thereof and consequently by what is said § 40. to their posterity until a Council of equal authority reverse them 6. Whereas Dr. Hammond thinks to free Prince and People § 60 Laity and Clergy from any submission that former canons may require That the principle upon which Dr. Hammond sets the English clergy nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be erroneous or from any concessions that the clergy or the former or also the present Prince hath made to the Bishop of Rome or to any other Patriarch upon this ground which he builds much upon That it is in the power of Christian Princes within their Dominions to erect or translate Patriarchates For thus he saith Schis p. 115. To put this whole matter out of controversy it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them c. And p. 132. Upon that one ground laid in the former chapter the power of Kings in general and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchats whatever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdoms will easily be answered And p. 137. The whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the Reign of Hen. 8. the Bishop of Rome had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other And p. 138. The 3d. will appear to have received its determination also by the absoluteness of the power of our Princes and by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchats And p. 140 If the Pope held his Supremacy here in England by the Title of Regal concession as Dr. Hammond holds he did see p. 138. 142. then he may dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellor c. And p. 142. Thus certainly the King being the fountaine of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall and communicate it to another And this takes-off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power Which freedom from that obedience immediately clears the whole business of Schism as that is a departure from the obedience of a lawful Superior Thus He. Now I say whereas he builds so much on this ground to remove thereby all difficulties and objections I think I have above by the first Proposition § 38. and by answering his proofs thereof § 43 and also by so many contrary examples brought in the former part of this Discourse sufficiently shewed it to fail him and to be untrue Only here observe one thing concerning this right of Princes That the Doctor it being much pressed by S. W. upon the Doctors quoting some Church-canons for it of which review § 44. That if Princes had any such right they had it not as their proper right independent on the Church or her canons in his answer to this p. 174. seems somewhat uncertain and wavering by what Title Princes hold it His words there are I that meant not to dispute of such mysteries of State desirous to unite the Civil and Ecclesiastical power and not to sow seeds of jealousies and dissensions betwixt them finding the same thing assumed by Kings as their right and yeilded them by the Church to be enjoyed by them thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due but whether it were from God immediately conferred on them and independently from the Church or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclined either to enquire or to take upon me to determin And afterward If it were not formerly the Prince's right but the Churche's then sure it is become so by that donation Now then if Princes should happen to hold this right only from the voluntary concessions of the Church or Councils or particularly from the clause of one canon passed in the Council of Chalcedon upon which canon the Doctor Schis p. 120 confesseth Balsamon a great stickler for Regal authority to found it then I leave to their consideration whether the same reason he pleads upon the instance of former Kings of England conceding Supremacy to the Pope for Princes reversing the donation of their right when they please may not be returned him for the Church or her representative the Council For if the Prince cannot give his right away but so that he may recall and resume it so neither can the Church And then after so many canons in and since Chalcedon reserving to such particular nominated Patriarchs their priviledges the Church of England according with the rest and extending this their jurisdiction over some Princes subjects at least who have the same power and rights as the Kings of England and expresly prohibiting Princes to remove Patriarchs 8. Gen. Counc can 21. where will his plea be § 61 Yet farther but in what I shall say now I will not be too peremptory That some rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterwards be justly resumed suppose the erecting and translating Patriarchates to be the Prince's right and that originally yet it may be such a right as once parted with cannot be resumed by the former owner For such rights there are as once passed away are not to be retracted and such as we may alienate not only from our selves but from our successors if such be the purpose of our donation And why this right may not be numbred amongst such I yet seek a reason If it be said the King cannot divest himself of such a right without which his Regal power which he intends to keep to him and his successors entire cannot subsist I willingly grant it But the Regal power may well subsist without the right of constituting or translating Patriarchs For the Regal power is entire in a Prince not Christian yet such Prince hath no power to erect or remove those Patriarchs who have a Spiritual Supremacy over his so many as are Christian Subjects Again the Prince when Christian as now being a Son of the Church must also be subject to some Patriarch i. e. supreme Church-power giving to him Ecclesiastical Laws and if need be inflicting Ecclesiastical censures c. or other and so must also his successor if Christian Neither doth his power to chuse or appoint the person bearing such Office any way lessen such submission so far as it is due neither doth it impose any more submission upon his successor than is due Why therefore this may not be a right alienable and partable with I see not When-as the Kings electing a Spiritual Supreme to be over him seems not to be like the chusing of a Chancellor or other Officers to serve under him as the Doctor compares it Sch. p. 140. but rather like the people's electing a Temporal Soveveraign Now such people in electing such a Temporal Prince transfer not their dominion and power which every single person had before over himself upon him or submit their obedience to him durante beneplacito or quamdiu se bene gesserit bene i. e. in their judgment for so who obeyeth only so long as he pleaseth needs to obey only what he pleaseth for so soon as any thing displeaseth he may change his Governors So to make instance in the matter in hand if Ambrose upon just cause exercise some Ecclesiastical censure upon Theodosius Theodosius may presently remove Ambrose his Metropolitan power to another but we tye them to Allegiance and tell them of their former right now given away and bind the Children and Successors to the act of their Forefathers Thus much of the Authority and Subordinations of the several Ecclesiastical Persons and Orders In the next Part I will proceed to shew you the Authority and Subordinations of these as they are united in several Bodies of Councils FINIS
of Judgment And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place shall shew thee according to all that they inform thee According to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee thou shalt do or as the Vulgar Quodcunque docuerint te juxta legem ejus facies Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand or to the lest And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to Minister there before the Lord or to the Judg as his Cause is Ecclesiastical or Civi even that man shall dy And all the people shall hear and fear and do no more presumptuously Thus Deuteronomy Again in 2 Chron 19.5 8 10 11. where Jehoshaphat in his Reformation amongst many other reduc'd this Law into practice the same thing is cxpress'd in these terms First v. 5. And he set Judges in the Land through-out all the fenced Cities of Judah c. answerable to Deut. 16.18 and then v. 8. Moreover in Jerusalem the place the Lord had chosen did Jehoshaphat set the Levites for under Officers and of the Priests and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel v. 11. for the judgment of the Lord and for controversies And he charg'd them saying what cause soever shall come unto you of your Brethren that dwell in their Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandment Statutes and Judgments ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord c. And behold Amasiah the chief Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord concerning his Law and Religion and Zebadiah the Ruler of the House of Judah for all the Kings matters concerning the King's Law and Civil Subjection Also the Levites shall be Officers before you c. See 1 Chron. 23.4 26.29 30. § 8 In these two places you may note That it is not or not only concerning matter of fact as some would have it that when doubt arose at the Country Sessions they were to repair to this Court at Jerusalem which fact was most easie and most fit to be judged upon the place But concerning matter of Law or Statute when question arose about that between Plea and Plea Law and Commandment statutes and judgments saith the Text see Diodate's Comment in Deut. 17. 8. and according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee c. Again it is not for matter of Law in such a sense as some would have it namely that the Litigant was to be put to death if he obey'd not the sentence of the Judg whensoever he judg'd right and according to the Law of God But that he judging otherwise he was not tied to obey him nor might be put to death for disobedience in such case For so Bishop Andrews Tort. Torti answers Bellarmin urging this place Quali Sacerdotis imperio obediendum Ita praecedentia verba babent imperio Sacerdotis juxta legem Dei docentis Tum sequeris sententiam ejus turn si superbierit c. But who is it that shall judge when this Supreme Court appealed to judgeth juxta legem Dei when not Surely it must be the litigant or no body unless there can be a Super-supreme Court But then how absurd this for so whenever the Litigant judgeth the Judge to have judged not according to this law he is free from obeying his sentence and consequently from punishment for any disobedience thereof unless the Judge can by God's law punish him for doing only what God's law permits him Therefore Quodcunque docuerint te juxta legem Dei in the Vulgar which the Bishop here is pleated to make use of meaneth only this Quodcunque doenerint te esse juxta legem Dei these being the supreme expositors of the Law to the people as is clear from the Hebrew rendred thus Super os legis quam docebunt te super judicium quod dicent tibi facies and from the Septuagint Secundum legem secundum judicium quodcunque dixerint tibi and the Syriack Secundum praescriptionem legis quam tibi indicabunt and the other famous Translations and also from the English according to the sentence of the Law which sentence they shall teach thee and clear also from the context requiring also most strict and absolute obedience Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand nor to the left He that will not hearken to the Priest that man shall dy § 9 Again it is not only in a case of suffering and patiently submitting to a punishment which this Court shall inflict as some would have it see Chilingworth c. 5. § 109 110. but also of doing what it shall direct For the words are plain Deut. 17.9 Thou shalt observe to do all that they shall inform thee not turning to any hand and 2 Chron. 19.10 it is said to the Judges Ye shall warn them that they trespass not against the Lord which cannot be meant of punishments but in breaking his laws Again it is nor meant of doing neither what this Court shall direct that is in such things wherein meanwhile we are not bound to think also their determination lawful and their sentence just As one may lawfully pay a mulct of an 100 l. wherein he is condemned by the Court without thinking their sentence lawful because any one when wrong is done him may cedere suo jure without sinning therein Thus Mr. Chilling worth would avoid this place urged by Mr. Knot and in his instance indeed no more is required than he affirms but it seemeth also an obligation to think such determination and sentence just and lawful as in all those instances may be made appear where the party is enjoined by this Court to perform some neglected duty to God or his Neighbour and not only sentenced to undergo some punishiment as certainly all the decrees and determinations of that Court were not only about passive obedience satisfactions and punishments but active too duties and service Now this is certain that none may do any thing which he doth not first think is lawful to be done or at least which he doth not go so far as to think that it is unlawful to be done for Conscientia erronea obligat And next he cannot think such thing lawful to be done so long as he thinketh that God hath forbidden it or commanded the contrary of it to be done Therefore as long as he thinketh that he may lawfully do it so long he thinks or at least is not certain but that it is agreeable to God's command and so long he thinks or is not certain of the contrary but that the determination of this court is right and just But here if any one would say That one may think a thing lawful to be done by him because it is commanded him by those Superiors whom God hath charged him in all things to
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
Catholick is of which declared Hereticks are no part And thus the Church shall still be to the end of the world a City upon a Hill and united within it self even in its greatest persecutions conspicuous to those who sincerely bend their course to it Again it seems that near the time of the worlds dissolution from this total Apostacy through great persecutions from the faith in some and from the sound doctrines of the Orthodox faith in others because both false Religions and such Heretical doctrines as the Apostles speak do all tend some way or other to vitiousness of life to libertinism and inducements of the flesh See 2 Pet. 2.3 10 18 19. Phil. 3.18 19. 1 Tim. 6.5 2 Tim. 3.2 7. c. see Trial of Doctrines § 32. there shall abound very great wickedness and much security amongst the then heavy oppressors of God's Church much what like to the days of Noah and of Lot when God shall come upon them unexpectedly to judgment But this is no failing of the Church which shall then remain an Holy City at unity in it self see Rev. 20.9 And if also within the Church it self the vitious shall out-number the pious neither is this any prejudice to the truth of the Churches doctrines since the same thing happens less or more in all ages that the wicked here-in are more than the good as St. Austin hath taken notice and much pains to prove to the Donatists urging some of the former texts De unitate Ecclesiae 12. 13. c. § 64 Thus much of the first head proposed before § 1. viz. The Clergies being delegated by our Lord departing hence the infallible preservers of all Truth and Necessary faith and supreme Judges in all controversies arising therein Now to proceed to the 2d Next this Authority to secure it for ever from any decay or interruption thereof is given them to the end of the world without dependance on any save the Lord Jesus they being Embassadors of salvation from the King of Kings to all Nations and so to be every where free from all violation For which there is the greatest reason since their constitutions are such as cannot do the least wrong or hurt to any secular dominion nay brings great security to it and since this their Ministery because without a Sword can be no Government or Discipline comes armed only with a Spiritual sword and not a Temporal and lastly since Christianity the Doctrine they plant gives no man any priviledge interest or advantage by it in this world or for Secular matters but maintains every Kingdom and State in the same condition wherein it finds it and only obligeth men to pray always for such State 1 Tim. 2.2 and to yeild all strict obedience to it Rom. 13.1 1 Pet. 2.13 and upon no pretence of maintaining Religion to use or to advise to use the material Sword or any otherwise to defend the truth than 1. by confessing it 1. in practising its Precepts at all times among which yet one necessary-one is publick assembling together to worship God c. Ecclesiacticos coetus humanis legibus interdictos ob divinum praeceptum Christiani intermittere non possunt Grot. sum Imp. circa sacra and 2ly by suffering for it The Christian profession therefore never troubles the Civil peace which cannot be broken but by Arms and therefore whatsoever disturbs the civil peace may be lawfully punished on any person whatsoever by the temporal Sovereign power for it is not the Christian profession I say lawfully purished unless in respect of some persons such temporal Magistrate make over this power to another which thing doubtless may be lawfully done if for example the Prince shall not think it so decent c that he should sit in Judgment and inflict corporal punishment upon a Bishop his Spiritual Father by whom he is to be guided and corrected and if need be censured and Spiritually punished concerning greater matters see 1 Cor. 6.3 Or That the Priest one day should summon the Civil Magistrate to his Tribunal the next the Magistrate Him or upon other reasons And perhaps This remitting of the Trial of Clergy-men even in Civil matters to their Spiritual Superiors so that the Secular power only useth the Temporal sword upon them when the other deliver them up to it as it may preserve more reverence in the people toward the Ministry so may it conduce to a more severe animadversion from such Judges supposing the Fathers of the Church to be of that sanctity and integrity which they do profess upon such Malefactors than any other way could And whether it was upon these or some other motives t is plain that such Concessions by several Emperors and Princes have bin made to the Church § 65 And the Judgment also when such disturbance is shall belong to his not to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal So Solomon confin'd Ahiathar the High-Priest 1 Kin. 2.26 27 compar'd with ch 4 v. 4. whom had he pleas'd he might also have put to death see 1 King 2.26 27. not for Error but for Rebellion not that the King may meddle or hath any power or Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical affairs over or in opposition to the Priest to do any thing save the assisting the Spiritual Sword with his Temporal and the using his Civil power for the service of the Church See Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 11. s 15. For the Priest having lawful power to excommunicate the Civil Magistrate for Heretical Opinions How can again the Civil Magistrate have a lawful power for the same cause to depose the Priest But over Ecclesiastical persons medling without his leave and beyond their Lord's Commission in affairs Temporal But then if the Secular power in his taking care of the Commonwealth's safety is pleas'd to Decree the Church's Religious Assemblies either for worshipping God or composing Laws for the Church to be Conspiracy or make their Preaching or coming within his Territories Treason only because they possibly may for how can any be sent by Christ to whom this may not be objected not because it is proved that they do any hurt to it or provoked by some particular persons who transgressing their Commission from Christ do some acts or hold some opinions prejudicial to the safety thereof should therefore condemn and execute all others of the same Order against whom the same fault cannot be prov'd and who abjure such horrid Tenents should he interpret any their medling with his Subjects whom our Saviour sends unarm'd like Lambs among Wolves to be subverting of his State and their Spiritual Sword inconsistent with or frustrating his Temporal he now usurps upon our Saviour's Authority and they must go on through all his Torments by way of the Cross which shall certainly conquer at last not of the Sword with which those Ministers shall perish that take it up Mat. 26.52 against those powers to which only it is committed Rom 13.14 to do their Office with that answer to him Act.