the Eastern Bishops at Antioch judged or excommunicated Julius the Bishop of Rome who communicated with Athanasius they might justly have incurred the like censure Neither could they justly say so as they do in their Epistle to Him inter decreta Julii if it be not forged contraria celebrabimus vobiscum deinceps nec congregari nec vobis obedire volumus sed per nos quicquid melius elegerimus agere conabimur nor urge the 5. Can. of Nice against him supposing his a superior Court. He proceeds That no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome seeing every other See is inferior to it but that the See of Rome i. e. the Bishops of Rome and the Bishops of the West may judge and examine the differences c but neither so peremptorily nor finally but that such judgment may be reviewed and re-examined and revers'd in a General Council Let this be agreed-to but I ask Is it no power that this See hath over the rest because this power is subordinated to a General Council But if it be granted to have the supremest power next to that of a General Council then when no General Council is in being is it not actually pro tempore the supremest and do not its determinations stand good and oblige till a General Council be assembled Else what will this mean which the Dr. saith The first See must judge and examine the differences of all others but none it if it judging and examining none are bound to submit or obey And from this namely that the first may judge i. e. excommunicate for this is the thing which is meant by judging above in the case of John Antioch and Dioscorus Alexand. inferior thrones not they it it will appear that the excommunications of the first See are either authoritative and privative in respect of other Sees i. e. rejecting them from the communion of the Church Catholick or if they are negative only i. e. withdrawing her self only from the communion of others of which two sorts of excommunication see Dr. Field 5. l. 38. c. p. 558. Bishop of Derry's vindicat 8. c. that no other Church may use a negative excommunication towards the first See i.e. may not withdraw themselves from the communion thereof but only it may do so toward others For some excommunication is granted here to die first See toward others which others have not towards it I ask therefore John Antoch excommunicating the second See and Dioscorus Alexand. excommunicating the first disallowed by two General Councils was it negative only by way of Christian caution or privative and authoritative by way of Jurisdiction Take which you will yet t is clear both by the Councils and Dr. Field's concession that in such manner the second or third See might not excommunicate the first and that in such manner the first might excommunicate the second or third But indeed it is manifest That the excommunication both of John and Dioscorus was authoritative neither would they have presumed singly to have done it but as having a party of a Council of other Bishops who were not subject to them joined with them Yet thus also were they by the Oecumenical Synods censured for making themselves heads of a Council against their Superiors the second and first See And as manifest it is that the Bishop of Rome's censures were authoritative many times deposing as well as excommunicating Bishops not under the jurisdiction of his Patriarchy as also John Antioch deposed Cyril Alexand. As for Dr. Field's very cautiously every where joining the Western Bishops with the Bishops of the first See in his exercising such judgment over other Sees he must either mean the Bishops of his ordinary Council and such others as according to the exigent he can conveniently advise with which may be conceded to Dr. Field or he must mean all the Bishops of the West assembled in a Patriarchal Council But if so their ordinary practice anciently in judging such appeals and causes shews it was otherwise and reason tells us it could not be thus unless so great a body could be so often convened as such appeals were necessary to be terminated Thus much of Dr. Field's answers Now to go on in our quotations out of Leo. See his Epistle to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria §25 n. 1. Quod a Patribus nostris propensiore cura novimus esse servatum a vobis quoque volumus custodiri ut non passim diebus omnibus Sacerdotalis ordinatio celâ—bretur sed mane ipso die Dominico Vt in omnibus observantia nostra concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri ut cum solennior sestivitas Conventum populi numerosioris indixerit sacrificii oblatio indubitanter iteretur Epistle 46. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople written to him about receiving some Bishops and others in the East followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus upon their penitence to the peace of the Church Licet sperem dilectionem tuam ad omne opus bonum esse devotam ut tamen efficacior tua fieri possit industria necessarium congruum fuit fratres meos Lucentium Episcopum Basilium Presbyterum ut promisimus destinare quibus tua dilectio societur ut nihil in his quae ad Vniversalis Ecclesiae statum pertinent aut dubie agatur aut segniter cum residentibus vobis quibus executionem nostrae dispositionis injunximus ea possint agi cuncta moderation c. De his autem qui in hac causa gravius peccavere si forte resipiscunt horum satisfactio maturioribus Apostolicae Sedis Conciliis reservetur ut examinatis omnibus c quid constitui debeat aestimetur And afterward Si de aliquibus amplius fuerit deliberandum celeriter ad nos relatio dirigatur ut pertractata qualitate causarum nostra quid observari debeat solicitudo constituat And see the Rescript of the Emperour Valentinian the Third quoted by Baron Anno 445. inter Novel Theod. tit 24. in the time of Leo a little before the Council of Chalcedon sent to Aelius his Vicegerent in France about quieting the difference between the Archbishops of Arles and Vienna after that the cause upon appeal had bin decided by Leo against Arles Wherein the Emperour hath these words Cum Sedis Apostolicae primatum S. Petri mâ—ritum sacra etiam Synodi firmarit authoritas ne quid praeter authoritatem Sedis illius inlicitum praesumptio attentare nitatur hinc enim demum Ecclesiarum pax ubique servabitur si Rectorem suum agnoscat Vniversitas Haec cum hactenus inviolabiliter fuerint constituta Hilarius contumaci ausu c. His talibus per ordinem religiosi viri urbis Papae cognitione discussis certa in eundem Hilarium lata sententia est Et erat ipsa quidem sententia per Gallias etiam sine Imperiali sanctione valitura Sed nostram quoque praeceptionem haec ratio provocavit ne ulterius cuiquam Ecclesiasticis rebus arma miscere as it
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
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
for a false Religion we find this done in wicked Jeroboam and consequently we read of his making for his new Religion also new Priests § 69 Thus I say the Temporal authority may much advance and further the Spiritual but no Secular power hath the least authority in Spiritual matters to act contrary to those who are Ministers of Christ's power and unreasonable it is to think that he may do more against them who is part of their flock than the Heathen Princes might do who had no relation and if Christianity entring into any country changeth not any laws thereof but confirms all obedience thereto then neither may the civil Government admitted into Christianity abridge any of its priviledges which priviledges may as well subsist with a Christian Sovereignty as they have done with a Heathen But if they offer any violence unto it the Church to whom not to them God hath committed his flock may and ought as it also often hath with the weapons Christ hath given her to oppose them and tho not to fight yet to speak to profess to suffer and die for the cause See the opposition the Priests made to Vzziah generally a good Prince 2 Chron. 26.18 and that of Athanasius and Alexander Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople to Constantine requiring the restoring of Arius Excommunicated and that of Ambrose to Theodosius Neither can the Bishops at any time excuse their not governing and defending and patronizing the flock of Christ under pretence either of the care that Christian Princes their Sovereigns have of it or enmity they have to it For either these Princes second their authority and then they have all encouragement to exercise it or else they oppose and persecute it and then they are to do no less than their Predecessors did in the Primitive bloody times taking up their Cross and following Christ and their Leaders which had they not done Christianity had not descended so far as us and if these do not the same it cannot be propagated to posterity See more of this subject in Church-government part 1. § 70 Obj. But what if all or the much greater part of the Clergy run into error may not the Temporal Magistrate then Reform it I answer 1. That concerning points or truths necessary to salvation the Supposition is impossible until our Saviour shall cancel his promise of their indefectibility in such necessaries 2ly That for any other Spiritual matters wherein perhaps they may err yet the Temporal Magistrate may not reform because he that in Spiritual things is to learn of them what is truth and what error can never judge when they err unless they first tell him so What you will say cannot judge when as he hath the Holy Scriptures left to demonstrate to him truth and error I ask were they left to him alone or hath he any evidence therefrom which the Clergy hath not Or doth the Secular man study them more than they who make this their employment and trade Yes but their eyes are blinded in many things with self-interest namely in those which some way concern their own priviledges c. 1. Then in all Doctrines no way advancing the priviledges of the Church the Prince may not swerve from its judgment Well it were if but so much were observed But 2ly For these matters of interest it were something that were said if where the Ecclesiastical power were interested on the one side of the controversy the Secular power which claims right to judge were not as much on the other and whatever priviledges were taken from the one were not devolved upon the other For example If Henry 8th and his Lords had took the Supremacy in Church-affairs from the Pope and not transferred on themselves it were something tho not sufficient that were said but in such concernments men being equal judge in which we have reason to expect the more integrity that they will not claim more than their due But 3ly Suppose that our Saviour had granted his Church some great priviledges as such a thing is possible either these priviledges by them must not be maintained or such a cavil cannot be prevented But methinks this is enough to preserve truth in their sentence who are most accounted men of conscience tho in matters concerning themselves That by a false judgment a greater interest hereafter is lost than is for the present gained § 71 But here observe of those who upon many such-like pretences rob the Church of her Legislative power for Spiritual matters that they cannot place it else where tho they try several ways nor yet deny any such power at all but with great absurdities and mischief sometime or other to truth and the Christian profession Some of them bestow it on the Civil Magistrate without limitation so as to oblige all men without disputing to obey whatever in these things he determines as a Country-man of ours But this is so gross a tenent I need spend no labour to shew the many horrible consequences thereof Some again bestow it upon the same supreme Magistrate so as to oblige men only to obey him I mean actively in what they think not contrary to the Divine Laws and for other things which they think contrary not to resist any punishment inflicted on them for not obeying actively i. e. in believing and practising as that Magistrate appoints Thus G. Vossius H. Grotius Jus Imp. circa Sacra and ordinarily Protestants Vossius represents the matter briefly thus in an Epistle inserted in Praestantium Virorum Ep. p. 167. Synodi falli possunt Magistratus non debet iis credere propter se sed quia consentiunt cum Scripturis Canonibus antiquis Et haec Synodus et ille errori est obnoxius sed hoc non impedit quo minus Synodi Officium sit dirigere intellectum in cognitionem veri tum magistratus imperare quod rectum est salutare Quodsi illa dirigit male non ideo hic imperabit male si hic imperet malum non ideo subditi parere debent in malo Sed Magistraetus subditus unusquisque aget quod sui esse officii Scriptura Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus recta ratio persuaserit i. e. what Scripture Church or Reason seems to him to perswade But may the Magistrate then punish here those that disobey his commands Yes saith he Rex illud imperare debet quod in verbo jussit Deus paenarum comminatione obstringere ad illud subditor potest nec in his imperium detrectare cuiquam licet In his if he means which both Prince and Subject are agreed to be God's Word this is certain But mean-while if the Subject apprehends that contrary to God's Word which the Magistrate saith is not and commands as his Word here the Subject may and ought to disobey him And upon this the question still proceeds How the Magistrate may justly punish the Subject for not doing a thing where the Subject
Apostles for all such are law given to the Church c. But alass who must judge when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters c for the Pastors of the Church at the same time affirm and will die for it that neither against the Scriptures neither against Traditions of former Church have the transgressed nor do abolish but establish them and as for the people whom should they rather follow in matters of Divinity their Pastors or their Prince God hath given charge to the Clergy over the flock but where hath he committed the charge of the Clergy to the Prince Perhaps the common sence of Christians shall judge But are the Guides of the Church then only void of it and that in their own faculty Common sence of the Christian Laity what if they differ then in their common sence are we not then to follow the major part of them But so also the Reformed are cast the major part of Lay-Christians entertaining the Roman Tenents Again we have given up this right of the Church to the Prince where now shall we stay If one Prince may do the office of a Council and if need be decide matters of Faith for the Clergy why may not the next if need be Ordain for the Bishop or depose that Order obstinate in error Is this a dream are there not also those who claim this But then again if where the Clergy fails the Prince may take our Saviour's Chair and judge then supposing the Prince also through malice or ignorance c may fail too Is there not some Common-wealth that hath been lately under God's judgments in this condition I would gladly know whether an Ecclesiastical power may not review his Acts and reform his Errors and then why not both reform both at the same time according to their differing judgments But God is the God of order not of such confusion Thus much of the 2d thing proposed before § 1. the independency of the Ministers of Christ on any Secular power Now I shall consider the Third § 73 Next as the Ministry of Christ is secured for the perpetual continuance of their Spiritual power and office against all foreign force of Seculars which shall often rise against it by their Spiritual sword toward those Temporal Governors who fear God and by their fortitude being strengthened by Christ both in doing their duty and in suffering patiently toward Secular Governors Infidel or the Heretical so is it secured for ever for the unity of the Faith and of the Profession of it Eph. 4.5 13. against all intestine divisions amongst the Clergy which divisions often shall happen in it but shall never remain of it For it is as true that no Heresy or Schism within as that no Secular power without being only several Gates of Hell shall ever prevail against it § 74 To clear this point we must know that where ever any division happens in the Church and that one Communion which was at first established in a perfect not co but sub-ordination divides into two and each ordain Successors to their party one is to be counted no lawful succession Else since some Teachers there shall be that will differ from the rest and in all sects we may find some Clergy or other for us to follow the Church will have neither any such property as unity of her faith nor will there be any such crime as Schism from it Therefore the Church may and ought for the preservation of her purity and unity to excommunicate exauthorize and separate her self and her children from such as are false Teachers and walk disorderly that she might not be partaker of nor countenance them in nor encourage more to follow their sin according to the frequent commands of Scriptures forequoted see 2 Jo. 10 11. Matt. 18.17 1 Tim. 6.5 Tit. 3.10 1 Cor. 5.13 2 Tim. 2.19 21. compared with 18. Iniquity i.e. errors Gal. 1.8 9. Rev. 2.6 15 16. texts abused by some to justify a separation from the Church it self therefore also none can lawfully communicate both with the true and with an Heretical or Schismatical Church who tho they hold sufficient truth yet are to be refused and avoided for the breach of unity and that without respect to the numbers of the revolted or to the liability of the Church they desert to some nondestructive errors And this practice the Church hath always observed and the persons so disauthorized by it if afterward using their functions were in the Primitive times esteemed guilty of sin and sacriledge and so those also by them ordained And when returning to the Catholick faith as many Arian Bishops did they might not officiate till by a Declaration and reabilitation of the Church they were restored to the exercise of that authority of which they were by her formerly deprived For we must know that tho according to the common Tenent of die Church see Conc. Nice 8. Can. none that is ordained according to the right form of Ordination by a Heretick or Schismatick may be reordained no more than one baptized by such may be rebaptized or the Eucharist consecrated by such reconsecrated but when he recants his Heresy or Schism he being only relicensed by the Church dischargeth his function by vertue of his formerly received Orders Yet who so by Heresy or Schism is once deprived of the right of exercising his function as any one may be cannot confer this right on others but that all these afterwards stand as much suspended from any execution of their offices as himself doth Tho I cannot say but that the Effects of the Sacraments and other offices of their function as well in other things as in Baptism as in Marriages in Penance and Absolution the Eucharist c. are still valid to the simple Receiver who is guiltless of their faults the wickedness of the Minister if truly ordained not hindering the benefits to mankind which Christ hath annext to that Office and which always himself as the principal Agent by their hands confers § 75 To distinguish then true Succession which we are always to adhere and submit to 1. There is no lawful Succession where is no lawful Ordination Nor 2ly any Ordination lawful from or done by those that are condemned or guilty of Schism For to those that are guilty of this tho their former Ordination and the Character as some call that impressed by it is not annulled and blotted out for which cause as I said when such persons were reconciled and readmitted to their functions they were not reordained yet all the authority and right of discharging their function is taken away by the Church and ceaseth and consequently then ceaseth this power of ordaining others See Canon Apost 67.63 Cons. Nice can 19.8 And the same case I suppose it is of those who are condemned tho not guilty and who are excommunicated and thrust out of the Church never so unjustly for they yet desiring the communion denied them shew their approbation
Patriarchal authority or headship over only some part of the Church to have a limited jurisdiction over a certain Province and to have an unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world To challenge the same thing from divine and from humane institution as Patriarch to be subject to the Canons as Universal Head of the Church to be above them are contradictions And in Schis guarded 4. sect p. 304. t is again urged by him that Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society is inconsistent where he hath also these words When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad meditation on this subject I confess ingeniously that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Pope's Patriarchate but in conclusion that which had bin a cause of my trouble proved a means of my final satisfaction For seeing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch I concluded that he could not be a Spiritual Monarch T is urged likewise by Dr. Hammond in Schis 6. c. 2. s. That he that supposed in gross to have by Succession to S. Peter that original title to all power over all Churches cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward by way of retail i.e. by any other ways and means over any particular Church He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travel must be supposed to disclaim donation which is antecedent to and exclusive of the other as the title of descent is to that of conquest Thus Dr. Hammond But to these it is easily answered 1. To Bishop Bramhal §. 3. n. 3. That nothing consists better together than contradictories if they be not understood secundum idem To have a headship Universal over the whole Church given him by God or by the Church if God hath left to it the disposal thereof for some things and to have a headship Patriarchal only over some part of the Church given by the same authority or the first given by God the second by the Church i. e. the first by divine the second by humane institution for some other things contradict not To have an unlimited power if he means for place for some things and limited for place for other things contradict not To hold the same power or authority both by divine and humane institution or title or laws which are all one contradicts not unless this term only be added One may hold the same thing both from the donation of our Saviour and from the donation of the Church too and from the donation of the Prince too quantum in illis est which is only a consenting to Christ's donation if they acknowledge it Neither will these latter donations be needless or useless ad homines tho the former donation be good if the former be at any time questioned as many good titles have bin Again it doth not contradict that one as Patriarch be subject to some thing to which in another consideration i.e. as head of the Church he is not subject for the respect is changed Christ the same person as Man was subject to laws to which as God he was not So Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society are consistent The government of a city is subordinate to the office of a Prince in the same civil society yet may the Prince that rules over all the Kingdom be governor also of some particular city thereof if so he pleaseth for his more security and may execute in that city all those under-offices himself which his Substitutes do in the rest or also formerly did there by his authority A Rectorship of a Parish is subordinate to that of a Bishop in the same Ecclesiastical society and yet the Bishop may also be the Parson of some Parish within his Diocess and officiate therein as is usual in some poorer Bishopricks One may be made by the King governor of a whole Province in respect of some command which he hath over it all and may be made by the same King or by any other to whom the King hath given the bestowing of such a dignity governor also only of one city in that Province in respect of some other offices divers from the former which he may exercise over that town and not likewise over the Province Thus much to Bishop Bramhal Only I must tell you that he may put his propositions in such a sence as they shall point-blank contradict but then he will not be able to shew that in such a sence the Roman Church affirms them 2. To Dr. Hammond I answer That no man can acquire the possession of a thing anew which he already possesseth but he may acquire a new title or right to what he already rightly possesseth i. e. he may do something upon which another law which now doth not shall give him right to the same thing supposing that his present right faileth or is questioned Neither needeth he when such titles are questioned adhere to one and renounce the other but may successively plead both one after another Indeed when these two titles are in several persons one voids the other the former the latter because the same thing cannot at the same time be possessed by several persons as Dr. Hammond rightly argues in Rep. to Cath. Gent. 6. cap. 1. s. but seems to me to apply it amiss to two titles remaining in the same person that the one of these will spoil the plea of the other So one may receive a possession from a Prince by free donation and afterward fearing some cavil at this title may acquire another right to the same thing by purchase either from the same Prince or from any other person of his Subjects who pretends to have the just disposal thereof And this person may afterward plead as he seeth cause either of these titles the donation from the Prince or purchase from the Subject which Subject whether he had a right power to dispose of such a thing or no yet the purchaser's plea is good against him and against all those who are bound by his act so that they cannot resume such possession from him So to come nearer our business Suppose a donation by our Saviour of such a Supremacy for ever over the whole Church and so over Britain to S. Peter's Successor and suppose a donation quo jure I need no here enquire by the Church of the same Supremacy to the Patriarch of the West over all the West and so over Britain and suppose 3ly a donation or consent by the inhabitants of Great Britain of the same Supremacy over them to the first author of their conversion I say here the same person being S. Peter's Successor and Patriarch of the West and converter of England may challenge such Supremacy over it by which of these titles he pleaseth they being obliged to all to our Saviour's Act of whom they are subjects to the Act of the Church whereof
est Ipse decoravit sedem in qua Evangelistam discipulum misit Ipse firmavit sedem in qua septem annis quamvis discessurus sedit Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes cui ex authoritate divina tres nunc Episcopi praesident quicquid ego de vobis boni audio hoc mihi imputo Concil Gen. 8. at Constantinople can 21. Quisquis autem tale facinus contra sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare c. By these passages you see he Primacy and Priviledges whatever they were of the Roman Bishop anciently imputed to his Succession in the See of S. Peter and S. Paul and not or not chiefly or only to the Secular eminency of Rome But a chief reason also of the so high advancement of these three cities above all the rest notwithstanding that there were some other Apostolical Seats Hierusalem Ephesus preferable before Alexandria and many other cities more dignified as was urged by the Roman Bishops against that clause in Conc. Chalced. propter imperium civitatis Romae than either Alexandria or Antioch seems to be because these cities in the begining and first spreading of Christianity in those several quarters of the world the East the West and the South were replenished with a much greater number of Christians than others and were the Mother-churches of all the rest These three cities as Dr. Hammond notes Schism 3. c. p. 58. having the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations For the Churches of Asia were converted by Emissaries from Antioch Act. 13.2 4. and those of Egypt c from Alexandria and the Western from Rome Concerning which see the testimony of Innocentius the first Pope A. D. 408. in his Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium quoted before 3. § Tho I do not deny that Alexandria in Egypt having bin the Seat of the Successors of Ptolomy and Antioch in Asia of the Successors of Seleucus and under the Romans being the place of Residence of those their Governors who were set over the adjacent Provinces this might somewhat advance the propagation of Christianity more from these cities of so great resort than from others § 7 In the 2d General Council The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome A. D. 381. Constantinople being now made great by the Seat of the Empire translated thither its Bishop was advanced into a fourth Patriarch and that in the second place next to Rome which thing was also confirmed in the 4. Gen. Conc. Chalced granting him Act. 16. aequa senioris regiae Romae privilegia i.e. as they there and in their Letter to Leo Act. 3 explain themselves to exercise in such a sence as the 2d General Council had decreed before them a Patriarchal authority in ordaining the Metropolitans of certain Provinces and the Bishops also in some others as also to have the last place of Appeal Can. 9. in respect of those parts of the Church with this salvo annexed in behalf of the Roman Bishop omnem quidem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum Canones Antiquae Romae Archiepiscopo conservari and as it is said in the 2d General Concil 5th Can. to which former Canon they refer Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportere primatus honorem post Romanum Episcopum propter quod sit Nova Roma tho this priority of the Bishop of Constantinople to Alexandria and Antioch was in this Council of Chalcedon much opposed in the behalf of those two Sees Dioscorus then Bishop of Alexandria being excluded from this Council for Heresy and so at this time uncapable of pleading for himself by Leo the then Bishop of Rome And it seems that the former 5th Canon but now recited made by the Bishops in that part of the 2d General Council which was assembled at Constantinople as also the three other Canons there preceding it which were recited in Concil Chalced. Act. 16. were either unknown or not at all regarded by the other part of the 2d General Council the Western Bishops who were assembled shortly after that time at Rome For thus saith Leo of these Canons or Acts in Ep. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Nunquam a praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostolicae Sedis transmissa notitiam and thus his Legats in Conc. Chalced. 16. Act. Quae in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur Neither indeed was any such Canon mentioned by the Constantinopolitan Bishops of the 2d General Council when they writ to Damasus concerning its Acts. See 1. conc Constantinop Nor was this foresaid 5th Canon when most opportunely it might but only the Nicene 6th Canon pleaded by S. Chrysostom against Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria offering to judge and depose him Wherefore Baronius conceives it to be made only by a part of that Council after Timotheus the Bishop of Alexandria was departed thence But however this Patriarch was not long after that contention of Leo's rather by their not contradiction than approbation indulged that honour also by the Roman Bishops themselves doubtless as conceiving it no abridgment of their own authority some Metropolitans being taken from the other Patriarchates The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times and subjected to it The great extent of which Patriarchy in latter times especially if you be curious to know see Dr. Field 3. l. 1. c. where he assigns for one reason of such an enlargment of its jurisdiction the conversion of sundry nations and people to the Christian faith by that Bishops Suffragans and Ministers § 8 Again in the 5th Gen. Council abou A. D. 550. the Bishop of Hierusalem out in honour to the Holy City The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place was made the 5th Patriarch after some honour and respects beyond other Bishops first given or rather wished to him by the Nicene Council see 7. Canon some Bishops both from that of Alexandria and Antioch being translated to his Jurisdiction § 9 Amost these above-named Dignities Ecclesiastical the Metropolitans were to ordain or confirm the Bishops of their Province The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors and the Patriarch was to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans subject unto him either by imposition of hands or by mission of the Pall. See Concil Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Action where advancing the Constantinopolitan Bishop to Patriarchal authority in the second place to Rome they conclude oportere ipsum potestatem habere ordinare Metropolitanos c. ut penes eum sit hunc qui electus est confirmare repudiareve See 8. Gen. Conc. Constant 17. c. See Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 518. Patriarchs were by the order of the 8. General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And 5.
l. 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And What the bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the precinct of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had and that therefore he might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece France and Spain as Bellarmin alledgeth being all within the compass of his Patriarchship See Bishop Bramhal vindic 9. c. p. 257. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterwards Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority in ordaining their Metropolitans for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall in convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them c when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent differences or difficulties Thus he Neither might any Metropolitan upon any cause separate himself from the communion of his Patriarch before the examination and sentence of a Council first passed in his behalf See 8. General Council 10. c. whose words are Nullus Clericus ante diligentem examinationem Synodicam sententiam a communione proprii Patriarchae se separet licet criminalem quamlibet causam ejus se nosse praetendat nec recuset nomen ipsius referre inter divina mysteria Idem statuimus de Episcopis erga proprios Metropolitas similiter de Metropolitis circa Patriarcham suum Qui vero contra fecerit ab omni Sacerdotali operatione honore decidat Ante Synodicam sententiam i. e. of a Council superior to the Metropolitan for the lower cannot judge the higher no not tho assembled together in a council See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 567. as an Episcopal Synod cannot judge the Metropolitan And the firmlier to bind and confine the inferior to the judgment of the superior orders of the Clergy the Church made frequent Canons against their starting aside by appeals to the judgment of Seculars whether of others or also of the Emperor himself See Concil Antiochen 11. c. 12. c. Concil Sardica 8. c. Concil Chalced. 9. c. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non relinquat suum Episcopum ad saecularia judicia non concurrat c. Conc. Melevitanum 19. c. Placuit ut quicunque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum i.e. Ecclesiasticorum petierit honore proprio privetur c. And see Conc. Generale 8. c. 17. 21. This for Patriarchs superiority over and their cotfirmation of Metropolitans Next amongst the Patriarchs themselves § 10 it seems the lower received no ordination from the higher But yet some confirmation or approbation they seem ordinarily to have had from their Superiors or at least from the Roman Patriarch by those words of Leo Ep. 54. ad Martianum the then Emperor concerning Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Satis est quod praedicto vestrae pietatis auxilio mei favoris assensu Episcopatum tantae Vrbis obtinuit And custodire debuit ut quod nostro beneficio noscitur consecutus nullius pravitatis cupiditate turbaret Nos enim vestrae fidei interventionis habentes intuitum cum secundum suae consecrationis authores ejus initia titubarent benigniores circa ipsum quam justiores esse voluimus quo perturbationes omnes quae operante Diabolo fuerunt excitatae adhibitis remediis leniremus Thus discourseth the Pope to the Emperor conscious of all those proceedings concerning his establishing of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch and by the suit made to the Pope concerning the settlement of Flavianus in the Patriarchy of Antioch of which see Theodoret hist Eccles 5. l. 23. c. Likewise concerning the confirming of superior Patriarchs by the inferior that is true which Dr. Field 5. l. 37. c. p. 551. saith in answer to such places urged by Bellarmin That the manner was that the Patriarchs should upon notice given of their due Ordination and Synodal letters containing a profession of their Faith mutually give assent one to another Therefore Cyprian Antoniano Ep. 52. speaks thus concerning the legitimate election of Cornelius Bishop of Rome whom Novatianus endeavoured to supplant Factus est Cornelius Episcopus cum Fabiani locus vacaret quo loco occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato quisquis jam Episcopus Romae fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est c. But that which Dr. Field adds there viz. That the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained no otherwise to the Bishop of Rome than the right of confirming Him pertained unto Them cannot justly be defended even from his own concessions elsewhere 5. l. 34. c. p. 528. c. of which see more below § 24. For no other Bishop could be a lawful Patriarch without the approbation of the Bishop of Rome the prime Patriarch whose withdrawing his communion from any was withdrawing the communion of the whole Church which hath always continued united to this Apostolick chair and yet the Bishop of Rome was lawfully such without the approbation of every other Patriarch so long as his election is not disallowed by the conjunct Hierarchy or the whole representative of the Church gathered togegether in a Council as it happened in the Council of Constance He may have an authority over other Bishops or Patriarchs single which none of them singly hath over him and yet all of them conjoin'd may have the same authority over Him as he hath over any of them single one singulis major may be minor universis Of which see more below § 22. n. 2. and in 2. Part. § 20. § 11. n. 2. Likewise Appeals were permitted from inferior Ecclesiastical to superior Judges and Courts but not of all causes and persons whatever to the supreamest Court lest so should be no end of contentions So the inferior Clergy in their differences might appeal from their Bishop to their Metropolitan and his Council Provincial or National who were finally to determine such controversies and such persons to acquiesce in them Again Bishops might appeal from their Metropolitan or from any inferior Courts to their Patriarch and his Council whose final decision in ordinary contests they were to rest in and who from the remotest of his Provinces upon appeal might either bring the cause to be heard by himself if the moment of the business so requir'd or send e latere suo presbyteros to use the expression of the 7th can of Sardic Conc. or depute some other Bishops of that or some other neighbouring Province to hear the matter where it was acted Or lastly command the Appealant to acquiesce in the former sentence given See for both these the Appeals of inferior Clergy and also of Bishops Conc. Chalced. can 9. compar'd
with Conc. Nic. 6 can and Conc. Const 1. can 5. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habet negotium agitetur apud proprium Episcopum Si Clericus adversus suum vel alium Episcopum habeat causam apud audientiam Synodi Provinciae conqueratur Si vero contra ipsius Provinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam pergant ad ipsius Diocesis a word in those times of larger extent than that of Province one Diocess containing in it many Provinces Primates aut certe ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem Ad Constant sedem because by the Eastern Bishops both in this and in the second General Council the second Dignity amongst the Patriarchs or Primates after Rome was conferr'd on him and therefore by this Canon we may gather That the same repair as was in such causes permitted to be made in the East to the Constantinopolitan might as Canonically be made in the West to the Roman Patriarch For whatever priviledge the Constantinopolitan Bishop had the Roman had in the first place See Conc Sard. can 3 4 7 17. Can. 3. proposed by Hosius President formerly in the Nicene Council Si in aliqua Provincia aliquis Episcopus contra fratrem suum Episcopum litem habuerit unus de duobus ex alia Provincia advocet Episcopum cognitorem Quod si aliquis Episcopus judicatus fuerit in aliqua alia causa putat se bonam causam habere ut iterum Concilium renovetur si vobis placet S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus ut scribatur ab his qui causam examinarunt Julio Romano Episcopo si judicaverit renovandum esse judicium renovetur det Judices Si autem probaverit talem causam esse ut non refricentur ea quae acta sunt quae decreverit confirmata erunt si hoc omnibus placet Synodus respondit Placet Can. 4. Cum aliquis Episcopus depositus fuerit eorum Episcoporum judicio qui in vicinis locis commorantur proclamaverit agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma alter Episcopus in ejus Cathedra post appellationem i. e. to Rome ejus qui videtur esse depositus omnino non ordinetur nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata Can. 7. Si Episcopus accusatus fuerit congregati Episcopi regionis ipsius judicaverint de gradu suo eum dejecerint si appellaverit qui dejectus est confugerit ad Episcopum Romanae Ecclesiae voluerit se audiri which was the course which Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople had take just before this Council tho the no Bishops of the Western Patriarchy who also were members of this Council si justum putaverit i.e. Romanus Episcopus ut renovetur judicium vel discussionis examen scribere dignetur his Episcopis qui in finitima propinqua Provincia sunt ut ipsi diligenter requirant juxta fidem veritatis definiant Quod si is qui rogat causam suam iterum audiri deprecatione sua moverit Episcopum Romanum ut e latere suo Presbyterum mittat fit in potestaâ—e Episcopi i.e. Romani quid velit quid aestimet Et si decreverit mittendos esse qui praesentes cum Episcopis judicent habentes ejus authoritatem a quo destinati sunt erit in suo arbitrio Si vero crediderit Episcopos sufficere i.e. without his Legats ut negotio terminum imponant faciet quod sapientissimo consilio judicaverit Can. 17. Si Episcopus forte iracundus quod esse non debet cito aspere commoveatur adversus Presbyterum sive Diaconum suum exterminari eum de Ecclesia voluerit providendum est ne innocens damnetur aut perdat communionem ideo habeat potestatem is qui abjectus est ut Episcopos finitimos interpellet causa ejus audiatur ac diligentius tractetur quia non oportet ei negare audientiam roganti c. Thus probably with some eye to the Justification of Julius his proceeding concerning Athanasius § 11. n. 2. which were reproach'd by the oriental Arian party this great Council assembled about twenty years after the Nicene and establishing the Decrees thereof having the same President or chief Prolocutor in it with the Council of Nice Hosius Bishop of Corduba and several other Bishops of the Nicene Council and men eminent in sanctity to omit Athanasius Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem Paphnutius Serapion Spiridion and other call'd Oecumenical by Socrates l. 2. c. 17. both the Emperors concurring in the calling thereof and it being subscrib'd tho not by the Arrian party a few in comparison bearing the proportion of 76 to about 300 who seeing they should be over-voted departed from the Council yet by the Orthodox Oriental as well as Western Bishops namely by Athanasius by Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem and by the Bishops of Palestine who most-part adher'd to and the Athanasius and the Nicene Decrees by Diodorus Bishop of Asia minor c. see the Council Notwithstanding all which some have endeavour'd to disauthorize the Canons thereof as giving the Roman Bishop too great an authority See Spalatensis l. 4. c. 8. n. 34. where against these Canons he urgeth α. That in corpore antiquo Canonum universalis Ecclesiae quo Oriens semper usus est nullus Sardicenfis Canon locum habuit β That Patres Africani Canoni Sardicensi nihil deferre voluerunt ubi enim cognoverunt Canonem non esse Nicaenum illum contempserunt That Zosimus si Sardicenses tunc Canones fuissent alicujus authoritatis non eum dixisset esse Nicaenum sed id quod erat aperte dixisset esse Canonem Sardicensem servandum γ Lastly that Photius about Anno D. 860 expresse negavit Nicolao Papae Canonem Sardicensem 13 um ejus ordinationi objicienti se Sardicense Concilium aut alia Pontificum decreta habere vel recipere But in answer to these To α I oppose 1. What Cardinal Perron replied long since to Causaubon 1. l. 53. c. That the leaving these Canons out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae universalis is against the Faith of all the Greek Canonists Photius Zonaras Balsamon Harmenopulus and against the Greek impressions even of Basil Wirtenberg and other Protestant towns and in sum against the verity of all the Greek Codes as well Printed as Manuscripts of all the Libraries Occidental and Oriental Thus Perron 2. What just cause can be alledged for the rejection of these Canons Spalatensis alledgeth this ibid. quia Sardicae factum est schisma But this Schism and departure being made by an inconsiderable party these some 76 and the other some 300 with the prime Patriarch joined with them and some eminent Oriental Bishops amongst them lest they should be overpowred how could they do more to disauthorize these Canons by being divided from the Council than they could have done by residing in it and voting against them But the dissenting votes of
saith St. Austin aliud Arelatense judicium aliorum scil Episcoporum this was the Council of Arles assembled in Constantine's time of which see more below § 23. n. 7. consisting of two hundred Bishops as Baronius conjectures out of St. Austin which Council included with more added to them Caecilian's former Judges non quia jam necesse erat sed eorum perversitatibus cedens omni modo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere Afterward they importunately appealing also from this Council to the Emperor 's own judgment He very earnest by any means to quell this growing division in the African Churches cessit eis saith St. Austin ut de illa causa post Episcopos judicaret a sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus dum tamen illi quod ulterius dicerent non haberent si ejus sententiae non obtemporarent See likewise Dr. Field's concessions l. 5. c. 53. p. 682. concerning this business both that the cause was judg'd by a Synod at Arles and that the Emperor's hearing the cause after them was irregular After this you may review what truth there is in the objection of Calvin § 16 Excuse this digression which I have made from § 12. concerning the difference between the African and Roman Bishop arising from these Canons of Sardica there urged Against which Canons whereas it is pretended 1. That they authorize the Roman Bishop only to judg such causes by his Deputies upon the place often said by Dr. Field see in him p. 530. 2. That the 9th Canon of Chalcedon a Council following this in ordering the Appeal ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur contains something contrary to them The first appears not true by can 4. Sard. proclamaverit i. e. Episcopus depositus agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata By the privilege granted to the Constantinopolitan and inferior Patriarch to the Roman Con. Chal. c. 9. ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur By the ordinary practice of the Roman Bishops in those early times thence therefore is the African Expostulation with him Quomodo judicium transmarinum ratum erit ad quod testium necessariae personae c. adduci non possunt And the like you may see urg'd by Cyprian see Field p. 563. Lastly by Dr. Field's confession l. 5. c. 34. p. 531. That the Pope with his Western Bishops might examine and judge at Rome the differences between two Patriarchs or between a Patriarch and his Bishops as 't is clear he did a little before the Sardican Council judg at Rome the cause of Athanasius how much more then the differences when of moment of the Subjects of his own Patriarchy To the second 't is confess'd That that Canon in respect of some parts namely of the East and of some differences namely of Bishops there with their Metropolitans doth restrain those of Sardica But first The African Controversie was before the Council of Chalcedon Again for the West at least it must be granted that those Canons stand good still and are not weaken'd but strengthen'd rather and imitated by Chalcedon which Council thought fit in this Canon to give that authority which Sardica conferr'd on the Roman to a Seat inferior to the Roman much more therefore may the Roman See if the Constantinopolitan have such privileges But lastly we know also that in this point of the Bishop of Constantinople's Dignity and Power the Eastern Bishops of that Council were oppos'd by the Bishop of Rome and his Legates § 17 After these Sardican Decrees concerning these Appeals from inferior to superior Ecclesiastical Judges see the eighth General Council can 26. against which Council tho the Grecians in Conc. Florent sess 6. oppose the Decrees of another following it yet it is not contradicted in this I quote out of it by that or any other later Council Vt qui se laesum arbitrabitur a proprio Episcopo possit Metropolitanum appellare qui datis dimissoriis ad se causam advocet Liceat tamen Episcopis provocare ad Patriarcham si crediderint se injustitiam pati a Metropolitano a quo litibus finis imponatur After which Canon I will set you down that passage of the English Bishops upon their relinquishing the See of Rome in their Book of the Institution of a Christian man in Sacr. of Orders quoted by Dr. Hammond Schism c. 5. and much relied on by King James in Apol. pro juramento fidel p. 124. that you may see whether things were well-consider'd by them It was say they many hundred years before the Bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops which were not within his Province in Italy And the Bishops of Rome do now transgress their own profession made in their Creation For all the Bishops of Rome always when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See do make a solemn profession and vow that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordinances made in the Eight first General Councils among which it is especially provided that all causes shall be determined within the Province where they begun and that by the Bishops of the same Province which absolutely excludes all Papal i. e. foreign power out of these Realms Now the Canons the Bishops refer to are Conc. Nic. c. 6. 1 Conc. Const. c. 2 3. and Conc. Milevit c. 22. which Canons how little they make for their purpose see below § 19 c. and before § 14. But the Pope making solemn vow to observe Conc. 8. can 26. as well as these did he vow contradictions or if these contradicting doth not in Ecclesiastical constitutions the later stand in force Again for not appealing of all persons in every cause to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court see Conc. Milev whereof St. Austin was a member Can. 22. Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint si de judiciis Episcoporum questi fuerint vicini Episcopi eos audiant inter eos quicquid est finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorum Quod si ab eis provocandum putaverint non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum a nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiantur But note here that this Canon was made only concerning inferior Clergy not Bishops tho some mistakingly urge it against any appeals whatever and as Bellarmin saith was ratified by Innocentius Bishop of Rome quoting his Epistle among St. Austin's the 93. tho indeed that Epistle confirms nothing else save their Decrees against Pelagius But however this is a thing it seems by Bellarmin that the Pope will not oppose See about this non-appealing Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 562. where he brings in also further to confirm this the Imperial Constitution Justin.
what goes before they say that this preeminence of the Constantinopolitan Bishop is dignitatis only not potestatis To all which I answer 1. That these Canons are capable of another interpretation namely That neither Patriarch nor Primat or Metropolitan should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy or Province coordinate and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs i. e. over which neither by ancient custom nor constitutions of Councils he could claim any such Superiority See the limitation Concil Ephes c. 8. Quae non prius atque ab initio c. and Can. Apostol 36. Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt a clause clause still retained in these canons to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal Not those of Alexandria with the affairs of Antioch solius Aegypti curam gerant servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae without encroaching upon them or the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch medling with the Ordination of Bishops in the Provinces subjected to them Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace to whom Thrace owed no subjection Again That in every Province the Provincial Synod be the supreme and last Court above any other authority in that Province and exclusively to the judgments of the Bishops of any neighbouring Provinces which are only coordinate with it See them below § 28. called by Gregory Episcopi alieni Concilii and § 26. this interpretation further confirmed 2. That their interpretation of these canons cannot be true 1. Neither in this that they would make every Province independent and supreme because both the Bishop of Alexandria and of Antioch which are here mentioned had more than one Province subjected unto them yet all called their Diocess or Province taken in a larger sence and the Bishop of Constantinople who is not mentioned or limited in the 2d Canon Conc. Constantinop as others had several of the Provinces here-named as Pontus Asia Thrace subjected to him and that by this very Council For which see Conc. Chalced. Act. 16. Centum quinquaginta Deo amantissimi Episcopi i.e. the Fathers of this Constantipolitan Counci rationabiliter judicantes c Vrbem Constant in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa Roma majestatem habere negotiis his qui de Ponto sunt de Asia Thracia dioecesibus Metropolitanos ordinari a praedictae Constant Sedis sanctissima Ecclesia where these Fathers expound what was meant here by Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae in the words following namely ut unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Dioecesium ordinet suae regionis Episcopos sicut divinis Canonibus i.e. the canons of Nice and these of Constantinople est praeceptum Thus are Pontus and Asia c subjected to the See of Constantinople tho not for the ordaining of their Bishops yet for the ordinations of their Metropolitans and also for Appeals as may be seen in their 9th and 16th canons which seems to be the meaning of that Majestas in Ecclesiasticis negotiis which they gave him post Romam And all this they do after these very canons were first recited in the Council definitionem sanctissimorum Patrum sequentes ubique regulam ea quae nunc relecta sunt i. e. these canons centum quinquaginta Episcoporum c. Which to confirm to you yet farther see the Subscriptions of those Bishops of Asia and Pontus c of one Ego gratum habeo sub sede Constantinopolit esse quoniam ipse ordinavit of another secundum sententiam Patrum 150 voluntate propria subscripsi Therefore the Primacy post Romanam granted by Const Concil Constantinopol to the Bishop thereof was not dignitatis only but potestatis and therefore much more the Primacy of Rome as the Chalcedon Fathers expound these canons But if we say that they misunderstood yet then they have at least sufficiently reversed them and nulled their force because they coming after the other have made a contrary decree which at least in matters of Ecclesiastical constitution annulleth the former 2. Neither is their interpretation true in this viz. That Provincial Councils may finally determin all causes thereof exclusively to all others whatsoever for so they would not be subject to Patriarchal nor Universal Councils nor would any appeals from them at all be lawful contrary to what is said but now Con. Chalc. 9. c. see likewise the can of Sardica and to the known common practice of Antiquity of which hereafter follow many instances and also in the 8th canon of this very Council which they urge as it is extant in Balsamon examinations of matters are remitted from Provincial Councils to a greater Synod of the Diocess Quod si evenerit ut Provinciales Episcopi crimina quae Episcopo intentata sunt corrigere non possunt placuit c tunc ipsos accusatores accedere ad majorem Synodum Dioecesis illius c. 3. It may be answered Whatever these canons mean that one part of this Council sitting at Constantinople the other at Rome they received no confirmation from those at Rome See for this what is said before § 7. And it is observable that tho there is mention made in them of Antioch and Alexandria yet is there none made of the limitations of the Roman or the Western Diocesses no nor yet of limiting the Constantinopolitan Bishops whom they ordered to be the second to Rome for we read not in them Constantinopolitanae Dioecesis Episcopi ea quae ad Constantinopolitanam tantummodo Dioecesim pertinent gubernent Lastly Patriarchs themselves §. 20. n. 1. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch and those who had complaints against them according to Dr. Field's concessions 5. l. 39. c. and 34. c. p. 530. might appeal to and were to be judged by those of their own rank in order before them assisted by inferior Bishops And the Bishop of Rome saith he p. 568. as first in order amongst the Patriarchs assisted with his own Bishops and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty tho these latter I do not always find necessary The power of Jurisdiction not only primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops or present at such judgments as appears in the instances here following might judge any of the other Patriarchs and such as had complaints against them might fly to him and the Synods of Bishops subject to him and the Patriarchs themselves in their distresses might fly to him and such Synods for relief and help Tho saith he of himself alone he had no power to do any thing And 5. l. 52. c. p. 668. when saith he there groweth a difference between the Patriarchs of one See and another or between any of the Patriarchs and the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to them the superior Patriarch not of himself alone but with his Metropolitans and such particular Bishops as are interested may judge and determin the differences between them And 5. l. 34. c. p.
reformare judicia quae putabantur Romam esse deferenda leviora absolvere graviora Domino Papae referre Thus He. And indeed § 20. n 2. frequent examples there are of the Bishop of Rome's using a judicial authority in some maters over the chiefest members of the Universal Church Frequent examples of wronged both Bishops and Patriarchs appealing and repairing unto him for redress even in early times when his power is said to have bin so great Which redress he afforded them By summoning their adversaries also tho under another Patriarchat to appear before him By examining their cause and declaring them innocent by and with his own Patriarchal Council or with so many Bishops as could well be conven'd if the cause were of moment By allowing and retaining them in his communion By declaring the proceedings and acts of their adversaries when discover'd by him to be against the former Ecclesiastical Canons null and void Whilst He as the prime Bishop of the world seemed to have a superintendency in the interval of General Councils for the observation of the Ecclesiastical Canons established by former Synods not only if we may judge by the practice of those ancient and holy Bishops of Rome over his own Patriarchat but over the whole Church of which see more § 21. and 25. c. by writing to other Patriarchs and Synods to do the same and to permit them quietly to enjoy their Dignities by pronouncing the sentence of Excommunication upon refractory offenders tho it were those of the highest Dignity see below § 23. n. 5 6. § 25 c. And lastly if the greatness of the cause and of the opposition and their non-acquiescence in his judgment so required by calling other Bishops of what Dignity soever before him and his Council or by citing a General Council for their relief See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 35. p. 536 538. Now why such repair was made to him and such primacy and power given him beyond all other Bishops by ancient Church-custom and Canons whether from the Dignity of the imperial City where he was Bishop or whether from St. Peter and St. Paul's last residence in this their most eminent seat and Martyrdom there leaving the Regiment of the Church of God which they both finally exercis'd in this place in that Bishop's hands when they died for some reason there must be that Antiquity so specially applied Sedes Apostolica when-as many others were so too to that See beyond all others and that the Appealants and others made their honourable addresses to it not as Sedes Imperialis for such addresses to Rome ceased not to be still when the Emperor 's chief residence was in the East but as Sedes Apostolica or whether for both these for both these are compatible enough it little concerns me to examine Only de facto such honour and respect to be given him is most evident So those famous Worthies of the Church amongst others Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paulus and Chrysostom Bishops of Constantinople and Theodoret a Bishop in Syria when oppressed at home appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synods see Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 570. In which Appeals what the Pope's power in those times was accounted to be and what interest his Authority challeng'd in respect of the Eastern parts of the Church I think you will remain partly well satisfied notwithstanding the great contests in this matter if you please to read these quotations which travelling thro by five or six of the first Ages with some trouble to my self I have transcribed to save your pains lest perhaps you should not have the opportunity or the leisure or at least the curiosity to seek them in their several Authors Wherein yet I could wish if you seriously seek satisfaction in this matter you would review them I being forc'd for avoiding further tediousness to omit many circumstances § 21 See the testimony of the Ecclesiastical Historians The seventh Chapter of the third Book of Sozomen This power exemplified in the primitive times to the end of the 6 Age the days of Gregory the Great extending to § 36. who liv'd in the fifth Age contemporary to St. Leo where concerning Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria their repair to the Bishop of Rome Julius he saith Cum propter Sedis dignitatem cura omnium ad ipsâ—m spectaret singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit scripsitque ad Episcopos Orientis eosque incusavit c. deditque mandatum ut quidam illorum omnium nomine ad diem constitâ—tum accederent Quinetiam minatus est se de reliquo non passurum c. The 11th Chapter of the second Book of Socrates where he saith Julius Bishop of Rome sent Letters to the Oriental Bishops c. quoniam Ecclesia Romana privilegium praeter caeteras obtinebat and that Paulus and Athanasius ad suas ipsorum EcclesiaÌ„s redibant literis Julâ—â— confisi concerning which priviledg we have less reason to rely on the judgment of those Arrian Bishops opposing and scoffing at them than on the orthodox Paulus and Athanasius acknowledging and seeking relief from them See the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arrians wherein he saith Judicatum est non semel secundum nos sed saepius ac saepius primum quidem in nostra Provincia c. Secundo Romae nobis caeterisque adversariis Eusebii ad ejus criminosas literas in judicio comparentibus Fuere autem in eo consensu plures quam 50 Episcopi the Pope with 50 of his Western Bishops hearing his cause The Epistle of Julius to the Oriental Bishops assembled at Antioch written before the Council of Sardica and so before the 7th Canon thereof was compos'd and publish'd by Athanasius in that his second Apology wherein are such passages as these unto them Quum iidem illi those sent from the Eastern Bishosp authores mihi fuerunt ut vos convocarem certe id a vobis aegre ferri non debuit sed potius alacriter ad citationem occurrere Cur igitur in primis de Alexandrina civitate nihil nobis scribere voluistis An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit qua propter si istic hujusmodi suspicio in Episcopum concepta fuerat id huc ad nostram Ecclesiam referri oportuit Quae accepimus a Beato Petro Apostolo ea vobis significo And the same thing which Julius mentions here An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse c. and before it Oportuit secundum Canonem non isto modo judicium fieri c. is also found urg'd by Innocentius amongst S. Austin's Epistles Ep. 91. Quod illi i. e. Patres non humana sed divina decrevere sententia ut quicquid de disjunctis remotisque Provinciis ageretur non prius ducerent finiendum nisi ad hujus sedis notitiam perveniret
Epistle of Zosimus a Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time ad Episc Salonit where prohibiting the admitting of Monks and also Laicks immediately to be Bishops without their passing thro and continuance for some time in inferior Ecclesiastical Functions he saith Hoc autem speeialiter sub Praedecessoribus nostris nuper a nobis interdictum constat literis ad Gallias Hispaniasque transmissis Ad te potissimum scripta direximus quae in omnium fratrum Coepiscoporum nostrorum facies ire notitiam Sciet quisquis hoc postposita Patrum Apostolicae Sedis authoritate neglexerit a nobis districtius vindicandum c. See the Epistles of the African Bishops § 23. n. 4. in the 5th Carthaginian and in the Milevitan Councils held there against Pâ—lagianism amongst whom was S. Austin sent to Pope Innocent I and his Answers to them being amongst S. Austin's Epistles the 90 91 92 93. where the 92. the African Bishops begin thus Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuae munere in Sede Apostolica collocavit talemque in nostris temporibus praestitit ut c. and see the close thereof And in Epistle 90. Hoc itaque gestum Domine Frater Sancte charitati tuae intimandum duximus ut statutis nostroe mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur authoritas And S. Austin Retract 2. l. 49. c. speaketh of the same business in this language Postea quam Pelagiana haeresis cum suis authoribus ab Episcopis Ecclesiae Romanoe prius Innocentio deinde Zosimo cooperantibus Conciliorum Africanorum literis convicta atque damnata est scripsi c. And Possidonius S. Austin's Collegiat in vita August 18. c. thus Et cum iidem Pelagiani perversi Sedi Apostolicae per suam ambitionem eandem perfidiam persuadere conabantur instantissime etiam Conciliis Africanis sanctorum Episcoporum gestum est ut So Papae urbis Romae prius venerabili Innocentio postea sancto Zosimo ejus successori persuaderetur quod illa Secta Catholica fide abominanda damnanda fuisset At illi tantae Sedis Antistites suis diversis temporibus eosdem notantes atque a membris Ecclesiae i. e. Catholicae praecidentes datis literis ad Africanas Orientis Occidentis Ecclesias eos anathematizandos devitandos ab omnibus Catholicis censuerunt Et hoc tale de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae probatum judiâ—ium where he seems to call the Pope's judgment the Catholical etiam pâ—issimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens suis eos legibus damnatos inter haereticos habere debere constituit And see the Bishop of Rome's answers wherein he vindicates the universal authority of that See something of which is quoted before § 21. After which judgment in Africk both Pelagius and Caelestius his chief disciple made their appeals to Rome to Zosimus the Successor of this Innocentius under such forms as these Si forte quispiam ignorantiae error obrepserit vestra sententia corrigatur and Emendari cupimus a te qui Petri fidem sedem tenes and were upon a false relation of their tenants favoured there to the great offence of the African Bishops but afterward also condemned by that See and their condemnation published from thence to all Churches See for what is said the authorities in S. Austin and others quoted by Baronius A.D. 418. See S. Austin contra Julianum 1. l. 2. c. where urging against Julian the testimonies of the Occidental Fathers for Original sin he saith thus An ideo contemnendos putas quia Occidentalis Ecclesiae sunt omnes Puto tibi eam partem orbis sufficere debere in qua primum Apostolorum suorum voluit Dominus gloriosissimo Martyrio coronare Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem beatum Innocentium si audire voluisses jam tunc periculosam juventutem tuam Pelagianis laqueis exuisses Quid enim potuit vir ille Sanctus Africanis respondere Conciliis nisi quod antiquitus Apostolica Sedes Romana cum caeteris tenet perseveranter Ecclesia Non est ergo cur provoces ad Orientis Antistites c. See S. Austin's Epistle 261. written to Caelestine Bishop of Rome in his old age as appears in the end of the Epistle si meam senectutem fueris consolatus and probably after the contest of the African Council about Appeals that Council being held 419. and Celestine made Bishop of Rome 423. who outlived S. Austin who died 430. Ludov. de Angelis lib. 4. c. 6. It was written concerning one Antonius for whom S. Austin had procured the Bishoprick of Fussala a place formerly in his own Diocess but being very remote from Hippo he obtained that a new Bishoprick might be erected there which Antonius for some miscarriage being by the neighbouring Bishops of Numidia removed from that Bishoprick yet not utterly degraded had appealed to the Bishop of Rome and had much threatned by this Bishop's power to procure a restorement to his place In this Epistle thus S. Austin beseecheth the Pope Collabora obsecro nobiscum jube tibi quae decreta sunt omnia recitari Existat exemplo ipsa Apostolica Ecclesia judicante vel aliorum judicia firmante quosdam pro culpis nec Episcopali spoliatos honore neque relictos omnimodo impunitos Quia ergo c. subveni hominibus opem tuam in Christi mesericordia poscentibus non sinas ista fieri i.e. Antonius to be restored by force obsecro te per Christi sanguinem per Apostoli Petri memoriam qui Christianorum praepositos Populorum monuit ne violenter dominentur inter Fratres c. This he saith against the Executores Clericos of the Roman See many times using unjust violence but we see he declines not the Bishop of Rome's judgment but hopes to have it favourable to his cause See likewise his Epistle 157. to Optatus wherein he mentions a legation imposed upon him and some other Bishops for some Ecclesiastical affair to Caesarea in Mauritania Quo nos saith he injuncta nobis a venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae Sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat Of which also thus Possidonius Vit. Aug. 14. c. In Coesarinsem Mauritaniae Civitatem venire venerabilis mentoriae Augustinum cum aliis Episcopis Sedis Apostolicae literae compulerunt ad terminandas viz. aliquas Ecclesiae necessitates c which shews what authority the Roman Bishop used over the African in this Fathers time where S. Austin did many good offices for that Province and had successful disputes with Emeritus the Bishop of that city See Possid vit Aug. 14. c. Aug. de gest cum Emerit See the Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria § 23. n. 5. to Celestin Bishop of Rome wherein he saith concerning Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople before condemned by any General Council At quamvis res ita habeat non prius tamen illius communionem confidenter disserere ausi fuimus quam haec ipsa pietati tuae indicaremus
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
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
54. n. 2. mentioned before § 52. and such that afterward of S. Germanus a French Bishop famous for learning and sanctity about A. D. 430. whom as Prosper a French Bishop who lived also in those times relateth Pope Celestin hearing that Pelagianism had gotten some footing in this Island sent hither for the suppression thereof Prosper's words are in Chronico Pelagianus Severiani Pelagiani Episcopi filius Ecclesias Britanniae dogmatis sui insimulatione corrupit sed ad actionem Palladii Diaconi Papa Caelestinus Germanum Altisiodorensem Episcopum vice sua mittit ut deturbatis Haereticis Britannos ad Catholicam fidem dirigat Vice sua as his Legat as if the care of such reformation did some way especially concern the Pope ad actionem Palladii at the suite and request of Palladius a zealous opposer of and writer also against Pelagianisme In this Legation another holy French Bishop Lupus is mentioned also to have accompanied Germanus into Britanny of which two Bishops Bede indeed Hist 1. l. 17. c. delivers the story thus That upon the request of the Britain Clergy so unwilling to receive Pelagianism as unable sufficiently to confute it these two Bishops were sent hither by a Council in France But what Bede saith being taken out of Constantius one who writ at a greater distance from Germanus his times than Prosper did is liable to the more doubt and 2ly this may well consist with what Prosper saith since all those Occidental Synods had a subjection to the Western Patriarch and might receive directions from him The same Prosper saith that the forementioned Palladius was by the same authority and care of the same Pope Celestine ordained Bishop and sent into the more Northern parts of this Island to the Scots Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius primus Episcopus mittitur See the same in Bede 1. l. 13. c. Besides these Germanus and Palladius Bede and others make mention of Ninyus a Britain who finished his studies at Rome and was made Bishop and sent from thence not long after the other for the conversion of the Picts a Nation lying between the Scots and Britans Episcopus Reverendissimus Sanctissimus vir de natione Britonum qui erat Romae regulariter fidem mysteria veritatis edoctus saith Bede Hist 3. l. 4. c. Quem audiens Romanus Pontifex quosdam in occiduis Britanniae partibus necdum fidem Christi suscepisse ad Episcopatus gradum consecravit praemissae genti data benedictione Apostolum destinavit v. Broughton's Monasticon Briton 7. c. and Capgrave Catal. Sanctorum Likewise Patricius who finished the conversion of the Irish begun by Palladius is said to have received his education and learnt his Divinity from Germanus and Lupus and going to Rome and there made Bishop accepisse ab Apostolica Sede ad ejus Gentis conversionem Apostolatum V. Baron A.D. 431. Sigebert Chronol and Sir H. Spelman A.D. 449. who out of Matt. Westmon saith both of Palladius and Patricius ad Britanniam pervenisse missos a Papa Celestino ibique praedicasse verbum Dei Dubritius also the first Archbishop of Caerleon that we know of to which Archbishop only the British clergy in their conference with Augustin acknowledged their subjection was another Disciple of S. Germanus and by him and Lupus with the consent of the King and a Synod of the Clergy consecrated Bishop and possessed of this Archbishoprick See Spelman A. D. 512. and Apparat. p. 25. and in the same manner did this Brittish Archbishop receive his Commission from Germanus sent by the Roman See as the English Bishops from Augustin by the persuasion of which English or Saxon Bishops also afterwards both the Scots and some at least of the Brittains about A. D. 700 were reduc'd from those errors whereof Augustin had taxed them and conformed to the Customs of the Church Catholick V. Bede Hist l. 5. c. 16 19 22. Several of which English Clergy also in those days travel'd to Rome the more perfectly to learn the Laws and Customs of the Apostolick See or also there to receive their Ordination and St. Wilfrid among the rest went thither three several times and sate there also in a Synod and being twice ejected out of his Bishoprick twice had his cause heard there and was twice restor'd by the Pope's Letters See these things in Bede's Hist l. 5. c. 20 21. l. 5. c. 12. l. 3. c. 4 7 29. l. 4. c. 1. These particulars I have set down to shew the care interest authority esteem which the Roman Bishops had in these two Western Islands in all those ancient times wherein History gives posterity some light to know what was done in them But next however these things be Yet supposing only then the subjection of the Saxons §54 n. 3. and the English Clergy upon this title of Conversion to the Roman See it seems the Brittains for the present can claim no liberty from the same subjection because those in Wales being subject to the Bishop of Carleon or afterward to St. Davids and St. David's being subject to Canterbury I suppose this Canonically done of which see Sir Hen. Spelman's Appar p. 26. that it was order'd so by a Council at Rhemes and by the Pope to both which were made Addresses about it As for the Bribery that is by some supposed in it I see no reason why it should not be judg'd an uncharitable suspition being a thing every where imputable when rich and poor contend subjected also at that time when Canterbury was professedly subject to Rome in the Reign of K. Hen. I. Hence it follows I say that these Brittains must needs be subjects also to that See to which must Canterbury is subject and that Church hath which any Jurisdiction over Canterbury will also have the same over St. David's suppose in Appeals or the like And again those Brittains who were out of Wales dispers'd among the Saxons becoming subjects to the Saxon Bishops there who were the Pope's subjects must also be subject to the Pope Yet fourthly § 55. n. 1. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon Conversion If the Brittains were not converted by that See it may be shew'd that they had submitted themselves and join'd with the rest of Christianity in those Conciliary acts which had given some supremacy of Jurisdiction to the See of Rome amongst others over them For we find some of the Brittain Bishops present as at the Council of Ariminum where as Severus Hist l. 2. and Spelman Appar p. 24. say three of them being poor were maintain'd on the Emperor's charge so before this at the Council of Sardica assembled some twenty years after that of Nice as Athanasius who was also present there himself witnesseth see before § 23. n. 1. and therefore may the Canons of that Council be presum'd amongst the rest to be ratified by them or at