their own faculty Common sence of the Christian Laity what if they differ then in their common sence are we not then to follow the major part of them But so also the Reformed are cast the major part of Lay-Christians entertaining the Roman Tenents Again we have given up this right of the Church to the Prince where now shall we stay If one Prince may do the office of a Council and if need be decide matters of Faith for the Clergy why may not the next if need be Ordain for the Bishop or depose that Order obstinate in error Is this a dream are there not also those who claim this But then again if where the Clergy fails the Prince may take our Saviour's Chair and judge then supposing the Prince also through malice or ignorance c may fail too Is there not some Common-wealth that hath been lately under God's judgments in this condition I would gladly know whether an Ecclesiastical power may not review his Acts and reform his Errors and then why not both reform both at the same time according to their differing judgments But God is the God of order not of such confusion Thus much of the 2d thing proposed before § 1. the independency of the Ministers of Christ on any Secular power Now I shall consider the Third § 73 Next as the Ministry of Christ is secured for the perpetual continuance of their Spiritual power and office against all foreign force of Seculars which shall often rise against it by their Spiritual sword toward those Temporal Governors who fear God and by their fortitude being strengthened by Christ both in doing their duty and in suffering patiently toward Secular Governors Infidel or the Heretical so is it secured for ever for the unity of the Faith and of the Profession of it Eph. 4.5 13. against all intestine divisions amongst the Clergy which divisions often shall happen in it but shall never remain of it For it is as true that no Heresy or Schism within as that no Secular power without being only several Gates of Hell shall ever prevail against it § 74 To clear this point we must know that where ever any division happens in the Church and that one Communion which was at first established in a perfect not co but sub-ordination divides into two and each ordain Successors to their party one is to be counted no lawful succession Else since some Teachers there shall be that will differ from the rest and in all sects we may find some Clergy or other for us to follow the Church will have neither any such property as unity of her faith nor will there be any such crime as Schism from it Therefore the Church may and ought for the preservation of her purity and unity to excommunicate exauthorize and separate her self and her children from such as are false Teachers and walk disorderly that she might not be partaker of nor countenance them in nor encourage more to follow their sin according to the frequent commands of Scriptures forequoted see 2 Jo. 10 11. Matt. 18.17 1 Tim. 6.5 Tit. 3.10 1 Cor. 5.13 2 Tim. 2.19 21. compared with 18. Iniquity i.e. errors Gal. 1.8 9. Rev. 2.6 15 16. texts abused by some to justify a separation from the Church it self therefore also none can lawfully communicate both with the true and with an Heretical or Schismatical Church who tho they hold sufficient truth yet are to be refused and avoided for the breach of unity and that without respect to the numbers of the revolted or to the liability of the Church they desert to some nondestructive errors And this practice the Church hath always observed and the persons so disauthorized by it if afterward using their functions were in the Primitive times esteemed guilty of sin and sacriledge and so those also by them ordained And when returning to the Catholick faith as many Arian Bishops did they might not officiate till by a Declaration and reabilitation of the Church they were restored to the exercise of that authority of which they were by her formerly deprived For we must know that tho according to the common Tenent of die Church see Conc. Nice 8. Can. none that is ordained according to the right form of Ordination by a Heretick or Schismatick may be reordained no more than one baptized by such may be rebaptized or the Eucharist consecrated by such reconsecrated but when he recants his Heresy or Schism he being only relicensed by the Church dischargeth his function by vertue of his formerly received Orders Yet who so by Heresy or Schism is once deprived of the right of exercising his function as any one may be cannot confer this right on others but that all these afterwards stand as much suspended from any execution of their offices as himself doth Tho I cannot say but that the Effects of the Sacraments and other offices of their function as well in other things as in Baptism as in Marriages in Penance and Absolution the Eucharist c. are still valid to the simple Receiver who is guiltless of their faults the wickedness of the Minister if truly ordained not hindering the benefits to mankind which Christ hath annext to that Office and which always himself as the principal Agent by their hands confers § 75 To distinguish then true Succession which we are always to adhere and submit to 1. There is no lawful Succession where is no lawful Ordination Nor 2ly any Ordination lawful from or done by those that are condemned or guilty of Schism For to those that are guilty of this tho their former Ordination and the Character as some call that impressed by it is not annulled and blotted out for which cause as I said when such persons were reconciled and readmitted to their functions they were not reordained yet all the authority and right of discharging their function is taken away by the Church and ceaseth and consequently then ceaseth this power of ordaining others See Canon Apost 67.63 Cons. Nice can 19.8 And the same case I suppose it is of those who are condemned tho not guilty and who are excommunicated and thrust out of the Church never so unjustly for they yet desiring the communion denied them shew their approbation
Patriarchal authority or headship over only some part of the Church to have a limited jurisdiction over a certain Province and to have an unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world To challenge the same thing from divine and from humane institution as Patriarch to be subject to the Canons as Universal Head of the Church to be above them are contradictions And in Schis guarded 4. sect p. 304. t is again urged by him that Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society is inconsistent where he hath also these words When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad meditation on this subject I confess ingeniously that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Pope's Patriarchate but in conclusion that which had bin a cause of my trouble proved a means of my final satisfaction For seeing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch I concluded that he could not be a Spiritual Monarch T is urged likewise by Dr. Hammond in Schis 6. c. 2. s. That he that supposed in gross to have by Succession to S. Peter that original title to all power over all Churches cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward by way of retail i.e. by any other ways and means over any particular Church He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travel must be supposed to disclaim donation which is antecedent to and exclusive of the other as the title of descent is to that of conquest Thus Dr. Hammond But to these it is easily answered 1. To Bishop Bramhal §. 3. n. 3. That nothing consists better together than contradictories if they be not understood secundum idem To have a headship Universal over the whole Church given him by God or by the Church if God hath left to it the disposal thereof for some things and to have a headship Patriarchal only over some part of the Church given by the same authority or the first given by God the second by the Church i. e. the first by divine the second by humane institution for some other things contradict not To have an unlimited power if he means for place for some things and limited for place for other things contradict not To hold the same power or authority both by divine and humane institution or title or laws which are all one contradicts not unless this term only be added One may hold the same thing both from the donation of our Saviour and from the donation of the Church too and from the donation of the Prince too quantum in illis est which is only a consenting to Christ's donation if they acknowledge it Neither will these latter donations be needless or useless ad homines tho the former donation be good if the former be at any time questioned as many good titles have bin Again it doth not contradict that one as Patriarch be subject to some thing to which in another consideration i.e. as head of the Church he is not subject for the respect is changed Christ the same person as Man was subject to laws to which as God he was not So Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society are consistent The government of a city is subordinate to the office of a Prince in the same civil society yet may the Prince that rules over all the Kingdom be governor also of some particular city thereof if so he pleaseth for his more security and may execute in that city all those under-offices himself which his Substitutes do in the rest or also formerly did there by his authority A Rectorship of a Parish is subordinate to that of a Bishop in the same Ecclesiastical society and yet the Bishop may also be the Parson of some Parish within his Diocess and officiate therein as is usual in some poorer Bishopricks One may be made by the King governor of a whole Province in respect of some command which he hath over it all and may be made by the same King or by any other to whom the King hath given the bestowing of such a dignity governor also only of one city in that Province in respect of some other offices divers from the former which he may exercise over that town and not likewise over the Province Thus much to Bishop Bramhal Only I must tell you that he may put his propositions in such a sence as they shall point-blank contradict but then he will not be able to shew that in such a sence the Roman Church affirms them 2. To Dr. Hammond I answer That no man can acquire the possession of a thing anew which he already possesseth but he may acquire a new title or right to what he already rightly possesseth i. e. he may do something upon which another law which now doth not shall give him right to the same thing supposing that his present right faileth or is questioned Neither needeth he when such titles are questioned adhere to one and renounce the other but may successively plead both one after another Indeed when these two titles are in several persons one voids the other the former the latter because the same thing cannot at the same time be possessed by several persons as Dr. Hammond rightly argues in Rep. to Cath. Gent. 6. cap. 1. s. but seems to me to apply it amiss to two titles remaining in the same person that the one of these will spoil the plea of the other So one may receive a possession from a Prince by free donation and afterward fearing some cavil at this title may acquire another right to the same thing by purchase either from the same Prince or from any other person of his Subjects who pretends to have the just disposal thereof And this person may afterward plead as he seeth cause either of these titles the donation from the Prince or purchase from the Subject which Subject whether he had a right power to dispose of such a thing or no yet the purchaser's plea is good against him and against all those who are bound by his act so that they cannot resume such possession from him So to come nearer our business Suppose a donation by our Saviour of such a Supremacy for ever over the whole Church and so over Britain to S. Peter's Successor and suppose a donation quo jure I need no here enquire by the Church of the same Supremacy to the Patriarch of the West over all the West and so over Britain and suppose 3ly a donation or consent by the inhabitants of Great Britain of the same Supremacy over them to the first author of their conversion I say here the same person being S. Peter's Successor and Patriarch of the West and converter of England may challenge such Supremacy over it by which of these titles he pleaseth they being obliged to all to our Saviour's Act of whom they are subjects to the Act of the Church whereof
what goes before they say that this preeminence of the Constantinopolitan Bishop is dignitatis only not potestatis To all which I answer 1. That these Canons are capable of another interpretation namely That neither Patriarch nor Primat or Metropolitan should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy or Province coordinate and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs i. e. over which neither by ancient custom nor constitutions of Councils he could claim any such Superiority See the limitation Concil Ephes c. 8. Quae non prius atque ab initio c. and Can. Apostol 36. Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt a clause clause still retained in these canons to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal Not those of Alexandria with the affairs of Antioch solius Aegypti curam gerant servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae without encroaching upon them or the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch medling with the Ordination of Bishops in the Provinces subjected to them Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace to whom Thrace owed no subjection Again That in every Province the Provincial Synod be the supreme and last Court above any other authority in that Province and exclusively to the judgments of the Bishops of any neighbouring Provinces which are only coordinate with it See them below § 28. called by Gregory Episcopi alieni Concilii and § 26. this interpretation further confirmed 2. That their interpretation of these canons cannot be true 1. Neither in this that they would make every Province independent and supreme because both the Bishop of Alexandria and of Antioch which are here mentioned had more than one Province subjected unto them yet all called their Diocess or Province taken in a larger sence and the Bishop of Constantinople who is not mentioned or limited in the 2d Canon Conc. Constantinop as others had several of the Provinces here-named as Pontus Asia Thrace subjected to him and that by this very Council For which see Conc. Chalced. Act. 16. Centum quinquaginta Deo amantissimi Episcopi i.e. the Fathers of this Constantipolitan Counci rationabiliter judicantes c Vrbem Constant in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa Roma majestatem habere negotiis his qui de Ponto sunt de Asia Thracia dioecesibus Metropolitanos ordinari a praedictae Constant Sedis sanctissima Ecclesia where these Fathers expound what was meant here by Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae in the words following namely ut unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Dioecesium ordinet suae regionis Episcopos sicut divinis Canonibus i.e. the canons of Nice and these of Constantinople est praeceptum Thus are Pontus and Asia c subjected to the See of Constantinople tho not for the ordaining of their Bishops yet for the ordinations of their Metropolitans and also for Appeals as may be seen in their 9th and 16th canons which seems to be the meaning of that Majestas in Ecclesiasticis negotiis which they gave him post Romam And all this they do after these very canons were first recited in the Council definitionem sanctissimorum Patrum sequentes ubique regulam ea quae nunc relecta sunt i. e. these canons centum quinquaginta Episcoporum c. Which to confirm to you yet farther see the Subscriptions of those Bishops of Asia and Pontus c of one Ego gratum habeo sub sede Constantinopolit esse quoniam ipse ordinavit of another secundum sententiam Patrum 150 voluntate propria subscripsi Therefore the Primacy post Romanam granted by Const Concil Constantinopol to the Bishop thereof was not dignitatis only but potestatis and therefore much more the Primacy of Rome as the Chalcedon Fathers expound these canons But if we say that they misunderstood yet then they have at least sufficiently reversed them and nulled their force because they coming after the other have made a contrary decree which at least in matters of Ecclesiastical constitution annulleth the former 2. Neither is their interpretation true in this viz. That Provincial Councils may finally determin all causes thereof exclusively to all others whatsoever for so they would not be subject to Patriarchal nor Universal Councils nor would any appeals from them at all be lawful contrary to what is said but now Con. Chalc. 9. c. see likewise the can of Sardica and to the known common practice of Antiquity of which hereafter follow many instances and also in the 8th canon of this very Council which they urge as it is extant in Balsamon examinations of matters are remitted from Provincial Councils to a greater Synod of the Diocess Quod si evenerit ut Provinciales Episcopi crimina quae Episcopo intentata sunt corrigere non possunt placuit c tunc ipsos accusatores accedere ad majorem Synodum Dioecesis illius c. 3. It may be answered Whatever these canons mean that one part of this Council sitting at Constantinople the other at Rome they received no confirmation from those at Rome See for this what is said before § 7. And it is observable that tho there is mention made in them of Antioch and Alexandria yet is there none made of the limitations of the Roman or the Western Diocesses no nor yet of limiting the Constantinopolitan Bishops whom they ordered to be the second to Rome for we read not in them Constantinopolitanae Dioecesis Episcopi ea quae ad Constantinopolitanam tantummodo Dioecesim pertinent gubernent Lastly Patriarchs themselves §. 20. n. 1. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch and those who had complaints against them according to Dr. Field's concessions 5. l. 39. c. and 34. c. p. 530. might appeal to and were to be judged by those of their own rank in order before them assisted by inferior Bishops And the Bishop of Rome saith he p. 568. as first in order amongst the Patriarchs assisted with his own Bishops and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty tho these latter I do not always find necessary The power of Jurisdiction not only primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops or present at such judgments as appears in the instances here following might judge any of the other Patriarchs and such as had complaints against them might fly to him and the Synods of Bishops subject to him and the Patriarchs themselves in their distresses might fly to him and such Synods for relief and help Tho saith he of himself alone he had no power to do any thing And 5. l. 52. c. p. 668. when saith he there groweth a difference between the Patriarchs of one See and another or between any of the Patriarchs and the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to them the superior Patriarch not of himself alone but with his Metropolitans and such particular Bishops as are interested may judge and determin the differences between them And 5. l. 34. c. p.
nor discipline That where both the Council and this prime Patriarch agree not no new law no change can be made but all things must remain in statu quo prius which state of things is no way alterable by the Bishop of Rome for this Canon if it give him a negative power against what is to be established it doth not so for what hath bin established as well by the former Bishops of Rome as former Councils See the concession of Zosimns to this purpose apud Gratianum 25. q. contra statuta Contra statuta Patrum condere aliquid vel mutare nec hujus quidem Sedis potest authoritas Apud nos enim inconvulsis radicibus vivit antiquitas cui decreta Patrum sanxere reverentiam Which former Synods if he shall happen to trespass against and incur the guilt of heresy upon evidence of the fact he is condemnable and deposable by the Council of which see more 2. part § 20. So we find a Pope Honorius condemned of heresy as a Monothelite by the 6th General Council but this was done by the Pope as well as the Council Hear what a Bishop of Rome Adrian the 2d saith concerning this matter in the 8th General Council Act. 7. Romanum Pontificem de omnium Ecclesiarum Praesulibus judicasse legimus de eo vero quenquam judicasse non legimus Licet enim Honorio ab Orientalibus post mortem anathema sit dictum sciendum tamen est quod qui fuerat super haeresi accusatus propter quam solum licitum est minoribus majorum suorum motibus resistere vel pravos suos sensus libere respuere quamvis ibi nec Patriarcharum nec caeterorum Antistitum cuipiam de eo quamlibet fas fuerit proferre sententiam nisi ejusdem primae Sedis Pontificis consensus proecessisset and what that Council saith Can. 21. Sed ne alium quenquam conscriptiones contra Sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae ac verba complicare vel componere liceat c quod nuper Photius Patriarch of Constantinople whom this Council deposed fecit multo ante Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria Quisquis autem tale facinus contra Sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare aequalem eandem quam Illi condemnationem i.e. deposition recipiat Porro si Synodus Vniversalis fuerit congregata facta fuerit etiam de Sancta Romanorum Ecclesia quaevis ambiguitas aut controversia oportet venerabiliter cum convenienti reverentia de proposita quaestione sciscitari solutionem accipere aut proficere aut profectum facere non tamen audacter sententiam dicere contra summos Senioris Romae Pontifices Thus that Council in opposition to Photius his former violences toward the Roman See and thus much of that old Canon mentioned in the Epistle of Julius to the Orientals assembled at Antioch Who since they made an Arrian Creed contrary to the Nicene and condemned Athanasius and some other Orthodox Bishops which things were done if not by the major party yet by the prevailing it is as reasonable to affirm That the same persons only that did these things writ that Letter to Julius so invective against the authority of the Roman See and not the major part whom Spalatensis to add the more authority to this Letter contends to have bin Catholick See his 3. l. 8. c. 3. n. c. 4. l. 8. c. 11. n. c. However it is clear that Julius his proceedings are justified against them both by the Occidental Orthodox Bishops and by Athanasius and other orthodox Bishops of the East and by the Council of Sardica and by the Ecclesiastical Historians See Sozomen 3. l. 7. c. and 9. c. where the same persons that writ to Julius the Historian saith contra Concilii Nicaeni decreta res gesserunt and were accused by Julius 9. c. quod clam contra fidem Concilii Nicaeni novas res moliti fuerunt See Socrates 2. l. 7. c. their changing the Nicene Creed Thus much concerning the meaning of the ancient Canon Now to go on See in Athanas Apol. 2. and Socrates 2. l. 19. c. and Epiphan Haer. 68. Valens and Vrsatius § 23. n. 1. two Bishops one in Mysia the other in Pannonia both very gracious with the Emperour Constantius and leaders of the Arrian faction upon repentance of their error and also calumnies against Athanasius repairing to Rome and delivering to Julius libellum poenitentiae and begging pardon and reconciliation tho afterward they relapsed See the 3d 4th and 7th Canons of the Council of Sardica set down before § 11. in which great Council are reckoned by Athanasius one present in it in 2. Apolog. some Bishops present from our Britanny Episcopi Hispaniarum Galliarum Britanniarum c. Neither is this any wonder since they were also at Conc. Arelat 11 years before that of Nice see Hammond schism p. 110. which canons seem to confirm appeals to the Bishop of Rome and to authorize him to hear and decide the causes by himself or his Legats of those Bishops also who were not under his Patriarchy For it is not limited to the Western Patriarchy but generally proposed Si in aliqua Provincia Episcopus c. Can. 3. and the motive proposed by Hosius formerly President of Nice is general not more concerning one part of the Church than another the honouring of S. Peter's memory and these canons were made by that Council not long after Athanasius a Bishop not subject to the Roman Patriarchy but himself a Patriarch his appeal to Rome and the judgment of his cause by witnesses brought out of the East and his adversaries counter-plea there which judgment and sentence as the Eastern Bishops at Antioch much slighted and undervalued so this Sardican Council approved and if these canons respected all in general then since the Bishops of our Britanny also were there this was their act as well as of the rest and obliged Britanny to the same subordinations with the rest See the Epistle of St. Basil Epist 52. to Athanasius § 23. n. 2. about the suppression of Arrianism in the East wherein he saith Visum est consentaneum scribere ad Episcopum Romanum ut videat res nostras decreti sui judicium interponat authoritatem tribuat delectis viris qui acta Ariminensis Concilii secum ferant ad ea rescindenda quae illic violenter acta sunt c. See the two Epistles of St. Hierom to Damasus Bishop of Rome desiring to know what he should hold concerning the word Hypostasis applied to the Three Persons of the Trinity and with whom communicate in the East wherein thus he Quoniam vetusto Oriens inter se populorum furore collisus c. ideo mihi Cathedram Petri Rom. 1.8 sidem Apostolico ore laudatam censui consulendam Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur haereditas Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri
communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit profanus est c. Ideo hic colleg as tuos Aegyptios Confessores sequor communicating with them Non novi Vitalem Meletium respuo ignoro Paulinum There being much division and distraction in the Church of Antioch under which St. Hierom liv'd between Meletius and Paulinus successively Bishops thereof and Vitalis a Presbyter Cui apud Antiochiam debeam communicare significes decernite si placet obsecro non timebo tres Hypostases dicere si jubetis And in the second Epistle In tres partes scissa Ecclesia ad se rapere me festinat Ego interim clamito si quis Cathedrae Petri jungitur meus est Meletius Vitalis atque Paulinus every one of them tho of several tenents tibi haerere se dicunt possum credere si unus only one of them hoc assereret nunc vero aut duo aut omnes mentiuntur Idcirco obtestor ut mihi literis tuis apud quem in Syria debeam communicare significes Thus S. Hierom. To which Bellarmin adds Erasmus a moderate man his comment upon it videri sibi Hieronymum his verbis asserere omnes Ecclesias subjectas esse Apostolicae Sedi At least it seems in times of schisms and divisions this Father thought it for the season mention'd the safest way to adhere to the Rom. See yet speaks he not of the B. of Rome as judging singly whom he thought liable to Heresie saying in catalogo Scriptorum some such thing of Liberius subscribing Arrianism tho indeed much apology may be made for Liberius in this matter yet not such as can free him from all fault he subscribing only and that when he was tired out with banishment and other cruelties the Sirmian Creed which only omitted Consubstantialis see Part 2. § 41. but of him join'd with his Council or with his Western Bishops Therefore he saith apud vos solos c. and Decernite si placet obsequor c. Therefore the more strict vindicators of the Roman inerrability in matters of Faith take not the Bishop thereof singly and unsynodically as his private judgment may inform or passions incline him especially upon some violence and terrors used as in Liberius it was but as assisted with his Council he weigheth judgeth and defineth such matters see Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2 3 4. in a time when a General Council is not nor cannot so conveniently be had In which intervals it may be presum'd Christ is not wanting to the supremest Guide of the Church using what helps he hath at hand considering what he saith Mat. 18.19 20. And Dr. Field in answer to these places of Hierom p. 547. goes thus far Thirdly we say it is more than probable that the whole Western Church shall never lose or forsake the true profession and therefore he may truly be judg'd a prophane person that eateth the Paschal Lamb out of the Communion of the same tho sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an Heretick other of his Collegues continuing faithful But then I ask according to this when-as not none at all or a few but most of his Western Collegues are join'd with the Bishop of Rome in which Communion no instance in Antiquity can shew him to have been Heretical and only a few in the West divided from him which will seem safest to those who will be guided by authority in St. Hierom's opinion to adhere to Cathedra Petri or the Cathedra elsewhere opposing it As for what is urg'd by Dr. Field ibid. out of St. Hierom Epist ad Evagrium to counterbalance these of a deprav'd custom in Rome when-as this was no way patroniz'd by any Episcopal Constitution and of his holding Presbyters and Bishops and again Bishops of Alexandria and Tanais ejusdem meriti sacerdotit when-as he meaneth ratione ordinis not jurisdictionis or jure divino not ecclesiastico for so he saith in the same Epistle Quod postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatum remedium factum est Factum est i. e. by the Apostles or the Councils which sufficiently justifies his allowance of and submission to Patriarchal authority These places seem to me of no force to null or to qualifie his former expressions to Damasus See Optatus who disputes thus l. 2. against the schismatical Donatist Bishops Videndum est qui ubi prior Cathedrâ sederet Negare non potes scire te in Vrbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas Cathedras sibi quisque defenderent ut jam schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram .i. e. Petri alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra unica sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino Clemens c. Damasus Damaso Siricius hodie qui noster est socius Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis societate concordant Vestrae Cathedrae vos originem reddite Sed habere vos in urbe Roma partem aliquam dicitis Quid est hoc quod pars vestra in urbe Roma Episcopum civem habere non potuit Vnde est quod claves regni vobis usurpare contenditis qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus audaciis sacrilegio militatis Probatum est nos esse in Ecclesia sancta Catholica apud quos symbolum Trinitatis est per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est caeteras dotes apud nos esse etiam Sacerdotium c. I hope none will say that Optatus argues thus because St. Peter's Chair happen'd in his times to be orthodox but because he took it for granted that it must be orthodox and so all the Churches join'd to it because St. Peter's Chair See Damasus Epist 5. ad Africanos § 23. n. 3. Instituta esse majorum ut cuncta quae possit aliquam recipere dubitationem ad nos quasi ad caput ut semper fuit consuetudo deferre non dubitetis Of whom thus Spalatensis l. 7. c. 5. n. 23. Ex non Apocryphis Damasum primum observo qui talis sui privilegii metionem fecit ipsum vero ad sola majorum instituta refert See the Epistle of Siricius Bishop of Rome A. D. 389 to the Metropolitan Bishop of Tarracon in Spain c. 15. Explicuimus ut arbitror Frater charissime universa quae digesta sunt in querelam ad singulas causas de quibus ad Romanam Ecclesiam utpote ad caput sui corporis retulisti sufficientia quatuor opinor responsa reddidimus Nunc fraternitatis tuae animum ad servandos canones tenenda decretalia constituta magis ac magis invitamus ut haec in omnium coepiscoporum nostrorum perfâ—rri facias notionem ad universos Carthaginenses atque Baeticos Lusitanos atque Gallicos c. See the
Epistle of Zosimus a Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time ad Episc Salonit where prohibiting the admitting of Monks and also Laicks immediately to be Bishops without their passing thro and continuance for some time in inferior Ecclesiastical Functions he saith Hoc autem speeialiter sub Praedecessoribus nostris nuper a nobis interdictum constat literis ad Gallias Hispaniasque transmissis Ad te potissimum scripta direximus quae in omnium fratrum Coepiscoporum nostrorum facies ire notitiam Sciet quisquis hoc postposita Patrum Apostolicae Sedis authoritate neglexerit a nobis districtius vindicandum c. See the Epistles of the African Bishops § 23. n. 4. in the 5th Carthaginian and in the Milevitan Councils held there against Pâ—lagianism amongst whom was S. Austin sent to Pope Innocent I and his Answers to them being amongst S. Austin's Epistles the 90 91 92 93. where the 92. the African Bishops begin thus Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuae munere in Sede Apostolica collocavit talemque in nostris temporibus praestitit ut c. and see the close thereof And in Epistle 90. Hoc itaque gestum Domine Frater Sancte charitati tuae intimandum duximus ut statutis nostroe mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur authoritas And S. Austin Retract 2. l. 49. c. speaketh of the same business in this language Postea quam Pelagiana haeresis cum suis authoribus ab Episcopis Ecclesiae Romanoe prius Innocentio deinde Zosimo cooperantibus Conciliorum Africanorum literis convicta atque damnata est scripsi c. And Possidonius S. Austin's Collegiat in vita August 18. c. thus Et cum iidem Pelagiani perversi Sedi Apostolicae per suam ambitionem eandem perfidiam persuadere conabantur instantissime etiam Conciliis Africanis sanctorum Episcoporum gestum est ut So Papae urbis Romae prius venerabili Innocentio postea sancto Zosimo ejus successori persuaderetur quod illa Secta Catholica fide abominanda damnanda fuisset At illi tantae Sedis Antistites suis diversis temporibus eosdem notantes atque a membris Ecclesiae i. e. Catholicae praecidentes datis literis ad Africanas Orientis Occidentis Ecclesias eos anathematizandos devitandos ab omnibus Catholicis censuerunt Et hoc tale de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae probatum judiâ—ium where he seems to call the Pope's judgment the Catholical etiam pâ—issimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens suis eos legibus damnatos inter haereticos habere debere constituit And see the Bishop of Rome's answers wherein he vindicates the universal authority of that See something of which is quoted before § 21. After which judgment in Africk both Pelagius and Caelestius his chief disciple made their appeals to Rome to Zosimus the Successor of this Innocentius under such forms as these Si forte quispiam ignorantiae error obrepserit vestra sententia corrigatur and Emendari cupimus a te qui Petri fidem sedem tenes and were upon a false relation of their tenants favoured there to the great offence of the African Bishops but afterward also condemned by that See and their condemnation published from thence to all Churches See for what is said the authorities in S. Austin and others quoted by Baronius A.D. 418. See S. Austin contra Julianum 1. l. 2. c. where urging against Julian the testimonies of the Occidental Fathers for Original sin he saith thus An ideo contemnendos putas quia Occidentalis Ecclesiae sunt omnes Puto tibi eam partem orbis sufficere debere in qua primum Apostolorum suorum voluit Dominus gloriosissimo Martyrio coronare Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem beatum Innocentium si audire voluisses jam tunc periculosam juventutem tuam Pelagianis laqueis exuisses Quid enim potuit vir ille Sanctus Africanis respondere Conciliis nisi quod antiquitus Apostolica Sedes Romana cum caeteris tenet perseveranter Ecclesia Non est ergo cur provoces ad Orientis Antistites c. See S. Austin's Epistle 261. written to Caelestine Bishop of Rome in his old age as appears in the end of the Epistle si meam senectutem fueris consolatus and probably after the contest of the African Council about Appeals that Council being held 419. and Celestine made Bishop of Rome 423. who outlived S. Austin who died 430. Ludov. de Angelis lib. 4. c. 6. It was written concerning one Antonius for whom S. Austin had procured the Bishoprick of Fussala a place formerly in his own Diocess but being very remote from Hippo he obtained that a new Bishoprick might be erected there which Antonius for some miscarriage being by the neighbouring Bishops of Numidia removed from that Bishoprick yet not utterly degraded had appealed to the Bishop of Rome and had much threatned by this Bishop's power to procure a restorement to his place In this Epistle thus S. Austin beseecheth the Pope Collabora obsecro nobiscum jube tibi quae decreta sunt omnia recitari Existat exemplo ipsa Apostolica Ecclesia judicante vel aliorum judicia firmante quosdam pro culpis nec Episcopali spoliatos honore neque relictos omnimodo impunitos Quia ergo c. subveni hominibus opem tuam in Christi mesericordia poscentibus non sinas ista fieri i.e. Antonius to be restored by force obsecro te per Christi sanguinem per Apostoli Petri memoriam qui Christianorum praepositos Populorum monuit ne violenter dominentur inter Fratres c. This he saith against the Executores Clericos of the Roman See many times using unjust violence but we see he declines not the Bishop of Rome's judgment but hopes to have it favourable to his cause See likewise his Epistle 157. to Optatus wherein he mentions a legation imposed upon him and some other Bishops for some Ecclesiastical affair to Caesarea in Mauritania Quo nos saith he injuncta nobis a venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae Sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat Of which also thus Possidonius Vit. Aug. 14. c. In Coesarinsem Mauritaniae Civitatem venire venerabilis mentoriae Augustinum cum aliis Episcopis Sedis Apostolicae literae compulerunt ad terminandas viz. aliquas Ecclesiae necessitates c which shews what authority the Roman Bishop used over the African in this Fathers time where S. Austin did many good offices for that Province and had successful disputes with Emeritus the Bishop of that city See Possid vit Aug. 14. c. Aug. de gest cum Emerit See the Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria § 23. n. 5. to Celestin Bishop of Rome wherein he saith concerning Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople before condemned by any General Council At quamvis res ita habeat non prius tamen illius communionem confidenter disserere ausi fuimus quam haec ipsa pietati tuae indicaremus
Digneris proinde quid hic sentias declarare quo liquide nobis constet communicare ne nos cum illo oporteat an vero libere eidem denunciare neminem cum illo communicare qui ejusmodi erroneam doctrinam fovet praedicat Again see the great authority that Celestin Bishop of Rome used against the same Nestorius which authority was approved and submitted-to by Cyril and the Alexandrian and also the Ephesine the 3d. General Council Thus Celestin writeth in his Epistle to Cyril Nostrae Sedis authoritate ascita nostraque vice loco cum potestate usus ejusmodi sententia exequeris nempe ut nisi decem dierum intervallo ab hujus nostroe admonitionis die numerandorum nefariam doctrinam suam conceptis verbis anathematizet c illico Sanctitas tua illi Ecclesioe prospiciat Thus Celestin to Nestorius Post unam alteram admonitionem c nisi nunc tandem quae perverse docuisti per te corrigantur in posterum a nostro consortio ab omnium Christianorum coetu alienum te fore nihil quicquam dubites Upon this thus Cyril and his Alexandrian Council to Nestorius Quod sane nisi juxta tempus in literis Celestini sacratissimi reverendissimique Romanorum Episcopi expressum praestiteris certo scias nullam tibi deinceps cum Episcopis Sacerdotibus Dei consuetudinem nullum sermonem nullum denique inter eos locum futurum esse All which proceedings see approved in the Acts of the Ephesine Council Tom. 2. c. 5. and then see the sentence of the Council against Nestorius running thus Per sacros Canones sanctissimique Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopi Celestini Patris nostri literas lachrymis suffusi pene inviti ad lugubrem hanc sententiam urgemur See the like things related by Evagrius 1. l. 4. c. See the Epistle of S. Chrysostom § 23. n. 6. Bishop of Constantinople in banishment being deposed by a Synod held there appealing to Innocentius Bishop of Rome and sending to him some of his Bishops wherein he bespeaks him thus Quamobrem ne confusio haec omnem quae sub coelo est nationem invadat obsecro ut scribas quod haec tam inique facta absentibus nobis non declinantibus judicium non habeant robur sicut neque natura sua habent illi autem qui adeo impune egisse deprehensi sunt poenae Ecclesiasticarum legum subjaceant Upon which suit the Bishop of Rome called a Synod of his Bishops and pronounced the proceedings of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria to be against the canons and void See Field p. 536. and Epist Innocent apud Binnium And is said by Baronius A.D. 407. who quotes for it many authors Gennadius Nicephorus Glycas to which may be added Georgius Patriarch of Alexandria in the Edit Savil. of Chrysostom 8. Tom. p. 248. after he heard of Chrysostom's death in banishment to have excommunicated both Arcadius the Eastern Emperour and Eudoxia and Theophilus his chief oppressors But this fact is denied by Dr. Field upon the silence of Historians more ancient In Innocentius's letter to Arcadius we find these words Itaque ego minimus peccator cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est segrego rejicio te illam a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri Episcopumetiam omnem aut Clericum ordinis sanctae Christi Ecclesiae qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas dignitate sua excidisse decerno c. The truth of this Epistle I decide not but t is certain that S. Ambrose before this excommunicated the Emperour his Father and if Arcadius his violences to holy Chrysostom his Bishop deserved the like Ecclesiastical censure I know not who after Chrysostom's death could inflict it more properly than the first See which also was defended in it by Honorius brother to Arcadius and Emperour in the West See the Epistle of Theodoret a Syrian Bishop appealing from the 2d Ephesine Council by which he was in absence condemned and deposed as a Nestorian to Leo Bishop of Rome whom he sues to in these terms post tot sudores labores ne in jus quidem vocatus sum condemnatus Ego autem Apostolicae vestrae Sedis expecto sententiam supplico obsecro vestram sanctitatem ut mihi opem ferat justum vestrum rectum appellanti judicium jubeat ad vos accurrere for the Emperour had confined him to Cyrus the place of his Bishoprick ostendere meam doctrinam vestigia Apostolica sequentem And his Epistle to Renatus one of the Bishop of Rome's Legats in the 2d Ephesine Council Te precor ut sanctissimo Archiepiscopo Leoni persuadeas ut Apostolica utatur authoritate jubeatque ad vestrurn Concilium adire Tenet enim sancta ista Sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti orbis Ecclesiarum Habet enim sanctissima Romana Sedes omnem per orbem Ecclesiarum principatum cum multis aliis de causis tum maxime quod haereticae labis immunis permansit this was long after the times of Liberius by which it appears Antiquity imputed no Arrianism to this See Apostolicam gratiam immaculatam servavit Whose cause Pope Leo accordingly judged and cleared him and afterward the General Council of Chalcedon after due examination some there also opposing Theodoret did the like After examination I say For the Pope's and his assistant Bishops sentence it seems was not accounted so authentick and unrepealable that a General Council might not review examin and if seeming to them erroneous reverse it upon which judgment of the Council concurring with his Leo thus answers Theodoret Quae nostro prius ministerio Dominus desinierat universae fraternitatis i. e. of the Council irrefragabili firmavit assensu ut vere a se prodiisse ostenderet quod prius a prima omnium Sede firmatum totius Christiani orbis judicium recepisset ut in hoc quoque capiti membra concordent Nam ne aliarum Sedium ad cam quam caeteris omnibus Dominus statuit praesidere consensus videretur assentatio inventi prius sunt qui de judiciis nostris ambigerent c. See Socrates Eccles Hist 50 l. 15. c. where he speaks thus concerning the reconciling of Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch to the Roman See Theophilus i. e. the Patriarch of Alexandria odio in illum i.e. Flavianum restincto Isidorum Presbyterum misit uti Damasi Siricii it should be saith Baronius animum in Flavianum exulceratum mitigaret doceretque in usu Ecclesiae esse si propter populi concordiam peccatum a Flaviano commissum remitteret Quocirca communione Flaviano ad hunc modum reddita therefore he had bin formerly by the Roman Bishop excommunicated populus Antiochenus ad concordiam reducitur therefore formerly in the want of that communion they had refused some obedience and submission to him After these clear evidences of
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
seems Hilarius or some in his behalf had done aut Praeceptis Romani Pontificis liceat obviare Omnibus pro lege sit quicquid sanxerit Aposâ—olicae Sedis authoritas ita ut quisquis Episcoporum ad judicium Romani Antistitis evocatus venire neglexerit per Moderatorem ejusdem Provinciae adesse cogatur per omnia servatis quae Divi Parentes nostri Romanae Ecclesiae detulerunt And the like orders had bin made by Emperours formerly it seems by that rigorous power used in Africk by the executors of the Bishop of Rome's orders there of which as you have read before § 12. the African Bishops so much complained See the Epistle of the 4th G. Council at Chalcedon the most numerous §25 n. 2. I think of any Council which the Church hath had to the same Leo Bishop of Rome in which are these expressions Quam fidem velut auro textam seriem ex veste Christi praecepto Legislatoris venientem usque ad nos ipse Leo servasti vocis Beati Petri omnibus constitutus Interpres ejus fidei beatificationem super omnes adducens Quibus i. e. Episcopis congregates in Concilio Tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens c. In vineam irruens i. e. Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria a supporter of Eutyches quam optime repperit plantatam evertit post haec omnia insuper contra ipsum cui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est extendit insaniam id est contra tuam quoque Apostolicam sanctitatem excommunicatione meditatus est contra te qui corpus Ecclesiae unire festinas Haec i.e. the Honours they conferr'd on the See of Constantinople velut a tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata roboravimus praesumentes dum noverimus quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit alluding to themselves ad Patres recurrit alluding to Leo facientes hoc proprium sibi i. e. appropriating their Children's actions to themselves Rogamus igitur tuis decretis nostrum honora judicium sicut nos cupidi in bonis adjecimus consonantiam sic summitas tua filiis quod decet adimpleat Sic enim pii Principes the Emperor c. very desirous of the advancement of the See Constantinopolitanâ— complacebunt will be well pleased qui tanquam legem tuae sanctitatis judicium firmaverunt Constantinopolitanae sedes suscipiet praemium quae omne semper studium vobis ad causam pietatis explevit c. Eutychen pro impietate damnatum suae tyrannidis decretis innoxium statuit i.e. Dioscorus who by a party in the second Ephesine Council restor'd Eutyches who was a Constantinopolitan Presbyter and an Archimandrita Abbot of the Monks there to his former degree and dignities dignitatem quae a vestra illi oblata fuerat sanctitate quippe ut ab eo qui hac gratia fuerit indignus ille restituit Where know that Eutyches depos'd by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople in a Synod there appeal'd or pretended it to the Bishop of Rome to whom also the Emperor sent Letters in his behalf which Bishop of Rome also after the business known ratified his deposition Concerning which appeal of this Presbyter where it appears that in matters of Faith and of great consequence the causes of Presbyters and inferior Clergy might be brought to the examination and sentence of the chief Patriarch Leo having by a miscarriage receiv'd as yet no Letters from the Bishop of Constantinople writes thus unto him Epist 8. Accepimus libâ—llum Eutychetis Presbyteri qui se queritur immerito communione privatum maxime cum libellum appellationis suae se assâ—rat obtulisse nec tamen fuisse susceptum Quibus rebus intercedentibus necdum agnoscimus qua justa a communione Ecclesiae fuerit separatus Sed respicientes ad causam facti tui nosse volumus rationem usque ad nostram notitiam cuncta deferri quoniam nos nihil possumus incognitis rebus in cujusquam partis praejudicium definire priusquam universa quae gesta sunt veraciter audiamus Thus Leo to the Bishop of Constantinople To return to the Epistle of Conc. Chalc. In the same 't is said Episcopis vâ—tam finientibus multae turbae nascuntur absque rectore c. therefore they say they gave some power to the Constantinopolitan Bishop for the ordering and setling them Quod nec vestram latuit sanctitatem quum maxime propter Ephesios unde quidam vobis saepius importuni fuerunt Leo therefore exercis'd some authority over the Church of Ephesus Again Considentes quia lucente apud vos Apostolico radio usque ad Constantinopolitanorum Ecclesiam consuete gubernando illum spargentes hunc saepius expanditis eo quod absque invidia consueveritis virorum bonorum participatione ditare domesticos Where they say the Roman Bishop dilated his beams to the governing of the Church of Constantinople And see their Epistle likewise to the Emperor Velut signaculum sacrae doctrinae Concilii hujus a vobis the Emperor congregati predicationem Petri sedis authoritate roborantes But yet tho thus courted by them in his answer to that Council Epist 59. he approv'd not the preferment of the Bishop of Constantinople before Alexandria Quantumlibet extortis assentationibus sese instruat vanitatis elatio i. e. of the Constantinopolitan Bishop appetitus suos Conciliorum aestimet nomine roborandos infirmum atque irritum erit quicquid a praedictorum Patrum i. e. Nicene canonibus discreparit Quorum regulis Apostolica sedes quam reverenter utatur scriptorum meorum c. poterit sanctitas vestra lectione cognoscere me auxiliante Domino catholicae fidei paternarum traditionum esse custodem See Evagrius Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 18 20 21. §25 n. 3. And the Epistle of Felix Bishop of Rome A. D. 484 to Acatius Bishop of Constantinople where we find Felix appeal'd and complain'd-to by John the wrong'd Bishop of Alexandria and being assisted with a Council of Forty-two Western Bishops excommunicating Peter who then unjustly possess'd the Patriarchy of Alexandria as being an Eutychian also and not submitting to the Council of Chalcedon see Evagrius l. 3. c. 21. and excommunicating Acatius also Bishop of Constanstinople after he had first cited him to Rome and also written to the Emperor Zeno to compel him to appear upon the complaints of John Alexand. rationem de rebus quas Johannes ei objectasset redditurus as Evagrius hath it for his communicating with Peter a condemn'd Heretick and many other crimes See his Epistle at the end of which the form of his Condemnation runs thus Sacerdotali honore communione Catholica not only Romana nec non etiam a fidelium numero segregatus sublatum tibi nomen munus ministerii sacerdotalis agnosce sancti Spiritus judicio Apostolica per nos authoritate damnatus Which proceeding of Felix being much dislik'd by some in the East
because a Synod was not specially summon'd for the purpose especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely City see Gelasius the successor to Felix A. D. 494. his vindication of this act of the Apostolick See without a Council at least an Oecumenial one in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae an Eastern Province not far from Constantinople which Epistle is worth the reading over the rather because some places being urg'd out of it by Bellarmin Dr. Field in his answer to them hath these words Truly there cannot be any better proof against the pretended Supremacy of the Popes than this Epistle In this Epistle then Gelasius pleads thus Sabellium damnavit Synodus nec fuit necesse ut ejus sectatores postea damnarentur singulas viritim Synodos celebrari sed pro tenore constitutionis antiquae cunctos qui vel pravitatis illius vel communionis extitere participes universalis Ecclesia i e. in a Council dixit esse refutandos Considimus quod nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum quod universalis Ecclesiae probavit assensus nullam magis exequi sedem prae ceteris oportere quam primam quae unamquamque Synodum sua authoritate confirmat continuata moderatione custodit pro suo scil Principatu quem Beatus Petrus Apostolus Domini voce perceptum I suppose it should be percepit Ecclesia nihilominus subsequens tenuit semper tenebit Haec i. e. Sedes Apostolica dum Acacium certis comperisset indiciis a veritate Apostolica deviasse diutius ista non credens quippe quem noverat executorem saepe necessariae dispensationis suae i. e. Sedis Apostolicae per triennium fere monere non destitit c. cur tanto tempore dum ista gererentur non ad sedem Apostolicam a qua sibi curam illarum regionum noverat delegatum referre curavit i. e. Acatius Tandem aliquando missis literis profitetur Acatius se Alexandrino Petro quem expetita Apostolicae sedis authoritate executor ipse quoque damnaverat absque sedis Apostolicae notitia communione permixtum Beati autem Petri sedes ne per Acacium in Petri consortiurn duceretur ipsum quoque a sua communione submovit multis modis transgressorum a sua societate fecit alienum Quo tenore Timotheus etiam atque ipse Alexandrinus Petrus qui secundam sedem tenuisse videbuntur non repetita Synodo tantummodo sedis Apostolicae ipso quoque Acacio postulante vel exequente probantur esse damnati Nec plane tacemus quod euncta per mundum novit Ecclesia quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata Pontificum sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habeat resolvendi utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat judicandi neque cuiquam de ejus liceat judicare judicio siquidem ad Illam de qualibet mundi parte canones appellare aliquem voluerunt ab illa autem nemo sit appellare permissus Sed nec illa praeterimus quod Apostolicae sedi frequenter datum or dictum est ut more majorum etiam sine ulla Synodo precedente solvendi quod Synodus inique damnaverat damnandi nulla existente Synodo quos oportuit habuerit potestatem Sanctae memoriae nihilo minus Johannem Constantinopolitanum i. e. Chrysostomum Synodus etiam Catholicorum Praesulum certe damnaverat quem simili modo sedes Apostolica etiam sola quia non consensit absolvit Itemque S. Flavianum Pontificem Graecorum congregatione damnatum pari tenore quoniam sola Apostolica sedes non consensit absolvit potius quam qui illic receptus fuerat Dioscorum secundae Sedis praesulem sua authoritate damnavit impiam Synodum i.e. sec Ephes non consentiendo summovit sola authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Ponamus tamen etiam si nulla Synodus praecessisset cujus Apost sedes recte fieret exequutrix cum quibus erat de Acacio Synodus ineunda Nunquid cum his qui jam participes tenebantur Acacii per Orientem totum Catholicis sacerdotibus such he calls those who adher'd to the Council of Chalcedon violenter exclusis per exilia diversa relegatis socii evidenter existentes communionis externae i. e. extra Ecclesiam Catholicam prius se ad haec consortia transferrent quam sedis Apostolicae scita consulerent Concilio nec opus erat post primam Synodum nec talibus habere licebat Quae congregatio facta Pontificum i.e. in Italia Occidentalium non contra Chalcedonensem non tanquam nova Synodus contra veterem primamque convenit sed potius secundum tenorem veteris constituti particeps Apostolica exequutionis effecta est ut satis appareat Ecclesiam Catholicam sedemque Apostolicam quia alibi jam omnino non posset ubi potuit cum quibus potuit nihil penitus omisisse quod ad fraternum pertineret pro intemerata fide sincera communione tractatum In this Epistle amongst others two things must not be passed by unobserv'd 1. One That he contends he ought not to call to a Council Bishops condemn'd by and professedly opposing a former General Council which being granted Councils may be rightly call'd General when they consist not of all but only of all Catholick Churches 2. The other That in the final sentencing and determining of greater persons and causes in the Eastern Church the Bishop of Constantinople was employ'd only from him and as his Delegate See the Epistle of Pelagius the 2d Bishop of Rome A.D. 580. Vniversis Episcopis qui illicita vocatione Johannis Constantinopolitani Episcopi ad Constantinopolim convenerunt Wherein he vindicates the authority of the Roman See against John assembling a Council there without his consent and leave and calling himself Universal Bishop seeking to exalt himself above Rome probably from the supreme dignity and great flourishing of that Imperial City in those time in which times also the poor City of Rome laboured under great afflictions and desolations by the Goths Longobards c. whereof Gregory writing to the Empress 4. l. Ep. 34. saith Viginti autem jam septem annos ducimus quod in hac urbe inter Longobardorum gladios vivimus and from the Emperour Mauritius his countenancing him in it Out of which Epistle some words are quoted by S. Gregory his Successor 4. l. Ep. 36. § 26 Now in the forenamed Epistle of Pelagius as he hath these passages Vniversalitatis quoque nomen A Digression concerning the title of Universalis Episcopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops quod sibi illicite usurpavit i.e. Joannes Constant nolite attendere c. Nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur quia si summus Patriarcha tho it were the Patriarch of Rome Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc absit c. Jactantiam tantam sumpsit i. e. Jonannes Constant ita ut universa
prejudicial to the formerly-asserted authority of the Roman Bishop For 1. by these within the compass of his own Patriarchate he is the supreme and final Judg upon all Appeals as well of other Clergy as of Bishops and 2. so is he also of all other Bishops and Metropolitans whosoever are not subjected to any other Patriarch and 3. also in other Patriarchates where greater contests happen between them and their Bishops or with one another here also he interests his power see before § 20. and 26. for any thing in these Imperial decrees expressed to the contrary Nay further 4. he as Caput omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum to use Justinian's stile where he judgeth other Patriarchs to neglect their duty or sees them overborn in heresy or other matters of great concernment for the peace and safety of the Church he I say as appears by many instances above hath exercised authority also over the inferior Clergy of other Patriarchats as he did in the degradation of Eutyches a Constantinopolitan Prerbyter see before § 25. n. 2. an act approved by the same Council of Chalcedon that in their 9th Canon referred the final decision of the ordinary controversies of any Province to their own Bishops or Patriarch § 29 Pardon this Digression Now to go on with the observations out of Gregory's writings 5. l. 24. Ep. where the Bishop of Ravenna telling S. Gregory that some said he had no Canonical authority to judge the difference between the said Bishop of Ravenna and a certain Abbot who had appealed to Gregory he saith Nunquid non ipse nosti quia in causa quae a Johanne Presbytero contra Johannem Constantinopolitanum fratrem coepiscopum nostrum orta est secundum Canones ad Sedem Apostolicam recurrit nostra est sententia definita Si ergo de illa Civitate ubi Princeps est i. e. Constantinople where the Emperour then resided ad nostram causa cognitionem deducta est quanto magis negotium quod contra nos est done within our own Patriarchat against our authority hic est veritate cognita terminà ndum See Ep. 63. to the same Sicilian Bishop where answering to some objecting Quomodo Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanam disposuit comprimere i.e. Gregory qui ejus consuetudines i.e. in ordinatione Missae per omnia sequitur he denying that the Church of Rome followed the customs of the Greeks replies thus Vnde habent i.e. Graeci ergo hodie ut Subdiaconi lineis in tunicis procedant nisi quia hoc a Matre sua Romana Ecclesia perceperunt And Nam de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia quod dicunt Quis eam dubitet Sedi Apostolicae esse subieâ—â—am quod Lominus piissimus Imperator frater noster Eusebius I conceive it should be Cyriacus who at the first especially was very compliant with Rome see Greg. Ep. 6. l. 31. Ep. 28. Ep. for there was no Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople in Gregory's time ejusdem Civitatis Episcopus assidue profitentur And see 10. l. 31. Epistle the form of submission taken by Gregory's Substitutes of those who return'd to the unity of the Church from the Schism which maintained the tria Capitula of the Council of Chalcedon which were condemned in the 5th General Council which submission was Promitto tibi per te Sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi atque ejus Vicario Beatissimo Gregorio semper me in unitate Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum § 30 A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Raverna and Justiniana 1ª urged by Dr. Hammond And because Dr. Hammond schism 6. c. p. 115. and 5. c. 8. § quotes and much stands upon the Patriarchship of Ravenna erected to this dignity as he saith by the Emperour Valentinian and of Justiniana 1ª and of Carthage erected by the Emperour Justinian the one being his native soil the other recovered by him from the Vandals erected as utterly independent on the Roman Patriarch tho Dr. Field grants all these places to have bin contained under his Patriarchy 38. c. p. 560. and this without any contradiction from the said Patriarch upon which instances chiefly he there builds this position That it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect or translate Patriarchates I will also set you down some passages in these Epistles of Gregory one who lived after and not long after these Emperours which shew these Primats to have had still dependance as others on the Roman See and either not to have had conferr'd on them at all or at least not to have enjoyed with that Church's consent those priviledges he pretends 1. For the Bishop of Ravenna see Gregory's Epistle 2. l. 54. Ep. to John 3d. Bishop of Ravenna the same that as Dr. Hammond saith Answ to S. disarm'd p. 156. stood much upon his special rights in opposition to the Roman See where Gregory reprehending him for an unseasonable using of the Pall hath these words Quod bene hanc consuetudinem generalis Ecclesiae contrary to what he used noveritis vestris nobis manifestissime significastis Epistolis quibus Praeceptum beatae memoriae Decessoris nostri Johannis Papae nobis subditis transmisistis annexum continens omnes consuetudines ex privilegio Praedecessorum nostrorum concessas vobis Ecclesiaeque vestrae debere servari The Priviledges of Ravenna therefore whatever they were are in this contest pretended by the Bishop thereof to be received not from the Emperour or not from him singly but from the See Apostolick contrary to what Dr. Hammond affirms p. 156. and this only is pleaded by John Bishop of Ravenna That the priviledges granted to his See by former Roman Bishops could not be annull'd by Gregory the present But such priviledges were denied by Gregory to have bin formerly conceded to Him by his Predecessors hence he proceeds thus afterward in the same Epistle Aut mos omnium Metropolitanorum est a sua fraternitate servandus aut si tuae Ecclesiae aliquid specialiter dicis esse concessum praeceptumve a prioribus Romanae Vrbis Pontificibus quod haec Ravennati Ecclesiae sint concessa a vobis oportet ostendi And to the same Bishop about another thing amiss 4. l. 1. Ep. he writes in this stile Proinde Fraternitas tua hoc quolibet in loco factum sit emendare festinet quia ego nullo modo patiar ut loca sacra per Clericorum ambitum destruantur Vos itaque ita agite ut mihi hac de re correctam causam sub celeritate nuntietis See 5. l. 8. Ep. his sending the Pall to Maximinianus Bishop of Ravenna and confirming his privileges In which Epistle urged by S. W. Dr. Hammond Answ to Schism disarm'd p. 151. will have these words omnia Privilegia quae tuae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae nostra authoritate firmamus illibata decernimus permanere well to consist with the independency
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
not deserting the Patriarch the things above-named both Royalty and Episcopacy peace in the State and in the Church of such countreys better preserved What former Prince or Clergy of this Kingdom under the Patriarch's obedience take him with all his faults have suffered more than these in our days have done since that yoke broken What subject trained up in his Principles hath bin so disobedient But 2ly Is any one free from a Law or Canon to eject it when he can give some reason that it is inconvenient Or did not the wisdom of those who established such Canons and such subordination to Patriarchs see their jurisdiction for example in respect of Africk to be foreign and weigh the inconveniences thereof as well as we now do but they weighed these together with the benefits serving for preserving unity for doing more entire justice being less engaged for deciding controversies more truly being persons of more eminent wisdom enabled with a more selected Council c. See before § 14. And now have other Nations lost their reason who notwithstanding the foreignness of the jurisdiction in obedience to the Church-canons submit to this power But what if a Patriarch should change the Bible into an Alcoran as he urgeth elsewhere Reply to Bishop of Chalced. should in Spiritual matters misguide us I answer when you can find any to obey who may not be faulty in his government leave the Patriarch and go to him Are we more secure then under the Supremacy of a Secular power or of some other Archbishop What if the Secular power throw down Bishops destroy the publick Liturgies silence the orthodox Ministry c And what if the Archbishop change the Bible or will we be our own Supreams and blot out the name of Canonical obedience § 43 In the next place Dr. Hammond's plea Schism 6. c. p. 115. seems to me not true nor his proofs and instances sufficient and the assertion in the consequences thereof dangerous to the government and unity of the Church Catholick where he saith That it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchats or to translate them from one city to another And therefore saith he whatever title is supposable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first plantation of the Gospel here whatever I will therefore suppose his title to have bin from ancient Church-canon and custom whereby he hath bin confirmed Patriarch of the Western Provinces I say not that such a thing was now but suppose such a thing were this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all the Christians of this Island to the Spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate independently from any foreign Bishop I say this Thesis seems to me very untrue if he mean That Princes may do any such thing by their own just power without the authoritative concurrence of the Church or contrary to her former Canons and ancient Customs as his instancing in Ravenna and Justiniana prima and Carthage and Grado formerly under the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch imply that he means thus For example I say it is not lawful supposing ancient Canons or immemorial custom to use his own word of the Church had made the Roman Bishop Patriarch of the West or of France for the King of France either with or without the consent of his own particular Clergy within his Dominions to erect a new Patriarchate or elect another Patriarch This I think is plain from the Discourse and the Concessions preceding And he seems to say the like himself Answer to Schism Disarm'd p. 164. A power Princes have to erect Metropoles but if it be exercis'd so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse Thus he But how it coheres with what else is said there I see not But if secular Princes have such power to set up Patriarchs within their own Dominions I ask whether General Councils have not also the same and that within the same Dominions of Secular Princes Will he deny this power to Councils or at least their power to do it within the Secular Prince's Dominions But then the Church hath no power to do it at all For where are the Church's Subjects for whom she makes Laws as she thinks fit but under the government of some or orther Secular Power But the contrary of these things is most evident and many are her canons to this purpose The Council of Chalcedon the same upon two Canons of which Balsamon founds and by which the Doctor proves this authority of Princes to make Patriarchs did erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy next to Rome which also was done before by Conc. Constant 1. but not confirm'd by the Roman and Occidental Bishops and this not only to an empty Dignity or precedency in place but to a real jurisdiction over some of the Emperor's Provinces to receiving and judging appeals c. see Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. and Can. 9. and 16. And when the Bishop of Rome much opposed this Act of the Council the Emperor then making Constantinople the Seat of his Empire and much desiring the advancement of its Bishop yet appeared not at all in this promoting of him nor claim'd any such right as due to him tho this happen'd long after Valentinian is pretended to have advanc'd Ravenna to a Patriarchship and independency on Rome Nor the Council in their Letter to Leo see Act. 3. pleaded any such power as belonging to the Emperor at all but to themselves only they say Nos carantes tam piissimos Christi amicos Imperatores qui super hoc delectantur quam clarissimum senatum c. and sic enim pii Principes complacebunt c. This power then cannot with any modesty be deny'd to Councils If both of them then have this power and that in the same place as I have shew'd it must be what if they disagree Suppose the one gives Rome jurisdiction over Ravenna the other exempts it and makes Ravenna supreme for it self who must be obey'd If the Prince may reverse what the Council hath done then their Canons in these Spiritual matters are subordinate to his Edicts then Sedes Romana in omnibus per omnia prima Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. holds no longer than during the Emperor's pleasure Then why so much courting Leo's consent for a thing in the Emperor's gift Or doth Dr. Hammond here mean only a power in Princes to make some inferior Patriarchs subordinate not only in Dignity but Jurisdiction to these supreme ones as the name of Patriarchs in some times hath been communicated to inferior Bishops But then this Thesis of his if true will serve little to his purposes as long as he leaves his Patriarchs under the yoke of a superior You see how I cast about and yet cannot set these
Emperor after 1080 what is establish'd by such a Synod not General is too weak to overthrow any former rights of the Church Neither is Balsamon's a later Greek Writer's authority much to be stood upon in this controversie Neither speaks he home in this point whether the Patriarch is to admit what the Emperor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he hath represented to the Emperor that it is against the Canons Thus much of the 12th Canon In the 17th Canon and the 38th in Trullo Here is only upon the Emperor's building a new City or perhaps upon his transferring the Civil right and priviledges of having the seats of Judicature c. from one City in a Province unto another and upon this subjecting some other inferior Cities or Towns call'd Parochia's when being the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop see Hammond Schism p. 57. unto it the subjecting also of the Bishops of those Parochiae under that City to the Bishop of that City Where note First that these Canons speak only of the subjecting of Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans where new Cities are builded and not of altering any thing in the jurisdiction of old which the 12th Canon of the same Council so expresly opposeth Secondly Only of subjecting Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans not of subjecting Metropolitans to new Patriarchs nor yet to new Primates For 't is most clear that this very Council that made this Canon never dreamt of any power the Emperor had to erect a new Patriarch as I have shew'd before § 43. and much less Leo the Bishop of Rome who confirm'd these Canons yet vehemently opposed the Council seeking to erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy much more would he have opposed the Emperor Thirdly Whatever priviledge the Emperor here receives methinks their ordering that such a thing should be done subsequatur is far from sounding that they yeilded such a thing to belong to the Emperor by right as Dr. Hammond expounds it Schis p. 119. But then if the Emperor hold such priviledge from the Church the Church when they please may resume this power for so himself argues concerning any priviledges which Secular Princes have formerly conceded to the Bishop of Rome and then hear what the 21th Canon of the 8th General Council saith if we will trust later Councils not far distant in time better to understand the concessions of former Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt inhonorare aut movere a proprio throno tentare Sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare praecipue quidem sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae c. § 45 As for the things mention'd afterward by the Doctor p. 120 c. the power of changing the seat of a Bishop or dividing one Province into many as likewise the presenting of particular persons to several Dignities in the Church which also private Patrons do without claiming any superiority in Church-matters some of which seem of small consequence as to Ecclesiastical affairs Yet are not these things justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority without the approbation first of Church-Governors But the same things may be acted by the Church alone the Prince gain-saying if he be either Heathen or Heretick which also shews his power when orthodox in the regiment of the Church to be only executive and dependent on the Ecclesiastical Magistrate's No persons are or at least ought to be put into any Church-dignities without the authoritative consent and concurrence of the Clergy who if they reject such persons tho presented by Princes as unorthodox or otherwise unfit they cannot be invested in such Offices Hear what the 8th General Council saith of this matter Can. 22. Sancta universalis Synodus definit neminem Laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserere electioni vel promotioni Patriarchae vel Metropolitae aut cujuslibet Episcopi ne videlicet c. Praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quenquam potestativorum vel caeterorum Laicorum habere conveniat Quisquis autem saecularium principum potentum vel alterius dignitatis Laicae adversus communionem ac consentaneam atque Canonicam electionem Ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit Anathema sit The transplanting of Bishopricks and division of Provinces probably was never order'd by Princes but either first propos'd or assented-to by the Clergy see that instance of Anselm Hammond of Schis p. 122. or upon some more general grant indulgently made to some pious Princes from the chief powers of the Church Tho Historians commonly in relation of such facts mention only the King's power as by whose more apparent and effectual authority such things are put in execution in which things negative arguments that such persons as are not mention'd did not concur especially when they are mention'd to concur in some other acts of the same nature are very fallacious But imagine we once the power of erecting Patriarchies and Primacies and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several priviledges thereof solely cast into the hands of a Secular Prince and then this Prince not orthodox a supposition possible and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body as the Church strictly tyed in Canonical obedidience to such Superiors and submitting to their judgment and decisions in spiritual matters by which the King may sway the controversies in Religion within his own Dominions what way he pleaseth unless we will imagine there shall be no Ecclesiasticks at all of his own perswasions whom he may surrogate into the places of those who gainsay Such were the times of Constantius And by such violent and uncanonical expulsion and intrusion of Prelates the face of Religion was seen changed and re-changed so often here in England within a few years according to the fancies of the present Prince as if there were in her no certain form of truth And the same thing we have seen done before our eyes in our own days The removing inducting deposing promoting Ecclesiastical persons as the Secular power pleaseth being also a changing of the Church's Doctrine as it pleaseth Thus much to what Dr. Hammond hath said Schis p. 120 c. § 46 Lastly Schis p. 125. he makes three instances in the fact of the Kings of Judah in the fact of St. Paul and in the fact of the Christian Emperors tending to this purpose that their authority is supreme in Ecclesiastical causes as well as Civil and therefore may erect Patriarchies His words there are The authority of Kings is supreme in all sorts of causes even those of the Church as well as Civil as appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the Temple Hezekiah 2 Chron. 29. 2 King 18. and Josiah 2 King 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so St. Paul appeal'd from the judgment of the chief Priests to the Tribunal of Caesar So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Government Which Bishop sent to him Fugatius and Damianus by whom this King and his Queen and many others were converted to the Faith and receiv'd Baptisme c. Where his having already with him men learned in the Scriptures see Spelm. Apparat. p. 12. and yet sending for others from the Roman Bishop and his sending to the Bishop of Rome so remote when as there were then many Christian Bishops in France and particularly the famous Irenaeus Bishop at Lions at that very time methinks shew plainly that the Britains had learned already that there was some preeminence and authority attributed to him superior to the rest of the Occidental Prelates as likewise doth the title of that Bishop's letter to Lucius but it is much doubted whether this letter be authentick Scripsit Dominus Elentherius Papa Lucio Regi Britanniae ad correctionem Regis Procerum regni Britanniae others read it ad petitionem In which letter whereas it is urged see Hammond Schis p. 109. and Bramh. vindic p. 155. that he calls the King vicarium Dei in regno suo t is to be observed that he stiles the King so before he was Christian and seems to urge it in respect of civil laws which laws the King desiring that they would send unto him from Rome the Bishop adviseth him with his Council rather to take them out of the Bible the law of God whose Vicar he is than out of the Roman or Caesars laws But let it be granted in Ecclesiastical matters also that he is Vicarius Dei that is in promulgating the Ecclesiastical laws and enforcing them upon his subjects with the denouncing of temporal punishments but not in making them for this the Bishop of Rome cannot alienate from Synods to Princes Christian yet higher in the days of Tiberius Interea glaciali frigore rigenti Insulae Britannicae verus ille Sol universo orbi praefulgidum sui lumen ostendens radios suos primum indulget id est praecepta sua Christus Tempore ut scimus summo extremo Tiberii Caesaris quo tempore absque ullo impedimento ejus propagabatur religio indicta Senatu nolente a Principe morte delatoribus militum ejusdem Christianorum alluding to Hegesippus his story of Tiberius Thus saith Gildas a Britain who writ in the end of the 5th age and therefore why may not mos antiquus concerning the presidency of the Roman See over the West be meant of this as well as the other anciently-Christian Provinces there But when ever Britain first became Christian tho such were after the passing of that canon of Nice yet many converted since the last conversion of the Saxons here in England as the Germans and some other Northern nations some of them converted by the English have also come under the jurisdiction of that See upon the same account namely of this Bishops having committed to him the primacy over the whole Church or at least the Patriarchate of the whole West And therefore Austin the Monk required subjection to this Bishop not only of the Saxons as converted by him but also of the Britains who were Christian before subjection not upon this title of conversion but from the submission which was thought otherwise due to this prime Apostolick See The judgment and actions of which holy man by this Nation to be had in eternal veneration ought not so easily to be condemned or slighted since he was blessed here with such success and honoured by God with so many miracles Of which miracles of his and his companions Gregory who sent him overjoyed writes thus to the Patriarch of Alexandria Ep. 7. l. Indict 1.30 Ep. Jam nunc de ejus Augustini salute opere ad nos scripta pervenerunt quia tantis miraculis vel ipse vel hi qui cum eo transmissi sunt in gente eadem coruscant ut Apostolorum virtutes in signis quae exhibent imitari videantur And to Austin thus in another Epistle 9. l. 58. Ep. exhorting him to the preservation of his humility in receiving so high favours Scio quod potens Deus per dilectionem tuam in Gente quam eligi voluit magna miracula ostendit unde necesse est ut de eodem dono caelesti timendo gaudeas gaudendo pertimescas c. § 53 But if it be replied that many of the Western Nations were originally converted by that See and therefore may seem anciently to have had a nearer relation to or dependance on it but not so this Island yet That this Nation chiefly if not only owes its conversion to the Roman See 1. 3. This title of Conversion seems not wanting so much as is pretended for the plea of the Roman Jurisdiction For 1. for all the rest of this Nation except the ancient Britains namely for the Saxons and those other invaders who followed them this title is not disputed so that what was Pope Innocent's pretence see before § 3. concerning other parts of the West may be Gregory's and his Successor's concerning the chief body of this Kingdom supposing that the Church's customs or canons did entitle any authority upon this ground and for whom the Roman See hath performed the same maternal and fundative offices as for the rest of the West it seems not unreasonable that they should return her the same duty as do the rest To that objection of Dr. Hammond Schism p. 114. in behalf of these Saxons liberty That S. Paul's and his Substiture's converts yet were not all subjected to one and the same See it is granted to him That conversion doth not of it self necessarily induce subjection to the converter or to his See but nevertheless t is as true That the Church upon whose customs and canons such subjection is pleaded in her appointing some chief and Patriarchal Sees for the preserving by such subordinations unity and peace amongst her several members hath used this of conversion as a chief motive tho not this always or the only motive to subject several Churches rather to such a Mother-church than to another See before § 6. This for the Saxons §. 54. n. 1.2 and others whose race most-what we English are But then for the Britains also it seems That tho their conversion might have its first beginning in Tiberius his reign or very early yet it was for the most part of it wrought in latter times by several degrees after their subjection to the Roman Empire either by Christians who flowed in hither from Rome and Italy and other Provinces nearer hand especially in times of persecution with the Roman Officers and Lieutenants some of which before were favourers and after Constantine's time were also professors of Christianity as amongst the rest Theodosius who was Valentinian's Lieutenant here before Emperour or by several Missions from the Pope of Rome made either to plant and propagate Christianity in these Islands of Britain and Ireland or to reform it Such was that Legation of Fugatius and Damianus §
thereof and consequently by what is said § 40. to their posterity until a Council of equal authority reverse them 6. Whereas Dr. Hammond thinks to free Prince and People § 60 Laity and Clergy from any submission that former canons may require That the principle upon which Dr. Hammond sets the English clergy nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be erroneous or from any concessions that the clergy or the former or also the present Prince hath made to the Bishop of Rome or to any other Patriarch upon this ground which he builds much upon That it is in the power of Christian Princes within their Dominions to erect or translate Patriarchates For thus he saith Schis p. 115. To put this whole matter out of controversy it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them c. And p. 132. Upon that one ground laid in the former chapter the power of Kings in general and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchats whatever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdoms will easily be answered And p. 137. The whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the Reign of Hen. 8. the Bishop of Rome had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other And p. 138. The 3d. will appear to have received its determination also by the absoluteness of the power of our Princes and by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchats And p. 140 If the Pope held his Supremacy here in England by the Title of Regal concession as Dr. Hammond holds he did see p. 138. 142. then he may dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellor c. And p. 142. Thus certainly the King being the fountaine of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall and communicate it to another And this takes-off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power Which freedom from that obedience immediately clears the whole business of Schism as that is a departure from the obedience of a lawful Superior Thus He. Now I say whereas he builds so much on this ground to remove thereby all difficulties and objections I think I have above by the first Proposition § 38. and by answering his proofs thereof § 43 and also by so many contrary examples brought in the former part of this Discourse sufficiently shewed it to fail him and to be untrue Only here observe one thing concerning this right of Princes That the Doctor it being much pressed by S. W. upon the Doctors quoting some Church-canons for it of which review § 44. That if Princes had any such right they had it not as their proper right independent on the Church or her canons in his answer to this p. 174. seems somewhat uncertain and wavering by what Title Princes hold it His words there are I that meant not to dispute of such mysteries of State desirous to unite the Civil and Ecclesiastical power and not to sow seeds of jealousies and dissensions betwixt them finding the same thing assumed by Kings as their right and yeilded them by the Church to be enjoyed by them thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due but whether it were from God immediately conferred on them and independently from the Church or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclined either to enquire or to take upon me to determin And afterward If it were not formerly the Prince's right but the Churche's then sure it is become so by that donation Now then if Princes should happen to hold this right only from the voluntary concessions of the Church or Councils or particularly from the clause of one canon passed in the Council of Chalcedon upon which canon the Doctor Schis p. 120 confesseth Balsamon a great stickler for Regal authority to found it then I leave to their consideration whether the same reason he pleads upon the instance of former Kings of England conceding Supremacy to the Pope for Princes reversing the donation of their right when they please may not be returned him for the Church or her representative the Council For if the Prince cannot give his right away but so that he may recall and resume it so neither can the Church And then after so many canons in and since Chalcedon reserving to such particular nominated Patriarchs their priviledges the Church of England according with the rest and extending this their jurisdiction over some Princes subjects at least who have the same power and rights as the Kings of England and expresly prohibiting Princes to remove Patriarchs 8. Gen. Counc can 21. where will his plea be § 61 Yet farther but in what I shall say now I will not be too peremptory That some rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterwards be justly resumed suppose the erecting and translating Patriarchates to be the Prince's right and that originally yet it may be such a right as once parted with cannot be resumed by the former owner For such rights there are as once passed away are not to be retracted and such as we may alienate not only from our selves but from our successors if such be the purpose of our donation And why this right may not be numbred amongst such I yet seek a reason If it be said the King cannot divest himself of such a right without which his Regal power which he intends to keep to him and his successors entire cannot subsist I willingly grant it But the Regal power may well subsist without the right of constituting or translating Patriarchs For the Regal power is entire in a Prince not Christian yet such Prince hath no power to erect or remove those Patriarchs who have a Spiritual Supremacy over his so many as are Christian Subjects Again the Prince when Christian as now being a Son of the Church must also be subject to some Patriarch i. e. supreme Church-power giving to him Ecclesiastical Laws and if need be inflicting Ecclesiastical censures c. or other and so must also his successor if Christian Neither doth his power to chuse or appoint the person bearing such Office any way lessen such submission so far as it is due neither doth it impose any more submission upon his successor than is due Why therefore this may not be a right alienable and partable with I see not When-as the Kings electing a Spiritual Supreme to be over him seems not to be like the chusing of a Chancellor or other Officers to serve under him as the Doctor compares it Sch. p. 140. but rather like the people's electing a Temporal Soveveraign Now such people in electing such a Temporal Prince transfer not their dominion and power which every single person had before over himself upon him or submit their obedience to him durante beneplacito or quamdiu se bene gesserit bene i. e. in their judgment for so who obeyeth only so long as he pleaseth needs to obey only what he pleaseth for so soon as any thing displeaseth he may change his Governors So to make instance in the matter in hand if Ambrose upon just cause exercise some Ecclesiastical censure upon Theodosius Theodosius may presently remove Ambrose his Metropolitan power to another but we tye them to Allegiance and tell them of their former right now given away and bind the Children and Successors to the act of their Forefathers Thus much of the Authority and Subordinations of the several Ecclesiastical Persons and Orders In the next Part I will proceed to shew you the Authority and Subordinations of these as they are united in several Bodies of Councils FINIS
mox idem Decessor meus i.e. Pelagius ut agnovit directis literis ex authoritate Sancti Petri Apostoli ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit Cujus ego quoque sententiam sequens similia praedicto consacerdoti nostro scripta transmisi And 2. l. 10. Indict 37. Ep. Episcopo Salonitano an African Bishop Quod autem vos fatemini Ecclesiasticos ordines ignoran non posse valde contristor quia cum rerum ordinem scitis in me quod pejus est sciendo deliquistis Postquam enim ad Beatitudinem vestram Decessoris mei mea in causa Honorati Archidiaconi scripta directa sunt tunc contempta utriusque sententia praefatus Honoratus proprio gradu privatus est Whose cause tho only an Archdeacon upon appeal Gregory having heard cleared him and ordered him to be restored to his place Quod si quilibet ex quatuor Patriarchis fecisset sine gravissimo scandalo tanta contumacia transire nullo modo potuisset Tamen postquam fraternitas vestra ad suum ordinem rediit nec ego meae nec decessoris met injuriae memor sum By which it seems Gregory's orders at last were obeyed And 2. l. Indict 11. Ep. 32. to the same Archdeacon Honoratus he writes thus A cunctis tibi objectis capitulis te plenius absolventes in tui te ordinis gradu sine aliqua volumus alteratione permanere ut nihil tibi penitus mota a praefato viro i.e. Episcopo Salonitano quaestio qualibet occasione praejudicet 11. l. Ep. 42. Episcopo Panormitano in Sicily Illud autem admonemus ut Apostolicae Sedis reverentia nullius praesumptione turbetur tunc enim status membrorum integer manet si caput fidei this must needs be Apostolicam sedem nulla pulset injuria canonum manet incolumis authoritas l. 7. epist 64. Episcopo Syracusano Nam quod se dicit i.e. Primas Byzancenus an African Primate of whom Gregory saith a little before that in quodam crimine accusatum piissimus Imperator eum juxta statuta canonica per nos voluit judicari Sedi Apostolicae subjici si qua culpa in Episcopis invenitur nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit cum vero culpa non exigit omnes secundum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt Nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit i. e. saith Dr. Field l. 5. c. 34. p. 534. of those Bishops only within his own Patriarchship § 28 alledging Greg. Epist 54 11 where Gregory quotes and seems to acquiesce in the the Emperor Justinian's Constitution Novel 123. c. 22. Si autem a Clerico aut Laico quocunque aditio contra Episcopum fiat propter quamlibet causam apud sanctissimum ejus Metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas nostras leges causa judicetur Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum Patriarcham referatur causa Ille secundum canones leges huic praebeat finem I may add out of the Nov. it self nulla parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente Whence thus much is yeilded to Dr. Field That the Bishops of his own Patriarchy have some subjection to the Bishop of Rome and his Courts as he bears the Office of a Patriarch over them which others of another Patriarchate have not And therefore we see his Letters most frequently directed to the Bishops and negotiating the affairs Ecclesiastical within this Circuit which Bishops as the Doctor rightly notes he calls Episcopos suos l. 4. c. 34. To the Empress sed ut Episcopi mei me despiciant c. id peccatis meis deputo But yet this I suppose is yeilded by the Doctor see before § 20. that both the Bishops of other Patriarchies and the Patriarchs themselves in some cases also but not in all wherein the rest were subjected to the judgment and sentence of the first See And in such sense might he say Nescio quis Episcopus c. As for the place of Gregory and the Imperial Constitution urg'd First concerning Gregory observe that he writ this to the Emperor 's Prefect in the behalf of one Stephanus a Bishop qui invitus ad judicium trahebatur qui ab Episcopis alieni Concilii i. e. who were not his proper Superiors but of a distinct Province from him quos hab bat suspectos judicabatur In his behalf therefore Gregory quotes this Imperial Constitution wher 's Patriarcha prabeat finem is oppos'd by Gregory as likewise by Justinian to Episcopi alieni Concilii or also to any Civil Judges medling therein who according to Novell 123. c. 21. might not hear Ecclesiastical Causes at all the words are these Si autem Ecclesiastica causa est nullam communionem habeant judices civiles circa talem examinationem sed sanctissimâ—s Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat To which effect see the Constitution quoted in the beginning of Gregory's Epistle Si quis contra aliquem Clericum c. After which Constitution urg'd Gregory goes on thus Contra haec si dictum fuerit quia nec Metropol tanum habuit nec Patriarcham take Patriarch here in what sense you please dicendum est quia a Sâ—de Apostolica quae omnium Ecclesiarum caput est this is his reason for it causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat sicut praedictus Episcopus petiisse dignoscitur qui Episcopos alieni Concilii judices habuit omnino suspectos Secondly For the Imperial Constitutions of Justinian they so far as they concern Ecclesiastical matters are only Ratifications of the Church's Canons and no way opposite to them who every where commands proceedings and judgments to be made secundum sacras regulas and in the beginning of his Codex to shew his submission in these things to the Church tit 1. l. 8. writes thus to the Pope in particular Nec enim patiemur quicquid quod ad Ecclesiarum statum pertinet quamvis manifestum indubitatum sit quod movetur ut non etiam vestrae innotescat sanctitati quae caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum To whom also when the Emperor sent his Creed Agapetus the Pope answer'd Firmamus c. non quia Laâ—cis authoritatem praedicationis admittimus sed quia studium fidei vestrae patrum nostrorum regulis conveniens confirmamus atque roboramus Agapet Ep. 6. Now if you examine those Constitutions Novell 123. c. 22. they are only these That two Bishops ejusdem Concilii under the same Metropolitan being at variance are referr'd to the judgment of their Metropolitan and the Council Provincial If this refused then to that of the Patriarcha Dioeceseos illius nulla parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente The same course is appointed if a Clergy-man have any thing against his Bishop or Bishop or inferior Clergy-man against his Metropolitan But in the differences between a Bishop and his Patriarch or also between two Patriarchs he ordereth nothing Now what thing is there in all this