under several other Laws besides that of Nature written in every man's Conscience Rom. 2. 14 15. Laws and Rules of Worship reveal'd and deliver'd by God to Adam himself at first or to other Holy men even of the first times and many of these Laws the same with those after ward recorded by Moses So for the Church we find righteous Abel serving God in a way well pleasing to him and offering acceptable Sacrifice and an early type of our Saviour slain and martyr'd by the Nead of the Race of the Church's Persecutors out of envy to his sanctity Heb. 11.4 1 Joh. 3.12 Upon his death Seth raised in his stead a Father of the Holy Race Gen. 5.1 2 3. His Son Enos the first more eminent publick Preacher of Righteousness see 2 Pet. 2.5 In whose time it is said that people now began more publickly to call on the name of the Lord Gen. 4.26 Enoch the fifth from him a Prophet Jude 14. and in a most singular manner pious Gen. 5.24 Heb. 11.5 6. the eighth from Enos Noah again a famous Preacher of Righteousness 1 Pet. 3.19 2 Pet. 2.5 In whose times the Members of the Church are by a special name call'd the Sons of God Gen. 5.2 From him again we find the Church continued to Abraham a Prophet Gen. 20.7 Psal 105.15 In whose time also was Melchisedech the Priest of the most high God Gen. 14.18 And to Abraham we find a Promise made by God of the never-failing of his Seed i. e. of the Children of his Faith and Holy Religion i. e. of the Church So soon as this Spiritual Seed began to cease among the Jews then it being continued to him still among the Gentiles See Rom. 4.12 16.17 Gal. 3.7 c. Gal. 4. Joh. 8. 39.44 Luk. 19.9 § 5 This for the old Church Next for the old Laws Rules and Government under which it liv'd we find early mention of several of these long before Moses his committing them to record Of Holy Persons Priests Prophets Intercessors Gen. 14 18.-20.7 17. Exod. 19.22 24.5 Of Holy Times Gen. 2.3 Exod. 16.23 Of Holy Places Gen. 4.12 14 16 -28.17-35.1 12 6.-26.25 Ex. 3.5 Of Altars Gen. 8.20 which the Patriarchs built in such places where God appear'd to them Gen. 12 6.-26.25 Or where they made a longer abode Gen. 12 8.-13.4 18. Of Sacrifice Sacrifice of the firstlings and of the far Gen. 4.3 4. Burnt Offerings and Peace Offerings Gen. 8.20 Exod. 5 1.-10.25 The Birds in Sacrifice not divided Gen. 15.10 as it was afterward commanded in Lev. 1.17 Of clean and unclean Beasts Gen. 7.2 and of not eating the Blood Gen. 9.4 Of Purifyings Cleansings changing their Garments c. Gen. 2. Of Tythes paid to the Priest Gen. 14.20 Of making Vows Gen. 28.20 Of not matching with Unbelievers Gen. 6.2 comp 1. Of the Brother's raising of Seed to his Brother Gen. 38 8.comp Deut. 25.5 Thus then from the beginning God had a Church had Preachers and Priests and certain Rules of his due Worship 2. In these times it seems that the People for matter of Religion and God's Worship were cast wholly upon the Instructions and Doctrines Traditions and Dictates of their Guides for knowing their duty without any Written Records or Law of Natural Reason which these things transcended to examine these by and supposing that there should have happen'd to have been concerning any particular two contrary Traditions amongst these Teachers in all reason they ought to have follow'd the former and more universal Here also we may presume that these Fathers of the Church were then sufficiently assisted by God to deliver always to the People all truths necessary to their Salvation since they had no other Director to repair to § 6 2. To let these obscurer times pass and to come to those under the Law Written which was in all things a more express type of the Gospel Tho this Law seems much more punctually and methodically committed to Writing as to the Rule thereof than the Gospel is yet there was a Judg and certain Courts appointed for the Exposition thereof in difficult matters Which Office at first we find Moses who also had continual recourse to God in his Doubts to have executed for some time both for Religious and for Civil causes alone To whom saith the Text Exod. 18.16 the people when they had a matter came and he made them know the Statutes of God and his Laws Afterward to ease him of this great burthen especially as to ordinary Civil matters we find by Jethro's advice but also God's approbation other able men chosen out of the people and set over Tens Fifties Hundreds and Thousands to decide the easier matters but to bring the harder still to Moses Exod. 18.13 c. And he still alone to be for the People to God ward to bring the causes unto God teach them Ordinances and shew them the Work that they must do Exod. 18.19 20. Afterward yet more to ease him in these more difficult matters we find by God's appointment Seventy Elders chosen out of the former Officers and Judges more immediately to assist him which Seventy Elders to enable them for this higher employment had part of Moses his Spirit taken and put upon them which Spirit at the first shew'd wonderful effects in them and magnified them before the People as Christ the Prophet whom Moses resembled Deut. 18.15 his Spirit also did at first when it was deriv'd on the chief Evangelical Judges and Magistrates Act. 2. See Numb 11.14 16 c. § 7 Thus it was order'd in the Wilderness Again when the People should come to the Land of Rest here we find besides the Inferior Judges distributed in the Country Deut. 16.18 by God's command a standing Court established in that City where God setled his Sanctuary and Presence that they also might there consult him in their difficulties established I say for the Exposition of the Law in all matters too hard for the other and we find all persons oblig'd under pain of Death to stand to their Decisions See for this Deut. 17 8 c. If there arise a matter too hard for thee i. e. the inferior Country-Judges Deuter. 16.18 in judgment between Blood and Blood between Plea and Plea or between stroke and stroke or Leper and Leper what in these was permitted or prohibited excusable or punishable or in what manner punishable according to the Letter of the Law being matters of Controversie within thy Gates or as the Vulgar Judicum intra portas tuas videris verba variari thou shalt then arise and get thee up unto the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Judg that chief Secular Magistrate or his Substitute because the matters brought before this Court were sometimes relating to God's sometimes to the King's Laws Causes some Ecclesiastical some Civi that shall be in those days and they shall shew thee the sentence
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
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.
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
that council Athan. Apol. 2. and therefore upon their not finding them amongst the Nicene as was pretended nor knowing them to be of the orthodox council of Sardica they request That neither the appeals of Presbyters nor yet of Bishops might thenceforth be admitted from thence by the Roman Bishop but that their causes might finally be decided by their Metropolitan or a Provincial Council defending themselves with the 5th and 6th canons of the Nicene Council Their words are these Impendio deprecamur c ne a nobis excommunicatos in communionem ultra velitis accipere quia hoc etiam Nicaeno Concilio definitum facile advertet Venerabilitas tua Nam etsi de inferioribus clericis vel laicis videtur ibi praecaveri quanto magis de Episcopis voluit observari ne in sua provincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinato vel praepropere vel indebite videantur communioni restitui Decreta Nicaena can 4.6 sive inferioris gradus clericos sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commiserunt Maxime quia unicuique concessum est si judicio offensus sit cognitorum i.e. of the judges of his cause ad concilia suae Provinciae vel etiam universale provocare Their reasons are Vnicuique Provinciae gratiam Spiritus sancti non defuturam c. nisi forte quisquam est qui credat uni cuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare justitiam innumerabilibus congregatis in Concilium sacerdotibus denegare Therefore they desire him that neither their causes might be judged by himself at Rome for Quomodo ipsum transmarinum judicium ratum erit ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexus vel propter senectutis infirmitatem c adduci non poterunt nor by his Legats a latere in Africk for hoc nulla invenimus Patrum synodo constitutum and nulla Patrum definitione hoc Ecclesiae derogatum est Africanae much less that he would send executores Clericos quibusque petentibus ne fumosum typhum saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi videamur introducere insr § 25. n. 1. Executores c who by the Secular power the Emperor's officers there forced if need were the observation of the Bishop of Rome's decrees See Aust Ep. 261. the complaint S. Austin makes to the Pope of Antonius his threats From which proceedings they complain in their letter to Bonifacius that they had suffered much formerly and more than the Canons he urged should they be found in the Nicen Council did impose upon them And the same dislike of Appeal to Rome may be found before these times in S. Cyprian Ep. 55. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome at least in reference to those particular persons Fortunatus and Felicissimus notoriously guilty and most justly condemned by a Council in Africk where he pleads thus Nam cum statutum sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta quam regat rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare sed agere illic causam suam ubi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint nisi si paucis desperatis perditis minor videtur esse authoritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorum § 13 Thus have I given you a brief account of this difference between Rome and Africk Mean-while t is plain that then Appeals were ordinarily made from Africk to the Bishop of Rome and his decrees submitted to and executed there and this not only before but presently after this contest See below 23 § and Leo's 85 Ep. ad Episcopos Africanos where he writes thus concerning Lupicinus an ejected African Bishop appealing to him Causam quoque Lupicini Episcopi illic jubemus audiri Cui multum saepius postulanti communionem hac ratione reddidimus quoniam cum ad nostrum judicium provocasset immerito eum pendente negotio a communione videbamus fuisse suspensum In which Epistle also he saith Quod nunc utcunque patimur esse veniale inultum postmodum esse non poterit si quisquam id quod omnino interdiximus usurpare praesumpserit Manifest also that they did at that time what he appointed concerning Apiarius and promised observance of the two Canons till the return of the copy of the Nicene canons out of the East and after this return some expressions in their letter they let fall as if they would not offer to throw off altogether his interest in their affairs Impendio deprecamur ut deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus 4. l. 8. c. 32. n. Rogant ut Episcopi non tam facile audiantur i.e. a Roman Pontifice nisi videlicet notoria manifesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omnibus aut maxima eorum parte For he grants there ubi gravis notoria est suspicio erga proprios primarios Judices Ep scopos reos potuisse ad aliena or extera judicia praesertim vero ad sedes Apostolicas recurrere and quotes for it S. Austin Ep. 162. in Caetilian's case And voluit observari i.e. the Council of Nice ne in sua Provincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinato vel prapropere vel indâ—bite videantur communioni restitui And the 22. canon of the Milevitan Council held by them about the time of this contest prohibits transmarine Appeals only to the inferior Clergy Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint c non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum c. § 14 Again Notwithstanding what hath bin said by the Africans in this matter Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary yet here may be made still a Quaere Whether in a controversie between Bishops and their Metropolitan and much more in controversies between Metropolitans or Primates or also Patriarchs themselves such transmarine Appeals were not necessary and were at all or at least justly by the African Bishops in any-such cases opposed For the mere proving of an opposition engageth us no more to the opinion of one side than of the other neither may we argue the Bishop of Rome unjustly claimed it because they opposed it no more than that they unjustly opposed it because he claimed it As for the 5th Nicene Canon urged by them themselves grant it and it is manifest to any Reader to speak in express terms only of inferior Clergy and in their application of it to Bishops they qualify it with a ne festinato ne praepropere For the common practice of former times in Athanasius c shews that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons to admit into his communion any Bishop excommunicated by his Province if
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
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.
mox idem Decessor meus i.e. Pelagius ut agnovit directis literis ex authoritate Sancti Petri Apostoli ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit Cujus ego quoque sententiam sequens similia praedicto consacerdoti nostro scripta transmisi And 2. l. 10. Indict 37. Ep. Episcopo Salonitano an African Bishop Quod autem vos fatemini Ecclesiasticos ordines ignoran non posse valde contristor quia cum rerum ordinem scitis in me quod pejus est sciendo deliquistis Postquam enim ad Beatitudinem vestram Decessoris mei mea in causa Honorati Archidiaconi scripta directa sunt tunc contempta utriusque sententia praefatus Honoratus proprio gradu privatus est Whose cause tho only an Archdeacon upon appeal Gregory having heard cleared him and ordered him to be restored to his place Quod si quilibet ex quatuor Patriarchis fecisset sine gravissimo scandalo tanta contumacia transire nullo modo potuisset Tamen postquam fraternitas vestra ad suum ordinem rediit nec ego meae nec decessoris met injuriae memor sum By which it seems Gregory's orders at last were obeyed And 2. l. Indict 11. Ep. 32. to the same Archdeacon Honoratus he writes thus A cunctis tibi objectis capitulis te plenius absolventes in tui te ordinis gradu sine aliqua volumus alteratione permanere ut nihil tibi penitus mota a praefato viro i.e. Episcopo Salonitano quaestio qualibet occasione praejudicet 11. l. Ep. 42. Episcopo Panormitano in Sicily Illud autem admonemus ut Apostolicae Sedis reverentia nullius praesumptione turbetur tunc enim status membrorum integer manet si caput fidei this must needs be Apostolicam sedem nulla pulset injuria canonum manet incolumis authoritas l. 7. epist 64. Episcopo Syracusano Nam quod se dicit i.e. Primas Byzancenus an African Primate of whom Gregory saith a little before that in quodam crimine accusatum piissimus Imperator eum juxta statuta canonica per nos voluit judicari Sedi Apostolicae subjici si qua culpa in Episcopis invenitur nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit cum vero culpa non exigit omnes secundum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt Nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit i. e. saith Dr. Field l. 5. c. 34. p. 534. of those Bishops only within his own Patriarchship § 28 alledging Greg. Epist 54 11 where Gregory quotes and seems to acquiesce in the the Emperor Justinian's Constitution Novel 123. c. 22. Si autem a Clerico aut Laico quocunque aditio contra Episcopum fiat propter quamlibet causam apud sanctissimum ejus Metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas nostras leges causa judicetur Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum Patriarcham referatur causa Ille secundum canones leges huic praebeat finem I may add out of the Nov. it self nulla parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente Whence thus much is yeilded to Dr. Field That the Bishops of his own Patriarchy have some subjection to the Bishop of Rome and his Courts as he bears the Office of a Patriarch over them which others of another Patriarchate have not And therefore we see his Letters most frequently directed to the Bishops and negotiating the affairs Ecclesiastical within this Circuit which Bishops as the Doctor rightly notes he calls Episcopos suos l. 4. c. 34. To the Empress sed ut Episcopi mei me despiciant c. id peccatis meis deputo But yet this I suppose is yeilded by the Doctor see before § 20. that both the Bishops of other Patriarchies and the Patriarchs themselves in some cases also but not in all wherein the rest were subjected to the judgment and sentence of the first See And in such sense might he say Nescio quis Episcopus c. As for the place of Gregory and the Imperial Constitution urg'd First concerning Gregory observe that he writ this to the Emperor 's Prefect in the behalf of one Stephanus a Bishop qui invitus ad judicium trahebatur qui ab Episcopis alieni Concilii i. e. who were not his proper Superiors but of a distinct Province from him quos hab bat suspectos judicabatur In his behalf therefore Gregory quotes this Imperial Constitution wher 's Patriarcha prabeat finem is oppos'd by Gregory as likewise by Justinian to Episcopi alieni Concilii or also to any Civil Judges medling therein who according to Novell 123. c. 21. might not hear Ecclesiastical Causes at all the words are these Si autem Ecclesiastica causa est nullam communionem habeant judices civiles circa talem examinationem sed sanctissimâ—s Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat To which effect see the Constitution quoted in the beginning of Gregory's Epistle Si quis contra aliquem Clericum c. After which Constitution urg'd Gregory goes on thus Contra haec si dictum fuerit quia nec Metropol tanum habuit nec Patriarcham take Patriarch here in what sense you please dicendum est quia a Sâ—de Apostolica quae omnium Ecclesiarum caput est this is his reason for it causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat sicut praedictus Episcopus petiisse dignoscitur qui Episcopos alieni Concilii judices habuit omnino suspectos Secondly For the Imperial Constitutions of Justinian they so far as they concern Ecclesiastical matters are only Ratifications of the Church's Canons and no way opposite to them who every where commands proceedings and judgments to be made secundum sacras regulas and in the beginning of his Codex to shew his submission in these things to the Church tit 1. l. 8. writes thus to the Pope in particular Nec enim patiemur quicquid quod ad Ecclesiarum statum pertinet quamvis manifestum indubitatum sit quod movetur ut non etiam vestrae innotescat sanctitati quae caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum To whom also when the Emperor sent his Creed Agapetus the Pope answer'd Firmamus c. non quia Laâ—cis authoritatem praedicationis admittimus sed quia studium fidei vestrae patrum nostrorum regulis conveniens confirmamus atque roboramus Agapet Ep. 6. Now if you examine those Constitutions Novell 123. c. 22. they are only these That two Bishops ejusdem Concilii under the same Metropolitan being at variance are referr'd to the judgment of their Metropolitan and the Council Provincial If this refused then to that of the Patriarcha Dioeceseos illius nulla parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente The same course is appointed if a Clergy-man have any thing against his Bishop or Bishop or inferior Clergy-man against his Metropolitan But in the differences between a Bishop and his Patriarch or also between two Patriarchs he ordereth nothing Now what thing is there in all this
more Orthodox my chief intention here was not to declare quo jure such jurisdiction was either claim'd or yeilded to but that de facto that power was so long ago assum'd which being now challeng'd is by our men deny'd and I may add assum'd with good success to the Church of God during those first Ages The Bishops of Rome having patroniz'd no Heresies at all as all the other Patriarchs at some time or other did Such were in the See of Constantinople Macedonius Nestorius Sergius Arch-hereticks in Alexandria Dioscorus the grand Patron of the Eutychians in Antioch Paulus Samosatenus the Father of the Paulianists c. All which Heresies and several other which took root in the East were suppressed and the Unity and Uniformity of the Church's Doctrine and Discipline preserved by the over-ruling power the threats the censures of this See as any not over-partial Reader of the Ecclesiastical History will easily discern And perhaps I may venture a little further That to this day in the chief point and occasion of breach for which any other Church besides the Reform'd stands divided from the Roman Communion the Reformed do justifie the Roman tenent against those Churches The chief matter of the division of the Greek Church from the Roman was besides that of the Bishop of Constantinople's using the stile of Occumenicus and the procession of the Holy Ghost as appears by the disputation in the Council of Florence where both Churches the Eastern now falling into some distress heartily sought for an accord almost wholly spent about this point Now in this article the Reform'd do side with the Roman Church and so far also as we allow of any superiority we adjudge the prime place not to the Constantinopolitan but the Roman Patriarch The chief Doctrine for which the other Orientals as the Assyrian Churches the Jacobites Armenians Cophti Aethiopians Maronites c. of which see Field l. 3. c. 1 c. stand separate from Rome whilst their publick Service and Liturgies much-what accord with the Greek or Roman is either Nestorianism or Eutychianism or Monothelitism imputed unto them in which also the Reformed adhere against them to the Roman judgment The like may be said in the ancienter controversies of the Roman Church with the Asian Churches about Easter and with the African and some of the Asian about Rebaptization Thus in the main causes of differences with the Eastern Churches the Reform'd will grant Rome to have continued orthodox and that had the other been bound effectually to have received their laws in these controversies from her they had been better guided or at least that for those 600 years she happily moderated the great Questions of the Church by her supereminent authority But if it be said again That the Bishops of Rome now claim much more power than the instances above shew them anciently to have used I desire to know first before this be examin'd whether we will grant them so much for whilst we complain that they now a-days claim more than is due to them is it not so that we deny them not the more but all And have they done well who have used the Bishops so who have used Kings so upon pretence of their exercising an illegal power § 32 And now by what hath pass'd we may the better judge of the meaning notwithstanding whatever other glosses are made upon them of those places of the ancient Fathers By the instances above judgment may be made of the sense of many other controverted Sayings of the Fathers which are quoted before § 6. To which I will here add that which follows in Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. who speaks there how Hereticks may be easily confounded by the unity of the Tradition of Apostolical Doctrine Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam i. e. a duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique fideles conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio In qua i. e. in unione adhaesione ad quam Apostolical Tradition is more certainly preserv'd in all other Churches Let therefore potentiorem principalitatem if so you can make any sense be referr'd as it is by the Reform'd to the Roman Empire not Church yet the certain conservation of Tradition Apostolical which is the Father's reason of other Churches repairing and conforming to this that cannot be apply'd but only to the Church not as seated in the Imperial City but as founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Of which Church Tertullian de praescript Haereticorum also saith Ista quam faelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt And after him thus Cyprian in his Ep. 45. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome not to urge any of those passages in his Book de Vnit Eccl. Cath. which perhaps seem capable of the exposition which the Reformed give them Nos singulis navigantibus i.e. from Affrick into Italy rationem reddentes scimus nos hortatos eos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem i.e. Ecclesiam Romanam agnoscerent tenerent And afterward Ne in urbe in Rome schisma factum animos absentium i.e. of those in Africk incerta opinione confunderet which party they should adhere to placuit ut per Episcopos istic positos African Bishops residing at Rome literae fierent to the African Provinces ut te universi collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter ac charitatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent And Epist 52. Antoniano Fratri a Bishop not communicating with Novatianus Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundum literarum ad Cornelium the Bishop of Rome Collegam nostrum transmitterem ut depositum omni solicitudine jam sciret te secum hoc est cum Catholica Ecclesia communicare The like expressions to which we find in Ambrose Orat. in Satyr where he saith of his Brother Satyrus about to receive the Communion that percunctatus est Episcopum si cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est si cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret And thus Cyprian again in his Epist. 55. ad Cornelium de Fortunato Faelicissimo haereticis who condemn'd in Africk appeal'd to Rome Post ista adhuc insuper navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est a schismaticis Fortunato c. literas ferre nec cogitare eos i. e. tales esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum Add to these in the 46th Epistle the confession of those who return'd to Cornelius from the Schism of Novatianus made in this form Nos Cornelium Episcopum sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae electum a Christo Domino nostro scimus
the true doctrine Whereas those who submitted to the Roman as the most orthodox gathered it to be orthodox as being S. Peter's Seat and the prime Apostolical See That most of these testimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times non esse ex prima antiquitate sed post Nicaenam Synodum cum schismata partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt Yet then that as their pride claimed much as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed and what they decreed seldom executed And lastly That much more dominion over the Church of God than is shewed here to have bin then practised is now assumed but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice and That were it not assumed yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals But see concerning this what is said before § 14. To such exceptions as these I will trouble you with no reply If you do not find the former passages reviewed sufficiently to justifie themselves against these limitations and restrictions and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed §. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended for me you may admit them for good answers Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy for regular Ordinations for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church and for deciding differences and amongst these from § 11. the great power given to Patriarchs and amongst and above them from § 21. more particularly the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged or others yeilded to it In the next place observe That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop or other Patriarchs only as joined with or President in a Patriarchal Synod nor in Primates and Metropolitans only as President in a Provincial a refuge which many willingly fly to in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present to the ancient Government of the Church by them but in them as using only their private council or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops as could without much trouble be convened Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Field who have made it up to my hand Thus then Dr. Field 5. l. 30. c. p. 513. Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year It is very necessary say the Fathers of the Council of Nice that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business and the determining of matters in controversy we think it were fit say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon Apostol 38. But in process of time when the Governours of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed Can. 8. that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions Likewise the Seventh General Council can 6. decreeth in this sort Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed we renew this latter canon But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings we shall find that they met not so often and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year and Provincial at least once in three years and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componends c. which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo Metropolitan of Millain And so in time causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own particular Diocess without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences I confess that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops and keeping them so long together until all causes were heard and determined and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice to once in the year and afterwards to once in three years And in process of time the hearing of Appeals and such-like causes and the execution of the canons in that behalf were referred to Metropolitans until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops Thus the Bishop Now concerning what they have said note 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled in the time of whole sitting as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan so neither he without them yet in the intervals of such Synods which intervals were too long to leave all matters of controversy whatever till then in suspence and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted the Metropolitans authority was not void but they limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods were trusted with the execution thereof and with the doing of many things especially in ordinary causes by themselves alone but so as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council and if