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
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
obey whilst meanwhile he believeth God to have commanded the contrary and that hence only he thinketh it lawful for him to do it not because God hath commanded it or hath not commanded the contrary but because God hath commanded him to obey his Superiors tho erring and decreeing a thing sometimes contrary to God's command Let it be so This sufficeth our purpose so that constant obedience be allowed to these Judges and that what they command we ought to do not only in matters of Penalty but of Duty Thus Schism is excluded thus Peace is preserved perpetually in God's Church § 10 To make things a little plainer by an instance Suppose that a controversy arose between a bounden Servant and his Master whether he were to obey his Masters commands in watering his cattel on the Sabbath day the servant arguing from Exod. 20 10. in it thou shalt do no manner of work that this is by God prohibited The matter upon this is brought before these Judges and decided for the master here the servant is bound to water the cattle of his master and therefore bound to think it not unlawful to do since none may do what they think must law and if he think it not unlawful to do so he must either now change his former opinion and think God's law not to have prohibited it or at least God to have bound him by another law to do some thing sometimes he thinks but is not certain that God's law prohibits namely so often as these Judges who are appointed God's substitutes to expound his law do mis-intepret it For in the judgment also of Protestants God hath upon some suppositions obliged us to believe and give assent to the determinations and injunctions of an erring Guide namely of our Spiritual Governours in matters Theological where ever we our selves doubt of the truth and have no certain evidence of the contrary to what they enjoin us yet in which injunctions they do grant these Governours both may and do sometimes err So likewise an erroneous conscience is granted to oblige us and that from the Divine command who hath made it sin to do otherwise which conscience also sometimes errs faultlesty i. e. out of an invincible ignorance Take therefore of the two former ways which you will the duty of the servant rectifying his opinion or of obeying the Judge and acting contrary to his-opinion where note that in such obeying he still follows his conscience for he obeys here because he first thinks that he ought to obey Obedience is the product but Obedience in the former notion is an act of more humility and charity § 11 Having faid this to explain the quality of the obedience required in this place I will set you down what Mr. Hooker hath commented upon it in his Preface sect 6. writing against Puritans and so speaking much of subordination of private opinion to the determination of Ecclesiastical authority God saith he was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controversy he ordained should stand both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgments howbeit better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail till the same authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily unto some end Then answering the Objection of doing nothing against Conscience ' Neither wish we saith he that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not not to do but we say this perswasion ought to be fully setled in their hearts that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality here what exceptions Mr. Hooker makes matters not for the Text makes none ' the Will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of Judicial and Final Decisions shall determine yea tho it seems in their private Opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence among the Jews did unto one or other party contending and yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgment it seemed yea and perhaps truly seemed that the Law did disallow Thus Mr. Hooker Whose last words seem to me to say either that we are to submit our private opinion or judgment i. e. those reasons that we have from the thing to think the contrary to the judgment of this Court i. e. to another reason which we have drawn from Authority Of which is spoken largely elsewhere in Obligation of Judgment § 2 c. Or else that retaining still our private Opinion yet we ought to practice contrary to what it dictates by reason of God's commanding us absolute Obedience to this Court. Which tho it doth err sometimes perhaps in matters less necessary yet much oft'ner should we err if not thus restrain'd and subjected to it And of two evils or human infirmities the lesser is to be chosen Therefore also in Secular affairs the Soldier is punished when he doth that which is better if he doth this against his General 's Command because indeed by such a liberty indulg'd how much oft'ner would he do that which is worse § 12 To this place of Deuteronomy upon which you will excuse my long stay for the freeing it from several faulty restrictions may be added many more Texts of the Old Testament to the same purpose See Ezech. 44.24 where the Prophet in the end of his Prophecy describing typically under the ancient Ceremonies the restauration and flourishing condition of God's Church at last amongst other recites this Law Deut. 17. In controversie they the Priests shall stand in judgment and they shall judg it according to my judgments See Hag. 2.11 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts Ask now the Priests saying If one bear c. According to which command the Prophet consulted them and receiv'd an answer from them ver 12 13. See Mal. 2.7 where chiding the Priests causing many to fall in the Law the Lord faith The Priests lips shall keep knowledg and they the People shall seek the Law at his mouth For he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts If he therefore err no remedy but the People must fall See Deut. 33.9 10. comp Eccl. 45.17 And see Hos 4.4 where when God would express the extream perverseness and obstinacy of his people he compares them to those that contend with and shew disobedience to their Priest Likewise the Priest's putting difference between holy and unholy clean and unclean and accordingly admitting men to or separating them from the Congregation and in the readmission of these exercising the Ceremonies of their Cleansings for which see Lev. 10.10 11 Ezech. 44.23 Lev. ch 13. 14. are only Metaphors of the Church's Authority in Judging what is and what is not sin and trespass against God's Law in Excommunicating those whose continue in sin and in
have not and which we have not first from them And what can be clear therein to us which is not so to them Or since no place of Scripture tho never so plain in its terms may be so understood as will render it contradictory to any other place how can such a man be secure enough of his diligence and wit in making such a due collation of Scriptures and collecting a right sense where he findeth such a Body to oppose him But perhaps these Guides tho more knowing then he yet have not like integrity And what misguiding passions are these subject to in judging to which our selves are not much more Or what self-interest do we find in them but only when we have a contrary our selves Every one imagines himself to stand in an indifferency to Opinions when as indeed scarce any by reason of their education fortunes particular dependances and relations is so and mean-while like Icterical persons he thinks that colour to be in those he looks upon abroad which is only in himself I know no greater sign of a dis-interested and an unpassionate temper of mind than to be apt readily to submit to another's judgment and seldom it is but much self-conceit and spiritual pride do accompany singularity of Opinion This have I said to shew what reasons there are for our assent to the Doctrines and Determinations of our Spiritual Guides drawn from that measure of assistance and infallibility which our Lord hath promised them tho other Scriptures had laid on us such injunction Of which subject see what is more largely discours'd in Obligation of Judgment from § 5 to § 9. and Infallibility Church Government Par. 2. § 35. Par. 3. § 27. n. 1 c. § 52 And hitherto from § 41 I have endeavour'd to shew you in the first place from the Scripture That there is a Judg of Controversies appointed and left under the Gospel to all whose Decisions the Subjects of the Church ought to be obedient and acquiesce as there was formerly under the Law 2. Next The same thing is prov'd from the constant Practice of the Church which we must not say to have been mistaken in the just extent of her Authority 1. The Church from time to time in her General Councils hath judg'd and decided Controversies as they arose both in matters Practical and Speculative In Practicals enjoining her Subjects upon Ecclesiastical penalties not only not to gain-say but also to do them and consequently enjoining them to assent that such things are lawful to be done And in Speculatives also enjoining her Subjects not only not to gain-say her Decisions but to profess them and consequently enjoining them to assent that such her Positions are true For none may profess with his mouth what he believes not with his heart Nay further enjoining her Subjects to believe them her Language for several of her Determinations and Canons in those her Councils which all sides allow being such as this In her Canons Siquis non confitetur non profitetur non credit putting several of her Determinations in the Creeds And in her Decisions constanter tenendum firma fide credendum Nemo salva fide dubitare debet and the like If it be said that such â—ssent is requir'd by the Church or her Councils only to some not all their Decisions I answer that I contend not that you are to yeild your assent by vertue of Obedience whatever you ought to do in prudence where they do not require it Only let it be granted that it belongs to them not you to judg what or how many points it is meet for them to require and for you to give your assent And let no such limitation as this be annex'd to their Authority That they require assent to what is true or to what is agreeable to God's word not in theirs but in his Opinion whose assent is required For thus their Authority is annihilated to this That they may only require me to assent to that whatsoever I do assent to Do what I will or they make me § 53 Again The Church hath from time to time in her Councils according to the Authority given her see before § 43 45. excommunicated men for holding false and pernicious Opinions hath Anathematiz'd and declar'd Hereticks the non-confitentes and the non-credentes in such main points as she thought necessary to be believ'd Which infers either sin in dissenting from her Judgment and the Doctrines she defines or that she faultily excommunicates any on this account or that she may lawfully punish another for that which the other lawfully doth But if there be any Church that teacheth That every one may examine her Doctrines and where he judgeth or thinketh these contrary to Scriptures that there he is not obliged to yeild his assent the same Church cannot justly excommunicate such person for dissenting i. e. for doing that which she teacheth him he may do And then since all that dissent from the Church will pretend that the Church-Doctrines seem to them to be contrary to the Scriptures it follows such Church can justly excommunicate none at all for any Heretical or false Tenent whatever See more of this subject in Church-Government Par ◠§ 34. and Par. 3. § 29. Obligation of Judgment § 3 c. § 54 3. The same Obligation of Assent is prov'd from the practice of the Reform'd Churches also as well as others and they as rigid in requiring it as the rest and particularly this our Church of England as will easily appear to you if you please to view the 139 140 4 5 73 12 36 of the Synod held under King James 1603 and the 3 4 5 and the Oath in the 6th Canon of the Synod under King Charles I. and what is argued from them in Church-Government Par. 3. § 29 c. and after all these to view the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. cap. 12. requiring Assent to the XXXIX Articles and the Title also prefix'd to them which saith That these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding of diversities of Opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion It Subscription then to them doth not extend to Consent to the truth of them the end is frustrated for which they were composed Lastly If you please to view the Complaint for this cause of the Presbyterians in their Reasons shewing necessity of Reformation printed 1660. See Church-Government Par. 3. § 29. against the Canons and Articles of the Church of England as the Church of England doth for the same cause against the Canons and Articles of the Church of Rome § 55 Now from all that hath been said from § 4 and more especially from § 41 you may perceive a great difference between the Obedience which we owe to Secular and which we owe to Ecclesiastical Magistrates as to any matters which relate to the Divine Law To the Secular Magistrate we owe in these matters an active obedience with some limitation in omnibus licitis
19 2 Cor. 12.12 1 Cor. 2.4 Mark 6.20 required belief and submission to their doctrine and universal Tradition upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures delivering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures as are found in the Church So that a Pharisee searching and not finding in Scriptures by reason indeed that he searched them not aright such testimony of Jesus being the Messias as was pretended yet ought to have bin convinced and to have believed his doctrines from seeing his miracles and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search So a Berean searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Panl's doctrine suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ as was pretended yet ought to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul or from the authority he or the Council at Jer salem Act. 15. received from Jesus working Miracles and raised from the Dead as universal Tradition testified And the same may be said for the Churches Doctrines And therefore as there are some Scriptures that bid us search the Scriptures because if we do this aright we shall never find them to disagree from the Doctrines of the Church and beause some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scripture very evident so there are other Scriptures if those who are so ready to search them on other would search them also on this point that bids us hear the Church because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult In which case God having referred us to the judgment of those whom he hath appointed to be the expounders thereof Deut. 17.8 9 10. Matt. 18.17 Luk. 10.16 cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures to try whether their expositions be right Therefore that Text Gal. 1.8 9. is far from any such meaning If the Church or Churchmen shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures as you understand them let these he Anathema to you but rather it saith this If an Angel or I Apostatizing as some shall Act. 20.30 shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received that is from the Church let him c. which makes not against but for the Churches Authority very much § 61 To the former Texts then mentioned § 56. this briefly may be returned To the three first Texts That a search of Scriptures concerning our Lord's or his Apostles doctrines is both allowed and recommended because the Scriptures rightly understood and these doctrines perfectly agree But a dissent from these doctrines if upon a search thought to be disagreeing which the Objectors would infer is not allowed from the reasons formerly given In the fourth Text the Apostle speaks of private Spirits to be tried whether of God by their conformity to the common doctrines of the Scripture and of the Church See 1 Cor. 14.29 32. The 5th includes a general trial as well by the directions and expositions of the Spiritual Guides as dictates of the Scriptures the Rule The 6th is expounded before If an Angel shall teach you any thing contrary to the doctrine you have received from Christ's Ministers or from the Church confirmed with Miracles let him be Anathema § 62 As for those things which are urged for the failing of the visible Church or at least of the major part of the Guides and chief Professors thereof under the Gospel As in the Scriptures die Prophecies of our Saviour Matt. 24.11 12. 24.38 Luke 18.8 compared with 7. Luk. 17 25 26 27 c. 21.35 and of the Apostles 2 Thes 2.3 1 Jo. 2.18 2 Tim. 3.1 1 Cor. 11.19 2 Pet. 2.1 c. Rev. 20. c. 13.20.8 9. and other places speaking of the power of Antichrist and of his sitting in the Church of God and in the Church-story the prevalency of Arrianism In answer to the former the Scriptures It is granted that it seems in these latter times of the world there shall be a great falling away from the faith but that it is from Christianity it self and from the Church as indeed we have already seen all those flourishing Churches of Asia and other Eastern and Southern parts once Christian now over-run by the Doctrine of the Great Prophet of God as he stiled himself Mahomet who sits and triumphs in those same places which were once the chiefest Churches of God and the love of many to Christ waxen cold by the abounding of iniquity and the terrible persections of the Turkish Empire the Image of the former Persecutor the Heathen Roman Empire to which Imago Mahomet's doctrine hath given life and vigor and this decession we have seen and what more shall be seen hereafter God knoweth But this argues not that Truth shall fail in all or the major part of the Doctors who remain still in the Church and profession of Christianity but that the Church it self shall sail of having so great an extent in the world or her Guides of being so many at some times as at others yet at all times sufficiently apparent § 63 Again In answer to the prevalency of Arrianism it seems that in these later times there shall be a falling away too within the profession of Christianity from the faith i.e. from that faith which is orthodox by many dangerous Heresies and Schisms from time to time arising in the Church whilst many formerly members of it shall separate from it 1 Jo. 2.19 but shall always apparently be known by their departure from it but it follows not that any of these Sects within shall ever have so great or so long a growth as to be able to out-number the Body of the Church or the true Teachers Concerning which many are of opinion that the Orthodox Communion in all times shall exceed not Infidels but yet any other Sect especially of one Communion as it is professing Christianity both for the multitude of people and extent of several Nations See Tryal of doctrines § 30 31 c. and particularly concerning Arrianism in 2. Disc conc the Guide in Controversy § 26. As for Antichrist the story of whom hath given occasion of a contrary fancy especially amongst the Reformed I shall elsewhere I think sufficiently clear to you that he shall profess an Antichristianity and oppose the Gospel in general or if at some time such Sect shall out-number the Church it self yet as was said before it shall stand in an external Communion separate from the Church and also formerly expelled by the Church when these did not outnumber it and tho afterwards these shall grow never so numerous yet the remnant of Orthodox Believers how small soever continuing in the same body will not cease to be truly and only Catholick without them neither have these any right or will be permitted to vote in her Councils which Councils to be truly General need to be no larger than the Church
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-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
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
so far of it as that they may not ordain others against that wherein they grant is preserved the unity of the Faith tho I think that simply an unjust Excommunication never made such a manner of division in the Church but that those who have set up new communions have still disallowed some Tenents or practices of the former for which they would not if permitted return to communicate with her tho they seem to justify their new communion chiefly upon the pretence of being cast out of the former Now Schism as the former times understood it is any relinquishing and departing upon what pretence soever from the former external communion of the Church when we cannot shew that it hath departed from the former external communion of its Predecessors where we must grant was before the unity of the faith because there was no Christian communion at all besides it and in that faith salvation undeniably to be had and its judgment in all controversies of faith and interpretations of Scriptures to be obeyed Now who depart thus are also easily discerned 1. By the paucity of their number if we look not at the Succession but at the beginning of the Breach tho afterward in some places at least it may outnumber the Orthodox So Arianism was easily discerned for Faction at the Council of Nice when it was but new planted tho not at that of Syrmium or Seleucia afterward And 2ly By their plea one alledging Truth only the other also Tradition § 76 3. By the constitutions of the Church Ordinations are unlawful not only where not such persons as the Canons of the Church have appointed do ordain as one no Bishop or not such a number as for making a Bishop less than three where cannot be shewed an irremediable necessity which necessity where truly it is and not pretended to be if you please we will suppose Presbyters also may do the Office or propagate the Order of Bishops or the Christian people create all these to themselves or in practising the duties and retaining the faith of Christianity be saved without such Ecclesiastical Administrations but what will this avail those who pretend such necessities when they live in the middle of the bosom of the Church of God and the original ministery thereof but also where-ever a greater part of the Bishops of such a Province oppose than consent to it See Mr. Thorndikes concession Right of the Church p. 148. 250. 147. The Reason because Ordinations were to have bin made only by the Provincial Councils which were to be held frequently twice a year in defect of these the execution of it was committed to three or in a case of necessity to one but presupposing the consent and that by letters of the rest or the major part of them See Conc. Nic. 4. Can. Conc. Nicen. can 6. Apost can 1.36 38. Ap. Const l. 8. c. 27. Else the unity of the Church can no way be preserv'd Therefore Novatianus ordain'd for Bishop of Rome by Three was forc'd to yeild to Cornelius Ordain'd by Sixteen Again it was caution'd That all the Bishops of a Province might do nothing in these Ordinations without the Metropolitan's consent Conc. Nic. Can. 4 6. And again these Metropolitans were subjected to a Council And what is said here of Bishops in respect of a Provincial Council the same may be said of all those of a Province or also Patriarchy in respect of a General For as in a Province disagreeing those are only to be accounted Successions lawful i. e. such as all are only to submit to which the Provincial Council allows so in greater rents of the Church only those which the General Council allows which disauthorizing of some if it be not allow'd there can be no Unity in the Church nor suppression of Heresies Schisms c. If it be allow'd there can never be two Successions opposing one another both lawfully by such Clergy exercis'd and submitted to by the people after this exauthorizing one of them by a Council And this is the reason why we find the Canons of the ancient Councils not so much busied in debating Opinions as about setling Peace and Unity and perfect Subordination amongst Ecclesiastical persons knowing that upon this more than evidence of Argument and Reason which in most men is so weak and mis-leadable depended the preservation of the Unity of the Church's Doctrines and requiring in any division of these Governors Obedience still to the major and more dignified Body of them Christ's promises of indefectability belonging to a City set on an Hill and to a Light set on a Candlestick that we should not leave this City so eminent to repair to some petty Village nor this Light that shines over the whole House to follow a Spark glistering for a while in some corner thereof § 77 Two great Divisions or Separations of external Communion there have been in Christianity before this last made after the Christian Church was fifteen hundred years old The Sect of the Arians and afterward the Division of the Eastern Churches from the Latin or Roman Now for the first of these which seemed for a time to eclipse the Church-Catholick and to be set higher on an Hill than it very small it was at first when censur'd and condemn'd in a General and unanimous Council and tho afterward it grew much bigger by being promoted by the Secular power yet it never grew to a major part as is shew'd in the Discourse Of the Guide in Controversies Disc 2. § 26. and the violence of it vanish'd in fifty years i. e. when the Secular power fail'd it and the former Church-Communion hath out-liv'd it And for the time also in which it most flourish'd the Catholicks valiantly kept both their Bishops and Communion distinct there being two Bishops at Rome at Constantinople c. one Catholich and the other Arrian and two external Communions one containing that of the former times and adhering to the General Council of Nice the other deserting and deserted by the former Communion nor admitted to any Fellowship with it till at last many of the penitent members thereof return'd to the Catholick Communion and the new Sect expired See before § 62. § 78 For the second the Division of the Greek Churches from the Western it is granted that two Churches co-ordinate may upon several pretences moving them thereto if such as are not determin'd by the Superior to them both abstain from one another's external Communion without incurring any such Schism as to cease to be still both of them true Members of the Church-Catholick But if one of these Churches either desert or be deserted by and excluded from the Communion of the other for a matter once determin'd by an Ecclesiastical Authority Superior to both and such Superior Authority be embrac'd and adher'd to by the other rejected by it Here the Church that disobeys its Superior and departs from such other Churches as are united to them is Schismatick
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-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
Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Rome See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it § 51. 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 § 52. That this Nation owes its Conversion chiefly if not only to the Roman See § 53. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon conversion § 55. The Britains observation of Easter different from Rome not agreeing with the Orientals and no argument that they received Christianity from thence § 57. That the English Nation is sufficiently tyed to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils wherein her Prelats have yeilded their consents § 59. Thus the Principle upon which some set the English Clergy and Nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be unsound § 60. That some Rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterward be justly resumed § 61. Dr. Field of the Church Ep. Dedicat SEing the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matters so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examin them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies in the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the Living God which is this pillar and ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Grot. Animadv cont Rivet ad Art 7. Rogo eos qui. verum amant ut cum legent Dav. Blondelli viri diligentissimi Librum de Primatu non inpsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed ipsas historias quarum veritatem Blondellus agnoscit animo a factionibus remoto expendant spondeo si id faciant inventuros in quo acquieescant S. Austin de util credendi 16. c. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem iposo Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attollamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerum intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine 10. c. Sed inquis Nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quacunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoseendus sit omnesque putas idonâ—os esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam religionem putas who therefore must receive this not from Reason but Authority 12. c. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis utilius ac salubrius esse praeceptis obtemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere 13. c. Recte igitur Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad religionem fides i.e. adhibenda authoritati Ecclesiae persuadeatur ante omnia 8. c. Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manaturaest 12. Quum de religione id est quum de colendo atque intelligendo Deo agitur ii minus sequendi sunt qui nos credere vetant rationem promptissime pollicentes Rivet Apol. Discussio p. 255. Nunc plane ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit cause divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canones fatente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium put at ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter insticutum Bishop Bilson in perpet governm of Christ's Church 16. c. Not Antichrist but ancient Councils and Christian Emperors perceiving the mighty trouble and intolerable charges that the Bishops of every Province were put-to by staying at Synods for the hearing and determining of all private matters and quarrels and seeing no cause to imploy the Bishops of the whole world twice every year to sit in judgment about petit and particular strifes and brabbles as well the Prince as the Bishops not to increase the pride of Arcbishops but to settle an indifferent course both for the parties and the Judges referred not the making of Laws and Canons but the execution of them already made to the credit and conscience of the Archbishop To the Fathers leave an Appeal either to the Councils or the Primate of every Nation Mr. Thorndike Epilogue 3. l. 20. c. p. 179. Of the Councils he meaneth those first Councils held in the East how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches and this admission of them what can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their Decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Council of Nice tho the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Councils yet in other occasions they may justly seem to refer themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the Acts of it and then he produceth several instances Whereby saith he it may appear how the Western Churches went always along with that of Rome Which necessarily argueth a singular preeminence in it in regard whereof He the Roman Bishop is stiled the Patriarch of the West during the regular government of the Church and being so acknowledged by K. James of Excellent memory to the Card. Perron may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church who had rather stand divided than own him in that quality Afterward he saith p. 180. That it is unquestionable that all causes that concern the whole Church are to resort to the Church of Rome And p. 181. asks what pretence there could be to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome as such Appeals were setled in the Council of Sardica which Council he there allows and
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
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
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
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
531. He assents to the saying of Gelasius Bishop of Rome urged by Bellarmin That no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome seeing every other See is inferior to it Thus He. Whose Concessions if it may be thought that they are too free and too indulgent to the Church of Rome and therefore that the testimonies of this single person ought not to be so much pressed as I have and shall press them in this discourse I first advertise you that they are such as seem forced from him most-what in his answers to the authorities out of the Primitive times collected by Bellarmin and then I desire that any perusing the same authorities would try if himself can shape any less-yeilding answer that may be satisfactory except this the utter rejecting and renouncing all such Authorities which prudent men see would give too much advantage to the Roman cause and I am content that Dr. Field's concessions and whatever is built thereon in this discourse be cancell'd and nullified But in some manner to second Dr. Field's judgment and relation of this matter I will add to it several concessions of the Archbishop of Spalato a copious writer also on this subject who of the ancient priviledges of Patriarchs and amongst them especially of the Roman speaks thus 3. l. 10. c. 26. n. Sicut Metropolitanus Episcopus suffraganeos suos errantes corripere corrigere debet emendare ita si Metropolitanus erret sive in moribus sive in judiciis actis suis ne etiam in hoc Synodus semper cum incommodo conveniat a Patriarchis voluit Ecclesiastica consuetudo lex Metropolitanos emendari nisi tam gravis sit causa publica praesertim fidei ut totius regionis Synodus sive Oecumenica debeat convenire of which cause surely the Patriarch is to judge since he only not they hath the authority of convocating such Council Ita in Concil Chalced. cap. 9. statutum est ut si adversus Provinicae Metropolitanum Episcopus vel Clericus habeat querelam petat Primà tem Dioeceseos aut sedem Regiae Vrbis Constantinopolitanae apud ipsam judicetur Et in octava Synodo Generali Canon expressus ponitur de Potestate Patriarcharum Metropolitanorum sub his verbis Haec sancta magna Synodus tam in seniori nova Roma quam in sede Alexandriae c priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari it a ut eorum Praesules the Patriarchs universorum Metropolitanorum qui ab ipsis promoventur sive per manus impositionem sive per Pallii dationem Episcopalis Dignitatis firmitatem accipiant habeant potestatem viz. ad convocandum eos urgente necessitate ad Synodalem conventum vel etiam ad coercendum illos corrigendum cum fama eos super quibusdam delictis forsan accusavenit So 4. l. 4. c. 5. n. of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch he saith Jam introductam consuetudinem ut causae Ecclesiasticae totius Orientis quae in propriis Provinciis terminari vix possent ad Sedem Constantinopolitanam deferrentur Concilium hoc Chalcedonense bis confirmavit And 9. c. 1. n. of the Roman Patriarch thus Quia Patriarchae ut disserui 3. l. 10. c. alia Privilegia habent in quibus superant Metropolitanos habebit etiam Romanus Pontifex omnia Patriarchalia Privilegia Palliâ—m sibi subjectis Metropolitanis illud petentibus concedere c eosdem a lege Divina vel sacris Canonibus deviantes corripere in officio continere controversias inter eosdem exortas componere causasque eorundem interdum i. e. in causis gravioribus audire decidere totius Patriarchatus Concilia convocare Romanum tamen Patriarcham adhuc in quibusdam peculiari quadam ratione supra omnes etiam Patriarchas excellere jam ostendo He goes on there 14. n. Ex loco sui primi Patriarchatus sacrorum Canonum primus habebatur praecipuus observator custos ac vindex quos si alicubi violari cognosceret acer monitor insurgebat He seems loth to say judex tho he hath said it before 15. n. Secundum Privilegium Episcopi Romani fuit ut ad ipsum quicunque Episcopi cujuscunque Provinciae Regionis not only of his Patriarchy qui se ab Episcopis propriae Provinciae gravari sentirent in judiciis Ecclesiasticis tanquam ad sacram anchoram confugerent apud ipsum innocentiam suam probaturi he seems loth to say that they repaired to him to have their causes heard and judged by him and to have restitution to their places from him tho nothing is more clear than this in Athanasius his and many other cases instanced-in below but presently he confesseth Romani Pontifices de facto eos sedibus suis restituebant ab objectis criminibus tanquam si essent supremi judices absolvebant and this so anciently as Cyprian's time and before the first General Council of Nice 16. n. Romanus Pontifex propter summam ipsius existimationem commune quasi vinculum nodus erat praecipuus Catholicae communionis in tota Ecclesia Catholicae communionis dux arbiter ut cui ipse suam communionem vel daret vel adimeret caeterae quoque Ecclesiae omnes ordinarie darent pariter vel adimerent So elsewhere he saith 8. c. 2. n. Communio cum Ecclesia Romana maximi semper facta est in Ecclesia totius Imperii Romani universali Propter summam ipsius existimationem saith he but he mentions not the cause which the Ancients give because it was Prima Sedes Apostolica Cathedra Petri Pauli for if he were so then Dux c for this reason so he ought to be to all Christians still 17. n. Quartum fuit Privilegium ut nihil grave in Ecclesia universali nisi consulto prius Romano Pontifice statueretur aut tractaretur cujus etiam in his non modo Consilium sed consensus quoque enixe requireretur He joyns Ita tamen ut absolute necessarius non esset neque si abessent Definitiones cassaret aut impediret But this is contrary to the ancient Church-Canon Sine Romano Pontifice c. see below 21. § and how else will he void the Heretical acts of the 2d Ephesine Council Lastly 12. c. 5. n. thus he speaks of the Legats of the Roman Bishops Medio tempore in which time he reckons Leo Magnus to be and might-truly have gone higher had he pleased but Leo was before the 4th General Council Romani Pontifices coeperunt aut extraordinarios Legatos a latere suo in alienas Provincias mittere aut ordinarios in ipsis Provinciis habere alicui ex illius Provinciae Episcopis suas vices committentes utrosque cum potestate jndiciaria non sine jurisdictione Eorum totum munus hoe medio tempore fuit rebus fidei in illa Provincia superintendere observare ne quid ipsa fides detrimenti patiatur Canonum observationi invigilare corrigenda corrigere
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
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
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
more Orthodox my chief intention here was not to declare quo jure such jurisdiction was either claim'd or yeilded to but that de facto that power was so long ago assum'd which being now challeng'd is by our men deny'd and I may add assum'd with good success to the Church of God during those first Ages The Bishops of Rome having patroniz'd no Heresies at all as all the other Patriarchs at some time or other did Such were in the See of Constantinople Macedonius Nestorius Sergius Arch-hereticks in Alexandria Dioscorus the grand Patron of the Eutychians in Antioch Paulus Samosatenus the Father of the Paulianists c. All which Heresies and several other which took root in the East were suppressed and the Unity and Uniformity of the Church's Doctrine and Discipline preserved by the over-ruling power the threats the censures of this See as any not over-partial Reader of the Ecclesiastical History will easily discern And perhaps I may venture a little further That to this day in the chief point and occasion of breach for which any other Church besides the Reform'd stands divided from the Roman Communion the Reformed do justifie the Roman tenent against those Churches The chief matter of the division of the Greek Church from the Roman was besides that of the Bishop of Constantinople's using the stile of Occumenicus and the procession of the Holy Ghost as appears by the disputation in the Council of Florence where both Churches the Eastern now falling into some distress heartily sought for an accord almost wholly spent about this point Now in this article the Reform'd do side with the Roman Church and so far also as we allow of any superiority we adjudge the prime place not to the Constantinopolitan but the Roman Patriarch The chief Doctrine for which the other Orientals as the Assyrian Churches the Jacobites Armenians Cophti Aethiopians Maronites c. of which see Field l. 3. c. 1 c. stand separate from Rome whilst their publick Service and Liturgies much-what accord with the Greek or Roman is either Nestorianism or Eutychianism or Monothelitism imputed unto them in which also the Reformed adhere against them to the Roman judgment The like may be said in the ancienter controversies of the Roman Church with the Asian Churches about Easter and with the African and some of the Asian about Rebaptization Thus in the main causes of differences with the Eastern Churches the Reform'd will grant Rome to have continued orthodox and that had the other been bound effectually to have received their laws in these controversies from her they had been better guided or at least that for those 600 years she happily moderated the great Questions of the Church by her supereminent authority But if it be said again That the Bishops of Rome now claim much more power than the instances above shew them anciently to have used I desire to know first before this be examin'd whether we will grant them so much for whilst we complain that they now a-days claim more than is due to them is it not so that we deny them not the more but all And have they done well who have used the Bishops so who have used Kings so upon pretence of their exercising an illegal power § 32 And now by what hath pass'd we may the better judge of the meaning notwithstanding whatever other glosses are made upon them of those places of the ancient Fathers By the instances above judgment may be made of the sense of many other controverted Sayings of the Fathers which are quoted before § 6. To which I will here add that which follows in Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. who speaks there how Hereticks may be easily confounded by the unity of the Tradition of Apostolical Doctrine Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam i. e. a duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique fideles conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio In qua i. e. in unione adhaesione ad quam Apostolical Tradition is more certainly preserv'd in all other Churches Let therefore potentiorem principalitatem if so you can make any sense be referr'd as it is by the Reform'd to the Roman Empire not Church yet the certain conservation of Tradition Apostolical which is the Father's reason of other Churches repairing and conforming to this that cannot be apply'd but only to the Church not as seated in the Imperial City but as founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Of which Church Tertullian de praescript Haereticorum also saith Ista quam faelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt And after him thus Cyprian in his Ep. 45. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome not to urge any of those passages in his Book de Vnit Eccl. Cath. which perhaps seem capable of the exposition which the Reformed give them Nos singulis navigantibus i.e. from Affrick into Italy rationem reddentes scimus nos hortatos eos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem i.e. Ecclesiam Romanam agnoscerent tenerent And afterward Ne in urbe in Rome schisma factum animos absentium i.e. of those in Africk incerta opinione confunderet which party they should adhere to placuit ut per Episcopos istic positos African Bishops residing at Rome literae fierent to the African Provinces ut te universi collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter ac charitatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent And Epist 52. Antoniano Fratri a Bishop not communicating with Novatianus Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundum literarum ad Cornelium the Bishop of Rome Collegam nostrum transmitterem ut depositum omni solicitudine jam sciret te secum hoc est cum Catholica Ecclesia communicare The like expressions to which we find in Ambrose Orat. in Satyr where he saith of his Brother Satyrus about to receive the Communion that percunctatus est Episcopum si cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est si cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret And thus Cyprian again in his Epist. 55. ad Cornelium de Fortunato Faelicissimo haereticis who condemn'd in Africk appeal'd to Rome Post ista adhuc insuper navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est a schismaticis Fortunato c. literas ferre nec cogitare eos i. e. tales esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum Add to these in the 46th Epistle the confession of those who return'd to Cornelius from the Schism of Novatianus made in this form Nos Cornelium Episcopum sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae electum a Christo Domino nostro scimus
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
That no one Bishop nor Council hath any power over another but all Bishops left to their supreme liberty only rationem reddituri Domino of their actions contrary to the universal practice of the Church such superior Councils ordinarily censuring and also anathematizing Bishops or in the judgment of the Reformed who also maintain such subordinations S. Cyprian must be in an error Now in the vacancy of any General or Patriarchal Council the Patriarch at least for his own Patriarchat as Cyprian was within the Roman Patriarchat is the supreme Judge and therefore Cyprian not exempt from all subjection or subordination to Him See for this Dr. Field's concessions before § 18. Supreme judge for the executing of the former Ecclesiastical Canons and preserving of the doctrines formerly established and determined by Councils Supreme Judge thus over Provincial not only Bishops but Councils for from these may be made appeals to him and a confirmation of their decrees is fought for from him See that of Milevis and of Carthage in S. Austin's time before § 23. n. 4. neither ought they to promulgate any doctrine not formerly determined by former Councils against his approbation and consent See before § 22. Therefore Cyprian might not make a contrary Decree to the Western Patriarch so as to necessitate those under his Primacy to the obedience thereof as neither he did But how far on the other side they stand obliged to conform to the judgment of him or also of his Provincial Council when defining any such new point against theirs the case here between Stephen and Cyprian I determin not Especially considering the liberty Cyprian took to dissent from Stephen and considering what Bellarmin de Concil 2. l. 5. c. and before him S. Austin grants that by such dissent he ceased not to be a good Catholick and considering also the liberty S. Ambrose took at least in a ritual of practising contrary to the custom of the Roman Church See de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Non ignoramus quod Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem i.e. de lotione Pedum non habeat cujus typum in omnibus sequimur formam In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam in omnibus that is which I can reasonably assent to sedtamen nos homines sensum habemus Ideo quod alibi rectius servatur nos recte custodiamus ipsum sequimur Apostolum Petrum c. But neither is Cyprian's authority whatever he did in this matter nor any decree of an African Council as Dr. Hammond Schism 6. c. p. 128. urgeth a canon of an African Council in Anastasius his time A.D. 401. the 71. in Balsamon the 35. in Crab and Binnius which imports thus much That laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another National Church to make contrary laws thereunto a sufficient argument clearly to decide this point namely that the African Churches being subject to this Patriarch might promulgate a Doctrine contrary to his judgment For there is no more reason we should justifie Cyprian's or an African Council's authority against the Bishop of Rome and his Council than this Bishop's and his Council's against theirs where if Cyprian for his person were a Martyr for Christ so was Stephen too Especially when we find Cyprian so much erring in the matter of this controversie whilst he saith Epist 74. Pompeio Qui Stephanus haereticorum causam contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur And when we consider the modest and safe grounds Stephen went upon Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est having the former custom of the Church on his side to which St. Cyprian pleads Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris and Epist 71. Quinto Fratri Non est consuetudine perscribendum sed ratione vincendum Whereas in this contest it had bin an happy thing for the Church and had sav'd St. Austin many sheets against the Donatists had he and his Council acquiesc'd in the judgment of their Patriarch Thus much to those places objected out of Cyprian § 35 As for that pretended Canon of the African Council I find the passages in Binnius with whom the Dr. saith Balsamon agrees in setting down this Canon but indeed there is some difference and Balsamon's Translation hardly intelligible otherwise then the Doctor in his Reply to Schism Disarm'd p. 209. relates them The business there consulted upon was about the re-admission of the recanting Donatists not only to the Unity of the Catholick Church but also to the former Dignities which such had held in the Church concerning this a Council had been held already in Italy by Anastasius and his Bishops wherein it was decreed that such Donatists should not be admitted to their former honours and places and a Letter was to this purpose sent to the Africans by Anastasius Concerning which Letter first this Council saith Recitatis epistolis beatissimi Fratris consacerdoti nostri Anastasii quibus nos paternae fraternae charitatis solicitudine sinceritate adhortatus est ut c Gratias agimus Domino nostro quod illi optimo ac sanâ—â—o Antâ—stiti suo tam piam curam pro membris Christi qâ—amvis in divâ—rsitate terrarum sed in una compage corporis const tutâ—s inspirare dignatus est Then in Can. 33. they say onsideratis omnibus c. eligimâ—s cum memoratis hominibus the Donatists leniter pacifice agere upon this reason that so they might reduce together with them many others seduc'd by them Lastly in c. 35. which is the Canon urged they say Itaque placuit ut literae mittantur ad fratres coâ—p scopos nostros i. e. those of the Council which Anastasius had held in Italy maxime ad sedem Apostolâ—cam in qua praesidet memoratus venerabilis Frater Collega noster Anastasius quo noverit habere Aphricam magnam nec ssitatem ut ex ipsis Donatistis quicunque transire voluerint c. in suis honoribus suscipiantur si hoc paci Christianae prodâ—sse visum fuerit i. e. as they explain themselves afterwards in the same Canon that such Clerks of the Donatists should be admitted to their former Dignities upon whose reconcilement depended the gaining and reduction of a multitude also of other Souls who were their followers This then they were to write to the Pope and the Bishops of the Italian Council that such Donatist-leaders might be readmitted not only into the Church's bosom but to their former places They go on Non ut Concilium quod in transmarinis partibus de hac refactum est who had decreed the contrary dissolvatur sed ut illud maneat the Council stand good cirea eos qui sic transire ad Catholicam volunt ut nulla per eos unitatis compensatio procuretur i. e. who do not procure the uniting of many others per quos autem adjuvari manifestis fraternarum animarum of those under the Donatist Clergy's Spiritual Conduct lucris Catholica unitas
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
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
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
Voice the Prince hath not to reverse or contrary the Church's Canons in spiritual matters only he thus may be said to give authority to them methinks the phrase is very improper and liable to be mistaken to see them in his Dominions to be put in execution Note that what is said here of the Secular Prince is also to be said of any particular Clergy in respect of superior Councils Again that what is said of the Prince or Clergy of the same Age wherein such Canons are enacted is to be said of their successors till the same authority which imposeth abrogate such Canons As in Civil Governments the same Laws which bind the Parents bind the Children without the Legislative power 's asking their consent § 41 Many I find are the shifts to get loose from these Canons and such links of Church-relations Several pretences to weaken such Canons to me seeming vain many the pretences to null their force but to me seeming invalid and vain Grotius Disc Riv. Apol. p. 69. bringing forth against Rivet the testimony of Blondel non negari a Protestantibus dignitatem Sedis Apostolicae Romanae neque primatum ejus super Ecclesias vicinas imo aliquatenus super omnes sed referri hoc ab iis ad jus Ecclesiasticum Rivet Grot. disc dialys thus replies to it Ad jus Ecclesiasticum Hoc est ad institutum humanum Quo postea abusi sunt Episcopi Romani ad Monarchiam stabiliendam Itaque quod ab hominibus initio concessum cum ad jus Dei evertendum postea fuerit conversum merito possessoribus injustis denegatur See the same plea in Bishop Bramhall Vindic. p. 252. c. That Institutum Ecclesiasticum is jus humanum True And that it may be taken away True By the Church that conferr'd it i. e. by another General Council but not by Laicks or some few Ecclesiasticks and may be denied injustis possessoribus True so much as they possess unjustly i. e. contrary to Canon § 42 Those plea's also which Bishop Bramhall Vind. c. 9. makes in answer to that objection That the English have cast off Canonical obedience I seem to me very infirm As this p. 257. Since the division of Brittain from the Empire no Canons are or ever were of force with us further than they were receiv'd and by their incorporation became Britanick Laws True as to any Secular coactive power in the execution of them which is deriv'd only from the Prince Like unto which is that passage p. 268. We draw or derive from the Crown liberty and power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the subjects of the Crown that habitual jurisdiction which we receive at our Ordination And that in Reply to B. Chalced. c. 7. p 291. That Ecclesiastical persons in excommunicating and absolving are the King's substitutes i. e. as he expounds himself afterward by the King's application of the matter namely his Subjects to receive their absolution from such Ecclesiastical persons No more true than that any King's Subjects may not lawfully receive Baptism or turn Christian without his Licence Some or other Clergy may and ought to do these things both Preach Baptize Absolve and Excommunicate in any Prince's Dominions as their duty shall require tho the Prince gain-saying Of many Clergy capable to do it that one of them not another shall be nominated and admitted to do it may belong to Princes Are then the Canons and Constitutions or the Church made in her representative a General Council not obligatory to the several members of the Church I mean as to the extent of Ecclesiastical Censures upon Delinquents save where their temporal Soveraign first admits them What if these be Heathen What if Heretick Again if the actual exercise of their Office he held from the Crown then have they no authority over any Nation or Province if the Secular power deny it them And what Secular power deny'd it not in the primitive times Or is this a priviledge of Christian Princes only over God's Clergy not of Heathen Do Christ's Ministers gain this by converting Kings to the Faith that they lose their former power over their Subjects But what if such Christian Prince prove Heretical or Schismatical What if he silence or banish the Orthodox are they to obey Him now rather than God Is their Commission from Christ to go and teach all and consequently that Nation upon such a Prince's Edict voided or lying dormant And may they now forbear speaking the things which they have heard We cannot but speak said the Apostle when the Magistrate silenc'd them Act. 4.20 The same thing may be said of the unlawfulness of Princes prohibiting any authorized for this purpose by the supreme Magistrates of the Church-Catholick from entring their Dominions except those who are known to be sent on secular designs So suppose in a State over-run with Arrianism or Socinianism an Heretical Prince cannot justly forbid the entrance of Patriarchal Missions to reduce him and his Subjects to Truth And again an Orthodox Prince cannot reasonably exclude such Missions who consent with him in judgment and whose intendments are spiritual As this also p. 256. The King and the whole Body of the Kingdom by their Legislative power substracting their obedience from a just Patriarchal power and erecting a new Patriarchate within their own Dominions it is a sufficient warrant to all English men to suspend their obedience to the one and apply themselves to the other May then Princes and States in Ecclesiastical affairs make Laws contrary to those of the Church Or have they a Legislative power in Spirituals contrary to General Councils I had thought their power had in these things been only Architectonical to see things done according to the Church-Decrees And may they nominate Patriarchs contrary to those the Church elects Or may some small part of the Clergy do these things against all the rest of their Body Or the Prince or that particular Clergy erring in thus doing are the people oblig'd to or excused in following them in their error As this p. 254. The sentence of the Law and the notoreity of the fact are sufficient i. e. for inferiors to deny their obedience to Superiors the sentence of the Judge i. e. of a General Concil is not necessary We know who have lately made use of such principles of Inferiors judging of the evidence of laws and facts to the confusion and destruction of a most flourishing temporal Kingdom Are inferiors then not liable to be mistaken and plead clear sentence of law and notoreity of fact where others as judicious think there is no such matter But whither tends this That if we find the Patriarch clearly usurping some power the Church canons have not given him we are thence-forth free from yeilding any obedience also to that authority which the Canon hath given him Apply this to a temporal Governor and it seems an unreasonable consequence and we are convinced in it by the example of many
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
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 §
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
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