seems Hilarius or some in his behalf had done aut Praeceptis Romani Pontificis liceat obviare Omnibus pro lege sit quicquid sanxerit Aposâ—olicae Sedis authoritas ita ut quisquis Episcoporum ad judicium Romani Antistitis evocatus venire neglexerit per Moderatorem ejusdem Provinciae adesse cogatur per omnia servatis quae Divi Parentes nostri Romanae Ecclesiae detulerunt And the like orders had bin made by Emperours formerly it seems by that rigorous power used in Africk by the executors of the Bishop of Rome's orders there of which as you have read before § 12. the African Bishops so much complained See the Epistle of the 4th G. Council at Chalcedon the most numerous §25 n. 2. I think of any Council which the Church hath had to the same Leo Bishop of Rome in which are these expressions Quam fidem velut auro textam seriem ex veste Christi praecepto Legislatoris venientem usque ad nos ipse Leo servasti vocis Beati Petri omnibus constitutus Interpres ejus fidei beatificationem super omnes adducens Quibus i. e. Episcopis congregates in Concilio Tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens c. In vineam irruens i. e. Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria a supporter of Eutyches quam optime repperit plantatam evertit post haec omnia insuper contra ipsum cui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est extendit insaniam id est contra tuam quoque Apostolicam sanctitatem excommunicatione meditatus est contra te qui corpus Ecclesiae unire festinas Haec i.e. the Honours they conferr'd on the See of Constantinople velut a tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata roboravimus praesumentes dum noverimus quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit alluding to themselves ad Patres recurrit alluding to Leo facientes hoc proprium sibi i. e. appropriating their Children's actions to themselves Rogamus igitur tuis decretis nostrum honora judicium sicut nos cupidi in bonis adjecimus consonantiam sic summitas tua filiis quod decet adimpleat Sic enim pii Principes the Emperor c. very desirous of the advancement of the See Constantinopolitanâ— complacebunt will be well pleased qui tanquam legem tuae sanctitatis judicium firmaverunt Constantinopolitanae sedes suscipiet praemium quae omne semper studium vobis ad causam pietatis explevit c. Eutychen pro impietate damnatum suae tyrannidis decretis innoxium statuit i.e. Dioscorus who by a party in the second Ephesine Council restor'd Eutyches who was a Constantinopolitan Presbyter and an Archimandrita Abbot of the Monks there to his former degree and dignities dignitatem quae a vestra illi oblata fuerat sanctitate quippe ut ab eo qui hac gratia fuerit indignus ille restituit Where know that Eutyches depos'd by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople in a Synod there appeal'd or pretended it to the Bishop of Rome to whom also the Emperor sent Letters in his behalf which Bishop of Rome also after the business known ratified his deposition Concerning which appeal of this Presbyter where it appears that in matters of Faith and of great consequence the causes of Presbyters and inferior Clergy might be brought to the examination and sentence of the chief Patriarch Leo having by a miscarriage receiv'd as yet no Letters from the Bishop of Constantinople writes thus unto him Epist 8. Accepimus libâ—llum Eutychetis Presbyteri qui se queritur immerito communione privatum maxime cum libellum appellationis suae se assâ—rat obtulisse nec tamen fuisse susceptum Quibus rebus intercedentibus necdum agnoscimus qua justa a communione Ecclesiae fuerit separatus Sed respicientes ad causam facti tui nosse volumus rationem usque ad nostram notitiam cuncta deferri quoniam nos nihil possumus incognitis rebus in cujusquam partis praejudicium definire priusquam universa quae gesta sunt veraciter audiamus Thus Leo to the Bishop of Constantinople To return to the Epistle of Conc. Chalc. In the same 't is said Episcopis vâ—tam finientibus multae turbae nascuntur absque rectore c. therefore they say they gave some power to the Constantinopolitan Bishop for the ordering and setling them Quod nec vestram latuit sanctitatem quum maxime propter Ephesios unde quidam vobis saepius importuni fuerunt Leo therefore exercis'd some authority over the Church of Ephesus Again Considentes quia lucente apud vos Apostolico radio usque ad Constantinopolitanorum Ecclesiam consuete gubernando illum spargentes hunc saepius expanditis eo quod absque invidia consueveritis virorum bonorum participatione ditare domesticos Where they say the Roman Bishop dilated his beams to the governing of the Church of Constantinople And see their Epistle likewise to the Emperor Velut signaculum sacrae doctrinae Concilii hujus a vobis the Emperor congregati predicationem Petri sedis authoritate roborantes But yet tho thus courted by them in his answer to that Council Epist 59. he approv'd not the preferment of the Bishop of Constantinople before Alexandria Quantumlibet extortis assentationibus sese instruat vanitatis elatio i. e. of the Constantinopolitan Bishop appetitus suos Conciliorum aestimet nomine roborandos infirmum atque irritum erit quicquid a praedictorum Patrum i. e. Nicene canonibus discreparit Quorum regulis Apostolica sedes quam reverenter utatur scriptorum meorum c. poterit sanctitas vestra lectione cognoscere me auxiliante Domino catholicae fidei paternarum traditionum esse custodem See Evagrius Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 18 20 21. §25 n. 3. And the Epistle of Felix Bishop of Rome A. D. 484 to Acatius Bishop of Constantinople where we find Felix appeal'd and complain'd-to by John the wrong'd Bishop of Alexandria and being assisted with a Council of Forty-two Western Bishops excommunicating Peter who then unjustly possess'd the Patriarchy of Alexandria as being an Eutychian also and not submitting to the Council of Chalcedon see Evagrius l. 3. c. 21. and excommunicating Acatius also Bishop of Constanstinople after he had first cited him to Rome and also written to the Emperor Zeno to compel him to appear upon the complaints of John Alexand. rationem de rebus quas Johannes ei objectasset redditurus as Evagrius hath it for his communicating with Peter a condemn'd Heretick and many other crimes See his Epistle at the end of which the form of his Condemnation runs thus Sacerdotali honore communione Catholica not only Romana nec non etiam a fidelium numero segregatus sublatum tibi nomen munus ministerii sacerdotalis agnosce sancti Spiritus judicio Apostolica per nos authoritate damnatus Which proceeding of Felix being much dislik'd by some in the East
and ceaseth to be any longer Catholick If then the former or present differences between the Roman and Greek Churches are such as have been by former Church-Authority superior to both Canonically decided and determin'd as suppose by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. or of that of Lions under Gregory X. or that of Florence under Eugenius IV. and the Eastern Churches disobeying these Acts have separated from or thereupon been rejected by the Roman Communion observing them Or again If the Greek Church have made a discession and rent from the Prime Patriarch of the Church and the Chair of St. Peter in denying any of those Priviledges and that Authority which rightly belongs to him over the whole Church of Christ in order to the preserving the perpetual Peace and Unity thereof things which it concerns me not here to determine the Greek Churches by this Separation from the Roman must stand guilty of a Schism from the Catholick Church and cease to be any true Members thereof Neither indeed have these Churches since this Division like wither'd branches retain'd any Dignity Authority Growth or Extent equal to the Roman or such as they had formerly this indeed hap'ning to them from the opression of an open enemy to Christianity but yet perhaps the same also an Instrument of God's displeasure against them § 79 Lastly As for the latest Division of the Reforming Party in the West much-what the same may be said of it as was but now of the Arian It is known when that single person stood alone who began it and it spread afterward by the support of the Secular power against Church-authority and when in its greatest growth but an inconsiderable part in comparison of the Whole Which also hath cast it off from her Communion condemn'd it by her Councils and permits not any of her Members to have any external Communion with it And tho at first by reason both of foreign Invasions from the Turk and many Civil Wars in Christian States it made especially in climates more remote from the residence and superintendency of the chief Hierarchy of the Church a very great and speedy increase yet the vigour of its age may be thought already past and it is a long time that it seems to be in its Wane and decadency expecting still and prophesying to it self the fall of Antichrist till it self by little and little be sunk down into its grave So many parts therefore as fall off once from their union with the main Body can be accounted no longer any members of the Church-Catholick nor yet lawfully continue a Church-Communion or Succession of Clergy among themselves Because there can be but unum Corpus as unus Dominus Christus Eph. 4.5 from which Body any part separated strait withereth and separated from the Body is so also from the Head Christ Tho all among these are not really cut off from the Head or Body that the Church externally separates from it by her Censures Which proceed upon these according to the outward profession which only the Church sees but cannot discern the inward affection and disposition which secretly may still continue some of those to the Body whom her Censures removes from it Such are the invincibly ignorant or those that without malice are involv'd in such Schism especially where the fundamental Faith is not diminish'd by any Heresie added to Schism But tho this plea of Ignorance invincible do seem good and credible for many in the present Greek Churches if these Churches may be concluded Schismatical kept in so much slavery illiterature and darkness yet it is to be fear'd it will fail many in the Reform'd Churches where too much presumption of Knowledg seems to be the chief thing that hath destroy'd their Obedience and Conformity to the whole FINIS THE THIRD TREATISE OF THE FIRST PART OF ANCIENT Church-Government REFLECTING On the late writings of several Learned Protestants Bishop Bramhall Dr. Field Dr. Fern Dr. Hammond and others on this Subject OXFORD Printed in the year M.DC.LXXXVIII CONTENTS SVbordination of Glergy § 1. Three Patriarchs only at the first § 2. The first of these the Bishop of Rome § 3. The extent of his Patriarchate The 2d the Bishop of Alexandria § 4. The 3d. the Bishop of Antioch § 5. From whence their Superiority over other Bishops § 6. The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome § 7. The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place § 8. The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors § 9. Where concerning the authority of the Council of Sardica § 11. A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Appeals § 12. Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary § 14. Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination yet subjected for decision of controversies § 18. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch § 20. The power of Jurisdiction not only Primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops ib. This power exemplified in the Primitive time to the end of the 6th age the days of Gregory the Great § 21 to 31. A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum § 22. A Digression concerning the Title of Universalis Epipiscopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops § 26. A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Ravenna and Justiniana prima urged by Dr. Hammond § 30. The authority of this See of Rome by Protestants allowed to be the more orthodox in all other divisions that have bin made from it save only their own § 31. n. 2. By the former clear allegations some other controverted sayings of the Fathers expounded § 32. c. The Protestants ordinary replies to the authorities above cited to me seeming not satisfactory § 36. That such power which was anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome was not exercised by him jointly only with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended § 37. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by the Ecclesiastical Canons and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by any power secular § 38. The concessions of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this matter § 39. Several pretences to weaken such Canons to me seeming invalid § 41. That obedience due may not be withdrawn upon Governors undue claimes § 47. That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Ecclesiastical Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not change them § 48. That Prelats and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Council shall reverse them § 49. Reflections upon what hath him said That the
Patriarchal authority or headship over only some part of the Church to have a limited jurisdiction over a certain Province and to have an unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world To challenge the same thing from divine and from humane institution as Patriarch to be subject to the Canons as Universal Head of the Church to be above them are contradictions And in Schis guarded 4. sect p. 304. t is again urged by him that Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society is inconsistent where he hath also these words When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad meditation on this subject I confess ingeniously that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Pope's Patriarchate but in conclusion that which had bin a cause of my trouble proved a means of my final satisfaction For seeing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch I concluded that he could not be a Spiritual Monarch T is urged likewise by Dr. Hammond in Schis 6. c. 2. s. That he that supposed in gross to have by Succession to S. Peter that original title to all power over all Churches cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward by way of retail i.e. by any other ways and means over any particular Church He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travel must be supposed to disclaim donation which is antecedent to and exclusive of the other as the title of descent is to that of conquest Thus Dr. Hammond But to these it is easily answered 1. To Bishop Bramhal §. 3. n. 3. That nothing consists better together than contradictories if they be not understood secundum idem To have a headship Universal over the whole Church given him by God or by the Church if God hath left to it the disposal thereof for some things and to have a headship Patriarchal only over some part of the Church given by the same authority or the first given by God the second by the Church i. e. the first by divine the second by humane institution for some other things contradict not To have an unlimited power if he means for place for some things and limited for place for other things contradict not To hold the same power or authority both by divine and humane institution or title or laws which are all one contradicts not unless this term only be added One may hold the same thing both from the donation of our Saviour and from the donation of the Church too and from the donation of the Prince too quantum in illis est which is only a consenting to Christ's donation if they acknowledge it Neither will these latter donations be needless or useless ad homines tho the former donation be good if the former be at any time questioned as many good titles have bin Again it doth not contradict that one as Patriarch be subject to some thing to which in another consideration i.e. as head of the Church he is not subject for the respect is changed Christ the same person as Man was subject to laws to which as God he was not So Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society are consistent The government of a city is subordinate to the office of a Prince in the same civil society yet may the Prince that rules over all the Kingdom be governor also of some particular city thereof if so he pleaseth for his more security and may execute in that city all those under-offices himself which his Substitutes do in the rest or also formerly did there by his authority A Rectorship of a Parish is subordinate to that of a Bishop in the same Ecclesiastical society and yet the Bishop may also be the Parson of some Parish within his Diocess and officiate therein as is usual in some poorer Bishopricks One may be made by the King governor of a whole Province in respect of some command which he hath over it all and may be made by the same King or by any other to whom the King hath given the bestowing of such a dignity governor also only of one city in that Province in respect of some other offices divers from the former which he may exercise over that town and not likewise over the Province Thus much to Bishop Bramhal Only I must tell you that he may put his propositions in such a sence as they shall point-blank contradict but then he will not be able to shew that in such a sence the Roman Church affirms them 2. To Dr. Hammond I answer That no man can acquire the possession of a thing anew which he already possesseth but he may acquire a new title or right to what he already rightly possesseth i. e. he may do something upon which another law which now doth not shall give him right to the same thing supposing that his present right faileth or is questioned Neither needeth he when such titles are questioned adhere to one and renounce the other but may successively plead both one after another Indeed when these two titles are in several persons one voids the other the former the latter because the same thing cannot at the same time be possessed by several persons as Dr. Hammond rightly argues in Rep. to Cath. Gent. 6. cap. 1. s. but seems to me to apply it amiss to two titles remaining in the same person that the one of these will spoil the plea of the other So one may receive a possession from a Prince by free donation and afterward fearing some cavil at this title may acquire another right to the same thing by purchase either from the same Prince or from any other person of his Subjects who pretends to have the just disposal thereof And this person may afterward plead as he seeth cause either of these titles the donation from the Prince or purchase from the Subject which Subject whether he had a right power to dispose of such a thing or no yet the purchaser's plea is good against him and against all those who are bound by his act so that they cannot resume such possession from him So to come nearer our business Suppose a donation by our Saviour of such a Supremacy for ever over the whole Church and so over Britain to S. Peter's Successor and suppose a donation quo jure I need no here enquire by the Church of the same Supremacy to the Patriarch of the West over all the West and so over Britain and suppose 3ly a donation or consent by the inhabitants of Great Britain of the same Supremacy over them to the first author of their conversion I say here the same person being S. Peter's Successor and Patriarch of the West and converter of England may challenge such Supremacy over it by which of these titles he pleaseth they being obliged to all to our Saviour's Act of whom they are subjects to the Act of the Church whereof
l. 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And What the bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the precinct of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had and that therefore he might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece France and Spain as Bellarmin alledgeth being all within the compass of his Patriarchship See Bishop Bramhal vindic 9. c. p. 257. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterwards Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority in ordaining their Metropolitans for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall in convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them c when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent differences or difficulties Thus he Neither might any Metropolitan upon any cause separate himself from the communion of his Patriarch before the examination and sentence of a Council first passed in his behalf See 8. General Council 10. c. whose words are Nullus Clericus ante diligentem examinationem Synodicam sententiam a communione proprii Patriarchae se separet licet criminalem quamlibet causam ejus se nosse praetendat nec recuset nomen ipsius referre inter divina mysteria Idem statuimus de Episcopis erga proprios Metropolitas similiter de Metropolitis circa Patriarcham suum Qui vero contra fecerit ab omni Sacerdotali operatione honore decidat Ante Synodicam sententiam i. e. of a Council superior to the Metropolitan for the lower cannot judge the higher no not tho assembled together in a council See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 567. as an Episcopal Synod cannot judge the Metropolitan And the firmlier to bind and confine the inferior to the judgment of the superior orders of the Clergy the Church made frequent Canons against their starting aside by appeals to the judgment of Seculars whether of others or also of the Emperor himself See Concil Antiochen 11. c. 12. c. Concil Sardica 8. c. Concil Chalced. 9. c. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non relinquat suum Episcopum ad saecularia judicia non concurrat c. Conc. Melevitanum 19. c. Placuit ut quicunque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum i.e. Ecclesiasticorum petierit honore proprio privetur c. And see Conc. Generale 8. c. 17. 21. This for Patriarchs superiority over and their cotfirmation of Metropolitans Next amongst the Patriarchs themselves § 10 it seems the lower received no ordination from the higher But yet some confirmation or approbation they seem ordinarily to have had from their Superiors or at least from the Roman Patriarch by those words of Leo Ep. 54. ad Martianum the then Emperor concerning Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Satis est quod praedicto vestrae pietatis auxilio mei favoris assensu Episcopatum tantae Vrbis obtinuit And custodire debuit ut quod nostro beneficio noscitur consecutus nullius pravitatis cupiditate turbaret Nos enim vestrae fidei interventionis habentes intuitum cum secundum suae consecrationis authores ejus initia titubarent benigniores circa ipsum quam justiores esse voluimus quo perturbationes omnes quae operante Diabolo fuerunt excitatae adhibitis remediis leniremus Thus discourseth the Pope to the Emperor conscious of all those proceedings concerning his establishing of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch and by the suit made to the Pope concerning the settlement of Flavianus in the Patriarchy of Antioch of which see Theodoret hist Eccles 5. l. 23. c. Likewise concerning the confirming of superior Patriarchs by the inferior that is true which Dr. Field 5. l. 37. c. p. 551. saith in answer to such places urged by Bellarmin That the manner was that the Patriarchs should upon notice given of their due Ordination and Synodal letters containing a profession of their Faith mutually give assent one to another Therefore Cyprian Antoniano Ep. 52. speaks thus concerning the legitimate election of Cornelius Bishop of Rome whom Novatianus endeavoured to supplant Factus est Cornelius Episcopus cum Fabiani locus vacaret quo loco occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato quisquis jam Episcopus Romae fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est c. But that which Dr. Field adds there viz. That the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained no otherwise to the Bishop of Rome than the right of confirming Him pertained unto Them cannot justly be defended even from his own concessions elsewhere 5. l. 34. c. p. 528. c. of which see more below § 24. For no other Bishop could be a lawful Patriarch without the approbation of the Bishop of Rome the prime Patriarch whose withdrawing his communion from any was withdrawing the communion of the whole Church which hath always continued united to this Apostolick chair and yet the Bishop of Rome was lawfully such without the approbation of every other Patriarch so long as his election is not disallowed by the conjunct Hierarchy or the whole representative of the Church gathered togegether in a Council as it happened in the Council of Constance He may have an authority over other Bishops or Patriarchs single which none of them singly hath over him and yet all of them conjoin'd may have the same authority over Him as he hath over any of them single one singulis major may be minor universis Of which see more below § 22. n. 2. and in 2. Part. § 20. § 11. n. 2. Likewise Appeals were permitted from inferior Ecclesiastical to superior Judges and Courts but not of all causes and persons whatever to the supreamest Court lest so should be no end of contentions So the inferior Clergy in their differences might appeal from their Bishop to their Metropolitan and his Council Provincial or National who were finally to determine such controversies and such persons to acquiesce in them Again Bishops might appeal from their Metropolitan or from any inferior Courts to their Patriarch and his Council whose final decision in ordinary contests they were to rest in and who from the remotest of his Provinces upon appeal might either bring the cause to be heard by himself if the moment of the business so requir'd or send e latere suo presbyteros to use the expression of the 7th can of Sardic Conc. or depute some other Bishops of that or some other neighbouring Province to hear the matter where it was acted Or lastly command the Appealant to acquiesce in the former sentence given See for both these the Appeals of inferior Clergy and also of Bishops Conc. Chalced. can 9. compar'd
he found him wrongfully Suspended and therefore t is true also that the 6th canon Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commisit but not in every case unappealably to Superiors as appears by the African Bishop's qualification in that Epistle Ne festinato ne praepropere quoted before As for the several Reasons they give to these it may be replied on the other side That the Patriarch tho he were neither more prudent nor better informed from others in difficult matters nor more assisted from Heaven yet t is probable that such might as having a more choice election both be more knowing and according to the eminency of his place assisted both with a wiser Council and a greater portion of God's Spirit yet must he needs be a less partial Judge in such matters because not so nearly interessed in the cause nor in the persons as the Metropolitan often must be or also other Bishops who live upon the place and are subject to his power That the Provincial Councils which they mention tho their judgment were never so entire were not always to be had and were much seldomer assembled than the Canons appoint much rarer yet Councils universal neither of them by reason of the great trouble fit upon every such difference to be called And hence fails that Apology which Dr. Field 5. l. 39 c. p. 563. makes for the Africans in these words The Africans tho within the Patriarchship of Rome disliked the Appeals of Bishops to Rome because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a general Synod of Africk wherein the Primat sate as President for otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the canons appeal to their own Patriarch Thus far he Therefore the Africans denying this went against the canons That the canons of the Council of Sardica which the African Bishops then knew not of were sufficient to warrant his receiving of such appeals and if any former African decrees be pleaded against him much more may these of Sardica for him That many cases are not matter of fact where witnesses are necessary but questions de jure where the fact is confessed and that in such no more plea can be made to have them tried at home than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have demanded not to have this matter arbitrated at Jerusalem or Arius of Alexandria at Nice That for the conveniency of hearing witnesses where necessary in such appeals it was ordered indeed anciently that whensoever it could safely be done such causes should be arbitrated in the same or some adjoining Provinces by some Judges either sent thither or there delegated by the Patriarch of which the 7th canon of Sardica seems to take special care in the non-observance of which canons some Roman Bishops perhaps may have bin culpable and caused great affliction to their subjects but yet that other exigencies might occur every cause not being fit to be decided by delegates which required the trial to be at the Patriarchal residency to which the trouble of witnesses must give place which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council see Conc. Sard. can 4. And this grave Assembly we have no reason to think but that they weighed the troubles of such appeals as well as the Africans afterward or we now but thought fit to admit smaller inconveniences to avoid greater mischiefs namely in the intervals of Councils schisms and divisions between Provincial and between National Churches by the Church her having thus so many Supremes terminating all Spiritual causes within themselves as there were Provinces or countries Christian See Dr. Field allowing such appeals below § 20. and especially S. Austin Ep. 162. where he justifies the appeal of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage wronged by a Council of 70. Bishops held in Africk whereof was President the Primat of Numidia whose power and authority Dr. Hammond equals to that of Patriarchs Schism 3. c. p. 58. to a transmarine judgment tho Donatus his party much crying out against such appeals and tho it was in a matter meerly of fact namely whether Caecilian was ordained by some who were traditores sacrorum Codicum igni in time of persecution because such judgment was dis-engaged in the quarrel His words are Sibi i.e. Caeciliano videbat apud Ecclesiam transmarinam a privatis inimicitiis ab utraque parte dissensionis alienam incorruptum integrum examen suae causae remanere And again Qui i.e. Caecilianus posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimicorum i.e. in Africk cum se videret Romanae Ecclesiae in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus caeteris terris per communicatorias literas esse conjunctum ubi paratus esset causam suam dicere for all Churches had power to clear and examin his cause in respect of entertaining communion with him and sending their communicatory letters c. tho all Churches had not such power in respect of righting him against his adversaries but only his superior Patriarch Again An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primas Numidiae Tigisitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum Quid quod nec usurpavit Rogatus quippe Imperator Judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent This transmarine judgment here you see S. Austin justifies notwithstanding the Donatists might have used the foresaid § 12. plea of the African Fathers of the 6th Council and of Cyprian especially in the trial of a matter of fact § 15 But concerning this foreign judgment of Caecilians cause before I leave it I must not conceal to you what Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 7. s 10. relates thereof in prejudice of the Pope's authority objecting there That Caecilian had his cause tried indeed by the Bishop of Rome but by him only as the Emperor 's Delegate and not by him singly but with other special Delegates join'd with him that from this judgment an appeal being made by Caecilian's adversaries then the Emperor Constantine so great an honorer of the Church's privileges appointed the Bishop of Arles in France Qui sedet Judex saith he ut post Roman Pontificem quod visum fuerit pronunciet And again an appeal being made from him also 't is further urg'd That the Emperor judg'd the cause after all himself For answer to which I refer you to the relation of this story by St. Augustin against the Donatists Epist 162. where you will find those Assessors to be join'd by the Emperor to the Bishop of Rome ad preces Donatistarum who well knew Melchiades much favouring Caecilian's cause You may see Constantine's Letter to Melchiades and Marcus one of his Assessors in Eus l. 1. c. 5. The Donatists here cast pretending some new evidence requested of the Emperor yet another hearing of their cause upon which dedit Ille
the Roman Bishops power now to look a little back into the former ages wherein by reason of the persecutions by heathen Princes the Church's discipline was not altogether so perfectly formed See Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Alexandrini § 23. n. 7. where he relates how Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria living above fifty years before the Nicene Council was accus'd by some of Pentapolis as erroneous in the Doctrine of the Trinity to Dionysius the then Bishop of Rome and thereupon writ an Apology to purge himself Quidam ex Ecclesia recte quidem sentientes sed tamen ignari c. Romam ascenderunt ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nominis Romanum Praesulem accusaverunt Re comperta Alexandrinus postulavit a Romano Praesule ut objecta sibi indicaret non rixandi animo sed sui purgandi Apologiam scripsit Here it seems A. D. 266. long before the cause of Athanasius his addresses were made by the Alexandrians to the Roman Bishop See St. Cyprian contemporary to Dionysius to procure the deposing of Marcianus Metropolitan Bishop of Arles in France because he sided with Novatian writes thus to Stephen Bishop of Rome about it Dirigantur in Provinciam ad plebem Arelatae consistentem a te literae quibus abstento Marciano alius in locum ejâ—s substituatur Where Dr. Field l. 5 c. 37. grams Cyprian rather writ to him to do this than did it himself because the Roman Bishop was Patriarch of the West And it appears from his 68th Epistle that in his time two Bishops of Spain Basilides and Martialis ejected for giving their consent to some Idolatry appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome to restore them to their Dignities Romam pergens i. e. Basilides Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum gestae rei ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit ut exambiret reponi se injuste in Episcopatum de quo fuerat juste depositus In which Epistle he censures Stephen indeed but not for receiving Basilides his appeal or hearing his cause but for judging it amiss yet some way excuseth him also as misinform'd Neque enim tam culpandus est ille saith he eui negligenter obreptum est quam hic execrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit But had Stephen had no just authority to judg this matter or reponere Basilidem in Episcopatum St. Cyprian would not have accused him of negligence i. e. in believing without seeking better information what Basilides or his friends said but of usurpation and intrusion and tyranny in judging in matters no way belonging to him But he allowing the Western Patriarchs authority over the Gallican Bishops as appears in the last instance could not rationally deny him the same over the Spanish Therefore that which this Father saith before that Basilides his appeal and Stephen's sentence ordinationem jure perfect am rescindere non potuit is to be understood with reference to the justness of the cause not of the authority For one may rightly be accus'd of injustice either who doth a thing and hath no just power to do it or who hath a just power to do a thing and hath no just cause And therefore the Spanish ought to seek a reversion of such sentence by presenting to their Patriarch perfecter informations Else surely his sentence who is granted to have the supreme authority to judg is to stand and he must give account thereof to God And yet higher before Cyprian's time about A.D. 200 we find in Eus Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 22 c. that in a controversie about the celebration of Easter whether on the Lord's day or on the same day with the Jews after many Provincial Councils in a peaceful time of the whole Christian Church call'd in several Countries as well of the East as Aegypt Palestine as of the West who all agreed with the Roman Bishop excepting Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and the Bishops of Asia minor who assembled in Council as the rest resolv'd to continue their custom of keeping it the same day with the Jews and in a Letter to Rome signified so much We find I say that Victor then Bishop of Rome either intended or also executed an Excommunication upon Polycrates and his party as pertinaciously retaining a Mosaical ceremony which might be an introduction to more Executed an excommunication not negative as Dr. Field would have it p. 558. by with-drawing his own communion from them but privative and authoritative by rejecting and debarring them from communion of the whole Catholick Church tho indeed debarring them from the Roman communion debars them also from all others that communicate with the Roman for those who may not communicate with an Heretick neither may communicate with any others who by communicating with such Heretick make themselves partakers of his sin This seems to me clear by the words of Eusebius Victor totius Asiae Ecclesias a communionis societate abscindere nititur tanquam in haeresin declinantes literas mittit quibus omnes simul absque discretione ab Ecclesiastico faedere segregaret Extant Episcoporum literae quibus asperius objurgant Victorem velut inutiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem Ecclesiae i. e. universalis And of Iraeneus who amongst the rest reprehended him quod non recte fecerit abscindens a corporis i. e. Christi not Romanae Ecclesiae unitate tot tantas Ecclesias Dei And by Polycrates his Letter Euseb l. 5. c. 22. to the Church of Rome wherein it appears both that he assembled his Asian Bishops at the Bishop of Rome's intimation and that some censure had been threaten'd him from thence upon non-conformity to which he answers That it were better to obey God than men His words are Sexaginta quinque â—nnos aetatis gerens non perturbabor ex his quae ad terrorem proferuntur quia majores mei dixerunt Obtemperare oportet Deo magis quam hominibus As for Irenaeus or other Bishops reprehending this fact or purpose of Victors it was not because he usurp'd or exercis'd an authority of Excommunication over the Asiaticks not belonging to him but that he used such authority upon no just or sufficient cause namely upon such a declination from Apostolical tradition vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam in so small a matter some compliance with the Jews to gain them partly excusing such a practice Thus a Prince who hath lawful power to inflict punishments upon his subjects when delinquent is reprehensible when punishing the innocent To this of Victor I may add another Excommunication not long after this by Stephen Bishop of Rome either inflicted or at least threatned to some of the Asian Churches in Cyprian's time that held the necessity or Rebaptization upon the Baptism of Hereticks Concerning which see Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 4. c. 4.6 See St. Austin's Epistle 162 the great care and superintendence which Melchiades Bishop of Rome before Sylvester in Constantine's time used over the African Churches in the Schism of
because a Synod was not specially summon'd for the purpose especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely City see Gelasius the successor to Felix A. D. 494. his vindication of this act of the Apostolick See without a Council at least an Oecumenial one in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae an Eastern Province not far from Constantinople which Epistle is worth the reading over the rather because some places being urg'd out of it by Bellarmin Dr. Field in his answer to them hath these words Truly there cannot be any better proof against the pretended Supremacy of the Popes than this Epistle In this Epistle then Gelasius pleads thus Sabellium damnavit Synodus nec fuit necesse ut ejus sectatores postea damnarentur singulas viritim Synodos celebrari sed pro tenore constitutionis antiquae cunctos qui vel pravitatis illius vel communionis extitere participes universalis Ecclesia i e. in a Council dixit esse refutandos Considimus quod nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum quod universalis Ecclesiae probavit assensus nullam magis exequi sedem prae ceteris oportere quam primam quae unamquamque Synodum sua authoritate confirmat continuata moderatione custodit pro suo scil Principatu quem Beatus Petrus Apostolus Domini voce perceptum I suppose it should be percepit Ecclesia nihilominus subsequens tenuit semper tenebit Haec i. e. Sedes Apostolica dum Acacium certis comperisset indiciis a veritate Apostolica deviasse diutius ista non credens quippe quem noverat executorem saepe necessariae dispensationis suae i. e. Sedis Apostolicae per triennium fere monere non destitit c. cur tanto tempore dum ista gererentur non ad sedem Apostolicam a qua sibi curam illarum regionum noverat delegatum referre curavit i. e. Acatius Tandem aliquando missis literis profitetur Acatius se Alexandrino Petro quem expetita Apostolicae sedis authoritate executor ipse quoque damnaverat absque sedis Apostolicae notitia communione permixtum Beati autem Petri sedes ne per Acacium in Petri consortiurn duceretur ipsum quoque a sua communione submovit multis modis transgressorum a sua societate fecit alienum Quo tenore Timotheus etiam atque ipse Alexandrinus Petrus qui secundam sedem tenuisse videbuntur non repetita Synodo tantummodo sedis Apostolicae ipso quoque Acacio postulante vel exequente probantur esse damnati Nec plane tacemus quod euncta per mundum novit Ecclesia quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata Pontificum sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habeat resolvendi utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat judicandi neque cuiquam de ejus liceat judicare judicio siquidem ad Illam de qualibet mundi parte canones appellare aliquem voluerunt ab illa autem nemo sit appellare permissus Sed nec illa praeterimus quod Apostolicae sedi frequenter datum or dictum est ut more majorum etiam sine ulla Synodo precedente solvendi quod Synodus inique damnaverat damnandi nulla existente Synodo quos oportuit habuerit potestatem Sanctae memoriae nihilo minus Johannem Constantinopolitanum i. e. Chrysostomum Synodus etiam Catholicorum Praesulum certe damnaverat quem simili modo sedes Apostolica etiam sola quia non consensit absolvit Itemque S. Flavianum Pontificem Graecorum congregatione damnatum pari tenore quoniam sola Apostolica sedes non consensit absolvit potius quam qui illic receptus fuerat Dioscorum secundae Sedis praesulem sua authoritate damnavit impiam Synodum i.e. sec Ephes non consentiendo summovit sola authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Ponamus tamen etiam si nulla Synodus praecessisset cujus Apost sedes recte fieret exequutrix cum quibus erat de Acacio Synodus ineunda Nunquid cum his qui jam participes tenebantur Acacii per Orientem totum Catholicis sacerdotibus such he calls those who adher'd to the Council of Chalcedon violenter exclusis per exilia diversa relegatis socii evidenter existentes communionis externae i. e. extra Ecclesiam Catholicam prius se ad haec consortia transferrent quam sedis Apostolicae scita consulerent Concilio nec opus erat post primam Synodum nec talibus habere licebat Quae congregatio facta Pontificum i.e. in Italia Occidentalium non contra Chalcedonensem non tanquam nova Synodus contra veterem primamque convenit sed potius secundum tenorem veteris constituti particeps Apostolica exequutionis effecta est ut satis appareat Ecclesiam Catholicam sedemque Apostolicam quia alibi jam omnino non posset ubi potuit cum quibus potuit nihil penitus omisisse quod ad fraternum pertineret pro intemerata fide sincera communione tractatum In this Epistle amongst others two things must not be passed by unobserv'd 1. One That he contends he ought not to call to a Council Bishops condemn'd by and professedly opposing a former General Council which being granted Councils may be rightly call'd General when they consist not of all but only of all Catholick Churches 2. The other That in the final sentencing and determining of greater persons and causes in the Eastern Church the Bishop of Constantinople was employ'd only from him and as his Delegate See the Epistle of Pelagius the 2d Bishop of Rome A.D. 580. Vniversis Episcopis qui illicita vocatione Johannis Constantinopolitani Episcopi ad Constantinopolim convenerunt Wherein he vindicates the authority of the Roman See against John assembling a Council there without his consent and leave and calling himself Universal Bishop seeking to exalt himself above Rome probably from the supreme dignity and great flourishing of that Imperial City in those time in which times also the poor City of Rome laboured under great afflictions and desolations by the Goths Longobards c. whereof Gregory writing to the Empress 4. l. Ep. 34. saith Viginti autem jam septem annos ducimus quod in hac urbe inter Longobardorum gladios vivimus and from the Emperour Mauritius his countenancing him in it Out of which Epistle some words are quoted by S. Gregory his Successor 4. l. Ep. 36. § 26 Now in the forenamed Epistle of Pelagius as he hath these passages Vniversalitatis quoque nomen A Digression concerning the title of Universalis Episcopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops quod sibi illicite usurpavit i.e. Joannes Constant nolite attendere c. Nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur quia si summus Patriarcha tho it were the Patriarch of Rome Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc absit c. Jactantiam tantam sumpsit i. e. Jonannes Constant ita ut universa
have not and which we have not first from them And what can be clear therein to us which is not so to them Or since no place of Scripture tho never so plain in its terms may be so understood as will render it contradictory to any other place how can such a man be secure enough of his diligence and wit in making such a due collation of Scriptures and collecting a right sense where he findeth such a Body to oppose him But perhaps these Guides tho more knowing then he yet have not like integrity And what misguiding passions are these subject to in judging to which our selves are not much more Or what self-interest do we find in them but only when we have a contrary our selves Every one imagines himself to stand in an indifferency to Opinions when as indeed scarce any by reason of their education fortunes particular dependances and relations is so and mean-while like Icterical persons he thinks that colour to be in those he looks upon abroad which is only in himself I know no greater sign of a dis-interested and an unpassionate temper of mind than to be apt readily to submit to another's judgment and seldom it is but much self-conceit and spiritual pride do accompany singularity of Opinion This have I said to shew what reasons there are for our assent to the Doctrines and Determinations of our Spiritual Guides drawn from that measure of assistance and infallibility which our Lord hath promised them tho other Scriptures had laid on us such injunction Of which subject see what is more largely discours'd in Obligation of Judgment from § 5 to § 9. and Infallibility Church Government Par. 2. § 35. Par. 3. § 27. n. 1 c. § 52 And hitherto from § 41 I have endeavour'd to shew you in the first place from the Scripture That there is a Judg of Controversies appointed and left under the Gospel to all whose Decisions the Subjects of the Church ought to be obedient and acquiesce as there was formerly under the Law 2. Next The same thing is prov'd from the constant Practice of the Church which we must not say to have been mistaken in the just extent of her Authority 1. The Church from time to time in her General Councils hath judg'd and decided Controversies as they arose both in matters Practical and Speculative In Practicals enjoining her Subjects upon Ecclesiastical penalties not only not to gain-say but also to do them and consequently enjoining them to assent that such things are lawful to be done And in Speculatives also enjoining her Subjects not only not to gain-say her Decisions but to profess them and consequently enjoining them to assent that such her Positions are true For none may profess with his mouth what he believes not with his heart Nay further enjoining her Subjects to believe them her Language for several of her Determinations and Canons in those her Councils which all sides allow being such as this In her Canons Siquis non confitetur non profitetur non credit putting several of her Determinations in the Creeds And in her Decisions constanter tenendum firma fide credendum Nemo salva fide dubitare debet and the like If it be said that such â—ssent is requir'd by the Church or her Councils only to some not all their Decisions I answer that I contend not that you are to yeild your assent by vertue of Obedience whatever you ought to do in prudence where they do not require it Only let it be granted that it belongs to them not you to judg what or how many points it is meet for them to require and for you to give your assent And let no such limitation as this be annex'd to their Authority That they require assent to what is true or to what is agreeable to God's word not in theirs but in his Opinion whose assent is required For thus their Authority is annihilated to this That they may only require me to assent to that whatsoever I do assent to Do what I will or they make me § 53 Again The Church hath from time to time in her Councils according to the Authority given her see before § 43 45. excommunicated men for holding false and pernicious Opinions hath Anathematiz'd and declar'd Hereticks the non-confitentes and the non-credentes in such main points as she thought necessary to be believ'd Which infers either sin in dissenting from her Judgment and the Doctrines she defines or that she faultily excommunicates any on this account or that she may lawfully punish another for that which the other lawfully doth But if there be any Church that teacheth That every one may examine her Doctrines and where he judgeth or thinketh these contrary to Scriptures that there he is not obliged to yeild his assent the same Church cannot justly excommunicate such person for dissenting i. e. for doing that which she teacheth him he may do And then since all that dissent from the Church will pretend that the Church-Doctrines seem to them to be contrary to the Scriptures it follows such Church can justly excommunicate none at all for any Heretical or false Tenent whatever See more of this subject in Church-Government Par ◠§ 34. and Par. 3. § 29. Obligation of Judgment § 3 c. § 54 3. The same Obligation of Assent is prov'd from the practice of the Reform'd Churches also as well as others and they as rigid in requiring it as the rest and particularly this our Church of England as will easily appear to you if you please to view the 139 140 4 5 73 12 36 of the Synod held under King James 1603 and the 3 4 5 and the Oath in the 6th Canon of the Synod under King Charles I. and what is argued from them in Church-Government Par. 3. § 29 c. and after all these to view the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. cap. 12. requiring Assent to the XXXIX Articles and the Title also prefix'd to them which saith That these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding of diversities of Opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion It Subscription then to them doth not extend to Consent to the truth of them the end is frustrated for which they were composed Lastly If you please to view the Complaint for this cause of the Presbyterians in their Reasons shewing necessity of Reformation printed 1660. See Church-Government Par. 3. § 29. against the Canons and Articles of the Church of England as the Church of England doth for the same cause against the Canons and Articles of the Church of Rome § 55 Now from all that hath been said from § 4 and more especially from § 41 you may perceive a great difference between the Obedience which we owe to Secular and which we owe to Ecclesiastical Magistrates as to any matters which relate to the Divine Law To the Secular Magistrate we owe in these matters an active obedience with some limitation in omnibus licitis
Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Rome See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it § 51. That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon § 52. That this Nation owes its Conversion chiefly if not only to the Roman See § 53. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon conversion § 55. The Britains observation of Easter different from Rome not agreeing with the Orientals and no argument that they received Christianity from thence § 57. That the English Nation is sufficiently tyed to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils wherein her Prelats have yeilded their consents § 59. Thus the Principle upon which some set the English Clergy and Nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be unsound § 60. That some Rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterward be justly resumed § 61. Dr. Field of the Church Ep. Dedicat SEing the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matters so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examin them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies in the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the Living God which is this pillar and ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Grot. Animadv cont Rivet ad Art 7. Rogo eos qui. verum amant ut cum legent Dav. Blondelli viri diligentissimi Librum de Primatu non inpsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed ipsas historias quarum veritatem Blondellus agnoscit animo a factionibus remoto expendant spondeo si id faciant inventuros in quo acquieescant S. Austin de util credendi 16. c. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem iposo Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attollamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerum intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine 10. c. Sed inquis Nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quacunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoseendus sit omnesque putas idonâ—os esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam religionem putas who therefore must receive this not from Reason but Authority 12. c. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis utilius ac salubrius esse praeceptis obtemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere 13. c. Recte igitur Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad religionem fides i.e. adhibenda authoritati Ecclesiae persuadeatur ante omnia 8. c. Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manaturaest 12. Quum de religione id est quum de colendo atque intelligendo Deo agitur ii minus sequendi sunt qui nos credere vetant rationem promptissime pollicentes Rivet Apol. Discussio p. 255. Nunc plane ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit cause divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canones fatente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium put at ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter insticutum Bishop Bilson in perpet governm of Christ's Church 16. c. Not Antichrist but ancient Councils and Christian Emperors perceiving the mighty trouble and intolerable charges that the Bishops of every Province were put-to by staying at Synods for the hearing and determining of all private matters and quarrels and seeing no cause to imploy the Bishops of the whole world twice every year to sit in judgment about petit and particular strifes and brabbles as well the Prince as the Bishops not to increase the pride of Arcbishops but to settle an indifferent course both for the parties and the Judges referred not the making of Laws and Canons but the execution of them already made to the credit and conscience of the Archbishop To the Fathers leave an Appeal either to the Councils or the Primate of every Nation Mr. Thorndike Epilogue 3. l. 20. c. p. 179. Of the Councils he meaneth those first Councils held in the East how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches and this admission of them what can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their Decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Council of Nice tho the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Councils yet in other occasions they may justly seem to refer themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the Acts of it and then he produceth several instances Whereby saith he it may appear how the Western Churches went always along with that of Rome Which necessarily argueth a singular preeminence in it in regard whereof He the Roman Bishop is stiled the Patriarch of the West during the regular government of the Church and being so acknowledged by K. James of Excellent memory to the Card. Perron may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church who had rather stand divided than own him in that quality Afterward he saith p. 180. That it is unquestionable that all causes that concern the whole Church are to resort to the Church of Rome And p. 181. asks what pretence there could be to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome as such Appeals were setled in the Council of Sardica which Council he there allows and
that council Athan. Apol. 2. and therefore upon their not finding them amongst the Nicene as was pretended nor knowing them to be of the orthodox council of Sardica they request That neither the appeals of Presbyters nor yet of Bishops might thenceforth be admitted from thence by the Roman Bishop but that their causes might finally be decided by their Metropolitan or a Provincial Council defending themselves with the 5th and 6th canons of the Nicene Council Their words are these Impendio deprecamur c ne a nobis excommunicatos in communionem ultra velitis accipere quia hoc etiam Nicaeno Concilio definitum facile advertet Venerabilitas tua Nam etsi de inferioribus clericis vel laicis videtur ibi praecaveri quanto magis de Episcopis voluit observari ne in sua provincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinato vel praepropere vel indebite videantur communioni restitui Decreta Nicaena can 4.6 sive inferioris gradus clericos sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commiserunt Maxime quia unicuique concessum est si judicio offensus sit cognitorum i.e. of the judges of his cause ad concilia suae Provinciae vel etiam universale provocare Their reasons are Vnicuique Provinciae gratiam Spiritus sancti non defuturam c. nisi forte quisquam est qui credat uni cuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare justitiam innumerabilibus congregatis in Concilium sacerdotibus denegare Therefore they desire him that neither their causes might be judged by himself at Rome for Quomodo ipsum transmarinum judicium ratum erit ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexus vel propter senectutis infirmitatem c adduci non poterunt nor by his Legats a latere in Africk for hoc nulla invenimus Patrum synodo constitutum and nulla Patrum definitione hoc Ecclesiae derogatum est Africanae much less that he would send executores Clericos quibusque petentibus ne fumosum typhum saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi videamur introducere insr § 25. n. 1. Executores c who by the Secular power the Emperor's officers there forced if need were the observation of the Bishop of Rome's decrees See Aust Ep. 261. the complaint S. Austin makes to the Pope of Antonius his threats From which proceedings they complain in their letter to Bonifacius that they had suffered much formerly and more than the Canons he urged should they be found in the Nicen Council did impose upon them And the same dislike of Appeal to Rome may be found before these times in S. Cyprian Ep. 55. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome at least in reference to those particular persons Fortunatus and Felicissimus notoriously guilty and most justly condemned by a Council in Africk where he pleads thus Nam cum statutum sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta quam regat rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare sed agere illic causam suam ubi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint nisi si paucis desperatis perditis minor videtur esse authoritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorum § 13 Thus have I given you a brief account of this difference between Rome and Africk Mean-while t is plain that then Appeals were ordinarily made from Africk to the Bishop of Rome and his decrees submitted to and executed there and this not only before but presently after this contest See below 23 § and Leo's 85 Ep. ad Episcopos Africanos where he writes thus concerning Lupicinus an ejected African Bishop appealing to him Causam quoque Lupicini Episcopi illic jubemus audiri Cui multum saepius postulanti communionem hac ratione reddidimus quoniam cum ad nostrum judicium provocasset immerito eum pendente negotio a communione videbamus fuisse suspensum In which Epistle also he saith Quod nunc utcunque patimur esse veniale inultum postmodum esse non poterit si quisquam id quod omnino interdiximus usurpare praesumpserit Manifest also that they did at that time what he appointed concerning Apiarius and promised observance of the two Canons till the return of the copy of the Nicene canons out of the East and after this return some expressions in their letter they let fall as if they would not offer to throw off altogether his interest in their affairs Impendio deprecamur ut deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus 4. l. 8. c. 32. n. Rogant ut Episcopi non tam facile audiantur i.e. a Roman Pontifice nisi videlicet notoria manifesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omnibus aut maxima eorum parte For he grants there ubi gravis notoria est suspicio erga proprios primarios Judices Ep scopos reos potuisse ad aliena or extera judicia praesertim vero ad sedes Apostolicas recurrere and quotes for it S. Austin Ep. 162. in Caetilian's case And voluit observari i.e. the Council of Nice ne in sua Provincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinato vel prapropere vel indâ—bite videantur communioni restitui And the 22. canon of the Milevitan Council held by them about the time of this contest prohibits transmarine Appeals only to the inferior Clergy Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint c non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum c. § 14 Again Notwithstanding what hath bin said by the Africans in this matter Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary yet here may be made still a Quaere Whether in a controversie between Bishops and their Metropolitan and much more in controversies between Metropolitans or Primates or also Patriarchs themselves such transmarine Appeals were not necessary and were at all or at least justly by the African Bishops in any-such cases opposed For the mere proving of an opposition engageth us no more to the opinion of one side than of the other neither may we argue the Bishop of Rome unjustly claimed it because they opposed it no more than that they unjustly opposed it because he claimed it As for the 5th Nicene Canon urged by them themselves grant it and it is manifest to any Reader to speak in express terms only of inferior Clergy and in their application of it to Bishops they qualify it with a ne festinato ne praepropere For the common practice of former times in Athanasius c shews that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons to admit into his communion any Bishop excommunicated by his Province if
Donatus Qualis saith he ipsius Melchiadis ultima est pâ—rlata sâ—ntentia i. e. in judging the cause of Donatus qua neque collegas i. e. the African Bishops in quibus nihil constiterat de collâ—gio suo from his Communion ausus est removere Donato solo quem totius mali principem invenerat maxime culpato sanitatis recuperandae optionem liberam caeteris fecit parâ— tus communicatorias litteras mittere etiam iis quos a Majorino a Donatist Bishop ordinatos esse constaret ita ut quibuscunque in locis in Africk dâ—o essent Episcopi quos dissâ—nsio geminasset eum confirmari vellet qui fuisset ordinatus prior c. alteri autem eorum plebs alia regenda provideretur O filium Christianae pacis patrem Christianae plebis Thus St. Austin of Melchiades Bishop of Rome his ordering the African affairs See the Council of Arles call'd by Constantine before Nice see in Euseb l. 10. c. 5. his Epistle summoning the Bishop of Syracuse to it in which were some Bishops from England see Bishop of Derry Vind c. 5. p. 98. Hammond Sch s c. 6. p. 110. sending their Decrees to Sylvester then Bishop of Rome and in their first Canon thus bespeaking him Quae decrevimus significamus c. De observatione Paschae Domini ut uno die tempore per omnem orbem observetur juxta consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas Now to go on in the occurrences of the fifth Age. See the Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome before and in the time of the fourth General Council the 53d Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople § 23. n. 8. the 54th to the Emperor Marcianus the 55th to the Empress Pulcheria wherein he vindicates the derivation of his authority not from the Imperial City but the Apostles and concerning that Act of the Bishops in Conc. Chalc. advancing the Bishop of Constantinople above the second Patriarch of Alexandria which he judg'd contrary to the Nicene Canons he saith Epistle to Pulcheria Consensiones vero Episcoporum sanctorum Canonum aepud Nicaenum conditorum regulis repugnantes unita nobiscum vestrae fidei pietate in irritum mittimus per authoritatem Beati Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassemus c. His Epistle 84. to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica Sicut Praedecessores mei Praedecessoribus tuis ita etiam ego dilectioni tuae priorum secutus exemplum vices mei moderaminis delegavi ut curam quam universis Ecclestis principaliter ex divina institutione debemus adjuvâ—res longâ—nquis ab Apostolica Sede provinciis praesentiam quodammodo nostrae visitationis impenderes see below § 25. n. 13. where the same things are said of the Bishop of Constantinople as here of Thessalonica promptum tibi agnoscere quid vel tuo studio componeres vel nostro judicio reservares And in the close of the Epistle Magna dispositione provisum est ne omnes sibi omnia vendicarent sed essent in singulis Provinciis singuli quorum inter Fratres haberetur prima sententia Metropolitans rursus quidam in majoribus urbibus constituti solicitudinem susciperent ampliorem Primats or those amongst them deputed by the Patriarch per quos ad unam Petri Sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret nihil unquam a Capite suo dissideret This is spoken of the Church Universal To which may be added that expression of his quoted before § 6. Caput orbis effecta latius praesides religione divina now quam dominatione terrena formerly Seconded by Prosper 2. l. de vocatione Gentium Roma per Sacerdotii Principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis quam solio Potestatis and lib. de Ingratis Sedes Roma Petri quae Pastoralis honoris Facta Caput mundo quicquid non possidet armis Relligione tenet c. To the latter of these places Dr. Field 5l 34. c. p. 529. c. answers That more were subject to it than ever were under the Roman Empire as it had a presidency amongst them of Order and Honour not of Supreme power To the other he saith The care of the Universal Church is to be understood only in respect of things concerning the common faith and general state of the Church or of the principal most eminent and highest parts and members of the same Be it so for of such only we speak none of which things might be proceeded-in without the Bishop of Rome and his colleagues So a little before p. 528. he saith All things generally concerning the whole Church were either to take beginning or at the least to seek confirmation from the Roman Bishops before they were generally imposed and prescribed But Quaere whether if this Bishop denied his consent the rest might proceed no further without it and whether if he refused to confirm such acts they might not be at all imposed and whether as the eminentest persons in their differences might be judged by Him so they were bound to submit to his as to their Superior's judgment Else if he mean only that they were first to ask his consent or judgment but upon a denial or a displeasing sentence might proceed to establish things against it how consists this with that conclusion ut nihil unquam a capite suo dissideret To search a little further to see if the Dr. speaks plainer Below in the p. 530. he saith In cases which concerned the principal Patriarchs whether they were differences between them and their Bishops or between themselves the chief See as the principal part of the whole Church might interpose it self So as other Patriarchs likewise of the higher thrones might interpose themselves in matters concerning Patriarchs of the lower thrones But I ask How interpose by judging and determining the causes of their inferiors by excommunicating and deposing c the persons obnoxious noxious and criminal But then the Presidency of Rome will be a presidency of Power over the rest of the Church and not of Honour only And must not he mean some such thing by interpose since in his instances there this interposing proves to be judging excommunicating deposing c and so he grants that the ordering and setling of things of the Church of Antioch the 3d. See did pertain to the Patriarch of Alexandria the 2d See and he goeth on and saith That the Bishops of inferior thrones might not judge the superior and therefore That John of Antioch of the 3d. See is reprehended Act. Conc. Ephes for judging Cyril Bishop of the 2d See and Dioscorâ—s Bishop of the 2d See is condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in their Ep. ad Martian Imp. and ad Leonem Act. 3. for this thing among others That he presumed to judge the first See i. e. the Bishop thereof Leo. Where note That both John's and Dioscorus his judging was excommunicating their superior Bishops and done not singly but with their Council of Bishops And again observe That had
of that Church for such priviledges on the See of Rome and with the Emperor's conferring these priviledges to all succession without any joint authority of the Pope and bringing in provocatus antiquae consuetudinis ordine without mentioning the words immediately before Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia atque antiquae consuetudinis ordine provocatus he makes these words refer not to the Popes but to the Emperor 's former grant But meanwhile judge you if the Emperour might of his own accord erect Patriarchies or confer such priviledges without the Bishop of Rome's authority whether authoritate nostra firmamus illibata decernimus c and Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia be not not only needless but also ridiculous But if the Patriarch of the West's authoritate nostra firmamus was necessary to what the Emperour did then are all such instances rendred useless to the Doctor who can shew no such firmamus to the late erected Patriarchats And were not such testimonies extant yet the rescript of the same Emperour Valentinian quoted before p 86. seems a sufficient proof that no such priviledges as were prejudicial to the Roman See were granted by him 2. For the Bishop of Justiniana 1ª that he continued to receive the Pall as other Primats from the Bishop of Rome and that he had locum Apostolicae Sedis not the place of a but of the Apostolick See namely as the Pope's standing delegate for those parts subordinate to him the phrase being frequently used in this but I think never in the other sence lastly that the Bishop of Rome deputed the judgment of causes to him and for some misbehaviour in his place passed Ecclesiastical censures upon him I say for these things see 4. l. Indict 13. Ep. 15. Johanni Episcopo 1 ae Justinianae newly elected Pallium vero ex more transmisimus vices vos Apostolicae Sedis agere iterata innovatione decernimus Iterata innovatione which argues the first concession that he should have locum Apostolicae Sedis was from the Roman Bishop which Baronius Anno 535. saith Justinian with much importunity obtained of Vigilius after Agapetus his Predecessor had made a demur to grant it as being a thing too prejudicial to his Neighbour-Metropolitans And see 10. l. 5. Indict 34. Ep. where he refers the cause of Paulus Bishop of Dyaclina to the examination of the Bishop of Justiniana 1a. And see 2. l. Indict 11. Ep. 6. to the same Bishop where reprehending him for a singular act of injustice he saith Quod vero ad praesens attinet cassatis prius atque ad nihilum redactis praedictae sententiae tuae decretis ex Beati Apostolorum Principis authoritate decernimus triginta dierum spatio sacra te communione privatum ab omnipotenti Deo nostro tanti excessus veniam cum summa poenitentia ac lachrymis exorare Quod si c contumaciam fraternitatis tuae cognoscas adjuvante Deo severius puniendam After these see Justinianan's Constitution it self Novell 131. cap. 3. which runs thus Per tempus autem Beatissimum 1 ae Justinianae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae c. in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio Which last words how reasonably Dr. Hammond Reply to Cath. Gentl. p. 96. interprets that Vigilius defin'd that the Bishop of Justin 1ª should be for ever after an absolute and free Patriarch independent on the Bishop of Rome or why the Emperour should require such a definition from Vigilius who as the Doctor holds had no right to hinder it I leave to your judgment after that you have well considered what is here alledged And see likewise this confessed by Dr Field 5. l. 38. c. p. 561. The same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana the first who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts upon signification of the Emperour's will and desire that it should be so Thus he And hence was this power conferred upon him finally to determine causes namely as the Pope's Delegate for that purpose and this exclusively not to Rome but to other Metropolitans within those Provinces newly subjected to him from whom to him not so from him to them might be Appeals 3. As for the third Primate of Carthage he is pretended only to be admitted to the like priviledges with Justiniana 1a. Thus have I set you down to save you the pains § 31. n. 1. or to prevent the usual neglect of searching them in the Authors some of the most notable passages for the first 600 years wherein you may find Calvin's confession Instit 4. l. 7. c. true nullum fuisse tempus quo non Romana Sedes imperium in alias Ecclesias appetiv rit but I add more obtinuerit too shewing as I think several ways not only the honour and dignity before but the authority and power of the Roman See over other Churches not only those under its Patriarchy but the Eastern also the Eastern not only single but joined in Councils power not only which Roman Bishops claimed but which Councils allowed testified confirmed and established and the greatest Bishops in the world repaired to for justice the most of those Roman Bishops whose authorities I have cited being eminent for sanctity and having the same title and reputation of Saints as the other ancient Fathers and the two last of them being quoted by Protestants as inveighers against an Universal Bishop as a forerunner of Antichrist that you may fee how much authority even the most moderate have assumed and all these transactions being before the times of the Emperour Phocas who by some Reformed see Dr. Hammond reply to Cathol Gentl. 3. c. 4. s. 14. n. is said to have laid the first foundations of the modern Roman Greatness in declaring him Episcopum Oecumenicum Caput omnium Ecclesiarum tho indeed Phocas his act was only in a quarrel of his against Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople adjudging the stile of Oecumenicus before much disputed between those two Bishops as you have seen not fit to be used by the Bishop of Constantinople and due only to the Bishop of Rome and that Paulus Diaconus de gestis Romanorum 18. l. quoted by Dr. Hammond meant no more see what the same Paulus saith de gestis Longobardorum 4 l. 37. c. and being of those ages wherein Dr. Field thro his 5th book denies to have bin any Roman Supremacy of power If it be said that the Roman Bishops out of whose writings many of these authorities are produced then claimed what others denied I think some other quotations intermingled out of those who were no Roman Bishops will shew this to be untrue Besides §. 31. n. 2. In the chief causes of all other divisions from the Roman Church excepting that of the late Reformation the Roman Church in the judgment of the Reformed the
more Orthodox my chief intention here was not to declare quo jure such jurisdiction was either claim'd or yeilded to but that de facto that power was so long ago assum'd which being now challeng'd is by our men deny'd and I may add assum'd with good success to the Church of God during those first Ages The Bishops of Rome having patroniz'd no Heresies at all as all the other Patriarchs at some time or other did Such were in the See of Constantinople Macedonius Nestorius Sergius Arch-hereticks in Alexandria Dioscorus the grand Patron of the Eutychians in Antioch Paulus Samosatenus the Father of the Paulianists c. All which Heresies and several other which took root in the East were suppressed and the Unity and Uniformity of the Church's Doctrine and Discipline preserved by the over-ruling power the threats the censures of this See as any not over-partial Reader of the Ecclesiastical History will easily discern And perhaps I may venture a little further That to this day in the chief point and occasion of breach for which any other Church besides the Reform'd stands divided from the Roman Communion the Reformed do justifie the Roman tenent against those Churches The chief matter of the division of the Greek Church from the Roman was besides that of the Bishop of Constantinople's using the stile of Occumenicus and the procession of the Holy Ghost as appears by the disputation in the Council of Florence where both Churches the Eastern now falling into some distress heartily sought for an accord almost wholly spent about this point Now in this article the Reform'd do side with the Roman Church and so far also as we allow of any superiority we adjudge the prime place not to the Constantinopolitan but the Roman Patriarch The chief Doctrine for which the other Orientals as the Assyrian Churches the Jacobites Armenians Cophti Aethiopians Maronites c. of which see Field l. 3. c. 1 c. stand separate from Rome whilst their publick Service and Liturgies much-what accord with the Greek or Roman is either Nestorianism or Eutychianism or Monothelitism imputed unto them in which also the Reformed adhere against them to the Roman judgment The like may be said in the ancienter controversies of the Roman Church with the Asian Churches about Easter and with the African and some of the Asian about Rebaptization Thus in the main causes of differences with the Eastern Churches the Reform'd will grant Rome to have continued orthodox and that had the other been bound effectually to have received their laws in these controversies from her they had been better guided or at least that for those 600 years she happily moderated the great Questions of the Church by her supereminent authority But if it be said again That the Bishops of Rome now claim much more power than the instances above shew them anciently to have used I desire to know first before this be examin'd whether we will grant them so much for whilst we complain that they now a-days claim more than is due to them is it not so that we deny them not the more but all And have they done well who have used the Bishops so who have used Kings so upon pretence of their exercising an illegal power § 32 And now by what hath pass'd we may the better judge of the meaning notwithstanding whatever other glosses are made upon them of those places of the ancient Fathers By the instances above judgment may be made of the sense of many other controverted Sayings of the Fathers which are quoted before § 6. To which I will here add that which follows in Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. who speaks there how Hereticks may be easily confounded by the unity of the Tradition of Apostolical Doctrine Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam i. e. a duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique fideles conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio In qua i. e. in unione adhaesione ad quam Apostolical Tradition is more certainly preserv'd in all other Churches Let therefore potentiorem principalitatem if so you can make any sense be referr'd as it is by the Reform'd to the Roman Empire not Church yet the certain conservation of Tradition Apostolical which is the Father's reason of other Churches repairing and conforming to this that cannot be apply'd but only to the Church not as seated in the Imperial City but as founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Of which Church Tertullian de praescript Haereticorum also saith Ista quam faelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt And after him thus Cyprian in his Ep. 45. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome not to urge any of those passages in his Book de Vnit Eccl. Cath. which perhaps seem capable of the exposition which the Reformed give them Nos singulis navigantibus i.e. from Affrick into Italy rationem reddentes scimus nos hortatos eos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem i.e. Ecclesiam Romanam agnoscerent tenerent And afterward Ne in urbe in Rome schisma factum animos absentium i.e. of those in Africk incerta opinione confunderet which party they should adhere to placuit ut per Episcopos istic positos African Bishops residing at Rome literae fierent to the African Provinces ut te universi collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter ac charitatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent And Epist 52. Antoniano Fratri a Bishop not communicating with Novatianus Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundum literarum ad Cornelium the Bishop of Rome Collegam nostrum transmitterem ut depositum omni solicitudine jam sciret te secum hoc est cum Catholica Ecclesia communicare The like expressions to which we find in Ambrose Orat. in Satyr where he saith of his Brother Satyrus about to receive the Communion that percunctatus est Episcopum si cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est si cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret And thus Cyprian again in his Epist. 55. ad Cornelium de Fortunato Faelicissimo haereticis who condemn'd in Africk appeal'd to Rome Post ista adhuc insuper navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est a schismaticis Fortunato c. literas ferre nec cogitare eos i. e. tales esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum Add to these in the 46th Epistle the confession of those who return'd to Cornelius from the Schism of Novatianus made in this form Nos Cornelium Episcopum sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae electum a Christo Domino nostro scimus