follow and do according to his own Judgment who judgeth it meet to follow Authority against his private Reason then he who judgeth it meet and so doth the contrary i. e. follow his own Reason and reject Authority or which is the same follow Authority meerly for the Reasons it giveth evidencing to him such a Truth Thus we without difficulty believe the Books of Scripture that are proposed us for such by sufficient Authority to be God's word when we find in them some seeming contradictions which perhaps our private Reason cannot reconcile And every one who believes that God hath commanded him an assent and submission of Judgment in Spiritual matters to his Ecclesiastical Superiors doth in yielding it follow his own Judgment even when in yielding it he goeth contrary to his own private Reason 4. It is freely conceded That supposing that one hath infallible certainty of a thing from private Reason or any other way whatever such person cannot possibly yield obedience of assent to any Authority whatever proposing the contrary to be believed by him 5. But notwithstanding 5ly It is affirmed by Catholicks That every one ought to yield assent and submit his Judgment even when by plausible arguments of private Reason otherways biass'd and sway'd in all Spiritual matters wherein such assent is required to the Authority of the Church and those Spiritual Superiors who are by Christ appointed in these matters the Guides of his Faith And also That none can ever have from private Reason an infallible certainty of the contrary of that which the Church enjoins him to believe 6. But supposing that such a certainty in some Points by some persons could be had yet 6ly If no more may plead freedome from obedience of assent to the Church's Authority than only those who pretend infallible certainty as nothing less than this seems sufficient to reject so great an Authority and so divinely assisted then the most part of Christians I mean all the unlearned at least unfit to read Fathers compare Texts of Scripture c. in matters controverted will always be obliged to follow this Authority tho against their private Reason And for the other since one may think himself infallibly certain who is not so for men of contrary opinions not unfrequently both plead it these seem to have as little humility so little security in relying thereon especially when so many others having the same Evidences and as these men ought to think better Judgments and having larger promises of Divine assistance and lastly appointed for their Guides shall apprehend so much certainty of as to decree the contrary 7. To one who as yet doubteth whether there be any Authority or amongst many pretending to it which of them it is to which God hath subjected him for the guidance of his Judgment in Spiritual matters to such a one the use of his private Reason in the Quest thereof is not denyed by Catholicks But 1st they affirm that such Guide being found here the use of his private Reason against such Authority ceaseth for those things wherein he is enjoined obedience to it which indeed are but few in comparison of those vast Volumes of Theological Controversies wherein private Judgment still enjoys its liberty 2ly That if by reason of a faulty search such Guide is not discovered by him none is therefore held excused from obedience to such Guide or licensed to use his liberty in both which he is culpably mistaken 3ly That as it is left to our reason to seek so that it is much easier for us by it to find out this Guide that is appointed to direct us than to find out the Truth of all those things wherein she is ready to direct us more easy to find out the Church than to understand all the Scriptures and that from the use of private Reason in some things none may therefore rationally claim it in all HEAD XIII Concerning the necessary Means or Motive of attaining Faith Divine and Salvifical Concerning the necessary means of attaining faith Divine and Salvifical 1. IT is certain that all Faith Divine or wrought in us by God's Spirit is infallible or that the Proposition which is so believed never is or can be false 2. Again Catholicks affirm that the Authority or proposal of the Church is a sufficiently infallible ground of the Christians belief for all necessary Points of Faith From which Infallibility in the Church which is clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical delivering such Points unto them they also maintain a firm Faith is had among Catholicks of all those necessary Points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying this Infallibility in the Church either miscarry in their Faith concerning some of these Points or can have no external firm ground of their believing them 3. Catholicks affirm also that a right Belief of some Articles of Faith profiteth not as to Salvation persons Heretical in some other But 4ly many learned Catholicks deny That a known Infallibility of the external Proponent or Motive of ones Faith or a certainty not from a firm adhesion of mind wrought by the Spirit whereby a man is without all doubt but from the Infallibility of the external means of his Faith that he cannot err is necessary that Faith may be truly Divine or Salvifical See Card. Lugo De Virtute fidei Dis 1. § 12. n. 247.251 252. Estius 3. Sent. 23. d. 13. § Layman Theol. Moral 2. l. 1. Tract 5. c. or consequently That such external motive or means for producing Divine Faith needeth to be to every man one and the same Or lastly That one cannot have Divine Faith in any one Article of Faith who culpably erreth in any other Next Concerning the necessity of an explicite or sufficiency of an implicite Faith Concerning explicit and implicite Faith 1. It is freely acknowledged by Catholicks that to some Articles of the Christian Faith an explicite or express Faith wherein the Article in its terms is particularly known and professed is necessary to all Christians that have the use of reason of what condition or calling soever But to how many Articles such Faith is necessary it is not easy punctually to determine 2. Catholicks teach that all Christians are obliged by what means soever afforded them to acquire an explicite Faith of all other Articles of Faith or Precepts of good Life which are any way either necessary or profitable to their Salvation so far as their capacities or callings do permit or also require them 3. That all Christians ought in general or implicitely to believe that whatever God hath revealed or the Church in her Definitions or Expositions of the Divine Revelations delivereth as matter of Faith and to be believed is to be believed and ought also to be ready explicitely to hold and profess whatever is at any time sufficiently proposed to them to be such And other implicite Faith than the
must needs be also the most supreme Guide of Christians 5. That therefore no inferior or subordinate Person or Synod when they are known to oppose this Supreme may be taken by particular Persons for their Guide in Spiritual matters 6. Nor yet a minor part of the Fathers in these supreme Councils differing from the rest or out of these Councils a minor part of Christian Churches opposing the rest may be followed as our Guide For so notwithstanding these Guides appointed us we are left in the same uncertainty for our way as if we had none except only when all of them unanimously agree and if of two parties opposite it is left to us to choose which we will to guide us it is all one for those points wherein these differ as if we were left to guide our selves HEAD II. Concerning the Church Catholick of several Ages her being equally this Guide Concerning the Church Catholick of several Ages her being equally this Guide 1. IT is affirmed That the Church Catholick of every Age since the Apostles and consequently the Church Catholick of this present Age hath the same indefectibility in Truth and authority in Goverment as that of any other Both these Indefectibility and Authority being as necessary for the preserving of Christianity in one Age as in another and that our Saviour's Promise of Indefectibility is made good to the Church Catholick of every Age taken distinctly Else his Promise that the Church of all Ages should not fail would sufficiently be verified if that of any one Age hath not failed 2. From hence it is gathered That the present Catholick Church of any Age can never deliver any thing contrary to the Church of former Ages in necessary matters of Faith or Manners 3. Supposing that in matters not so necessary the Catholick Church of several Ages should differ yet that the former having no more Promise of not erring herein then the later therefore a Christian hath no greater security of the not erring of the one then of the other and therefore ought to acquiesce in the Judgment of the present under whose regency and guidance God hath actually placed him 4. If for the performance of Christian Obedience there be any necessity to have such Points as these first decided viz. What former Councils have been lawful and obliging and what unlawful What are fundamental and necessary Points of Faith and what not necessary What is the Doctrine of the Ancient Church in such and such Controversies And what is the true sense of the Fathers Writings or of a Councils Decree If these I say or so far as these are necessary to be known by him it follows that in these a Christian ought also to submit to the Resolutions of the present Church Catholick so far as it hath or shall decide them unto him i. e. to the Resolution of the supremest Authority thereof that he can arrive to and herein to acquiesce For thus far he is secure that in things necessary she cannot misguide him And it seems unreasonable That when she is appointed his unfailable Guide in all Points necessary See Num. 1. Head 1. He not she should undertake to judge what Points are necessary and what not for this is in effect to choose himself in what particular Points she shall guide him and in what not Unreasonable when he is obliged to obey her Councils that He not she should decide of those Councils which are lawful and ought to be owned by her for this is in effect to choose what Councils he pleaseth to command his obedience and exclude the rest Unreasonable when he is to learn of her what is the Doctrine and true Sense of the Holy Scriptures that He not she should judge what is the Doctrine of Antiquity or the true sense of former Fathers or Councils and wherein the present Church accords with or departs from them i. e. that she that is his Judge in greater Matters may not be so in the less HEAD III. Concerning the necessary Tradition of the former Ages of the Church for all the Points of Faith that are taught in the present Concerning the necessary Tradition of the former Ages of the Church for all the points of Faith that are taught in the present 1. CAtholicks grant That every Article of Faith is to all later Ages derived either in express terms or in its necessary Principles from the times of the Apostles 2. And consequently That no Article of Faith can be justly received in any later Age which was not acknowledged as such in all the former i. e. either in express terms or in its Principles 3. But 3 it is not hence necessary that every Article of Faith professed in a later Age be professed also in express Terms in the former 4. Nor 4 that all those Articles that are professed by a former Age must needs be found in those Writers we have of the same Age For all their Writings are not now extant nor all that they professed necessarily written but only such things of which the Suppression of Sects instruction of the times or the Author 's particular design ministred occasion 5. As that Rule of Vincentius Lerinensis is allowed most true Illud tenendum quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est So this Nihil tenendum nisi quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est especially as it is restrained to and required to be shewed and verified in the Writers of former Ages and in these not in respect of Principles of Faith but all the deductions too is affirmed most erroneous and such as if the omnibus and semper be not confined to the Members only of the Catholick Communion one particular Church or Person in any Age Heretical will void the Catholick Faith HEAD IV. So also concerning the Canonical Scriptures Concerning the Canon of Scripture 1. CAtholicks do profess That as the Church Governors or General Councils can make no new Article of Faith See H. 5. Num. 2. So neither new Canon of Holy Scripture and that no Book can be part of these Holy Scriptures now which hath not been so always since the Apostles days But notwithstanding this 2. It must be granted 1 That in some former Ages and Churches fewer Books have been acknowledged and received as the Canon of Scripture than in some other later Churches and Ages and some Books by some in some Ages doubted of which now all accept 3. That where any such doubt ariseth the Governours of the Church have Power and Authority and that not more in one Age than in another to decide and declare what particular Books are to be esteemed and received as Canonical and descending to Posterity as such from the Apostles times and what not 4. All those Books are received by Catholicks as Canonical which the most or more General Councils See the Council in Trullo Can. 2. accepting the Council of Carthage as well as of
or express Tradition Apostolical but only educible de novo by most necessary and certain consequence from those which are so delivered which are necessary to be determined and delivered by the Church of later Ages when contrary Errors happen to appear 4. Accordingly they affirm That upon the appearance of several such dangerous Errors the Church did lawfully in the four first General Councils make and deliver some new Definitions in matters of Faith new taken in the sense expressed above Num. 2. did lawfully enlarge the former Creed and require assent or belief in the sense explained above Num. 3. unto these new Definitions under pain of Anathema 5. They maintain that all such dangerous Errors have not appeared within the times of the four first General Councils nor those Councils defined all divine Truths contrary to such Errors and therefore that the Church in later Ages may use against these her Authority to do the same things in her following Councils as in the four first 6. And consequently that it is not reasonable to require of the Church that her Definitions be shewed I say not in their necessary Principles on which she grounds them but in their formal Terms either in the Scriptures or her four first Councils or in the now extant Writings of the first Ages 7. Nor necessary that every explicite Tradition Apostolical and Principle that hath descended to the Church of later Ages most certainly thro all the former must therefore be shewed to be asserted or mentioned in the Writers of the former especially where these very few HEAD VI. Concerning Subordination of Ecclesiastical Authorities Concerning Subordination of Ecclesiastical Authorities 1. CAtholicks maintain a due Subordination both of Ecclesiastical Persons among themselves viz. Of Presbyters to Bishops Bishops to Metropolitans Metropolitans to Primates Primates to Patriarchs And of Ecclesiastical Synods viz. Diocesan to Provincial Provincial to Patriarchal Patriarchal to General 2. They willingly grant That any particular Church or Provincial or National Synod may lawfully make Definitions in matters of Faith Reformations of Errors and Manners and other Ecclesiastical Constitutions for it self without the concurrence or conjuncture at the same time of any other Church or Synod therewith But 3ly They deny that any particular Church or Provincial or National Synod may make such Determinations or Constitutions contrary to those of any present or former Authority or Synod or maintain them made contrary to such Synod present or future reversing them to which Authority either Divine or Ecclesiastical Constitution hath made them Subordinate For without destroying Government no Ecclesiastical Law can be dissolved but by the same or an equal Power to that which made it nor can a part suppose a Church Arian or Donatist as it thinketh meet from time to time free it self from the Acts of the whole especially in such things wherein it can shew in it self no particular difference or disparity from the rest of the whole And therefore 4ly They affirm that when Ecclesiastical Persons or Synods happen to oppose one another Christian Obedience is still due only to the Superiour HEAD VII Concerning Ecclesiastical Supremacy Concerning Ecclesiastical Supremacy 1. THE Catholick Church here on Earth is but one united State and Body which all seem to confess in that when any separation is made every side endeavours to remove the cause thereof from themselves And it cannot reasonably be denyed that All the Christian Churches in the world are capable of a Monarchical Government under one Bishop as well as several Nations under one Emperor or Secular Prince and that such Government much conduceth to the Church's Peace and to the preventing and suppression of Heresies and Schisms 2. Catholicks perswaded therein both by the Scriptures and Tradition do acknowledge 1. That St. Peter was made by Christ President and Head of the College of the Apostles Matt. 16.19 Jo. 21.15 being compared with Gal. 2.7 And 2dly That the Bishop of Rome is his Successor in such Supremacy as likewise Successor to St. Paul the Great Apostle of the Gentiles in that See wherein the two great Apostles last resided anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sedes Apostolica And 3dly That this Bishop hath by Divine Right or if it were only by Ecclesiastical Constitution and by ancient Tradition and Custome it were sufficient committed to him a Supreme Authority over the Universal Church of Christ here on Earth in the calling of Councils and in the approving and confirming their Definitions before they can be universally obligatory and in taking care in the Intervals of such Councils of the due execution and observance of their Decrees and in receiving Appeals from all parts of the Church in some matters of greater concernment And 4ly That as no temporal Power may lawfully change or annul any Ecclesiastical Constitutions or Decrees made concerning the Government of the Church or other matters meerly Spiritual so neither may such temporal Power in particular abrogate this Ecclesiastical Authority tho it were only conferred on the Bishop of Rome by the Church so far as using a Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in Matters that are so 3dly They willingly confess That the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority cannot dispense with any Divine Law now without such Dispensation obliging but only with Ecclesiastical Laws Nor hath any Power over Princes or their Subjects in Temporal matters but only in Spiritual over all those whether Princes or Subjects who are Members of the Church 4ly That there is no Decree of the Church or Council obliging any to maintain this Supreme Magistrate of the Church to be infallible in his Decrees nor on the other side just cause for any therefore to withdraw their obedience to his Decrees because they hold him not infallible HEAD VIII Lastly Concerning the necessary Amplitude of a lawful General Council Concerning the necessary Amplitude of a lawful General Council IN which the Supreme Judgment of this united Body is placed 1. It is not necessary to the composition of a lawful General Council that all the Clergy of the Christian world be assembled therein or all the Bishops of this Clergy or amongst the Bishops some sent thither the Delegates by the rest from all particular Churches professing Christianity For 1 upon these terms the four first Councils cannot be allowed General 2 Again Thus it would be in the power of any particular Church in detaining its Bishops to hinder the Being and the Benefit of a General Council 3 Again Heretical or Schismatical Churches being no part of the Church Catholick the absence of their Bishops hinders not but that the representative of the Church Catholick in such Council may be still compleat 2. The Presence of the Delegated Bishops of all particular Catholick Churches or Provinces is not necessary in such Council to denominate it lawfully General it being provided that all are called to it and none that come excluded because this Absence of some may either be necessitated from
Christian Faith Nor yet the Church entring into any State take away any of the Civil Rights or Authority thereof which is given to the Governours of this State by God and which it was justly possessed of before the Church entred into it Takes away I say none of these Rights where Persons or Things formerly Civil do not by their Dedication to God become Sacred Nor the Church callenge any Temporal Right or Authority as to the use of the Secular Sword which the State doth not first invest it with α And That therefore these two Bodies may always without any jealousy most peaceably consist together Because the Principles of Christianity do most entirely secure and preserve all the Secular Rights of Princes And because in leaving only to Princes the use of the Temporal Sword the Church can never in any difference that happens be the invading but only the suffering Party § 2 2. Therefore 2dly in consequence hereof They hold That the Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Government such as are necessary for the exclusion of Heresies and Schisms and conservation of the Churches Unity Uniformity and Peace throughout several Nations And these which are instituted by Christ or his Apostles or are afterward established in the Church Catholick by Ecclesiastical Canons made by the chief Representative thereof I mean such Canons as can no way be justly pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government They hold That such Subordinations of Church-Government cannot justly be changed nor the observance of such Constitutions be abrogated or prohibited by any Secular Supreme Christian or Heathen within their own Dominions § 3 3. Since it is clear That Christ sent his Ministers to preach the Gospel and do other meerly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Offices in all Nations and in those Nations too then as now under some Supreme Civil Governor which Offices also those Ministers did accordingly perform for three hundred years tho the said Governors prohibited and opposed them So for Example the Apostles and other Church-Governors in those times assembled themselves in a Council at Jerusalem to consult and give orders throughout the Churches concerning the Abrogation of former Legal Ceremonses So St. Paul in those times gave Commission to Timothy for the of the Christian Church in Ephesus to Titus for the governing those in Creet to ordain Clergy thro the Cities there and in these Provinces to receive Accusations hear Witnesses promulgate the Doctrines formerly received silence False-teachers excommunicate Offenders c. 1 Tim. 1.3 5.19 2. Tim. 2.2 Tit. 1.5.11 3.10 And so he gave order also to them to hold publick Assemblies 1. Cor. 5.4 Heb. 10.25 for the common Worship of God and for the exercising of the forenamed Acts. And so the Successors of these first Church Governors also used the same authority for those three first Centuries in all dominions distributed into several Provincial and Parochial or Diocesan Governments tho the Secular Powers frequently resisted imprisoned executed the Church Officers for it These things therefore thus granted and allowed hence they infer that as a Heathen Prince cannot justly prohibit all Christian Clergy so neither can a Christian Prince amongst this Clergy justly prohibit all those whom only these Ecclesiastical Magistrates do judge Orthodox and worthy from professing and publishing the Orthodox Faith and otherwise officiating in Divine matters within his Dominions Else as where the Prince is Heathen Christianity cannot be propagated in his Territories against Infidelity so where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical suppose an Arian as the Emperour Constantius was the Truth of Christianity cannot be preserved in his dominions against Heresy or where he Schismatical the Unity of the Churches Communion cannot be preserved against the Sects in his dominion For Confirmation of these three preceedent Theses see at large the Protestant Concessions in letter δ. To which is annexed an Answer to all their Pleas and Defences made by them for a lawful Reformation of Ecclesiastical Persons and Matters by the Secular Power § 4 4 Consequently to the Precedents seeing that as there are many temporal Jurisdictions descending on the Church originally from the Secular Power so there are also other spiritual Jurisdictions primitively belonging to and exercised by the Church and held from the donation of our Lord such as the forementioned viz. To hold publick Religious Assemblies to promulgate the Doctrines formerly delivered to administer the Sacraments of the Church to receive Accusations hear Witnesses in point of Heresy and Schism to bind absolve to silence False-teachers excommunicate obstinate Offenders and that in all Nations and within any Princes Dominions whatever They accordingly affirm 1. That no Secular Power can bestow or derive their spiritual Jurisdictions on any person but that to be in such dominions by any person lawfully executed these must first be conferred on him by the Clergy 2dly That the act only of some inferior Clergy against their Canonical Superiors or of the minor part of Clergy against the major can be no legitimate act of the Clergy for conferring such spiritual Jurisdictions but the contrary to it is so § 5 And hence 5ly They gather That tho Princes for the greater security of their Civil Government and the many secular obligations which the Church hath to them may nominate and present to the Clergy and Ecclesiastical Magistrates such persons as they think most meet to receive from the Church these spiritual Jurisdictions within their dominions yet if any Secular Power should possess such person of these Jurisdictions in any Province either by his own sole authority or by the concurrence of some inferior Clergy or minor part of such Province whom the major part of the Clergy of such Province or the due Ecclesiastical Superiors to whom according to Church Canons the conferring of such Jurisdiction doth belong to judge uncapable or unfit and therefore refuse the collation of them on such a subject They affirm such an Act of the Prince or Clergy assisting him to be unlawful and that it must needs open a way to all Heresy and Schism and dissolve the Faith and Unity of the Church Catholick Neither can any such Person so introduced tho he be validly ordained justly exercise such spiritual Jurisdictions neither do all such people as know receive any salvifical benefit by his unlawful administration to them of the Church's Sacraments or at least of the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution by reason of a defect of a right disposition in the Suscipients and the great guilt they contract in applying themselves to such a Person unless this be done in a case of necessity when there is no Catholick Clergy to repair to for such Offices So had Novatianus ordained and adhered to by three or four Bishops been upon this setled by a Christian Emperor in the Apostolick Chair against Cornelius ordained and confirmed in these Jurisdictions by all the rest of the Body of the Roman Episcopal Clergy yet Novatianus would no less for this
have been still a Schismatick and an Usurper § 6 6. Hence also should a Christian Secular Power suppose Arian refuse to nominate and present any person to the Clergy to be admitted to such Office and Jurisdictions within his dominions save such as are Arians here the Church-Governors authorized by the Canons ought to take the same care for these Christian Provinces in such dominions in the times of Christian as they did in times of Heathen Princes in appointing such other Pastors over the Flocks of Christ there as will still preserve the Faith and Unity of the Catholick Church And should the Church-Governors de facto appoint none because they see the possession of such place is by violence hindred yet will he who in the manner aforesaid invades such office be as much an Usurper as if he entred upon a Chair already possessed when it is only by reason of him and such like that those men are kept out who might rightly possess it and it is to be reckoned the same delinquency as if such Chair had actually two Bishops § 7 7. They hold That to the Exercise of the Episcopal Function in any Province so that it may continue undevided from the Unity of the Church-Catholick and so that the Subjects of such Province may receive any benefit thereby two things are required according to the ancient Laws of the Church made for preserving Unity for ever 1. Three Bishops to confer the Order or in some dispensable cases one at least 2. The Consent at least non-opposition of the major part of the Bishops of the same Province to such Ordination and the Licence or Confirmation of the Metropolitan or yet higher of the Patriarch himself β it mattering little as to preserving the Church's Unity so long as the Metropolitans and their actions are subjected to their Patriarch whether one or both or the higher without the lower do ratify the Election of the Bishops So that any Ordination made by three or four Bishops of a Person wanting the foresaid Consent and Confirmation from Superiors tho it be valid the Order is frustrate from any Jurisdiction or lawful exercise thereof in the same manner as that of a true Bishop is frustrate when afterwards he is justly excommunicated as being given and received out of the Unity of the Church Catholick and as exposing the Church to all the divisions and factions which the Lust of two or three Ecclesiasticks assisted with a Secular Power seduced may please to set up § 8 8. It seems evident from Antiquity as likewise confessed by learned Protestants that as the Bishops could not exercise in any Diocess a lawful Spiritual Jurisdiction without the Metropolitans Licence and Confirmation so neither could the Metropolitan in any Province without that of the Patriarch γ. There seeming as great reason and necessity of this for preserving the Unity of the Church Catholick amongst the Metropolitans and Primates in the several Provinces thereof as amongst Bishops in the several Diocesses And therefore anciently these Metropolitans obtained also the consent of their Co-Metropolitans in other Provinces by the Literae Communicatoriae or formatae of those Bishops upon the sending to them a Copy of their Faith according as it was setled and professed in the several Articles thereof exclusively to Heresies in those present times and a Testimonial of their legitimate Election Which also may be said of the Patriarchs themselves who upon their sending the like Confessions and Informations received a Confirmation from the Primate of them the Roman Bishop and the other Co-Patriarchs § 9 9. As for the Supreme Bishop of the Catholick Church who therefore could not receive this his Authority and Jurisdiction from any Superior yet anciently neither was he conceived to have any lawful Jurisdiction unless possessed thereof by the designation and suffrage of the major part at least of the Clergy and Bishops of the Roman Province in later times for peace sake tranferred upon the Cardinals To which was usually added also the Communicatory Letters of other Patriarchs and Primates upon his professing to them if need were the Catholick Faith of his Ancestors and the legalness of his Election And if in latter times the manner of his Investiture with this Supreme Authority and Jurisdiction be not altogether the same yet since we find in all ages a major part of Christian Churches such as are guilty of no ancient condemned Heresy adhering to the Roman Bishop and Faith when as meanwhile several of the other Patriarchs have been condemned for Hereticks we may presume also that not only the Clergy of the Roman Province but all or at least a major part of the Governors of these Churches are and have been from age to age ready to afford the same Testimony to his just and Canonical Authority And these seem to be the necessary Foundations and Pillars that support the Unity of the Church Catholick α. α Bellarm de Rom. Pontif. 5. l. 3. c. Ex Scripturis nihil habemus nisi data Pontifici claves regni caelorum § 10 de clavibus regni terrarum nulla mentio fit Traditio Apostolica nulla Quando Rex fit Christianus non perdit regnum terrarum quod jam obtinebat Suitable to the Church Hymn Crudelis Herodes Deum Regem venire quid times Non eripit Mortalia c. And the same Cardinal quoting a Passage out of an Epistle of Pope Nicholaus Quicquid saith he Imperatores habent dicet Nicholaus a Christo eos habere Peto igitur vel potest summus Pontifex auferre a Regibus Imperatoribus hoc tanquam Summus ipse Rex Imperator aut non potest Si potest ergo est major Christo si non potest ergo non habet vere potestatem regiam Neither is any such power in Temporals absolutely necessary to the Church in order to Spirituals without the exercise of which power the primitive Church tho most grievously oppressed by Secular States yet enjoyed this Government in Spirituals perfect and entire And concerning the Obligation of the Clergy also tho sequestred to God's Service to the obedience of the Civil Laws of Princes together with their other Fellow Subjects Thus the same Cardinal De Clericis 1. l. 28. c. Clerici praeterquam quod Clerici sunt sunt etiam Cives Partes quaedam Reipublicae politicae igitur ut tales vivere debent civilibus legibus non sunt autem aliae ut nunc ponimus nisi quae a Politico Magistratu sunt latae igitur illas Clerici servare dehent alioqui magna perturbatio confusio in Republica oriretur c. quoting St. Chrysostome in 13. ad Rom. Christi Evangelio non tolli politicas leges ideo debere etiam Sacerdotes Monachos eis parere and parere not only in a directive but coactive way not only to be guided in their duty by the laws but forced to obedience of it But this Coaction to proceed not from the Civil but Ecclesiastical
accusaverit Of which Canon thus Dr. Field p. 518. Patriarchs were by the Order of the 8th General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by the imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. ' Without the Patriarchs consent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And what they bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome hath the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had And thus Bishop Bramhal Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. 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 consisteth Patiarchal Authority In ordaining their Metropolitans or confirming them δ. δ Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal 4. c. p. 42. § 14 External Jurisdiction is either definitive or mulctative Authority definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction i. e. using Secular force or as it is referred to Spiritual Censures As it standeth in Spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when without Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was always understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen Ibid. 1. c. p. 9. As for Spiritual Jurisdiction standing in Examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks Excommunications of notorious and stubborn offenders Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give to nor take from the Church And by this Power saith he 4. c. p. 39. without Coaction the Church was called Faith was planted Devils were subdued the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness the world reduced to the obedience of Christ by this Power without coactive Jurisdiction the Church was governed for 300 years together But if it be enquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian and when their coactive Power came in The Emperors saith he p. 178. never took upon them by their Authority to define matters of Faith and Religion that they left to the Church But when the Church had defined such Truths against Hereticks and had deposed such Hereticks then the Emperors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions did by their coactive Power give strength to the Canons of the Church § 15 Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church 4. c. p. 234. The Power of the Church is so absolute and depending on God alone that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the profession of that Faith or the Exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with The judgment of which Faith and Ordinances what they are Protestants also affirm to belong to the Clergy or even the Exercise of that Ecclesiastical Power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign but to use that Power which their Quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular Powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks refused to obey them in forbearing to teach still and publish the Catholick Doctrine when prohibited by them and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Which actions whosoever justifies not he will lay the Church open to ruine whensoever the Soveraign Power is seduced by Hereticks And such a difference falling out i. e. between Prince and Clergy in Church matters as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right It will be requisite saith he for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereign tho to no other effect than to suffer if the Prince impose it for the Exercise of their Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity See the same Author Epilog 1. l. 19. c. The contents whereof touching this subject he hath briefly expressed thus That that Power which was in the Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign That the interest of Secular Power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the Act of it And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith rather than the State supposing neither to be infallible Ibid. c. 20. p. 158. he saith That he who disturbs the Communion of the Church remains punishable by the Secular power to inflict temporal penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that this temporal power maintaineth the true Church And afterward That the Secular Power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts which the Church i.e. those who are qualified by and for the Church are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do without committing the sin of Sacrilege in seizing into its own hands the Powers which by God's Act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own service not supposing the free Act of the Church without fraud and violence concurring to the doing of it Now among the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church which he calls a Corporation by divine right and appointment he names these 1. l. 16. c. p. 116. The Power of making Laws within themselves and then I suppose of publishing them made among all the Subjects of the Church in whatever Princes Dominions else why make them of electing Church Governors of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398. and of Excommunicating and 3. l. 32. c. p. 385. The Power to determine all matters the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the Communion of Christians in the service of God and the Power to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion The Power of holding Assemblies which must be by meeting together in some place or other and by some Church Authority calling them Of which he speaks thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 53. I must not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them and the obligation which the Decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles And afterward I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service
of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath Power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike § 16 Dr. Taylor in Episcopacy asserted published by the Kings Authority after that p. 236. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdome is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any Entrenchment on the Royalty hath these Passages p. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordination of inferiour Clergy to their Superiours Rites Liturgies c. As for the Rights of the Secular Power he layeth down this Rule p. 236. Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take Cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all Actions civil all publick Visitations of Justice all breach of municipal Laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishops have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigente of several occasions and have several Powers for the engagements of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops Jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Inflictions of Censures by Excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external Compulsory i. e. as he saith before to superadd a temporal penalty upon Contumacy or some other way abet the Censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no Power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 244. That the Church may inflict her Censures upon her Delinquent Children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p 245. That the King 's supreme Regal Power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by God's law employed for regiment and care of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth 〈◊〉 before p. 239. is the King 's And lastly p. 241. he saith That the Catholick Bishops in time of Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ had concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior Jurisdiction and Power i. e. the Royal. § 17 Bishop Bramhal frequently stateth the Primacy or Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters thus Schisme Guarded p. 61. he saith All that our Kings assume to themselves is the external Regiment of the Church by coactive Power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it And p. 63. quoting the 37 Article of the Church of England where the King's Supremacy is expressed thus To preserve or contain all Estates and Orders committed to their trust whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in their duties and restrain contumacious offenders with the Civil Sword in which restraining offenders and containing all in their duty with the Civil Sword the Prince is willingly acknowledged by Catholicks the and the only Supreme he comments thus upon it You see the Power is Political the Sword is Political all is Political our Kings leave the Power of the Keys and Jurisdiction Spiritual purely to those to whom Christ hath left them And in answer to another Passage in the 37th Article and also in the Oath of Supremacy wherein the Bishop of Rome is denied to have any Jurisdiction in the Kingdome of England he distinguisheth between a Jurisdiction suppose to excommunicate absolve degrade purely Spiritual governing Christians in the interior Court of Conscience and extending no further and an exterior coactive Jurisdiction exercised in the exterior Ecclesiastical Courts the exterior Coaction of which he saith is originally Political and so belonging only to and held from the Prince His words are Schisme Guarded p. 160. Our Ancestors in denying any Jurisdiction that is Patriarchal to the Pope meant the very same thing that we do our only difference is in the use of the words Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction which we understand properly of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which extends no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the exterior Court which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political The interior habit which enableth an Ecclesiastical Judge to excommunicate or absolve or degrade is meerly Spiritual but the exterior Coaction is originally Political So our Ancestors cast out external Ecclesiastical coactive Jurisdiction the same do we They did not take away from the Pope the power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely Spiritual no more do we And Ibid. p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them Laws he means such laws for observance of which secular coaction might be used the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive Power to execute them the Prince's Grant or Concession was needful So that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings Dominions and use the Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority without the Prince only they can use no Coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments c. in the Execution of them without his which is granted to him Again Vindic. of the Church of England p. 269. he saith That 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 Sovereign Princes have and have only an Architectonical Power to see that Clergy-men do their Duties i. e. not what he but what their Superiors in Spiritual matters judge to be so And Schisme Guarded p. 136. We have nothing concerning any Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in all the Statutes of Henry the Eighth They do all intend coactive Jurisdiction in the exterior Court of the Church We give the supreme Judicature of
to the Catholick Faith as Heretical Princes for the Church hath as well need of using these her Privileges against Heretical Princes as Heathen otherwise the later may do her as much mischief as the former Next what is said here of calling Councils without such Princes consent I apply to the exercise of all those particulars which are allowed to be the Churches Rights and to have been exercised by her under Heathen Princes as in this Council assembled the making Decrees in points of Doctrine controverted and Canons for her Government The publishing and requiring obedience thereto from all her Subjects in whatever Princes Dominions and punishing with the Church Censures the Refractory § 22 And with these Church-Privileges and Practices not only as to Heathen but Heretical Princes Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort. p. 377. also seems well content Who in answer to Bellarmin saying the Authority alledged out of the New Testament to be given to Princes was to the Heathen who yet had no Primacy in Ecclesiasticals and therefore these places served nothing for proving such a Primacy grants neither Infidel Princes nor yet Christian if Heretical to have an Ecclesiastical Primacy over God's Church Primatum ad Reges infideles pertinere non probant these Texts Non sanc magis ad hos in novo quam ad Ahasuerum vel Nabuchodonosor in veteri Interim sit vel Infidelis sit vel Haereticus oretur pro co c. And Non id agitur ut Ecclesiae Persecutores Tiberii Caii Ecclesiae Gubernatores habeantur Tum demum vero Ecclesiae Gubernacula capessant cum conversi ad fidem fuerint fidem i. e. Christianam if Heathen Catholicam if Hereticks After him Mason De Ministerio Anglicano 3. l. 5. c. In case not only of Infidelity but of Heresy or yet if I mistake him not in any other eminent Defect of Sanctity denies to Princes at least the Exercise whatever remote Power he placeth in them of some branches of their Primacy Regibus saith he qui vel non sunt Christiani vel si Christiani non tamen orthodoxi vel si orthodoxi non tamen Sancti Primatus competit quidem sed secundum quid id est quoad authoritatem non quoad rectum plenum usum authoritatis quoad officium non quoad illustrem executionem officii None such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship so as by vertue of it to do any thing against the Acts of the Clergy in Spirituals unless this Author seek some refuge in the Epithetes rectus plenus and illustris § 23 After the former Passages of Bishop Andrews and Mason See Dr. Hammond in his Answer to S. W. Schisme disarm'd p. 203. who to the Drs words Schisme p. 125. that the Canons of the Councils have mostly been set out and received their Authority by the Emperors replied That never was it heard that an Emperor claimed a negative voice in making the Canon of a Council valid which concerned matters purely Spiritual To which Dr. Hammond returns this For the appendage c I need not reply having never pretended nor seemed to pretend what he chargeth on me concerning the Emperors negative Voice in the Council what I pretended I spake out in plain words That the Canons have been mostly set out and received 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 By Dr. Hammond's consent then A negative Voice the Prince hath not to reverse or contrary the Church Canons in Spiritual matters only thus he may be said to give Authority to them by causing a powerful reception of them in his Dominions Powerful i.e. by assisting the Church in the Execution of them with this coactive Power And elsewhere Answer to Schism disarmed p. 164. he grants in the Controversy of Erecting Metropoles That if the Prince exerciseth this Power so as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church this certainly is an abuse And afterwards saith It is invalid as doing wrong to another in those Priviledges he enjoys by the Canon § 24 Thus also Grotius Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. well seen in the Imperial Rights not long before his death 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 comparaturs est Nam cum Principes filii sunt Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti omne corpus Sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligenter 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 saith he etiam Regibus dictum § 25 I will conclude with the Sentiments of our two last most Gracious Sovereigns King James and King Charles the First in his Defence of the Right of Kings against Cardinal Perron p. 427 428. It is granted saith he That if a King shall command any thing directly contrary to God's Word and tending to the Subversion of the Church that Clericks in this case ought not only to dispense with Subjects for their Obedience but also expresly to forbid their obedience for it is always better to obey God than Man Howbeit in all other matters whereby the Glory and Majesty of God is not impeached it is the duty of Clericks to ply the people with wholsome Exhortations to constant obedience c. Therefore the Clergy are the Judges for Christ's Flock whatever Princes Subjects they be when the Prince commands any such thing which how it consists with another judgment of the Prince concerning the Doctrines of the Clergy whether these command any thing against God's Word a judgment not only discretive for himself but prescriptive also to his Subjects in prohibiting that no such Doctrine be taught to them by the Clergy I cannot divine unless there can be two ultimate Law-givers in the same matters over the same persons both whom delivering contrary things they may be obliged to obey Again a little before I grant saith he That it is for Divinity Schools to Judge How far the Power of the Keys doth stretch I grant again That Clericks both may and ought also to display the Colours and Ensigns of their Censures against Princes who violating their publick and solemn Oath The King speaks of Christian Princes Do raise and make open War against Jesus Christ he means in maintaining some Heresy and opposing his Church I grant yet again that in this case they need not admit Laicks Doth he not here also include Princes to be of their Council nor allow them any scope or liberty of Judgment yet all this doth not hinder Prince nor People from taking care of the preservation of their own
Rights and Estates That the Clergy pass nothing prejudicial to these Rights for which there is all good reason Again The Emperors saith he in making use of their Authority in Councils took not upon them to be infallible Judges of Doctrine but only that they might see and judge whether Bishops did propound nothing in their Convocations and Consultations but most of all in their Determinations to undermine the Emperors Authority to disturb the tranquility of the Common-wealth i. e. in their medling in civil affairs and to cross the Determinations of precedent Councils Thus King James § 26 King Charles in his last Paper in the Isle of Wight p. 3. Speaking of the several Branches of Episcopal Authority practised under Heathen Princes Tho the Bishops saith he in the times of Pagan Princes had no outward coercive Power over mens Persons or Estates as also no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government So Christian men do still Princes and all They then exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus In making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving Accusations conventing the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes against the Evangelical Law excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoining Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. I subsume the same making of Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons the same Examinations Excommunications and casting out of the Church c. are and must be allowed still in Christian States also being things which as Bishop Carleton Princes can neither give to nor take from the Church And therefore they must also be allowed all those means absolutely without which no such things can be done As convening keeping intelligence one with another Promulgation of their Acts and Decrees c. And when the Christian Prince or State becomes to them such as the Heathen were in his with-holding or prohibiting these necessary things then may they resume that behaviour as was practised formerly in Heathenisme i. e. do these things without the States leave or against its Prohibitions § 27 After this copious Account given you of learned and judicious Protestants touching so weighty a matter let us now look back upon them and see in what Posture things are left The Ecclesiastical Supremacy that is commonly attributed to the Civil Power seems to consist chiefly in all or in some one of these three 1. His strengthning and promoting the Acts of the Church and its Governors with the assistance of the Secular Sword and his making their laws the Laws also of the State One Branch of which power consequently is The opposing and suppressing by the hand of Civil Justice any such Ecclsiastical Acts of Inferior and Uncanonical and illegal Persons or Synods as go against the Superior and legal the Church being always the Judge in this matter what Acts are against and disowned by her which is indeed the Princes not opposing but defending the Church § 28 2. Or 2dly His opposing and abrogating some of the Churches Canons and Laws of Government in purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs for in Civil all Princes Heathen also and Heretical may rescind any such Ecclesiastical Acts as do any prejudice to the temporal Power which God hath committed immediately into their hands as pretended contrary to the Law of Christ or to Christian liberty c. 3. Or 3dly His declaring and reforming against their Decrees in matters of Faith and Manners as some way contrary to God's Truth and the Doctrine of the Scriptures § 29 For the first of these It is an Ecclesiastical Supremacy or a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters which the Church hath never denied to belong to Secular Princes but as obliged to them for it and many Acts thereof may be and sometimes have been performed even by Princes Heathen or Heretical Many Instances thereof are collected by Mason De Ministerio Anglicano p. 313. in Nabuchadonosor Cyrus Darius under the Old Testament Tiberius Adrian Antoninus Pius c. And afterward of several of the Gothick Kings under the New For the other two These Protestant Authors forecited grant That so often as any Prince falls into Heresy or in general opposeth the Christian Faith the exercise of such Supremacy concerning matters of Faith and Church Government returns to the Church alone as it was in the Church alone before Constantine Again the judgment of Heresy and consequently when Princes are Heretical and so fallen from the exercise of any such Supremacy is by several of the former quotations See before § 21 22. c. granted to belong to the Church But suppose the Christian Prince to be also Catholick yet the limitations of several of the forecited Authors seem hardly to allow him any such Branches of Supremacy For touching Errors of Faith or Aberrations in the performance of God's worship and service Dr. Field before § 20. saith That ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof to the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and in these things to judge according to their former resolutions or in any new matter whereof no former Definition hath been made the Prince saith Dr. Heylin before § 20. is to follow the new Resolutions that shall be made not of some few tho never so learned but of the whole body of his Clergy and by consequence to follow also not that but the Resolution of a higher Body of Clergy if this oppose that of his Clergy the one being necessarily subordinate to and conclusive by the other for preservation of the Unity and Peace of the Catholick Church So Bishop Bramhal grants That the Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons i. e. such as related only to Ecclesiastical not Civil matters both for the composing and executing of them Only to make these Canons Laws i. e. accompanied with a politick and coactive Power the Prince's Confirmation was required And Mr. Thorndike saith before § 15. That should the Prince forbid it yet the Church still ought to use that Ecclesiastical Power therein that shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church of which necessity also they not the Prince are by our Lord constituted the Judges The like saith Dr. Taylor of the Subordination of inferior Clergy to their Superiors and Bishop Bishop Carleton before § 14. of the Ordinations of the Clergy and Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures that they are proper Laws and Rights of the Church not to be changed or taken away by Princes § 30 It seems too late therefore now or in Henry the Eighth's days to project a Repeal of any of those forementioned ancient Ecclesiastical Customes and Canons which we find made or practiced by the Church under the
Heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet which could not then have been lawfully so used if any of these had encorached on Civil Rights in any of which Civil Rights the Heathen Prince might claim as much lawful Power as the Christian can And also which we find still continued by the Church under Christian Emperors without asking their leave to Decree such things or substituting their Decrees to their Authority or depending on their consent only with humbly desiring their assistance yet so as without it resolved to proceed in the Execution thereof as under Heathen of which we have many Experiments under the Christian Emperors when these Arian yet which things the Church could not lawfully have done were any of these entrenching upon the Princes Right now at least when Christian For Example the 6th Canon of Nice and 5th Canon of Constantinopolitan Council and 3d 4th 7th 17th Canon of Concil Sardic concerning the Subordinations and Appeals of Clergy would have been an usurpation of an unjust Authority if the Subordination of Episcopal Sees and Erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince When also we find them excluding Princes tho Christian and Catholick either from the judging in matters of Faith and from prohibiting here that any such Spiritual Food to use Bishop Andrews Expression Resp ad Apol. p. 332. should be set before their Subjects of which themselves first did not like the tast which surely is judging of the good or evil of such food or judging in meerly Ecclesiastical causes in any way of opposition or review of the Churches Decrees I mean the most supreme that may be had in it § 31 For these review the Canons mentioned but now and see that much noted Expostulation of St. Ambrose 2. l. Epist. 13. ad Valentin with the Emperor Valentinian presuming to examine Church Controversies and calling them before his Tribunal Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse Not Quando audisti imberbem necdum baptizatum ex matris arbitrio pendentem as Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. c. 1. p. 29. and others explain it but Quando auaisti Laicum applicable to any Secular Prince de Episcopo judicasse or if Bishop Andrews will dedisse idoneos cognitores i. e. if they such as Valentinian shall choose for idoneos if these chosen be not Bishops or Bishops of Valentinian's appointment and not his Canonical Superiors but then these Canonical Superiors are given for the Bishops Judges not by Vulentinian but by the Church But else who cannot see clearly that dare idoneos cognitores i. e. such as the Emperor thinks fit which Bishop Andrews pleads for as the Emperors right and ipse Imperator judicare which St. Ambrose denies comes all to one The same Father goes on Quis est qui abnuat in causa fidei in causa in-quam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare Pater tuus vir Deo favente maturioris aevi dicebat Non est meum judicare inter Episcopos c. And thus St. Athanasius Ep. and Solitar vitam agent Expostulates with Constantius interposing as to the Churches Definitions about Arianisme and her Canons about judging and censuring of Bishops opposing such Bishops as he took for Enemies of the Divine Truth and countenancing those inferior Ecclesiastical Synods which he fancied to be in the right against the Superior and against the Canons Quando a condito aevo auditum est quod judicium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit aut quando unquam hoc a small number of Bishops joined with Constantius pro judicio agnitum est Plurimae ante-hac Synodi fuere multa judicia Ecclesiae habita sunt Sed neque Patres â—istiusmodi res Principi persuadere conati sunt nec Princeps se in rebus Ecclesiasticis curicsum praehuit And see his complaints following That he did abrogare Canones in decernendo Principem facere Episcoporum praesidere judiciis Ecclesiasticis which he calls there Abominatio Desolationis And the Reverend Hosius President in the Council of Nice writes to this Prince on the same manner Ibid. p. 456. Reformida diem Judicit ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe sed potius ea a nobis disce Tibi Deus imperium commisit nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit neque igitur fas est nobis in terris imperium tenere neque tu thymiamatum sacrorum potestatem habes Imperator Nefas est enim as Theodosius see Conc. Ephesin writ to the 3d General Council when he sent Candidianus thither for the Preservation of Peace and Order but not ut cum quaestionibus controversiis quae circa fidei dogmata incidunt quicquam commune haberet qui Sanctissimorum Episcoporum Catalogo ascriptus non est illum Ecclesiastieis negotiis consultationibus sese immiscere § 32 Where note that the Contest of these Bishops with these Emperors is for their judging these Ecclesiastical matters where they had no power to judge not for judging them when having a lawful power not rightly for this later these Princes would easily have denyed as all secular Princes that oppose the Church do but could not so the former And who doth not see which is safer to trust the Bishop or Princes with the last Cognizance of Divine things And how much it concerns Christianity that Princes be not made as Bishop Andrews would have them Resp ad Bell. Apol. p. 332 the Discussers of the Clergy's Definitions whether contra legem Christi and the last Tasters of the Food prepared by the Pastors for Christ's Sheep that as this appears to them sweet or bitter good or bad so they may allow or forbid it to be ministred to their Subjects Constantius was the first of the Christian Emperors that assumed this pregustation and that he took for sweet and good proved very Poison to his Subjects and at last ended in Mahometanisme Mean-while no doubt but Princes may assist all the Churches Consults with their secular power may call them preside in them for keeping of Order restraining the Tumultuous and Refractory and seeing that particulars perform what the whole declares to be their duty as the only Supreme's there and elsewhere of all coactive Power This Right none can deny them Hitherto from § 14. I have collected and considered the Protestant Concessions in Confirmation of the Church's Rights in her Ecclesiastical judgments and other proceedings in pure Spirituals which are declared to be independent on and unrepeable by the secular power and I have given you greater store of them than at first I intended § 33 Now by these their Concessions one would think the door were shut fast enough against any pretended Reformation at any time entring into the Church by the secular Authority opposed to the Ecclesiastical Yet seeing that after this several pretentions are made and that not only
by others but the same Authors as it were unhappily distracted and divided between two powerful Leaders Interest and Truth to bring in Alterations in Religion against the standing Church Authority chiefly by this way namely a Superintendency or Supremacy therein of the secular power either proceeding against all or at most joined with some inferior against the superior Clergy or some lesser against a much major part the judgment of which superior's and major part do canonically conclude the whole I think it necessary in this a matter of so great consequence to gather all those Pleas and Defences of any weight which I have met with in these Writers whereon they build the lawfulness of their Reformation by the secular Arm and to shew the invalidity of them § 34 To this purpose then I find them to alledge on the other side as if they had forgot all they had already conceded See Dr. Fern Answer to Champny p. 300. That the secular Sovereign Power is to be satisfied or as it is there § 21. to have it by Demonstration of Truth evidenced to him that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the Law of Christ before he use or apply his Authority to the publick establishment of it Ibid. p. 294. And this in respect of his duty to God whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss Thus Dr. Fern. Well But may the Clergy at least publish that Faith and Worship which they judge to be according to the Law of Christ in his Dominions without him Or may not the Prince also establish something as the Law of Christ when it is as he conceives evidenced to him to be so by some other without or against the Clergy or only with some minor or inferior part of them when opposed by the superior and major i. e. by the Canonical Ecclesiastical Judge The first of these is denied by him the later affirmed For saith he Ibid. p. 308. General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings can have in matters of Religion but still with the limitation quatenus docent legem Christi of which I suppose the Prince must judge it being possible that the major part should be swayed by Factions or worldly Interest Therefore Kings and Emperors saith he may have cause given them upon Evidence of things unduly carried to use their supreme power for forbidding of their Decrees And Ibid. 2. c. p. 73. The Sovereign Prince is not bound in the way of Prudence always to receive his directions from a vote in Synod especially when there is just cause of fear that the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious to factious Interests And p. 72. If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his own Dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and Learned Men of the Church to be the Law of Christ shall he not perform his known duty till the Vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it Where also p. 295. he approves the Concession of the Clergy under King Henry the Eighth In binding themselves by Promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis not to exact or promulge or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the King's assent Here you see the Clergy's power so tied up that they can publish no Christian Doctrine to the People that is to Christ's Flock which they do not first evidence to the Prince and have for such publication his consent but on the other side whatever is any way evidenced to the Prince he may publish without and against their consent and yet they not he are made by these men the ordinary Judges in Spiritual matters § 35 Now here suppose the Prince receives the Directions of some Clergy men in any thing he doth yet since the Clergy is a subordinate and well regulated Government and these his Spiritual Directors oppose the main Body he is not here directed by that Clergy that ought to be his Judge but those that are against it Yet still some reason were there in this if the Prince could always be certain in his Evidence so as not to mistake i. e. to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not and again to think other things not sufficiently evidenced when they are so there were less hazard in leaving Church matters thus to his disposal But since things are much otherwise and evidencing Truths to any one by reason of different Understandings Education Passions and Interest is a thing very casual so that what is easily evidenceable to another may happen not to be so to the Sovereign Power when not patient enough to be informed when misled and prepossessed by a Faction when not so capable as some others by defect of nature or learning and facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker c. to what an uncertain and mutable Condition are Church Affairs reduced when the Function of the Clergy depends on such Evidences made to the Prince 2. § 36 Next they urge That in regard that the Clergy may many ways fail and miscarry in delivering Christ's Laws and the Truth of the Gospel If in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles or Laws given to the Church by injury of time the Practice become contrary to the Law the Sovereign Power being bound to protect Christianity is bound to employ it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those with whom the Power of the Church is trusted i.e. that Body of the Clergy whose Acts conclude the whole else if only some other Clergy miscarry this Body serves the Prince for their correction shall hinder the restoring of such Laws the Sovereign Power may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppress their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles Thus Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church p. 273. § 37 Now here to omit that such suppositions and fears that the Clergy taken in the largest capacity and supremest judgments to which the Prince is to repair when lower are suspected shall fail at any time in the delivering to Christians all necessary Truths are groundless of which see what hath been said in the first Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies § 6. c. And Second Discourse § 12. c. what reasonable man is there hearing this that will not presently ask Who shall judge whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles which the Prince would introduce or restore and which the Succession of the Clergy opposeth Which Clergy surely will never confess such to be a Law of our Lord but always will profess the contrary Nay will say That the Succession of the Clergy
to help themselves I cannot determine By what is said it may appear how improper the foresaid Instances are to prove in Christian Princes a Power to reform the supposed Errors of the Clergy in their Doctrines of Faith or Manners the second thing they have urged § 50 3. Again They urge That it is not fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters until the Stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them Dr. Heylin Reformation Justified p. 86. Dr. Fern Exam of Champ. p. 295. Where were the Princes knowledge and assent required only on this account relating to the State that so nothing be passed in these Synods prejudecial to his Civil Rights it is willingly allowed but if required on another account relating to Religion that so he may prohibit and suppress so much of them as is not evidenced to him to be juxta legem Christi or as he apprehends is also against it of which thing he is not the Judge yet which hath been the Pretence of reforming Princes medling with the most speculative points in Divinity it seems not reasonable And thus an Heretical Prince will strangle as he pleaseth within his Dominions the Catholick Verities § 51 4. They urge the case of the Act of a National Clergy passing away their Spiritual Authority to a Sccular Prince 4. and investing him or whom he shall nominate and elect with that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity After which they say the Princes Act or their's he nominates have virtually the power of the Clergy or their Synod and do oblige as much as if they in terminis had agreed upon it To give you it in Dr. Heylin's words Reform Justified p. 89. The Kings of England saith he had a further Right as to this particular which is a Power conferred upon them by the Clergy whether by way of Recognition or Concession I regard not here by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme Authority not only of confirming their Synodical Acts not to be put in Execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity amongst which Powers p. 85. he nameth this to reform such Errors and Corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God And to this we have a parallel Case in the Roman Empire in which the Supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and People of Rome till by the Law which they call Lex Regis they transferred all their Power on Caesar and the following Emperors which Law being past the Edicts of the Emperors were as binding as the Senatus-Consulta had been before The like may be affirmed of the Church of England The Clergy had self Authority in all matters which concerned Religion and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects till by acknowledging King Henry the Eighth for their supreme Head and by the Act of Submission not long after follwing they transferred that Power upon the King and his Successors After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation as it had virtually the Power of the Convocation so was it as good in Law as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly and in terminis had agreed upon it Thus Dr. Heylin And upon this ground and title it was that the XLII Articles since reduced to XXXIX were first introduced into the Church of England being composed by certain Persons appointed by the Prince and then without any review or Confirmation of the Synod published as the Act thereof as appears by Philpot's Plea and arguing in the Synod 10. Mariae when the Clergy questioned these Articles and subscribed that they were wrongfully entitled to the Synod which had never passed them See for this matter Fox Act p. 1282. And Ib. p. 1704 Arch-bishop Cranmer's Tryal And Fuller's Hist Ecclesiast 7. l. p. 420. And Dr. Fern Exam. Champny p. 74. § 52 To all which may be answered That the Canons of the Church permit no such Translation of the Clergy's Authority to the Secular Power neither yet is the supreme Power of composing or changing Articles of Faith and Religion or making other Ecclesiastical Laws as to any Nation vested in the National Synod thereof as appears at length from the Sub-ordinations of Clergy both Persons and Synods in the Catholick Church which in several States is only one for preserving of the Churches Faith and Government for every in unity of which see more Head 6. Thes 1. c. 2 Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies § 24. c. Consid on Council of Trent § 9. c. And so such National Synods cannot give away what they have not Nor were it so have they any Power of Alienating this Authority for which they are personally set a part from the rest of the world by our Lord with a successive solemn Ordination and of which well or ill managed they themselves must give account to our Lord No such Power of Alienation being contained in the original Grant thereof But if without such express Licence they can give away some Part to the Laity where also no necessity is pretended then why not any part of their office and so depute Laicks to ordain Ministers also and consecrate the holy Encharist To which may be added That no part of the Clergy Duty depends more on their personal Abilities and long preparation by study then this we speak of The composing of Articles and Canons the reforming of Errors c. Least of all therefore seems this committable to the Prince either that he himself should perform it whose Regal imployments require a far different Education or that he should delegate it to others by which the Clergy authorizeth they know not whom perhaps some persons heretical if such happen to be Favourites of the Prince to establish in Religion the Clergy knows not what for this Concession is made by the English Clergy without any Reservation of a Revisal § 53 5. They urge to give you it in Bishop Bramhal's words Vindic. of the Church of England 5. p. 257. ' That since the Division ' of Britain from the Empire i. e. since Brittain's being governed by Princes of its own who therefore in their Territories have the same Authority that the Roman Emperors formerly had in the Empire See Dr. Hammond Schism p. 124. No Canons are or ever were of force with us further then they were received and by their incorporation became Brittannick Laws Which as they cannot or ever could be imposed upon the King and Kingdome by a forreign Patriarch by constraint so when they are found by experience prejudicial to the publick Good they may as freely by the same King and Kingdome be rejected And so Dr. Hammond Of Schism p. 125. The Canons of Councils have mostly been set out and received
their Authority by the Emperors I answer All this is true 1. That the Church Canons are not of force as to any Coactive Power to he used in the Execution of them by Clergy or Laity before made the Emperor's or other Princes Laws For which take the same Bishop Bramhal's Exposition when I believe he had better considered it Schism Guarded p. 92. We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but that was by Authority meerly Spiritual They had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his will And p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and for executing of them but with this caution That to make them Laws the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a Coactive Power to execute them The Prince's Grant or Concession was needful 2. That the Church Canons are not of force at all when these Canons relate to any civil Right without the secular Magistrate's precedent admission of them of whose proper Cognizance such Rights are But meanwhile all Ecclesiastical Canons whether concerning the Faith or Government and Discipline of the Church so far as they do not encroach on any such civil Rights as I presume all those made by the Church when under Heathen Governors will be granted to be are in force in whatever Princes Dominions so as to render all the disobedient liable to the Church's Censures tho the Christian Prince never so much oppose and reject them And this granted more is not desired for thus no Members of the Church at any time can be free from the strict observance of such Canons by any secular Authority or Patronage § 54 6. They urge That in any Princes Dominions the Clergy's liberty to exercise actually their Function 6. and the application of the matter on which it worketh viz. of the Subjects of such a Dominion are held from the Crown so that a Christian Prince by denying this lawfully voids the other as he thinks fit We draw saith Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 268. or derive from the Crown Liberty or Power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the Subjects of the Crown that habitual Jurisdiction which we receive at our Ordination And in his Reply to Chalced. p. 291. he makes Ecclesiastical Persons in their excommunicating and absolving the King's Substitutes i. e. as he expounds himself afterward by the King's Application of the matter namely of his Subjects to receive their Absolution from such Ecclesiastical Persons I answer This again if meant of the liberty of the Clergy's exercising their Functions with a Coactive Power or of some persons among that Clergy which the Church owns as Catholick being admitted to exercise their Function absolutely in such Dominions and not others is very true but little to their Purpose that urge it But if understood absolutely as to the liberty of any such Clergy at all to exercise their Function at all in any Christian Prince's Dominions upon his Subjects without his leave in which sense only it besteads them is most false Neither may a Christian Prince be thought to have any priviledge herein which a Heathen hath not And as such Priviledge is most pernicious to the propagation of the Christian Religion where the Prince is Heathen So to the Conservation of the Catholick Religion where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical or Schismatical § 55 7. They urge For the abrogating Church Canons That Ecclesiastical are only humane Institutions 7. that Authority given by the men and abused may be again suppressed by them So Rivet Grot. Discuss Dialys p. 173. in Answer to Grotius Discussio Rivet Apol. p. 69. who alledged a Jus Ecclesiasticum for the Pope's Primacy to be conceded by Protestants And ' Tho Inferiors are not competent Judges of their Superiors yet as to subordinate Superiors in matters already defined by the Church the Sentence of the Judge is not necessary the Sentence of the Law and Notoriety of the Fact are sufficient So Bishop Bramhal Vindic. of the Church of England p. 253. from whence seems to be inferred the lawfulness for a Prince within his Dominions or for a Church National totally to abrogate the forementioned Canonical Sub-ordination of such Kingdome or Church to the Patriarchal Authority when this abused § 56 To which 1st it is willingly granted That both Ecclesiastical Offices and Canons may be abrogated for abuses happening by them only that this may not be done by Inferiors or by every Authority but by the same Authority that made or set them up 2. Next for Abuses and the Notoriety of them that no Practices may be stiled so where neither Church-Definitions are found against them much less where these found for them nor where a major part of those subject to them acknowledge them as Abuses but continue their obedience therein as their Duty 3ly For such things as are notorious Abuses or most generally agreed on for such and so Obedience withdrawn herein yet none may therefore substract his obedience absolutely from such an Authority for such other matters where their Obedience is due and due it is still that was formerly so till such Power reverse that Authority and its Injunctions as set it up But whilst Obedience in the one is denyed in the other it ought still to be yielded Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil Rights of Princes or their Subjects these may not justly 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 established 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 not from paying just debts The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person And herein may the Example of other Nations be a good Pattern to ours who having made resistance to their Patriarch in some Injunctions conceived by them not Canonical yet continue still their Obedience in the rest as appears in the late Contest of the State of Venice and those Opposals both of France and Spain and England before the times of Henry the Eighth of which Bishop Bramhal In Vindic. 3d. Book 7th Chap. hath been a sufficiently diligent Collector but at last found them all to come short of Henry the Eighth's Proceedings See before § 49. Neither indeed need any Prince to fear any Ecclesiastical Tyranny so far as to pluck up the Office by the roots who holding the Temporal Sword still in his own hands can therewith divide and moderate it as he pleaseth § 57 8. The endeavour to void the Pope's Patriarchal Authority and the Canonical Priviledges belonging to it 8. by his claiming an Universal Headship by
132. Upon that one ground the Power of Kings in General and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdomes will easily be answered By these places you see he makes this the Regal Power to remove Patriarchates the main Bulwark for defending the Reformation from Schisme And for proof of such a Power in Kings he instanceth α. α In the Emperor Justinian § 60 his erecting the Bishoprick of Justiniana prima and afterward of Carthage β. β And the Emperor Valentinian before him his erecting Ravenna into a Patriarchship independent in Jurisdiction on that of Rome γ. γ Next he urgeth the 12th and 17th Canons of the Council of Chalcedon 38th of the Council in Trullo mentioning the Emperors Authority to erect new Mother Cities for places of Justice and the Councils ordering the Churches Metropolitan Dignity to follow it Ibid. 6. c. § 14. δ. δ And lastly he instanceth in the Kings of England anciently transferring or dividing Bishopricks and erecting new Ibid. § 15. See in the Author how he prosecutes these They labouring thus by such pretended Power of the Civil Magistrate to free a National Church from any Ecclesiastical Dependency abroad § 61 In Answer to which 1. Let it be conceded That Sovereign Princes may present such persons as they approve for discharging Ecclesiastical Functions within their Kingdomes may join divide Bishopricks transfer Metropolitan-ships or erect new ones c. Provided that the Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors consent to the introduction of the Persons they present into such places and confer the Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction such persons shall exercise in them and that nothing herein be done contrary to the things established by former Ecclesiastical Canons which Canons if lawfully made by the Church can be dissolved by none save the same Authority The Question therefore here is whether there being already a Subordination of Metropolitans and Primates and their Synods to the higher Patriarchs and their Synods established by the Church Canons concerning which see Consid on the Council of Trent § 9. And The Guide Second Discourse § 24. c. A Prince hath Authority to dissolve this as to its obliging the Clergy that is within his Dominions by setling this Patriarchal Authority on one of his own Metropolitans or Primates which is setled formerly by the Church on another For Example whether a Sovereign Prince of Pentapolis or Lybia can release the Bishops of Pentapolis from their Canonical Obedience to the Patriarch of Alexandria and his Synods and subject them to another Bishop of his own nomination within Pentapolis § 62 And herein 1. Their own Concessions seem against it For Bishop Bramhal thus frees the Church of England from Schisme Vindic. p. 257. Num. 1. Neither the Papal Power which we have cashiered nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons and by consequence the Separation is not Schismatical And A Power saith Dr. Hammond in Answer to S. W. Answer to Schism disarmed p. 164. Princes have had to erect Metropoles but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church this certainly is an Abuse And Schism p. 60. The uppermost of the standing Powers in the Church are Arch-Bishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject and this Power and Subjection is defined and asserted by the ancient Canons and the most ancient even im-memorial Apostolical Tradition and Custome is avouched for it as may appear Conc. Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6 Concil Antioch c. 9.20 Concil Chalced. c. 19. concluding afterward p. 66. That there may be a Disobedience and Irregularity and so a Schisme even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the Authority which they have by Canon and Primitive Custome over them From which All I observe here is That he chargeth Schisme upon the Disobedience of an Ecclesiastical Authority when formerly established by Church Canon § 62 2. If this be the Prince's Right to erect new Patriarchs and null former Ecclesiastical Subordinations 1. Num. 2. Either they must claim it as a Civil Right and then the Councils have been guilty of violating it in meeting and establishing such Subordinations without asking them leave For Example The 6th Canon of Nice the first General Council and 5th of the 2d and 9th and 16th of the 4th would have been an usurpation of an unjust Authority if the Subordination of Episcopal Sees and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince or Emperor as a Civil Right Nor could the Bishop of Rome have justly expostulated with the Oriental Bishops in the last of these Councils for passing such a Canon for advancing the Bishoprick of Constantinople into a Patriarchate next to that of Rome without his consent if this thing belonged to the Emperors Civil Power who much desired such an Exaltation of the Constantinopolitan Bishop Nor would the Oriental Bishops have forborn to have pleaded this Title especially this Council being called after the precedent that is urg'd of Valentinian touching Ravenna and in his days yet such Right of the Emperor the Eastern Bishops do not pretend to at all But in their Epistle to Leo earnestly request his consent using this as one argument to obtain it Sic enim pii Principes the two Emperors Valentinian and Theodosius complacebunt quae tanquam legem tuae Sanctitatis Judicium firmaverunt And the Emperors Presidents in the Council do Act. 16th leave the disposal thereof wholly in the Councils hands and to be directed by the former Church Canons Where Conc. Nic. 6. Mos antiquus obtineat is strongly pleaded by the Roman Legates and also afterward by Leo which voids both Justinjan's and Valentinian's or any other Emperors Innovations against the Roman Bishops former Jurisdictions further then his consent is obtained therein Again Since Heathen Princes have the same Title with Christian to all Civil Rights neither could the Church when under them have lawfully practiced such a Jurisdiction 2. Or else Princes must claim it as a thing conceded to them by the Church to change and alter such Subordinations Now any such Concession from the Church we find not but this we find in the 8th General Council 21. c. Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt in-honorare aut movere a proprio Throno tentare sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare And yet further Si vero quis aliqua seculari potestate fruens pellere tentaverit praefatum Apostolicae Papam aut aliorum Patriarcharum quenquam Anathema sit And 22. Canon Definit neminem Laicorum Principam vel Potentum semet inserere electioni vel Promotioni Patriarchae vel Metropolitae aut cujuslibet Episcopi ne videlicet inordinata hinc incongrua fiat confusio vel contentio praesertim
cum nullam in talibus Potestatem quenquam potestatum vel Caeterorum Laicorum habore conveniat Unless here perhaps the Concession of the particular Clergy of such a Prince be urged but none such can be valid against the Canons of their Superiors Dr. Hammond being asked this Question How Princes come by such a Right of Translating Patriarchs by S. W. Answers thus Answer to Schism Disarm'd p. 174. I that meant not to dispute of such Mysteries of State c. finding the same things assumed by Kings as their Right and yielded by the Church to be enjoyed by them both which Catholicks deny nor do his Instances prove it thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due but whether it were by God immediately conferred on them and independently from the Church or whether the Church in any Nation were the Medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclin'd either to enquire or to take upon me to determine Not knowing you see which way safely to take For if this Priviledge were conceded by the Church may not the Church according to their Principles resume it when abused But if this originally a Civil Right the Church hath usurped their Power in her making Constitutions concerning it § 63 3. Such Priviledge granted to Princes would utterly overthrow the Unity of Church-Government there seeming for preserving this as great a necessity of subjecting the Prelates of several Regions and Countries to one Patriarch as of several Bishops in the same Country to one Metropolitan or Primate or more In that Church-Divisions are apter to arise between States totally independent on one another than in the same State united at least in one Secular Head And that which is urged for a reason to induce the independency of National Primates viz. the Division of the Empire into so many absolute Principalities infers rather the contrary that the universal Government of the Church which is but one in all these Kingdomes should be now if possible closer linked together then formerly and the more likely that Sects and Distractions are to grow in the Church by reason of so many States some of which may be perverted by Heresy or Schisme the more need of an union in some one Ecclesiastical Head As the Roman Common-wealth in more dangerous Invasions of Enemies chose a Dictator and Armies are thought freest from Mutinies and Seditions when committed to one General § 64 Not can it be faid that it is a sufficient guard of this Unity that in a General Council all these Primates and other Members of the Church Catholick are collected and joined For 1st if it lye within a Prince's Power to free his National Clergy from a Patriarch and his Synods why not also from a General Council i. e. so far as that the Acts thereof shall not conclude such National Clergy without their consent And if the Church-Canons ordering the contrary bind them not for the one Submission to Patriarchs when the Prince orders otherwise why for the other Submission to General Councils But next were a General Council a standing Court or often or easily convened there might indeed be some remedy from thence but these hapning so seldome and that on the terms Protestants require them perhaps can be never the standing Superiority and Jurisdiction not moveable at pleasure of Patriarchs over Primates and so of Primates over inferior Bishops seems a means of Unity most necessary in the long intervals of the other highest Courts Else supposing That a Valentinian or a Constantius having the Power to translate and erect Primates and Patriarchs shall transfer Ambrose his Primacy or Siricius or Athonasins his Patriarchship to the Bishop of some other City so as Henry the Eighth is supposed to have translated Clement the Seventh's Patriarch-ship to the Bishop of Canterbury and what Heresy may not such Emperor advance as he pleaseth if he can find at least some Clergy on his side And what wrong did those Popes and Councils to the Emperor Constantius in their maintaining Athanasius still in his former Authority and Jurisdiction against him § 65 The Doctor 's Instances will not much trouble us Concerning α α the first and chiefest the Bishop of Justiniana Prima The Emperor Justinian's Novel 131. runs thus Sancimus per tempus beatissimum Primae Justinanae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae c. Et in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere sedis Apostolicae Romae secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio Where it is said That this Bishop should locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae not that he should have the Place or Dignity of an Apostolical Seat As Dr. Hammond p. 103. would have it but the Place of the Apostolical See of Rome viz. as his standing Delegate for those parts subordinate to him the Phrase being frequently used in this but I think never in the other Sense which is acknowledged by Dr. Field who saith Of the Church p. 563. He was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vice-gerent in those Parts to do things in his name and by his Authority Naming there many other Bishops in other places executing the like Vicar-ship for the Pope The Bishop of Sevil Arles Thessalonica and others and this also the words following in the Novel Secundum ea quae definita sunt a Sanctissimo Papa Vigilio do sufficiently declare To which may be added the Request of this Deputation of the Bishop of Justiniana made by the Emperor Justinian to Agapetus Vigilius his Predecessor who delaying his Grant of it returned him this Answer Epist. 4. De Justiniana Civitate gloriosi Natalis vestri conscia necnon de nostrae Sedis vicibus injungendis quid servato beati Petri quem diligitis Principatu vestrae Pietatis affectu plenius deliberari contigerit per cos quos ad vos dirigimus Legatos Deo Propitio celeriter intimamus If you would have yet more Evidence see the Pope's continued Confirmation of this Primate or Arch-Bishop tho consecrated by his own Bishops as usual by sending him the Pall and his deputing the judgment of Causes to him in his stead Greg. Ep. 4. l. Indic 13. Ep. 15. And 10. l. 5. Indic Ep. 34. And 2. l. Ep. 6. The same things may be said of the Primate of Carthage pretended only to be admitted to the like Priviledges with the Bishop of Justiniana Prima Concerning β the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Ravenna β As the Pallium is taken for an Archiepiscopal Ornament derived from the Emperors own habit to add the more Honour to such Prelates § 66 for which see Dr. Hammond in Schism disarmed p. 149. So it might be solely in the Emperors Donation but as it is a Ceremony used at the Instalment of a Bishop in the Archiepiscopal Jurisdictions so it belongs only to the Spiritual Superiors who
renders them no longer any part of the Church Catholick nor Members of the Body of Christ 1. From whence they conclude 1. That a particular Person or Church differing or dividing from the whole in any one Point of Faith which is defined by the whole and their assent or belief required thereto cannot plead it self any more to be one Church with or a part of the Church Catholick because that it agreeth with it still in many or in all other Points of Faith As the Arian Churches agreeing in all other Credends save Consubstantiallity of God the Son with the Father became by this no longer a part of the Church Catholick 2. And likewise from hence they conclude that those who in their separation 1. first deny not the Church or Churches they separate from to be true Churches 2. Who profess themselves not to renounce an inward Communion with those departed from 3. Who renounce not external Communion neither if they may be admitted thereto on terms they can approve 4. Who exclude not those from whom they separate from their own external Communion that is if others will conform to them 5. Who do not set up any new external Communion at all 6. Lastly Who do not publickly contradict the tenents or customes of those Churches from which they separate Those I say who can plead all these things or themselves are not thereby cleared from Schisme because their Separation may be tho in none of these things yet otherwise faulty mentioned above and tho some Churches heretofore noted for Schisme have offended in some of these yet it hence follows not that those who offend in none of these are free from Schisme 3. Again they conclude from hence that those who refuse to conform to something which the Church Catholick requires of them that they may be Partakers of her external Communion and for this are by her thrust out of her Communion are guilty of Schism as well as those who before any Ejection voluntarily desert it Else Arians and many other Hereticks would have been no Schismaticks 4. Lastly That those who never were in the external Communion of the Church Catholick yet stand guilty of Schisme so long as upon the same reason upon which the others left it they do not return to it or cannot be admitted by it 4. They maintain That any particular person or multitude joined together dividing from the external Communion of all other particular visible Churches of the present Age and even from those of their own Church as well as from the rest viz. from so many of it as continue what they were and what the Separatists also were formerly must needs in this separate from the external Communion of the Church Catholick of the present Age for either all or some of these Churches which they separate from is so and do separate from their lawful Superiors for such is the Church Catholick in respect of any part and so is guilty of that sort of Schisme which cuts off from the whole 5. They affirm that the exercise of any sacred Function is to all Heretical or Schismatical Clergy tho never so truly or validly ordaioned utterly unlawful and the Sacraments and other Ordinances of the Church to the Receivers in such Church unbeneficial i. e. to so many as are conscious of the Schism or only thro a culpable ignorance nescient HEAD XI Concerning the Judgment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism Concerning the Judgment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism 1. CAtholicks affirm That all maintaining of any Tenent contrary to the known Determination of the supremest judgment of the Church in matters which she declares of necessary Faith is guilty of obstinacy and so is Heresy Likewise that all voluntary departure from the external Communion of the Church Catholick upon what pretences soever of its erring in faith or manners is truly causeless the Catholick Church being our Guide in Spiritual matters as to both what is true and what is lawful to whom we ought to assent and submit and so Schisme But 2ly taking the Protestant Description of them viz. That Heresy is an obstinate Defence of Error contrary to a necessary Article of Faith and Schism a causless Departure or Separation from the external Catholick Communion and so also being causless from the internal Yet Catholicks urge this as necessary that there must be some certain Judge upon Earth authorized to decide whether such Error be against necessary Faith and whether the Defence thereof be to be interpreted obstinacy and whether such Departure be causless So that all the Subjects of the Church are to receive that to be Heresy or Schism which this Judge pronounceth to be so Else what none can know and judge of none can punish or separate from nor the true extent of the Church Catholick and its Distinction from the Heretical and Schismatical ever be discovered 3. It is most reasonable that in any differences of judgment concerning these amongst Ecclesiastical Magistrates or Courts of Judicature the most supreme for the time being must be the Judge to whom all ought to acquiesce Else if a particular Person or Church may undertake to judge these against Superiors Heresy and Schisme will remain equally undiscovered between these two contrary Judges as if there were none And Heretical and Schismatical Churches will still free themselves of it by their own Judgment and that Person or Church which contends for such Priviledge at any time gives great suspition that they are in such manner faulty 4. It seems clear that all separation of a particular Person or Church from the external Communion of all the rest will always by such Judge either be pronounced causless or the cause thereof be rectified and so the Division cease if these Churches that are departed from be the Judges of it For doubtless these if they should condemn themselves will also correct in themselves what they do condemn HEAD XII Concerning Submission of Private Judgments to this church-Church-Authority indicated in the former Heads Concerning Submission of Private Judgments 1. IT is conceded by Catholicks That no man can believe any thing at all or do any thing lawfully against his own judgment or conscience as Judgment is taken here for the final Determination upon reviewing the former Acts of the Intellect and upon considering all reasons as well those taken from Authority as those taken from the things themselves of what we ought to do 2. But notwithstanding this 2ly It is taken for granted That one following his own judgment in believing or acting is not thereby secure from believing amiss or acting unlawfully and therefore that every one is much obliged to take care of rectifying his Judgment or directing aright his Conscience 3. That the same Judgment may be swayed contrary ways by several Arguments viz. One way from the Argument drawn from Authority and another way from his private Reason and that when this happens he is no less truly said to