Municipium Ecclesiasticum OR THE Rights Liberties and Authorities Of The Christian Church Asserted against all Oppressive Doctrines and Constitutions Occasioned by Dr. Wabe's Book concerning the Authority of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods c. Hilar. in Psal 52. Et plerumque nos tanquam pro debiti ossicii Religione pié adulari Regibus existimamus quia in corpus nostrum sit aliquid Potestatis quibus nihil ultra in nos licet quam febri quam incendio quam naufragio quam ruinae His enim casibus corporum pro summa potestate desaeviunt propter brevem dolorem Libertatem Ecclesiae spei nostrae fiduciam confessionem Dei addicimus Inutilis est humanae gratiae irreligiosa sectatio Cypr. Ep. 40. Sect. 4. Adulterum est impium est sacrilegum est quodcunque humano furore instituitur ut dispositio divina violetur Ep. 63. Sect. 11. Neque hominis consuetudinem sequi oporter sed Dei veritatem Printed and are to be Sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster 1697. TO THE Reverend Dr. Wake Chaplain in Ordinary To His Majesty THE Irreligious World is not so dull as to need information what ways are most effectual to the suppression of Christianity A popular contempt of the Mysteries and a radical aversion to the Authority of the Church does the business smoothly and without hazard By Ambition and Avarice by Fanaticism and Sedition the latter is wholly extinct and on the sense hereof Infidelity and Heresie have made their insolent advances against the former In condolence whereat the Letter to a Convocation-Man seems to have been offered to the World for the use and freedom of the Convocations against the present Impieties in Religion and rigorous Opinions in matter of Law 'T was natural hereupon to expect the insurrection of the Insidels and Hereticks against the Proposals and Power of a Convocation to prevent their Censure as well as an assertion of the Laws and Judgments herein from the hands of Lawyers But who would have dreamed that any Clergy-Man of Dignity and Value in the Church should lift up his heel against her The wounds of Adversaries how sharp soever are never mortal to the Church The judgement of Lawyers is ambulatory according to the prevalency of Times and Powers they being only Interpreters of what the Kingdom admits or constitutes for Right and Law And therefore when the Princes and the Nation submitted to the Pope the Courts acknowledged and acted upon his Right or Claim of Supremacy and when the Nation could shake it oâ— and the King grasp it then past the Judgments and Rules of Court accordingly Nor can they be blamed herein for so their Office determines them But when the great Laminaries of the Church shall sign the Theta upon her Rights Liberties and Authorities Divine and Humane and this voluntarily and without any Bribe offered or Menace denounced the Concession is taken for sincere and for that cause just so that the Church of England suffers more by your Book herein than by all other Lay or Law Oppositions whatsoever And t is not improbable but that it may animate the Secular Powers not only to lay greater restrictions on the Church but even to abolish all the remainder of her legal Rights and Powers and put us out of all our Interest in the great Charter of the Land For the Lay Powers how strongly soever they desire to settle themselves over all interests yet generally have such a modesty towards what is Divine or Sacred as to attempt nothing noâ—oriously violent without the concession of the Church or her most Eminent Doctors So K. H. VIII of Famous Memory notwithstanding all his Claims at common Law and his interest in his Parliament thro' Power and the Rewards by Abbey and Church-Lands could not have made himself so absolute in Ecclesiasticals had he not procured before the submission of the Clergy nor could he have compassed that but thro' the terror of a Premunire under which they had fallen and upon which he was resolved to follow his blow and so to bend or break them And yet this Act of a Popish Vnreformed and well nigh Outlawed Convocation extorted for fear of ruine and thro' ignorance and non-suspicion of the Acts consequent upon it prejudges more against our Liberties than all Secular constitutions could pessibly have done without it And must we now consecrate all those procedures the results of which we seel in the total ruine of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Christian Piety by our voluntary Pleas and Acclamations and to gratisie the Civil Powers to an Arbitrary utmost violate the most important Truths of Principles and Histories treat the Synods of the Church with spite and contumely and recommend the greatest slavery of her to the appetite of Civil Powers How much more Honourable had it been under a Prince whose peculiar Province has ever been at the perpetual hazard of his Life to relieve the Oppressed to have presented him with such Draughts and Schemes of the Divine Rights Liberties Authorities and Discipline of the Church as might inflame him to a resolution for her rescue and to add this last Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the top of all his Glories as an Eucharistical Duty and Oblation so God for all his wonderful Providences in his Preservation and Atchievements For which cause you have made it absolutely necessary that your Book should be discussed and its dangerous Errors laid open to the end that the Publick may be under no temptation from such a work inscribed to the Metropolitan to proceed to further Resolves against the Powers Hierarchical but may take occasion to review those Laws thro' which the Church is fallen under her present Impotency except you and wiser Heads can shew which way a Spiritual Discipline may be otherwise restored to a freedom of doing her Duty toward God in the cleansing the Church and the renovation of Mens Hearts unto Piety and Devotion I have therefore designed an Examination thereof in three Parts The first concerning the Divine Powers of the Churches of Christ The second concerning Matters of Fact in Ecclesiastical History The third concerning the Exigences for a present Convocation In the mean time I wish you no more hurt than a perpetual increase of Merit Honour and Promotion here and that which is the only valuable Prospect a Blessed Inheritance in the Life to come Municipium Ecclesiasticum OR THE Rights Liberties Authorities OF THE Christian Church Asserted c. CHAP. I. Of the Divine Right of Synods SECT I. THE Letter to a Convocation-man does not only suppose that the Words of the Statute of Submission are interpreted to too great a Restriction of the Convocation but goes much deeper for a much larger Liberty to the Church herein upon the Supposition of a Divine Right to all Churches and Synods for Affairs Christian The Doctor on the contrary denies such Divine Authority of Synods as being but meer prudential Clubs under
§ 21. Pag. 295. The Antient Emperors we are well assured tied up their Councils to very strict Rules They sent Commissioners to sit with the Bishops that so they might take care to keep them within Bounds and see that they acted according to the Rules they had prescribed to them P. 296. 'T is true the Clergy in those days did take the Liberty to Transact many things in their Convocations without any particular License from the King but that they did take upon them to do this is no proof that they had a Right to do it How this agrees with it self or with the design of proving the Rights of Kings from Matter of Fact and Usage I know not nor with what he asserts in Fact Chap. 2. § 23. p. 47 48. This is certain that as the calling of such Assemblies has always depended upon the Consent and Authority of the Prince so when they were Assembled the Subject of their Debates has been prescribed them by the same Power and they have deliberated on nothing but what they have been directed or allowed by the Prince to do Book Chap. 2. § 2. p. 10 11. It was a famous Saying of Constantine the First Christian Emperour to his Bishops That they indeed were Bishops in things within the Church but that he was appointed by God to be Bishop as to those without Remark This Saying is directly against that universal Right and Authority in Synods Ecclesiastical which the Dr. so frankly gives all Christian Princes if Constantine was a Bishop in things only without the Church Of Synods less than general Contents p. 10. He asserts all lesser Synods under the Roman Emperors to have been actually called by the Emperors Authority and so accordingly Book Chap. 2. § 6. p. 16. These also viz. lesser Synods were convened by them or were summoned by some Authovity that was derived from them p. 17. They suffered not any Assemblies of the Clergy to be made but by their leave and according to their direction So § 13. p. 29 and § 19. p. 41. But Chap. 2. § 2. p. 10. he cites Socrates Saying the greatest Synods have been Assembled by their Order and still continue to be Assembled by them Which plainly shews lesser Ones usually were not And § 26. p. 62. he reports that Iohn of Antioch Arriving at Ephesus after the Council there had condemend Nestorius formed another Synod there of about thirty Metropolitans that came thither with him and deposed Cyril President of the Imperial Council c. vide So § 36. p. 86. He mentions two Provincial Synods one at Rome under Celestine and another at Alexandria under Cyril condemning Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus yet neither of these were called by the Imperial Authority And ibid. p. 88. he relates another Synod at Rome held by Pope Leo rejecting the Acts of the second Ephesine Council under Dioscorus Called and Supported by the Emperor which Roman Synod therefore could not be Called nor Authorized by the Emperor Chap. 2. § 4. p. 14. It was necessary that in order to their meeting lawfully the express Command or Allowance of the Emperour should be had for their so doing § 19. p. 41 They cannot lawfully meet but as they are Commanded or Allowed of by them That they Princes and not the Clergy are Iudges when it is proper to Convene them But p. 43. he thus yields When ever the civik Magistrate shall so far abuse his Authority as to render it necessary for the Clergy by some extraordinary Methods to provide for the Churches Welfare that necessity will warrant that taking of themâ— And Ch. 5. § 4. p. 267 268. When the Exigences of the Church call for a Convocation then I do confess the Church has a Right to its sitting and if its Circumst ances be such as to require their frequent Sitting during those Circumstances it has a Right to their frequent Meeting and Sitting Vide. Remark But if the Church has no Right to Judge of the time proper for their sitting what benefit or use is there to be had of their Right or what extraordinary Methods of Session can they pretend to in provision for the Churches welfare especially if that be true which he says Ch. 2. § 14. p. 32. That the greatest Bishops of the Church in Constantius his days which he reckons absurdly among the best times § 15. p. 34. did think it unlawful to hold a Council against the Princes Will so that being forbidden by an Heretical Emperor and that against all Right and Justice on purpose that he might oppress them so to do they yet submitted to his Commands and chose rather to suffer by their Obedience I suppose rather not to suffer by Obedience than to Vsurp an Authority which they were sensible did not belong to them See p. 34. Remark Now if this had been spoken only of General Councils it had been agreeable to Church History and our 21 Article but the applying this against the Right of all Councils and Conventions whatsoever is what comports neither with truth nor with his other fore quoted Concessions Chap. 2. § 2. p. 19. When the Vandals had over-run the greatest part of Africa and by their Authority set up the Arrian Heresie in opposition to the Catholick Faith which beforce prevailed in those parts Hunericus their King at the desire of the Arrian Bishops summoned a general Convention of all the Catholick Bishops to meet at Carthage and accordingly upon his Summons they all came thither and refusing to renounce the terms of the Council of Nice they were deprived of their Bishopricks and sent into Banishment by him Remark It is a strange inadvertency to bring an Arian Instance for a proper Authority in matters of Christianity nay and against the Catholick Faith too against which no Princes have Authority to set up Heresie against the greater Authority of God yet that Arian Prince had as good Authority to depose the Faith as he had to Convene and Depose the Catholick Bishops that is none at all it being all a perfect unllity Bâ—â— every act of un controulable Tyranny passes with the Dr. under the reputation of Authority Chap. 2. § 15. p. 34. I believe it would be difficult in those best and most early times of the Church to find out any Instance wherein the Orthodox Bishops have ever departed from this Rule or which is much the same thing have ever been justified by the Church in those cases in which they have departed from it Remark This is in effect a Revocation of his former avowed Assertion that no lesser Synods were ever convened without the allowance of the Emperours For tho' he says it will be hard to find any contrary Instance yet having himself given four in John of Antioch Caelestine Cyril and Leo and there being infinitely more such to be produced out of the Histories of the Empire he was forced in Conscience hereof to say That they were never justified
as much to the Laws and Regulations of Civil Societies as any other Public Assemblies This is a bold stroke indeed for it will put the Constitution of the Hierarchy and all its Functions into what Hands under what Conduct Times and Places c. the Civil Powers please They shall enable a Layman to ordain and Minister Sacraments to Preach Excommunicate Absolve Consecrate and degrade and do all things by an Arbitrary Legislation and Government thereupon and well then may this Incorporation into Society promote the Seâ—â—â—â— of God and Salvation of Men with all Secular Heavens upon Earth 〈◊〉 But I pray what is this Incorporation Is it making the Church one of the National Estates to concurr in the Acts of Legislature and all her Ratified Canons not only Canon but Law too and of Civil Consequences upon the Subject Or is it only the Protection of the Law from Injuries or Oppressions or the addition of several Priviledges Honours and Encouragements If the first of these only then was the Church never incorporated into the State under the Roman Empire for it was no part of the Legislature and consequently not thereupon subject to the Laws of the Empire in Matters of Ecclesiastical Conduct If the second Favour be an Incorporation then the incorporating Powers have a Right to govern the Religion of all other Societies which they tolerate all Schisms and Heresies whatsoever exempt by Law from Violences and Oppressions so that an Orthodox Christian Emperor tolerating Novatians Meletians Arians Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians and all other Clans of Heresies had full Right and good Authority to govern all their several respective Counsels and Discipline and to ratisie all their Synodical Acts Canons and Sentences O Sanctas Gentes What a mighty Supremacy would this be indeed wherein every Prince so indulgent would be another Solomon and reside not only over God's Church at Jerusalem but over those of Chomesh Milchom Ashtoreth c. a Supremacy I must needs confess more than divine And yet I doubt it would not be casily admitted either in Holland or the emulous England where tho the publick Indulgence is to save their Souls as well as their Temporals yet will not the Sectaries part with their Souls to these Indulgent Saviours nor endure the Thoughts of their Presidency and Conduct in their little Religious Politics but demand an Exemption as entire as the Chappels of foreign Factories or Embassadors Nor can in the third place an Accumulation of all Encouragements Priviledges and Honours prevail upon them hereunto most of them being against a National Church all of them against a National Religion i. e. confined to the Laws of a Civil State And commend me to Scotland who have acquired all Secular Priviledges and Franchises they desired and yet scorn that a King shall so much as be a Door keeper to their Holy of Holies notwithstanding all these their Incorporations and if the Dr. should preach up his Maximes but on the other side of the Tweed they world quickly bring him to the stool of Repentance for teaching their People or their Sovereign that Right of Supremacy over Holy Kirk which they are so far from owning in all Princes that 't is with them the most Funda nental Heresie to allow them any at all as appears by their perpetual Remonstrances upon all Occasions in their Synods § 6. Wheve tho Prince is of a different Religion But t is nor impossible that a Sovereign may contract a Religion contrary and destructive to that which is recieved and câ—â—blished among his People and which it is not in his Power by Force or Legislative Authority presently to Abolish As Izates King of the Adiabenes turning Jew and to omit others King James the Second Roman-Catholick How graceful in such a Case would it be to see a King of England of Jewish Popish Socinian Presbyterian Anabaptist Independent Quaker or Mâ—ggletonian Principles or Profession convening a Church of England Convocation presiding in it in Person or a Vicar-General of his own perswasions upon Matters of alteration in the Liturgy and Canons or any other Expedients for the good of the Church of England and always twitting the Synods with Caveats of that Holy Statute of Praemunire not to speak one wold nor syllable to any purpose whatsoever till such Prince pleases to allow you of his meer grace and motion as being only of Counsel to this Head of the Church of England who is however to be presumed wiser to know all times and matters expedient for the Church which yet by his Religion he is in Conscience bound to abhor and destroy than whole Convocations and to prescribe to these his Counsellors herein as being fitter to be of Counsel unto them whose Resolves after all he has Wisdom enough as well as Authority to ratifie alter rescind or aunull so that not what they but what he shall bind or loose on Earth shall be bound or loosed in Heaven and reason good upon such an Heavenly Authority and Design By this Ecclesiastical Supremacy which K. James himself abjured did he most advantageously for the Church of England erect his Ecclesiastical Commission for the saving of this Church from the Encroachments of the Papal Supremacy So that by our Incorporation alone we are all safe Soul and Body with Lawyers and Court-Flatterers let our Supream Head be of what Religion he pleases But Lawyers indeed cannot be blamed for any inconvenienties which may happen from 2 positive Law and they are obliged to interpret and judge according to the Letter but for Clergy-Min to attribute Divinity to Humane Laws whatsoever the results of them be this this But will not here the same Right of Natural Reason come in which the Dr. asserts to the Chuach where the Civil Power is of another Perswasion to Consult together the best they can and to that end Aslemble in Synods Ecclesiastical This Reason this Right and Rule by the wording of it in general terms of quother perswasion will reach the Case of Churches not only under Heathen Powers but Christian Powers of different Communion and Principles from the pure Church that is in subjection And it seem'd Calculated for the Case of the French Protestants or the Vandoise for Comprehension sake Now tho' I know this to be no Rule of Common or Statute-Law here in such Cases yet will the Dr. allow a Natural Right and Reason for such Liberty even in opposition to our Laws when our King shall be of another perswasion shall the Church lean upon her own Authority and Wisdom not His This his own determination says as much in Generals and yet I believe his Design will not permit him to say so for us no not in our Case under the late K. James And if he shall make any Reply upon this Book I do desire him to speak home like a Man to this Supposition and the Case and Demand raised on it § 7. Supposing then according to the Dr's Concession that under
such a value for the Synagogue as to think its Constitutions Fundamental to the Church or such an Imperial Authority over it much less when the Scriptures give the Polity of the Synagogue none the least mention much less Recommendation and Authority to prescribe Law to the Christian Church for ever but by its Absolute and Total Silence herein seem to intend that that Polity should instead of such prescriptive Power together with the Law be nailed to our Saviours Cross and be afterward decently buried in an Eternal Oblivion And hence tho' Men of Rabbinic Learning are very fond to derive our Forms from their Patterns yet we find no such Conceptions hereof among the Antients as no shades of it in the Scriptures nor Authority for it any where § 7. But supposing the Jewish Princes had managed the Synods of the Synagogue according to the Drs. Aphorisms and pretended a rightful Authority so to do does it follow that they really had that Right which they pretended to If bare Pretences of Princes will create a Right the dispute is over but then I must tell the Dr. he had never had any opportunity or inducement to have written his Book for this sort of Supremacy But if bare pretences alone create no Right and the Christian Emperours exactly followed them herein then Christian Princes have hereupon only pretence for this their Authority So that the Drs. Cause required stronger Assertions of Right in the Jewish Kings Assigned in the Laws and Constitutions of God Mishpat Hammelech by which they were very particularly constituted But herein there is the profoundest Silence I Sam. 8.11 to 19. and that little that is said of the Mishpat Hammelech the manner of the King which they wickedly craved instead of God tho' it imports a Domination Cyp. Ep. 65. § 1. Et ut hoc ulcisceretur excitavit eis Saul Regem qui eos injuriis gravibus afligeret per omnes contumelias paenas superbum populum calcaret et premeret ut contemptus Sacerdos de superbo populo divinâ ultione vindicaretur yet does not so much assert a Right as denounce it an uncontroulable oppression in punishment to their contempt of God and Samuel But yet God that was resolved so to deliver them up upon their own desires yet limits the oppressions to Matters Secular only not permitting the insolence to rage also over their Sacred and Religious Liberties that there might from hence be no ground for any such barbarous and impious Prescription for any Princes Arbitrary lusts herein whatsoever § 8. But to be as Concessive to the Dr. as 't is possible suppose this Domination to have extended to their Religious Polity and Liberties also will he hence prescribe from the malice of Jewish Kings permitted by God in punishment to a Rebellious People for the Right of such Practices in Princes upon the Christian Church and the same Christian Princes too And yet excepting this he has nothing in the Bible that looks like any Ordinance for the suppression of the Popular Liberties and none at all for the Hierarchical § 9. Since then there is no Law nor Praecedent in the Old Testament for this sort of Ecclesiastical Power or Authority in either Jewish or Christian Princes let us consider what other Law or Constitution can be sound out or supposed for its legal Original And first we must consider the State of the Question in the first Christian Emperors who are said to Claim Use The Original of Censtantiaes Supremacy and to be rightly Invested with this Authority and particularly in Constantine the Great Now he being supposed to claim all these Prerogatives as his Right antecedent to the actual Exercise thereof must sound it in one or other of those Originals above summed up § 4. and yet I believe none of these will quadrate with the Hypothesis For first if it be founded in the Natural Law of Sovereignty simply then all Sovereigns Heathens Turks Jews would simply have it and all Acts of Synods otherwise managed would not only be Nullities but Rebellious Seditions which yet I presume no Doctor will allow Not in any express Revelation of God for there is none such in either Testament not in any Gâ—â—â—ral Laws of Nations as being antecedent to and more general than Christianity and in Interests Temporal only not in any Common Charter of Christian Nations as such for such Charter and such Nations there were none before Constantine not in any Canons Ecclesiastical for all those before Constantine's time had no respect to any Temporal Powers not in any Contract of his with the Church for such is no where mentioned in his History which yet had been the most signal thing in it nor at last in any Law of his own making for no man can make a right or valid Law but by some antecedent Authority vested in him so to do and of this the Question properly lies Now since here are none of the Originals extant in History or Nature or Revelation the only remaining Plea must be prescription from immemorial precedents that might warrant a legal presumption for some of these Originals But Constantine had not one instance before him for this his Synodical Supremacy for the three first Centuries after Christ and the Plantation of the Powers Ecclesiastical but all the prescription throughout those Ages was for the Hierarchy in whose hands Constantine at his Conversion found it lodged in full Vigour and Authority and is known and recorded to have owned it for Divine as will appear in the second part So that the Right that is attributed by our Laws to our Kings The Legal Original of our Kings Supremacy belonged not to Constantine the Great and therefore must be lodged in some other Constitution viz. the same as that of all our Common Laws and Original Contract between the King and the Estates of this Realm and that upon a Civil Incorporation of the Church and its Powers and Ordinances into the Civil State and Secular Authority But if any man shall think that the Churches Authorities were given by God in order to Church Duties and that the Church can no more part with one than the other as being inseparable and conservient to Divine ends and so make an invidious objection about our Frame I hope no man will expect that 〈◊〉 should be such a Fool to expose my self to a Middlesex Jury and so leaving this matter to God and the Sense of all that love his Church I am their Humble Servant but as to Constantine the Great I dare swear he never dream'd of the business § 10. Nay there was in his time a very obvious prejudice against such an Opinion viz. that God whose Ways are not as ours Why Kings were not made the first Apostles nor his Thoughts like those of the Sons of Men seeing the ineptitude of the Emperors immersed in Secular Cares to engross all Holy Authorities to themselves and the Suspicion
tho' the Dr. so charges them p. 77 notwistanding the resentments of the Emperour at their Dissolution Which when he mentioned I wonder he did not see the Contradiction of so vast a Council of Orthodox Bishops against his Proposition laid down in the immediately precedent page p 66. That the Clergy have ever acknowledged it for a Right of Christian Princes that no Synods can dissolve themselves nor depart from any such Council without the License of the Christian Prince as he accounts Constantius to have been nor does he think any thing of the different Opinions of the Romish Greek and Eastern Clergy whose unanimous suffrage I suppose he has not in this Matter Sequntur quaedam Testimonia Veterum Athan. cont Arian Orat. 1. Tom. 1. p. 295. Synodonum Libertas de Patribus Nicaenis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synod Alexandrin ap Athan. Apolog. Tom. 1. p. 728. Synodus Tyriens con Athan. C. De Pseudo-Synodo Tyri cont Athan. coactâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. vide ibid. p. 730. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. ad Solitar vir agentes Tom. 1. p. 831. D. de Paulino Trevirensi Lucifero Sardiniae Eusebio Vercellensi Dionysio Mediolanensi con sulentibus Conslantio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 832. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 833. A. Liberius Epise Rom. ad Constantii Spadon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 839. D. Hosius Constantio de Constante Imperatore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 840. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 862. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazian in tertio Irenico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deinde ad Magnates Rectores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ambrosius Lib. 5. Ep. 32. ad Valentin Jun. Imper. Augustae memoriae pater tuus non solum sermone respondit sed etiam legibus suis sanxit in causâ fidei vel ecclesiassici alicujus Ordinis cum judicare debere qui nec munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis hoc est Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit judicare Quinetiam si alias quoque argueretur Episcopus morum esset examinanda causa etiam hanc voluit ad Episcopale judicum pertinere Quando audisti clementissime Imperator in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse Ita ergo quadom adulatione curvamur ut sacerdot alis juris simus immemores quod Dens â—onavit mihi hoc ipse aliis putem esse credendum si docendus est Episcopus à Laico quid sequetur Laicus ergo disputet Episcopus audiat Episcopus discat a Laico At certe si vel Scripturarum seriem divinarum vel vetera tempora retractemus quìs est qui abruit in causâ sidei in causâ inquam sidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis Judicare Eris Deo favente etiam Senectutis Maturitate provectior tunc de hoc censebius qualiâ— ille Episcopus sit qui laicis jus Sacerdotale substernit Pater tuus Deo favente vir maturioris aevi dicebat non est meum judicare inter Episcopos tua nunc dicit Clementia ego debeo judicare Et ille baptizatus in Christo inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse judicii clementia tua cui adhuc emerenda baptismatis Sacramenta servantur arrogat de fide jndicium cum sidei ipsius Sacrament a non noverit Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesia ' didici quod majores fecerunt mei si conferendum de fide sacerdotum debet esse illa collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Angustae memoriae Principe qui nullas Leges ante praemisit sed liberum dedit judicium Sacerdotibus Pactum est etiam sub Constantio August ae memoriae Imperatore paternae dignitatis haerede Sed quod benè cepit aliter consummatum est Nam Episcopi sinceram primò scripserant fidem sed dum volunt quidam de side intra palatium judicare id egerunt ut circumscriptionibus illa Episcoporum judicia multarentur qui tamen inslexam statim revocavere sententiam Et Ep. l. 5. Orat. in Auxent c. videte quanto pejores Aniani sunt quam Iudaei Illi quaerebant utrum solvendum putaret Caesari jus tributi Isti Imperatori dare volunt jus Ecclesiae Tributum Caesaris est non negatur Ecclesia Dei est Caesari utique non debet addici Quia jus Caesaris esse non potest Dei Templum Quod cum honorificentia Imperatoris nemo dictum potest negare Quid enim honorificentius quam ut Imperator Ecclesiae silius esse dicatur Quod cum dititur sine peccato dicitur cum gratid dicitur Imperator enim bonus intra Ecclesiam non supra Ecclesiam est Bonus enim Imperator quaerit auxilium Ecclesiae non refutat c. Idem Ep. 32 ad Marcellin Soror Convenior ipse a comitibus tribunis ut basilicae sieret matura traditio dicentibus Imperatorem jure suouti eo quod in potestate ejus essent omnia Respondi ea quae divina Imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia illius esse universa Respondeo noli te gravare Imperator ut putes to in ea quae divina sunt imperiale aliquodjus habero Noli te extollere sed sâ—vis diutius imperare esto Deo subditus Ad Imperatorem Palatia pertinent ad Sacerdotem Ecclesiae Publicorum tibi maenium jus commissum est non sacrorum Remarks upon the Book IT is a great absurdity to found the Title of our Kings on the pretended Right and Practice of the Emperors since under the Emperors Synods acted simply as Ecclesiastical Councils and tho' the Dr. is pleased most falsly to say the contrary asserted the Canonical validity of their Acts whether the Prince would or no tho' those Councils which the Emperors calld gave them account of their Procedures and for Peace not Rights sake desired their Approbation Concurrence and Assistance But the Councils of our Land and those of the Neighbouring Nations originally were made also Councils of State by a Contract between the Kings and the Church and the Barons and so became a part of the Civil Legislature and their Canons to be made Laws by the Royal Assent Upon which Constitution to such Ends the Kings Assent and Ratification became essentially Necessary This appears all along from the Doctors own Account and Deduction of History and therefore it is not only a false but an absurd way of Arguing from two different States of the Church to assert the same Legal Rights to both Of which God willing we shall discourse more fully and particularly in the second designed Part. Arguments from Fact These are all that he uses for his unlimited Domination of all Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods and avers them as Legal Precedents but when the Instances in Fact for the freedom of the Clergy are considered these he denies to be evictions of Right Chap. 5.